On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 5:03:17 PM UTC-7, John Corbet CUT w and he made
Post by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by John Corbettthat clear in his testimony. When asked which of the two halves he was
indicating, he made it clear it was the easternmost window.
Curious. Jackson indicated the "easternmost window" by placing the "A"
over the "western half" of the double window. Sure. So much for all the
marks the witnesses were making on all the photos!
If you had bothered to read Jackson's testimony you would understand why
he put his mark where he did. He was asked to mark the window where he saw
the shooter and he considered the entire double window to be one window,
so he put his mark on the western half of that window thinking it made no
difference. When Specter announced that he had indicated the western half
of the double window, he realized he needed to be more precise and said
so. He wasn't badgered into making that clarification. He volunteered the
information that the shooter had been in the eastern half of the double
window. This is very easy to understand but only a conspiracy hobbyist
would try to make a big deal out of it.
But, according to Specter, he put the mark over the western half, not over
both halves. So there's reason to doubt Jackson's explanation. If he
meant the whole window, wouldn't he have put his mark over both halves?
Or in the middle? One problem is that we can hardly see the mark as the
photo reproduction appears now.
Post by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by John CorbettWhen asked to mark where he saw the rifle he made it clear it was the
eastern most window on the 6th floor. He put his "A" on the left pane of
the double window because he considered it all one window but when asked
to clarify which of the double windows he was referring to, he made it
clear it was at the east end of the building.
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you a photograph marked as Commission Exhibit No.
348 and ask you if you can identify what that depicts?
Mr. JACKSON - This is the School Book Depository. This is the window the
two colored men were looking out of. This is the window where the rifle was.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you mark the window where the rifle was with an "A" and
would you please mark the window where you have identified the men below
with a "B."
(Witness marking.)
Mr. SPECTER - Referring to your mark of "A," the photograph will show that
you have marked the window on the sixth floor with the marking being placed
on the window on the westerly half of the first double window.
Mr. JACKSON - I am sorry. This window here on the very end was the window
where the weapon was. I am sorry, I just marked the double - actually this
is the rifle window right here.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you take the black pencil again and draw an arrow -
before you start to mark, hear the rest of the question - as precisely as you
can to the exact spot where you saw what you have described as the rifle.
(Witness marking.)
Oddly, this arrow does not appear on CE348. However, it does appear on CE
360--a clearer reproduction--which is a variant version of CE 348, and,
yes, though, it does point to the "nest" window.
CE360 was marked by James Worrell. It too identifies the 6th floor window
as where the shooter was seen.
Yes, Specter badgered him until he did that. Until then, he was torn
between 5th & 6th. But I guess you'll take your wins any way you can.
I'm afraid though that you'll have to take a loss re Worrell's take on the
number of shots--4. Poor baby.
Badgered? Worrell testified he wasn't sure if it was the fifth or sixth
floor because he was right below and didn't have a very good perspective.
Specter simply asked him if he could choose. Worrell's testimony indicated
he thought it was the sixth floor but wasn't positive. There was no
badgering.
Mr. SPECTER - Is there any way you can tell us which floor it was on, or
would the angle of your observation permit you to be sure it was the fifth
or sixth floors?
Mr. WORRELL - I am not going to say I am positive, but that one there.
Mr. SPECTER - All right, would you mark that one --
Mr. WORRELL - Because that right there, I feel, would have obstructed my
vision but I said it was either on the fifth or the sixth floor.
Mr. SPECTER - Well, now, will you mark with a "Y" the window which you have
just pointed to?
(At this point Chief Justice Warren departed the hearing room.)
Mr. WORRELL - A "Y?"
Mr. SPECTER - A "Y."
(Witness marking.)
Mr. SPECTER - You have marked the "Y" over two windows. Was it the window -
which window was it there as best you can recollect, as between those two?
Mr. WORRELL - I didn't mean to bring it down that far but this one.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you put an arrow then at the window that you have just
indicated, was the one where the rifle was protruding from?
(Witness marking.)
Mr. SPECTER - So the sum of it is you are not sure whether it was the fifth
or the sixth floor, but you believe it was the floor where you have marked
a "Y" which is the sixth floor and that was the line of vision as you
looked straight up over your head?
Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir.
Long & short, Worrell wasn't sure, but Specter wanted him to make a
decision, and got what he wanted.
What crap. Specter did nothing more than ask the witnesses to clarify
their answers and be as precise as they could in placing the shooter. He
never suggested to any witness what he should say. In fact when Jackson
first placed his A over the western half of the window, Specter seemed
perfectly willing to accept that answer if that was what the witness was
going to testify to. When Jackson realized Specter had misinterpreted his
mark, it was Jackson who clarified on his own the that shooter was in the
eastern half of the double window.
See above.
Post by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by John CorbettPost by donald willisYou lose again. Jackson's marks aren't
Post by John Corbettclear in this copy of CE348 because it is a grainy reproduction but if you
look close you can see the marks.
I can't see any of the marks, but I'll take Specter's word for it.
Post by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by John CorbettMr. SPECTER - Was the window you have just marked as being the spot from
which the rifle protruded, open when you looked up?
Mr. JACKSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best recollection as to how far open it was at
that time?
Mr. JACKSON - I would say that it was open like that window there, halfway.
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating a window on the sixth floor of the westernmost
portion of the building open halfway as you described it.
My last comment, as to the description of your last window, is only for the
purpose of what you have said in identifying a window to show how far open
the window was.
Mr. JACKSON - Yes.
You can play all the silly games you want. When Jackson was asked
specifically which window he saw the rifle, he made it absolutely clear
the window where he saw the rifle was on the 6th floor and it was the end
window.
And yet, just after he marks his arrow and his "A", he leaves the window
so indicated and instead points to a fully-open window at the other end of
the 6th floor. Clearly, Jackson thought, like you, that the photo must
have been taken at some other time, on some other day, and likely did not
represent the way the windows were open at 12:30pm on 11/22/63. (And yet
that's exactly how far all of them were open [or unopened] on both the 5th
& 6th floors [except the Hill window] at that time.) So he went elsewhere
to indicate how wide the shooter's window was open at 12:30, which could
have been clearly seen if only (Jackson might have figured) Specter had
been using a photo taken before the 6th-floor window configuration had
been changed. But Specter did not tell Jackson that that was indeed how
wide the windows were open at 12:30!
And that fact gives away the game: Jackson could not use the "nest"
window here to show how wide the shooter's window was open at 12:30.
You don't care how many witnesses marked the 6th floor window as where the
shooter was. You can't get over your fixation of how wide open the window
was no matter how much evidence is shown that conflicts with your beliefs.
And you just can't bring yourself to admit that Jackson indicated wide
open windows to show how far the shooter's window was open at 12:30.
Jackson said halfway.
Just keep saying that if it comforts you, and we all want you to be
comfortable.
Just keep ignoring it if it comforts you.
I'm hardly ignoring it. But I'm also looking at the window which he was
calling open "halfway". And it is not. And you can't come to terms with
that simple fact. The photo negates Jackson's words.
Post by John CorbettPost by donald willisHe chose the westernmost window as the one that most
Post by John Corbettclosely resembled how wide open the window was on the day of the
assassination. It is rather silly that would would think that the
description of how wide open the window was would outweigh all the
forensic evidence that was on the 6th floor, the eyewitnesses who
indicated the shooter was on the 6th floor, and the Dillard photo and they
Hughes film which indicate Williams, Norman, and Jarman occupied the fifth
floor, just as they testified.
Williams & Jarman also testified that the latter opened the westernmost
window on the 6th floor after the shooting; but as I never tire of
repeating, Moorman-3 shows that window open BEFORE 12:30.
That does nothing to negate where all three said they were watching the
motorcade
If they fudged their story re the west-side window, however, it means they
might have fudged their story of the east-side windows, also.
from which is confirmed by Dillard and Hughes.
Post by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by John CorbettWe have the Dillard photo and the Hughes film which corroborate each other
And we have Jackson, Brennan, Fischer, and Edwards corroborating each
other re how wide the window was open.
Jackson said halfway.
Good lord! Still in denial!
Are you denying he said halfway?
Are you totally ignorant of what he MEANT by "halfway". I guess so. If
ignorance is bliss, you're the most blissful person I know....
Post by John CorbettPost by donald willisIn any case witness recollections don't out weigh
Post by John Corbettthe forensics or the photographic evidence. Witness testimony is
unreliable especially as it relates to specific details, such as how wide
open the shooter's window was.
Trying to have it both ways, eh?
Say the guy who wants to dismiss 95% of what the witnesses have testified
to and grab the few morsels he can find that fit his beliefs. The 95% is
corroborated by the body of evidence and those morsels you want to focus
on are refuted by it.
LNs pathetic fallback for everything: the so-called "body of evidence".
Post by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by John CorbettWhich do you think a witness would more likely observe and remember, which
window they saw the shots fired from or how wide open the window was?
For the sake of argument, let's say they'd remember "which window". At
least one witness remembered the "second window from the end" (as recorded
on the police radio at 12:37), which cannot have been the "nest" window,
right? There's your "remembering", thank you....
What was relayed on the police radio is not a first hand account.
Weaselly.
It is an
Post by John Corbettindication of what a cop understood which isn't always what was said.
Witness after witness pointed to the 6th floor
Witnesses Fischer & Edwards pointed to the 5th floor, originally. Couch
and Worrell said 5th or 6th. And Fischer, Edwards, Brennan, and Jackson
gave FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS of a wide open window. First hand, mind you, JC.
First hand!
as the location of the
Post by John Corbettshooter and that fits with all the forensic and photographic evidence.
Every damn bit of it.
Post by donald willisPost by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by John Corbettshowing Williams, Norman, and Jarman right where they testified they were
Nicely done. Norman & Jarman *testified* to a lot of things that they
said nary a word about until the Tuesday & Saturday, resp., after the
assassination. And some of what they finally said, on those two days,
they later had to retract....
Just because they didn't say it in their earlier statements doesn't cast
doubt on it.
Doesn't confirm it either--for instance, Jarman & Williams saying--for the
first time, at the hearings--that Jarman opened the westernmost window
AFTER the shooting. Perhaps they were advised to wait until the
authorities had confirmed that no photo which could expose the falsity of
their prospective statements on the subject had turned up, or at least
been made public!
Perhaps you are imagining a shitload of malfeasance that never occurred
but that you need to have happened for your silly beliefs to hold
water.
Post by donald willisTheir testimony regarding where they were is corroborated by
Post by John Corbettthe Hughes film and the Dillard photo, but you are willing to toss out
their sworn testimony and the photographic evidence because of how wide
open you think the shooter's window was. Unbelievable.
Please recall that I've tossed out the Hughes and the Dillard on their own
merits, or lack of same.
You've tossed those pieces of evidence because they refute what you choose
to believe so you have to convince yourself they are fraudulent. You
aren't convincing anyone else of your BS.
The BS began with the Warren Report.
Post by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by John CorbettPost by donald willisPost by John Corbettwhen the shots were fired. Like all conspiracy hobbyists that have come
before you and will come after you, you invent half-assed excuses to
dismiss any and all evidence which conflicts with what you choose to
believe.
As do you.
Unlike you, I am able to weigh evidence for probative value. When two
pieces of evidence indicate two different truths, both cannot be reliable
for there is only one truth. The photographic evidence alone outweighs the
descriptions of how wide open the window was. Cameras are far better
witnesses than humans because humans get things wrong especially minor
details such as how wide open a window was.
Photos can be "adjusted", and have been.
There is no evidence the photos were adjusted and in fact the film
evidence corroborates the Dillard photos. So does the testimony of the
three employees who were there. In short, everything fits together except
for your silly belief the shooter fired from a wide open window.
Post by donald willisThe cameras corroborate the
Post by John Corbetttestimony Williams, Norman, and Jarman all of whom testified they were on
the fifth floor and heard the shots and the shells hitting the floor above
them. They are further corroborated by ALL the forensic evidence that the
shooter was on the 6th floor. That is where the shells, the rifle, the
rifle bag, and the fingerprints of the owner of the rifle were found. You
will toss that out because a few witnesses said they thought the window
was wide open.
Again, I treat the shells & rifle as evidence on their own, or at least
raise questions re where that evidence was found.
Well that is your biggest mistake and the same one that CTs have been
making for over five decades. The pieces of evidence have to be fitted
together like a jigsaw puzzle if you want a clear picture of what
happened. CTs never want to put the pieces together. They want to pick out
a few pieces, arrange them as they please and imagine what the picture
looks like. It's a half-assed way of trying to figure out the truth which
is why you seem perpetually confused by something that should be painfully
obvious.
"a few pieces". Here:
Protecting the Warren Commission from the Truth--An Annotated Chronology: Cover-up in Dealey, 12:23 to 1:23
This chronology is a timeline version of what I've found after some 15 years of looking into the JFK assassination. Not that long, yes, compared to the yeoman efforts of some, like, say, the late researcher Harold Weisberg. And of course, I'm presenting only one side--I think I'm fair, but definitely unbalanced--and the other side has some pretty potent evidence, such as the photos. But I place the most trust in the Dallas Police radio logs, which I think would be less likely to have been faked. (Of course, fake data like the 12:45 suspect description were fed into the logs. [See 12:44 for the data which went into the description.]) After all, the Dallas Police's first answer to "awkward" radio transmissions was simply to concoct a false transcription, the Sawyer Exhibits. (See, for instance, 12:37-8, below.) The logs themselves seem to have remained inviolate, waiting for more accurate and honest police and FBI transcriptions. [Unfortunately, these more honest transcriptions were done too late to be of much use at the Commission hearings.] No need to go to the trouble of doctoring the physical logs, or belts, themselves, if such was in fact possible. And if, as I posit, the conspiracy included select members of the Dallas Secret Service and Dallas Homicide, then that "mountain of evidence" against Oswald is suspect, not just the hulls which Homicide Captain Fritz apparently tampered with, in full view of, at least, deputy sheriffs and a photographer. (See 1:05--2.)
A special note re entries 12:30-12:31--3, 4, 5, & 6. It boils down to:
Oswald stopped in the depository lunchroom on the second floor--where he may have had just enough time (there is disagreement even on this) to get there from the so-called "sniper's nest" on the sixth floor OR:
Oswald stopped pretty much anywhere on the first floor (again, there is disagreement on the precise spot)--in which case he could not have been a sixth-floor shooter. All three principals in the encounter--Oswald, Officer Baker, & building manager Roy Truly--have, apparently--at one time or another--put the run-in at a place other than the lunchroom.
We start, below the KEY, with an excerpt from Fritz's notes--written some time after the actual interview--and conclude with The Curious Case of the Missing Chicken, a lighter note re oddly controversial evidence....
[The Chronology includes some of the many instances in which the Commission was thwarted by altered or withheld evidence, to which this is the KEY, with amplifying details on some entries.
KEY: *indicates evidence prepared for (read: tailored for) the Commission.
12:23: "two negr came in" becomes "he was eating lunch with some of the employees" (v4p213).
12:30-31 8): All that Euins told the Commission was "I could see a white spot on his head" (v2p208).
12:37-8: The WR authors were so confused about the two versions of the 12:37 caller that they footnoted both (p822).
1:07-1:23: Montgomery & Johnson seemed to have remembered more by the time that they testified: "The rifle was found after you got there?"/"Yes." (Montgomery/v7p97); "A rifle was found on the sixth floor, was it not?"/"Yes, sir" (Johnson/v7p103).
**indicates evidence withheld from the Commission.
12:26: The Commission did not get to see Moorman #3.
***indicates evidence ignored by the Commission
12:28: Actually, counsel David Belin was at least *curious* about this witness phenomenon. After Brennan told him the sniper was at a wide-open window, Belin went on to ask all his window witnesses how wide the window was open.]
The Chronology
*About 12:23... Oswald (notes Homicide Capt. Fritz), in one interview, says "two negr came in". Oswald was inexact re times, but Harold Norman testified (v3p190) that he & James Jarman left the front of the depository just as a radio reported the motorcade on Main--at 12:21, as per "Death of a President" p137. The two went around the back of the depository & came in the back door (Jarman/v3p202). This is the only point at which Oswald could have said that he saw two Negroes come in, about 12:23, a ways away from the "sniper's nest".
**About 12:26... Mary Moorman photo #3 records that the far-west fifth-floor window facing Elm was open (POTP p233). (See also 12:30-31--1)
About 12:27... In his 11/23/63 FBI interview, Bonnie Ray Williams states that he left an elevator on the sixth floor as he walked down to the fifth floor. (See also 12:30-31--2 & 4.)
***About 12:28... Howard Brennan, Ronald Fischer & Bob Edwards all report seeing an odd man--or a man behaving oddly--in a wide-open window on an upper floor, far-east side. Brennan testifies that the man, at one point, was on the window sill (v3p144), a contortionist feat which would have been all-but-impossible in the half-open sixth-floor "sniper's nest" window. Fischer testifies that he could not have seen as much of the odd man if the window were not wide open (v6p199). And in his 11/22/63 statement, Edwards said that the window was "wide open all the way" (v24p207).
*12:30... On 11/24, James Jarman told the FBI that "Harold Norman stated at that time that something had fallen from above him & that a piece of debris, in addition, had hit him in his face; that his [fifth floor] window was open at the time...." On 11/26, Norman himself told the FBI that--before the last two shots--"he stuck his head from the window & looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing because small particles of dirt were falling from above him." On 11/4, Norman--beginning to change his story--told the Secret Service that he saw "dust falling from the ceiling of the fifth floor...." Now, however, nothing hits or blinds him, and he has a new observation: He hears falling cartridges and bolt action from above. By the time of the hearings, Norman's switch from tactile evidence of activity above to the evidence of sound is complete: "I saw some [dust or dirt] in Bonnie Ray Williams' hair". (v3p192) "I could hear the shell hulls & the ejection of the rifle." (p191) And Williams embraces the dust: "Cement fell on my head." (v3p175) In a final twist, Norman reverts to his original debris story & tells the HSCA (10/77) that Jarman told him that there was "something in [his, Norman's] hair." The witnesses are interchangeable; only the idea of activity from above remains the same. The Commission version was very egalitarian: Norman got the sounds; Williams got the debris; and Jarman got to say he opened the far-west window. Jarman's part of the story, we know, was not true. (See 12:26, above, & 12:30-31, just below.) Norman's exchange of debris for decibels casts doubt on his part of the story, as well as Williams'.
*12:30-12:31... 1) Norman, Jarman & Williams testify that they ran to the west end of the floor (WR p153). Jarman (v3p205) & Williams (v3p177) add that the former opened the far-west window ("Y" in CE 487, 488) facing Elm. [See 12:26, above--the window was actually already open.] Supposedly, Oswald went down while the three were at the west end (WR p153).
... 2) Williams, in his 11/23/63 FBI interview, states that, from the west-window area, he could see the stairway clearly, but did not see anyone coming down the stairs. He says that he could not see the elevator area. Implication: Anyone coming down from the sixth floor must have taken that elevator which Williams says he left on the sixth floor (see 12:27, above.). This document (along with Williams' subsequent disowning of same at the hearings--see 4, below) is one of the clearest signs of conspiracy and cover-up.
... 3) Although all officers & deputies were ordered to the railroad yards, one officer, Marrion Baker, ran into the depository, where, apparently near the entrance, he stopped Oswald. An Oswald so near the entrance so soon after the shooting is an Oswald innocent of shooting. (See also 4 & 6.)
***a) In answer to a question re where the policeman stopped Oswald, in the depository, Harry Holmes testified that Oswald said that he was stopped "in the vestibule" on the "first floor, the front entrance to the first floor" (v7pp305-6).
b) Baker himself, in his contribution to "JFK First Day Evidence" (p365), wrote, "We left Oswald there, & the supervisor showed me the way upstairs": first Oswald, then "stairs".
***c) Biffle, in his 11/23/63 Morning News report, wrote that Baker stopped Oswald "in a storage room on the first floor". In his 1964 follow-up, Biffle clarified that it was building supe Roy Truly who recalled that he & a "policeman met Oswald as they charged into the building after the shots were fired". (DMN 11/21/2000}
***d) In the NY Herald Tribune (11/23/63), TSBD VP Ochus V. Campbell is quoted as saying, "Shortly after the shooting we raced back into the building. We saw [Oswald] in a small storage room on the ground floor".
***e) In the 11/23/63 James Hosty/James Bookhout FBI report of the first Oswald interview, Oswald finds only a soda on the 2nd floor--no police officer. (WR p613) Hosty reiterated this in his Commission testimony and in his book.
*... 4) Baker, in his 11/22/63 affidavit, relocated the Oswald incident on the 3rd or 4th floor, with no mention of an off-stairway lunchroom. In order to coordinate with this new, improved location, Williams, in turn, was forced to change all his 11/23 statements to the FBI when he testified before the Warren Commission: Now, he says, that he took the *elevator* down from the sixth floor (v3p171), that he could *not* see the stairway area from the west-end area (v3p179), & that he could see the east-elevator area (v3p180) . Retrospectively, then, Williams clears the stairs for Oswald & co. (See also 2), above.)
... 5) But the assertions of Victoria Adams seem to prompt a *second* relocation of the Baker/Oswald/Roy Truly encounter. She testified that she ran down the stairs from the fourth floor between "15 and 30 seconds" after the shooting. (v6p392)
*... 6) Considerately, Baker and Truly clear the stairs for Adams: The encounter is now said to have taken place in a lunchroom, away from the stairs. On 11/23, Truly tells the FBI that Baker saw Oswald in a "snack bar" on the second floor.
... 7) DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer testifies that when he heard Sheriff Bill Decker radio, about 12:31, that the shooting had come from the depository (v6p316), he, Sawyer, immediately drove there. Counsel has to correct him: Decker did not mention the depository. (v6p318) (See also 12:39, 12:48, & 12:55.)
*... 8) Amos Euins tells two reporters that he saw a "colored man" shooting from an upper floor of the depository. (Kent Biffle, DMN, 1964/James Underwood v6p170) Apparently, that was the only person he saw on that floor. Deputy Sheriff C.L. Lewis' 11/23 report states that Euins "saw man on fifth floor". (v19p527) The Lewis/Euins note would seem to be accurate, as far as it goes, as there was at least one black man on the fifth floor.
*12:37-8... Patrolman L.L. Hill radios, "It is believed that them shots came from, as you're facing it on, I believe, Elm, looking towards the building, it would be the upper right hand corner, at the second window from the end." (my transcription) The only such window open at 12:30 was on the fifth floor, & Williams was in it then. Hill's witness apparently mistook Williams for a shooter (who was obviously nearby), &--like Euins--saw no one else on that floor. At the hearings, fellow officer Clyde Haygood appropriated Hill's transmission and call number (v6p302) and, not surprisingly, proved to know little or nothing about the "second window" witness. Haygood lost his notes, although the dispatcher had instructed him, earlier, to "Get... all the information that you can", regarding a previous witness. (my transcription) The Warren Report, however, properly restored the transmission to Hill (p116). Clearly, Haygood was instructed to assume Hill's transmission. * Dispatcher G.D. Henslee, for his part, also assigned Hill's transmission and call number to Haygood (v21p391). (Fellow DPD officer Sgt. Jim Bowles corrected Henslee with a later transcription [CE 705}: The "It's believed" message is restored to #22, Hill, p74) One assumes that Henslee had the same instructor, as did Camera Car 3's Bob Jackson. The latter's 11/23 Dallas Times Herald story told how he followed the gazes of Williams & Norman up to the half-opened "nest" window & he saw a rifle, and he repeated this tale for the Commission (v2p159). But Jackson testified that that window was open "like that window there", the westernmost window on the sixth floor--see CE 348: the window is wide open. Williams & Norman could not have been looking up to a wide-open window. *And Norman never said that he stuck his head out & looked up; by the time of the hearings, Williams too was denying same. *Jackson's first choice for the "nest" window was the (closed at 12:30) window just above Williams' own second window. (CE 348) Jackson was apparently Hill's witness. (He jumped out of the car near the underpass, where Hill was stationed. [POTP pp454-55]
*12:39... Sawyer talks to some officers whose "information was that the shots had come from the fifth floor" of the TSBD.... We immediately went inside the building" (p319). This would have been, then, no earlier than about 12:39: The officers who reported, on the police radio, re shots from the fifth floor were Sgt. Harkness (12:36) and Patrolman Hill (12:37). Hill left the triple underpass area at 12:38, when he was told to report to the front of the depository. (JFK First Day Evidence p408 [radio log, 12:38]/CE 2645: "Dispatched to TSBD ff assassination")
12:44... Sawyer radios the dispatcher with a suspect description, supposedly obtained mostly from Brennan (v3p144). But most of it sounds like it isn't from him. Sawyer has height & weight data, not too credibly taken from a witness at street level, although it seems Brennan went along with the game, & threw out a weight guess in his 11/22 statement. Sawyer's primary witness, he says, had no clothing description. Brennan in fact had a clothing description (statement). Sawyer radios that he doesn't know if the suspect seen was in the depository. (v6p321) Brennan stated that he saw the man on an upper floor there (statement). Sawyer's seem to be a pre-fab description--and, yes, it would have been hard to guess what the suspect-in-waiting was going to be wearing that day. *By the way, Deputy Sheriff Allan Sweatt stated that he saw Saywer taking the "names of witnesses" in front of the building (Decker Exh 5323 p531), but Sawyer did not produce these notes at the hearings, & could not remember names (v6p322) . In other words, he did a Haygood.
At 12:48, Sgt. Gerald Hill & Patrolman James Valentine radio that they're on their way to the depository (CE 1974p28). Hill testifies that when the two arrived, about 12:50, they teamed up with Sawyer (v7p45)--who finally (not "immediately") acted on his "fifth floor" information--and the three went up to the fifth floor. *[None too credibly, Hill and Sawyer--seasoned, adult police officers--plead that they got lost on their way up. Sawyer supposedly got only as far as the fourth floor (v6p319), & Hill ended up on the 7th floor (v7p45).]
About 12:55; about 12:59; and 1:11... Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney (v3p285) & reporter Tom Alyea (4/23/98 & 5/7/98 e-mails) said the empty shells were found upstairs between 12:55 (Alyea) & 12:58 (Mooney). ***These estimates tally with Harkness' call, at about 12:59, for the Crime Scene wagon (CE 1974p41). ***Meanwhile, Valentine reports (v25p914) that he was "assigned to the fifth floor" (5/29/64 report), which particular floor was, after all, the one for which they had all been searching. At least the junior officer on the foray did not get lost. Of course, none of the intrepid trio probably actually got lost in the wilds of the depository. Sawyer, who had been on his radio from 12:43 to 12:46, was then incommunicado from 12:47 to 1:11, when he radioed, "On the third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle hulls...." (PotP p523) [The "third floor" down is the fifth floor, and *the Sawyer Exhibit transcription & Sawyer himself both, helpfully, translate the actual phrase as "fifth floor".] Pretty clearly, he said this based on first-hand knowledge--he was on the fifth floor at 12:55. [At 1:00, DPD Capt. C.E. Talbert, out front, radioed, "I think Lumpkin & Sawyer both are in the building." (CE 1974p43)]
About 1:05--1... At the hearings, John McCloy asks Williams if he met a "man named Brennan" on his way out the building. Williams says, No. "No one said, 'This is the man I have seen on the fifth floor window'?" "No, sir." (v3p183) Williams denies this, as he denied many things at the hearings. McCloy's source for this incident remains unknown.
***About 1:05--2... Three witnesses say that Fritz picked up or was handed the hulls. Mooney testified that Fritz was the first one to handle the hulls (v3p286); Alyea has written that Fritz pocketed the hulls & later gave them to Crime Scene Det. Studebaker ("Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window" p40 & 4/23/98 e-mail from Alyea to Tony Pitman); Deputy Sheriff Jack Faulkner wrote that the hulls were handed to Fritz (v19p511). In a 6/9/64 affidavit, Fritz neither confirmed nor denied handling them. His curious intervention muddies things, like what kind of hulls they were, how many, and where they were found.
*About 1:07 to 1:23 ... Homicide Detectives Montgomery & Johnson were assigned to watch the "nest" area & the front windows on the sixth floor. At 1:17, it was so quiet that they could hear a report on a police radio wafting up from below, out front, re an officer getting shot. (With Malice p384/CE 2003 p210) Yet, they did not hear the hollering which attended the discovery of the rifle (Boone v3/292 & Weitzman v7p107), about 1:22pm, according to its discoverer Deputy Eugene Boone (POTP p529), supposedly on the same floor. Nor did Montgomery or Johnson mention any hulls in the "nest". In fact, the rifle find supposedly interrupted the processing of the hulls, which were supposed to be in the "nest" (POTP p529)--the envelope with the processed hulls was marked "1:23pm" (POTP p527). Montgomery--guarding the "nest"--says not a word about Crime Scene officers processing hulls. If the latter were actually processed in this time period, it was not on the sixth floor.
Between about 12:55 & about 1:15... Several sheriff's deputies and police officers report a "piece of chicken" on a "cardboard carton" in a "cubby hole" [the "nest"], deputies including Mooney himself, A.D. McCurley, & Harry Weatherford (all Supplementary Reports 11/22, 23/63), & officers Gerald Hill (v7p46) & E.D. Brewer (v6p307). ***Alyea flatly contradicts all of them: "There were no chicken bones found on the sixth floor" ("Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window" pp42-3). And Crime Scene Detective Robert Studebaker seconds Alyea:
Counsel: One witness, Luke Looney [sic], said he found a piece of chicken partly eaten up on top of one of the boxes. Did you see anything like that?
Studebaker: No.
Counsel: Was anything like that called to your attention?
***Studebaker: I can't recall anything like that. It ought to be in one of these pictures, if it is. (v7p147)
So, despite the deputies' and officers' determination to tie the chicken to a box, they fail the photographers' test. And it's Sawyer who points everyone in the right direction. On 11/22, he told reporters re the suspect: "Police found the remains of fried chicken & paper on the fifth floor. Apparently the person had been there quite a while." (Stockton Record [AP] 11/22/63 p8) In his testimony, he amplifies, from his own transmission, "We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor and from all indications the man had been there for some time." (v6p322) The chicken and the hulls, then, were found in the same place.
Post by John CorbettPost by donald willisIt was not. It was halfway open as Jackson stated
Pardon the delay while I try to un-boggle my mind. Well, if you really
want to use THAT Jackson... What he stated and what he saw are two
different things. He SAW, as he indicated on the photo, a WIDE OPEN
window. Somehow you just don't get that. "Halfway open as Jackson
stated" is not half open....
Jackson did not say the window was wide open. He said it was halfway open
Stop right there. Were the westernmost windows wide open or halfway open? Those are the windows he was testifying about as to how far the shooter's windows was open. Can you somehow bring yourself to answer that simple question?
dcw
Post by John Corbettand he said the shooter was at the easternmost window of the 6th floor.
You are simply trying to twist his words to fit your goofy scenario. I
suppose you could take a more ridiculous approach but it is hard to
imagine how.
