Post by Rob Caprio on Nov 5, 2018 22:58:33 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
3.bp.blogspot.com/_I4lZU0BrRsg/TPXTI3y8v1I/AAAAAAAAAE4/Hot_KJ7VKdY/s1600/warren.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) stated Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was guilty of shooting President Kennedy (JFK) and Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT). According to them, and their current day defenders, there is NO doubt about that.
IF that is true, why did some say their testimony was altered, omitted or deleted, and why did some say they were treated roughly in giving their testimony that did NOT match with what the WC was claiming?
Let’s look at some examples of this.
*********************************
We will begin where we left off in #113 of this series—with Arnold Rowland. As we saw in #113 of this series Arnold Rowland, who had 20/20 vision, said he saw a man with a rifle on the WEST side of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) and NOT on the east side as the WC claimed.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, by referring to the photograph on this Commission Exhibit No. 356, will you point to the window where you observed this man?
Mr. ROWLAND - This was very odd. There were this picture was not taken immediately after that, I don't think, because there were several windows, there are pairs of windows, and there were several pairs where both windows were open fully and in each pair there was one or more persons hanging out the window.
Yet this was on the west corner of the building, the sixth floor, the first floor--second floor down from the top, the first was the arched, the larger windows, not the arch, but the larger windows, and this was the only pair of windows where both windows were completely open and no one was hanging out the windows, or next to the window. It was this pair of windows here at that time.
The WC, and the FBI, went out of their way to discredit him and the results can be found in CE-2644 which is a FBI report regarding an INVESTIGATION they did on him! (Is this what Capt. King meant by “investigations?”) It goes over his high school transcript, an IQ test given to him (he scored a 109 by the way), and it mocked how he scored on a college entrance examination (he had to retake it due to a low score). They then published his high school report card! They even got an assistant principle of W.H. Adamson High School, Robert Ligon, to say Rowland was REFUSED ADMISSION to this school because of “his past record at the school.” You may be wondering what any of this has to do with what he SAW on 11/22/63! Mr. Ligon went on to tell the FBI that he had counseled Rowland for his “repeated absenteeism” during his time at Adamson.
The report also mentions that Rowland sometimes parked in the teachers’ parking area too! Oh, no! Next we heard from the principal and Dean of N.R. Crozier Technical High School in Dallas. The Dean, Edith McKissock, even said that Rowland had “few friends and was regarded as a ‘lone wolf’.” She went on to say that “he could NOT BE TRUSTED and WOULD NOT TELL THE TRUTH REGARDING ANY MATTER.” Someone should have told her this is the way JFK described Lyndon Johnson and he was NOW the President! She even went so far as to call him a “conniver” and a person who dressed above his means. Is this all necessary you may ask? Of course it was as he SAW SOMETHING the WC did NOT claim! The report covers six pages (two pages per one page in HistoryMatters.com) and the sole purpose is to bad mouth Rowland.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pages/WC_Vol25_0467a.gif
Was any such investigation done on Brennan? Markham? Bledsoe? Whaley? I don’t think so. Why was Rowland treated so poorly? Because he saw something the WC did NOT want known. It is that simple. Is this the way you search for the truth?
Next we come to a reserve police officer who was also critical of the work the FBI would do in his regard. He would say this before he was even sworn in for his testimony.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, let me ask you if you have any particular questions that you want to ask me?
Mr. WORLEY. No; I would have to say, after reading that report now, that report from the FBI is not very good.
After it was pointed out that he sent a letter to Chief Curry mentioning the FBI report and a change he had he would say this too.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Do you want to take my pen and correct it? Write in what you think is necessary to correct it.
Mr. WORLEY. [Makes correction.] I tell you, this is more of an accurate description of what I did.
Mr. GRIFFIN. This Exhibit 5048?
Mr. WORLEY. Right. Not this one, because----
Mr. GRIFFIN. The letter is more accurate than the FBI report?
Mr. WORLEY. Yes; that tells exactly from the time I arrived at the police station to the time I left, and every move that I made in between.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, we are talking about Exhibit 5048, which is your letter of November 26, 1963, to Chief Curry. Are there any corrections or changes that you would make, or additions that you would make in that statement, that you can think of right now?
Mr. WORLEY. Yes; it states that I met Jack Ruby sometime when working with squad 105, 5 or 6 months ago. That was over a year ago instead of 5 or 6 months.
Mr. GRIFFIN. All right. Can you tell us how it is that you now think it was over a year ago? What is the basis for that change?
Mr. WORLEY. Well, the officer that I worked with on that beat, I talked to after that, and he hadn't worked that squad in over a year, and it didn't seem like as long to me.
Worley Exhibit 5047, FBI report on him
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0399b.gif
Worley Exhibit 5048, letter to Chief Curry.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0400a.gif
The WC lawyer would of course grill him on what he did to find this out and know that is true, but let’s face it, if the officer in question (Regular Officer J. R. Sales) had NOT worked the beat in question for over a year than it had to be OVER A YEAR as Worley said. This is a Dallas Police Officer saying the FBI report was NOT totally accurate.
He wasn’t alone as we know Roger Craig of the Dallas Sheriff’s Office has said the WC played fast and loose with your statement. Here is what Roger Craig would write years later about his experience with the WC.
Quote on
Combine the foregoing with the run-in I had with Dave Belin, junior counsel for the Warren Commission, who questioned me in April of 1964, and who changed my testimony fourteen times when he sent it to Washington, and you will have some idea of the pressures brought to bear.
David Belin told me who he was as I entered the interrogation room (April 1964). He had me sit at the head of a long table. To my left was a female with a pencil and pen. Belin sat to my right. Between the girl and Belin was a tape recorder, which was turned off. Belin instructed the girl not to take notes until he (Belin) said to do so. He then told me that the investigation was being conducted to determine the truth as the evidence indicates. Well, I could take that several ways but I said nothing. Then Belin said, "For instance, I will ask you where you were at a certain time. This will establish your physical location." It was at this point that I began to feel that I was being led into something but still I said nothing. Then Belin said, "I will ask you about what you *thought* you heard or saw in regard." Well, this was too much. I interrupted him and said, "Counselor, just ask me the questions and if I can answer them, I will." This seemed to irritate Belin and he told the girl to start taking notes with the next question.
At this point Belin turned the recorder on. The first questions were typical. Where were you born? Where did you go to school? When Belin would get to certain questions he would turn off the recorder and stop the girl from writing. The he would ask me, for example, "Did you see anything unusual when you were behind the picket fence?" I said, "Yes" and he said, "Fine, just a minute." He would then tell the girl to start writing with the next question and would again start the recorder. What was the next question? "Mr. Craig, did you go into the Texas School Book Depository?" It was clear to me that he wanted only to record part of the interrogation, as this happened many times.
I finally managed to get in at least most of what I had seen and heard by ignoring his advanced questions and giving a step-by-step picture, which further seemed to irritate him.
At the end of our session Belin dismissed me but when I started to leave the room, he called me back. At this time I identified
the clothing wore by the suspect (the 26 volumes refer to a *box* of clothing--not *boxes*. There were two boxes.)
After I identified the clothing Belin went over the complete testimony again. He then asked, "Do you want to follow or waive your signature or sign now?" Since there was nothing but a tape recording and a stenographer's note book, there was obviously nothing to sign. All other testimony which I have read (a considerable amount) included an explanation that the person could waive his signature then or his statement would be typed and he would be notified when it was ready for signature. Belin did not say this to me.
He said an odd thing when I left. It is the only time that he said it, and I have never read anything similar in any testimony. "Be SURE, when you get back to the office, to thank Sheriff Decker for *his* cooperation." I know of no one else he questioned who he asked to *thank* a supervisor, chief, etc. I first saw my testimony in January of 1968 when I looked at the 26 volumes which belonged to Penn Jones. My alleged statement was included. The following are some of the changes in my testimony:
* Arnold Rowland told me that he saw two men on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository 15 minutes before the President arrived: one was a Negro, who was pacing back and forth by the *southwest* window. The other was a white man in the *southeast* corner, with a rifle equipped with a scope, and that a few minutes later he looked back and only the white man was there. In the Warren Commission: *Both* were *white*, both were *pacing* in front of the *southwest* corner and when Rowland looked back, *both* were gone;
* I said the Rambler station wagon was *light green*. The Warren Commission: Changed to a *white* station wagon;
* I said the driver of the Station Wagon had on a *tan* jacket. The Warren Commission: A *white* jacket;
* I said the license plates on the Rambler were *not* the same color as Texas plates. The Warren Commission:
Omitted the *not*--omitted but one word, an important one, so that it appeared that the license plates *were*
the same color as Texas plates;
* I said that I *got* a *good look* at the driver of the Rambler. The Warren Commission: I did *not* get a good look at the Rambler. (In Captain Fritz's office) I had said that Fritz had said to Oswald, "This man saw you leave" (indicating me). Oswald said, "I told you people I did." Fritz then said, "Now take it easy, son, we're just trying to find out what happened", and then (to Oswald), "What about the car?" to which Oswald replied, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine. Don't try to drag her into this." Fritz said *car*--station wagon was not mentioned by anyone but Oswald. (I had told Fritz over the telephone that I saw a man get into a station wagon, before I went to the Dallas Police Department and I had also described the man. This is when Fritz asked me to come there). Oswald then said, "Everybody will know who I am now;" the Warren Commission: Stated that the last statement by Oswald was made in a dramatic tone. This was not so. The Warren Commission also printed, "NOW everybody will know who I am", transposing the *now*. Oswald's tone and attitude was one of disappointment. If someone were attempting to conceal his identity as Deputy and he was found out, exposed--his cover blown, his reaction would be dismay and disappointment. This was Oswald's tone and attitude--disappointment at being exposed! (Roger Craig, from the unpublished When They Kill A President)
Quote off
This shows us how the WC handled people who did NOT say what they wanted to hear. Craig, and others, were presented NOTHING to sign so if they did NOT waive their signature rights they would have been signing a BLANK FORM that the WC could go back and type anything on it!
Captain W.B. (William Bennett) Frazier of the Dallas Police Department (DPD) also had an issue with his FBI report (Frazier Exhibit 5087).
Frazier Exhibit 5087:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0395b.gif
Mr. HUBERT. Now, I hand you another document which I have marked for-"Dallas, Tex., March 25, 1964, Exhibit 5087, deposition of W. B. Frazier." I have signed my name to the bottom of this document which purports to be a report by Special Agent Melton L. Newsom of the FBI, of a conversation which he had over the telephone with you on November 24, 1963, at about 3:20 a.m., and I'll ask you if that report by Mr. Newsom of that conversation is a correct report of that conversation?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I don't believe it is.
Mr. HUBERT. Would you indicate what parts are correct and what parts are wrong?
Mr. FRAZIER. Now, you are asking of my own knowledge, is that correct?
Mr. HUBERT. Yes, sir.
Mr. FRAZIER. Now, this first paragraph here, I know nothing of this. Mr. Glassup. He didn't talk to me.
Mr. HUBERT. No; I think the…
Mr. FRAZIER. And, he received the call I understand here, and it goes into, "I represent a committee that--it is neither right nor left wing," and so forth. I didn't get all that in the conversation with Newsom, that I recall. Newsom told me that a group of men, I believe he indicated a hundred or two were going to kill Oswald the following day, the day after the night--or, you know, the next day or two. Now, that was essentially what he told me.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you say he didn't tell you that had been received by Glassup?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; he said they received information, or threats.
Mr. HUBERT. Nor did he give you the exact language of the threat, as indicated in that?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; he did not.
Mr. HUBERT. He simply told you that they had received the threat and the sense of the threat was along the lines of the paragraph, first paragraph?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
The second paragraph he was okay with, but said this about the third paragraph.
Mr. HUBERT. All right; what about the third paragraph?
Mr. FRAZIER. The third paragraph, I don't recall making that statement.
Mr. HUBERT. What about the fourth paragraph?
Mr. FRAZIER. Because, at that time, I did not know exactly what the plans were to move Oswald, see.
So we see he did NOT agree with the third paragraph either and said he didn’t know what the plans were to move LHO anyway. Here is what he says about the fourth paragraph.
Mr. HUBERT. And what about the last paragraph?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; no, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. You mean to say that you do not recall?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I do not recall making that statement to Mr. Newsom.
So we see that out of a letter with four paragraphs he agreed with ONLY one! This can’t be chalked up to a mistake by FBI Agent Newsom either as THREE out of four paragraphs are NOT accurate per Frazier! The testimony was quickly ended after this part as the WC realized he was NOT just going to “rubber-stamp” the FBI report.
FBI Agent Paul Stombaugh, an expert in hairs and fibers, had this exchange with the WC lawyer during his lengthy testimony.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, we had an earlier discussion, and you had mentioned this to me in an earlier discussion, as I recall----
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; that is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which prompted me to ask you the question. Did you find any body hairs on this shirt---or any hairs, I should say?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't look for hairs on this shirt. This type of examination had not been requested, It seemed unnecessary.
Where is the transcript of this earlier discussion? Why is Eisenberg correcting Stombaugh on what he is saying by utilizing a discussion we are NOT privy to? This would NOT be allowed in a court of law.
Here is what Ira J. “Jack” Beers (a Dallas newspaper photographer) said during his WC testimony.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Fine. Now I am going to hand you what has been marked Dallas, Tex., April 14, 1963, Ira J. Beers' Exhibit 5351. This is also an FBI interview report. This interview took place on December 3, 1963, here in Dallas, and purports to be a report of an interview between you and two other Special Agents of the FBI, Mr. James C. Kennedy and Will Hayden Griffin. I am going to hand you this Exhibit 5351, and ask you the same question as I asked with respect to 5350?
Mr. BEERS. Yes; I have seen this report.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Are there any additions?
Mr. BEERS. Yes, sir; there is a couple in here. Let me locate them. One, which is probably a minor one, speaking of myself: "He also stated that there were two armored vehicles, one in the basement and one near the driveway from the Commerce side." I think possibly the agent misunderstood what I said there. There was only one armored vehicle. That was in the basement driveway near the Commerce Street side. There was another vehicle, police car, parked in the basement right near the entrance.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now that is a runover sentence from the first page of the report to the second page of the report, is that right?
Mr. BEERS. Yes; that's correct.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you want to correct the sentence?
Mr. BEERS. "Beers did not know Ruby prior to the shooting, nor did he know Oswald . . ." et cetera. This is contradictory to the first report that you just handed me a moment ago. Apparently the agent must have misunderstood me or misread his notes or something. I did know who Ruby was prior to this shooting.
Beers Exhibit 5351
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0088b.jpg
I’m sure the FBI agent just “misread his notes or did NOT understand him.” We see again there is inaccuracy in what the FBI, and of course the WC, reported in what was said. The FBI is a great organization that prides itself in accuracy, can you imagine all these mistakes in another case that did NOT involve a Kennedy or a King? Surely the FBI agent would have known there was ONLY one armored car simply from watching the coverage on television, right?
We know the WC changed William Whaley’s testimony quite a bit since he gave testimony that simply did not work (i.e. the trip report), and we saw that Bledsoe was prepped and allowed to have notes.
Mr. BALL - But, before you go into that, I notice you have been reading from some notes before you.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I forget what I have to say.
Mr. BALL - When did you make those notes?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - What day did I make them?
Miss DOUTHIT - When Mr. Sorrels and I were talking about her going to Washington, he made the suggestion that she put all the things down on paper because she might forget something, and I said, "Mary, you put everything on a piece of paper so that you can remember it and you won't forget anything, you know, what happened," and that's when she started making notes.
Mr. BALL - You have made the notes in the last week?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
She appeared before the WC on April 2, 1964 so IF she had issues with her memory what good were notes that she made in LATE MARCH 1964? They wouldn't help at all UNLESS they were there to help her remember "what she HAD to say."
Finally for this post let’s look at this interesting exchange between WC lawyer Belin and WC star witness Howard Brennan.
Mr. BELIN. There have been two or three other questions that have come up here, sir.
One question-- when we visited on Friday in Dallas, what is the fact as to whether or not I told you what to say or you yourself just told me what you wanted to tell me?
Mr. BRENNAN. I told you--you did not instruct me what to say at all. I told you in the best words I could to explain exactly my movements and what happened.
Representative FORD. And here today you have testified freely on your own?
Mr. BRENNAN. Right, I have.
This is like asking someone if they are lying. Do you expect an honest answer? Also, if you don’t suspect them of lying, why would you ask them if they are? Why was it necessary for the WC to broach this topic? It would seem to me this was done to cover that they had told him what to say since he had said so many THINGS they had to revise! (I covered some of these in #23 of this series.) Also, Brennan was an ADMITTED liar, so what good is his word anyway?
Once again, we see the WC’s OWN evidence sinks their conclusions and claims.
3.bp.blogspot.com/_I4lZU0BrRsg/TPXTI3y8v1I/AAAAAAAAAE4/Hot_KJ7VKdY/s1600/warren.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) stated Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was guilty of shooting President Kennedy (JFK) and Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT). According to them, and their current day defenders, there is NO doubt about that.
IF that is true, why did some say their testimony was altered, omitted or deleted, and why did some say they were treated roughly in giving their testimony that did NOT match with what the WC was claiming?
Let’s look at some examples of this.
*********************************
We will begin where we left off in #113 of this series—with Arnold Rowland. As we saw in #113 of this series Arnold Rowland, who had 20/20 vision, said he saw a man with a rifle on the WEST side of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) and NOT on the east side as the WC claimed.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, by referring to the photograph on this Commission Exhibit No. 356, will you point to the window where you observed this man?
Mr. ROWLAND - This was very odd. There were this picture was not taken immediately after that, I don't think, because there were several windows, there are pairs of windows, and there were several pairs where both windows were open fully and in each pair there was one or more persons hanging out the window.
Yet this was on the west corner of the building, the sixth floor, the first floor--second floor down from the top, the first was the arched, the larger windows, not the arch, but the larger windows, and this was the only pair of windows where both windows were completely open and no one was hanging out the windows, or next to the window. It was this pair of windows here at that time.
The WC, and the FBI, went out of their way to discredit him and the results can be found in CE-2644 which is a FBI report regarding an INVESTIGATION they did on him! (Is this what Capt. King meant by “investigations?”) It goes over his high school transcript, an IQ test given to him (he scored a 109 by the way), and it mocked how he scored on a college entrance examination (he had to retake it due to a low score). They then published his high school report card! They even got an assistant principle of W.H. Adamson High School, Robert Ligon, to say Rowland was REFUSED ADMISSION to this school because of “his past record at the school.” You may be wondering what any of this has to do with what he SAW on 11/22/63! Mr. Ligon went on to tell the FBI that he had counseled Rowland for his “repeated absenteeism” during his time at Adamson.
The report also mentions that Rowland sometimes parked in the teachers’ parking area too! Oh, no! Next we heard from the principal and Dean of N.R. Crozier Technical High School in Dallas. The Dean, Edith McKissock, even said that Rowland had “few friends and was regarded as a ‘lone wolf’.” She went on to say that “he could NOT BE TRUSTED and WOULD NOT TELL THE TRUTH REGARDING ANY MATTER.” Someone should have told her this is the way JFK described Lyndon Johnson and he was NOW the President! She even went so far as to call him a “conniver” and a person who dressed above his means. Is this all necessary you may ask? Of course it was as he SAW SOMETHING the WC did NOT claim! The report covers six pages (two pages per one page in HistoryMatters.com) and the sole purpose is to bad mouth Rowland.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pages/WC_Vol25_0467a.gif
Was any such investigation done on Brennan? Markham? Bledsoe? Whaley? I don’t think so. Why was Rowland treated so poorly? Because he saw something the WC did NOT want known. It is that simple. Is this the way you search for the truth?
Next we come to a reserve police officer who was also critical of the work the FBI would do in his regard. He would say this before he was even sworn in for his testimony.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, let me ask you if you have any particular questions that you want to ask me?
Mr. WORLEY. No; I would have to say, after reading that report now, that report from the FBI is not very good.
After it was pointed out that he sent a letter to Chief Curry mentioning the FBI report and a change he had he would say this too.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Do you want to take my pen and correct it? Write in what you think is necessary to correct it.
Mr. WORLEY. [Makes correction.] I tell you, this is more of an accurate description of what I did.
Mr. GRIFFIN. This Exhibit 5048?
Mr. WORLEY. Right. Not this one, because----
Mr. GRIFFIN. The letter is more accurate than the FBI report?
Mr. WORLEY. Yes; that tells exactly from the time I arrived at the police station to the time I left, and every move that I made in between.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, we are talking about Exhibit 5048, which is your letter of November 26, 1963, to Chief Curry. Are there any corrections or changes that you would make, or additions that you would make in that statement, that you can think of right now?
Mr. WORLEY. Yes; it states that I met Jack Ruby sometime when working with squad 105, 5 or 6 months ago. That was over a year ago instead of 5 or 6 months.
Mr. GRIFFIN. All right. Can you tell us how it is that you now think it was over a year ago? What is the basis for that change?
Mr. WORLEY. Well, the officer that I worked with on that beat, I talked to after that, and he hadn't worked that squad in over a year, and it didn't seem like as long to me.
Worley Exhibit 5047, FBI report on him
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0399b.gif
Worley Exhibit 5048, letter to Chief Curry.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0400a.gif
The WC lawyer would of course grill him on what he did to find this out and know that is true, but let’s face it, if the officer in question (Regular Officer J. R. Sales) had NOT worked the beat in question for over a year than it had to be OVER A YEAR as Worley said. This is a Dallas Police Officer saying the FBI report was NOT totally accurate.
He wasn’t alone as we know Roger Craig of the Dallas Sheriff’s Office has said the WC played fast and loose with your statement. Here is what Roger Craig would write years later about his experience with the WC.
Quote on
Combine the foregoing with the run-in I had with Dave Belin, junior counsel for the Warren Commission, who questioned me in April of 1964, and who changed my testimony fourteen times when he sent it to Washington, and you will have some idea of the pressures brought to bear.
David Belin told me who he was as I entered the interrogation room (April 1964). He had me sit at the head of a long table. To my left was a female with a pencil and pen. Belin sat to my right. Between the girl and Belin was a tape recorder, which was turned off. Belin instructed the girl not to take notes until he (Belin) said to do so. He then told me that the investigation was being conducted to determine the truth as the evidence indicates. Well, I could take that several ways but I said nothing. Then Belin said, "For instance, I will ask you where you were at a certain time. This will establish your physical location." It was at this point that I began to feel that I was being led into something but still I said nothing. Then Belin said, "I will ask you about what you *thought* you heard or saw in regard." Well, this was too much. I interrupted him and said, "Counselor, just ask me the questions and if I can answer them, I will." This seemed to irritate Belin and he told the girl to start taking notes with the next question.
At this point Belin turned the recorder on. The first questions were typical. Where were you born? Where did you go to school? When Belin would get to certain questions he would turn off the recorder and stop the girl from writing. The he would ask me, for example, "Did you see anything unusual when you were behind the picket fence?" I said, "Yes" and he said, "Fine, just a minute." He would then tell the girl to start writing with the next question and would again start the recorder. What was the next question? "Mr. Craig, did you go into the Texas School Book Depository?" It was clear to me that he wanted only to record part of the interrogation, as this happened many times.
I finally managed to get in at least most of what I had seen and heard by ignoring his advanced questions and giving a step-by-step picture, which further seemed to irritate him.
At the end of our session Belin dismissed me but when I started to leave the room, he called me back. At this time I identified
the clothing wore by the suspect (the 26 volumes refer to a *box* of clothing--not *boxes*. There were two boxes.)
After I identified the clothing Belin went over the complete testimony again. He then asked, "Do you want to follow or waive your signature or sign now?" Since there was nothing but a tape recording and a stenographer's note book, there was obviously nothing to sign. All other testimony which I have read (a considerable amount) included an explanation that the person could waive his signature then or his statement would be typed and he would be notified when it was ready for signature. Belin did not say this to me.
He said an odd thing when I left. It is the only time that he said it, and I have never read anything similar in any testimony. "Be SURE, when you get back to the office, to thank Sheriff Decker for *his* cooperation." I know of no one else he questioned who he asked to *thank* a supervisor, chief, etc. I first saw my testimony in January of 1968 when I looked at the 26 volumes which belonged to Penn Jones. My alleged statement was included. The following are some of the changes in my testimony:
* Arnold Rowland told me that he saw two men on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository 15 minutes before the President arrived: one was a Negro, who was pacing back and forth by the *southwest* window. The other was a white man in the *southeast* corner, with a rifle equipped with a scope, and that a few minutes later he looked back and only the white man was there. In the Warren Commission: *Both* were *white*, both were *pacing* in front of the *southwest* corner and when Rowland looked back, *both* were gone;
* I said the Rambler station wagon was *light green*. The Warren Commission: Changed to a *white* station wagon;
* I said the driver of the Station Wagon had on a *tan* jacket. The Warren Commission: A *white* jacket;
* I said the license plates on the Rambler were *not* the same color as Texas plates. The Warren Commission:
Omitted the *not*--omitted but one word, an important one, so that it appeared that the license plates *were*
the same color as Texas plates;
* I said that I *got* a *good look* at the driver of the Rambler. The Warren Commission: I did *not* get a good look at the Rambler. (In Captain Fritz's office) I had said that Fritz had said to Oswald, "This man saw you leave" (indicating me). Oswald said, "I told you people I did." Fritz then said, "Now take it easy, son, we're just trying to find out what happened", and then (to Oswald), "What about the car?" to which Oswald replied, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine. Don't try to drag her into this." Fritz said *car*--station wagon was not mentioned by anyone but Oswald. (I had told Fritz over the telephone that I saw a man get into a station wagon, before I went to the Dallas Police Department and I had also described the man. This is when Fritz asked me to come there). Oswald then said, "Everybody will know who I am now;" the Warren Commission: Stated that the last statement by Oswald was made in a dramatic tone. This was not so. The Warren Commission also printed, "NOW everybody will know who I am", transposing the *now*. Oswald's tone and attitude was one of disappointment. If someone were attempting to conceal his identity as Deputy and he was found out, exposed--his cover blown, his reaction would be dismay and disappointment. This was Oswald's tone and attitude--disappointment at being exposed! (Roger Craig, from the unpublished When They Kill A President)
Quote off
This shows us how the WC handled people who did NOT say what they wanted to hear. Craig, and others, were presented NOTHING to sign so if they did NOT waive their signature rights they would have been signing a BLANK FORM that the WC could go back and type anything on it!
Captain W.B. (William Bennett) Frazier of the Dallas Police Department (DPD) also had an issue with his FBI report (Frazier Exhibit 5087).
Frazier Exhibit 5087:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0395b.gif
Mr. HUBERT. Now, I hand you another document which I have marked for-"Dallas, Tex., March 25, 1964, Exhibit 5087, deposition of W. B. Frazier." I have signed my name to the bottom of this document which purports to be a report by Special Agent Melton L. Newsom of the FBI, of a conversation which he had over the telephone with you on November 24, 1963, at about 3:20 a.m., and I'll ask you if that report by Mr. Newsom of that conversation is a correct report of that conversation?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I don't believe it is.
Mr. HUBERT. Would you indicate what parts are correct and what parts are wrong?
Mr. FRAZIER. Now, you are asking of my own knowledge, is that correct?
Mr. HUBERT. Yes, sir.
Mr. FRAZIER. Now, this first paragraph here, I know nothing of this. Mr. Glassup. He didn't talk to me.
Mr. HUBERT. No; I think the…
Mr. FRAZIER. And, he received the call I understand here, and it goes into, "I represent a committee that--it is neither right nor left wing," and so forth. I didn't get all that in the conversation with Newsom, that I recall. Newsom told me that a group of men, I believe he indicated a hundred or two were going to kill Oswald the following day, the day after the night--or, you know, the next day or two. Now, that was essentially what he told me.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you say he didn't tell you that had been received by Glassup?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; he said they received information, or threats.
Mr. HUBERT. Nor did he give you the exact language of the threat, as indicated in that?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; he did not.
Mr. HUBERT. He simply told you that they had received the threat and the sense of the threat was along the lines of the paragraph, first paragraph?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
The second paragraph he was okay with, but said this about the third paragraph.
Mr. HUBERT. All right; what about the third paragraph?
Mr. FRAZIER. The third paragraph, I don't recall making that statement.
Mr. HUBERT. What about the fourth paragraph?
Mr. FRAZIER. Because, at that time, I did not know exactly what the plans were to move Oswald, see.
So we see he did NOT agree with the third paragraph either and said he didn’t know what the plans were to move LHO anyway. Here is what he says about the fourth paragraph.
Mr. HUBERT. And what about the last paragraph?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; no, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. You mean to say that you do not recall?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I do not recall making that statement to Mr. Newsom.
So we see that out of a letter with four paragraphs he agreed with ONLY one! This can’t be chalked up to a mistake by FBI Agent Newsom either as THREE out of four paragraphs are NOT accurate per Frazier! The testimony was quickly ended after this part as the WC realized he was NOT just going to “rubber-stamp” the FBI report.
FBI Agent Paul Stombaugh, an expert in hairs and fibers, had this exchange with the WC lawyer during his lengthy testimony.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, we had an earlier discussion, and you had mentioned this to me in an earlier discussion, as I recall----
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; that is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which prompted me to ask you the question. Did you find any body hairs on this shirt---or any hairs, I should say?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't look for hairs on this shirt. This type of examination had not been requested, It seemed unnecessary.
Where is the transcript of this earlier discussion? Why is Eisenberg correcting Stombaugh on what he is saying by utilizing a discussion we are NOT privy to? This would NOT be allowed in a court of law.
Here is what Ira J. “Jack” Beers (a Dallas newspaper photographer) said during his WC testimony.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Fine. Now I am going to hand you what has been marked Dallas, Tex., April 14, 1963, Ira J. Beers' Exhibit 5351. This is also an FBI interview report. This interview took place on December 3, 1963, here in Dallas, and purports to be a report of an interview between you and two other Special Agents of the FBI, Mr. James C. Kennedy and Will Hayden Griffin. I am going to hand you this Exhibit 5351, and ask you the same question as I asked with respect to 5350?
Mr. BEERS. Yes; I have seen this report.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Are there any additions?
Mr. BEERS. Yes, sir; there is a couple in here. Let me locate them. One, which is probably a minor one, speaking of myself: "He also stated that there were two armored vehicles, one in the basement and one near the driveway from the Commerce side." I think possibly the agent misunderstood what I said there. There was only one armored vehicle. That was in the basement driveway near the Commerce Street side. There was another vehicle, police car, parked in the basement right near the entrance.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now that is a runover sentence from the first page of the report to the second page of the report, is that right?
Mr. BEERS. Yes; that's correct.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you want to correct the sentence?
Mr. BEERS. "Beers did not know Ruby prior to the shooting, nor did he know Oswald . . ." et cetera. This is contradictory to the first report that you just handed me a moment ago. Apparently the agent must have misunderstood me or misread his notes or something. I did know who Ruby was prior to this shooting.
Beers Exhibit 5351
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0088b.jpg
I’m sure the FBI agent just “misread his notes or did NOT understand him.” We see again there is inaccuracy in what the FBI, and of course the WC, reported in what was said. The FBI is a great organization that prides itself in accuracy, can you imagine all these mistakes in another case that did NOT involve a Kennedy or a King? Surely the FBI agent would have known there was ONLY one armored car simply from watching the coverage on television, right?
We know the WC changed William Whaley’s testimony quite a bit since he gave testimony that simply did not work (i.e. the trip report), and we saw that Bledsoe was prepped and allowed to have notes.
Mr. BALL - But, before you go into that, I notice you have been reading from some notes before you.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I forget what I have to say.
Mr. BALL - When did you make those notes?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - What day did I make them?
Miss DOUTHIT - When Mr. Sorrels and I were talking about her going to Washington, he made the suggestion that she put all the things down on paper because she might forget something, and I said, "Mary, you put everything on a piece of paper so that you can remember it and you won't forget anything, you know, what happened," and that's when she started making notes.
Mr. BALL - You have made the notes in the last week?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
She appeared before the WC on April 2, 1964 so IF she had issues with her memory what good were notes that she made in LATE MARCH 1964? They wouldn't help at all UNLESS they were there to help her remember "what she HAD to say."
Finally for this post let’s look at this interesting exchange between WC lawyer Belin and WC star witness Howard Brennan.
Mr. BELIN. There have been two or three other questions that have come up here, sir.
One question-- when we visited on Friday in Dallas, what is the fact as to whether or not I told you what to say or you yourself just told me what you wanted to tell me?
Mr. BRENNAN. I told you--you did not instruct me what to say at all. I told you in the best words I could to explain exactly my movements and what happened.
Representative FORD. And here today you have testified freely on your own?
Mr. BRENNAN. Right, I have.
This is like asking someone if they are lying. Do you expect an honest answer? Also, if you don’t suspect them of lying, why would you ask them if they are? Why was it necessary for the WC to broach this topic? It would seem to me this was done to cover that they had told him what to say since he had said so many THINGS they had to revise! (I covered some of these in #23 of this series.) Also, Brennan was an ADMITTED liar, so what good is his word anyway?
Once again, we see the WC’s OWN evidence sinks their conclusions and claims.