Post by Rob Caprio on Mar 13, 2020 20:20:58 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Garrison_Jim.jpg
fwcdn.pl/ppo/54/72/5472/324050.1.jpg
Julia Ann Mercer was a key witness to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963. She had been interviewed by the FBI on several occasions and spoke to the Dallas Police Department (DPD) as well, but the Warren Commission (WC) ignored her completely.
In early 1968 during New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's investigation into the assassination he received a telephone call from her husband saying that they were in town and asking if he would like to meet with his wife. Garrison agreed and went to the Fairmont Hotel where they were staying. Mercer's husband excused himself as he had some business to attend to.
Garrison showed her the statements that the WC published in their Commission Exhibits (CE) that were supposedly based on her comments to the FBI and DPD. Mercer told Garrison that these weren't her words, but, in fact, they were the opposite of what she stated.
www.jfk-assassination.net/images/Mercer_Sheriff1.gif
www.jfk-assassination.net/images/Mercer_Sheriff2.gif
After reading them carefully she said, “They all have been altered. They have me saying just the opposite of what I really told them.” (On The Trail of The Assassins, p. 217, hardcover edition.) Garrison describes what Mercer told him about what she observed before the assassination.
Quote on
About an hour beforehand the assassination she had been driving west on Elm Street and had been stopped—just passed the grassy knoll—by traffic congestion. To her surprise (because she recalled that the President's parade was coming soon), she saw a young man in the pickup truck to her right dismount, carrying a rifle, not too well concealed in a covering of some sort. She then observed him walk up “the grassy hill which forms part of the overpass.” She looked at the driver several times, got a good look at his round face and brown eyes, and he looked right back at her.
Mercer also observed that three police officers were standing near a motorcycle on the overpass bridge above her and just ahead. She recalled that they showed no curiousity about the young man climbed the side of the grassy knoll with the rifle. (Ibid.)
Quote off
We can see why the WC was not interested in calling her as a witness since her observations point to a conspiracy. The evidence that the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) would consider showed with 95% certainty that a shot originated from the Grassy Knoll (GK) area. It would seem that Mercer saw one of the assassins who fired from there (the term “one of" is used as a number of researchers over the years have stated that there were multiple shooters in the GK area).
Why were the three police officers not curious or interested in this man? Given their vantage point it would be hard to claim that they didn't see him. From the beginning some have felt that members of the DPD were complicit in the assassination and cover-up as actions like this only lend support to this kind of thinking.
She would continue with what she did after the assassination.
Quote on
After the assassination, when Mercer sought to make this information available to law enforcement authorities, their response was almost frenzied. At the F.B.I. office—where she went the day after the assassination—she was shown a number of mug shots. Among the several she selected as resembling the driver was a photograph of Jack Ruby. On Sunday, when she saw Ruby kill Oswald on television, she positively recognized him as the driver of the pickup truck and promptly notified the local Bureau office. Nevertheless, the F.B.I. altered her statement so it did not note that she had made a positive identification.
She laughed when she pointed this out to me. “See,” she said, “the F.B.I. made it just the opposite of what I really told them. “ Then she added, “He was only a few feet away from me. How could I not recognize Jack Ruby when I saw him shoot Oswald on television?” (Ibid., pp. 217-218)
Quote off
We again see alteration of what a witness actually said (see the “Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions” series for other examples) by the FBI. Every time the alteration was to the benefit of the official conclusion too. Why would this be necessary if the official conclusion was based on the truth?
The Dallas Sheriff's Office would do the same thing by creating a phony affidavit stating that “she did not identify the driver" when they never brought her before a notary. Mercer told Garrison that the signature was NOT hers on the affidavit either. (Ibid., p. 218) These shenanigans by the law enforcement authorities confirm that there was a conspiracy and cover-up in the JFK assassination. If it occurred the way the WC and other official outlets claim, why would actions like these be needed?
Garrison makes a key point about Mercer's statement making it clear on November 23, 1963, that Jack Ruby was involved in a conspiracy to the FBI. This was the day BEFORE he would shoot Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO). Why was Ruby not brought in for questioning or detained until this could be looked into? Why was he free the next morning to shoot LHO?
Garrison further pointed out Ruby's special relationship with the Dallas FBI office. In 1959 Ruby met at least nine times with an agent from this office. Ruby purchased a microphone-equipped wristwatch, a bugged tie clip, a telephone bug, and a bugged attache case. He was most likely a regular informant for the Dallas FBI office.
Garrison also suggests that Ruby worked for the CIA as well. His trips to Cuba and participation in gun-running make this very likely.
The HSCA stated that Mercer made “alleged statements" to Garrison when he sent the items she had signed for him back in 1968. The cover-up continues. Garrison was the only person who has officially looked into the assassination to take the time to learn what Mercer had actually observed so we owe him a big thanks as she was a key witness that was trivialized by the WC.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Garrison_Jim.jpg
fwcdn.pl/ppo/54/72/5472/324050.1.jpg
Julia Ann Mercer was a key witness to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963. She had been interviewed by the FBI on several occasions and spoke to the Dallas Police Department (DPD) as well, but the Warren Commission (WC) ignored her completely.
In early 1968 during New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's investigation into the assassination he received a telephone call from her husband saying that they were in town and asking if he would like to meet with his wife. Garrison agreed and went to the Fairmont Hotel where they were staying. Mercer's husband excused himself as he had some business to attend to.
Garrison showed her the statements that the WC published in their Commission Exhibits (CE) that were supposedly based on her comments to the FBI and DPD. Mercer told Garrison that these weren't her words, but, in fact, they were the opposite of what she stated.
www.jfk-assassination.net/images/Mercer_Sheriff1.gif
www.jfk-assassination.net/images/Mercer_Sheriff2.gif
After reading them carefully she said, “They all have been altered. They have me saying just the opposite of what I really told them.” (On The Trail of The Assassins, p. 217, hardcover edition.) Garrison describes what Mercer told him about what she observed before the assassination.
Quote on
About an hour beforehand the assassination she had been driving west on Elm Street and had been stopped—just passed the grassy knoll—by traffic congestion. To her surprise (because she recalled that the President's parade was coming soon), she saw a young man in the pickup truck to her right dismount, carrying a rifle, not too well concealed in a covering of some sort. She then observed him walk up “the grassy hill which forms part of the overpass.” She looked at the driver several times, got a good look at his round face and brown eyes, and he looked right back at her.
Mercer also observed that three police officers were standing near a motorcycle on the overpass bridge above her and just ahead. She recalled that they showed no curiousity about the young man climbed the side of the grassy knoll with the rifle. (Ibid.)
Quote off
We can see why the WC was not interested in calling her as a witness since her observations point to a conspiracy. The evidence that the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) would consider showed with 95% certainty that a shot originated from the Grassy Knoll (GK) area. It would seem that Mercer saw one of the assassins who fired from there (the term “one of" is used as a number of researchers over the years have stated that there were multiple shooters in the GK area).
Why were the three police officers not curious or interested in this man? Given their vantage point it would be hard to claim that they didn't see him. From the beginning some have felt that members of the DPD were complicit in the assassination and cover-up as actions like this only lend support to this kind of thinking.
She would continue with what she did after the assassination.
Quote on
After the assassination, when Mercer sought to make this information available to law enforcement authorities, their response was almost frenzied. At the F.B.I. office—where she went the day after the assassination—she was shown a number of mug shots. Among the several she selected as resembling the driver was a photograph of Jack Ruby. On Sunday, when she saw Ruby kill Oswald on television, she positively recognized him as the driver of the pickup truck and promptly notified the local Bureau office. Nevertheless, the F.B.I. altered her statement so it did not note that she had made a positive identification.
She laughed when she pointed this out to me. “See,” she said, “the F.B.I. made it just the opposite of what I really told them. “ Then she added, “He was only a few feet away from me. How could I not recognize Jack Ruby when I saw him shoot Oswald on television?” (Ibid., pp. 217-218)
Quote off
We again see alteration of what a witness actually said (see the “Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions” series for other examples) by the FBI. Every time the alteration was to the benefit of the official conclusion too. Why would this be necessary if the official conclusion was based on the truth?
The Dallas Sheriff's Office would do the same thing by creating a phony affidavit stating that “she did not identify the driver" when they never brought her before a notary. Mercer told Garrison that the signature was NOT hers on the affidavit either. (Ibid., p. 218) These shenanigans by the law enforcement authorities confirm that there was a conspiracy and cover-up in the JFK assassination. If it occurred the way the WC and other official outlets claim, why would actions like these be needed?
Garrison makes a key point about Mercer's statement making it clear on November 23, 1963, that Jack Ruby was involved in a conspiracy to the FBI. This was the day BEFORE he would shoot Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO). Why was Ruby not brought in for questioning or detained until this could be looked into? Why was he free the next morning to shoot LHO?
Garrison further pointed out Ruby's special relationship with the Dallas FBI office. In 1959 Ruby met at least nine times with an agent from this office. Ruby purchased a microphone-equipped wristwatch, a bugged tie clip, a telephone bug, and a bugged attache case. He was most likely a regular informant for the Dallas FBI office.
Garrison also suggests that Ruby worked for the CIA as well. His trips to Cuba and participation in gun-running make this very likely.
The HSCA stated that Mercer made “alleged statements" to Garrison when he sent the items she had signed for him back in 1968. The cover-up continues. Garrison was the only person who has officially looked into the assassination to take the time to learn what Mercer had actually observed so we owe him a big thanks as she was a key witness that was trivialized by the WC.