Crowdsourcing JFK: DiEugenio on the mysterious David Ferrie

Rick Bauer’s recollections of David Ferrie may prompt readers to ask, how does Ferrie figure in the JFK story? Jim DiEugenio explains in this video from Len Osanic’s “50 Reasons for 50 Years.”

“Many witnesses saw Oswald with Bannister or Ferrie in the summer of 1963,” DiEugenio says.

If you know who these witnesses were, send info, documents, and/or links to JFK Facts.

93 comments

  1. Photon says:

    As usual, wildly inaccurate ramblings from a researcher who gets it wrong from the get go.
    Clay Shaw was never proven to be Clay Bertrand.
    Clay Bertrand was never proven to have even existed.
    Clay Shaw was NOT a CIA agent, only an overseas businessman who had been contacted by CIA elements for information about his trips abroad- as thousands of American businessmen were in the 1950s, particularly veterans who had been military officers with excellent service records.
    Was Sarnoff behind Johnny Carson taking apart Garrison on the “Tonight Show” when Garrison couldn’t give a straight answer to virtually any question Carson asked? Garrison fans ought to listen to that interview- Carson knew a con when he saw one; it reminds me of his takedown of Uri Geller.
    DiEugenio’s usual hyperbole about ” Many witnesses saw Oswald with Bannister and Ferrie in the summer of 1963″ is totally unsubstantiated by anybody who actually knew Oswald. Jim, forget about ” many witnesses”- how about just one CREDIBLE witness who wasn’t a mental patient,shady character or serial liar.
    Clay Shaw was an honorable man ruined by an anti- homosexual bigot whose original hypothesis was that JFK’s murder was a gay thrill crime, ” like Leopold and Lobe”. Mr. DiEugenio seems to forget that- and the wholesale violation of Mr. Shaw’s civil rights simply because Garrison thought he was an easy target in the atmosphere of 1960s.

    • Jonathan says:

      Photon,

      I differ with you as to Garrison but agree the Garrison trial was mostly a sideshow. Mostly.

      The biggie for me is that Dr. Finck admitted under oath at the Shaw trial the autopsy doctors were ordered by high-ranking officers (Galloway, etc.) not to probe JFK wounds.

      The problem with the Garrison trial is that it didn’t die a natural death. Ronald Reagan, Governor of California, refused extradition of Jim Braden. The governor of Ohio refused extradition of Gordon Novel.

      Go back to that time, Photon. I was then a Republican fan. Today I understand the power of state governors.

      • Dr. Finck admitted under oath at the Shaw trial the autopsy doctors were ordered by high-ranking officers

        And Finck said that “the family” did not want certain things done.

        Read Manchester. The Kennedy entourage on the 17th floor were regularly calling down to the autopsy theater to ask when it would be over.

        Remember, they were wanting JFK fixed up for an open casket viewing.

        That put pressure on the folks in the autopsy theater, and that pressure was doubtless conveyed by some military officer. But it originated on the 17th floor.

      • Photon says:

        Except they DIDN’T order him not to probe the wounds- because he did. That is right in his testimony. They did not remove the ” organs of the neck ” under the direction of RADM Burkley, who was essentially an agent of the Kennedy family and concerned about the restoration necessary for what everybody assumed at the time to be an open casket wake.
        Finck also said that he didn’t need to “remove the organs of the neck” to establish the path of the bullet. He also stated that the probe could not be advanced because of muscle and tissue contraction along the path of the wound, a totally expected occurrence . Advancing a probe under pressure would merely create a false wound path.
        I wonder how many neck bullet wounds in those days were actually dissected out with “removal of the organs of the neck” in the manner that laymen assume was a standard autopsy procedure- a misconception analogous to the facial paraffin test claims by researchers who forget that the Dallas police never did a facial paraffin test before the one on LHO.
        An extensive neck dissection perhaps would have helped clear up doubts among the lay population, but Finck, a renowned pathologist, had no doubts about the bullet wound path and location. Just as a radiologist sees things on a film that even other M.D.s can’t see, a pathologist can recognize anatomic features completely misunderstood by those without formal training in the specialty.
        Ever seen an autopsy?

        • George Simmons says:

          From Dr Finck’s testimony at the Clay Shaw trial :

          Q : I will ask you the question one more time. Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.

          A : As I recall I was told not to but I don’t remember by whom.

          Q : You were told not to but you don’t remember by whom?

          A : Right

          Also from Dr Finck’s testimony :

          A : Wait. I was called as a consultant to study these wounds. That doesn’t mean I am running the show.

          Q : Was Dr Humes running the show?

          A : Well, I heard Dr Humes stating that, he said, “Who is in charge here?” and I heard an Army-General, I don’t remember his name stating, “I am”. You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law enforcement officers, military people with various ranks, and you have to co-ordinate the operation according to directions.

          Q : But you were one of the three qualified pathologists standing at the autopsy table, were you not, Doctor?

          A : Yes, I am.

          Q : Was this Army General a qualified pathologist?

          A : No

          Q : Was he a Doctor?

          A : No, not to my knowledge.

          Q : Can you give me his name Colonel?

          A : No, I cant. I don’t remember.

          Also worth noting that when asked the question as to why he did not dissect the track of the bullet wound Dr Finck does not answer the question. Eventually, he has to be directed by the court to answer.

          • You failed to include the part where Finck said that “the family” didn’t want certain things done.

            Then there is the Bloomberg Memo, in which Finck said:

            THE ORGANS OF THE NECK WERE NOT REMOVED: THE PRESIDENT’S FAMILY INSISTED TO HAVE ONLY THE HEAD EXAMINED Later, the permission was extended to the CHEST.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/finck1.htm

          • George Simmons says:

            When Dr Finck was asked, in a court of Law, why he did not dissect the track of the wound his answer was that he was told not to, but he did not remember by whom.

            That is a fact.

          • Photon says:

            Just the same kind of misinformation about moving the body from Dallas- an action taken by JFK’s closest associates to get his widow out of Dallas.

          • But a mention of “the family” is in the Shaw trial testimony.

            Since you have it handy, how about posting it?

          • Dr. George Burkley JFK’s personal physician was the one “in charge” of the autopsy, but he had surrogates with instructions for when he was out of the morgue gallery. Which was often as he and Jackie and Bobby were also involved in trying to contain some things such as the Addison’s disease that JFK suffered with.
            So who responded from the gallery at that time may or may not have been Burkley himself, but they were his orders.
            My opinion is that Burkley was part of the conspiracy himself. The lack of dissection of the neck wound would have no bearing on discovery of Kennedy’s prior medical situation.
            \\][//

  2. DRB says:

    Regarding David Ferrie, I’m sending a list of sources that refer to Oswald’s contacts with David Ferrie. I used the following abbreviations to identify my sources:

    FJ = Mellan’s Farewell to Justice
    LJDB = Davy’s Let Justice Be Done
    Summers = Anthony Summer’s Conspiracy
    CD = WC documents
    nnn-nnnnn-nnnnn are National Archive documents
    HSCA reference are to House Select Com. on Assassination docs
    H&L = Armstrong’s Harvey and Lee
    Knew Too Much = Russell’s Man Who Knew Too Much
    Debates = Kurtz’ JFK Assassination Debates

    References to Oswald and Ferrie are as follows.

    Ferrie admits he and Clay Shaw were CIA and saw LHO often at Banister’s office. Louis Ivon states Ferrie was LHO’s “baby-sitter” – FJ 104-05 – Interviews with Louis Ivon; LJBD 66 – Davy’s interviews with Ivon.

    Jerry Paradise positive LHO and Ferrie were in the CAP together– FJ 41 – Author’s interview with Mike Ewing (?).

    LHO and Ferrie in the CAP, several witnesses state this- Summers 302,citing HSCA

    Delphine Roberts sees LHO with Ferrie; LHO and Ferrie at Clinton. – Summers 304-06

    Ferrie has Oswald’s library card, allegedly destroyed by the FBI – FJ 40 – CD 75 199/201; report of DeBrueys WC 179-40005-10179 08; Memo to Garrison; Lena Garner’s testimony HSCA 180-10104-10364 – Bugliosi questions Garner’s credibility.

    Raymond Broshears states Ferrie tells him of Ferrie’s role in the JFK assassination and LHO not the shooter – FJ 122,123 – interview of Raymond Broshears by Louis Ivon, Steve Jaffe, James Alcock and Memo to Garrison re Broshears. (Broshears low credibility, mental problems, etc.)

    Ferrie’s telephone calls to Jean West, associate of Jack Ruby. LJBD 46-47 (based on phone bills) NOTE – was another person’s phone number.

    Jack Martin links Oswald, Ferrie and Banister – FJ 37 –

    Gaudet sees LHO and Banister talking; also says Ferrie and Sergio Arcacha Smith Knew Oswald. H&L at 596.

    Dan Campbell reports seeing Oswald at Banister’s office – FJ 320 – interview with Dan Campbell, Jan. 8, 2002

    Michael Kurtz sees Banister and LHO together – FJ 70, 71

    Sergio Archaca Smith states privately that he was controlled by the CIA; CIA records reveal Bannister as a FBI contact for Smith – Summers, 297 – see HSCA X.126 – HSCA materials say Banister worked with anti-Castro Cubans and Ferrie and Sergio Archaca Smith; helped draw up charter for Cuban Revolutionary Council. HSCA report CIA file says CIA considered using Banister to collect foreign intelligence, but decided against it.

    Gaudet sees LHO and Banister talking; also says Ferrie and Sergio Arcacha Smith Knew Oswald. H&L at 596.

    FBI memo states that source Carl John Stanley of Louisville, Kentucky knew John Martin and David Ferrie, and Martin told him in 1966 that he and Ferrie were buddies with LHO. But Stanley said Martin lived in Houston in 1963 and 1964. FBI says it previously investigated John Martin of New Orleans, could not substantiate link. 124-10040-10310; 62-109060-4720.

    FBI documents show Shaw knew Ferrie. – LJBD 194-95 – FBI memo 3/21/67, doc. # 62-109060-4874 (180-10020-10307, 124-10048-10450, 124-10048-10449; FBI memo from NO office to Director, doc. # 62-109060-;

    Shaw Co-signs loan for Ferrie – FJ 40 – interviews with Roger Johnston, apparently no documentation.

    Woodrow Hardy, who worked for Shaw, claims to have seen LHO, Shaw and Ferrie – FJ at 95.

    Ferrie’s telephone calls to Jean West, associate of Jack Ruby. LJBD 46-47 (based on phone bills)

    LHO, Ferrie?, and David Atlee Phillips (CIA) appear together in a film of Cuban exile training camp. – FJ 48 – interview with Robert K. Tannenbaum. – This film later inexplicably disappears. – Or Bannister? LJBD 30 – Interview with Robert Tannenbaum, Probe

    Raymond Broshears knows Ferrie and LHO were connected to the CIA – FJ 82 But Broshears uncertain whether they worked for CIA, anti-Castro Cubans or even knew who they worked for. Knew Too Much at 5xx.

    Geologist Hamilton Johnson reports seeing Banister, Ferrie, anti-Castro Cubans with CIA and FBI agents. On Occasion LHO was present. H. Leake confirms. – Debates 185 – interviews H. Johnson, H. Leake.

    CIA agent Robert Morrow tells Russell that he worked with David Ferrie in Europe. Morrow received papers from a contact “Harvey” in Minsk; gave papers to his case officer Tracy Barnes. – TooMuch 217-218 – interview with Morrow.

    • I’m not sure if you think this is strong evidence, since you seem to understand the credibility problems with a lot of the sources you cite.

      But let me add a few things about credibility problems.

      CIA agent Robert Morrow

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

      appear together in a film of Cuban exile training camp. – FJ 48 – interview with Robert K. Tannenbaum. – This film later inexplicably disappears.

      Or more likely never existed. Interesting how a lack of evidence can be spun to be sinister.

      Ferrie’s telephone calls to Jean West, associate of Jack Ruby.

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

      180-10020-10307, 124-10048-10450, 124-10048-10449

      None of these documents are on Mary Ferrell, so we have only Davey’s word on this. I think we need to see the documents.

      Michael Kurtz sees Banister and LHO together

      In the first edition of his book, and in an early journal article, Kurtz did not claim that he was the person who saw them. He merely cited an “anonymous source.”

      Dan Campbell reports seeing Oswald at Banister’s office

      The version of this story in Summers’ book simply has Campbell seeing “a Marine” come in and use the phone (IIRC). This was on the day of the affray on Canal Street, and at the time Oswald in in jail.

      Ferrie has Oswald’s library card, allegedly destroyed by the FBI

      Comes from Jack Martin. Oswald never had Ferrie’s library card.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lib-card.txt

      “Allegedly destroyed” in another “the dog ate my evidence” claim.

      Interviews with Louis Ivon; LJBD 66 – Davy’s interviews with Ivon.

      And when did Ivon finally start saying this?

      And now we come to the odd one:

      LHO and Ferrie in the CAP, several witnesses state this

      Here, finally, is something that is true. However, among several witnesses the HSCA had, none remembered any relationship between Ferrie and Oswald, and Oswald only attended a few meetings.

    • Brian H says:

      Excellent work DRB this is the type of overwhelming evidence needed on here. I will say it’s only a matter of time before the debunkers just start saying so they knew each other worked together were seen together in Dealey plaza that still doesn’t mean they’re guilty of anything! Or better yet ya 20 witnesses saw him with a gun doesn’t mean he shot it.
      My point is it’s hard work like yours that will make a difference when the debunkers have to debunk thousands of pieces of solid evidence what does that say? Keep up the good work!!!!!!

      • Photon says:

        Yes, a good rundown on the sources- not the veracity of those sources.
        For instance, Raymond Broshears -claimed to have been Ruby’s roommate, yet couldn’t describe the apartment accurately, didn’t know the neighborhood where it was located and couldn’t even prove that he had ever been to Dallas. A complete fraud.
        Or ” Ferrie’s telephone calls to Jean West … Based on phone bills “- yet the source got the WRONG telephone number!
        The post merely reflects what I stated- there is no real evidence for any of the claims of people trying to link Oswald to Ferrie in 1963.

        • Photon,

          Broshears said he was Ferrie’s roommate, not Ruby’s. He said that he was in NOLA, not Dallas. Broshears was a very flakey and a publicity seeker, for sure, but he was in NOLA during the time-period that he said he was there. This does not mean everything he said happened was true, but he was in New Orleans.

    • Jean Davison says:

      Where is your fact-checking, people? Where is your skepticism?

      How do we know Robert Morrow was a CIA agent? Because he said so? Same way we “know” Shaw co-signed a loan, someone said so?
      People can SAY anything, but where’s the corroboration?

      Years later Ivon claimed Ferrie confessed, and yet there is not a word about this in Garrison’s files or books, and Ferrie denied his involvement to other people until literally the day he died. See the Times-Picayune 2/19/67 for his last public statement in which he vehemently denied Garrison’s charges.

      On Ferrie’s library card, the sources cited don’t confirm that Oswald had Ferrie’s card, only that it was alleged. The allegation could be traced back to Jack Martin, who claimed he’d heard it on TV. Even Garrison described Jack Martin as an unreliable witness.

      If there’s anything on that list that’s well-established fact, what might it be?

  3. Ronnie Wayne says:

    One of the best of the Fifty Reasons. Thanks for posting it Jeff, well worth a re-watch.

  4. Lisa Pease says:

    Jeff, if you have a serious interest in this, and you should, please 1) read Jim DiEugenio’s first edition of Destiny Betrayed, which goes into this in far more detail than his second edition, which is really another book entirely that covers a broader array of subjects. Also see Bill Davy’s excellent, factual, nonsensational book “Let Justice Be Done.” Not only is it excellent on how close Garrison was getting, but he has an incredible amount of data on the CIA’s involvement with the press surrounding that case.

    • B Kamp says:

      I have to agree w Lisa that the 2nd edition is pretty much an entirely new book. Both books are great reads, Photon, John and Jean please spare a few hours, it may do you guys some good!

      • Photon says:

        Why would I want to waste my time on a book written by someone who actually believes that the Garrison investigation was anything but a sham and prosecutorial misconduct at the highest level that financially ruined an honorable and totally innocent man-because he was gay? Remember, that was Garrison’s original thesis, before he started his moving target litany of killers of JFK.
        Why would I waste my time reading a book by a historian so completely devoid of analytical thought that he can’t recognize that the Diem coup 3 weeks before the assassination renders every assumption that he makes about what JFK’s Vietnam plans were completely irrelevant and made every communication that he comments on (correctly or incorrectly) inoperative?
        Why would I read a book by an author who believes that charlatans, mental patients and convicted criminals are valid sources, even to the point of ignoring repeated lpublic lies on other subjects from the same sources?
        Why would I read a book by someone who claims that relationships existed and events occurred without a single shred of objective evidence that they did- and then goes on to create a narrative based on those claims?
        Mother May never raised such a foolish child.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Photon December 4, 2014 at 6:30 am

          Very well said.

        • Jonathan says:

          Yet you believe in the Magic Bullet Theory; in the idea a rusted, decrepit rifle was used to fire the Magic Bullet into both Kennedy and Connally; in the trustworthiness of the CIA and FBI. You appear to prefer that which strains credulity to that which appeals to reason in most JFK matters.

          Seems to me your hands and mind wouldn’t be too badly sullied by the book in question.

          • Photon says:

            The “rusted, decrepit rifle” was able to be fired accurately enough months after the assassination to produce satisfactory groupings at ranges in excess of the 88 yard shot from the TSBD. It was good enough to do the job.
            The bullet that exited JFK’s throat had to go somewhere-and despite the poppycock from non-physician “experts” who know nothing about forensic examination the throat wound was and always will be an exit wound.. The object directly in front of the bullet’s path was Connolly . Connolly’s surgeon said that all of his injuries were consistent with one missile traveling from back to front. You can argue all you want about whether #399 caused all of the wounds to JFK and Connolly ,but the forensic evidence and the Connolly operative report are most consistant with the Single Bullet Fact.
            For the reasons stated above reading a book based on so many falsehoods, unreliable witnesses and sources, misunderstandings of documented facts is simply pointless. Jonathan, do you seriously believe that Gordon Novel was a reputable source? Do you honestly believe that Allan Dulles would ever use such a crackpot for anything, particularly if he actually had masterminded the assassination? Jim takes this guy’s claims totally at face value, even when Novel admits later that he makes things up- having been in Beirut at the time that Novel claimed to have been taken prisoner by the local terrorists and then escaped I find his fantasy almost comical-except for the fact that real American heroes were killed. But for some strange reason Jim simply can’t accept that his major source was a liar and fabulist. But his theories are built on similar assumptions over and over again. I don’t have enough money to throw away on books based on such delusional information.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Jonathan December 4, 2014 at 5:38 pm

            “You appear to prefer that which strains credulity to that which appeals to reason in most JFK matters.”

            That works both ways, Jonathan. It strains credibility when Jeff quotes Prouty as the absolute truth about JFK planning a total withdrawal from Vietnam. It stretches it again when Jeff rejects all the other evidence that Prouty’s statement is false.

            Same with DiEugino. He isn’t creditable when he tells me the DeSota Patrols were part of Oplan 34A. He got this crap from John Newman with makes both men not creditable. I’ll spot both of them their incredible claim the NSAM 263 says “ALL” of our troops will be withdrawn from Vietnam.

          • Jonathan says:

            Reply to:

            Bill Clarke
            December 5, 2014 at 2:10 am

            Bill, you and I agree on pretty much everything having to do with Viet Nam. In particular, on the correct reading of NSAM 263. You and I disagree as to how and why JFK was killed, but I’ve learned from your comments that you are a man of reason.

            Photon on the other hand does not appear to me to bend to reason.

        • Vanessa Loney says:

          Aha! I’ll take that as confirmation that you are in fact Paul May.

          I second Jonathan’s proposal that you add a few more titles to your book club reading list. Could I also suggest that you read this link below on Oswald in the doorway of the TSBD and then give me a similarly detailed explanation as to why you won’t discuss that issue? After all I’m sure Mother May wouldn’t like you to refuse a polite request from a lady.

          http://www.ctka.net/2014/Prayer%20man.html

          It’ll test all your skills to rebut this one Paul. No character issues, no mental illness, no manufactured credibility issues, no credentialism – just some basic facts.

          • Frank says:

            I waded through the extensive blog by Sean Murphy and am satisfied that if it was a TSBD worker, then it was Oswald. Refutations of that must account for the systematic eliminations that Sean has so remarkably executed.

            That leaves the possibility that it is a non-TSBD worker and a member of the general public. I wonder if one can ascribe a probability to this possibility based on human behavioral patterns. To help clarify, I imagine we could place odds on the possibility of a Texas White Tail deer appearing in the streets of Dallas based on the deer’s natural affinity for its own natural habitat, where the odds of seeing one would be much higher than in the city streets. Not that it’s impossible for a deer to appear in Dallas, just there are odds existing against it. Now, to move on then, people look at different zones in their city habitat in different ways in terms of their likelihood or willingness to occupy the zones for a given purpose. The purpose would be to watch the motorcade. There are several zones involved. The most obvious is the sidewalk. It’s a free zone for all concerned. Anybody can step up and feel comfortable watching. No sense of ownership or territoriality implied or understood. Next might be the street itself. Not permitted by regulation although if the crush of the sidewalk were too great, then people might reluctantly encroach. Now the exterior alcove at the top of the steps to the TSBD. This is not a public zone. It’s a private one in a private building operating a private business. No retail activity inside the building to modify the public perception of the private nature that it has. Further, on that day it is populated with TSBD employees no doubt bantering back and forth with the overt purpose of taking advantage of the elevation it affords for observing the motorcade. This is select territory “owned” by the TSBD workers. It is clearly not public. What are the odds a random member of the general public would “force” his way (gender intended) onto the back of that platform, relatively deeply within that privately occupied zone, back in the corner? Perhaps about equal to the odds that the person doing so would have no “social awareness” against doing it, which is a possibility and is probably the only type of person who would attempt to do so.

            I would say on this basis the odds favor that it is Oswald. Perhaps a mathematician with the proper sociological data could ascribe the actual odds to see if it would register beyond a shadow of a doubt.

          • Vanessa says:

            Thanks Frank – it’s definitely worth the effort isn’t it. Sean Murphy has done a stellar job.

            I agree with the only remaining possibility being a random member of the public.

            I also agree with your assessment that is unlikely. After all why go to the back of the steps to stand behind a door (the TSBD door opens outwards) when there was still plenty of space down at the road. Only a single line of people are standing there in Weigman and Darnell.

            This person’s position in the doorway only makes sense if they came out of the TSBD at the last minute and got one of the worst spots to view the President that day.

            If this is Oswald then every other piece of ‘evidence’ in this case can be dumped overboard.

        • B Kamp says:

          You refuse to read a certain book because you are prejudiced about it, that sounds like religious zealots who condemn a certain film they are against because of its content, yet they have never seen it.

          • Photon says:

            You can make the same argument to read “Chariots of the Gods”- but as an educated individual I see no point in wasting time on a book based on a ridiculous premise filled with false assumptions .

          • B Kamp says:

            Strange comparison there P., does it contain the same amount of footnotes to evidence/testimony as Destiny Betrayed?

  5. Avinash says:

    Mother May never raised such a foolish child.

    So you admit that you are Paul May?

  6. Paul May says:

    People, I have no idea who Photon is nor do I care. However, he is not me regardless of what he posts or implies.

    • Vanessa says:

      Hello there Paul, nice to meet you. You seem more reasonable than this poor, deluded Photon fellow. So perhaps you’d like to discuss this link demonstrating that there is an unidentified person who may be Oswald in the TSBD doorway.

      http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354

      For some reason Photon won’t discuss it at all and he seems to be suffering under the delusion that if you ignore a woman for long enough she will go away. We all know how well that works don’t we. 🙂

      • Tim Nickerson says:

        Hi Vanessa. Have the locations, at the time of the shooting, of all of the TSBD employees, including those who worked at the Houston Street warehouse, been established?

      • Photon says:

        Duncan MacRae completely destroyed this nonsense months ago.

        • Frank says:

          Duncan MacRae did not to destroy any aspect of the legitimate line of inquiry known as “prayer man”. No one has.

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Frank, perhaps you could address the question that I posed to Vanessa. Sean Murphy put forth the challenge for anyone to name an employee of the TSBD whose location at the time of the shooting was unknown or unaccounted for. Then when presented with one he brushed it aside.

            You do realize that the Prayer Man theory has some rather significant problems, don’t you. One being that you need at least seven people to have lied, some to the level of perjury, to make the theory work.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Tim

            Apologies for not responding until now, what with work and other commitments I don’t get on here as often as I’d like to. I also post from Australia and that puts me in another time zone to the USA so I’m rarely on here at the same time you guys are.

            My understanding is that all TSBD employees have been accounted for by Sean Murphy (see comment #278264 on the CTKA link “Where was Oswald during the Shooting”. Who do you think has been left out?

            I count only 3 people who may have not told the full story. Who are the other 4? All the other TSBD people on the steps had their backs to the guy in the corner and could have legitimately not seen him at all.

            Happy to hear about any others though.

          • Frank says:

            “Then when presented with one he brushed it aside.” Sean Murphy was presented with a variety of names and he compiled a listing of the possibilities with an accounting of the whereabouts of each. Which name are you referring to? We’ll look up what Sean said about it. I never saw where he ignored a name.

            As for the fallout from such a revelation as “prayer man” is LHO, who cares? If it’s so, then it’s so. The rest will shake out on it’s own. It remains to be definitively shown one way or the other. The appealing aspect to solving this problem is that it is a matter of the time and the photograph and who is in the photograph and that’s all. No personal interpretation required. If you’ve got a name, name it and the chips will fall where they may.

        • Vanessa says:

          Thanks Photon. I can’t find the comments you refer to. Can you please post a link to his debunking of Prayer Man?

      • Tim Nickerson says:

        Vanessa, No need to apologize. I converse with quite a few people from Australia on this case. For the record, I’m from Canada, not the US.

        I can’t seem to find a CTKA link to “Where was Oswald during the Shooting” with a comment #278264. A google search finds me a short piece by one Gokay Hasan Yusuf but that’s all.

        Baker, Truly, Mrs. Reid, SA Bookhout, SS Agent Thomas Kelley, and Capt. Fritz would have all had to have lied in order for the Prayer Man theory to work. The name of the seventh person escapes me at the moment. It may have been Frazier or perhaps Holmes.

        The individual whose location has not been accounted for is Gordon W. Smith.

        • Tim Nickerson says:

          Frank,

          The pugilist in the corner is much too broad to be Oswald.

        • Frank says:

          TN…No Gordon Smith worked in the TSBD. Care to add a little color for us?

          Too broad for Oswald. That’s a rather arbitrary characterization for a layman, but one that a photo expert might find worth addressing.

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Gordon W. Smith was an employee of the Texas School Book Depository. He worked at the warehouse on Houston Street. His location at the time of the shooting is unaccounted for.

          • Frank says:

            TN:
            Do we know his physical size, age, and ethnicity? Is there a picture of him? I saw where someone thought he was a black man for some reason, but I don’t know if that is confirmed so it’s not a known fact as far as I can tell. Is there any confirmed info that you have on his physical description?

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Tim

            This is the best I can find on Gordon Smith. It’s his FBI interview in which he says precisely nothing. This would have to be on of the worst interviews conducted. We don’t even know where he was at the time of the assassination.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=380

            I believe this list below are the other Houston St warehouse employees see – CTKA SM link comment #278102.

            Haddon Spurgeion Aiken was at the warehouse on North Houston

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1381.pdf

            Edward Shields was at Mullendorf’s café with James Lacy and Givens

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Shields.pdf

            Franklin Emmet Wester, Stockman at Warehouse ate lunch in the warehouse

            I can’t find any WC testimony for Wester but apparently he gave a statement. I’ll have a look.

            None of these fellows mention Gordon Smith. In fact I can’t find any other reference to him in the WR so far. Happy to be proved wrong.

            What can we surmise from all this? No-one on the TSBD mentions Smith in their statements or WC testimony. No-one mentions seeing Smith in the TSBD that day.

            Gordon Smith may not have been around the TSBD that day but his location is unaccounted for, so Tim is right. More research needed I’d say. What do you think Tim?

    • Photon says:

      I have repeatedly stated that I am not Paul May, but frankly I have found it amusing that CTs will take the easy route and believe that people who post similar opinions must be in cahoots , belong to the CIA -or even be the same person posting other names. It goes to the nature of many CT adherents: it is easier to believe that evidence is faked, that assumptions are valid when they are not, that “experts” that claim to be knowledgable in a field are more reliable than the real documented experts are-all in an effort to escape true, hard, verifiable evidence that makes their preconceived notions invalid. As an example, look at Vanessa’s obcession with “Prayer Man ” in the doorway. The implication is that “Prayer Man” could have been Oswald-despite the information later posted from the same source that proves that it would have been impossible to be Oswald, as the police officer that confronted Oswald and his Coke INSIDE the TSBD runs past “Prayer Man” while entering the TSBD. A simple answer, as most LN answers tend to be- in contrast to the truly convoluted narratives so often required by various CT theories.
      Again, I can reduce the entire CT viewpoint to answering one simple question: why was Oswald the only unexcused male employee of the TSBD to completely leave the area within 5 minutes of the assassination? A second question: if his excuse as he told the police was that he thought that the building would close for the day, how could he have known that the President had been assassinated-when nobody else in the building even knew that ANYBODY had been shot at the time? The only logical answer is that he saw JFK receive a fatal wound. The only person in the TSBD who saw that wound was the assassin. QED.

      • Frank says:

        You have used the logical fallacy that it couldn’t be a conspiracy to assert that it therefore wasn’t a conspiracy. Obviously if Oswald is at the prayer man location, then the entire narrative of Oswald’s whereabouts must change. Read the blog. All your points are addressed in depth.

        “why was Oswald the only unexcused male employee of the TSBD to completely leave the area within 5 minutes of the assassination?” If he was prayer man, then he was exterior of the building when the shots were fired.

        “how could he have known that the President had been assassinated-when nobody else in the building even knew that ANYBODY had been shot at the time?” Once again, your assuming he knew nothing of a conspiracy because in your mind there could not have been one. His stating that he was just a patsy does imply a level of foreknowledge of a plan of some type. Making a separate statement that betrays that fore-knowledge establishes a pattern of consistency between his various statements at various times while he was in custody.

      • Jonathan says:

        Photon,

        You write:

        “The only logical answer is that he saw JFK receive a fatal wound. The only person in the TSBD who saw that wound was the assassin. QED.”

        Why do you assert a person on the sixth floor of the TSBD “saw JFK receive a fatal wound”? Why do you assert, “The only person in the TSBD who saw that wound was the assassin. QED.”?

        Those are mere assertions.

        • Photon says:

          Please post the account of anybody in the TSBD who stated that they saw JFK being hit.
          Please explain why Oswald left the TSBD and subsequently lied to the police about why he left.
          Please explain how Marion Baker could run into the TSBD past Prayer Man ( as is clearly visible in the same film) and then see Oswald with a Coke on the second floor if Prayer Man was Oswald. Please explain why a man with a white Stetson from the same film is standing still and looking directly up- exactly in the direction of the the sixth floor window.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hello Photon

            1. Harold Norman and Junior Jarman both saw the President shot from the TSBD.

            Harold Norman: WC testimony: “Mr. BALL. Now you saw the President go by, did you?
            Mr. NORMAN. Yes.
            Mr. BALL. What happened then?
            Mr. NORMAN. About the time that he got past the window where I was, well, it seems as though he was, I mean you know, brushing his hair. Maybe he was looking to the public.
            Mr. McCLOY. Saluting?
            Mr. NORMAN. Yes.
            Mr. BALL. With which arm?
            Mr. NORMAN. I believe it was his right arm, and I can’t remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, “I believe someone is shooting at the President,” and I think I made a statement “It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us.”
            Well, I couldn’t see at all during the time but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle, it sounded as though it was to me.”

            Junior Jarman: WC testimony: After the motorcade turned, going west on Elm, then there was a loud shot, or backfire, as I thought it was then–I thought it was a backfire.
            Mr. BALL – You thought it was what?
            Mr. JARMAN – A backfire or an officer giving a salute to the President. And then at that time I didn’t, you know, think too much about it. And then the second shot was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one.
            Mr. BALL – Were you still on your knees looking up?
            Mr. JARMAN – Well, after the third shot was fired, I think I got up and I run over to Harold Norman and Bonnie Ray Williams, and told them, I said, I told them that it wasn’t a backfire or anything, that somebody was shooting at the President.

            2. As mentioned in my post above we do not see Officer Baker run past Prayer Man into the TSBD on the Weigman film. You’re assuming that. As mentioned above Murphy puts the encounter on the first floor ie the ground floor – which is not contradictory at all.

            3. As per my post above Oswald said he left work because he thought there would be no more work done that day. Plenty of others also left work and didn’t come back. It doesn’t make them assassins.

            4. I’m not arguing there were no shots from the TSBD that day just that they were not from Oswald. I’ve always argued it would make more sense if there was a shooter on the 6th floor. So Stetson Man could very well have been looking up at the TSBD shooter. But on the same film you will also note the guy in the military uniform (possibly Navy?) is in fact looking back to the Daltex building.

            I’ve answered your questions twice now so perhaps you’ll do me a similar courtesy.

          • Photon says:

            None of the witnesses that you quote stated that they saw anybody hit. Nobody in the TSBD is reported to have said that they saw anybody hit.
            That is as true now as it was 50 years ago. I posted this question over a year ago and still nobody has confirmed that anybody in the TSBD knew that there were victims of the shooting. Folks here have even claimed that people documented to have been outside of the TSBD were witnesses inside the building.
            Nobody in the TSBD had any real knowledge of the nature of JFK’s wounds, or even if he had been hit -until AFTER Oswald left the building. Prove me wrong. Post solid evidence. Why was Oswald the only unexcused male employee of the TSBD to leave the entire area after the assassination when nobody else in the building knew exactly what had happened?

          • Vanessa says:

            Morning Photon

            Here’s some more of Harold Norman’s testimony.

            Mr Ball: I have here a diagram of this fifth floor.
            Mr McCloy: May I interrupt here?
            Mr Ball: Go right ahead.
            Mr McCloy; You spoke about seeing the President sort of slump over after the first shot?
            Mr Norman: Yes; I believe the first.
            Mr McCloy: Did you see the President hit on any subsequent shots?
            Mr Norman: No, I don’t recall seeing that.

            McCloy doesn’t ask “Why do you think the President slumped over after the first shot?. Did you think he was shot?”. He just assumes that its obvious that JFK was slumped over because he was shot. Norman says he saw the President slump over after the first shot.

            Do you really think it is possible that Norman and McCloy are both not making the connection between the first shot and the slump? And then to confirm what is implied in the first question McCloy asks if Norman saw JFK hit again to which Norman says “No”.

            I think it’s clear Norman saw that JFK was shot by the first bullet.

            In regards to seeing the detail of JFK’s wounds, Norman doesn’t mention it and McCloy doesn’t ask about it. But we can see Norman’s reaction to the shooting through his behaviour. Norman doesn’t calmly go back to work after seeing JFK shot as though it was a trivial wound.

            Norman, Jarman and Williams all run to the west window and then down to the first floor (ie ground floor) and leave the building.

            They then encounter Howard Brennan and a policeman and re-enter the TSBD to look for the shooter.

            In fact the first reaction of almost everyone in the TSBD is to attempt to leave the building. Some don’t make it but they all attempt to get to the first floor and get out. Does that make them all assassins? No.

            So did Oswald leave the building because he was looking for the shooter too?

            The point is, leaving a building after seeing a shooting does not make someone the shooter (even if the shooting was from that building). In fact, most of them left because they were trying to find the shooter. It was not evidence of guilt.

            As for Oswald being the only unexcused male employee to leave the area the WR page 182 says that “Oswald told Fritz that after lunch he went outside, talked with Foreman Bill Shelley for 5 or 10 minutes and then left for home. He said that he left work because Bill Shelley said that there were would be no more work done that day in the building. Shelley denied seeing Oswald after 12 noon or at any other time after the shooting.”

            How could Oswald know that Shelley was outside at this time unless he saw him? Shelley could have been anywhere inside the building.

            WC defenders have an unsolved Bill Shelley problem on two counts. i) Oswald knows where Shelley was at the time of the shooting. ii) Oswald knows where Shelley was after the shooting. Shelley was outside both times so Oswald must have been outside both times too.

            I note, Mother May’s son, that you haven’t addressed any of my other questions.

      • Vanessa says:

        Good evening Photon – nice to hear from you at last.

        Re-Paul May. You are the on who mentioned “Mother May” not anyone else. So are you claiming that you both just have the same last name?

        My ‘obsession’ with Oswald in the doorway, frankly is quite justified. It is possibly the most significant piece of information to emerge in this case since 22 November 1963. That is why I have asked you to discuss it.

        I think all of us on JFKFacts are, to varying degrees, obsessed by the assassination. Even you dear Photon are on here more than me. So right back at ya on that one.

        Frankly I can’t think of a better issue to be obsessed about anyway can you? I do have other interests btw – including WWII, the Holocaust, classic movies etc but we’re not here to discuss those.

        That grab-bag of views you have described are not mine. I’ve not claimed you belong to the CIA; or that evidence is faked without demonstrating that it is; that assumptions are valid when they are not; that CT ‘experts’ are more reliable than ‘real’ documented experts nor do I have preconceived notions about this case.

        I have claimed that the Zapruder film has been altered and unless WC defenders can locate Police Office Chaney in transit on the films then I’ll continue to maintain that.

        As for Police Officer Baker, the Weigman film ends seconds before he runs up the TSBD steps so we do not in fact seem him run past the Prayer Man figure at all, as you claim. You are assuming that he does, we don’t know that he did. Sean Murphy does not say that either, he claims that Oswald had already walked into the TSBD by the time Baker entered the building. Murphy’s case does not contradict itself at all. So you might want to re-examine your statement on that.

        The location of the confrontation between Baker, Truly and Oswald is still open to question. Sean Murphy makes a very good case that the meeting happened in the foyer. My own view is that it could have happened on the front steps of the TSBD. I’d be happy to elaborate further on that later. In any case, wherever that meeting took place it does not alter the fact that there is an officially unidentified man standing in the TSBD doorway.

        I have to say that is some unusual logic you are using when you say that because Oswald left work that meant he knew that the President had been fatally injured (and the only reason he could have known that was because he’d fired the shots). At the time Truly advised the police that Oswald was not in the building Charles Given was also not accounted for and there were a number of other employees who did not return to work after the shooting. Does leaving work necessarily make any of them a shooter? No. Your conclusion doesn’t fit your premises. Leaving work may make Oswald a slack employee but it doesn’t make him an assassin.

        Here’s a list of those who didn’t return to work that day. Here’s the link http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=7612.45;wap2

        Jack Charles Cason – President of School Book Depository – left building at 12:10 p.m. and went home (22H 640)
        Gloria Jean Holt – clerk at TSBD – does not return after shooting. (19H 526 & 22H 652)
        Sharon Simmons Nelson, Secretary, does not return after shooting. (Ibid)
        Bonnie Richey, Secretary, does not return after the shooting. (22H 671)
        Carolyn Arnold does not return after shooting. (22H 635)
        Mrs. Donald Baker, Clerk, does not return after shooting. (22H 635)
        Judy Marie Johnson does not return after shooting. (22H 256)
        Ms. Stella Mae Jacob does not return after shooting. (22H 665)
        Charles Givens does not return after the shooting and an APB was issued for him.
        Virginia H. Brnum – McGraw-Hill employee, does not return after shooting. (22H 636)
        Vida Lee Whately – Clerk, does not return after shooting. (22H 680)
        Warren Caster, ate lunch in Denton. (22H 641 & 26H 738)
        Spaudlin “Pud” Jones, eating lunch at Blue Front with Herbert. (22H 658)

        And now we have compelling evidence on Weigman and Darnell that Oswald may have been standing on the steps eating his lunch as he said he was and as confirmed by 1. Captain Fritz’s notes of Oswald’s interrogation. 2. Fritz’s testimony to the WC; and 3. Shelley’s testimony to the WC.

        1. http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm “Had lunch out with Bill Shelley in front”

        2. Fritz’s WC testimony: “Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn’t think–I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that “I didn’t think there would be any work done that afternoon and we don’t punch a clock and they don’t keep very close time on our work and I just left.”

        3. Shelley WC testimony: 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.

        The fact is, Oswald could not have known that Shelley was out in front when the motorcade passed by unless he was out there himself.

        Let’s face it, it would be nice if the simple explanation was true in this case. I personally wish that LHO was the sole assassin as the alternative is truly, deeply appalling. But we’ve seen from the Church Committee revelations and Watergate and instances like the Iraq WMD that the ‘simple’ explanation is sometimes what people with a hidden agenda would like us to see rather than the complex truth behind it.

        Thanks for your views.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Vanessa,

          Oswald himself said he was inside the building when the President was shot. You can hear it from his own lips on YouTube.

          Reporter: Did you shoot the president?
          Oswald: I work in that building.
          Reporter: Were you in the building at the time?
          Oswald: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbR6vHXD1j0

          Oswald said the same thing during his interrogation, according to Fritz and others:

          https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=643

          Conspiracy writers don’t tell you that Oswald was the only TSBD employee who was inside the building during the shooting who left work immediately — i.e., he was the only missing employee who could have been the shooter. Instead, they mislead by listing the workers you just named, all of whom were outside when JFK was shot. Many of them couldn’t return to work because the building was sealed off within a few minutes.

          Signed statements from all employees giving their whereabouts:

          https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1317&relPageId=662

          • Photon says:

            Jean, you don’t understand.
            Oswald’s actions on November 22 are immaterial, because he was innocent.It doesn’t matter that he took two different modes of transportation to get away from the assassination site in 15 minutes because he was innocent and never convicted in a court of law. And he never went back to his room to pick up a pistol that he didn’t have a sales slip for and never loaded it with bullets that nobody knows where he bought them. And he never shot Tippit, nobody saw him do it, nobody saw him leave the scene.And he never sneaked into a theater to get out of sight,; he actually wanted to see “War is Hell ” because the reviews were good. And he never really pulled a gun on a cop in the theater, he was just showing a gun that he found in the theater to the cop as a good citizen. He simply didn’t realize that the cops had planted it in the theater for him to find.Of course, we now know that he was in the theater to meet his CIA contact; but because he was innocent and never convicted we can be assured that he didn’t know why he was going to meet his contact nor for what purpose.Perhaps he would have complained about the CIA being too cheap to pick up the tab for a movie ticket, leading the movie employee to point him out to the cops.
            But of course none of this matters, because Oswald never stood trial and thus has never been proven to have committed any crime.And we all know that if he was never convicted he never did it.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Jean

            Thanks for your comments. Yes, Oswald does say that he was in the building. But that needs to be balanced by Fritz’s notes and WC testimony and Oswald’s ID of Shelley.

            It’s also possible that if he is the Prayer Man figure and went into the building seconds after the shots that he considered himself to be inside. It certainly would have saved us all a lot of angst if he’d been more specific.

            I think it’s also possible that in the hubbub Oswald is asked a question we can’t hear.

            The best I can hear is this:

            Reporter: Could you make one statement please?
            Oswald: I’d like some legal representation. These police officers have not allowed me to, to, to have any. I don’t know what this is all about.
            Reporter: Did you kill the President?
            Oswald: No sir, I didn’t. They keep asking me that.
            Reporter: Did you shoot the President?
            Reporter: How did you get the black eye?
            Oswald: Sir?
            Reporter: Did you shoot the President?
            Oswald: I work in that building.
            Reporter: Were you in the building at the time?
            Oswald. Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir.
            Reporter: Did you shoot the President?
            Oswald: No, they’re taking me in because of the fact I lived in the Soviet Union.
            Reporter: Did you shoot the President?
            Reporter: What time did you leave the building?
            Oswald: I’m just a patsy.

            It could be argued that Oswald in-between denying that he shot the President is trying to explain to the reporters (and maybe himself) why on earth he has been brought in by the police.

            I think I’ve demonstrated in my post to Photon that almost everyone in the building who realised there were shots tried to leave immediately. Mostly to see what was going on. It doesn’t imply guilt.

            Jack Dougherty also does not have an alibi for the time of the shooting.

            I was aware that the list of people were not inside the TSBD but I was using that list to demonstrate that not coming back to work that day was not evidence of guilt.

          • Vanessa says:

            🙂

            Now Photon, you know very well I have never made any such claims.

            Glad to see you’ve come over to our side at last though.

            I believe you have an unsolved Harold Norman and Bill Shelley problem, sir. Prove me wrong.

          • Photon says:

            Norman never stated that he saw JFK shot. You think that since he said that JFK ” sorta slumped” he thought that he saw him shot. But JFK was held up by his back brace and actually any movement to the sides would no have been visible from the 5 th floor. As he never even saw the head shot your claim cannot be true.Besides, if he saw any shots hit JFK, why didn’t he just say that he did?

          • Vanessa says:

            Morning Mother May’s son

            I think it’s implicit in Norman’s words “I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something”. I really don’t see how that can be interpreted any other way except that Norman connected the shot with the slump.

            And McCloy’s question implies that Norman has seen the President shot: “Did you see the President hit on any subsequent shots?” In other words did he see the President hit again?

            Are you saying that Norman couldn’t have seen JFK slump at all from the 5th floor window? What makes you think that? You and I have both stood near the 6th floor window. The street and the limo seem quite close and any movement on the street is pretty clear. The view from the 5th floor would, if anything, be closer to the road.

            Besides, if Norman hadn’t seen the President react why did he describe it as a slump? ‘Slump’ seems to be the common term most witnesses use to describe JFK’s movements after the first shot. Mostly it isn’t clear whether they meant slumped forward, backward or sideways.

            If Norman hadn’t seen any sort of response from JFK wouldn’t he have said “I heard the first shot but couldn’t see what happened in the limo”?

            I also think it’s clear from Norman’s reaction that he knew the President had been shot. He immediately ran to the west window to get a better look at what was going on in the railroad yards and then ran downstairs to the first floor and exited the building.

            He didn’t say “The President’s fine, lets get back to work”. He runs out of the building.

            In other words, Norman does exactly what you say Oswald was the only man to do that day.

            Could you please send me a link to Duncan MacRae’s comments about Prayer Man? Wherever they are I can’t find them. Much appreciated.

          • Frank says:

            “Norman never stated that he saw JFK shot. …… he never even saw the head shot your claim cannot be true.Besides, if he saw any shots hit JFK, why didn’t he just say that he did?”

            This post is a fine example of what I have come to regard as a “Photon Flash Bomb”. It has enough residual context to appear relevant to a discussion, but in my opinion is embedded with an outlandish assumption or falsehood presented with the zeal of a validated authority. It has a desired agenda that often affects stalling and disruption of the continuity of a discussion: everyone adjusts their focus to clear the temporary blindness (to the actual topic) caused by the flash bomb. Time passes as the discussion veers off track. Then usually someone walks away in a huff. Perfect.

            Vanessa, you are better than anyone (including me) at reading it (the tactic) and responding to it with insightful intelligence that cuts clean through and presents grounded reasoning, but the response will never be satisfactory since what you present and the way you present it is precisely the target of the flash bomb.

            I know that if there is a response to this post then it will most likely involve some perceived parallel by some conspiracy theorist somewhere, but really, so what?

            The discussion was about the identity of the PM figure in the extant photographic evidence. What did Duncan MacCrae say that debunked it being LHO? Apparently nothing.

          • Photon says:

            Vanessa, you claim that Norman’s comment about JFK ” slumped or something” after the first shot proves that he saw JFK being shot.
            There is only one problem with your interpretation.
            The first shot missed.

          • Vanessa says:

            Well thanks very much Frank. I must admit I’m a bit taken aback by those very kind words.

            I’m aware that wily Photon has got us off track on the Prayer Man discussion and I’m working my way back towards that.

            I was rather expecting my fellow Commonweath-er to comment on the Gordon Smith issue but nothing so far.

            I really don’t understand the flouncing off in a huff crowd – we’re all here to discuss the issues – let’s just do that.

          • Vanessa says:

            Now Photon, why can’t you say those nice things like Frank does. I get no appreciation at all from you for all the hard work I do around here.

            At the time Norman gave his WC evidence he had no idea about the single-bullet theory and the shot sequence. In fact I don’t know if the Commission had even developed it yet then.

            All Norman is saying is what he heard and saw ie that after the first shot that he heard he then saw the President slump.

            Which would seem to pose a problem for your theory but not for mine.

            I’m serious about the MacRae information whatever that is. Can you give me a hint where to find it? I am genuinely seeking the truth about Prayer Man, as I view it as incredibly significant.

            Now you wouldn’t want to be standing in the way of me finding out the truth would you?

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Jean

            Here is an even better discussion of Oswald’s comments regarding being in the building.

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=94e36733467e00f4533dc56b37403694&app=core&module=search&do=search&fromMainBar=1

            Thanks for your views.

        • Ramon F Herrera says:

          [Vanessa: ]

          “My ‘obsession’ with Oswald in the doorway, frankly is quite justified.”

          =============================

          Vanessa:

          What you posit implies that the plotters were the most incompetent, bumbling operatives on the planet. In fact, they were the very best: only the Soviet Union had comparable counterparts.

          Just imagine all those years of hard work by the Banisters, Joannideses and LHO impersonators, only to be ruined by having Lee yelling:

          “I was at the door !! Next to Peter, Paul and Mary !! Ask anyone!!! We yelled, we looked up!!! There are probably photographs of me !!!”

          … in front of the world’s press.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Ramon

            It’s a good point Ramon I don’t deny it. However, I normally find myself having to defend the plotters as being too incompetent to run such a show. So this is a new one.

            Obviously I’m not an expert on assassinations so I don’t know what the plotters were thinking of to let Oswald stroll about.

            There is one theory on another site that says that Oswald was meant to be shot at his rooming house. But the shooter was pulled over by Tippit and panicked and shot him instead. They even name the individual and have a photo.

            Is it true? Who knows. But you are assuming perfection on the part of the plotters. If the plotters were that good how did they manage to shoot Connally?

            If Prayer Man was Oswald then it might explain him standing in the corner when there were plenty of better spots down on the street. It might also explain why this individual didn’t go for a looksee like almost everybody else that day.

            I’m not one of those who thinks Oswald is 100% innocent. He seemed to be involved in something even if he didn’t actually know what it was.

            It just keeps coming back to his knowledge of Shelley’s whereabouts at the time of the shooting. How could he know where Shelley was unless he was with him? That’s a clincher for me.

            Thanks for your views.

            I can’t speak to

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        From the affidavit of William H. Shelley 22/11/63:

        “The President’s car was about halfway from Houston St. to the Triple Underpass when I heard what sounded like three shots. I couldn’t tell where they were coming from. I ran across the street to the corner of the park and ran into a girl crying and she said the President had been shot. This girl’s name is Gloria Calvary who is an employee of this same building. I went back to the building and went inside and called my wife and told her what happened. I was on the first floor then and I stayed at the elevator and was told not to let anyone out of the elevator.”

        So, “Dr.” Photon, no one in the building knew anyone had been shot?

        • Photon says:

          Gloria Calvary was not in the TSBD during the shooting..
          She worked for South-Western Publishing .

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            According to Shelley’s affidavit, he was in the TSBD within minutes of the shooting, immediately after speaking with Gloria Calvary.

            However, if you don’t like that one, here is another way Oswald was informed of the shooting. From the WC testimony of Mrs. Reid:

            “Mr. BELIN. All right. You went up through the stairs and then what did you do?
            Mrs. REID. I went into the office.
            Mr. BELIN. You went into your office?
            Mrs. REID. Yes.
            Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do?
            Mrs. REID. Well, I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming in the back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk several feet and I told him, I said, “Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe they didn’t hit him.” He mumbled something to me, I kept walking, he did, too.

            Mr. BELIN. And then you went through your actions, what you saw, your conversations that you had, and your actions in going back into the building and up to the point that you saw Lee Harvey Oswald?
            Mrs. REID. That is right.
            Mr. BELIN. Do you remember how long by the stopwatch it took you?
            Mrs. REID. Approximately 2 minutes.

            How many times do I have to prove you wrong?

          • Photon says:

            “Oh, the President has been shot,but maybe they didn’t hit him.He mumbled something to me, I kept walking,so did he.”
            Obviously she did not know JFK’s status, otherwise she would never have qualified her statement with ” maybe they didn’t hit him.” But who upon hearing that a President had been shot at only a few yards away would simply mumble something and move off-with no other reaction , no evidence of surprise, no statement of interest, no questioning of “maybe they didn’t hit him.”?
            He knew.

      • Paulf says:

        Photon: I don’t who Paul May is and I don’t care, but you do make a lot of claims to expertise for someone anonymous. What’s more, your questions that allegedly demonstrate Oswald’s guilt show how little you know about criminal law.

        In the absence of any real evidence that Oswald shot JFK, you resort to asking why he was the only employee who left the building. Whether that is even true, it doesn’t in a million years prove that he shot anybody. I doubt you could even indict a ham sandwich without better evidence than that.

        Your other question is equally nonsensical. How did he know there was an assassination? Are you serious? What happened that day? Well, there was a presidential motorcade that was interrupted by multiple gunshots, causing the entire area to fly into panic and LHO to flee. There’s actually a lot of ways he could have heard that JFK was shot.

        But that also raises another of your blind spots. Most WC doubters look at all the other evidence involving Oswald’s curious background and his associations with spies and spy-type people, and come to a conclusion that there is a lot there that raises questions. For a lone nut, Oswald spent a lot of time with people who coincidentally wanted JFK dead (such as the anti-Castro Cubans and Ferrie, who was connected to Marcello).

        That Oswald knew there was an assassination more logically points to his involvement or knowledge of assassination efforts than to his actual participation in the shooting. The only people who are sticking their head in the sand and ignoring facts are the people who assert that LHO was the gunman.

  7. Ronnie Wayne says:

    While interesting this thread digresses from the facts demonstrated by Di Eugenio and others that O knew Ferrie, both knew Bannister and worked for him in the summer of 63′.

  8. Paul May says:

    Can anybody produce any witness that saw LHO on the steps at the time of the shooting?

    • Vanessa says:

      Hi Paul

      Oswald places himself there with Shelley. Shelley places himself on the steps. How could Oswald have known that Shelley was there unless he was with him?

      • Oswald places himself there with Shelley.

        No. That’s based on a very tendentious interpretation of Fritz’ notes.

        You can read how Fritz himself interpreted his notes in an appendix to the Warren Commission Report.

        http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-11.html

        • Vanessa says:

          Good Morning Professor – thanks for your comments.

          I’m going to assume you’re referring to this bit of Appendix 11. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

          “I asked him what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor. Mr. Truly had told me that one of the police officers had stopped this man immediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway, so I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in.”

          This is Fritz’s WC testimony:

          “Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement..”

          These are Fritz’s notes:

          “..had lunch out with Bill Shelley in front”

          This is Shelley’s WC testimony about where he was at the time of the assassination.

          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

          We know from Weigman that Shelley leaves the TSBD steps immediately after the shots and goes for a walk down the street before Officer Baker even enters the building.

          Even if Oswald was the 6th floor shooter and had run down the stairs and actually had the encounter with Baker in the 2nd floor lunch room then continued on outside, he would not have been there in time to see Shelley leave the steps.

          The WC scenario as to Oswald’s movements does not give him an occasion to see Shelley on the steps at all.

          Oswald could not have known that Shelley was standing there at the time of the assassination unless he, Oswald had seen him there.

          So what was Shelley’s name even doing in Fritz’s notes, in the first place? Why was Shelley’s name even mentioned, its presence exculpates the suspect after all. Did Fritz put Shelley’s name in his notes? No, Oswald did.

          My view is not based on a tendentious reading of Fritz’s notes at all. It’s based on Shelley’s name appearing in those notes at a time when based on the WC version of events Oswald could not have known where Shelley was. Except that he did know.

          If you have any other explanation as to how Shelley’s name got into those notes and how Oswald could have known Shelley’s location at the time of the assassination then I would like to hear it.

          Thanks for your views.

          • Frank says:

            Great point Vanessa. Amazing how one name, “Shelley” in Fritz’s notes can move a mountain like that, but move it it does. Unfortunately it appears that such solid reasoning shall forever go unaddressed by the Professor as it is apparently unassailable.

          • Vanessa says:

            Thankyou Frank

            Yes, it’s a pity we haven’t heard back from the Prof.

            Particularly as I think that in addition to Shelley Oswald has two other alibi ‘witnesses’ ie he saw them even if they didn’t see him.

            They were Junior Jarman and Harold Norman – both were on the TSBD steps prior to going up to the 5th floor and Oswald mentions them as people he saw.

            I wish the Prof or Photon would ask me about them. 🙂 C’mon fellas.

            But Shelley’s name in Fritz’s notes is a game-changer all by itself.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      LHO on the steps has nothing to do with O, Ferrie and Banister in the summer of 63’or O’s office at 544 Camp St. Ok, so argue the point, he didn’t have an office, he just used one on the third floor. But he was there per multiple witnesses.

      Just knowing these Facts is opening only one can of worms.
      Free the Files.

    • B Kamp says:

      Can anyone produce a witness that saw Oswald doing the shooting?

  9. Bob Prudhomme says:

    “Photon

    December 12, 2014 at 10:41 am

    Vanessa, you claim that Norman’s comment about JFK ” slumped or something” after the first shot proves that he saw JFK being shot.
    There is only one problem with your interpretation.
    The first shot missed.”

    Good morning, “Dr.” Photon

    Would you be so good as to provide us with proof that the first shot missed?

    • Photon says:

      Rosemary Willis.
      The turn of Connolly to the right.
      The lack of recognition of the sound of the shot for what it was.
      JFK stopping his wave and turning his head.
      But more to the point-what is your proof that the first shot hit JFK- or anybody?
      The current consensus by most serious researchers is that the first shot missed. What
      do you know that invalidates that consensus?
      You recently stated that the human cerebellum was ” tiny”. Obviously you have never seen or held one; it is certainly not tiny , even if it is smaller than the cerebrum. How you be able to tell macerated cerebellum from cerebrum outside of anatomical context is beyond me; how did your gross anatomy lab teach you to do that?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        The current consensus among most serious researchers is that the first shot missed??? LMBO!!!

        Where do you come up with such nonsense?

        The cerebellum, when placed beside the cerebrum, is indeed tiny, “Dr.” Photon. While my medical credentials are only that of a paramedic, I had the opportunity to observe at an autopsy, and saw first hand the diminutive size of the cerebellum. And, as anyone who has seen the brain will tell you, the ridges of the cerebellum are fine and minute, compared to the much larger “rope like” windings of the cerebrum. I would recommend anyone reading this to Google “cerebellum” and look at the brain themselves, in order to appreciate the vast difference between cerebellum and cerebrum.

        While it is possible the cerebrum and cerebellum were somewhat macerated, I’m afraid this is trumped by the professional levels of the surgeons attending to JFK. These were not interns but, rather, surgeons with many years of experience under their belts. In fact, if you read Appendix VIII of the Warren Commission Report, containing the medical reports of the Parkland doctors, you will see most of these surgeons were teaching professors. If they say they saw cerebellum on the cart, you can take that to the bank.

        I would trust their word far more than I would trust the word of an Internet hero who, right out of the blue, suddenly claims to be a doctor.

        • Photon says:

          Actually, General Surgeons rarely if ever see cerebellum, particularly in the ER.
          The neurosurgeon Clark thought that he saw cerebellar tissue initially, but walked that statement back. He also said that he actually did a cursory exam only, as he knew that the postmortem examination would establish the true nature of the wound. Aside from the cortex, most of the substance of both portions of the brain is composed of supporting tissue, including oligodendrocytes, neural sheaths myelin and connective tissue. The appearance of macerated tissue from both portions of the brain would be indistinguishable .
          The “ridges” of the cerebellum are called gyri, as are those of the cerebrum. They are not fine and minute,despite being smaller than those of the cerebrum.While being only about a tenth the size of the Human Cerebrum, the cerebellum has more nerve cells ; it is not inconsequential in size.
          As far as closely evaluating the head wound ( impossible in the 17-18 minutes total time spent on resuscitative attempts) why would Dr. Jenkins say immediately prior to discontinuing resuscitative efforts ” boys, before you open the chest you had better look at this” -apparently the only time that anybody in the ER actually looked closely enough at the wound to recognize that it was a fatal wound.

          • Vanessa says:

            Morning Mother May’s son

            You previously stated that:

            “Why was Oswald the only unexcused male employee of the TSBD to leave the entire area after the assassination when nobody else in the building knew exactly what had happened?”

            Perhaps you’d like to rephrase that as:

            “Along with everyone else in the TSBD who realised that there were gunshots fired at the motorcade (including Harold Norman who saw the President shot) Oswald left the building. He claimed he then conferred with his supervisor and, on the basis of this discussion, believed that no more work would be done that day. Although Oswald’s supervisor did not confirm this discussion Oswald had knowledge of his supervisor’s whereabouts outside the building that confirmed he had seen, heard or spoken to him at that time. Like numerous other TSBD employees that day, Oswald then went home and did not return to work.”

      • Vanessa says:

        Morning Photon

        I have responded to the Prof’s concern about Fritz’s notes separately but it’s still being moderated. I believe it addresses the issue he raised.

        Now, back to Prayer Man, I’ve addressed all the concerns you’ve raised about him and the Weigman film. You haven’t come up with any links for Duncan MacCrae’s comments so I’m going to assume that whatever they are they do not debunk Sean Murphy’s Prayer Man discovery, as you claim.

        In fact, I can tell from your comments that you haven’t actually read the Prayer Man thread at all. So I’ll post it here again to give you another chance.

        http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.