What’s the judgment on ‘Rush to Judgment’?

I don’t have my copy of “Rush to Judgment” at hand so I can’t sit down and re-read Mark Lane’s best-selling book. But maybe you do.

How does ‘Rush to Judgment’ hold up as factual presentation and legal argument?

 

206 comments

  1. His screenplay for Executive Action is in my opinion better and more accurate than JFK.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      I wholeheartedly agree Bill. I have two different DVDs; one includes commentary or interviews by the key actors.

    • James Feldman says:

      To clarify, Mark Lane worked on the first draft of the “Executive Action” screenplay. (See Mark’s book “Plausible Denial.”) However, famed screenwriter Dalton Trumbo developed subsequent drafts and the final screenplay.

  2. Assuming the film, Executive Action, was relatively true to Lane’s original screenplay, I agree. The movie captured the essence of the crime scene that was Dallas, revealing the pervasive spirit where Oswald was framed, where the waters of the early investigation were muddied almost irreparably, and where the cover up ensued with the removal of Kennedy’s body from Dallas.

    Unfortunately the composite character as a tool (used by Sklar and Stone in JFKas well) introduced fiction into a drama that clearly involved very particular individuals. As entertainment and wake up calls, both films should be lauded. As having revealed the full truth? It’s clear they fell short.

    Creating composite characters in journalism is controversial; I agree with those that argue without appropriate notice to the reader, it is unethical.

    Composite Character: “Use in journalism[edit]
    Creating composite characters in journalism is considered a misrepresentation of facts and, without appropriate notice to the reader, unethical.[8] Some writers who are considered journalists or who describe them selves as journalists have on occasion used composite characters. . . . In 1944, The New Yorker ran a series of articles by Joseph Mitchell on New York’s Fulton Fish Market that were presented as journalism. Only when the story was published four years later as the book Old Mr. Flood did Mitchell write, “Mr. Flood is not one man; combined in him are aspects of several old men who work or hang out in Fulton Fish Market, or who did in the past.”[9] Mitchell assigned his composite character his own birthday and his own love for the Bible and certain authors.[10] In his introduction to Mr. Flood, Mitchell wrote, “I wanted these stories to be truthful rather than factual, but they are solidly based on facts.”[11]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_character

    • “Creating composite characters in journalism is controversial; I agree with those that argue without appropriate notice to the reader, it is unethical.”

      However, both films, JFK and Executive Action, are just that “films”, they are NOT hailed as ‘documentaries’ nor ‘journalism’.

      Therefore just like Steven King’s 11-22-63, these are works of art, due to consideration as having “artistic license”, one of which is the common use of “composite characters” for fluidity of the presentation of the plot.
      \\][//

      • ” . . . one of which is the common use of “composite characters” for fluidity of the presentation of the plot.” Willy Whitten

        Agreed, but periodically the public could be reminded that these were fictional accounts albeit based on fact. King has a reputation for fiction so nothing more is expected of him; Stone does not. How many times have you been in conversation with someone who insists that they know the full truth of the assassination because they’ve seen “JFK” the movie? The colloquy of the character played by Donald Sutherland has been set in stone as if it is the full revelation of the Military Industrial Complex yet the character did not name one single individual involved in the “industrial” collaboration. He named several contractors, but no specifics; we were left with “the” generals and “THE” CIA and that’s who many researchers have been chasing since.

        • “He named several contractors, but no specifics; we were left with “the” generals and “THE” CIA and that’s who many researchers have been chasing since.”~leslie sharp

          But you are leaving out the prequel of Eisenhower warning of ‘the Military Industrial Complex’, which sets the basis for the whole film, that the assassination was a systemic coup d’etat.
          \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            ….and Garrison, as well, certainly was forthcoming…. if you accept that the specifics in this formal disclosure, the only one I can find after Clay Shaw was booked in March, 1967, amounts to presenting the whole enchilada.:

            http://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-17/#comment-858943
            Tom S. – February 21, 2016 at 4:13 pm
            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62423&search=garrison_and+rosel#relPageId=176&tab=page
            2of2 Garrison 06/67 letter to FCC comm. Rosel H. Hyde
            (Top of right side column)
            …of the station (WDSU) itself, but by an attorney closely connected with the station who has previously been known to disperse funds in the New Orleans area in behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency….

            Pardon me for not being predisposed to vagueness passing as revelation, to those who are. Garrison’s lack of candor actually enabled (encouraged?) this.:

            https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?11626-Clay-Shaw&p=107254#post107254
            Jim DiEugenio – 02-14-2016
            …..
            I told you I thought the stuff about the Lemann family was good. The other angle I think you are trying to insinuate about–the Baldwin/ Elizabeth Garrison stuff–I don’t see the point of….

            Are Garrison apologists actually earnestly attempting to identify the dynamic of the Garrison – Lemann/Baldwin cat and mouse game, or is something extremely troubling actually going on? DiEugenio sure can be a sharp cookie when it suits him. The “no comprende” side of him, not so much……

            In case it has not been obvious, I am not a “fan” of anyone who has made a name for himself in the JFK assassination area. I try to avoid having a belief system or venerate prominent personalities (celebrity assassination authors/presenters) I see others choosing to praise or defend, sometimes at the expense of openmindedness and following the details wherever they point to. I reserve my admiration for the likes of Jim Lesar and Harold Weisberg who from the beginning were obviously not involved in the work for the attention, the money, or advancing a political career.

          • Photon says:

            Well I am glad that somebody else can see the secondary gain for prominent researchers. I have always wondered about the CTers who didn’t make fortunes or jump on the lucrative lecture/ conference circuit – people like Weisberg. He saw through a lot of these charlatans but never came to the logical conclusion that one should make after finding out that many the most prominent researchers plagiarized, were publicity hounds or flat out lied (proven in his many letters to competing CTErs)-that there was no conspiracy.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Tom, there are many more legitimate researchers and Attorney’s out there than just Weisberg and Lesar. Them included, all can be misled or make mistakes on their own.
            None of them walk on water.
            That said, we would be nowhere without the work of some others.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Photon,

            Just because an author does well with a JFK Assassination Conspiracy bestseller doesn’t mean they are a charlatan or purely in it for money. Some probably break even or lose money in the long run if that is their only output. Sure, there are some B.S. books, but those fizzle out along with any small fortunes, if that.

            Is Bugliosi a charlatan because he got a million dollar advance (& whatever royalties he received, although I doubt it’s on every private book shelf) for his assassination tome?

            When researchers write books to recoup the expense of their efforts, without public subsidies, they should reap whatever income without being judged.

            (I once saw a CIA agent on a talk show criticize authors of conspiracy books as doing it purely for gain, but those researchers gamble their own resources, unlike the CIA who probably have spent considerable tax-funded dollars to counter dissent to the WCR).

          • Tom S. says:

            It saddens me that the team jersey mentality results in no discussion of any substance ever taking place. Shoot the messenger and distract with hissy fits is the predictable outcome.

            http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Lane%20Mark/Lane%20Mark%20Cointelpro%20Lane%20Weisberg%20Monograph/Item%2001.pdf

      • The movie JFK was based on Jim Garrison and Jim Marrs’ book Crossfire and the finest JFK research that had come out by 1990. It was a very good movie, quite close to the truth of the JFK assassination, even if it does not emphasize the overarching role that LBJ played in the JFK assassination.

        • Jason L. says:

          There is virtually no credible evidence to support the LBJ theory, as Roger Stone’s most recent atrocity showed rather clearly.

          • sgt_doom says:

            Exactly!

            Those colluders [the three in Dallas at that time: Johnson, Nixon and G.H.W. Bush, and Ford from the Warren Commission] would all end up president as their repayment for aiding and abetting, but the CIA within the CIA, following the dictates of their oligarchs or money masters, hired those contract killers to do the assassinations (JFK, MLK and RFK).

            All that can be glean from the already declassified documents.

        • HIDEJI OKINA says:

          I think the movie JFK is worst film ever I watch.
          Before the filming,Stone believed conspiracy existence.
          After the filming,he not believed it.
          I must explain to you this reason.

          I analyzed this movie,then I realized
          Stone became aware no “Grassy Knoll Shooter”
          after the make this movie.
          First,this movie Blu-ray chapter 74(2h57m40s),
          Grassy Knoll shooter’s sight is JFK’s
          head of right side,not a front of head.
          If shooter shot JFK,then bullet hit his
          head from right to left,trajectory is right
          to left,but this movie next scene bullet penertrate right front to right back.
          Second,Blu-ray chapter 74(2h56m50s),
          Grassy Knoll shooter shot JFK’s throat,
          puff of smoke is very big,visible.
          But real gunsmoke is not big as this scene.
          Third,Blu-ray chapter 29(66m13s,67m11s),
          two witness testimony scene,one is above bridge,
          one is opposite side sidewalk of knoll.
          Between the knoll and bridge is 60 meter,
          knoll and the sidewalk is 30 meter.
          But movie camera distance only few meter, because a puff of a smoke can’t visible
          from real stand point.
          Fourth,Blu-ray chapter 15 (30m28s,31m32s),
          between the Mr.Lee Bowers and rear of knoll
          fence is only 20 or 30 meter,
          but real scene 114 meter.
          After the shot ,he see puff of smoke from
          the muzzle of the rifle.
          But Grassy Knoll Shooter stand behind the fence,then muzzle of the rifle toward the JFK, in this movie,shooter shot Mr.Bowers,not JFK.

          For me,this movie is bad joke.

  3. Chuck Schwartz says:

    I believe Rush to Judgment was great. Too many people wanted and want to sweep the truth under the rug.

    • sgt_doom says:

      Mark Lane did great work, but he was an attorney first and more of an amateur investigator or researcher, so he didn’t do as formidable a job as others (which is mean in no way to denigrate the fantastic job he did).

      The best existing books today are:

      The Devil’s Chessboard, by David Talbot

      JFK and the Unspeakable, by James Douglass

      Reclaiming Parkland, by James DiEugenio

      Brothers, by David Talbot

      Destiny Betrayed, by James DiEugenio

      Rockefellerocracy, by Richard James DeSocio

      Mary’s Mosaic, by Peter Janney

      Battling Wall Street: the Kennedy presidency, by Donald Gibson
      (Not actually about the assassination, but important background on JFK for the people)

      Rearview Mirror, by William W. Turner

      JFK: The Last Dissenting Witness, by Bill Sloan

      The Girl on the Stairs, by Barry Ernest

      The Echo From Dealey Plaza, by Abraham Bolden

      The Yankee and Cowboy War, by Carl Oglesby (some great facts, but don’t agree with his overall thesis)

      Enemy of Truth, by Sherry Fiester

      The Strength of the Wolf, by Douglas Valentine

      Thy Will Be Done, by Gerard Colby with Charlotte Dennett (again, not specifically about assassination but great background information on the embattled presidency of JFK)

      • Chuck Schwartz says:

        I also like “JFK and Vietnam” by John Newman and “Where the Angels Tread Softly” by John Newman.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Chuck Schwartz
          May 17, 2016 at 9:26 pm

          “I also like “JFK and Vietnam” by John Newman and “Where the Angels Tread Softly” by John Newman.”

          I’ll give you an example from Newman’s book,”JFK and Vietnam” page322. This is the basis of the book.
          ________________________________________________
          “Kennedy decided to use Taylor’s and Harkin’ reports of battlefield success to justify the beginning of the withdrawal he was planning.” Italics by Newman.

          “Kennedy kept his plan a closely guarded secret, but by March he was determined not only to withdraw—come what may—after 1964, but, if possible, to take a clear step in that direction….”
          ________________________________________________

          “Withdraw come what may”. How grand! Total BS. You wonder why there isn’t supporting evidence for this blooper in his book? There is none and no reference in his book is listed in the book. No Kenny O’Donnell said Jack told him this, No senator saying Jack told him this. Nothing. Newman pulled it straight out of the air. Pure junk.

          We could go on but this should be enough. Never read, “Where the Angels Tread Softly”. Once a writer shows me his is so much BS I no longer waste time on him. Unfortunately many, including DiEugenio, Galbraith and others of some note take the book to heart.

          Newman’s seminar at the LBJ Library was also roundly booed by the heavy weight Vietnam historians (email from Ted Gittinger, LBJ Library). So this isn’t just my opinion.

      • Cassandra Jones says:

        THE LAST INVESTIGATION by Fonzi is one of the best books documenting the cover-up which continues on the MSM today.

      • HIDEJI OKINA says:

        I read almost these books.
        But I’m not agree your evaluation about these book.
        For example,”JFK:The Last Dissenting Witness” one
        author Late Jean Hill is notorious as liar.
        “Enemy of Truth” is very good book,but her
        explanation about JFK’s body(or head) movement after the head shot and back spatter pattern analysis is
        absolute false.
        “The Eche From Dealey Plaza” is unreliance.
        David Talbot books are half-truth,especially
        “Brothers”.
        “Mary’s Mosaic” is excellent,but this book JFK assassination analysis is too old,RFK’s opinion
        is only a “opinion” not a “evidence”.
        “JFK and the Unspeakable” is not a truth-seek book,
        this book JFK assassination chapters contain
        misinformation,disinformation,fairy tale.
        Why James Dougaless believed a Robert G. Vinson’s
        fairy tale?
        If C-54 landing to dallas’s riverside,then so many people notice and sighting this huge transport plane,because a two highway near the this riverside.
        I read over 500 books in this theme.
        I’m disenchanted resercher’s books.

  4. Russ Tarby says:

    Rush to Judgment the book bravely informed Americans about the many questions surrounding the president’s murder and the subsequent “investigation.”
    Rush to Judgement the move vividly illustrated those questions with a matter-of-fact presentation of one-on-one interviews. Many of these Q&A segments are absolutely mesmerizing, i.e. Mr. Holland from the overpass, Lee Bowers from the train tower, and Jack Ruby associates Joe Johnson and Nancy Perrin Rich.

    • Morton Beck says:

      I agree as a historical document, the filmed interviews with Holland, Bowers, and others who were in Dealey Plaza helps cast doubt on the WC’s rush to judge Oswald as the sole gunman. Some of the witnesses though seem less trustworthy. I have my doubts about Nancy Hamilton and a few others.

  5. DB says:

    No matter what your final conclusion is , Mark Lane is one of those rare people that will sacrifice himself simply for honesty and transparency from our government. A very imporatant trait

    To me Lane established that at least one shot was fired from the grassy knoll thru his witness interviews . Just listening or reading these statements show numerous on site witnesses that physically saw shot(s) fired from the knoll , heard shot(s) fired from the knoll , phyiscally smelt the gunpowder from a shot(s) fired on the knoll , physically felt the shot(s) fired from the knoll and most importantly numerous witnesses first reactions were from a shot(s) fired from the knoll.

    We can debate the lone nut vs. conspiracy all day long but Lane showed with full certainty shot(s) fired from the knoll. The witnesses physical senses and responses to these senses – to run or look to the knoll is the most accurate indicator of what happened that day.

    It was Lane who first portrayed the physical evidence of the knoll shot – causing many to really re think about the crime- myself included. It’s impossible for so many human senses to be wrong to that single event – physically impossible – if human senses were that poor, there is zero chance our species makes it out of Africa lol .

  6. Jeremy Gilbert says:

    Here’s my opinion from the other side… (That “other side” being one that accepts the WC conclusions more or less, not the “other side” where Mr Lane now resides…)

    The impact of Mark Lane and “Rush to Judgment” to the JFK case is undeniably huge. If there was a single person who can be said was most responsible for planting doubts about the official conclusions into the assassination, he’s the one.

    The tide turned in terms of public perception of the case in 1966, when his book became a best-seller, and august publications such as Life, Look and even the New York Times called for a second look into the investigation, based in part on doubts he raised. He wasn’t the only critic, but he was probably the most influential at the time. Arguably, the fiasco the Jim Garrison/Clay Shaw case became set the call for a renewed investigation back a few years, but there were enough doubters of the official conclusions to keep it going.

    I recall seeing “Executive Action” on a very auspicious date – Nov 22, 1973 – and what I remember most was the vivid recreation of the assassination – for younger people here, it must be emphasized that few people outside of college campuses had seen the Zapruder film until a national broadcast in 1975. Indeed, in books like “Six Seconds in Dallas,” which relied heavily on the Zapruder film, Life’s copyrights meant it was illustrated with SKETCHES of the individual frames, at least when I read it back in 1972/3. I never saw the actual Zapruder film till years later, and I was still shocked, even though I knew exactly what I would see.

    But the tide turned for me in the 1990s and I later realized that, sadly, Lane had been less than honest when it came to some of the witnesses he interviewed. His interview with Helen Markham for one, for which the Warren Commission itself came down on him for his duplictiousness. And, most seriously in my books, his suppression of key statements from Lee Bowers, in particular when he clarified that he saw no one behind the fence at the time of the shooting. That was no mere editing for time – Bowers undercut a key contention of the documentary, and instead of addressing it, Lane chose to omit it.

    In the end, his legacy is in the polls we see which register high percentages of people who doubt the official conclusions. While he isn’t solely responsible for that, he is a large reason why we are still debating this, 53 years after the fact!

    • “His interview with Helen Markham for one, for which the Warren Commission itself came down on him for his duplictiousness.” ~Jeremy Gilbert

      Have you read Markham’s testimony Jeremy? No one needs to impune her testimony; she does so herself:

      “When she appeared before the Commission Mrs. Markham repeatedly said she had been unable to recognize anyone at the lineup and changed her tune only after pressure from counsel. The star witness in the Tippit shooting was best summed up by Joseph Ball senior counsel to the Warren Commission itself. In 1964 he referred in a public debate to her testimony as being “full of mistakes” and to Mrs Markham as an “utter screwball.” He dismissed her as “utterly unreliable,” the exact opposite of the Report’s verdict.”

      http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmarkhamH.htm

      And yes I have read her testimony myself @:
      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/markham1.htm

      A snippit of that testimony:

      Mr. BALL. Did anybody tell you that the man you were looking for would be in a certain position in the lineup, or anything like that?
      Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
      Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
      Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
      Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
      Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
      Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody–I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
      Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
      Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
      Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn’t know nobody.
      Mr. BALL. I know you didn’t know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
      Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
      Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
      Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
      Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
      Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
      Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
      Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
      Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn’t–
      Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.
      . . . . .
      Seriously… Lol
      \\][//

      • The problem with you quoting this is that she in fact had identified Oswald in the lineup.

        And she also insisted to Mark Lane that the “number 2 man” was the shooter.

        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt

        • “He was so obviously trying to lead this woman to say what he wanted her to say-and she never did.”
          ~Photon

          Of course Ball had the very same problem with Markham. He too was so obviously trying to lead her say what he wanted her to say-and she never did.

          Reading the exchanges between Ball and Markham, he gets so frustrated that he says on record that they had discussed what she was supposed to say, and she STILL went off script.

          Ball reportedly said later that Markham was utterly unreliable and that essentially she was a “screwball”.

          http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/pdf/WH3_Markham.pdf

          \\][//

      • Jeremy Gilbert says:

        Hi Willy:

        Markham’s testimony is beside the point. The point I was making was Lane’s actions in regards to his interview with Markham.

        Lane said this to the Warren Commission:

        Representative FORD. When did you have this conversation with the deponent?
        Mr. LANE. Within the last 5 days.
        Representative FORD. Some time in late February 1964?
        Mr. LANE. Or perhaps even early March, yes, sir.
        Now, I inquired–I told her that I was coming here today, and that I was completing my investigation as Oswald’s lawyer, and asked her if she would discuss the matter with me, and she said she would.

        Now, Willy, you made a comment about Markham in relation to her recollection of this interview with Lane, with an excerpt showing how unreliable she was, not even recalling the interview:

        Mr. LIEBELER. Have you talked to Mark Lane over the telephone since you were in Washington, before today?
        Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
        Mr. LIEBELER. You have never talked to Mark Lane over the telephone?
        Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir; no, sir. [etc.]

        One rather massive problem here, Willy. Why would she deny ever talking to Lane? Because he pretended to be Captain Fritz of the Dallas police!

        Further, Lane tried every trick in the book to avoid allowing the Commission to hear his tape – a tape which he claimed showed a key witness describing someone clearly not Oswald shooting Tippit – in an effort to avoid the inescapable conclusion one gets from that tape that Lane fed her the description in the first place and that she denied that description in the second place! He even, incredibly, claimed “an existing attorney-client relationship” prevented him from allowing the tape to be handed over, despite having described the very conversation to the same people several months earlier!

        Read page 1009 of Buglioisi’s “Reclaiming History” and you see an account of Lane threatening to sue Bug during a debate they had in 1992 if he read the transcript of the recording – “defamation,” he called it!

        And this man was interested in the truth?

        So, when it comes to Markham, Lane 1) lied in testimony to the Commission when he said he told her he was Oswald’s lawyer; 2) lied to Markham when he claimed to be Captain Fritz; 3) fed her a description which she denied giving; 4) lied to the Commission when he said that was her description when it was his description; 5) refused to hand over the tape until he was basically forced to.

        Bad as that was, his treatment of Bowers was even worse, given that his mendacity re Markham was detected at the time and wasn’t crucial given the other witnesses. Bowers told him no one was behind the fence when JFK drove by, and Lane chose to hide that until Gary Mack discovered the transcript circa 1993, 27 years after the interview. If he was honestly after the truth, he would have questioned Bowers on this crucial point. Instead, he ignored it and, worse, suppressed it.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          One rather massive problem here, Willy. Why would she deny ever talking to Lane? Because he pretended to be Captain Fritz of the Dallas police!

          So her denying to WC counsel that she talked to Lane is prima facie evidence that Mark Lane impersonated a police Captain?!?!?

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            No, her testimony that she spoke only to Captain Fritz is the evidence, and Mark Lane’s refusal to discuss the circumstances of the interview he had with her on July 2, 1964. Her description of the circumstances and time of the conversation with Fritz match that on when and where Lane contacted her.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Jeremy,

            How do you know that she didn’t talk to Captain Fritz, ever?

            Also, even if we accept that Lane impersonated Fritz solely to exact info from her over the phone, what & where is the info that she disclosed?

          • Read the transcript of Lane’s phone call to Markham, the first word out of his mouth were,
            “I am Mr Lane, I am a lawyer investigating the case.”

            Lane never represented himself as being part of the police.
            \\][//

    • Gerry Simone says:

      My dissent to the WCR and suspicions stem from my own homework and not just from Mark Lane’s RTJ, which I only read years later after my intense interest began on this subject.

    • Jean Davison says:

      “… I later realized that, sadly, Lane had been less than honest when it came to some of the witnesses he interviewed.”

      I came to the same conclusion, Jeremy, after checking Lane’s footnotes. I found that by ripping quotes out of context he often changed the meaning completely. Markham and others were badly misrepresented.

      Lee Bowers is a good example. About 3 minutes into Lane’s interview of Bowers online, there’s a brief cut and Bowers then says, “In the vicinity of the two men I have described…”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8H_DaL_tQk

      What two men? The only men mentioned earlier were drivers of cars that Bowers said had left the parking lot.

      Bowers testified about these two men:

      QUOTE
      Mr. BOWERS – Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.
      Mr. BALL – Were they standing together or standing separately?
      Mr. BOWERS – They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.
      UNQUOTE

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bowers.htm

      Here’s what Lane left out of his filmed interview. A transcript reveals that Bowers told him:

      “Now I could see back on the south side of the wooden fence in the area so that obviously that there was no one there who could have-uh-had anything to do with either — as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there…um…at the moment that the shot were fired.”

      This excerpt, which was crossed out, is Figure 22 on this page:

      whttp://ww.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

      • “I came to the same conclusion, Jeremy, after checking Lane’s footnotes. I found that by ripping quotes out of context he often changed the meaning completely. Markham and others were badly misrepresented.”~Jean Davison

        Sadly I come to the same conclusion about Jean as she does of Lane; “that by ripping quotes out of context she often changes the meaning completely”

        A prime example here is ignoring that Markham’s testimony on the Tippit shooting was utterly psychotic. Instead she blames Lane for “misrepresenting” Markham. No party misrepresented Markhams testimony more blatantly than the Warren Report.

        And this in fact applies to ALL of the witnesses to the Tippit murder. None of them made a conclusive ID of Oswald as the shooter, take Domingo Benavides for instance:

        Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/benavide.htm
        \\][//

        • Tom S. says:

          …Instead she blames Lane for “misrepresenting” Markham.

          Willy, I take it you were not influenced in the slightest by the National Geographic article I excerpted and linked to? It reminded me that arguments do
          not matter, so why make them, why judge? You accepted my apology and minutes later, wrote and submitted your comment worded with such vehemence. Maybe I
          seem to overemphasize the question to commentors, “who is your targeted readership?” If it is your own tribe, they already agree. If it is those you haven’t convinced, what is the point in poking them like a scab, again and again? They have their reasons, and the facts are not a primary influence of their or your particular position. The National Geographic article reminded me that this is how it is whether I agree, or not.

          This could be a gentler, more welcoming and inviting venue. Remember when I used to comment about wanting to make it inviting here? How do you want to
          make the atmosphere here seem to potential new commentors? Why?

          • Tom,

            Rather than answer, let me contemplate this for awhile. I think that is more what you after isn’t it? Not an answer, but a shift in attitude by our own calm consideration of your message and logic.
            \\][//

        • Instead she blames Lane for “misrepresenting” Markham. No party misrepresented Markhams testimony more blatantly than the Warren Report.

          Lane tried to manipulate Markham, and then when she resisted manipulation simply lied about what she had said:

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt

          • Read Markhams testimony itself Dr McAdams, you have that link on your site.

            They brought her back in to ask about Mark Lane:
            Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember at that time that Mr. Ball asked you the question, “Did you ever talk to a New York lawyer who said he was from New York?” And that you answered, “No, sir.” Mr. Ball then asked you, “Did you ever talk to a lawyer who was investigating the case on behalf of the deceased man, Lee Oswald?” Your answer was, “No, sir.” Mr. Ball asked, “Did you ever talk to a man who said he was representing the mother of Lee Oswald?” And you answered, “No, sir.” And then Mr. Ball asked you, “You don’t remember ever talking to a man named Mark Lane?” And then you answered, No, sir.”
            Mrs. MARKHAM. Right.
            Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember giving that testimony at that time?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
            Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever talked to Mark Lane?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I haven’t–I haven’t never seen the man in my life.
            Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever talk to Mark Lane on the telephone?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. No.
            Mr. LIEBELER. And you remember that Congressman Ford specifically, and Mr. Dulles, asked you whether or not you had talked to Mark Lane on the telephone and you told them at that time that you had not talked to Mark Lane?

            Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir; I have never seen the man. If he was to come in here I wouldn’t know who he was.
            Mr. LIEBELER. Now, aside from the fact you have never seen the man, you also told the Commission when you were in Washington that you had never talked to him over the telephone?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. Right.
            Mr. LIEBELER. Have you talked to Mark Lane over the telephone since you were in Washington, before today?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
            Mr. LIEBELER. You have never talked to Mark Lane over the telephone?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir; no, sir. Now, the old lady, and they told me were reporters, came to my house.
            Mr. LIEBELER. Right, but you have no recollection of ever talking yourself?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. I never even talked to her even.
            Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, I’ll tell you very frankly, that we have a tape recording of a conversation that purports to be a conversation between you and Mark Lane on the telephone and I have a transcript which we will mark as Markham Exhibit No. 1—-
            Mrs. MARKHAM. Let me tell you now—-
            Mr. LIEBELER. I ask you to read the transcript and I will make arrangements—-I hadn’t thought you would be here until 1 o’clock this afternoon, so I don’t have a tape recorder here, but I think I can have the Secret Service bring one over. Would you like to hear the tape, so you can tell us whether or not that is your voice?

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/markham3.htm
            \\][//

          • A snippet of Markham’s testimony. This woman is confused and giving contradictory answers. Anyone who thinks this would hold up in a court of law is dreaming:
            . . . .

            Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
            Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
            Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody–I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
            Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn’t know nobody.
            Mr. BALL. I know you didn’t know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
            Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
            Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
            Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
            Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn’t–
            Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.
            Mr. BALL. No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there–
            Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two.
            Mr. BALL. What did you say when you saw number two?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak.
            Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
            Mr. BALL. You recognized him from his appearance?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. I asked–I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn’t sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/markham1.htm
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            This is the problem with so many of the CT fans of Lane. They simply refuse to look at the truth.He was so obviously trying to lead this woman to say what he wanted her to say-and she never did. But that didn’t stop him from blatantly lying about her saying that Tippit’s murderer was a short ,fat man with bushy hair. He also lied about Ruby being in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. My favorite is Tim Brennan’s quote of Lane’s lie that not a single one expert FBI shooter could hit the simulated JFK target and then showing pictures of the same target hit several times. Anybody willing to actually look at ” Rush to Judgement” can spot errors all over the place-but CTers refuse to do that.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “Mr. BALL. You recognized him from his appearance?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. I asked-I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn’t sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/markham1.htm

            You cut off her testimony exactly where Mark Lane and others have done. Lane added, “A mystical identification at best.” This is misleading. Her ID was not based on her “chills,” as Lane implied. Her explanation continued:

            “Mrs. MARKHAM. When I saw the man. But I wasn’t sure, so, you see, I told them I wanted to be sure, and looked, at his face is what I was looking at, mostly is what I looked at, on account of his eyes, the way he looked at me. So I asked them if they would turn him sideways. They did, and then they turned him back around, and I said the second, and they said, which one, and I said number two.”

            Since Markham did ID Oswald, when she said she didn’t “recognize” anyone in the line-up, she probably misunderstood the question and thought they were asking her if she recognized anyone in the lineup that she already knew — an acquaintance, IOW.

            Lane claimed, “The case against Oswald for the murder of Tippit depended on [Markham]. There was no one else.” Which is absurd.

          • A snippet of Markham’s testimony. This woman is confused and giving contradictory answers. Anyone who thinks this would hold up in a court of law is dreaming:

            You are ignoring 1.) her positive identification of Oswald in the lineup, and 2.) her insistence when Mark Lane tried to manipulate that the number 2 man was the shooter.

        • Jean Davison says:

          So Willy, you have no comment on Lane’s omission of this statement by Bowers:

          “… there was no one there who could have-uh-had anything to do with either — as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there…um…at the moment that the shot were fired.”

          Rush to Judgment left that out too, while implying that Bowers saw a GK gunman.

          Here’s someone else’s summary of how Lane misrepresented what Helen Markham told him in their telephone conversation:

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt

          Briefly, it says Lane told the WC, “She gave me a more detailed description of the man who she said shot Officer Tippit. She said he was short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair was somewhat bushy.”

          Markham actually told him, according to the transcript:

          “Mr. Lane. But, well, just, could you just give me one moment and tell me. I read that you told some of the reporters that he was short, stocky, and had bushy hair.

          Mrs. Markham. No, no. I did not say this.

          Mr. Lane. You did not say that?

          Mrs. Markham. No, sir.
          UNQUOTE

          Read the link. Lane tried repeatedly to put these words in her mouth but couldn’t.

          • Jean,

            Mrs Markham didn’t even remember talking to Lane on the telephone – see her testimony before Leibler:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/markham1.htm

            Again, attempts to portray this woman as being of sound mind is preposterous. An attempt to frame her as a “star witness” as even more absurd.

            Let’s ditch the round’about over Mrs Markham. I think my points have been made on this issue. If you want her, by all means you can have her.
            \\][//

          • pat speer says:

            Geez, Jean. Read the transcript. Markham actually told Lane everything he said she said. Did he pressure her into it? Of course, he did. Did he think she had told someone else these things, and was now trying to back out of it? Perhaps. In any event, his behavior was no different than the behavior of the WC staff towards Frazier, for example. It’s called being a lawyer.

          • Photon says:

            Even if Markham was blind, how many other witnesses put Oswald near the seen of the crime and picked him out of a line up?
            Why did a witness say he saw him Oswald ejecting shells from his pistol if Oswald used an automatic? How often do witnesses to traumatic events get times incorrect? Even one of JFK’s doctors at Parkland claimed that they resuscitated him for 30 minutes-and he had a clock nearby.
            It seems to me that CTers want to sow confusion in regards to the testimony of the multiple witnesses and avoid the sum total of what they overwhelmingly do -place Oswald at the scene of Tippit’s murder.I am reminded of the tactics of O.J. Simpson’s lawyers in regards to the DNA evidence that so clearly established Simpson’s involvement in the crime.After confusing the issue and leading witnesses to say that extremely unlikely events were still in the realm of possibility they were able to confuse the jury enough for them to dismiss that evidence-never mind that it was rock solid to anybody who really understood it.

          • Markham actually told Lane everything he said she said.

            No, she didn’t.

            I’m amazed you try to defend Lane’s blatant dishonesty.

          • An attempt to frame her as a “star witness” as even more absurd.

            It seems the buffs designate witnesses “star witnesses” when they can attack them. It doesn’t seem to matter that the Warren Commission didn’t in fact consider them “star witnesses.”

          • Jean Davison says:

            Here’s the transcript of the telephone interview, Pat. Could you please point out where Markham said what Lane claimed?

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=592&tab=page

            Near the end, their last exchange on this question began:

            “Lane: …. did you tell any reporter that the person that shot [Tippit] was short, stocky, and had bushy hair?

            Markham: I did not.” Two pages starting here:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=615&tab=page

            “Did he think she had told someone else these things, and was now trying to back out of it? Perhaps.”

            Sure, it’s possible that Markham might’ve been quoted somewhere saying “short, stocky, with bushy hair,” but as Markham told Lane: “They can put anything in papers.”

            If Lane thought Markham was lying he should’ve made *that* argument instead of misrepresenting what she told him. If he had a newspaper quote of her saying what he claimed, he could and should have produced it.

            “In any event, his behavior was no different than the behavior of the WC staff towards Frazier, for example. It’s called being a lawyer.”

            I disagree. Did anyone on the WC staff claim that Frazier said the opposite of what he actually said?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Pat Speer said:

            Geez, Jean. Read the transcript. Markham actually told Lane everything he said she said. Did he pressure her into it? Of course, he did. Did he think she had told someone else these things, and was now trying to back out of it? Perhaps. In any event, his behavior was no different than the behavior of the WC staff towards Frazier, for example. It’s called being a lawyer.

            Well said.

            But what those WC staffers did is worse, since it seems that leading questions or failing to ask obvious questions, was permitted both by Chief Justice Warren and the Commission-appointed defense attorney, Walter E. Craig (President of the ABA), representing the late accused.

          • Jean Davison says:

            P.S. to Pat:

            I should’ve made clear I was talking about the description as a whole, “short, stocky, and had bushy hair.” Elsewhere Markham gave Oswald’s estimated height as 5’8″ (he was 5’9) and she considered that “short.” Lane implied she was describing some other person, but she told him repeatedly that it was Oswald she saw.

          • Sure, it’s possible that Markham might’ve been quoted somewhere saying “short, stocky, with bushy hair,” but as Markham told Lane: “They can put anything in papers.”

            Nobody has ever produced that quote from any paper. The most likely papers (Morning News and Times-Herald) don’t contain any such quote.

            Markham seems to acquiesce that was in the papers, but that was probably because she didn’t feel like arguing.

            And even if it was in the papers, Lane lied by claiming that his interview had Markham saying that. If it was in any newspaper, Lane should have produced that.

          • HIDEJI OKINA says:

            For me,research community treatment against Tippet case is mystery than
            JFK case.
            After the WC release,four new witness
            is found.
            Jack Tatum(finded by HSCA),William Smith
            and Jimmy Burt(“WITH MALICE” new ver 111p),Franklin Griffin(“Touched by Fire” author).
            But almost researcher didn’t notice.
            Perhaps no one(excpet D.Myers) read
            “Touched by Fire”?
            I buy and read this book few years before.
            Strange.

        • Jean Davison says:

          “No party misrepresented Markhams testimony more blatantly than the Warren Report.”

          Quote this “misrepresentation.” I’ll even give you a link to the WR section on Markham:

          http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=191&tab=page

          After acknowledging the problems with Markham’s testimony, it says, “Addressing itself solely to the probative value of Mrs. Markham’s contemporaneous description of the gunman and her positive identification of Oswald at a police lineup, the Commission considers her testimony reliable. However, even in the absence of Mrs. Markham’s testimony, there is ample evidence to identify Oswald as the killer of Tippit.”

          So where is the misrepresentation?

          • Tom S. says:

            Commentors should attempt to exclude emotion. Readers will benefit, even though some incentive to comment will diminish.

            https://archive.org/stream/nsia-Third-FourthDecadeThe/nsia-Third-FourthDecadeThe/3rd-4th%20Decade%2008_djvu.txt
            July, 1997 …..
            HELEN MARKHAM RECONSIDERED

            Helen Markham managed to become history’s most
            maligned witness while on her way to work as a
            waitress. That is when she apparently saw the Tippit

            Tom Wallace Lyons
            …..


            Pg.2- http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/T%20Disk/Third-Fourth%20Decade%206-17%20–%2020-93%20Conference/Item%2009.pdf

          • “After acknowledging the problems with Markham’s testimony”–Warren Report

            The report itself acknowledges “the problems” with Markham’s testimony. Problems that I have highlighted, such as saying she didn’t recognize any of the men in the line up UNTIL Ball literally leads her to say what he wants her to.

            The report then states:

            “However, even in the absence of Mrs. Markham’s testimony, there is ample evidence to identify Oswald as the killer of Tippit.”

            THAT is the misrepresentation, put in waffle language. To paraphrase what I mean, I quote agent Smart: “Okay … would_you_believe…?”

            Now just what IS that “ample evidence to identify Oswald as the killer of Tippit.”?

            You want to try Domingo Benavides next? The ballistics evidence? The chain of custody for the bullet hulls?

            We HAVE been over all of this before Jean.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “An attempt to frame her as a “star witness” as even more absurd.”

            I agree! It’s Lane who called her the WC’s star witness, not the WC:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=190&tab=page

          • Jean Davison says:

            What emotion are you referring to, Tom?

          • Tom S. says:

            I’m sorry, Jean. I wasn’t addressing you. Your comments seem well supported and divorced from emotion.

          • Jean Davison says:

            QUOTE:

            The report then states:

            “However, even in the absence of Mrs. Markham’s testimony, there is ample evidence to identify Oswald as the killer of Tippit.”

            THAT is the misrepresentation, put in waffle language….
            UNQUOTE

            No, Willy, don’t waffle. You claimed the WC “misrepresented Markham’s testimony” blatantly. I asked you to back that up with a quote. Anything?

          • Now just what IS that “ample evidence to identify Oswald as the killer of Tippit.”?

            You want to try Domingo Benavides next? The ballistics evidence? The chain of custody for the bullet hulls?

            Sure. Let’s see how many witnesses you will label liars, and how many pieces of evidence you will insist were faked.

            Probably at least a dozen of both, right?

            And why do you want to talk about Benavides, rather than the Davis women or Callaway? You are going to claim Benavides was a “star witness,” right?

            But you don’t want to talk about other witnesses, do you?

          • Tom,

            Are you of the opinion that Oswald was the sole assassin of JFK?
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Willy, you disagree with me and instead of presenting an argument in reply to my supported argument, you submit a question intended to insult me.

          • Not so Tom,

            I am curious as to what your core opinion is on this case. Why would a simple question like that insult you or anybody else?
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Willy,
            I shared a link with you just yesterday with a description of a National Geographic Mag. article that discussed the influence on tribal identity with the ability to discern fact from fiction or poorly supported claims. You replied advising you would take time to consider the points and observation made in that Nat. Geo. Mag. article, and today you pose that question to me?

            I have a similar reaction to the integrity of Lane and Garrison as Weisberg’s reaction. Do you wonder if Weisberg believed Oswald acted alone? I try to keep an open mind and believe what a reasonable person would. I try to avoid overreacting, and I think maintaining a paranoid inclination is a symptom of overreaction. I try to avoid tribal thinking. I do not believe Oswald acted alone. I do not entirely dismiss the possibility. I accept I cannot process information and be discerning in an effective way if I rule out anything within the realm of possibility. People who do start from a conclusion and expect to uncover accurate information are not unlike hammers.

            I think you’ve painted yourself into a corner in which tribal identity and its influence on your thinking and discernment has created a condition in which the paint is never gonna dry. Your condition seems inescapable.

          • Tom,

            I actually expected you to say that it would be most reasonable to reserve a definite opinion one way or the other.

            In other words that you might be agnostic, because being certain on anything can be a mistake.

        • Jeremy Gilbert says:

          “A prime example here is ignoring that Markham’s testimony on the Tippit shooting was utterly psychotic.”- Willy

          The premise here is that the conclusion Oswald shot Tippit rests largely on her testimony. But it doesn’t. And whether Markham was “psychotic” or a Nobel laureate doesn’t change whether Oswald did or didn’t kill Tippit.

          The Commission said this: “[E]ven in the absence of Mrs. Markham’s testimony, there is ample evidence to identify Oswald as the killer of Tippit.”

          That, my friends, is a massive understatement.

          Besides the testimony of Benavides, we have Barbara and Virginia Davis who heard shots outside their house and came out to see a man cut across their lawn and empty his revolver. The shells they recovered were ballisticly matched to the gun Oswald had on his person. They both positively identified Oswald as the man they saw.

          William Smith heard shots, saw a policeman fall and a man run away from the shooting. He positively identified that man as Oswald.

          Ted Callaway and Sam Guinyard heard shots and ran to see what was happening. They saw a man holding a revolver high in his right hand. They shouted at him, he paused, muttered something and continued on, passing within 10 feet of Guinyard. Both men positively identified the man as Oswald.

          Warren Reynolds, Harold Russell, Pat Patterson and L. J. Lewis saw a man with a revolver in his hand. Russell and Patterson positively identified the man as Oswald.

          That’s a total of SEVEN people making positive identification of Oswald as the man who fled the scene. ALL said he had a revolver in his hand.

          In their half-century of focusing on the testimony of Helen Markham, conspiracy theorists have avoided the fact that NINE witnesses saw a man shoot Tippit and/or flee taking the SAME ROUTE. The common-sense conclusions of the above – Markham (and Benavides, for that matter), while perhaps not certain of her identification of Oswald as the man who shot Tippit, nevertheless described actions and movements of a man which OTHERS positively confirmed was Lee Harvey Oswald! Conspiracy theorists toss common sense out the window and make the contention that, somehow NotOswald shot Tippit and, presumably, vanished into thin air, but not before Oswald materializes and is handed the revolver which he 1) stupidly accepts; 2) empties its shells (if he had it all along and unwittingly ended up at the murder scene he chose a spectacularly bad time to decide to reload a revolver with four spent shells in it); 3) BRANDISHES the revolver; 4) gets the hell out of there as fast as he can, ditching his jacket in the process.

          Can ANYONE reasonably believe the man who she was not sure was Oswald who she last saw going down Patton from 10th towards Jefferson was NOT the same man who all those other witnesses positively identified as Oswald who they saw come from 10th, down Patton towards Jefferson?

          • Photon says:

            And that is the crux of the matter. CTers who argue the innocence of Oswald in the Tippit shooting have to resort to sowing confusion-not finding the truth. Markham saw a man shoot Tippit. Multiple other witnesses at nearly the same time saw a man with a revolver in the same general area and positively identified that man as Oswald. The Dallas police Dept. ( according to Posner) had another witness to the same activities, but chose not to release his name as he was visiting his mistress and did not want his wife to know. As they had several other eyewitnesses they didn’t need him.
            The continued lie that Tippit was shot with an automatic promoted by the same ” Oswald is innocent” line is easily rebutted by the eyewitness who saw OSWALD ejecting the shells from his revolver.Instead of mentioning this witness, the same line claims that since a cop saw shells at the scene and assumed that they were from an automatic because he SAW shells at the scene they must have come from an automatic-period.No attempt at explaining the cop’s perception. No attempt to report the cop’s later statements after he had all of the facts. Only an attempt at confusing those who do not know all of the facts or unwilling to look.
            If Oswald was innocent of shooting Tippit, why do proponents of that line have to attempt to confuse the issue instead of confronting the overwhelming evidence from the scene of the shooting-without even addressing his actions afterword.When Oswald was in the cruiser after he was arrested, why did he comment about cop killers getting the death penalty? When did the arresting officers explain to him what happened to Tippit? CTers never want to explore that statement and what it obviously implies.

          • Tom S. says:

            Photon, your efforts do not go unnoticed. Can I call you “Brownie”?

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/08/28/katrinas-heckuva-job-brownie-where–he-now/32485703/
            …”Brownie,” critics claimed, had not done a “heckuva job” at all.

            http://dperry1943.com/closed.html
            ………..
            Those “writers who present cases of guilt by association supported by rumor an innuendos” (Page 472)

            Page 277 “A high ranking Dallas police official who was a member of the force in 1963 told the author there was another witness who had positively identified Oswald as the shooter [of J.D. Tippit] but was never publicly identified. Evidently, the man was married and had been at a house in Oak Cliff visiting his mistress for an afternoon tryst.”

            Page 314 “A senior Dallas doctor who is a close [Dr. Charles] Crenshaw friend admitted to the author, ‘If you spend time with him, he starts to confabulate, or plot or plan, and that sort of thing.'”

            I think serious research requires the naming of sources particularly when they are revealed as important witnesses or are used to impugn an individual’s character.

          • Photon says:

            So how do you respond to Roy W Kornbluth’s post of May 13, 2016 at 3:38 am?

          • Tom S. says:

            Photon, obviously you were at the page where this is located.:

            So how do you respond to Roy W Kornbluth’s post of May 13, 2016 at 3:38 am?

            Common courtesy would have included copying and pasting a link to “Roy W Kornbluth’s post of May 13, 2016 at 3:38” in your comment. You never paste in a link to anything you cite, except in one instance. Why?

          • “Besides the testimony of Benavides, we have Barbara and Virginia Davis who heard shots outside their house and came out to see a man cut across their lawn and empty his revolver. The shells they recovered were ballisticly matched to the gun Oswald had on his person. They both positively identified Oswald as the man they saw.”~Jeremy Gilbert

            Now as to the seeming positively positive identification of Oswald by the Davis sisters Callaway and others. There are many complications to this apparent conclusive conclusion.
            Some being the weird ballistics evidence. The lack of chains of custody on the bullets and shells yet again. But mostly the fact that Oswald seems to have actually been in the Texas Theater at the time that Tippit was killed.

            It is therefore reasonable to bring up the Oswald doppelganger hypothesis, as “far out” as the Warrenistas will complain this theory to be. I do not mean in the Harvey and Lee Oswald aspect, I mean the real possibility that US Intelligence came up with an actor, character that had a very strong facial resemblance to Oswald.

            It should be recognized that if this operation to frame Oswald was to be successful, he would have to be ‘SEEN’ at various crime scenes and pre-assassination locations to create a legend to draw upon after the fact. It is far from impossible to hypothesize such a scenario, it in fact makes sense of a lot of the very unusual anomalies of this case. I am of the opinion that it is more than merely likely. I think the proposition is most probable.

            See: JFK and the Unspeakable by James W. Douglass
            http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/TwoLHOs.html

            “Oswald’s Doubles:
            How Multiple Lookalikes Were Used to Craft One Lone Scapegoat

            The following segments of Jim Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable – Why He Died and Why It Matters examine the composite scapegoat served up to the world in the guise of Lee Harvey Oswald and the domestic intelligence network that was writing his story.”
            \\][//

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “Now as to the seeming positively positive identification of Oswald by the Davis sisters Callaway and others.” etc. – Willy

            As I said earlier, it strains credulity that Oswald would be seen emptying his revolver seconds after someone else had shot Tippit. And the questions raised about shell custody and the smaller-calibre bullets with insufficient striations to make a positive match are negated by the Davis’ (and other’s) positive I.D. of Oswald.

            Enter an imposter Oswald. The first problem here is the most basic one – there is no evidence of an “imposter”: this is clearly an attempt to explain away hugely incriminating evidence. And it’s hugely implausible.

            For one, how could NotOswald have known where Oswald would roughly be after the assassination? He’d have to be in the same general vicinity at the same time… so more implausible explanations – with zero evidence – have to be produced – the CIA or whomever lured him to the neighbourhood.

            And how did NotOswald happen to know what, if any, weapon Oswald would have on his person? Admittedly, this is not as huge a hurdle. Still, if he had been caught with an automatic, for example, that would have messed up “the operation.”

            And… you say there “is evidence” that Oswald was in the theatre at the time of the shooting of Tippit. But what of Johnny Brewer, who saw Oswald cowering in his shoe-shop foyer as police sirens blared in search of the cop-killer. Was he some government plant? Or did he see yet another Oswald imposter? (And seen entering the theatre – where some might see TWO Oswalds, screwing up the operation…)

            The problems entailed in attempting to explain away NINE positive identifications of Oswald, the existence of shells found at the scene matched to the gun he was carrying while arrested found at the scene, simply are not credible and require contrived scenarios which would put Rube Goldberg to shame.

            And, if this was such a sophisticated operation, why DELIBERATELY place wrong-calibre bullets in NotOswald’s gun? Why not make that an easy match, like with the Carcano? That makes no sense, if they could swap out the shells, surely they could swap out the bullets!

          • But mostly the fact that Oswald seems to have actually been in the Texas Theater at the time that Tippit was killed.

            Only if you ignore Burrough’s WC testimony (and latch onto what he was saying in the 1980s) and the testimony of Johnny Calvin Brewer and Julia Postal.

            This has been brought to you attention.

            Why have you ignored it?

      • Jeremy Gilbert says:

        Hi Jean:

        Yes, I read about your experience in “Reclaiming History,” pleased to make your acquaintance!

    • J.D. says:

      We should note that Mark Lane did not direct the film version of “Rush to Judgment,” and hence was not solely responsible for what was included and what was omitted. The film was directed by Emile de Antonio.

      • Jeremy Gilbert says:

        Lane didn’t direct it, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t have a lot of editorial control and/or input to the film.

        Besides, even if he had zero control over the film, in terms of what Bowers said, he chose to keep it out of his book which he DID have control over and instead focus on misleading vague accounts of several men milling about, a “flash” or disturbance of some sort, and conspicuously avoid asking the basic question – was anyone behind the fence at the time of the assassination?

        It is THIS question which Olive Stone has Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner) stewing over as he reads WC transcripts of the interviews with Bowers. “Ask the question!” Garrison yells in frustration at the text as the counsel dismissively cuts Bowers off in mid-testimony.

        I would argue that what Bowers saw, what he testified to, was of little interest. What he DIDN’T see was what was crucial. Still, “the question” not asked is now a pretty obvious one: Did you see anyone firing or in a position to fire when the caravan passed by?

        Which is why how Mark Lane treated Bowers’ testimony is for me an example of Lane’s mendacity and, worse, an example of how determined he was to push the notion of “conspiracy” on a grieving and gullible public even though he had a crucial witness who had testimony which completely undercut his case. Why tell the truth, or at least address problems with his narrative, when he could peddle “conspiracy” instead?

        Reading what I could of the transcript (it is hard to find, not surprisingly), one quickly wonders what Lane is up to. Clearly, Bowers is wondering why as well as Lane asks for all this detail on essentially irrelevant issues – descriptions of several men milling about, cars coming and going, etc – while not asking the obvious question.

        And it becomes clear that Lane KNOWS what Bowers would say – so Bowers interrupts one of the irrelevant lines of questions to explicitly state that “no one” was behind the fence at the time of the assassination. What does Lane do? He changes the subject. And this crucial testimony strangely goes unmentioned in the 1966 book and film… not discovered until Gary Mack finds it and makes reference to it in 1993, 27 years later.

        Bowers was killed in a car accident soon after the interview, and this “suspicious” death has become fodder for conspiracy theorists, even though the real “hidden testimony” actually destroys any notion of there being a knoll assassin. I’ve facetiously said elsewhere that if anyone had a motive to kill Bowers, it was someone who was peddling “conspiracy.” If Johnny Carson had brought Bowers on in an interview, like he did with Jim Garrison, one could imagine the case for conspiracy being irreparably damaged by the time of the Clay Shaw trial.

        And “grassy knoll” would have disappeared from the lexicon.

        • “If Johnny Carson had brought Bowers on in an interview, like he did with Jim Garrison, one could imagine the case for conspiracy being irreparably damaged by the time of the Clay Shaw trial.
          “And “grassy knoll” would have disappeared from the lexicon.”~Jeremy Gilbert

          I appreciate your well thought out commentary above.
          But you confront one insurmountable problem; the undeniable fact of dozens of people charging up the grassy knoll after the shots had been fired. Among these people were several police officers. In the Darnell film he shoots footage of the people who made their way behind the fence and were looking for signs of a shooter.

          Now I am not an advocate of a shot from that area hitting President Kennedy, I think the shot that hit him in the head came from the southwest corner of Dealey, just in front of the triple underpass.

          Even still I find it hard to dismiss that something happened around or behind the pagoda where the head shot occurred. Perhaps someone lit an M80 as a diversion from the real snipers.

          “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.”~Jesse Curry
          \\][//

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “But you confront one insurmountable problem; the undeniable fact of dozens of people charging up the grassy knoll after the shots had been fired.”

            Hi Willy:

            Thanks for your constructive comments.

            It is an undeniable fact that dozens charged up the hill after the assassination. But this is no “insurmountable problem.” What in fact happened was people were milling around for about a minute, then motorcycle cop Clyde Haygood, who was well back in the motorcade and had no first-hand knowledge of where the shots came from saw a colleague and stopped his motorcycle and dashed up the knoll to confer – THAT precipitated a rush of spectators to the stockade fence area, presumably assuming a suspect was being arrested.

            There is no denying that many said they thought that is where the shots originated. But most in the crowd were simply following the cop – who as I noted had no idea where the shots came from.

            But other witnesses – 10 or so – SAW a sniper, the barrel of his rifle, or heard the shells falling on the floor overhead at the TSBD. And, of course, one cop immediately ran into the TSBD.

            NO ONE saw a sniper, or someone in a position to take shots at the knoll, or at any location other than the TSBD. And two witnesses who had a view of the rear of the fence at the moment of the shooting – Lee Bowers and Marilyn Sitzman – reported they saw no one there.

            I recognize that you don’t say the shots came from the knoll, but the evidence is still not on your side.

            While many argue over what ear-witness count is more accurate – how many said “knoll” vs “TSBD,” or what have you – there are some fundamental problems with a multiple-sniper scenario.

            First, what do these ear-witnesses say about HOW MANY shots were fired? It’s not a ~60/~40 split as it is with the knoll/TSBD. It’s something like 95% who say THREE or fewer shots were fired. Virtually all multiple-sniper scenarios require FOUR shots, minimum. How could the vast majority get that so wrong?

            Second, how many directions were the shots fired from? Again, the VAST majority report the shots came from a SINGLE direction, again some 95% or so, depending on tabulation. That is a fundamental flaw with conspiracy claims and I’ve yet to hear a plausible explanation from that side.

            The fact we have multiple witnesses – some 10 – to the TSBD sniper, but ZERO for the knoll or anywhere else sniper, we can logically conclude three things:

            1) The TSBD sniper likely fired three shots; 2) was the only sniper firing; 3) the Plaza acoustics made establishing direction confusing for many witnesses.

            Which is precisely what the WC concluded.

            As an aside I find it interesting you suggest the pagoda (pergola?) which is where Bill Newman, from Day One, has maintained he felt the shots came from.

          • Testimony Of S. M. Holland
            The testimony of S. M. Holland was taken at 2:20 p.m., on April 8, 1964:

            Mr. STERN – Did you hear a third report?
            Mr. HOLLAND – I heard a third report and I counted four shots and about the same time all this was happening, and in this group of trees–[indicating].
            Mr. STERN – Now, you are indicating trees on the north side of Elm Street?
            Mr. HOLLAND – These trees right along here [indicating the trees next to the picket fence and pavillion].
            Mr. STERN – Let’s mark this Exhibit C and draw a circle around the trees you are referring to.
            Mr. HOLLAND – Right in there. (Indicating the trees next to the picket fence and pavillion.)
            There was a shot, a report, I don’t know whether it was a shot. I can’t say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn’t as loud as the previous reports or shots.
            Mr. STERN – What number would that have been in the—-
            Mr. HOLLAND – Well, that would–they were so close together.
            Mr. STERN – The second and third or the third and fourth?
            Mr. HOLLAND – The third and fourth. The third and the fourth.
            Mr. STERN – So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?
            Mr. HOLLAND – It could have been the third or fourth, but there were definitely four reports.
            Mr. STERN – You have no doubt about that?
            Mr. HOLLAND – I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either.
            Mr. STERN – Mr. Holland, do you recall making a statement to an agent of of the FBI several days after?
            Mr. HOLLAND – I made a statement that afternoon in Sheriff Bill Decker’s office, and then the Sunday or the Sunday following the Friday, there were two FBI men out at my house at the time that Oswald was shot.
            Mr. STERN – Did you tell them that you heard distinctly four shots at that time?
            Mr. HOLLAND – Yes.
            Mr. STERN – You were certain then?
            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holland.htm

            **“In contrast to the testimony of the witnesses who heard and observes shots from the Depository, the commission investigation DISCLOSED no credible evidence that shots were fired from anywhere else”… pg. 61 … “No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other thatn the Texas School Book Depository Building.”**

            These statements by the Commission are in direct opposition with the testimony of Mr. Holland, as shown above.
            \\][//

          • “2) was the only sniper firing; 3) the Plaza acoustics made establishing direction confusing for many witnesses.
            Which is precisely what the WC concluded.”
            ~Jeremy Gilbert

            Yes of course the WC concluded what is convenient for their single gunman theory.

            “As an aside I find it interesting you suggest the pagoda (pergola?) which is where Bill Newman, from Day One, has maintained he felt the shots came from.”~Ibid

            Yes I meant pergola. Both Bill Newman and S. M. Holland were in positions to tell reverberation from direct sound sources. Their testimonies are rejected spuriously by the WC with the excuse of “the Plaza acoustics”.
            The same excuse could be used for the witnesses claiming to hear the shots from the TSBD.
            \\][//

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “Testimony Of S. M. Holland
            The testimony of S. M. Holland was taken at 2:20 p.m., on April 8, 1964:” etc – Willy

            Hi Willy: I’m well aware of Holland’s testimony, but you’ve avoided the question:

            Why do only a small handful of witnesses report more than four shots? Why should we believe Holland and the several others who said 4, 4+ while ignoring the 95% who said three or less?

            “These statements by the Commission are in direct opposition with the testimony of Mr. Holland, as shown above.”

            So, again, why should the Commission have rejected the testimony of 95% of the witnesses who reported a maximum of three shots, and instead embrace the testimony of Holland and the small handful of others who said four or more shots?

            Besides, he equivocates and says one of the “reports” may have not been a shot. Other witnesses, such as Marilyn Sitzman, say that the black couple smashed a bottle of Coke which was loud and could have been what he heard. And where he says the report came from is exactly where the couple were seated.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “Yes of course the WC concluded what is convenient for their single gunman theory.” – Willy

            I’d say they concluded that in large part because: 1) only one sniper was seen, firing from the TSBD; 2) only three shots were heard by the vast majority of witnesses, and three shells were found in the TSBD, and the SB and two other fragments were matched to the rifle found in the TSBD; 3) the wounds were consistent with rear-entry shots. And since virtually no witnesses heard shots from two directions, and your throat shot requires an opposite firing direction, their conclusions weren’t bizarre or unreasonable, at least in my opinion. (My well-honed psychic powers suggest that you don’t agree…)

            “Their testimonies are rejected spuriously by the WC with the excuse of ‘the Plaza acoustics’.”

            Again, and I’m sorry if it seems I am belabouring the point, but if we have 10 witnesses (or so) seeing a TSBD sniper, and 95% saying shots came from a single direction, the logical inference is that those who thought the shots came from elsewhere were confused by the acoustics. There is nothing “spurious” about the conclusion at all, it’s logical given those facts.

            The alternate possibility is that these 95% of ear-witnesses were accurate in their recollection, but somehow did not hear the shots fired from the other location. Do you honestly believe that is credible? I don’t.

            “The same excuse could be used for the witnesses claiming to hear the shots from the TSBD.”

            No it can’t, Willy. And that is because, as I have noted, we have 10 witnesses who either saw someone fire from there, saw the barrel of the gun and/or movement in the window, or who heard shots and shells drop from over their heads, with additional witnesses who confirmed the spontaneous shouts of “I see a rifle” etc from these witnesses.

            There is no serious doubt that a sniper in fact fired from that window of the TSBD. And, in my mind, no serious doubt that shots were fired ONLY from that location.

          • “bottle of Coke which was loud and could have been what he heard. And where he says the report came from is exactly where the couple were seated.”

            Sure Jeremy, a smoky coke bottle. That must be it. Thank you for your “reasoned” response.
            \\][//

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “Sure Jeremy, a smoky coke bottle. That must be it. Thank you for your “reasoned” response.” – Willy

            Hi Willy – I was offering an explanation for what it might have been. The problem with this “4th” shot is that Holland himself wasn’t sure it was even a shot:

            Holland: “There was a shot, a report, I don’t know whether it was a shot. I can’t say that.”

            And I note that you’ve not offered any explanation as to why Holland’s testimony is so compelling that the Warren Commission should have ignored the 95% of witnesses who said three or fewer shots were fired.

            As for the “report,” another possibility is the sound of Kennedy’s head exploding, or a motorcycle backfire.

            But I find it strange you focus on the “smoke” aspect here. I don’t doubt there was actual smoke witnessed by people. But unless Yosemite Sam was firing at the president with a blunderbuss, this couldn’t have been smoke from a rifle – at least not any smoke which would have been clearly visible to Holland, standing some 100 feet away or so from where he said it was.

            Oliver Stone inadvertently confirmed the implausibility of the “smoke” claim when he had to use smoke machines to create visible smoke for “JFK,” because any wisps of smoke from an actual rifle would have been invisible, especially on such a blustery day. Well, duh.

            And, something so clearly visible to him surely would have been visible on the numerous films and photographs which captured the immediate area of the front of the picket fence in the seconds after the fatal shot was fired. Zapruder’s pan to the left after the fatal shot was in a direct line to where this smoke was said to be. We see nothing. Nor do we see anything in Nix or Muchmore, etc.

            The far more likely possibility is he saw smoke from a motorcycle exhaust, perhaps in a straight line back to the spur section of Elm in front of the TSBD, mistakenly thinking the smoke was foreground when it was more background, a classic foreshortening illusion. The smoke is not there in the films or photos, so that is the best I can offer – you have a better explanation?

            But the bottom line here is you’ve not explained why the Warren Commission was being dishonest in your view by not incorporating Holland’s testimony in their final report when it is at odds with 95% of witness testimony.

            And you’ve avoided addressing my fundamental points that the ear witness testimony is consistent with a) three shots and b) a single shooter, so the Warren Report’s conclusions are in fact consistent with the evidence, not at odds with it as you say, other than the cherry-picked evidence which seems to buttress your case, though I have shown it doesn’t.

          • “But the bottom line here is you’ve not explained why the Warren Commission was being dishonest in your view by not incorporating Holland’s testimony in their final report when it is at odds with 95% of witness testimony.”~~Jeremy Gilbert

            It has been shown conclusively on these pages that the Warren Commission was set on one single course, to prove Oswald was guilty, it studiously avoided any evidence and testimony that would tend to be exculpatory.

            “For over thirty years a transcript of one of those “top secret” executive session meetings (January 22, 1964) has been in existence. This particular transcript dealt principally with an alleged “dirty rumor” that Oswald had been an agent of some federal agency, notably the FBI. It was at the January 22nd executive meeting that Allen Dulles opined: “I think this record ought to be destroyed.” Another
            Commission member, Hale Boggs, nervously restated the case when he said plaintively, “I don’t even like to see this taken down.”
            Five days after these jarring sentiments were expressed another meeting was held (Jan. 27, 1964) expanding on the earlier meeting. This article, however, deals solely with the Jan. 22nd meeting. Those interested in reading the contents of both the Jan.
            22nd and the Jan. 27th meetings can refer to
            Weisberg’s Whitewash IV and Post Mortem”, as well as on line at this URL:

            http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGintro.html

            \\][//

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Jeremy Gilbert said on May 18, 2016 @ 7:19 p.m.:

            First, what do these ear-witnesses say about HOW MANY shots were fired? It’s not a ~60/~40 split as it is with the knoll/TSBD. It’s something like 95% who say THREE or fewer shots were fired. Virtually all multiple-sniper scenarios require FOUR shots, minimum. How could the vast majority get that so wrong?

            Do you have a citation for that 95% figure as to the number of shots fired?

            I think it’s safe to say that the majority of witnesses were closer to the TSBD than the GK, so as a result, their perceptions might have be limited, such that only the louder or more prominent sounds were heard, leaving them that impression.

            The WC didn’t interrogate the vast majority of witnesses either, so it’s hard to conclude in terms of percentages.

            Fact is, not even the HSCA relied solely on witness testimony (i.e., jiggle analysis and acoustic signatures), but they concluded that 4 shots were fired.

            BTW, doesn’t a “~60~/40” split “as it is with Knoll/TSBD” mean that the majority of shots came from the GK?

            Second, how many directions were the shots fired from? Again, the VAST majority report the shots came from a SINGLE direction, again some 95% or so, depending on tabulation. That is a fundamental flaw with conspiracy claims and I’ve yet to hear a plausible explanation from that side.

            Again, where do you get 95% (for the direction issue now)?

            “The Warren Commission did not compile a list of witnesses to the assassination, nor did it give any credence to eyewitness accounts that shots came from the grassy knoll.”(Coverup, Galanor, p. 65)

            The Warren Commission said this in Chapter 3, page 71 (my underscored emphasis added):

            “In contrast to the testimony of the witnesses who heard and observed shots fired from the Depository, the Commission’s investigation has disclosed no credible evidence that any shots were fired from anywhere else. When the shots were fired, many people near the Depository believed that the shots came from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass or from the area to the west of the Depository.”

            Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth! I also note their choice of the word “disclosed” instead of “discovered”.

            Not even John McAdams comes close to saying 95% TSBD-sourced shots!

            Galanor’s later paper corrects the direction allocation as 52 Knoll vs. 48 TSBD*

            * from http://jfklancer.com/pdf/galanor.pdf

            The only fundamental flaw that I see here is that you exaggerate claims supporting a lone gunman.

          • Galanor’s later paper corrects the direction allocation as 52 Knoll vs. 48 TSBD*

            * from http://jfklancer.com/pdf/galanor.pdf

            The only fundamental flaw that I see here is that you exaggerate claims supporting a lone gunman.

            Galanor didn’t “correct” anything. He produced a tabulation that shoehorned as many witnesses into the “Knoll” category as it could.

            For example, his “Knoll” category includes Sheriff’s Deputies who were standing at the entrance to the Criminal Courts Building, with no line of sight to either the Knoll or the Depository.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

            As to the number of shots, Joel Grant’s tabulation shows 95% hearing three shots or fewer.

            Tink Thompson got virtually identical numbers on that.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “It has been shown conclusively on these pages that the Warren Commission was set on one single course, to prove Oswald was guilty, it studiously avoided any evidence and testimony that would tend to be exculpatory.”

            I’ll take your word for that, Willy.

            But your reply is to MY reply to this: “These statements by the Commission are in direct opposition with the testimony of Mr. Holland, as shown above.”

            So I will pose the question again: On what grounds do you expect the Warren Commission to reject the testimony of 95% of witnesses who said a maximum of three shots were fired and embrace the testimony of Holland who said four shots were fired (even though he himself was unsure if the 4th was a gunshot)?

            Even if we take as a given they sought out only a single-gunman conclusion, you’ve not explained why it’s somehow suspicious and bizarre they didn’t reject all those witnesses and embrace Holland’s testimony.

          • “For example, his “Knoll” category includes Sheriff’s Deputies who were standing at the entrance to the Criminal Courts Building, with no line of sight to either the Knoll or the Depository.”~McAdams

            This is a preposterous complaint by the “professor”, as “hearing gunshots” has no connection to lines of vision.
            Analogy; you cannot take a picture with a microphone.

            A child knows the distinction between sound and vision.
            \\][//

          • “So I will pose the question again: On what grounds do you expect the Warren Commission to reject the testimony of 95% of witnesses”~Jeremy Gilbert

            I will simply refer you to the commentary of Gerry Simone May 19, 2016 at 5:59 pm.

            The question you posed to me was what would the Warren Commission’s motive be for rejecting Holland’s testimony, that is what my answer attends to.

            It is the Warren Commission’s motive, MO (routine habits), and means and opportunities; that are essential to understand.
            \\][//

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “Do you have a citation for that 95% figure as to the number of shots fired?” – Gerry Simone

            Hi Gerry:

            Go to John’s page which discusses the different tabulations of ear witnesses.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

            He cites Joel Grant who has it as 95% three or fewer.

            And, McAdams says in his book “JFK Logic” that Josiah Thompson puts it as 9 out 172 witnesses as 4+ (and additional 5 say 3 or 4), so that’s 95% or 92% at 3 or fewer; the HSCA said 156 of 169 said 3 or fewer, or 92%.

            “I think it’s safe to say that the majority of witnesses were closer to the TSBD than the GK, so as a result, their perceptions might have be limited…” etc. – Gerry

            But the low number of 4, 4+ witnesses – there are only a small handful – don’t support your assumption, Gerry.

            “The WC didn’t interrogate the vast majority of witnesses either, so it’s hard to conclude in terms of percentages.”

            The HSCA counted 132 3-shots only witnesses, Thompson 136. I don’t think it is credible to suggest that what was likely something close to half of potential ear-witnesses present who were interviewed isn’t representative. If we were talking 10 or 20, maybe. Not when we are talking these numbers.

            “Again, where do you get 95% (for the direction issue now)?”

            Go to the McAdams page again. Thompson 94% single direction, HSCA 96%, McAdams 97%. I note with interest you quote Stewart Galanor, author of Coverup. His tabulation? 96% one direction.

            “Not even John McAdams comes close to saying 95% TSBD-sourced shots!

            “Galanor’s later paper corrects the direction allocation as 52 Knoll vs. 48 TSBD*”

            You are missing the point – it’s not WHERE people think the shots came from, it’s HOW MANY DIRECTIONS were the shots coming from.

            I never claimed McAdams 95% came from the TSBD. But since the VAST majority of ear-witnesses report a single direction for the shots and the only sniper seen was firing from the TSBD, the logical inference is these witnesses WERE HEARING THE SAME SHOTS but were confused about directions. Otherwise, we’d have a substantial number saying two directions or more.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “The question you posed to me was what would the Warren Commission’s motive be for rejecting Holland’s testimony, that is what my answer attends to.” – Willy

            Well, no, I wasn’t interested in their “motive,” I was interested in understanding how you would expect them to reject 95% of witness testimony on the question of how many shots were fired – three or fewer shots said that 95% – in favour of your witness who says four were fired – even though he wasn’t sure that fourth “report” was in fact a shot.

            I personally agree that the Warren Commission was inclined to favour the lone-gunman conclusion from the start, but I fail to see how they could conclude otherwise given the evidence in terms of number and direction of shots as the VAST preponderance of ear-witnesses said 3 or less/one direction. I mean, it’s not even close – even the tabulations of Thompson and Galanor agree on these points.

            So, to me the question of what was going on in the minds of the Warren Commission is not really relevant here; the question for me is how they should have been expected to conclude there were four shots based on a tiny handful of witnesses who said that, while ignoring the 95% who said three or less, is of greater interest. I fail to see the rationale.

            The HSCA, it should be noted, concluded there was a 4th shot, from the knoll, based SOLEY on the acoustic evidence – they were going to conclude that only Oswald fired before that last-minute dictabelt evidence was introduced.

          • J.D. says:

            G. Robert Blakey: “Posner also falls for the myth that our shot-from-the-grassy-knoll finding was based solely on the acoustic evidence (a Dictabelt recorded from a motorcycle policeman’s open mike). We also relied on the compelling testimony of witnesses who said they heard a shot from the right front of the president’s limousine.”

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1993/11/07/murdered-by-the-mob/590c014a-a3b4-4f6d-b5a2-189249cd5663/

          • “Well, no, I wasn’t interested in their “motive,” I was interested in understanding how you would expect them to reject 95% of witness testimony on the question of how many shots were fired”
            ~Jeremy Gilbert

            You are interested in me explaining back to you your straw-man argument, is what you are saying here:

            I do not expect the WC to reject anything. I expect the WC to INCLUDE countervailing evidence and testimonies, rather than hand waving such with spurious excuses.

            You are not interested in their motives?

            Seriously Mr Gilbert? Even when their motives are revealed to be the bases of a rank and obvious whitewash of the most infamous murder of the 20th century?

            My statement is not hyperbole Mr Gilbert, and your dogmatic arguments from authority are quite obvious and blatant.
            \\][//

          • Bart Kamp says:

            “Even when their motives are revealed to be the bases of a rank and obvious whitewash of the most infamous murder of the 20th century?”

            And yet you use WC testimony as a defence in the other thread where you are so ultra actively engaged in.

          • Tom S. says:

            And yet you use WC testimony as a defence in the other thread where you are so ultra actively engaged in.

            What is “WC testimony as a defence,” if it is not a dodge, an excuse? One more time, you are making claims that what amounts to a bus load of individuals who initially made notarized statements beginning as early as 22 November, 1963, actually made inaccurate statements or told intentional lies. It is incumbant upon you to stop complaining, stop demanding capitulation or cooperation of those who reply, well….what about these, and actually do the hard and probably impossible work of impeaching the statements of all of the witnesses, or present film evidence of superior provenance and definition than the BYP. You keep making blamket disqualifications of the investigative record as reported by WC and HSCA, and later by ARRB, and you’ll not achieve your stated goals. This is all obvious, whether you accept it, or not.

            EVIDENCE:

            http://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-877493
            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shelley1.htm
            …..
            Mr. BALL – Why did you go to the front?
            Mr. SHELLEY – Oh, several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went out to join them.
            Mr. BALL – And who was out there?
            Mr. SHELLEY – Well, there was Lloyd Viles of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton, she’s with Texas School Book, and Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards.
            Mr. BALL – You were standing where?
            Mr. SHELLEY – Just outside the glass doors there.
            Mr. BALL – That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
            Mr. SHELLEY – yes.
            Mr. BALL – Did you see the motorcade pass?
            Mr. SHELLEY – Yes….

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
            …..
            Mr. BALL. On November 22, 1963, the day the President was shot, when is the last time you saw Oswald?
            Mr. SHELLEY. It was 10 or 15 minutes before 12.
            Mr. BALL. Where?
            Mr. SHELLEY. On the first floor over near the telephone.
            Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him again?
            Mr. SHELLEY. At the police station when they brought him in.
            Mr. BALL. Did you see him in the building at any time after 12?
            Mr. SHELLEY. No…

            Mr. Shelley, corroborated by.:
            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1381.pdf
            Sara Stanton : https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1pnnBieHboM/Vz4giIpXcVI/AAAAAAAAEIA/_RU_1KXE2-U-qXQvpQucHx3GOYxOLPbkgCCo/s576/StantonShelley.jpg
            Pauline Sanders : Pg.1 https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-auEPfVhmv9Y/Vz4g1sYMQFI/AAAAAAAAEIE/j5RMrLQxgxgtDShLrWvK4w-iM-Tzuk-UwCCo/s512/ShelleySandersStanton_1of2.jpg
            and Pg. 2 https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-tuEpT7JFWqM/Vz4g4ESaJGI/AAAAAAAAEII/_Y4nkC8jsFA5f54Bnn_brDlIBmeTFmduQCCo/s947/ShelleySandersStanton_2of2.jpg
            Ruth Dean : https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-qqpfmLnWMYQ/Vz9nbXYnTSI/AAAAAAAAEJY/crNu3dm4aXELOk0Nf1Zd-GAfR9pHKJUBQCCo/s720/RuthDeanTSBDsteps.jpg
            Maddie Reese : http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0350a.htm Statement image: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-iWfgk3QtyCM/Vz9rT-jKpzI/AAAAAAAAEJs/NQLx9fKy9wUkGlJH6GhYHxd8HR8y539ZgCCo/s512/ReeseDeanTSBD.jpg

            continued-

          • Tom S. says:

            …continued

            OPINION:

            http://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-876875
            To turn to the main point here. I don’t have to “overcome” WC testimony. The whole point of the WC was to overcome the actual facts – some of which escaped in those first few hours.

            Your opinions are more popular than Ralph Cinques’. Popularity, enthusiasm are not evidence. You complain about Bill Kelly, you complain about my bias. You could be taking a different approach, actually weighing are opinions, permitting our opinions to moderate your own considering what you have now to support your claims vs. the individual testimonies counter to your claims that you cannot simply explain away as police coercion. I’m presenting the statements of witnesses who corroborated the details in the testimonies of Frazier, Lovelady, Molina, Shelley, and Truly who were not compromised, arrested, or suspected. You have no reasonable rebuttal to their testimonies because currently none have been developed. The key word is reasonable. Unreasonable is lying about Oswald on the steps for the rest of your life, knowing your lie assisted in the escape of the actual assassin(s). You have failed to reasonably argue why everyone who claimed Oswald was not on the steps was a liar.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            From J.D.: G. Robert Blakey: “Posner also falls for the myth that our shot-from-the-grassy-knoll finding was based solely on the acoustic evidence (a Dictabelt recorded from a motorcycle policeman’s open mike). We also relied on the compelling testimony of witnesses who said they heard a shot from the right front of the president’s limousine.”

            What Blakely seems to conveniently forget is that the first draft of the final report dated Dec 13 1978 said this: Pg. 64 – “The committee finds that the available scientific evidence is insufficient to find that there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy.”

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pdf/HSCA_Report_4_Remarks.pdf

            In Robert W. Edgar’s dissent to the final report, pg 494 and on in the link, he says “Up to that moment in the life of the committee [the Dec 13 1978 draft], we were prepared to go to the American people with this conclusion.”

            “We found no evidence of conspiracy,” he stated further on. And, he describes how on the very day that the draft was presented to the committee, Dec 18, 1978, Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy submitted their acoustic report which resulted in a changed conclusion reflected in the Dec 29 1978 draft.

            So to pretend as Blakely does that the conclusion of conspiracy was the result of several lines of evidence contradicts the fact that the committee had already drafted a report concluding “no conspiracy” when the acoustic evidence caused enough members to change their views.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “I do not expect the WC to reject anything. I expect the WC to INCLUDE countervailing evidence and testimonies, rather than hand waving such with spurious excuses.” – Willy

            Let me get this straight. You expect the WC to conclude there were possibly four shots even though this testimony is at odds with 95% of the witnesses in Dealy Plaza? even when he states himself that he wasn’t even sure if the sound was a shot?

            The odd thing about your statement is the Warren Report DOES mention this very testimony – not just in the volumes of testimony, but in the final report itself! Chapter III, under “The Witnesses” and the subheading “At the Triple Underpass,” we have this: “According to S. M. Holland, there were four shots which sounded as though they came from the trees on the north side of Elm Street where he saw a puff of smoke.”

            Sounds like the Warren Report indeed includes “countervailing evidence”!

            http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#triple (page 76)

            So, I am befuddled. Sure, the WC does not embrace his testimony as probative, but why would they? It’s at odds with 95% of other witness testimony! But, notwithstanding this obvious objection, THEY INCLUDE HIS TESTIMONY ANYWAY in the final report!

            “You are not interested in their motives?

            “Seriously Mr Gilbert? Even when their motives are revealed to be the bases of a rank and obvious whitewash of the most infamous murder of the 20th century?”

            My point is their motives are beside the point – if the evidence in this case buttresses their conclusion – WHICH IT DOES, as I have repeatedly demonstrated.

            Indeed, and I am amazed you seem not to be aware of this, but this evidence, which you obviously feel is being suppressed, is to be found in the final report, not buried in the testimony volumes!

            “My statement is not hyperbole Mr Gilbert, and your dogmatic arguments from authority are quite obvious and blatant.”

            What “argument from authority” are you referring to? We are discussing EVIDENCE and the treatment of the same. I don’t really care what the WC concluded here – I simply make the point that what they concluded on this matter – how many shots were there – is consistent with the vast majority of ear-witness testimony! You have YET to make any case as to why we should reject those 95% of witnesses who said “3 or less” in favour of Holland and the small handful of others who said “4 or more.”

            If anything, the “argument from authority” comment more properly applies to you as you are rejecting the evidence in favour of your 4-shot (or more) conclusion, the overwhelming weight of evidence notwithstanding, and you have yet to explain why. Unless you are guilty of what you accuse the WC of doing – arriving at a conclusion at odds with the evidence.

          • “Posner also falls for the myth that our shot-from-the-grassy-knoll finding was based solely on the acoustic evidence (a Dictabelt recorded from a motorcycle policeman’s open mike).

            Before the “acoustics” came in, a draft of the HSCA Report said there was no conspiracy.

            Then the acoustics came in (and no other evidence) and the draft was changed to say conspiracy.

            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=800#relPageId=531

          • This is a preposterous complaint by the “professor”, as “hearing gunshots” has no connection to lines of vision. Analogy; you cannot take a picture with a microphone.

            Where in the world did Willy get this?

            If there was no line of sight from the deputies to the Knoll, there was no straight line path for sound either.

            The deputies heard reverberations. Their ideas as to where the shots originated are of no value.

          • “If anything, the “argument from authority” comment more properly applies to you as you are rejecting the evidence in favour of your 4-shot…”Jeremy Gilbert

            You obviously have no idea what ‘Argument from Authority’ means Mr Gilbert.

            “An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.”

            You should also look up ‘Argumentum Verbosium’. You are making great use of that here.
            \\][//

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “You obviously have no idea what ‘Argument from Authority’ means Mr Gilbert.” – Willy.

            Not sure you have quite a grasp on the concept yourself, Willy. I admit I have used it loosely to suggest that the CT argument actually ignores the evidence and that we are expected to embrace it, as if it is some sacred cow, in so doing turning off any critical thinking or avoid using some basic logic (as opposed to saying X says it is so therefore it is so). But you’ve yet to defend the argument and done everything to change the subject and avoid addressing the simple and obvious question: On what basis do we reject what 95% of witnesses reported on the number of shots (max 3) and direction of shots (one)?

            And I might point out, since you said this about my arguments: “…your dogmatic arguments from authority are quite obvious and blatant,” then you can fill me in in how my point that accepting the testimony from 95% of witnesses as to both the number of shots (3 max) and the direction of the shots (one) is not a rational approach to the evidence we have and is instead simply a repetition of something someone said and I am repeating it as this person or persons’ opinions are sufficient “proof.”

            More to the point, what “authority” was making this particular argument? I am not aware that the WC made this argument – their CONCLUSION may match, but I am arriving at it from a different place, which negates your contention of an “argument from authority” which typically simply entails citing someone’s opinion as if that opinion carries weight, and is evidence in and of itself. Such as citing Lyndon Johnson’s opinion that there was a conspiracy, something he never suggested he had actual evidence for.

            And, while you are at it, you can explain the meaning of this: “You are interested in me explaining back to you your straw-man argument…”

            I suppose that is suppose to mean that my premise that giving weight to 95% of the witnesses on the issues of number of shots and direction of shots is some sort of logical fallacy, and my conclusion therefore collapses like a house of cards as the premise is without merit.

            But I’ve asked you repeatedly for your rationale in accepting Holland’s testimony. If you find my argument wanting, and since you call it a strawman argument, then clearly you do, then address the flaw in the argument if you won’t address the argument itself.

          • “More to the point, what “authority” was making this particular argument?”~Jeremy Gilbert

            It is blatantly obvious Mr Gilbert!

            The Warren Commission concluded that there were only three shots fired, all from the 6th floor window of the TSBD, ergo; the Warren Commission was the authority making this particular argument.

            You anticipate my answer with this spurious attempt at a caveat:

            “their CONCLUSION may match, but I am arriving at it from a different place, which negates your contention of an “argument from authority” — That “different place” you speak of is an example of your disingenuous mode of rhetoric. You can only ‘negate’ the obvious with what is obviously simply BS.

            “And, while you are at it, you can explain the meaning of this: “You are interested in me explaining back to you your straw-man argument…” `Ibid

            That means that you are arguing against an argument you claim I am making, which I am in fact not making, ergo: you are arguing against yourself.

            Last point: you ask, “On what basis do we reject what 95% of witnesses reported on the number of shots”, the basis that it is “argumentum ad populum’ – the third logical fallacy you have used in your entirely fallacious arguments here.

            It is bad enough Mr Golbert, to ignorantly use fallacious argumentation, but it is worse when you are obviously disingenuous in such application – as shown in your remark, “their CONCLUSION may match…”
            This is ludicrous argumentation you are using here sir. You know what ‘ludicrous’ means don’t you Mr Gilbert? It means you are playing games:

            “Ludi (Latin plural) were public games held for the benefit and entertainment of the Roman people (populus Romanus). Ludi were held in conjunction with, or sometimes as the major feature of, Roman religious festivals, and were also presented as part of the cult of state.” ~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludi

            \\][//

          • Now this whole argument with Jeremy Gilbert began with me pointing out the rush of so many people towards the knoll and the picket fence.

            I said:
            Even still I find it hard to dismiss that something happened around or behind the (pagoda) pergola where the head shot occurred.

            Mr Gilbert rushes past this point with a long dose of argumentum verbosium.

            But the fact remains that so many people charged up that area, including several police officers. Why would this be, if it didn’t appear to them that shots came from that area and direction?

            Mr Gilbert remains silent on this point.
            \\][//

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            Hi Willy: Seems you prefer an argument about debating – or is it a debate about arguing?

            I don’t blame your attempt to avoid the issue – I was a CTer for a quarter-century and I don’t know how to answer the “95%” question either without invoking Rube Goldberg.

            You say I am “arguing from authority,” “The Warren Commission concluded that there were only three shots fired, all from the 6th floor window of the TSBD, ergo; the Warren Commission was the authority making this particular argument.”

            An “argument from authority” means I cite someone’s opinion as evidence in and of itself. I did the precise reverse, I cited tabulations of witness reports from various sources – including CTers like Thompson and
            Galanor. Since I cite those two, am I agreeing with their conclusions too? I offered evidence, IOW, which is consistent with their conclusion, I didn’t state that the conclusion is correct because they said it was – which is the argument from authority claim.

            “That means that you are arguing against an argument you claim I am making, which I am in fact not making, ergo: you are arguing against yourself.: – Willy

            The 95% argument which you claim is a strawman argument.

            On May 18 at 7:19pm, I said since 95% reported a single direction and a maximum of three shots, since some 10 witnesses established the presence of a TSBD sniper, and that was the only sniper seen, it is reasonable to conclude, as the WC concluded, that only one sniper was present, that he fired all shots – 3 – and that the shots came from the TSBD.

            You responded May 18 7:57 pm with Holland’s testimony, the 4 shots/smoke account, had a quote from the WR – ” the commission investigation DISCLOSED no credible evidence that shots were fired from anywhere else” etc, and said this: “These statements by the Commission are in direct opposition with the testimony of Mr. Holland, as shown above.”

            I then asked you – and this is what you are calling a “strawman argument” i.e. debating a point you never made – since given the 95% of witnesses who reported only three shots, the 95% who said a single direction, how would you expect the WC to accept Holland’s testimony which is in direct opposition to those 95% of witnesses?

            You’ve REFUSED to address this glaring and obvious inconsistency in your rush to paint the WC as being devious and lying about evidence which suggests multiple shooters.

            They said: ““No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other thatn the Texas School Book Depository Building.” and then said “These statements by the Commission are in direct opposition with the testimony of Mr. Holland, as shown above.”

            Obviously, the WC didn’t find his evidence credible. So answer this question: Why is Mr. Holland’s testimony more credible than the 95% of other witnesses who said only 3-max shots were fired, and from only a single direction?

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “I said:
            Even still I find it hard to dismiss that something happened around or behind the (pagoda) pergola where the head shot occurred.

            “Mr Gilbert rushes past this point with a long dose of argumentum verbosium.

            “But the fact remains that so many people charged up that area, including several police officers. Why would this be, if it didn’t appear to them that shots came from that area and direction?

            “Mr Gilbert remains silent on this point.” – Willy

            Hi Willy:

            Not only are you refusing to address a simple point – 95% both reported a single direction and three or fewer shots – you now say I am “silent” on your supposedly “insurmountable problem” with the rush up the knoll.

            I suppose you missed my response from the same May 18th 7:19pm post referred to above, so here it is again:

            “It is an undeniable fact that dozens charged up the hill after the assassination. But this is no “insurmountable problem.” What in fact happened was people were milling around for about a minute, then motorcycle cop Clyde Haygood, who was well back in the motorcade and had no first-hand knowledge of where the shots came from saw a colleague and stopped his motorcycle and dashed up the knoll to confer – THAT precipitated a rush of spectators to the stockade fence area, presumably assuming a suspect was being arrested.

            “There is no denying that many said they thought that is where the shots originated. But most in the crowd were simply following the cop – who as I noted had no idea where the shots came from.”

            Further to this, watch the Mark Bell film which shows the knoll area immediately after the assassination. You can quite plainly see that virtually NO ONE goes up the knoll in the minute or so after the assassination, most are simply milling about. Then, a jump cut to a sudden surge of people dashing up… the camera pans to the left… and we see Haygood’s motorcycle parked at the curb – these people are following him as he dashed up the knoll. He testified that he didn’t know where the shots came from.

            Bowers reported seeing this: Mr. BALL – Did you see any activity in this high ground above Elm after the shot?
            Mr. BOWERS – At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.
            Mr. BALL – On his motorcycle?
            Mr. BOWERS – Yes.

            Bowers was wrong in that Haygood didn’t ride his motorcycle up the knoll, but he states that Haygood was the first of a wave of people up there. Which is entirely consistent with what I said May 18 – the swarm of people followed Haygood up to the knoll, apparently in the mistaken belief someone was being arrested. But Haygood had no idea where the shots came from.

          • I don’t blame your attempt to avoid the issue – I was a CTer for a quarter-century and I don’t know how to answer the “95%” question either without invoking Rube Goldberg.~Jeremy Gilbert

            I haven’t avoided any issues here Mr Gilbert, but I have pointed out you have a small grasp of critical thinking skills as a close look at your skills at argumentation shows.

            It is simple to answer the “95%” question Mr Gilbert; demand that the 95% number be proven.
            You have repeated this “95%” countless times, but you have never proven how it is derived, nor backed up the methods used to come up with that percentage.

            Now, I have some advice for you: Learn the rules of proper debate and argumentation, because they are based on proper critical thinking.

            I propose that you read some of Anthony Weston’s literature on the subject. A good place to start is with this primer on the subject:
            A RULEBOOK FOR ARGUMENTS -Second Edition – by Anthony Weston
            Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
            P,O. Box 44937, Indianapolis,
            Indiana 46244-0937

            It should also be available on Amazon Books.
            \\][//

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “I haven’t avoided any issues here Mr Gilbert, but I have pointed out you have a small grasp of critical thinking skills as a close look at your skills at argumentation shows.”

            Hi Willy: Fair warning – your attempts to change the subject won’t work with me, nor will other attempts to rile me up. Nice try – you are more slippery than most I’ve debated! Which I take as a compliment.

            As for “not avoiding any issues,” until this post, you’ve completely avoided the 95% issue. And, I don’t blame you, as you can’t answer it. Usually you at least try – not here. Speaks volumes.

            “…you have never proven how it is derived, nor backed up the methods used to come up with that percentage.” – Willy.

            FINALLY you address the question… sorta. And… you’ve shifted the goalposts. So now I have to “prove” how they are “derived”?

            Which says to me you are pretending these numbers are pulled out of hat – they aren’t. As I had noted above, numerous tabulations of witness reports – done by both sides of the debate, are consistent in their outcomes: about 95% both report a maximum of three shots and shots from a single direction.

            For most conspiracy theories in terms of the events of Dealy Plaza, four shots are required. Additionally, for most conspiracy theories, multiple gunmen, placed apart from each other, are required.

            So, the question is quite simple: If you consider that the Warren Commission was being deceitful in ignoring Holland’s testimony, what about his testimony makes it so compelling that we can ignore the 95% of witnesses which contradict it in terms of number of shots fired?

            As for your thoughtful advice about debating, I’ll refer to that in the future.

            But in terms of evidence, there are clearly many things you need to learn. If you want to claim that one witness or several witness accounts are being “ignored,” despite the fact they are at odds with 95% of other witness statements, then a court – or in this case, the Commission – would need a strong argument in favour of this out-lying evidence. We’ve seen nothing more that attacks on the WC, which, even if justifiable, are not addressing the issue. Further, as your fumbling with the back wound discussion we had recently demonstrates, evidence in one area should tend to be corroborated by evidence in another area. You seem to think “this guy says B,” as if that ends the discussion. You’d not last long in court with these sort of tactics, your high regard for your keen debating skills notwithstanding.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            John McAdams said on May 20th at 1:09 a.m.

            Galanor didn’t “correct” anything. He produced a tabulation that shoehorned as many witnesses into the “Knoll” category as it could.

            For example, his “Knoll” category includes Sheriff’s Deputies who were standing at the entrance to the Criminal Courts Building, with no line of sight to either the Knoll or the Depository.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

            As to the number of shots, Joel Grant’s tabulation shows 95% hearing three shots or fewer.

            Tink Thompson got virtually identical numbers on that.

            I beg to differ with your interpretation of Galanor’s recount, who did a second check after careful consideration.

            As for your Sheriff Deputies comment, I echo the criticism by Willy Whitten’s post of May 20th at 3:03 pm. (the fact that they HEARD shots from the Knoll is astounding, expecially since there’s nothing to cause an echo from there!).

            Assuming Joel Grant is correct, he at least confirms that it’s NOT 95% of people hearing 3 shots, which doesn’t help the lone assassin scenario (no slam dunk, and room for reasonable doubt).

            Tink said in SSID on page 23, that approximately 160 out of 190 witnesses interviewed heard three shots fired (84%). This is not 95%, but close to Gran’ts 81% of three shots.

            Lastly, as astutely pointed out by Barry Krusch on page 6 of his Volume 2: Impossible – the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald, not every witness that was present in Dealey Plaza was interviewed, as the HSCA reported (8 HSCA 139):

            3.1 Origin of Shots

            According to Investigator J. Basteri, 692 people were present in the Plaza during the assassination.

            So we can’t make conclusions using percentages when we don’t have a representative sample.

          • “FINALLY you address the question… sorta. And… you’ve shifted the goalposts. So now I have to “prove” how they are “derived”?”~Jeremy Gilbert

            That is the way it works Mr Gilbert, you made an assertion that 95% of the witnesses said the shots came from TSBD. It is therefore your responsibility to prove it.

            I didn’t move any goal posts Mr Gilbert, you simply didn’t know where they are placed to begin with.
            \\][//

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Jeremy Gilbert said on May 20th at 3:50 pm:

            You are missing the point – it’s not WHERE people think the shots came from, it’s HOW MANY DIRECTIONS were the shots coming from.

            I never claimed McAdams 95% came from the TSBD. But since the VAST majority of ear-witnesses report a single direction for the shots and the only sniper seen was firing from the TSBD, the logical inference is these witnesses WERE HEARING THE SAME SHOTS but were confused about directions. Otherwise, we’d have a substantial number saying two directions or more.

            You are manipulating the statistics and jumping to conclusions, when you say that since the majority of witnesses testify that a shot or shots is UNI-DIRECTIONAL, that they must be referring to the TSBD because a sniper was only seen at the southeast corner of the 6th floor.

            Arnold Rowland also saw a man with a gun at the southWEST corner of the 6th floor.

            You seem to also exclude OTHER circumstantial evidence of multiple gunmen, that doesn’t fit your lone assassin view, by over-reliance on witness testimony (some forced or intimidated, if not tainted with leading questions).

            BTW, the HSCA summarized Thompson’s findings with reference to origin of shots out of 190 witnesses interviewed as 13.2% from TSBD and 17.3% from the Knoll (8 HSCA 139).

            Plus as I referenced in my other response to McAdams, that there were a total of 692 people present in Dealey Plaza but only 190 were interviewed.

            As Krusch aptly puts it in his meticulous examination of the evidence,

            So, one explanation for why the majority of witnesses reported three shots when more than three shots were fired (apart from the fact that silencers could have been used), is simply that of SELECTION BIAS. – IMPOSSIBLE, Vol. 2, page 6 (my block emphasis added).

            A proper criminal investigation would not ignore evidence or leads contrary to the popular view.

          • As for your Sheriff Deputies comment, I echo the criticism by Willy Whitten’s post of May 20th at 3:03 pm. (the fact that they HEARD shots from the Knoll is astounding, especially since there’s nothing to cause an echo from there!).

            Why is this so hard to understand?

            The deputies at the front door of the Criminal Courts Building had no line of sight to the Knoll. Neither to the Badgeman position nor the HSCA “acourstic” position.

            Therefore, any shots they heard were reverberations. Any notions about the location could not have come from an actual perception.

            So if they thought the shots came from the Knoll, that’s not evidence.

        • J.D. says:

          Jeremy, I was responding to comments such as “Here’s what Lane left out of his filmed interview” and “Bowers undercut a key contention of the documentary, and instead of addressing it, Lane chose to omit it.” These are clearly criticisms of the film, not the book. They criticize Lane for exerting directorial control that he did not in fact have.

          It’s fine to criticize Lane for what he wrote in his book, or even to criticize statements that he makes in the film. But to say that Lane edited parts of a filmed interview that appeared in a film he did not direct is misleading.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “It’s fine to criticize Lane for what he wrote in his book, or even to criticize statements that he makes in the film. But to say that Lane edited parts of a filmed interview that appeared in a film he did not direct is misleading.”

            Hi J.D.

            We don’t know if Lane omitted that from the film. It may have been the director, but the film so closely follows what was presented in the book, it seems likely to me he did a paper edit. But he certainly didn’t include it in his book, as I noted, nor did he mention what Bowers said even after (I believe) Mack revealed the existence of the transcript in 1993. (I think you presume the director made that call – it’s far from automatic he would have. On many film projects, for example, the producer heavily influences what ends up in the film and what ends up on the cutting room floor, as an example.) I’m pretty sure the markings on the transcripts I saw were Lane’s – crossing out the “no one” behind the fence comment – but I can’t find where I saw that.

          • Jean Davison says:

            J.D.,

            You’re right that Lane wasn’t the director, but are you sure he had no control over the editing?

            In the Rush to Judgment prologue, Lane wrote about Bowers’ testimony, then quoted from “a subsequent interview with me which was filmed and tape-recorded.” (p.32, paperback) He then quoted the same passage that was used in the film, and left out the same thing the film omitted. I don’t believe both men decided independently to leave out Bowers saying there was no one behind the fence.

  7. Gerry Simone says:

    mark Lane’s RTJ isn’t perfect as the evidence was limited in those early days of research, but IIRC, he does include testimony of witnesses not called by the Warren Commission or not sanitized by the government and its agencies. The book also provides the adversarial content that was missing from the WCR (the WC did appoint defense counsel but his input is seriously lacking or ineffective).

    I distinctly remember Lane’s questioning some of the key conclusions or statements in the WCR, which clearly were grounds for dissent or suspicion.

  8. Eddy says:

    The argument against Mark Lane is largely that
    He was a dishonest manipulator of the truth. The truth having been revealed by the Warren Commission.

    It is a quite astonishing conclusion that one is forced to draw, if this assessment is accurate ; that Lane was so good, his manipulation overcame the CIA’s bottomless funding of MSM portrayal of the story. Did he really, with a few other looks, dupe the masses?

  9. jeffc says:

    Emile de Antonio, the director of Rush To Judgment, made numerous acclaimed documentary films, often utilizing juxtapositions of pre-existing source material (broadcast news reporting, press conferences, etc) to convey a pointed critique. Point of Order (1964) looked back at the Joseph McCarthy phenomenon. In The Year of the Pig (1968) skewered the official rationale for the Vietnam War. Millhouse (1972) reviewed sarcastically the public career of Richard Nixon. Underground (1976) featured covertly filmed interviews with members of the Weather Underground.

    His relationship with Mark Lane was later described by the filmmaker as such: “his genius consists in knowing that there was a great distrust of all our institutions with the death of JFK and his uncanny and unique ability over the many years to find suckers…to believe in the holy cause of himself.” de Antonio’s POV was informed by his sponsorship of sketchy fund-raising “parties” held while the film was in production. But de Antonio was savvy enough to acknowledge he was also partner to these activities. “Truth is like Greek grape leaves: its wrappings are many and a huge industry grew out of JFK’s assassination. The point, finally, was that there was a truth and its champions were tacky schemers, gulls, fools, paddlers, and hacks. Among all of them – some honest, some passionate, and some even in possession of the facts – the truth came through, beyond the death industry, to produce enough material to make the American people know its government had lied.” (Emile de Antonio: A Reader University of Minnesota Press)

  10. I bought the DVD of EXECUTIVE ACTION and watched it yesterday.

    I felt it was a very accurate representation of the assassination of JFK, according to my own research – which has not in fact relied very heavily on Mark Lane’s research, although I have seen his Rush to Judgement video series.
    \\][//

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      I’ve not watched Executive Action in 30 years. They used to show it really late at night on TV occasionally in the late 70’s/80’s (I worked nights).
      It influenced me to read more.
      Now I still don’t have answer’s to many questions.
      But I have learned a lot and thank so many for their effort’s to educate me.
      I still wouldn’t Rush to Judgement on Prayer Man myself.

      • “I still wouldn’t Rush to Judgement on Prayer Man myself.” ~Ronnie Wayne

        After nearly 800 comments on that last Prayerman thread alone!?

        How could that be considered a “Rush to Judgement”?

        And that thread is only one of THREE threads dedicated to a blurry photograph.
        \\][//

    • Hideji Okina says:

      I watch EXECUTIVE ACTION and Rush to Judgement few years before.
      I compared movie and book(Rush to Judgement).
      Lane’s movie included a “Cigaretts on Knoll’s mud” testimony.
      But book version is not included this testimony cigarette part.
      Knoll’s “puff of smoke” is cigarette’s smoke?
      Yes,only possibility,but why Lane’s book omitted this testimony’s cigarette parts?
      Two of “puff of smoke” witness said “I think this smoke
      origin from police bike(or car)”.
      But almost resercher’s book omitted these testimony’s
      these parts.
      Why?
      Knoll’s puff of smoke is exhaust gas?
      Yes,only possibility.
      In “Rush to Judgement”(movie),puff of smoke’s
      eyewitnesss real location are explaind.
      I think between the their location and knoll
      is too far,if puff of smoke is rifle’s smoke,
      they can’t see a smoke.
      In “Rush to Judgement”(movie),Zapuruder and Newman(husband)
      are appeared,from their testimony,their right hand to point at upper side the their right ear.
      JFK’s head big wound position is right ear upper part.
      Yes!
      Offiacal theory is fact!
      JFK’s head big wound position is not a back of the head!

      • “JFK’s head big wound position is not a back of the head!”
        ~Hideji Okina

        According to all the witnesses at Parkland Hospital, the wound to Kennedy’s head was in the Occipital-Parietal: the back of the head.

        There wasn’t merely a “puff of smoke” Hideji, there was also a muzzle flash from a rifle.

        Do you think all of those people, including cops, that rushed up the knoll were trying to catch a train out of Dallas?
        \\][//

        • HIDEJI OKINA says:

          At first,I must explain to you.
          I’m not english native,if I use a careless word,
          not a my will,please forgive me.

          I read Parklaind peoples testimony from so many source.
          Wce,Hsca,Arrb,assassination reserch books(especially BEST EVIDENCE,Hal Livingstone’s books),Articles(especially Bostn Glove’s article and article memo),TV Documents(especially NOVA’s Who Shot Kennedy),Official side books(especially JAMA’s article).
          I not believe their testimony.
          From first,their explanation is strange,bad,bizarre,unreliable.
          First,why almost of they not(can’t) see
          a JFK’s head entry wound(s)?
          Second,JFK’s body not turned,head not lift,
          they can’t see a JFK’s back of the head.
          Recently Dr.McClelland explain this circumstances.
          JACOB CARTER’s question to him.
          “Did the other doctors see the same thing?(JFK’s
          back of the head big wound)”.
          His answer.
          “No.They weren’t in the position I was in”(BEFORE HISTORY DIES,50P).

          JFK’s back of the head wound appeared only Parkland.
          1.Dealey plaza’s testimony=right side of the haed.
          2.Zapruder,Nix,Matchmore filmes=right side of the
          head.
          3.Parkland testimony=back of the head.
          4.Bethesda testimony=right side of the head.

          You believe a Zapruder film altered theory?
          After the Hsca classified testimony released,
          many resercher insist “in Bethesda,JFK’s back of
          head wound is exist!”.
          Yes,but this explanation is mislead,Dr.Humes
          peel off JFK’s head skin,then head skull is collapse,original condiion is missing!
          (CONTINUE)

          • HIDEJI OKINA says:

            In “Rush to Judgment”,Lane explain puff of smoke,
            “Many rifles emit a small amount of smoke when discharged”(First Hardcover Ver 39p).
            This explanation source is WCE XXVI,811.
            But “The rifle was fired both in direct sunlight and in full shade and no flame was visible.A small amount of white smoke was visible.A small pale orange flame from burning gases emitter from the muzzle would be visible only at night or in a darkened room”(WCE 3133) .
            When JFK’is shot,Dealey Plaza is dark?
            Why Lane did’nt explain this common-sence?

            After the head shot,so many people running to elsewhere.
            I forget correct content,Gas Russo interviewed many (knoll running) witness.
            Their answer is “I follow policeman”.
            And Dealey Plaza is canion like structure.
            Perhaps “knoll’s gunshot sound” is echo.
            For example,Zapruder and Lee Bowers explain this area’s echo.
            Richard Trask explaind important thing in his picture book”Pictures of the pain”.
            Shortly after the head shot,coca-cola’s bottle fallen from knoll’s pagoda,big sound is risen.
            All assassination resercher neglect this
            explanation,except G.Ford.
            Ford explain this important thing in his book (A Presidental Legacy and The Warren Comission,forward).
            (Pictures of the Pain,I forgot page)

          • “You believe a Zapruder film altered theory?” ~HIDEJI OKINA

            No I do NOT think the Zapruder film was altered.

            This page at my own blog is a defense of the Zapruder film as AUTHENTIC:

            http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/

            As far as the rest of your critique, all of those issues have been litigated round’n’round on this blog. Even on this page. Read through those comments. I am not going to argue about it any more here…
            \\][//

          • JFK’s back of the head wound appeared only Parkland.
            1.Dealey plaza’s testimony=right side of the haed.
            2.Zapruder,Nix,Matchmore filmes=right side of the head.
            3.Parkland testimony=back of the head.
            4.Bethesda testimony=right side of the head.

            Remember, in the Zapruder film, what you might think it a large gaping wound is simply a piece of scalp blown out of place and reflected down over the right temple area.

            There is really no conflict between Zapruder and the autopsy photos and x-rays.

        • “But “The rifle was fired both in direct sunlight and in full shade and no flame was visible.A small amount of white smoke was visible.A small pale orange flame from burning gases emitter from the muzzle would be visible only at night or in a darkened room”(WCE 3133) .
          When JFK’is shot,Dealey Plaza is dark?
          Why Lane did’nt explain this common-sence?”~Hideji Okina

          It is simply balloney that muzzleflash from a rifle cannot be seen in daylight. Here are but a few examples:

          https://i1.wp.com/www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/75153.jpg

          https://youtu.be/3fyekZEDUXA

          https://youtu.be/HF3h97Cc4JE
          Muzzle Flash in daylight is too common to argue about. Fast Forward >> to 3:38

          \\][//

          • HIDEJI OKINA says:

            Thanks your comment.
            Perhaps this blog members watch so
            many (conspiracy side and official side) shooting experiment.
            In almost experiment image,minor puff of smoke is visible,muzzle of flash is not visible.
            If puff of smoke or muzzle of flash are visible.
            Why shooter’s figure or barrel of rifle not visible?
            Jean Hill and Ed Hoffman’s testimony is nothing reliance.
            “The theory of the sensationalists depends on a rifleman,whom no one sees,shooting a rifle that no one sees and that does not expel cartridge cases,…”(“NOVEMBER 22,1963:YOU ARE THE JURY”,David Belin,397p).
            If you are the jury,you believe a
            these testimony?
            “I see puff of smoke and muzzle of flash in knoll area,between me and the knoll distance is xxxyards.
            (Hill 34yard,Holland 65 yard,Bowers 130 yards,Hoffman 210 yards)”.
            “I not see a shooter’s figure or rifle barrel”.

      • JFK’s head big wound position is not a back of the head!

        It is the case that essentially all of the Dealey Plaza witnesses put the large wound on the top or right side of Kennedy’s head:

        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpwound.htm

        Some witnesses (Newman, Zapruder) thought that was evidence of a shot from the Knoll. But that was their notion about wound ballistics, not their perception.

        • Tom S. says:

          by Jimmy Breslin, published 24 November, 1963:
          Cropped image:

          Link to entire page with date and newspaper visible at top of image.: (file size 508 kb)
          https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Lpu4P_QE_54/V0tw2adVChI/AAAAAAAAEP8/vFd1daCmF4sU__LLX0qTK5QK5gsZptZLgCCo/s512/PerryBackOfHeadBreslinNov24.jpg

          • HIDEJI OKINA says:

            Thanks your comment and newspaper article.
            Shortly after the head shot,people’s testimony is confusion.
            In dealey plaza,so many people see a
            JFK’s right side head big wound.
            They interpret this big exit wound
            (behind shooter=OSWALD) as
            big entry wound(fornt shooter=Knoll’s
            shooter).
            Their testimony is not sighting scene,
            but “opinion”.

            Parkland testimony is only confusion,worthless,meaningless,useless.
            I read and analyised so many gunshot wound book,from 18 century to 21 century.

            Before the great war,entry wound and exit
            wound size no difference.
            After the great war,entry wound smaller
            then exit wound.
            Why?
            Because a too old,big,heavy bullet exit wound is not a big one.
            In 1963,parkland doctors and nurses wisdom
            about entry and exit wounds basis their
            experience.
            But OSWALD bullet’s is not a modern bullet.
            Their wisdom is useless.
            Perhaps a almost(all?) conspiracy-side assassination resercher neglect this common-sence.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            HIDEJI OKINA
            June 2, 2016 at 8:21 pm
            “After the Great War, entry wound smaller then exit wound.”

            “Why?”

            “Because a too old, big, heavy bullet exit wound is not a big one.”

            I’d need to see a reference for that one. It should certainly be larger than the entry wound. I’ve seen a lot of bullet wounds. I have never had a problem determining which was the entry wound and which was the exit wound.

            “In 1963, Parkland doctors and nurses wisdom about entry and exit wounds basis their experience.”

            The Parkland crew had much more experience in a death by bullet autopsy than the crew that actually did the autopsy. Granted a lot of their experience was from pistol wounds.”

          • Tom S. says:

            Bill, no need to keep a straight face. It was not the sort of an inquiry in which the distinction of rifle vs. pistol wound particularly mattered…..Specter exhibited the temerity to describe (discredit) the disappeared, alleged reporters’ questions to Perry as “LEADING”!

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/perry_m2.htm
            ……….
            Mr. SPECTER – Assuming that was a point of entry of a missile, which parenthetically was the opinion of the three autopsy surgeons, and assuming still further that the missile which struck the President at that spot was a 6.5-mm. jacketed bullet shot from a rifle at a distance of 160 to 250 feet, having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, and that upon entering the President’s body, the bullet traveled between two strap muscles, through a fascia channel, without violating the pleural cavity, striking the trachea, causing the damage which you testified about being on the interior of the President’s throat, and exited from the President’s throat in the wound which you have described in the midline of his neck, would your findings and observations as to the nature of the wound on the throat be consistent with the set of facts I just presented to you?
            Dr. PERRY – It would be entirely compatible.
            ……..
            Mr. SPECTER – And to those leading questions you have said here today that you responded that a number of possibilities were present as to what might have happened?
            Dr. PERRY – That’s correct. I had no way of ascertaining, as I said, the true trajectory. Often questions were directed as to—in such a manner as this: “Doctor, is it possible that if he were in such and such a position and the bullet entered here, could it have done that?” And my reply, “Of course, if it were possible, yes, that is possible, but similarly, it did not have to be so, necessarily.”….

            Dey shore wuz lukky dis wuz missin’! Dey looked everywhere….couldn’t find it!:
            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md41/html/Image4.htm

            If only Rowley had looked in his “in box”…..
            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md41/html/Image9.htm
            Whoops!

          • HIDEJI OKINA says:

            Thanks your comment,Bill.

            “The exit wound is moch more variable than the extrance.In very many cases it is almost exactly like the extrance wound,so much so that even surgions with very wide experience of gunshot wounds often find it impossible to distinguish one from the other”
            (Gunshot Wound,C.G.SPENCER,1908,31P)

            “Wound of Exit–These wounds are more variable in extent and shape than the wound of extrance.Again with maximum velocities,provided no bone lesion is present,the exit apeture is offten difficult to discrimiate from the extrance wound.The two wounds may be equel in size,the extrance wound may show inverted edges,while in the exit wound the edges are generally everted”
            (GUNSHOT INJURIES,COLONEL LOUIS A. LA GARDE,1916,54P)

            JFK’s throat wound edge type is
            not a extry wound,but shored exit wound,
            I thiknk so.

          • “JFK’s throat wound edge type is not a extry [entry] wound,but shored exit wound, I thiknk so.”~HIDEJI OKINA

            JFK’s throat wound was obliterated by a scalpel Mr. Okina, anyone pretending to assess that wound as it was when JFK’s body arrived at Bethesda is simply talking out of their hat.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Tom S.
            June 3, 2016 at 3:19 pm

            “Bill, no need to keep a straight face.”

            No need to be paranoid Tom. I mean no harm.

            “It was not the sort of an inquiry in which the distinction of rifle vs. pistol wound particularly mattered….”

            I believe I was speaking of autopsies in general.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Tom, you wrote:

            “Specter exhibited the temerity to describe (discredit) the disappeared, alleged reporters’ questions to Perry as ‘LEADING’!” and provided this quote:

            “……..
            Mr. SPECTER – And to those leading questions you have said here today that you responded that a number of possibilities were present as to what might have happened?”

            But you overlooked the part immediately before that. It wasn’t Specter who first described the reporters’ questions as “leading.” It was Perry:

            QUOTE:
            Mr. SPECTER – In response to an earlier question which I asked you, I believe you testified that you did not have sufficient facts available initially to form an opinion as to the source or direction of the cause of the wound, did you not?
            Dr. PERRY – That’s correct, although several leading questions were directed toward me at the various conferences.
            Mr. SPECTER – And to those leading questions you have said here today….”

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md41/html/Image3.htm

            I don’t know what Perry was referring to, but when he first described the wound below the Adam’s apple, a reporter asked, “Doctor, is it the assumption that it went through the head?” — implying it might be an entrance wound with the head wound being the exit.

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md41/html/Image3.htm

          • Tom S. says:

            Jean, you’ve made me aware that I overlooked Perry being first to use the description, “leading,” and that it was an appropriate description of questions put to Perry about the origin of the head wound. I reread the transcript and I previously had not separated the head wound questions from the neck wound descriptions and questions. It is now my impression reporters at the initial press conference did not actually influence what Perry said about the trajectory of the bullet that caused the neck wound after it struck JFK’s neck, but they did attempt to. Perry repeated that he did not have enough information to determine the course of the bullet after it made its entrance in the neck.

            I doubt I’m the only one who thought he was making excuses in his WC testimony for his neck wound of entrance statements to the press, or blaming the press for that portion of his press statement.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Thanks for that reply, Tom. If I’m understanding you correctly, I agree with you. I hadn’t noticed that a reporter had asked Perry that question until I re-read it just now. And I think it looked like an entry wound to Perry no matter what the reporters said.

            However, I think he was clearly wrong because it makes more sense (fits the evidence better) that it was an exit.

          • Tom S. says:

            Jean, this seems an example of evaluating and attempting to interpret the testimony as I imagine informed observers could have, if there had been such individuals in the Parkland press conference, and then also present months later to observe Specter’s questioning of Dr. Perry. Our last exchange is reinforced by this, if they are essentially direct quotes of Dr. Perry, obtained on November 23 and published on the 24th.:

            If both of us put our opinions aside, it seems clear Dr. Perry is emphasizing he is not going to sit still while journalists or the WC attempt to link him to speculation about the “inside” track of whatever pierced the neck. Dr. Perry was not contradicted by the transcript, once it became available to compare with what he later said. Dr. Kemp Clark gave responses at the press conference supporting Perry’s “I don’t have enough information to discuss/determine an inside track.”

            I did not anticipate I could interpret it that way. He certainly is not later emphasizing he had said the wound to the neck was a wound of entry, but he is later separating that controversy from what he was in no position to observe, “inside” tracks. He exhibits the concerns of a scientist intent on maintaining his credibility with others in his field. It might have been an emphasis relied on to distract from his influence on the lone gunman question, but you’ve removed my criticism of both Perry and Specter in the example I presented. The transcript does not contradict the Specter/Perry Q&A I now accept I presented as an inaccurate example of excuse and contradiction.

          • “And I think it looked like an entry wound to Perry no matter what the reporters said.

            However, I think he was clearly wrong because it makes more sense (fits the evidence better) that it was an exit.”~Jean Davison

            What evidence does it fit better with that it was an exit wound?

            Are you back to denying that the back wound was actually at T-3? Despite Dr Burkley’s death certificate.
            > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in Boswell’s autopsy face sheet.
            > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in that photograph.
            > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in his shirt.
            > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in his coat.
            > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is as told by SS Agent Sibert.

            Despite Dr Baden’s testimony that the wound corresponded to the holes in Kennedy’s clothing?
            See:

            Testimony of Michael Baden, Head of the Medical Panel

            Mr. KLEIN: Whose clothing is that and where did it come from?

            Dr. BADEN: This is the clothing worn by President Kennedy at the time of the assassination and does show various perforations in the fabric that were of importance for the medical panel to evaluate. Present on the mannequin is the jacket and shirt and tie. The jacket and the clothing had been torn at Parkland Hospital by the examining physicians in the course of providing emergency care to the President .

            Mr. KLEIN: And with respect to the wounds to the President’s back, what did the panel learn from that clothing?

            Dr. BADEN: In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President.
            This is correspondingly seen in the shirt beneath.
            [1 HSCA 196: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_5_Baden.pdf%5D

            The hole in the jacket was 5.5 inches below the upper margin of the jacket collar, and the hole in the shirt, 5 3/4 below the upper margin of the shirt collar [7 HSCA 83] about where witnesses said the back wound was – well below the base of the neck.
            \\][//
            . . .
            Continued>>

          • [Continued from above]

            Adding to that the revelations from the ARRB that Commander Humes is a liar:

            The deposition of DR. JAMES JOSEPH HUMES BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD
            Re: PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
            College Park, Maryland on Tuesday, February 13, 1996
            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/humesa.htm
            . . .
            Despite the fact that it is proven conclusively that the Parkland Bullet is a distinct and different bullet than CE399?

            The break in the chain of custody being shown too many times on this forum to repeat yet again…

            The first 4 to have the Parkland Bullet being:
            1. Orderly Darrell Tomlinson >>
            2. Parkland hospital security director O.P. Wright >>
            3. SS Agent Richard Johnsen >>
            4. Agent Rowley (Secret Service Chief).
            NONE of which could identify the bullet as CE399.

            . . .
            The pathologists who conducted President Kennedy’s autopsy were presented with the CE 399 bullet by representatives of the Warren Commission and were asked whether they thought it could have caused Connally’s injuries. Dr James Humes, the chief pathologist, replied:

            “I think that is most unlikely. … This missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of those locations. … I doubt if this missile would have left behind it any metallic fragments from its physical appearance at this time. … Metallic fragments were not removed and are still present in Governor Connally’s thigh. I can’t conceive of where they came from this missile.” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, pp.374–76)

            The other two pathologists, Dr J. Thornton Boswell (ibid., p.377) and Dr Pierre Finck (“there are too many fragments”: ibid., pp.381f), agreed with Dr Humes.

            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Tom,

            Since it’s rare that anyone changes his or her mind on any issue in this discussion, I was very impressed by your post of 1:25a.m. Bravo, Tom.

          • Tom S. says:

            Well Jean, you spurred me to discovering the Friden Print-punch postal money order transition, which led to Lance Payette’s discovery ( see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22675&page=14&#entry326728 ) of the File Locator Number explanation for the number sequence visible in the upper left of the Klein’s Sporting Goods deposited postal money order, as a result of my attempt to debunk your observation that the key punched, round holes on the right side of the money order confirmed Federal Reserve Bank processing.

            The result of our debate in that example, as in this one, is that the facts do speak if they are permitted to be teased out instead of smothered under the weight of pursuit of ONLY supporting evidence instead of all relevant evidence. We now have explanation for why and how the Klein’s postal money order was recovered in Washington/Arlington instead of in K.C., MO, a partial explanation for why there are no bank processing stamps required or visible on the back of the Klein’s money order, and why there was a large discrepancy in the serial number of the Klein’s money order compared to prior money orders Oswald was known to have purchased at the same Dallas P.O. We know we created a stir because John Armstrong “appropriated” my new research under his name.:
            http://www.ctka.net/2016/ArmstrongMailOrderRifle/Money_Orders.html
            Vs. http://jfk.education/node/11

            Jean, I don’t mind learning what actually happened, (It seems ludicrous that it even needs to be said.) wherever evidence influenced rethinking and revision leads.

            I am surprised and very disappointed at the willingness of some who I formerly assumed to be truth seekers to reflexively and stubbornly place other priorities on higher rungs, just as they’ve accused the WC, FBI, CIA, and LN advocates of doing.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “What evidence does it fit better with that it was an exit wound?”

            Hello? Remember the two disappearing bullets that you thought might be on an x-ray but weren’t? Where did they go, Willy?

            “Are you back to denying that the back wound was actually at T-3?”

            Back to? I never left. How do you explain the minor damage to the C-7 and T-1 vertebrae that was noticed on the x-rays at least as far back as the Rockefeller Commission, starting line 16 here:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31992&relPageId=55&search=vertebrae_T1

            Why is there damage at that location and not at the T-3 level?

            You have no viable alternative to the throat wound’s being an exit.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Well Jean, you spurred me to discovering the Friden Print-punch postal money order transition…. as a result of my attempt to debunk your observation that the key punched, round holes on the right side of the money order confirmed Federal Reserve Bank processing.”

            Indeed, you did debunk my observation, as I conceded in a post (December 24, 2015 9:21 am) in which I also praised you for your good work on the money order:

            http://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-9/

            I’m ready to admit error too, Tom.

            “Jean, I don’t mind learning what actually happened, wherever evidence influenced rethinking and revision leads.
            I am surprised and very disappointed at the willingness of some who I formerly assumed to be truth seekers to reflexively and stubbornly place other priorities on higher rungs, just as they’ve accused the WC, FBI, CIA, and LN advocates of doing.”

            Yes, I agree. I get the impression that it’s not even a conscious choice, usually, but more of a subconscious battle between wanting to know what really happened and wanting to be right.

          • TomS, Jean Davison, What precisely has been established by clarifying whether or not Perry was being asked leading questions about the head wound or the neck wound? Or am I missing a glaring revelation. Does it speak to the wider issue that Perry initially, both instinctively and as a trained physician, believed the throat to have been penetrated by a bullet fired from a weapon from in front of the limousine? After all, isn’t that the crux of the debate involving Perry.

            These two examples – Perry’s testimony and the Postal Money Order – prompt the question: aside from possible damning evidence with the release of CIA files in 2017 or proof that Oswald was standing outside the building, what single revelation or correction of specific ‘sacred cows’ might tip the scales in the grand scheme of things? Establishing whether or not the postal money order passed thru the Klein’s account is a seminal break through (although I confess to my continued to confusion – why didn’t the instrument have the checking account number of Klein’s stamped on the back “for deposit only”?), and identifying whether or not Perry was being coerced has bearing as it speaks to the ethos of the WC, but in the aggregate will these effect either side’s position? Would it change someone’s mind, for instance Jean’s, to realize the evidence of the money order compromises the allegations against Oswald to a certain degree; would it change the mind of anyone who argues that Perry’s claim of a throat wound continues to be contradicted by his colleagues and peers? Does either revelation serve other than to emphasize that assumptions directly related to the fundamental argument (Oswald tied to the alleged weapon and an entry wound from the front) should be revisited without bias – a concept that in and of itself is obvious in a cold case murder investigation but sadly, not a requirement of historians. Neither correction proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Oswald shot Kennedy from the 6th floor sniper’s nest, nor that beyond reasonable doubt shots were fired from the front of the limo indicating a conspiracy.

            From Fragments of Choeriuls of Samos, ‘with persistence a drop of water hollows out the stone’. While these two corrections stand on their own merit, do they represent seminal shifts when placed in context? Which prompts the next question: where is the context?

          • Tom S. says:

            Leslie, I’m going to wait to give Jean an first opportunity to reply to your questions.,
            Klein’s deposit stamp displaying its account number, is in fact, the only “inside the banking system”
            stamp displayed on the reverse side of the PMO. The argument of those challenging the authenticity of
            the PMO, claiming that it was “faked” and likely did not exist before 23 November, 1963, is that there are
            no “bank processing” stamps on the reverse side. They claim a “real” PMO absent any markings would have
            been “refused” at some point before reaching the US Treasurer’s check and PMO processing center. They offer
            no 1963 era proof of a process marking requirement or of a mechanism of culling such a PMO from the processing, payment, and archiving steps….. Jim DiEugenio insists the PMO cannot be examined incrementally, since he knows the rifle was not purchased with that postal money order. However, he permits the incremental debunking arguments that he likes.

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22578&p=325397
            Jim DiEugenio…….
            This all started in earnest when Lance the Lawyer jumped on and tried to say that because he had the UFC number on the (ersatz) money order, then CASE CLOSED, LHO ordered the rifle and had it in his effects.

            I tried to say that hold it, because one stage of a ten part transaction seems OK, that does not mean all the other nine stages are. In fact, its the opposite in a court of law–the fact that the other nine are dubious means the single one is probably ersatz and added e.g. the markings on CE 399….

            Lance’s reply is,in contrast, interesting.:

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22609&p=323162
            Lance Payette:

            Do some of you folks perhaps – and I say this with the highest respect – actually have a screw loose?…..and working at a highly sensitive radar factory in Minsk (my wife’s sister worked there and was not even allowed to travel outside the Soviet Union solely because she worked there), married a mysterious Russian woman six weeks after being introduced to her,….. thereafter established his credentials as a pro-Castro crusader while operating out of the office of one of the most virulent anti-Castro fanatics who ever lived … well, one could go on almost indefinitely, but you get the picture.

            Right, that’s what the life of a lone-nut Presidential-assassin-in-the-making looks like. NOT.

            My wife lived in Minsk for decades. She assures me Oswald’s entire Soviet saga, from start to finish, was impossible. It cannot be explained in mundane terms. I would say the same is true of his American saga…..

            It is not a UFC, it is a File Locator Number, (beginning with 138…) explained here.: http://jfk.education/node/11
            It has nothing to do with what Oswald did or did not do, it is simply a thorough study of PMO issue, processing and archiving in a transitional period ushering an entirely new Post Office redesign of those three steps.

        • “Hello? Remember the two disappearing bullets that you thought might be on an x-ray but weren’t? Where did they go, Willy?”~Jean Davison

          Well Jean, you show me an X-ray that is clear of the area of the chest cavity and the stomach area. One that isn’t as murky as a 5th generation Xerox copy, and I will admit you have something.

          You ask:

          “Why is there damage at that location and not at the T-3 level?”

          Simple Jean, that is where the bullet entered at front of the throat.
          \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            There are no bullets on the x-rays, Willy.
            Listen to Sibert & O’Neill, who were at the autopsy and wrote:

            “Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body as determined by total body X-Rays and inspection revealing there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets.”

            http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Sibert-O'Neill.html

            “Total body x-rays.” “No bullets.”

            Now what?

          • “Total body x-rays.” “No bullets.”~Jean Davison

            These X-rays are not in the public domain.

            Sibert also says the wound on JFK’s back was low, in the area of T-3.

            You want to buy Sibert, then the bullet to the throat exited from that back wound.
            Perhaps not in the car when it happened but during the cardiac massage at Parkland.

            Perhaps THAT is the bullet from the gurney.

            But seriously I would want to see these X-rays myself before making any serious suppositions here.

            All there is in the public domain is one lousy chest X-ray that, like I said is as clear as a 5th generation Xerox copy.

            Why are the X-rays and autopsy photos still being withheld from the public after half a century?
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Willy, I didn’t think the x-rays and further autopsy photos were being withheld but were lost. E.G. Less on eventual inventory than signed for from Burke or RFK. A different set of photographs developed by (?) Saundra Spencer(?).

  11. James Feldman says:

    What I’d like to know is why Hideji Okina and John McAdams are always able to get their pro-official lie posts published, no matter how absurd their “arguments” are, but I always have my posts “moderated” and then dismissed, even though I provide detailed evidence and support for my statements? Is this just another one of those many “wild coincidences” associated with the JFK assassination and its cover up?

    • Tom S. says:

      James ?….or do you prefer to be addressed as Ralph? Let us review. On May 21, you submitted two comments well in excess of 500 words.

      It seems it is not enough for you to come at Dr. McAdams as “James Feldman,” because on May 23, this alias submitted a comment associated with the same IP# “James Feldman,” comments had been exclusively associated with.:

      Ralph Adamo – In reply to John McAdams. The best of Mark Lane, JFK author – 2016/05/24 at 12:33 am
      It seems that John McAdams is embroiled in a case of his own, where his employer, Marquette University, concluded, among other things, that …..

      The next day:

      http://jfkfacts.org/best-mark-lane-jfk-author/#comment-878103
      James Feldman The best of Mark Lane, JFK author – 2016/05/24 at 12:33 am
      Willy, you must understand that John McAdams “can’t see” the flash of gunfire unless those Hollywood special effects are added to create the right Ummpph to the visuals,……

      After approving the comment above, I “caught on.” I’ve extended you two courtesies….I approved a comment submitted by you even after you abused your comment privilege, and now by taking the time and effort to approve your final comment here and respond to your whining and your final abuse towards me and our readers. Buh-bye!

    • HIDEJI OKINA says:

      Thanks your comment.
      I think all side cover-up is existed.
      Official-side,Conspiracy(resercher)-side,Ofiicial-witness-side,
      Conspiracy-witness-side.
      It’s sad,all four side answer first,disguise,decpetion,cover-up,self-seeking,self-centered,dishonesty…
      For example,perhaps a “Mary’s mosaic”,”INSIDE THE ARRB”,”Brothers”,”SURVIVOR’S GUILT”,”The Girl on The Stairs” are famous among the JFK assassination reserch-community.
      I’m not agree.
      Especially “Brothers” and “Mary’s mosaic”‘s truth-seek technique is so bad.
      Recently,resercher’s side “truth-seek” method is dramatically changed.
      They want proved conspiracy-existance by cover-up existance?
      “Grassy knoll shooter’s existance is cover-up by FBI,WC,HSCA”.
      “This cover-up act proved conspiracy!”
      No! Absolutely not!
      Grassy knoll shooter is not exist.
      U.S goverment cover-up this shooter’s existance “possibility”.
      Until now,perhaps forever,reserch community member not accept
      “Knoll shooter is not exist”.

  12. “Knoll shooter is not exist”.~HIDEJI OKINA

    I emphatically disagree Mr Okina. I think there is more than enough evidence that a shooter was firing from the knoll area. I don’t think that the shot to JFKs head was fired from that spot, but the throat shot to Kennedy may have been, and a shot to Connally’s right wrist may have been.

    Regardless of whether any of the shots from the knoll actually hit a target, there were most certainly shots fired from there.

    Virgil (Ed) Hoffman, a deaf man saw the shooter behind the fence.
    http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKhoffman.htm

    S. M. (Skinny) Holland, reported four shots which sounded as though they came from the trees on the north side of Elm Street where he saw a puff of smoke.
    http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKholland.htm

    Lee Bowers, saw a flash of light and a puff of smoke near the fence and trees on the knoll.
    http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbowers.htm

    Plus the great number of people including police that rushed up the knoll as soon as the firing was over cannot be lightly dismissed.
    \\][//

    • Tom S. says:

      …I emphatically disagree Mr Okina. I think there is more than enough evidence that a shooter was firing from the knoll area. I don’t think that the shot to JFKs head was fired from that spot, but the throat shot to Kennedy may have been, and a shot to Connally’s right wrist may have been.

      Regardless of whether any of the shots from the knoll actually hit a target, there were most certainly shots fired from there…

      Willy, does it occur to you that you have to accept the same weight of evidence of those you disagree with?
      IOW, if your own assertions and conclusions are supported or defined by feather weight evidence, how can you demand iron clad proof from others, without being a hypocrite? If you cannot reasonably counter my question, consider raising your own bar because the result will be that you will seem more reasonable to readers who are seeking well supported presentations, you will reasonably raise the bar of the level of proof required of those who disagree with you, and you will dramatically lessen the risk of impressing readers that you are a hypocrite.

      • “..and you will dramatically lessen the risk of impressing readers that you are a hypocrite.”~Tom S.

        I in fact stand by my assertion that there was most certainly shots fired from the knoll area. And if you think, as you indicate that means I am a hypocrite, I will leave that to your opinion.

        And as a matter of fact I think that the weight of this evidence is heavier than the arguments against.
        \\][//

        • Tom S. says:

          And as a matter of fact I think that the weight of this evidence is heavier than the arguments against.

          Then it follows that the opinion that Oswald purchased the rifle found on the sixth floor is reasonable because, “the weight of this evidence is heavier than the arguments against.”

          You insist that I either accept that the restraints you hold yourself to are not hypocritical, or in effect, you could care less and take no responsibility if I associate your unreasonableness with hypocrisy. Consider that I am not even regarded by your adversaries as one of them, in fact the opposite is not an unreasonable observation.

          • “Then it follows that the opinion that Oswald purchased the rifle found on the sixth floor is reasonable because, “the weight of this evidence is heavier than the arguments against.”~Tom

            Is it really? I disagree, but not on the points you might think I refer to. I think that it is reasonable to assume that Harry Holmes had access to the PO box and received both the pistol and the rifle, rather than Oswald.
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            I think that it is reasonable to assume that Harry Holmes had access to the PO box and received both the pistol and the rifle, rather than Oswald.

            There is no support for a claim the revolver was sent to the post office. The rest is your assumption. Willy, again,
            the consequence of your weighing mechanism is you cannot expect any higher quality of verifiable evidence or accuracy than what you are willing to hold yourself to. You let your opponents off the hook, whether you accept that you do, or not. I crusade against BS. I just put up a comment indicating the low flash point of Mark Lane’s pants.
            I reacted to your emphatic claims of a knoll shooter. You’re painting yourself into a corner. Why do it? Why not hold yourself and thus, everyone you debate, to a strict standard. Weisberg attempted to, most of the time. He felt intensely that Lane did not. I see that Lane is revered by, in many instances, posters on the internet who same less informed of his record and background than I attempt to be. I see in numerous other areas, posters repeating what they’ve read that impressed them, while doing no research of their own, back to original or other primary sources.

            Per Jim DiEugenio’s request, I made an edit to the LHO wikipedia article supported by links backing this opinion.:

            http://www.ctka.net/2011/wiki_pt2_addendum.html
            ………
            Contrary to what the careless Mr. Fernandez placed on the Lee Harvey Oswald page at Wikipedia, the actual package with the handgun could not possibly have been sent to Oswald’s box. Only the USPS delivers packages to its boxes. When the package arrived in the REA office at 515 South Houston in Dallas, a postcard should have been sent to Hidell at his box. And the date of this mailing should have been noted in their documentary record of the transaction. Again, this record is not in evidence. REA possessed no documents to certify the identity of the individual who picked up the package or the date of the pickup…..

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            If you combine the CTKA info with the Senator Byrd investigation into gun running at the time it is suspicious. I read something a while back about the possibility of someone from his office ordering the pistol. I don’t remember where. Something about a test of how the mail order process worked, for the committee. Whatever I read I think it also mentioned Byrd’s relationship with the CIA. Maybe someone can provide backup for my old memory.
            Then again I read years ago, once again with no source, that at some point Oswald said he bought the pistol at a pawn shop in Fort Worth.
            Lastly, it’s been pointed out by others that Oswald’s 38 was the most popular model in the Nation with Police Departments, including the DPD.
            Some have speculated he never had a pistol, that it was planted by the DPD.

    • Virgil (Ed) Hoffman, a deaf man saw the shooter behind the fence.

      But his testimony is highly questionable.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoffman.htm

      S. M. (Skinny) Holland, reported four shots which sounded as though they came from the trees on the north side of Elm Street where he saw a puff of smoke.

      More witnesses thought the shots came from the TSBD. No reason to doubt that Holland thought that, but his testimony is not better than the people who thought something else.

      Lee Bowers, saw a flash of light and a puff of smoke near the fence and trees on the knoll.

      “Puff of smoke?” Where did you get that?

      And have you ignored the fact that the two men he described to Mark Lane were in front of the fence, right out in the Plaza?

      It’s been discussed here extensively.

      Plus the great number of people including police that rushed up the knoll as soon as the firing was over cannot be lightly dismissed.

      Not “as soon as the shooting was over.” Only after Clyde Haygood got into the Plaza and ran up the slope.

      • “More witnesses thought the shots came from the TSBD. No reason to doubt that Holland thought that, but his testimony is not better than the people who thought something else.”~McAdams

        We have been through this before McAdams and this assertion, though you make it time and again, simply is not true.
        \\][//

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Willy Whitten
          June 4, 2016 at 6:45 pm

          “We have been through this before McAdams and this assertion, though you make it time and again, simply is not true.”

          And you do this time and time after time, Willy. Didn’t Tom warn you about being a hypocrite?

          • We have been over this time and again. And the numbers are close to even, with a few more on the knoll side. So Mcadams is wrong.

            everyone paying attention knows that Galanor’s numbers apply to the number of witnesses claiming shots from the knoll compared to shots from TSBD.

            To confuse this context with the number of shots fired is disingenuous. Those numbers are a completely different tabulation.

            To make it simple for you Clarke; the PLACE of origin, and the NUMBER of shots are two separate issues.

            \\][//

    • HIDEJI OKINA says:

      Oh!You believed a Ed Hoffman’s testimony?
      I read his first book(signed) and last book.
      Hoffman insisted he saw knoll shooter,and accomplice.
      Knoll shooter’s accomplice?
      Why Holland and Bowers didn’t see this man?
      Knoll shooter throw the rifle to this man?
      It’s over action.
      Why this action didn’t see except Hoffman?
      In “Behind the fence”(Published by JFK LANCER),
      this book so many picture and drawing contain
      (perhaps over 200).
      Between the Hoffman and knoll’s distance is 210 yards.
      This view’s picture is only one.
      Why?
      In CBS 1993 special document “Who Killed President Kennedy?”,Hoffman’s testimony image and his view
      image are on-air. 
      I can’t believed his super-eyesight.
      If knoll shooter is exist,if puff of smoke and
      plash of light is exist,he can’t see it.
      Because knoll is too far from him.
      You must watch “Who Killed President Kennedy?”(1993,CBS)
      and read “NO MORE SILENCE:An Oral History of the Assassination of President Kennedy”(LARRY A. SNEED,University of North Texas Press,1998).
      In this book introduction,author blamed a Bevery Oliver,Gordon
      Arnold,Jean Hill, and Ed Hoffman.
      I think Hoffman is only second Jean Hill.

  13. “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.”~Jesse Curry

    This is so today as well as when Curry said it. There is no direct proof, no witness to Oswald firing that gun.

    All there is here is disputed evidence. As Hoover said to LBJ, “we don’t have a very very strong case…”

    That case has literally crumbled on so many fronts. Like Norman Mailer remarked, “like a dead whale decomposing on a beach.”

    And as I have reminded, in western jurisprudence, it is up to the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
    This most certainly has not been accomplished in the charges against Lee Harvey Oswald.
    \\][//

    • Tom S. says:

      Willy, I accept that it matters little what I think. I am confined to maintaining my credibility. I aim to be reasonable, earn trust, and keep the trust I’ve earned. I attempt to demand nothing of others that I don’t demand of myself. I expect everyone to be reasonable and to believe what is reasonable. Is this a reasonable reply to your comment?

      http://erstarnews.com/2013/10/25/was-it-a-conspiracy-historical-records-available-on-jfk-assassination/
      Was it a conspiracy? Historical records available on JFK assassination
      Published October 25, 2013 at 2:31 pm
      ………
      Judge John Tunheim of Stillwater talks about the work of the Assassination Records Review Board in the fifth in the series.)
      ……….
      Considering conspiracies

      Tunheim has given presentations to various service organizations in recent months and said his message to his listeners is to look at the evidence and go from there. “If there is something wrong, dig in further,” he says.

      Many people still believe there was a conspiracy in the death of Kennedy, Tunheim said.

      “If you ask them what it was, it breaks down because the public is confused as to what the conspiracy is,” Tunheim continued.

      Tunheim said he will not take sides in the debate of what happened on Nov. 22 and the days following.

      “Get everything out there and let the public decide,” he said. “I am a judge and my view is to look at the hard facts, the evidence,” he added.

      All the hard evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin, Tunheim said. “Oswald had the opportunity and had the means” to commit this act, Tunheim continued….

      • “Tunheim said. “Oswald had the opportunity and had the means” to commit this act, Tunheim continued..”~Tom S.

        That is fine as far as making the accusation. It is nowhere as far as proving it and acquiring a conviction.

        As it stands, by western jurisprudence, Oswald is innocent until proven guilty.

        I will also note, I am not confused as far as what the conspiracy is. Perhaps the “general public” and even many posting here are confused as to that matter. I am not.

        Wait for the “public to decide”? Tunheim means until Hell freezes over.

        It is up to each of us, according to our own lights to study the case and come to our own conclusions. That is what free thought is all about; individual rights and responsibilities.
        \\][//

        • Tom S. says:

          Willy, can you point to an example of a deceased person’s prosecution and conviction? If not, are all accused who die before prosecution immune to determinations of investigations of crimes they were accused of? Did Booth assassinate Lincoln? Your argument related to Oswald’s perpetual innocence, if consistently applied, leaves many murders unsolved and accused murderers as unconnected to the crime they were accused of, as you argue about Oswald. Was Torresola at all culpable at Blair House in 1950? (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griselio_Torresola ) How do you evenly apply your argument to Jack Ruby? Did he murder Oswald by gunshot? Is there an exemption from your “not guilty unless tried and convicted,” if the crime is broadcast on live TV?

          I don’t find your argument as reasonable as Tunheim’s. It seems an exemption instead of an argument because you infer that it is not possible Oswald fired at and hit JFK because no trial took place resulting in an unchallenged verdict. It seems you cannot make your Oswald argument also fit Ruby. Is TV footage evidence but not BYP? Has an official inquiry ever disqualified either?

          • Tom,

            I repeat this again. As there will be no trial of Lee Harvey Oswald:

            It is up to each of us, according to our own lights to study the case and come to our own conclusions. That is what free thought is all about; individual rights and responsibilities.

            YOU ARE THE JURY. I AM THE JURY.

            Each of us are the jury. We must assess the evidence to the best of our abilities and come to our own judgement

            I have been studying this case for more than 40 years.

            I have reached my verdict: Not Guilty.

            You are free to reach your own, or wait indefinitely. That is up to you, and everybody else.
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            You are saying you have no response to my questions and examples? I assume you are saying it is fair to reply to you by ignoring what you ask and present, and simply respond to you with repetitive declaration? Okay then.

          • A few more comments for you Tom:

            You say;
            “you infer that it is not possible Oswald fired at and hit JFK because no trial took place resulting in an unchallenged verdict.”

            No I don’t infer anything of the sort. I state, that I have studied the evidence and come to a conclusion as determined by what I find therein.

            You ask this;
            ” How do you evenly apply your argument to Jack Ruby? Did he murder Oswald by gunshot? Is there an exemption from your “not guilty unless tried and convicted,”

            Obviously Ruby is guilty of murder, no exemption applies universally because the accused is deceased.

            As per Ruby, it should also be, and has been investigated if there were others involved in putting Ruby up to it.
            I think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Ruby was given an “offer he couldn’t refuse”.

            I have no idea of who Torresola was. And frankly I don’t care.
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            That is fine as far as making the accusation. It is nowhere as far as proving it and acquiring a conviction.

            As it stands, by western jurisprudence, Oswald is innocent until proven guilty.

            ………

            I repeat this again. As there will be no trial of Lee Harvey Oswald:

            …………

            Obviously Ruby is guilty of murder, no exemption applies universally because the accused is deceased.

            ……………

            I have no idea of who Torresola was. And frankly I don’t care.

            To be fair to you, I included a link describing who Torresola was and what he was accused of. I won’t be replying to you, again. You hint that you take any disagreement or challenge very personally and that you exempt your own arguments from the bar you set for arguments of others. Consider that I have no adversarial history with you, and yet I find it not worth the bother of engaging you.

          • “To be fair to you, I included a link describing who Torresola was and what he was accused of.”
            ~Tom

            I simply think it is irrelevant to the Kennedy case.

            “Consider that I have no adversarial history with you, and yet I find it not worth the bother of engaging you.”~Ibid

            Your “adversarial history” is only hours old here Tom. I did not pick this argument with you, you picked it with me.

            I have merely stated my case as I see it, as openly and as as up front as I can.

            If you choose not to engage me, that is your choice. But I do not understand the reason for it.

            You have made it clear that you find me “unreasonable” – I don’t think you have proven that here in this exchange.

            However like all of us, you can choose to engage or not to engage anyone you wish.

            I have not replied with any animosity whatsoever here. If you have interpreted it that way, I guarantee you that it has not been my intent.
            \\][//

      • “ . . . All the hard evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin, Tunheim said. “Oswald had the opportunity and had the means” to commit this act, Tunheim continued. “Many of the conspiracy books have been developed because of the more than 5 million pages of records made available by the ARRB, Tunheim said . . ..”

        A word search for the term “motive” in this article produces no hits.

        In U.S. criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a common summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity

        Surely Judge Tunheim was aware that the Warren Commission never established ‘motive’, one leg of that three legged bar stool?

        “The Commission could not make any definitive determination of Oswald’s motives. It has endeavored to isolate factors which contributed to his character and which might have influenced his decision to assassinate President Kennedy. These factors were . . .”
        http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=46

        It took years before anyone provided the public with what they subjectively considered was Oswald’s motive; by then the dye had been cast.

        Who had the greater motive? A 24 yr-old ex-Marine defector returned to his homeland who is alleged to have spontaneously decided he was in the right place at the right time to murder the President of the United States (yet we are persuaded to accept that he had scrambled – not a man of means – to purchase the alleged murder weapon(s)? Or a shadowy group of individuals who had the means and opportunity (did Oswald arrange for Kennedy to pass in front of the building in which he had just weeks prior secured employment or did ‘they?’) – and much to gain, i.e. motive, from the removal of a president poised for reelection who was making noises about peace and co-existence on the planet among other controversial policies. What precisely did Oswald have to gain relative to this cabal? Pseudo psychoanalysts even suggest infamy. That’s a reach compared to the motive of segments of industry, military and intelligence that benefited immediately and definitively from Kennedy’s murder.

        • Tom S. says:

          Leslie, how does your motive argument apply to Ruby? His motive is unpersuasive and he died unconvicted and his first trial was rendered moot by the appeals court verdict. Is it unreasonable to say he shot Oswald? Is the TV evidence against him more compelling than the BYP evidence supporting Oswald having a rifle and a revolver, supported by Marina’s WC testimony?

          • TomS, I’m not sure a conflation of Oswald’s motive and Ruby’s motive is appropriate let alone applicable here. As far as I know, Tunheim did not speak to Jack Ruby’s means and opportunity, let alone his motive. So if we can stick with why Tunheim was not so keen to consider Oswald’s motive, this teasing out might be more productive. We can address Ruby’s means, motive and opportunity in another exchange? I noticed that you cut the Tunheim article short which resulted in revealing that he failed to add that 3rd leg of the barstool, motive, to his observations. I don’t suggest yours was deliberate, but I do wonder if you agree that failure to establish Oswald’s motive was a major flaw of the Warren Commission, and do you wonder why Tunheim avoided the question, or did he? Perhaps it was the author of the article that edited it out.

          • Tom S. says:

            Leslie, I took no notice of motive in the quote I presented of Judge Tunheim. I thought Willy’s argument was that Oswald was innocent until proven guilty. I believe Tunheim is better informed than I am about the assassination investigations and evidence, and about the law. I asked if Tunheim’s opinion was more reasonable than Willy’s. You raised motive, but you don’t want to examine whether a requirement of it also applies to Ruby.

            It seems both you and Willy are making arguments that reasonably would be broadly applicable, but for the sake of discussion here, should be confined to determination of Oswald’s culpability.

            I believe it is unreasonable to declare that Oswald did not fire a rifle. I think what Tunheim said was more reasonable. I don’t think motive is a requirement to suspect either Oswald or Ruby. My argument is that Oswald should not be a special pleading, and I compared his unconvicted state with two other accused who died without being convicted.

            You moved the question from is it reasonable to declare Oswald fired no rifle at JFK, to the WC admitting they could not determine a motive. I’m only saying I think it is reasonable to suspect Oswald fired shots at JFK, considering the evidence. I’m not saying anyone is innocent or guilty.

            It seems some arguments only apply to Oswald?

          • TomS, I responded to the Tunheim link without carefully considering the exchange you were having with Willy Whitten; mine was a “stand alone” and in my opinion carefully reasoned response to Tunheim’s assertion that Oswald was the lone assassin yet Tunheim had no comment related to motive which ‘should’ be established in a murder investigation . Ruby didn’t enter into my equation.

            The formatting of this particular site/forum has its limitations. I don’t have the answers nor could I recommend a current template on any other assassination related website that works more efficiently, but I recognize that the flow of discussion here is frequently skewed.

          • Tom S. says:

            in my opinion carefully reasoned response to Tunheim’s assertion that Oswald was the lone assassin..

            Leslie, if I thought he had said that, I would not have quoted this from him, because I think that is
            unreasonable. I read what he said as avoiding offering an opinion Oswald acted alone, along with what I would expect a judge’s reaction to the evidence would be, and as I said, he’s seen a lot more of it than any of us have. I think it would be unreasonable if he said Oswald acted alone or that Oswald was the assassin. Instead he says,

            ….All the hard evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin

            Leslie, who else is it reasonable to say the evidence points to….the kind of circumstantial evidence a trial judge would expect to be presented at trial? Don’t you have to consider where he’s coming from to interpret his meaning, and not where you or I am coming from?

            ……
            Tunheim said he will not take sides in the debate of what happened on Nov. 22 and the days following.

            “Get everything out there and let the public decide,” he said. “I am a judge and my view is to look at the hard facts, the evidence,” he added.

            All the hard evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin, Tunheim said. “Oswald had the opportunity and had the means” to commit this act, Tunheim continued….

          • TomS, I’m not sure this should be as complicated as it has become. Tunheim recognized and stated publicly that ‘hard evidence’ pointed to Oswald. Where he stumbled – at least in this article – was a failure to address Oswald’s motive. According to this limited version of where Tunheim stood on a complicated investigation, he determined that Oswald had opportunity and he had the means. What is not included in the article is Tunheim’s perspective on why Oswald determined to employ his means and opportunity on 11.22.63. Are you in accord with the Warren Commission that motive was not necessary to establish guilt? I presume prisons are littered with the convicted whose motive was never established. Does that mean it should be struck from the criteria for a solid case? Perhaps that’s the debate that should be had.

          • Tom S. says:

            Leslie, again, I thought Tunheim’s response was reasonable, especially for a judge who I think has seen more evidence from the investigations than I have.

            …. Tunheim’s perspective on why Oswald determined to employ his means and opportunity on 11.22.63.

            Again, if I thought Tunheim was attempting to establish Oswald’s guilt, I would not have thought a quote from him was reasonable and I would not have used him as a comparison to, “Oswald did not fire a rifle on 22 November.” I don’t think the Warren Commission should have made the finding it did unless it was beyond reasonable doubt and that would require establishing motive.

            I am not interested in a debate because I thought Tunheim was going not much further than what occurs at an arraignment, not a verdict. I’d be interested in debating whether a reasonable person would agree there was sufficient evidence to arraign and try Oswald, but not to declare that Oswald did not fire a rifle on 22 November.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            “…All the hard evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin.”
            NO, It Does Not. The Judge is being obtuse.
            No investigations were done by the defense or prosecution (the Warren Omission).
            There was no defense. The investigators for the prosecution were the FBI who were in Fact deceiving them.
            The “hard” evidence still can’t put Oswald in that window when JFK was shot. No print’s on the gun or casings. A failed paraffin test for a rifle? So much more.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            Wikipedia contradicts itself on whether it’s necessary to establish motive in a criminal trial. A link in the article you refer to says “a motive is not required to reach a verdict.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_(law)

            An online legal dictionary says: “Proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution.”

            http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/motive

          • “Tunheim was going not much further than what occurs at an arraignment, not a verdict. I’d be interested in debating whether a reasonable person would agree there was sufficient evidence to arraign and try Oswald, but not to declare that Oswald did not fire a rifle on 22 November.”
            ~Tom S.

            Yes I see what you are saying here.

            But frankly, if I were a grand juror, or a panel judge at an arraignment, with all the information I have before me now; I would rule against charges being filed.

            And yes, that arraignment would be a complex affair in itself, wherein various evidences and testimonies were considered.
            Rather like the debates that ensue here.

            But my final call would be to acquit at pretrial.
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Part I,
            Willy and Leslie: Tunheim, two years more recently. If I had read this first, I would not have quoted him.:

            http://stillwatergazette.com/2015/11/14/tunheim-brings-varied-experience-to-courtroom-stillwater-resident-to-speak-on-supreme-court-cases/
            Tunheim…to speak on Supreme Court cases
            November 14, 2015
            …..review of evidence, Tunheim’s personal conclusion was that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter….

            “I think the strongest evidence and most direct key evidence supports the conclusion that Oswald did it himself,”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause#United_States
            …..
            In Brinegar v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court defines probable cause as “where the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed.”[6]

            https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/criminal-procedures
            When Someone is Suspected of a Federal Crime…

            1. …..Law enforcement obtains a Warrant for Arrest of the alleged offender. The warrant is based on an Indictment (see below) or a Complaint filed with the U.S. District Court. An Affidavit, signed by a law enforcement officer, usually accompanies the Complaint. The Affidavit explains the crime committed as well as the role of the accused in that crime. In other words, the Affidavit is used to establish probable cause that the accused committed the crime.
            ………..
            4. Preliminary Hearing — ….arrest on a Complaint, the accused also has…, during which an Assistant U.S. Attorney may offer testimony to establish probable cause, and the defense attorney may provide evidence on behalf of the accused. If the Magistrate Judge overseeing the hearing finds sufficient probable cause as to the commission of the crime as well as the accused’s role in it, the accused is bound over for further proceedings by a grand jury…….

            http://www.theforensicteacher.com/Evidence.html
            The Myths of Circumstantial Evidence
            By Ted Yeshion, Ph.D…..
            Unlike direct evidence, which relies on personal knowledge or observation and yields a definite conclusion, circumstantial evidence is based largely on inference and uses inductive reasoning. That is, circumstantial evidence is evidence that indirectly proves a fact or supports a theory. Indirect or circumstantial evidence implies that the defendant was involved in the crime, and is typically sufficient to convict a defendant if the evidence and inferences drawn from the evidence can be used to establish that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the standard of evidence used in criminal trials to overcome the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Thus, evidence need not prove that the defendant is absolutely guilty or guilty beyond any question, but rather that there are no other logical explanations resulting from the case facts that anyone other than the defendant could have committed the crime. Guilt can be proven using a process of logical deduction. …establishing proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the responsibility of the prosecutor. Real, direct, or physical evidence must be presented in court through testimonial evidence to establish a foundation for admissibility….

            continued

          • Tom S. says:

            Judge Tunheim is under the influence of assumptions Willy is unencumbered by. Part of this is a result of very different experience sets. I want to examine these differences in greater depth.:

            Volokh is a law blog with a right wing political bias, it features timely, unique, and informative points and comments across the political spectrum….

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/18/judges-weigh-in-on-credibility-findings-for-law-enforcement/
            Judges weigh in on credibility findings for law enforcement
            Will Baude April 18, 2014

            Judge Richard Kopf, a perennial subject of posts here at the Conspiracy, has now weighed in on the question that Scott Greenfield (1) and I (2) addressed — why is it so rare for a judge to find law enforcement officers not credible?

            The first post (3) is notable mostly for the comment thread, which features comments by several judges or ex-judges with interesting thing to say. One (4) is Alabama Judge Joseph “Rusty” Johnston:

            Yesterday I met with our new police chief (city of 250,000) I I told him I was getting tired of not having video or audio recordings of defendants statements. I said I felt juries disbelieved the rendition by the officer (especially a narcotics officer). I added, I was not sure I was going to believe another citizen consented to the search of his vehicle unless I had a written signed consent to search (which they have). The Chief looked like I had kicked his dog. I said “Hey, the jurors expect this in this age of technology.” We will see.

            In a later comment (5) he explains his perspective:

            Frankly, I am rouge. Always have been (I am a red-head). I have made a number angry by demanded the Alabama Constitution be enforced….

            As the thread continues, he and Judge Kopf quote Nietzsche…

            The other set of judicial comments (6) is by Lorin Duckman, formerly a judge in New York:
            …..
            …..A comment I made, “cops lie all the time,” was introduced as evidence at my removal hearing and served as the basis for finding me biased. I couldn’t have been the only judge who believed that, could I?

            Finally, in a second post, Judge Kopf offers his own answer to the question “Why does Judge Kopf believe cops most of the time?” His post begins:

            The following is not intended as an excuse. Indeed, it may be viewed as an indictment. With the foregoing keenly in mind, and in no particular order, here are some of my thoughts on why I have tended to believe cops most of the time.

            He then gives nine separate reasons:….
            https://wednesdaywiththedecentlyprofane.me/2014/04/18/why-does-kopf-believe-cops-most-of-the-time/

            ….The following is not intended as an excuse. Indeed, it may be viewed as an indictment…..

            I am a ****** judge of credibility…..Thus, when forced to judge between a cop and a defendant it is safer to believe the cop..

            22 Comments

            (1) http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/04/17/judicial-incentives-why-judges-wont-condemn-cops/#more-20677
            (2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/15/five-police-officers-found-lying-and-why-its-so-rare/
            (3) http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2014/04/17/scott-greenfield-and-why-judges-wont-condemn-cops/
            (4) http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2014/04/17/scott-greenfield-and-why-judges-wont-condemn-cops/#comment-12715
            (5) http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2014/04/17/scott-greenfield-and-why-judges-wont-condemn-cops/#comment-12721
            (6) http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2014/04/17/scott-greenfield-and-why-judges-wont-condemn-cops/#comment-12734

          • Motive

            Proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution. In determining the guilt of a criminal defendant, courts are generally not concerned with why the defendant committed the alleged crime, but whether the defendant committed the crime.

            **However, a defendant’s motive is important in other stages of a criminal case, such as police investigation and sentencing. Law enforcement personnel often consider potential motives in detecting perpetrators.**

            Judges may consider the motives of a convicted defendant at sentencing and either increase a sentence based on avaricious motives or decrease the sentence if the defendant’s motives were honorable—for example, if the accused acted in defense of a family member.

            In criminal law, motive is distinct from intent. Criminal intent refers to the mental state of mind possessed by a defendant in committing a crime. With few exceptions the prosecution in a criminal case must prove that the defendant intended to commit the illegal act. The prosecution need not prove the defendant’s motive.

            **Nevertheless, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike may make an issue of motive in connection with the case.**

            http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/motive

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            **We are at the stage of Discovery**~WW
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Discovery (law)

            Discovery, in the law of the United States and other countries, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as a request for answers to interrogatories, request for production of documents, request for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)

          • I obviously missed my mark on this. The purpose was to point out that Judge Tunheim referenced “means and opportunity” but failed to speak to “motive”. The quick link to wiki was to acknowledge that when means and opportunity are referenced, motive is usually not far behind in the investigation phase. I didn’t say or at least didn’t mean to infer that motive is required for a conviction. Tunheim seemed comfortable with stating that Oswald’s means and opportunity were supported the hard evidence or vice versa. My question was why didn’t he speak to motive. And why did the Warren Commission address the fact they had not been able to clearly define “motive” if it was not a component of their investigation?

        • HIDEJI OKINA says:

          I read a Osawld trial fiction book “The People vs Lee Harvey Oswald”(Walt Brown).
          I watch a Oswald trial movies(Black and white movie,ABC’s TV-movie).
          I watch or read a Oswald mock-trial program or
          materials(On Trial,By BBC,1986),(U.S Versus Lee Harvey Oswald,By ABA,1992)(By Texas State Bar Assosiation,2013).
          Fictional trial movies ended Oswald almost innocent(Jury is audience).
          Fictional trial book ended Oswald innocent(But Tippet case is guilt).
          Mock trials are guilt or innocent,four times
          vote,40 of 48 jury vote his guilt.
          If fair trial is hold,I think Oswald is guilt.
          Conspiray theory is only theory,in mock trial,
          conspiray side is weak.
          Conspiracy side strong only among reserch books.
          Especially Walt Brown’s fictional trial book “People VS Lee Harvey Oswald” is not fair.
          This book is professional half-truth book,answer-first(Oswald innocent).

          • “I read a Osawld trial fiction book “The People vs Lee Harvey Oswald”(Walt Brown).
            I watch a Oswald trial movies(Black and white movie,ABC’s TV-movie).”~HIDEJI OKINA

            That’s nice Hideji. Good for you.
            \\][//

          • HIDEJI OKINA says:

            I search 1992 mock-trial full transcript,
            now this transcript(book) is out of stock.
            If someone know this transcript existence and purchase method,please inform to me.

  14. Means, Motive, Opportunity, Intent, Modus Operandi, Cui Bono — The main features of Criminal Investigation.

    In U.S. criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a common summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant committed the crime (motive), and whether the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity). Opportunity is most often disproved by use of an alibi, which can prove the accused was not able to commit the crime as he or she did not have the correct set of circumstances to commit the crime as it occurred. Motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction.

    Establishing the presence of these three elements is not, in and of itself, sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt; the evidence must prove that an opportunity presented was indeed taken by the accused and for the crime with which he or she is charged. For an example, consider this ruling in the case of a suspect accused of robbery and assault:

    … evidence of motive, means, opportunity, and consciousness of guilt are not enough to establish guilt. Compare Commonwealth v. Mandile, 403 Mass. 93, 98 (1988) (evidence of motive, means, unexplained possession of property, and consciousness of guilt not enough to establish robbery). On this record the evidence is insufficient to permit a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the victim’s assailant… Nothing in the record sufficiently links the defendant to the crime to permit the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the perpetrator.[1]

    Contrary to fictional depictions, the court cannot convict merely on these three elements; the prosecution must provide convincing evidence, and prove an opportunity actually acted upon by the defendant.

    For example, if a criminal shot someone with a handgun and took his/her money when the victim was in an isolated, secluded area at night, the means would be the handgun, the motive financial (i.e., the money they stole), and the opportunity the fact that it would be unlikely someone else would witness or stop them. For the majority of crimes, means and opportunity are the easiest to prove; however, for some offenses (such as rape or serial killing), the motive can be hard to define.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity

    \\][//

  15. D. E. Mitchell says:

    “…been a while since i last posted, but what the hay! First of all, i challenge ANY serious researcher who DOES NOT think that the Z film has been altered to a frame-by-frame analysis of the extant film! Yes…the current or extant version has in fact, been altered! The film could only have been altered the week-end following the assassination at both NPIC and Hawkeye works!
    President Kennedy was struck in the throat much earlier than is shown in the extant film. The president was struck in the side of the head, just above the right ear, by a very small caliber projectile/missile, causing a very serious defect to the jaw at the mandible, which can be clearly seen after he emerges from behind the “sign’ in the extant film!
    (see frame 208)
    To cut to the chase…everyone on this “cotton pickin’ ” web site, knows all well, that this was a political assassination from beginning to end. They also know that LBJ is the #1 suspect, with a very large constituency of conspirators in high places of government. further; that a cover-up was necessary both for the conspirators to get away, but also for continuity of U.S. Govt. to continue without a domestic ‘meltdown’ or an attack by foreign enemies!
    It is much easier to submit the conspiracy theory than the lone nut theory!
    Frankly, it is time for Government to purvey the truth (much like the Ultra secret of WWII) and to come out with it, than to continue in the cover-up; which is now having a reverse effect upon everything! until up to a few years ago, i think it was necessary to purpitrate a cover-up of the truth for National Security reasons. However, i no longer feel that this is the case; that the continued cover up of the facts can only hurt the Nation and our governments credibility!”-DM

    • “Yes…the current or extant version has in fact, been altered!”~D. E. Mitchell

      You have made these assertions before, and “what the hay!” as you say, you come back to recycle this nonsense, regardless of the fact that you have been successfully rebuked on this matter numerous time.

      I consider a relitigation of these matter totally necessary after so many times.
      Simpy refer the readers to:
      https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
      \\][//

      • Tom S. says:

        I consider a relitigation of these matter totally necessary after so many times.

        Exactly, and since you’re achieving no effect, why continue replying? You’re posting a link to a page you authored.
        McAdams does the same. Can we make the same point, twice at most, supported by third party sources? Does it fall entirely to me to enhance the content of discussion threads by blocking the repetition, everyone being entitled to their own opinion, offered 2X ?

        http://jfkfacts.org/whats-judgment-rush-judgment/#comment-881102
        D. E. Mitchell June 9, 2016 at 1:36 am
        “…been a while since i last posted, but what the hay! First of all, i challenge ANY serious researcher who DOES NOT think that the Z film has been altered…

        http://jfkfacts.org/whats-the-most-important-piece-of-jfk-assassination-evidence-to-surface-in-the-past-5-years/#comment-870209
        D. E. Mitchell 2016/04/16 at 10:47 pm
        ….
        Well, there are some in the film industry who “differ” with you, but said they “won’t waste their time” arguing with you(they’re too busy working!!) as to weather or not the Z film has been altered!

        http://jfkfacts.org/stephen-hunters-third-bullet-rethinks-the-jfk-story/#comment-867307
        D. E. Mitchell 2016/04/04 at 2:16 pm
        …..
        There were at least ten to twelve rounds fired in the plaza that day in November. They can all be seen with the naked eye, caught on the extent version of the Z film, between the sprocket holes! If the “current version” of the Z film has been altered at Hawkeye Works, it was to enlarge the background, putting the bullet strikes between the sprocket holes, out of camera or, “view!”
        ……Don’t forget to “look between the sprocket holes!-DM

        http://jfkfacts.org/21-jfk-cops-who-heard-a-grassy-knoll-shot/#comment-858328
        D. E. Mitchell 2016/02/16 at 8:04 pm
        “…not so Matt. It’s all there, right in plain sight, hiding…all we have to do, is look closer! We can all start, by “looking between the sprocket holes,” the only reason to enlarge the background of the z film. Just look…..you’ll see..”-DM

        http://jfkfacts.org/max-holland-rewinds-the-zapruder-film/#comment-842995
        D. E. Mitchell 2015/12/26 at 6:49 pm
        ………
        One can very clearly see the use of multiple film stocks/generations of copied film, edited into the z film; all at the key points! The stemmons freeway sign in one frame is magically…transparent!
        I could go on and on, but it seems useless, because there is a cabal of people, known and unknown to themselves, who for many reasons, refuse to admit or accept film tampering…

        • McAdams does the same. Can we make the same point, twice at most, supported by third party sources?

          Tom, if you let conspiracists keep making the same arguments over and over, you need to let us skeptics keep refuting them over and over.

          As for my posting links to my site: I could just copy and paste the material from my site, which is indeed evidence, but that would make the board bloated.

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