Post by Rob Caprio on Feb 16, 2019 11:30:25 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
Today we would expect any event to be captured on film or some digital device as everyone can record now with smartphones, camcorders and cameras, but in 1963 this was not nearly as common. That is why we are very lucky that so many folks took their cameras to Dealey Plaza (DP) that day as many things were recorded for history, but the problem is that we have not seen may of them due to the authorities preventing this. Again, the question has to be asked, if LHO acted alone as claimed why would this be necessary? Even the excuse of “National Securty” wouldn’t come into play if LHO was a “lone nut” as claimed.
One of the most asked questions in this area of the case is why did the WC omit frames 208-211 of the Zapruder film (Z-film) when expert testimony found in the twenty-six volumes said that JFK may have been hit with the first bullet between Frames 210 and 225?
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0061b.gif
The test revealed the next point at which the rifleman had a clear view through the telescopic sight of the point where the bullet entered the President’s back was when the car emerged from behind the tree at frame 210. (WCR, p. 98)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0061b.htm
Quote off
We clearly see the tests done for the WC showed JFK could have been hit at Frame 210, but the WC did NOT publish this frame, why not? Well, it was claimed by a LIFE spokesman that these frames were “accidentally torn” during the excitement of viewing the film immediately after it was purchased from Abraham Zapruder. This same spokesman would tell researcher Sylvia Meagher that they had made copies of the four frames before they were torn though (Meagher interview December 1966). So why did the WC not include these copies of the original in their twenty-six volumes then?
The WC would only include a few frames from both the Nix and Munchmore films and show no interest in calling either Orville Nix or Mary Munchmore. Neither were asked to give an affidavit or make a statement to the FBI either. Why not?
Eyewitness Hugh Betzner was on the south side of DP taking pictures that day and he told the Sheriff’s Office the following in an affidavit.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0243a.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0243b.gif
Police and a lot of spectators started running up the hill on the opposite side of the street from me to a fence of wood. I assumed that that was where the shot was fired from. ... Police officers and the men in plain clothes were digging around in the dirt as if they were looking for a bullet. . . . I went on across the street and up the embankment to where the fence is located . . . as the rumor had spread that that was where the shot had come from.
I started figuring where I was when I had taken the third picture and it seemed to me that the fence row would have been in the picture. .. . Deputy Sheriff Boone took my camera and asked me to wait. . . . An hour or two [later] he brought my camera back and told me that as soon as they were through with the film and they were dry that they would give me the film. A little later he came in and gave me the negatives and told me they were interested in a couple of pictures and implied that the negatives was all I was going to get back. (Decker Exhibit No. 5323, pp. 467-468)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0243a.htm
Quote off
Even though Deputy Boone had told him that the police were interested in a couple of his photographs he never heard from them again. He also was NEVER called by the WC to discuss these photographs and what he saw that day. Why NOT? What could these photographs have shown to cause interest by the Sheriff’s Office and presumably the DPD? But, conversely, NO interest from the WC?
In Betzner’s affidavit we see another interesting comment by him and makes one wonder what he was seeing.
Quote on
I also saw a man in either the President’s car or the car behind his and someone down in one of those pulled out what looked like a rifle. I also remember seeing what looked like a NICKEL REVOLVER in someone’s hand IN THE President’s car or somewhere immediately around his car. (Ibid., p. 467) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
The rifle he supposedly saw could have been the AR-15 in the follow-up car carried by SS Agent George Hickey. But what about the NICKEL REVOLVER in the President’s car or immediately around the car? Could he have seen SS Agent William Greer or SS Agent Kellerman pull a pistol and shoot JFK? This has been posited for many years (albeit mostly against Greer and NOT Kellerman) by some researchers. I can’t think of anything around the car unless a motorcycle cop was in front of the limousine, but this would be a much harder shot on the move and with the windshield in the way. This is a key piece of testimony and like the above comments should have been investigated, but it never was. Why not?
Another photograph that went missing is discussed in Allan Sweatt’s report to Sheriff Decker. Sweat was the Chief Criminal Deputy in the Sheriff’s Office so one would think he had worked and solved many crimes over the years, but he too fails to record the most basic stuff in his report. He wrote the following in his report regarding this issue.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0276a.gif
During this time, Deputy Bill Wiseman brought in two girls to me with some pictures they had taken. 1 picture was taken just shortly before the shooting of the President which showed the Sexton Building [TSBD?] in the background. This picture was turned over to Secret Service Agent Patterson, who gave this woman his card, advising her that the picture would be returned to her. (Decker Exhibit 5323, p. 533)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0276a.htm
Quote off
It sure would have been nice to have the names of these “two girls” who took pictures before the shooting, but we see again the failure to list this basic stuff in this report. Also, what did this photograph show? Obviously NOT a person firing from the alleged Sniper’s Nest (SN) as the photograph was never seen again. The WC did not publish this photograph for us. He does mention the Betzner pictures in this report though. Why was the WC afraid to show us this photograph?
The WC would give us a conflicting story regarding the Robert Hughes film though that depicted the sixth-floor window where LHO allegedly fired from just ten minutes before the shooting. They wrote this in one section of their Report.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0334b.gif
Speculation.—An amateur 8-millimeter photograph taken at 12:20 p.m., ten minutes before the assassination of President Kennedy, showed two silhouettes a the sixth-floor window of the Depository.
Commission finding.—A film taken by an amateur photographer, Robert J.E. Hughes, just before the assassination, shows a shadow in the southeast corner window of the sixth floor. This has been determined after examination by the FBI and U.S. Navy Photographic Interpretation Center [NPIC] to be the shadow from the cartons near the window. (WCR, p. 644)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0334b.htm
Quote off
So we see the FBI and the NPIC determined it was nothing but a shadow from the cartons near the window. It would have been nice for the WC to publish this photograph so we all could see it was just a shadow from cartons and NOT two men, but they did NOT publish it for us. Why NOT?
On another page of the Report the WC claimed a man was seen by Ronald Fischer and Robert Edwards (as we have seen Edwards’ description of the man does NOT match LHO) in the eastern sixth-floor window as claimed, but how can that be when the FBI said NO image of anyone could be found in the Hughes film?
WCR, p. 146: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0085b.gif
FBI study of the Hughes film: www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=757740
The report from the FBI clearly says NO HUMAN IMAGE could be seen in that window. So was LHO invisible? Or did this person fire from another window? Perhaps the WESTERN window as Arnold Rowland said?
We have already touched on the story of Norman Similas in this series so I won’t go into that in this post, but there was another Canadian in Dallas on vacation who took a film of the event. He would speak with Sergeant Patrick Dean of the DPD and tell him the film when he had returned home and had offered to send his film to Dean. His name was Ralph Simpson and Dean would mention him in his WC testimony.
Mr. GRIFFIN - Sergeant, you and I have been talking here off the record for--I don't have a watch, but I would guess for 15 or 20 minutes, with respect to other matters, and you indicated to me just before we brought the court reporter in, that you had obtained some information that apparently had not-been previously made available to the Commission, and I wonder if you could tell us what that is?
Mr. DEAN - It was relative to a telephone call that I received last night at about 2 o'clock in the morning. I didn't mark the time.
Mr. GRIFFIN - Where were you?
Mr. DEAN - At city hall. In the office there. The city hall operator had called me and told me that she had a man, or an operator on the line from Victoria, British Columbia, in Canada…her name was Bernice Williamson, she is the night supervisor of the B.C. Telephone Company, said that she had talked to this man long enough that she thought he probably had something. And so I accepted the call. This man's name was Ralph Simpson. He was calling from 384-3780, and he told me that he had been standing on the southern part of the plaza when the assassination took place, and he had a wide scope movie camera that he believed 'would have taken in the building and the motorcade at the time the shots were fired…And he said, "Well, I will send the films to you. They haven't been--". Well, he said they hadn't been developed, and he wasn't going to have them developed, that he would send them to me airmail. This was about 2 o'clock in the night--on the morning of the 24th, this morning [indicating].
Mr. GRIFFIN - By a man by the name of Simpson, Ralph Simpson?
Mr. DEAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. GRIFFIN - Did you actually talk with Simpson?
Mr. DEAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. GRIFFIN - How long did the telephone call last?
Mr. DEAN - Four minutes and three seconds, I think.
Dean would make notes of the conversation and these became known as Dean Exhibit 5012.
Dean Ex. 5012: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0232a.gif
We have received no update from the WC on what happened to this film. Was it sent? Was it received? Was it viewed? If so, what did it show? Who knows and that is wrong as this was being made available TO THEM, they had to do no work to get this film and still they showed no interest in it. Why NOT?
Jack Ruby’s sister, Eva Grant, would mention another photograph that we have never seen. She gave the following testimony to the WC about this photograph.
Mr. BURLESON. Do you recall about that time if anything occurred in connection with Tom Howard and his connection with the case?
Mrs. GRANT. About the picture?
Mr. BURLESON. No; just about whether or not he continued in the case or did he?
Mrs. GRANT. …We had found a mistrust in him, which is close to that time as I can remember, where information has come to us that Tom Howard is trying to sell a picture of the late President Kennedy being shot and half of his skull is in the air, to Life magazine, and I think Billy Woodfield had told that to Earl and Earl told me to get ahold of the Secret Service, they came out to see me…and we went in the alley because I don't know if my place is bugged or not, and the Secret Service stepped in to either squash the sale of this particular picture or got ahold of it--the films and everything, and, of course, when Belli found out, he was sick because he said it don't look right for an attorney representing a person to do something like this.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you ever find out whether it was true that Mr. Howard was doing this?
Mrs. GRANT. Well, since then I heard it was true, but doubly true there's some girl that works for one of your departments who heard and who told another person that there is evidence there is a picture of that kind in existence.
Mr. HUBERT. You have never seen the picture?
Mrs. GRANT. No; I haven't…
Mr. BURLESON. Do you know anything else about this alleged sale of the picture?
Mrs. GRANT. Nothing, but Earl told me to get ahold of the men here and I did and I called the office and Elmer Moore came out and I told him.
Despite this allegation by Ms. Grant the WC never saw fit to ask Tom Howard about this or have the FBI do it. Why not? They seemed content with asking her to figure it all out for them. He would die in 1965 so the chance to ask him about this was lost forever. Also, the WC never questioned the SS or LIFE about this either. Again, why NOT? One reason could be the WC saw the photograph in question somehow (perhaps the SS provided it) and they saw it did NOT support a shot from behind as claimed, thus, they just ignored the whole issue.
Today we would expect any event to be captured on film or some digital device as everyone can record now with smartphones, camcorders and cameras, but in 1963 this was not nearly as common. That is why we are very lucky that so many folks took their cameras to Dealey Plaza (DP) that day as many things were recorded for history, but the problem is that we have not seen may of them due to the authorities preventing this. Again, the question has to be asked, if LHO acted alone as claimed why would this be necessary? Even the excuse of “National Securty” wouldn’t come into play if LHO was a “lone nut” as claimed.
One of the most asked questions in this area of the case is why did the WC omit frames 208-211 of the Zapruder film (Z-film) when expert testimony found in the twenty-six volumes said that JFK may have been hit with the first bullet between Frames 210 and 225?
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0061b.gif
The test revealed the next point at which the rifleman had a clear view through the telescopic sight of the point where the bullet entered the President’s back was when the car emerged from behind the tree at frame 210. (WCR, p. 98)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0061b.htm
Quote off
We clearly see the tests done for the WC showed JFK could have been hit at Frame 210, but the WC did NOT publish this frame, why not? Well, it was claimed by a LIFE spokesman that these frames were “accidentally torn” during the excitement of viewing the film immediately after it was purchased from Abraham Zapruder. This same spokesman would tell researcher Sylvia Meagher that they had made copies of the four frames before they were torn though (Meagher interview December 1966). So why did the WC not include these copies of the original in their twenty-six volumes then?
The WC would only include a few frames from both the Nix and Munchmore films and show no interest in calling either Orville Nix or Mary Munchmore. Neither were asked to give an affidavit or make a statement to the FBI either. Why not?
Eyewitness Hugh Betzner was on the south side of DP taking pictures that day and he told the Sheriff’s Office the following in an affidavit.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0243a.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0243b.gif
Police and a lot of spectators started running up the hill on the opposite side of the street from me to a fence of wood. I assumed that that was where the shot was fired from. ... Police officers and the men in plain clothes were digging around in the dirt as if they were looking for a bullet. . . . I went on across the street and up the embankment to where the fence is located . . . as the rumor had spread that that was where the shot had come from.
I started figuring where I was when I had taken the third picture and it seemed to me that the fence row would have been in the picture. .. . Deputy Sheriff Boone took my camera and asked me to wait. . . . An hour or two [later] he brought my camera back and told me that as soon as they were through with the film and they were dry that they would give me the film. A little later he came in and gave me the negatives and told me they were interested in a couple of pictures and implied that the negatives was all I was going to get back. (Decker Exhibit No. 5323, pp. 467-468)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0243a.htm
Quote off
Even though Deputy Boone had told him that the police were interested in a couple of his photographs he never heard from them again. He also was NEVER called by the WC to discuss these photographs and what he saw that day. Why NOT? What could these photographs have shown to cause interest by the Sheriff’s Office and presumably the DPD? But, conversely, NO interest from the WC?
In Betzner’s affidavit we see another interesting comment by him and makes one wonder what he was seeing.
Quote on
I also saw a man in either the President’s car or the car behind his and someone down in one of those pulled out what looked like a rifle. I also remember seeing what looked like a NICKEL REVOLVER in someone’s hand IN THE President’s car or somewhere immediately around his car. (Ibid., p. 467) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
The rifle he supposedly saw could have been the AR-15 in the follow-up car carried by SS Agent George Hickey. But what about the NICKEL REVOLVER in the President’s car or immediately around the car? Could he have seen SS Agent William Greer or SS Agent Kellerman pull a pistol and shoot JFK? This has been posited for many years (albeit mostly against Greer and NOT Kellerman) by some researchers. I can’t think of anything around the car unless a motorcycle cop was in front of the limousine, but this would be a much harder shot on the move and with the windshield in the way. This is a key piece of testimony and like the above comments should have been investigated, but it never was. Why not?
Another photograph that went missing is discussed in Allan Sweatt’s report to Sheriff Decker. Sweat was the Chief Criminal Deputy in the Sheriff’s Office so one would think he had worked and solved many crimes over the years, but he too fails to record the most basic stuff in his report. He wrote the following in his report regarding this issue.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0276a.gif
During this time, Deputy Bill Wiseman brought in two girls to me with some pictures they had taken. 1 picture was taken just shortly before the shooting of the President which showed the Sexton Building [TSBD?] in the background. This picture was turned over to Secret Service Agent Patterson, who gave this woman his card, advising her that the picture would be returned to her. (Decker Exhibit 5323, p. 533)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0276a.htm
Quote off
It sure would have been nice to have the names of these “two girls” who took pictures before the shooting, but we see again the failure to list this basic stuff in this report. Also, what did this photograph show? Obviously NOT a person firing from the alleged Sniper’s Nest (SN) as the photograph was never seen again. The WC did not publish this photograph for us. He does mention the Betzner pictures in this report though. Why was the WC afraid to show us this photograph?
The WC would give us a conflicting story regarding the Robert Hughes film though that depicted the sixth-floor window where LHO allegedly fired from just ten minutes before the shooting. They wrote this in one section of their Report.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0334b.gif
Speculation.—An amateur 8-millimeter photograph taken at 12:20 p.m., ten minutes before the assassination of President Kennedy, showed two silhouettes a the sixth-floor window of the Depository.
Commission finding.—A film taken by an amateur photographer, Robert J.E. Hughes, just before the assassination, shows a shadow in the southeast corner window of the sixth floor. This has been determined after examination by the FBI and U.S. Navy Photographic Interpretation Center [NPIC] to be the shadow from the cartons near the window. (WCR, p. 644)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0334b.htm
Quote off
So we see the FBI and the NPIC determined it was nothing but a shadow from the cartons near the window. It would have been nice for the WC to publish this photograph so we all could see it was just a shadow from cartons and NOT two men, but they did NOT publish it for us. Why NOT?
On another page of the Report the WC claimed a man was seen by Ronald Fischer and Robert Edwards (as we have seen Edwards’ description of the man does NOT match LHO) in the eastern sixth-floor window as claimed, but how can that be when the FBI said NO image of anyone could be found in the Hughes film?
WCR, p. 146: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0085b.gif
FBI study of the Hughes film: www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=757740
The report from the FBI clearly says NO HUMAN IMAGE could be seen in that window. So was LHO invisible? Or did this person fire from another window? Perhaps the WESTERN window as Arnold Rowland said?
We have already touched on the story of Norman Similas in this series so I won’t go into that in this post, but there was another Canadian in Dallas on vacation who took a film of the event. He would speak with Sergeant Patrick Dean of the DPD and tell him the film when he had returned home and had offered to send his film to Dean. His name was Ralph Simpson and Dean would mention him in his WC testimony.
Mr. GRIFFIN - Sergeant, you and I have been talking here off the record for--I don't have a watch, but I would guess for 15 or 20 minutes, with respect to other matters, and you indicated to me just before we brought the court reporter in, that you had obtained some information that apparently had not-been previously made available to the Commission, and I wonder if you could tell us what that is?
Mr. DEAN - It was relative to a telephone call that I received last night at about 2 o'clock in the morning. I didn't mark the time.
Mr. GRIFFIN - Where were you?
Mr. DEAN - At city hall. In the office there. The city hall operator had called me and told me that she had a man, or an operator on the line from Victoria, British Columbia, in Canada…her name was Bernice Williamson, she is the night supervisor of the B.C. Telephone Company, said that she had talked to this man long enough that she thought he probably had something. And so I accepted the call. This man's name was Ralph Simpson. He was calling from 384-3780, and he told me that he had been standing on the southern part of the plaza when the assassination took place, and he had a wide scope movie camera that he believed 'would have taken in the building and the motorcade at the time the shots were fired…And he said, "Well, I will send the films to you. They haven't been--". Well, he said they hadn't been developed, and he wasn't going to have them developed, that he would send them to me airmail. This was about 2 o'clock in the night--on the morning of the 24th, this morning [indicating].
Mr. GRIFFIN - By a man by the name of Simpson, Ralph Simpson?
Mr. DEAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. GRIFFIN - Did you actually talk with Simpson?
Mr. DEAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. GRIFFIN - How long did the telephone call last?
Mr. DEAN - Four minutes and three seconds, I think.
Dean would make notes of the conversation and these became known as Dean Exhibit 5012.
Dean Ex. 5012: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0232a.gif
We have received no update from the WC on what happened to this film. Was it sent? Was it received? Was it viewed? If so, what did it show? Who knows and that is wrong as this was being made available TO THEM, they had to do no work to get this film and still they showed no interest in it. Why NOT?
Jack Ruby’s sister, Eva Grant, would mention another photograph that we have never seen. She gave the following testimony to the WC about this photograph.
Mr. BURLESON. Do you recall about that time if anything occurred in connection with Tom Howard and his connection with the case?
Mrs. GRANT. About the picture?
Mr. BURLESON. No; just about whether or not he continued in the case or did he?
Mrs. GRANT. …We had found a mistrust in him, which is close to that time as I can remember, where information has come to us that Tom Howard is trying to sell a picture of the late President Kennedy being shot and half of his skull is in the air, to Life magazine, and I think Billy Woodfield had told that to Earl and Earl told me to get ahold of the Secret Service, they came out to see me…and we went in the alley because I don't know if my place is bugged or not, and the Secret Service stepped in to either squash the sale of this particular picture or got ahold of it--the films and everything, and, of course, when Belli found out, he was sick because he said it don't look right for an attorney representing a person to do something like this.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you ever find out whether it was true that Mr. Howard was doing this?
Mrs. GRANT. Well, since then I heard it was true, but doubly true there's some girl that works for one of your departments who heard and who told another person that there is evidence there is a picture of that kind in existence.
Mr. HUBERT. You have never seen the picture?
Mrs. GRANT. No; I haven't…
Mr. BURLESON. Do you know anything else about this alleged sale of the picture?
Mrs. GRANT. Nothing, but Earl told me to get ahold of the men here and I did and I called the office and Elmer Moore came out and I told him.
Despite this allegation by Ms. Grant the WC never saw fit to ask Tom Howard about this or have the FBI do it. Why not? They seemed content with asking her to figure it all out for them. He would die in 1965 so the chance to ask him about this was lost forever. Also, the WC never questioned the SS or LIFE about this either. Again, why NOT? One reason could be the WC saw the photograph in question somehow (perhaps the SS provided it) and they saw it did NOT support a shot from behind as claimed, thus, they just ignored the whole issue.