Post by 19efpppPost by John CorbettPost by 19efpppPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by 19efpppPost by 19efpppPost by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by John CorbettPost by John CorbettPost by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by Steve M. GalbraithPost by Steve M. GalbraithPost by 19efpppAccording to the FBI, so you know it must be true, Bill Decker threw a
drink on a little colored boy who was only trying to make the people
smile. And then Carl "Pappy" Dolson beat the shit out of Decker for so
doing. Just be thankful, Marsh, that Pappy is now beating up racists in
heaven.
https://postimg.cc/YvYwR0kP
Fine find. I've seen photographic evidence that Amos Euins was shunted
into the back seat of a cop car outside the depository, while Howard
Brennan sat in the front seat with the cops.
Here is Shelley "shunted" into the backseat with Williams and Arce.
http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/JFK-ASSASSINATION-The-Concealment-720p-Full-Documentary.mp4_20150813_224408.991.jpg
Very good point. But it was a different car and different cops, I
believe.
Post by Steve M. GalbraithEuins is, I believe, still alive.
I tried to call him once, about 20 some years ago, but he hung up on me
without a word. I don't blame him. He has probably been swamped with the
curious.
Max Holland interviewed him on his early
Post by Steve M. Galbraith"first shot" theory. To my knowledge Euins has never stated that he was
coerced or forced to change his testimony or account.
However, we have it on record that Euins DID change his account, from his
11/22: "He then stepped behind some boxes..... This was a white man, he
did not have on a hat."
11/29: "He stated he could not tell anything about the man & that he
never saw anything other than what appeared to be his hand on the stock."
So much (on 11/29) for the "white" and the head without a hat. And how
could Euins have seen the man step behind boxes without seeing more of
him?
He changed his account, whether he was forced to or did it on his own....
Question: Why didn't
Post by Steve M. Galbraiththese evil racist DPD (well, yes, I guess Decker wasn't DPD) force Euins to identify the shooter as Oswald?
Wouldn't that be what "they" wanted?
Obviously not. No one--not Fischer, not Edwards, not Brennan (except in
the *revised* DPD scorecard on the lineups) ID'd Oswald in Dealey. At
that distance, no witness's word on an ID would have been accepted.
Hence, also, no Euins' ID....
dcw
They couldn't force him to identify Oswald because it wouldn't have "been
accepted" but they forced Brennan to identify Oswald? Or to agree with
their "revisions"? Why would they believe people would "accept" Brennan's
account but not the others?
As David Belin wrote in an article on the subject, Brennan was the most
important witness. All the others, less so. Apparently, then, they
didn't care if Brennan's word was accepted or not.
Brennan is the most important witness because he located the shooter
before the last shot was fired. His most important contribution is that he
located where the shots were fired from and this was verified when empty
shells were found at the window he identified as the source of the shots.
Some weight can be given to his eventual identification of Oswald as the
shooter because he identified the owner of the rifle found on the 6th
floor. If the prosecution of Oswald depended on that identification it
would be a rather shaky case but the wealth of physical evidence that
indicated Oswald was the shooter makes Brennan's ID of Oswald just another
nail in the coffin.
Post by donald willisAnd, again, to my knowledge Euins has never
Post by Steve M. Galbraithexposed/revealed any coercion or force or intimidation by the DPD. Or
others.
Frankly, every time you're asked to explain something you get further and
further down the conspiracy rabbit hole. You do realize that there is no
evidence whatsoever to any of your claims?
I quoted Euins from 11/22 and 11/29. He changed his story. "No
evidence"?
Whenever we ask for
Post by Steve M. Galbraithexplanations we get made up answers. You do realize this was the murder of
the president and not framing someone for robbing a convenience store?
This event was going to be studied and studied and studied for decades.
People would talk, reveal their role, expose the plan.
Mrs. Markham did "expose" part of her part in the cover-up. She told an
interviewer, in later years, that she saw the suspect run down the alley
off Patton. At the hearings, she just said she last saw him going halfway
down Patton towards Jefferson. In her 11/22 affidavit she said the guy
simply kept running down 10th St. Obviously, she was reined in for the
hearings.
Obvious to people with overly active imaginations. To people with common
sense, there is a much more mundane explanation. People don't have perfect
recall. Memories can fade over time. Even recollections immediately after
an event aren't always accurate. But you go on believing somebody got to
her if that is the only way to keep your boat afloat.
Mrs. M indicated the alley, first & last. As Dale Myers writes, Markham
"placed her hands out in front of her & showed how the gunman had leaned
on the passenger door...." (With Malice p152) "'I was told that the
suspect who shot Tippit had come up to the right side of the car', Barnes
recalled... 'and that he might have placed his hands there'." (p152)
Markham was at Tippit's car about the time that Barnes arrived (frame
grabs, pp152-3) And his crime scene sketch indicates that it was 114 feet
from where Tippit's body was found to Patton St., then 210 feet from 10th
St. to the alley off Patton. His notes amplify, "W on alley to Crawford".
So it seems that Mrs. M was saying "alley" on 11/22/63 and, again, many
years later. She did NOT just see him going only so far down Patton, as
she told the WC. So one suspect apparently went to Jefferson (according
to other witnesses), and one to the alley.
Do you think it surprising that witnesses would give differing accounts
of the same event?
You just got back from the Canned Response Center, apparently. Their
supply must be deleted after your last visit.
Apparently I left one for you. You steadfastly refuse to accept what every
criminal investigator knows. Eye witness testimony is highly unreliable
and needs to be corroborated if it is to be accepted as accurate. Every
person who wants to base their beliefs on what certain witnesses said they
saw doesn't want to face this inconvenient truth. You are demonstrating
that fact now.
Apparently, you and Anthony Marsh go to the same Canned Response Center!
Note that the path up Patton which the suspect(s) took is based ONLY on
eyewitness reports. It can't be "corroborated" except by other
eyewitnesses.
Numerous eyewitnesses IDed Oswald either as the man they saw shoot Tippit
or saw him fleeing the scene with gun in hand and dumping the spent shells
so he could reload his revolver.
Now who was it that said that "eyewitness testimony is highly unreliable"?
I throw that back in your face....
It is unreliable when it is uncorroborated. In this case we have the
corroborating physical evidence of the murder weapon being in the
possession of the person all those people identified. We also have the
discarded jacket which Marina later identified as belonging to Oswald.
Post by donald willisHis jacket was found nearby under a car
Post by John Corbettwhere he was seen discarding it.
Warren Reynolds last saw the suspect running in a direction almost
opposite to the parking lot. He changed his story for the Commission.
Cover-up....
Oh, stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.
"WFAA reporter Victor F. Robertson Jr. listens as Warren Reynolds tells a
Dallas police officer that the gunman went into the rear of the used
furniture story seen in the background." (With Malice frame-grab caption
p131)
This (photographed) incident occurred about 1:30pm 11/22/63, long before
Reynolds' Commission testimony, in which he then decided that he last saw
the suspect headed in the opposite direction, towards the parking lot
where the jacket was found. Reynolds changed his story for the
Commission.
Cover-up. Is your face red!
It will be if you can come up with an explanation for how Oswald ended up
with the Tippit murder weapon in his possession, which he used to try to
kill one of the arresting officers. That pretty much trumps all your
claims to the contrary.
Please don't address, directly, my post.
If you didn't want me to address your post, why did you ask me a question.
You asked if my face was red. I pointed out to you that unless you can
come up with a rational explanation for how Oswald ended up with the
Tippit murder weapon if he wasn't the murderer, all your other arguments
crumble. I guess you don't like the tough questions.
Again, no comment re Reynolds' change of story....
What change of story? The FBI took a statement from Reynolds on 1/21/1964.
He saw Oswald going south on Patton to Jefferson and then west on
Jefferson. He was following him from a distance which is prudent given he
knew Oswald was armed and had likely fired the shots he heard a short
timer earlier. He lost Oswald when he ducked behind the Texaco station at
Crawford and Jefferson, one block to the west of Patton. That is
essentially the same story he told the Warren Commission. Oswald's jacket
was found in the parking lot behind the Texaco station. Oswald was
arrested a short time later at the Texas Theater about five blocks was of
where Reynolds last saw Oswald. There is nothing in either his initial
statement or his WC testimony they would preclude Oswald being the shooter
of Tippit. He saw Oswald with a gun in his hand moving away from the scene
of the Tippit murder and saw him turn west on Jefferson in the direction
of the Texas Theater where Oswald was later arrested. Why you think there
is an indication of a cover up in those two statements is mind boggling.
Time to unboggle your mind. Those two statements are way late. And I
never said anything about the 1/21 statement, despite your duplicitous
attempt to say that I did. At about 1:45, on Nov. 22nd, 1963, the WFAA
photographer Reiland filmed Reynolds by one of the two old furniture
stores on Jefferson. According to Reiland, Reynolds was telling the cops
that he LAST SAW THE SUSPECT GOING INTO ONE OF THE BUILDINGS OFF
JEFFERSON, on the side of the alley OPPOSITE the parking lot. He was
already lying when he made the statement to the FBI on 1/21. Check the
text, captions, and frame grabs in "With Malice", John. The FBI statement
is about 2 months later.... It was good of Dale Myers to present the
belated Reiland evidence, though he (and Vincent B) tried to wriggle out
of it! Can't have a loose end....
dcw
Yes, I was surprised to see that meyers has a web page up on this and he
agrees with you, Willis. Even Nutter apologist Dale Meyers says that
Reynolds changed his story. But the nutters here don't seem to be capable
of admitting anything that challenges their faith. Meyers is a little more
mature than this crowd. He at least has the courage to deal with a fact,
even if he just tries to explain it away. At least he admits that it is
there. Reynolds did change his story.
I said that Meyers was more mature than this crowd, but I was mistaken.
Meyers is not more mature, but more sophisticated than our local nutters.
Maybe that's what mature means, sophisticated? His web stain here,
https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/11/warren-reynolds-and-oswalds-jacket.html,
is really all about defending the Official Story, and not about truthful
iotas. Reynolds changed his story, and Meyers admits it, but only so as to
defend the furniture store episode. There's no reason for the DPD to waste
time at this place unless somebody told them that the suspect went in it,
and there is nobody but Reynolds to credit with that story. So without
Reynolds having changed his story, there is no reason for the coppers to
stop long enough at the furniture store for the assailant to get away.
If the cops were told a suspect went in a particular direction but nobody saw
precisely where, it stands to reason they would check out a nearby building he
could have ducked into.
Post by 19efpppPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by 19efpppAnd
it would look worse for the Official Story if the cops had wasted 5
minutes there for no reason at all than it does that Reynolds changed his
story. I don't know whether or not that makes Meyers look mature, but he
certainly is no more honest. He is throwing Reynolds under the bus to
defend the DPD. He even quotes Captain Fritz discrediting Warren very
nicely. The reason that Meyers is cool with discrediting Reynolds is that
he has "new evidence" to corroborate the furniture store story. So even
though Reynolds looks slimy by changing his story, his furniture store
element is firmed up with the "new evidence." So the credibility of the
Reynolds character is not so important now that there is "new evidence" to
corroborate the credibility of the furniture store episode. Even a slime
ball's account is credible if it can be corroborated. So Slime Ball
Reynolds is actually more valuable to the Official Story than Saintly
Reynolds. And Meyers merely takes his halo and places it over the Dallas
Police.
So you finally read the story you yourself cited and now understand how it
firms up both that the Tippit shooter was Oswald and Reynolds was the
source of the furniture store story. Hilarious. So of course you're left
only with now calling Reynolds a slime ball.
Why don't you just admit what you believe? No matter how much evidence
indicates Oswald shot and killed JFK and Tippit, you will refuse to accept
it, and will simply continue to argue for a conspiracy despite all the
evidence to the contrary.
That is exactly what you're doing in your post above.
Hank
I originally cited Meyers for an isolated point, that Warren had changed
his story. As with your Pal Cobett, who has no need to read Meyers' book,
I felt no need to read Meyers' web page, because I had already answered my
question as to what Meyers said about Warren changing his story. Upon
reflection of what I myself said here, that Meyers was being more mature
than the man who beat Jack Ruby to the punch by one second and felt the
need to announce that fact to the world 57 years later just to shore up
his tottering ego, I realized that something was wrong. Meyers is an
incorrigible liar about the assassination.
Yet you cite him as your source for Reynolds changing his story.
Post by 19efpppSo, my own judgement here
pronounced thus seemed questionable, so I decided to descend into the
cesspool once again and catalog its entire contents. And low! I looked
upon it with new eyes, and saw it for what it truly was, a load of shit.
Yes, there were partially digested bits of truth here and there, but it
was just another load of propaganda turds from the malicious hole of
Meyers. Aghast at my error, I dashed across my keyboard to the Kook Domain
which we now inhabit to immediately post a correction to my error, the
correction you have somehow found fault with. The burden was upon me. I
felt it's weight, and I carried it as best I could. The anguish that you
do not love me for my efforts now burdens me all the more, alas!
Don't be so simplistic. Dale Meyers says lots of true things, even if he
is a liar.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Your assertion is unproven.
Above, you called Reynolds a slime ball witness. Now Myers, a researcher who has devoted much time to unravelling the Tippit shooting, is a liar. Elsewhere, you said I was dishonest. Ad hominem appears to be your go-to device to dismiss someone you disagree with.
Post by 19efpppHis saying that Reynolds changed his story can be true, even if
Meyers uses it to lie.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Your assertion is still unproven.
Post by 19efpppThe best liars use the truth to lie. There is film
of Reynolds talking to the cops.
Does this film record the words spoken?
Post by 19efpppApparently there is the reporter who
overheard Reynolds say the suspect went into the furniture store, though I
have not tried to corroborate that yet.
That would be hearsay in any case.
Post by 19efpppThis reporter is visible standing
there in the film.
Which still makes it hearsay.
Post by 19efpppThe cops did go into the furniture store, and we have
film of that, too.
No one is disputing that.
Post by 19efpppI say that the liar Meyers is telling the truth here.
So you're arguing Myers lies, except when he doesn't. How do you know when
Myers is lying, and about what? Honest question. Is it as simple as "What
Myers says conflicts with what I believe, so he must be lying?" versus
"What Myers says agrees with what I believe, so he must be honest?"
Post by 19efpppAre you really incapable of comprehension on this point, or are you just
pretending for the sake of arguing?
Your assertions, your burden of proof. I understand your argument, I just
don't understand your basis for it.
Post by 19efpppMaybe the cops would go in there
anyway, but look at the record of where we know they did go in. The
library. Why? Because a witness told the cops that somebody ran into the
library. The Texas Theatre. Why? Because a witness told them that a
suspicious person was in there. Why are you arguing about this? Reynolds
changed his story. Get used to it.
What part of my admission that it appears Reynolds changed his story (and
the normal, understandable reasons he did) did you not understand?
Please read for comprehension: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/53mkHs9LoyU/m/FD6uZLlYAgAJ
Specifically, this exchange with Don:
== QUOTE ==
Post by 19efpppFirst, I want to hear YOUR explanation as to why Reynolds' story change
isn't a cover-up....
First, that's an attempt to switch the burden of proof, a logical fallacy
that Ben Holmes utilizes far too often. It is not anyone else's job to
offer a disprove of your assertion, it's on you to prove your charge that
it is a cover-up. John Corbett pointed this out when he wrote: "Since you
are claiming that the change in story is evidence of a cover up, the
burden is on you to eliminate all other possible reasons. But that's not
how conspiracy hobbyists operate. They find two pieces of evidence that
don't seem to fit together and rather than investigate why they don't fit,
their knee jerk response is to say, "AHA! it must be a cover up.". This is
the reason you guys continue to spin your wheels 57 years after the DPD
solved an open and shut murder case."
Secondly, one simple explanation is that Warren Reynolds lost the man he
was tailing at some point, and simply assumed he went in one direction and
reported that to the police. Having erred in that regard (the police
searched and found nothing) and having learned later that Oswald was
arrested in the theatre, Reynolds simply did what a lot of people do. He
"forgot" he was ever wrong, and simply pretended he was right all along.
This is a well known phenomenon to investigators worldwide, and in fact,
we see it displayed here on this forum on a daily basis. As others have
been pointing point, i's a far cry from
(a) pointing out a discrepancy to
(z) the assumption the discrepancy is evidence of a conspiracy or a
cover-up.
It could be nothing more than people acting like we know people act. You
have done nothing to eliminate other possibilities nor establish your
assumption of a cover-up is the right possibility.
Now, I suspect your response will not be to accept your burden and accept
and concede you must eliminate all other possible reasons Warren Reynolds
gave conflicting accounts. Instead, I suspect you will ask me to prove to
your satisfaction that Reynolds had an innocent reason to change his
account instead of being forced to change it. This is why I don't bother
doing this with Ben. If one does offer a different possibility, he
immediately asks for the evidence of that, and forgets he ever offered an
unproven conspiracy-oriented suggestion in the initial post.
Reynolds most likely was the person who pointed out the furniture stores,
but being human, he left that out of his testimony entirely.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you
a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is
the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you
have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television?
Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him
there.
Mr. LIEBELER. I show you an exhibit that has been marked Pizzo Exhibit No.
453-C and ask you if that is the same man, in your opinion?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You were in no way, if I understand it correctly then,
properly identified as anyone who had told the authorities that this man
that was going down the street was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald, is
that correct?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Well, yes and no. When it happened, and after I seen--and you
probably know what I did-- after I saw the man on the corner of Patton and
Jefferson, I followed him up the street behind the service station and
lost him I went back there and looked up and down the alley and didn't see
him, and looked through the cars and still didn't see him.
Then the police got there, and they took my name. While they were taking
my name, some television camera got me, and I was on television, I am sure
nationwide. Then some man that I worked with wanted to be big time, I
guess, so he called some radio station and told them what I had done, and
they recorded that and ran it over and over and over again over the radio
station. And other than that, no.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, what was it that they said you had done? All you had done was try to follow this man and he got away from you?
Mr.REYNOLDS. And he got away.
Mr. LIEBELER. Then you went back and you looked around for him around the car lot in the area and you weren't able to find him?
Mr.REYNOLDS. I looked through the parking lot for him after. See, when he went behind the service station, I was right across the street, and when he ducked behind, I ran across the street and asked this man which way he went and they told me the man had gone to the back. And I ran back there and looked up and down the alley right then and didn't see him, and I looked under the cars, and I assumed that he was still hiding there.
Mr. LIEBELER. In the parking lot?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Even to this day I assume that he was.
Mr. LIEBELER. Where was this parking lot located now?
Mr.REYNOLDS. It would be at the back of the Texaco station that is on the corner of Crawford and Jefferson where they found his coat.
Mr. LIEBELER. They found his coat in the parking lot?
Mr.REYNOLDS. They found his coat there.
Mr. LIEBELER. So that he had apparently gone through the parking lot?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Oh, yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. And gone down the alley or something back to Jefferson Street?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes. When the police got there, and they were all there, I was trying to assure them that he was still there close. This was all a bunch of confusion. They didn't know what was going on. And they got word that he was down at a library which was about 3 blocks down the street on the opposite side of the street.
Mr. LIEBELER. Down Jefferson?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Down Jefferson. And every one of them left to go there. So when they left, well, I did too, and I didn't know this man had shot a policeman. I wouldn't probably be near as brave if I had known that. The next time, I guarantee, I won't be as brave.
== UNQUOTE ==
There's nothing mysterious or pointing to a cover-up in anything Reynolds
said or did. It's all an assumption by you, without eliminating any and
all other reasonable explanations.
== UNQUOTE ==
