Post by Rob Caprio on Aug 9, 2021 20:26:41 GMT -5
All portions ©️Robert Caprio 2006-2024
cdn.muckrock.com/news_images/2018/04/04/HSCA.jpg.1200x400_q85.jpg
www.jfk-online.com/100witt-hsca.jpg
Was Gordon Novel Umbrella Man?:
merdist.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Novel-comparison2-768x494.png
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) would call a man who claimed to be in Dealey Plaza (DP) on November 22, 1963. He was very conspicuous and in a good position to observe the assassination, but neither the Dallas Police Department (DPD) or the Warren Commission (WC) thought that it was necessary to identify him or call him as a witness.
The FBI didn't track him down either as they failed to do an interview or an affidavit. For many years he was referred to as the “Umbrella Man" because he held an open umbrella on a sunny day near the Stemmons Freeway sign. The HSCA would call a man who claimed to be him.
The HSCA Says…Louie Steven Witt.
***************************************
Louie Steven Witt claimed to be “The Umbrella Man" (TUM), but it isn't known for sure that he was. Here is his opening testimony.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/pages/HSCA_Vol4_0217a.gif
Mr. GENZMAN. Mr. Witt, I would like to direct your attention to November 22, 1963. Were you in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963?
Mr. WITT. Yes, I was.
Mr. GENZMAN. Did you witness the assassination of President Kennedy?
Mr. WITT. Yes, sir.
Mr. GENZMAN. Have you previously testified about the assassination of President Kennedy?
Mr. WITT. No.
Mr. GENZMAN. Have you ever given information to any law enforcement bodies concerning the assassination?
Mr. WITT. No. (HSCA IV, p. 429)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0217a.htm
This shows that no one attempted to find him or talk with him. Based on this testimony we are to believe that he witnessed the assassination, but never felt a need to come forward until the time of the HSCA. Does this sound normal?
Witt worked with the Rio Grande Insurance Company and he stated that he went for a walk every day if the weather was “decent". Well, it was better than decent as it had become a bright sunny day by noon.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/pages/HSCA_Vol4_0217b.jpg
Mr. GENZMAN. Were you carrying anything?
Mr. WITT. Yes, On this particular day I was carrying a black umbrella. (Ibid.)
So why did he bring a black umbrella with him? JFK Exhibit F-405:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0217b.htm
He identifies JFK Exhibit F-405 as his and he is asked why he brought it with him that day.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/pages/HSCA_Vol4_0218a.jpg
Mr. GENZMAN. Why were you carrying an umbrella that day?
Mr. WITT. Actually, I was going to use this umbrella to heckle the President's motorcade.
Mr. GENZMAN, How had you gotten this idea?
Mr. WITT. In a coffee break conversation someone had mentioned that the umbrella was a sore spot with the Kennedy family. Being a conservative-type fellow, I sort of placed him in the liberal camp and I was just going to kind of do a little heckling.
Mr. GENZMAN. Are you saying you were going to use the umbrella as a symbol for the purpose of heckling?
Mr. WITT. I think that would cover it. (HSCA IV, p. 431)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0218a.htm
Am I the only one who thinks that this a weak reason for bringing an umbrella on a sunny day? Why was the umbrella a “sore spot" for the Kennedys? I know it supposedly has something to do with Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, but this was never shown to be true. Even if it was, that would have made it an issue about something that had happened over twenty years before! Witt says it would have been directed at the President’s MOTORCADE, thus, it could have been to heckle others, but who?
When Witt was trying to explain why he walked in the direction he even said that he was carrying “that stupid umbrella”. If it was stupid why did he bother to bring it? Was his desire to heckle that strong? He kept stating that he really didn't know why he walked to where he would eventually be outside of there being few people there. Was his hesitancy due to having to do more than heckle? He is asked why he thought that the umbrella would bother President John F. Kennedy (JFK) and he said “he just knew it was a sore spot for the Kennedys.” How? Because someone told him this during a coffee break? How in the world could this make him know for sure?
Witt did exonerate LHO as being the sole assassin though with this comment.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/pages/HSCA_Vol4_0219a.gif
Mr. GENZMAN. What happened next? I believe you testified that you were moving forward opening your umbrella as the motorcade was approaching you?
Mr. WITT. Yes. As I moved toward the street, still walking on the grass, I heard the shots that I eventually learned were shots. At the time somehow it didn't register as shots because they were so close together, and it was like hearing a string of firecrackers, or something like that. It didn't at that moment register on me as being shots. (HSCA IV, p. 433)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0219a.htm
How could LHO, using an antiquated bolt-action rifle, fire shots so rapidly that they sounded like a “string of firecrackers”? He also was a witness to something the WC claimed never happened.
Mr. WITT. …The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes… (Ibid.)
The car was stopping? The breaks were being jammed? The WC said that the presidential limousine never stopped and that it maintained a constant speed of 11.2 m.p.h. What gives here?
He was asked if he was utilizing the umbrella to signal shooters as some researchers have claimed and he said no. (Ibid., p 436) He denied that his umbrella ever had a rocket, dart or flechette in it. (Ibid., p. 437)
He is asked where he kept the umbrella and he claims not to remember for sure. This was a major event and if he was there as claimed one would think everything that he did, saw and heard would be engrained in his mind, but it seems he was foggy on many issues.
He said that the umbrella he brought to the HSCA was the one he had on November 22, 1963, and it had never left his possession in the years since outside of someone using it at work. Of course we have no way of knowing if this is true or not. He didn't want to open the umbrella, but the HSCA insisted. They found no gun inside, but this means little since there was no way of knowing if this was the same umbrella or not.
Witt again said the shots came in “very rabid" succession. (Ibid., p. 445) He does admit that he isn't totally positive that this is the SAME umbrella as he supposedly had that day. (Ibid., 446) Witt was asked if he had ever done anything like this before in terms of protesting and he said he had not. (Ibid., p. 452) So why did he feel the need to do this on November 22, 1963?
If it was all so innocent as Witt claimed, and the HSCA was quick to accept, why did no one try to locate him after the assassination or in the intervening fifteen years? TUM was a witness very close to the limousine when the shots were fired at the very least, and a suspect at most so there is no reason for why he was never located by the FBI or the DPD?
Perhaps all this was innocent, but given the timing of TUM's actions in conjunction with the shots it seems to be too much of a coincidence for me. TUM was pumping the umbrella up and down at the exact time of the shooting and this is why “rumors" started about him. Add in the lame excuse for why he had an open umbrella on a sunny day and there is serious reasonable doubt about his story.
He also sat next to the Cuban who has been nicknamed “Dark Complected Man" (DCM). The HSCA just took his word for it that he saw no two-way radio on or being used by the DCM when photographs enlarged seem to show this. Why did he sit down next to this man?
Since the FBI and DPD never looked for TUM we have to wonder if Louie Steven Witt was really TUM. All witnesses in DP, especially those close to the limousine, should have been tracked down and interviewed. Why wasn't TUM and DCM?
cdn.muckrock.com/news_images/2018/04/04/HSCA.jpg.1200x400_q85.jpg
www.jfk-online.com/100witt-hsca.jpg
Was Gordon Novel Umbrella Man?:
merdist.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Novel-comparison2-768x494.png
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) would call a man who claimed to be in Dealey Plaza (DP) on November 22, 1963. He was very conspicuous and in a good position to observe the assassination, but neither the Dallas Police Department (DPD) or the Warren Commission (WC) thought that it was necessary to identify him or call him as a witness.
The FBI didn't track him down either as they failed to do an interview or an affidavit. For many years he was referred to as the “Umbrella Man" because he held an open umbrella on a sunny day near the Stemmons Freeway sign. The HSCA would call a man who claimed to be him.
The HSCA Says…Louie Steven Witt.
***************************************
Louie Steven Witt claimed to be “The Umbrella Man" (TUM), but it isn't known for sure that he was. Here is his opening testimony.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/pages/HSCA_Vol4_0217a.gif
Mr. GENZMAN. Mr. Witt, I would like to direct your attention to November 22, 1963. Were you in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963?
Mr. WITT. Yes, I was.
Mr. GENZMAN. Did you witness the assassination of President Kennedy?
Mr. WITT. Yes, sir.
Mr. GENZMAN. Have you previously testified about the assassination of President Kennedy?
Mr. WITT. No.
Mr. GENZMAN. Have you ever given information to any law enforcement bodies concerning the assassination?
Mr. WITT. No. (HSCA IV, p. 429)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0217a.htm
This shows that no one attempted to find him or talk with him. Based on this testimony we are to believe that he witnessed the assassination, but never felt a need to come forward until the time of the HSCA. Does this sound normal?
Witt worked with the Rio Grande Insurance Company and he stated that he went for a walk every day if the weather was “decent". Well, it was better than decent as it had become a bright sunny day by noon.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/pages/HSCA_Vol4_0217b.jpg
Mr. GENZMAN. Were you carrying anything?
Mr. WITT. Yes, On this particular day I was carrying a black umbrella. (Ibid.)
So why did he bring a black umbrella with him? JFK Exhibit F-405:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0217b.htm
He identifies JFK Exhibit F-405 as his and he is asked why he brought it with him that day.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/pages/HSCA_Vol4_0218a.jpg
Mr. GENZMAN. Why were you carrying an umbrella that day?
Mr. WITT. Actually, I was going to use this umbrella to heckle the President's motorcade.
Mr. GENZMAN, How had you gotten this idea?
Mr. WITT. In a coffee break conversation someone had mentioned that the umbrella was a sore spot with the Kennedy family. Being a conservative-type fellow, I sort of placed him in the liberal camp and I was just going to kind of do a little heckling.
Mr. GENZMAN. Are you saying you were going to use the umbrella as a symbol for the purpose of heckling?
Mr. WITT. I think that would cover it. (HSCA IV, p. 431)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0218a.htm
Am I the only one who thinks that this a weak reason for bringing an umbrella on a sunny day? Why was the umbrella a “sore spot" for the Kennedys? I know it supposedly has something to do with Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, but this was never shown to be true. Even if it was, that would have made it an issue about something that had happened over twenty years before! Witt says it would have been directed at the President’s MOTORCADE, thus, it could have been to heckle others, but who?
When Witt was trying to explain why he walked in the direction he even said that he was carrying “that stupid umbrella”. If it was stupid why did he bother to bring it? Was his desire to heckle that strong? He kept stating that he really didn't know why he walked to where he would eventually be outside of there being few people there. Was his hesitancy due to having to do more than heckle? He is asked why he thought that the umbrella would bother President John F. Kennedy (JFK) and he said “he just knew it was a sore spot for the Kennedys.” How? Because someone told him this during a coffee break? How in the world could this make him know for sure?
Witt did exonerate LHO as being the sole assassin though with this comment.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/pages/HSCA_Vol4_0219a.gif
Mr. GENZMAN. What happened next? I believe you testified that you were moving forward opening your umbrella as the motorcade was approaching you?
Mr. WITT. Yes. As I moved toward the street, still walking on the grass, I heard the shots that I eventually learned were shots. At the time somehow it didn't register as shots because they were so close together, and it was like hearing a string of firecrackers, or something like that. It didn't at that moment register on me as being shots. (HSCA IV, p. 433)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0219a.htm
How could LHO, using an antiquated bolt-action rifle, fire shots so rapidly that they sounded like a “string of firecrackers”? He also was a witness to something the WC claimed never happened.
Mr. WITT. …The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes… (Ibid.)
The car was stopping? The breaks were being jammed? The WC said that the presidential limousine never stopped and that it maintained a constant speed of 11.2 m.p.h. What gives here?
He was asked if he was utilizing the umbrella to signal shooters as some researchers have claimed and he said no. (Ibid., p 436) He denied that his umbrella ever had a rocket, dart or flechette in it. (Ibid., p. 437)
He is asked where he kept the umbrella and he claims not to remember for sure. This was a major event and if he was there as claimed one would think everything that he did, saw and heard would be engrained in his mind, but it seems he was foggy on many issues.
He said that the umbrella he brought to the HSCA was the one he had on November 22, 1963, and it had never left his possession in the years since outside of someone using it at work. Of course we have no way of knowing if this is true or not. He didn't want to open the umbrella, but the HSCA insisted. They found no gun inside, but this means little since there was no way of knowing if this was the same umbrella or not.
Witt again said the shots came in “very rabid" succession. (Ibid., p. 445) He does admit that he isn't totally positive that this is the SAME umbrella as he supposedly had that day. (Ibid., 446) Witt was asked if he had ever done anything like this before in terms of protesting and he said he had not. (Ibid., p. 452) So why did he feel the need to do this on November 22, 1963?
If it was all so innocent as Witt claimed, and the HSCA was quick to accept, why did no one try to locate him after the assassination or in the intervening fifteen years? TUM was a witness very close to the limousine when the shots were fired at the very least, and a suspect at most so there is no reason for why he was never located by the FBI or the DPD?
Perhaps all this was innocent, but given the timing of TUM's actions in conjunction with the shots it seems to be too much of a coincidence for me. TUM was pumping the umbrella up and down at the exact time of the shooting and this is why “rumors" started about him. Add in the lame excuse for why he had an open umbrella on a sunny day and there is serious reasonable doubt about his story.
He also sat next to the Cuban who has been nicknamed “Dark Complected Man" (DCM). The HSCA just took his word for it that he saw no two-way radio on or being used by the DCM when photographs enlarged seem to show this. Why did he sit down next to this man?
Since the FBI and DPD never looked for TUM we have to wonder if Louie Steven Witt was really TUM. All witnesses in DP, especially those close to the limousine, should have been tracked down and interviewed. Why wasn't TUM and DCM?