Post by Rob Caprio on Jul 13, 2020 20:17:19 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Garrison_Jim.jpg
freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/images/zapruder_a.jpg
One key pieces of evidence in the President John F. Kennedy (JFK) assassination is the Zapruder film as this shows quite clearly that JFK was hit from the front with the head shot. New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison made both Abraham Zapruder and his film a key part of his case against Clay Shaw.
In this post we look at testimony Mr. Abraham Zapruder gave NOT to the Warren Commission (WC), but rather during the Clay Shaw trial.
He will say in this testimony that he cannot be sure that all the frames are still in his movie, and if they aren’t, this shows the film was tampered with.
For many years there has been much discussion about the extant Zapruder film (Z-film) and whether it is a real depiction of what was actually filmed on November 22, 1963. Many on the conspiracy side say frames are missing or it has been altered in some way. WC defenders, for the most part, say it is today the same as it was on November 22, 1963, and that those on the conspiracy side are mistaken.
Well, the best way to know for sure is to go to the source who took it. Let’s look at his testimony before the court in the Clay Shaw trial.
Mr. Alvin Oser was with the District Attorney’s (DA) office and Mr. Irvin Dymond was Clay Shaw’s attorney.
Q: When you got to your office what, if anything, did you do with regard to your movie camera and films?
Zapruder: I had my secretary call either the police or the FBI, I don't remember which. She called somebody. The Secret Service.
Why would the secretary call the Secret Service (SS) when she was instructed to call the Dallas Police Department (DPD) or the FBI?
Q: After this did you do anything in regard to your film? Did you go anywhere with your film?
Zapruder: Yes, sir, a patrol car came and took me down to a station where they were trying to develop films, but they hadn't got the facilities to develop colored film. We called the Eastman Kodak people and made arrangements for them to develop the film. We went to the Eastman people.
Why did a DPD patrol car come when the SS was called? Again, why would the secretary call the SS about this when they had NO jurisdiction?
Q: After going to the Eastman people did you go anywhere else with your film?
Zapruder: Yes. They advised me not to cut the film. This was 8 millimeter of the old type that was actually a 16 millimeter film, it was cut after it was developed, and they advised me to go to another -- I think it was Jamieson film, or something like that, to have them developed there into a 16, and they were to somehow process it and split 8 millimeter, and that's what I did.
Q: As a result of going with your film to these various locations, Mr. Zapruder, did you have in your possession a developed roll of film, and if so, how many of them?
Zapruder: The first time the Jamieson people developed the original 16 millimeter, then copies were made at Eastman. I had three copies plus the original.
Q: What, if anything, did you do with the three copies and one original?
Zapruder: One copy was given to the Dallas Secret Service, and one they asked me to bring over to somewhere on Akard Street, I believe it was the FBI or Secret Service, to give them a copy to be sent to Washington. I think it was sent to Washington the same night by Army plane. One copy was given to Life Magazine.
Again we see crucial evidence being given/taken by the SS and the FBI when they had NO jurisdiction in this case! It is claimed it was only a copy, but how do we know this for sure?
Q: During the time your film was being processed, were you present, sir?
Zapruder: Yes, sir, I was.
Q: On that particular day did you have occasion to view what your film showed?
Zapruder: Yes, the same evening I saw this film.
Q: Mr. Zapruder, do you have in your possession at this present time a copy of this film?
Zapruder: Yes, I do.
Q: May I have it, sir?
Zapruder: Yes.
MR. OSER: If the Court please, the State will mark the envelope containing a roll of film as S-37 for purposes of identification.
THE COURT: And for purposes of identification only?
MR. OSER: Yes, sir.
Q: What is contained on this roll of film, is that the same as you saw it from the developed original on November 22, 1963?
Zapruder: Yes, sir.
Now, it seems Zapruder has agreed the film he is turning over is the SAME one he took on 11/22/63, but wait until the defense gets a chance at him. This is something that did NOT happen with the WC!
Q: Mr. Zapruder, what is depicted on this exhibit I have marked as S-37, the roll of film, as you saw it?
MR. DYMOND: I object. We object to his testifying as to what is depicted on it. If the film is admissible the film itself is best evidence.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
MR. OSER: At this time we offer into evidence that which we previously marked for identification as S-37, the film testified to by Mr. Zapruder.
MR. DYMOND: At this time we would like to traverse on the offer.
THE COURT: You may traverse.
This means the defense would like to take over questioning on this issue.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: You say you were present when the copies of your film were made?
Zapruder: Yes, sir.
Q: Were you actually present in the room in which these copies were being made?
Zapurder: Yes, sir, I was in the processing room watching them actually process the film.
Q: Is the copy you have here today identical to the original or are there any plates missing out of this copy?
A: That would be hard for me to tell, sir.
Why would it be hard to tell IF he was watching them copy it on the night of the assassination? Surely he must have viewed it a few times, right? I would think so, but he cannot tell if the copy he has seen is the same one he had taken on November 22, 1963. This is a key point.
THE COURT: I cannot hear the witness. What is it?
THE WITNESS: That would be hard for me to say. He asked me if there are any frames missing.
THE COURT: What is your answer?
THE WITNESS: I couldn't say.
We have at least reasonable doubt here as he CANNOT state the copy he has seen recently is the SAME film he took on November 22, 1963. IF he viewed the film on the night of the assassination as it was being copied and he has viewed it later, how could he not remember if any frames were missing? We are NOT talking about Gone With The Wind here, a 3 hour plus movie, but rather a very short film.
Q: So you don't know whether it is a complete copy of the film you took on the 22nd of November?
Zapruder: Not if there are one or two frames missing, I couldn't tell you.
Q: Mr. Zapruder, when these copies were made, do I understand you ended up with an original and two copies of the film?
Zapruder: Yes, sir.
Q: You gave one copy to the Dallas Police Intelligence Section, is that correct?
Zapruder: Yes, sir.
Q: One copy to the FBI?
Zapruder: Correct.
Q: And one copy to Life Magazine?
Zapruder: Yes, sir.
Q: Where did you get this copy you have produced here in open court today, if you disposed of all the copies?
A: I got them from Mr. Oser's office.
Why was he presenting a copy of the film that has NOT been in his possession the whole time? Why would they not supoena the DPD, FBI or Life for one of the copies they were given? Or use the original?
Q: In other words, this film has not been in your possession up until now, is that correct?
Zapruder: No. It was given to me in his office.
Was this the supposed original Jim Garrison subpoenaed? It can’t be said it was since Zapruder could NOT say the current film shown to him was the same as the one he saw on the night of the assassination.
MR. DYMOND: That is all we have on traverse, Your Honor, and we submit the proper foundation has not been laid for the introduction of this film in evidence.
THE COURT: Take the Jury out, Sheriff.
(WHEREUPON, the Jury retired from the courtroom.)
So the jury leaves the room and the court views the film. The scene in the movie JFK will occur later when the jury actually gets to see the film.
THE COURT: Before we bring the Jury in, I think the State has to ask a question of this witness.
MR. DYMOND: There is one question I would like to ask also, Judge.
THE COURT: Let Mr. Oser ask his question first.
BY MR. OSER: Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen the film just projected on the screen, can you tell us whether or not this represents what you saw on November 22, 1963, after your original film was developed in Dallas, Texas?
A: I would say they do.
THE COURT: I didn't hear you again.
Zapruder: I would say that they do. Yes, they do.
What does he mean by “I would say they do” when he was asked if the film is the same as the when he saw it on the night of November 22, 1963? I am not sure what he means here.
BY MR. DYMOND: Q: Mr. Zapruder, are you able to testify that this film that you have just seen run is a complete copy of the pictures taken by you on that day, no frames being missing?
Zapruder: By complete, what do you mean? If there are any frames removed or so?
Q: Any frames removed or damaged or for any reason not shown in this film?
Zapruder: I couldn't tell you.
Q: So you couldn't tell whether any part has been skipped, is that correct?
Zapruder: I could not.
This is key. How can WC defenders claim the film has NOT been altered or touched when the man who took it and viewed it on the night of the assassination could NOT say NO frames were missing from it? This is again called REASONABLE DOUBT.
The jury came back.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Oser, you may proceed.
BY MR. OSER: Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen what was projected on this film, can you tell the Court whether or not it appears to be the same as you viewed your original film on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas?
A: Yes, it does.
I am guessing here, but perhaps the reason the prosecution (i.e. Jim Garrison’s office) was pleased with this response was because they thought it supported the head going back frames. Otherwise, I am NOT sure why they were okay with the witness saying the film was intact IF it wasn’t.
MR. OSER: I tender the witness on traverse.
Again, we see this did NOT happen with the WC! See, when the WC defenders use WC testimony it did NOT go through this kind of cross-examination, and thus, violated the 6th Amendment. Still they call it "evidence" anyway, but that is okay since NONE of it supports the claims of LHO shooting anyone anyway.
BY MR. DYMOND: Q: This will sound repetitious, but it is because the Jury has now come in. Having viewed this film, sir, are you in a position to say whether the film you have just seen is a complete copy of what you took without any frames having been deleted or taken out or skipped?
Zapruder: I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows that I have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I couldn't tell.
This all we need for reasonable doubt. Given the things seen on the film and how some of them do not match up with the various photographs of the same time, we can safely assume the film is NOT as it was on November 22, 1963. But then again, it was NOT meant to be seen by the American people anyway, right?
We also see the man who took the film and viewed it that night while it was being "copied" could NOT even state it was the same! The bottom line here is Abraham Zapruder could NOT say the film viewed at the Clay Shaw trial was the SAME film version he saw on November 22, 1963.
WC defenders, and some CTers, cannot say for a fact the film was NOT altered, thus, there is plenty of reasonable doubt. The film still contains the key frames that show JFK was killed by a shot from the front though.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Garrison_Jim.jpg
freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/images/zapruder_a.jpg
One key pieces of evidence in the President John F. Kennedy (JFK) assassination is the Zapruder film as this shows quite clearly that JFK was hit from the front with the head shot. New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison made both Abraham Zapruder and his film a key part of his case against Clay Shaw.
In this post we look at testimony Mr. Abraham Zapruder gave NOT to the Warren Commission (WC), but rather during the Clay Shaw trial.
He will say in this testimony that he cannot be sure that all the frames are still in his movie, and if they aren’t, this shows the film was tampered with.
For many years there has been much discussion about the extant Zapruder film (Z-film) and whether it is a real depiction of what was actually filmed on November 22, 1963. Many on the conspiracy side say frames are missing or it has been altered in some way. WC defenders, for the most part, say it is today the same as it was on November 22, 1963, and that those on the conspiracy side are mistaken.
Well, the best way to know for sure is to go to the source who took it. Let’s look at his testimony before the court in the Clay Shaw trial.
Mr. Alvin Oser was with the District Attorney’s (DA) office and Mr. Irvin Dymond was Clay Shaw’s attorney.
Q: When you got to your office what, if anything, did you do with regard to your movie camera and films?
Zapruder: I had my secretary call either the police or the FBI, I don't remember which. She called somebody. The Secret Service.
Why would the secretary call the Secret Service (SS) when she was instructed to call the Dallas Police Department (DPD) or the FBI?
Q: After this did you do anything in regard to your film? Did you go anywhere with your film?
Zapruder: Yes, sir, a patrol car came and took me down to a station where they were trying to develop films, but they hadn't got the facilities to develop colored film. We called the Eastman Kodak people and made arrangements for them to develop the film. We went to the Eastman people.
Why did a DPD patrol car come when the SS was called? Again, why would the secretary call the SS about this when they had NO jurisdiction?
Q: After going to the Eastman people did you go anywhere else with your film?
Zapruder: Yes. They advised me not to cut the film. This was 8 millimeter of the old type that was actually a 16 millimeter film, it was cut after it was developed, and they advised me to go to another -- I think it was Jamieson film, or something like that, to have them developed there into a 16, and they were to somehow process it and split 8 millimeter, and that's what I did.
Q: As a result of going with your film to these various locations, Mr. Zapruder, did you have in your possession a developed roll of film, and if so, how many of them?
Zapruder: The first time the Jamieson people developed the original 16 millimeter, then copies were made at Eastman. I had three copies plus the original.
Q: What, if anything, did you do with the three copies and one original?
Zapruder: One copy was given to the Dallas Secret Service, and one they asked me to bring over to somewhere on Akard Street, I believe it was the FBI or Secret Service, to give them a copy to be sent to Washington. I think it was sent to Washington the same night by Army plane. One copy was given to Life Magazine.
Again we see crucial evidence being given/taken by the SS and the FBI when they had NO jurisdiction in this case! It is claimed it was only a copy, but how do we know this for sure?
Q: During the time your film was being processed, were you present, sir?
Zapruder: Yes, sir, I was.
Q: On that particular day did you have occasion to view what your film showed?
Zapruder: Yes, the same evening I saw this film.
Q: Mr. Zapruder, do you have in your possession at this present time a copy of this film?
Zapruder: Yes, I do.
Q: May I have it, sir?
Zapruder: Yes.
MR. OSER: If the Court please, the State will mark the envelope containing a roll of film as S-37 for purposes of identification.
THE COURT: And for purposes of identification only?
MR. OSER: Yes, sir.
Q: What is contained on this roll of film, is that the same as you saw it from the developed original on November 22, 1963?
Zapruder: Yes, sir.
Now, it seems Zapruder has agreed the film he is turning over is the SAME one he took on 11/22/63, but wait until the defense gets a chance at him. This is something that did NOT happen with the WC!
Q: Mr. Zapruder, what is depicted on this exhibit I have marked as S-37, the roll of film, as you saw it?
MR. DYMOND: I object. We object to his testifying as to what is depicted on it. If the film is admissible the film itself is best evidence.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
MR. OSER: At this time we offer into evidence that which we previously marked for identification as S-37, the film testified to by Mr. Zapruder.
MR. DYMOND: At this time we would like to traverse on the offer.
THE COURT: You may traverse.
This means the defense would like to take over questioning on this issue.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: You say you were present when the copies of your film were made?
Zapruder: Yes, sir.
Q: Were you actually present in the room in which these copies were being made?
Zapurder: Yes, sir, I was in the processing room watching them actually process the film.
Q: Is the copy you have here today identical to the original or are there any plates missing out of this copy?
A: That would be hard for me to tell, sir.
Why would it be hard to tell IF he was watching them copy it on the night of the assassination? Surely he must have viewed it a few times, right? I would think so, but he cannot tell if the copy he has seen is the same one he had taken on November 22, 1963. This is a key point.
THE COURT: I cannot hear the witness. What is it?
THE WITNESS: That would be hard for me to say. He asked me if there are any frames missing.
THE COURT: What is your answer?
THE WITNESS: I couldn't say.
We have at least reasonable doubt here as he CANNOT state the copy he has seen recently is the SAME film he took on November 22, 1963. IF he viewed the film on the night of the assassination as it was being copied and he has viewed it later, how could he not remember if any frames were missing? We are NOT talking about Gone With The Wind here, a 3 hour plus movie, but rather a very short film.
Q: So you don't know whether it is a complete copy of the film you took on the 22nd of November?
Zapruder: Not if there are one or two frames missing, I couldn't tell you.
Q: Mr. Zapruder, when these copies were made, do I understand you ended up with an original and two copies of the film?
Zapruder: Yes, sir.
I thought he said there were three copies earlier? What happened to the third copy?
Zapruder: Yes, sir.
Q: One copy to the FBI?
Zapruder: Correct.
Q: And one copy to Life Magazine?
Zapruder: Yes, sir.
Q: Where did you get this copy you have produced here in open court today, if you disposed of all the copies?
A: I got them from Mr. Oser's office.
Why was he presenting a copy of the film that has NOT been in his possession the whole time? Why would they not supoena the DPD, FBI or Life for one of the copies they were given? Or use the original?
Q: In other words, this film has not been in your possession up until now, is that correct?
Zapruder: No. It was given to me in his office.
Was this the supposed original Jim Garrison subpoenaed? It can’t be said it was since Zapruder could NOT say the current film shown to him was the same as the one he saw on the night of the assassination.
MR. DYMOND: That is all we have on traverse, Your Honor, and we submit the proper foundation has not been laid for the introduction of this film in evidence.
THE COURT: Take the Jury out, Sheriff.
(WHEREUPON, the Jury retired from the courtroom.)
So the jury leaves the room and the court views the film. The scene in the movie JFK will occur later when the jury actually gets to see the film.
THE COURT: Before we bring the Jury in, I think the State has to ask a question of this witness.
MR. DYMOND: There is one question I would like to ask also, Judge.
THE COURT: Let Mr. Oser ask his question first.
BY MR. OSER: Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen the film just projected on the screen, can you tell us whether or not this represents what you saw on November 22, 1963, after your original film was developed in Dallas, Texas?
A: I would say they do.
THE COURT: I didn't hear you again.
Zapruder: I would say that they do. Yes, they do.
What does he mean by “I would say they do” when he was asked if the film is the same as the when he saw it on the night of November 22, 1963? I am not sure what he means here.
BY MR. DYMOND: Q: Mr. Zapruder, are you able to testify that this film that you have just seen run is a complete copy of the pictures taken by you on that day, no frames being missing?
Zapruder: By complete, what do you mean? If there are any frames removed or so?
Q: Any frames removed or damaged or for any reason not shown in this film?
Zapruder: I couldn't tell you.
Q: So you couldn't tell whether any part has been skipped, is that correct?
Zapruder: I could not.
This is key. How can WC defenders claim the film has NOT been altered or touched when the man who took it and viewed it on the night of the assassination could NOT say NO frames were missing from it? This is again called REASONABLE DOUBT.
The jury came back.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Oser, you may proceed.
BY MR. OSER: Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen what was projected on this film, can you tell the Court whether or not it appears to be the same as you viewed your original film on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas?
A: Yes, it does.
I am guessing here, but perhaps the reason the prosecution (i.e. Jim Garrison’s office) was pleased with this response was because they thought it supported the head going back frames. Otherwise, I am NOT sure why they were okay with the witness saying the film was intact IF it wasn’t.
MR. OSER: I tender the witness on traverse.
Again, we see this did NOT happen with the WC! See, when the WC defenders use WC testimony it did NOT go through this kind of cross-examination, and thus, violated the 6th Amendment. Still they call it "evidence" anyway, but that is okay since NONE of it supports the claims of LHO shooting anyone anyway.
BY MR. DYMOND: Q: This will sound repetitious, but it is because the Jury has now come in. Having viewed this film, sir, are you in a position to say whether the film you have just seen is a complete copy of what you took without any frames having been deleted or taken out or skipped?
Zapruder: I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows that I have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I couldn't tell.
This all we need for reasonable doubt. Given the things seen on the film and how some of them do not match up with the various photographs of the same time, we can safely assume the film is NOT as it was on November 22, 1963. But then again, it was NOT meant to be seen by the American people anyway, right?
We also see the man who took the film and viewed it that night while it was being "copied" could NOT even state it was the same! The bottom line here is Abraham Zapruder could NOT say the film viewed at the Clay Shaw trial was the SAME film version he saw on November 22, 1963.
WC defenders, and some CTers, cannot say for a fact the film was NOT altered, thus, there is plenty of reasonable doubt. The film still contains the key frames that show JFK was killed by a shot from the front though.