WILL DEALEY PLAZA SURVIVE
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
Because [John] McAdams censors all the messages here, we can't talk about the elephant in the room. Even if the country is in grave danger, we can't talk about it. So, I have to think up clever ways to link current events to the JFK assassination to satisfy his ever-changing rules.
Some people who pay attention to current events and care about our fellow citizens may have noticed the tragedy happening in Houston. Some here don't care. Trump wants to build a wall to keep out the Mexicans and will shut down the government to pay for it. How much will Hurricane Harvey cost?
How about instead Trump builds a wall with his own money to protect us from hurricanes? Oh, no, that might save some lives.
But what about Dallas? Will Dallas get any flooding? At least Dallas is kind enough to help all the people from Houston. But if the storm floods Dallas, how does that relate to the JFK assassination?
Well, Dealey Plaza. Will it survive? What buildings will be destroyed? TSBD? DPD jail? I've noticed that Dealey Plaza has been slowly sinking by a very tiny amount over 50 years, but will massive flooding accelerate the rate? Will the pergola shift? Will those old oak trees survive? Will someone's bone be flushed out from the storm drains?
On the other hand, maybe flooding will churn up evidence that has been hidden for 53 years. Future archeologists will have new techniques that can detect metal buried a few feet in the ground. They may find the bullet from the shot that WC defenders claim missed. Or maybe when repairing damaged roofs they might uncover an empty rifle cartridge.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Here's Dealey Plaza at 10:07 AM (CST) on August 29, 2017 (three-plus days after Hurricane [Lee] Harvey [Oswald] struck the Texas coast). It's bone dry at the Book Depository. And sunny. Not a drop of rain (or standing water) in sight....
I guess the buried bones of assassin Mac Wallace won't be getting flushed out of the Dealey Plaza storm drains this August after all, eh Tony?
Let's now reflect back on a "bad weather" event that really did hit Dallas' Dealey Plaza in February 2010....
David Von Pein
August 29, 2017
HOW COULD THE CONSPIRATORS
HAVE BEEN SO PERFECT? WERE
THEY USING A CRYSTAL BALL?....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Many people who are of the belief that a conspiracy was involved in taking the life of U.S. President John F. Kennedy in 1963 are also of the belief that a massive cover-up operation took place (and fully succeeded) following JFK's assassination. And, evidently, this "cover-up" must have been put in motion almost from the very minute President Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas' Dealey Plaza.
Per some conspiracy theorists, the FBI, the U.S. Secret Service, and whoever else might have also been on the Conspiracy & Cover-Up Payroll (circa 1963) evidently dismantled the President's limousine almost immediately after the shooting, exclusively in order to hide bullet holes inside the car that were caused by frontal/"Grassy Knoll" gunshots; and most specifically to hide the obvious damage to the limo that was caused by a bullet that exited JFK's throat but did NOT enter fellow victim John Connally's back. No other reason for the car's being taken apart is ever considered by CTers, other than a "conspiratorial" one.*
* That's one of the many theories CTers have adopted over the years since JFK's murder; although, granted, it's not as popular a theory, because most conspiracists want to believe JFK's throat wound was caused by a frontal shot.
Anyway, per this "Limo Was Taken Apart To Conceal A Conspiracy" nonsense, it should occur to anyone who thinks this through for a few moments (using a little bit of common sense) just how silly and magical some of this "cover-up" junk sounds, when it's based on the limited timeframe that such hocus-pocus would have needed to have been performed within.
That is to say, it seems that not only did the plot to frame Book Depository employee Lee Harvey Oswald cover multiple agencies within law enforcement (FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police), but it would seem that these plotters had some magical built-in ability to know with 100% certainty when to plant the proper "Oswald's Guilty" evidence (like bullet CE399's "planting" in the hospital at a seemingly silly and potentially plot-exposing time, prior to anyone having detailed knowledge of where all the bullets were located in association with the shooting victims).
These plotters also had the remarkable ability to know for certain (within hours of the shooting) exactly what evidence needed to be covered up, what bullets were unwanted in this "plot", etc. -- even to the point of knowing what OSWALD-INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE to discard and sweep under the rug -- e.g.: any bullet that would have definitely been fired from behind from (possibly) the Oswald gun AND any limo damage that would have resulted from any "Oswald" shots.
Therefore, per many theorists, the authorities have in their hands multiple bullets that came from REAR SHOOTERS (Oswald?), but they decide to destroy that evidence that would probably AID their goal of framing the "Patsy" (e.g.: evidence such as the "real" Connally back-wound bullet and, as mentioned, per some CTers, the "real" bullet that went cleanly through JFK's back and neck).
Did these plotters have ESP abilities? Could they see into the future? Did they know on 11/22/63 itself—a mere hours after the shooting and before much of anything was known about the details of the shooting scenario and timing—that researchers would, years later, be able to scrutinize the evidence to death via the Zapruder Film, and thereby prove that Oswald couldn't have fired two separate shots into the backs of both JFK and Governor Connally in the given timespan allotted him?
Those must have been some amazingly prescient, crystal-ball-gazing plotters indeed.
Which is, in my opinion, just one more reason to know that conspiracy theorists only have looked at the Kennedy assassination through Post-November 22 eyeballs, never taking into account the subtleties, implausibilities, and incongruities of the stuff they actually believe took place in 1963.
Footnote --- And keep in mind that even the Warren Commission, months after the assassination, was still contemplating and assessing the exact shooting scenario (i.e., which bullets hit who; and when; etc.), with the Commission even considering for a brief time the idea that all three bullets did hit a limo occupant....which, in my view, is utter silliness for the WC to have believed for even one minute. Why? Because the autopsy report should have told the Commission right off the bat that such a "3 Shots & 3 Hits" scenario was impossible by these words printed right there in the Official Autopsy Report:
"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck [of President Kennedy], damaged the trachea, AND MADE ITS EXIT THROUGH THE ANTERIOR SURFACE OF THE NECK." (Emphasis mine.)
Therefore, the Warren Commission panel should have known from the get-go that a bullet came out of JFK's neck and went ... SOMEWHERE. This, despite the fact that the initial December 9, 1963, FBI report on the assassination did state that each of the three bullets from Oswald's rifle struck a victim in the limousine.
But, via the Warren Commission testimony of the FBI's Robert Frazier regarding no limo damage to the seats of the car where there WOULD have been damage if that mid-air bullet had NOT continued into a human being, the WC should have known that the Single-Bullet Theory was the truth from practically Day 1 of the Commission's existence, notwithstanding the early FBI report which contradicted that fairly obvious conclusion.
It seems to me, then, that the Warren Commission was working in kind of an inside-out fashion. If they had examined the autopsy report FIRST (and why didn't they do this?), they could easily see that the transiting bullet that went completely through President Kennedy either caused limo damage (which it didn't) or went into the body of a person sitting in front of Kennedy in the vehicle (Texas Governor John Connally).
Why on Earth the Commission ever, for even a moment, thought that all three shots from Oswald's rifle hit a victim is something I've never been able to fully comprehend.
But at least, in the end, the Warren Commission got it right -- Three shots; One miss; Two bullets striking victims; One assassin named Lee Harvey Oswald. That is the only conceivable conclusion to reach given the physical evidence in the John F. Kennedy murder case.
David Von Pein
WHY NOT FOCUS ON WHAT WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN ABOUT JFK'S ASSASSINATION, INSTEAD OF WHAT WILL FOREVER REMAIN UNKNOWN?....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November of 1963 has probably been the most studied and most debated murder case in the history of the United States (and perhaps the whole world).
Many conspiracy theorists (aka CTers) seem to enjoy attempting to exonerate a double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald when it comes to the two killings he committed on 11/22/63 (President Kennedy's murder and the slaying of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit).
Rabid CTers will do everything they can to skew the reality of the events that occurred on that autumn day in 1963 -- meaning: many CTers will take the massive supply of physical and circumstantial evidence (which is evidence that indicates, without any doubt, that a man with the initials "LHO" murdered two people on November 22nd) and attempt to taint all of this "official" evidence by casting doubt on the reliability of every single scrap of it (particularly the ballistics/bullet evidence in both the JFK and Tippit crimes, which is evidence that leads to only guns owned by Lee Harvey Oswald).
Is that the way to realistically approach a murder case? Is it reasonable to think that many, many people "plotted" to frame an innocent man named Oswald by planting several pieces of evidence favoring his guilt?
In my view, that crazy conspiracy approach is just downright silly. (Not to mention wholly unsupportable and unprovable.)
Many conspiracists believe that several shots fired in Dealey Plaza at President Kennedy totally missed not only all vehicle occupants, but also missed everything and everybody else in the entire Plaza.
But, instead of focusing forever and a day on the things that will always and implacably fall into the "Unknown" basket regarding John F. Kennedy's murder, why not focus more attention on the things that are fairly ironclad in nature?
Things such as:
1.) Exactly three shots were fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
This is almost as ironclad a certainty as you can have, given the hugely one-sided chart shown above. And even if some people think that that chart has been skewed toward "3 Shots" somehow, the 3 Shots figure is still overwhelming, especially given the initial reports from multiple on-air reporters who said they heard precisely three shots fired (plus other wire service reporters who relayed their "3 Shots" beliefs to the world within minutes of the event as well).
2.) Three spent bullet shells (from Oswald's rifle) were found in the Sniper's Nest in the Texas School Book Depository. This doesn't mean much to the conspiracy theorists of the world, but it should. Because it doesn't take an Einstein to line up #1 and #2 here.
3.) Lee Harvey Oswald's own rifle was found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD (the same floor where those 3 shells were also discovered). This item doesn't seem to mean a whole lot to many CTers of the world either. But it most certainly should. Because the mere odds of somebody else (besides the known owner of that Mannlicher-Carcano rifle) having used that rifle to kill the President are very low.
It's not impossible, quite obviously, for somebody else to have used Oswald's gun that day. But doesn't just ordinary Occam's Razor-style logic tell us that it was PROBABLY the owner of that weapon who used it on ANY given occasion (including November 22, 1963)?
4.) Lee Harvey Oswald murdered a policeman less than one hour after JFK was killed right on the doorstep of Tippit's murderer's workplace. And Tippit's murderer was positively inside that workplace (the TSBD) at 12:30 PM when JFK was being shot.
5.) A witness puts Lee Oswald in the sniper's window with a gun, firing that gun toward JFK's car. This doesn't mean much to a lot of conspiracists either, but it should.
6.) Lee Oswald had no alibi at all that holds up under any kind of cross-checking scrutiny. This doesn't mean much to kooks of the CT persuasion either; but it, too, should. Because it's obvious that Oswald told some "alibi" lies after he was arrested for Tippit's murder. And does a completely innocent man need to lie as much as Lee Oswald did?
Doesn't any CTer wonder why Oswald lied so darn much during the two days he was in police custody? They had-oughta wonder (that is, if this guy named Oswald was nothing but a proverbial "patsy", as many CTers firmly believe was the case).
7.) Every last piece of ballistics evidence (guns, bullets, bullet shells, and bullet fragments) leads straight to one killer in both the JFK and Tippit killings. Guess who?
Don't conspiracy believers ever wonder HOW the amazing plotters pulled off this "All Oswald Bullets/Shells" feat if, in reality, additional guns were truly involved in injuring not just one, but TWO, separate victims on 11/22/63 (including Governor John Connally)? They should wonder that. (How often can conspiracy buffs fool themselves with the "Everything Was Planted And/Or Manipulated" whitewash?)
8.) Lee Oswald had a history of wanting to kill political figures, starting with General Edwin Walker in April of 1963 (which just happened to coincide perfectly with the timeline of Oswald receiving his Carcano rifle in the mail).
Don't CTers ever wonder about this "coincidence" either? They should. We KNOW Oswald took a potshot at Walker -- because he told us so (through his wife, Marina Oswald). Was Marina attempting to frame her own husband? Apparently some conspiracists think so.
In the final analysis.....
Any missed shot that was fired in Dealey Plaza shall forever remain just a guess, whether you're a Lone Assassin believer or a conspiracy believer. But does that mean the case is unsolvable? Or that a conspiracy MUST exist? No, it doesn't.
Everything of a HARD EVIDENCE nature leads to one conclusion, and only one -- i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald was performing a solo shooting act on 11/22/63.
The softer evidence, such as the forever debatable "missed shot(s)", shall always be soft, and as such shall always be focused on much more by conspiracy theorists than the stuff we know for certain -- such as Lee Harvey Oswald's proof-positive involvement in two different murders that November day in Dallas, Texas.
David Von Pein
JOHN CONNALLY IS ON CAMERA IN 1967 SAYING THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IS "POSSIBLE"....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Many people out there have probably never seen the excellent CBS-TV 4-Part documentary series "The Warren Report" (originally shown on CBS in June 1967), but I've managed to acquire a copy of that program, and just recently [in 2006] I discovered a very interesting portion of that broadcast which relates to Governor John Connally's (seemingly) long-standing, unwavering belief that he and President Kennedy were struck by separate bullets in Dallas on November 22, 1963.
But Mr. Connally states without reservation within that 1967 "Warren Report" program that he thinks the Single-Bullet Theory just might be "possible".
Here are Connally's exact words from Part 2 of that CBS-TV special [also see video below]:
"The only way that I could ever reconcile my memory of what happened and what occurred, with respect to the One-Bullet Theory is .... it HAD to be the SECOND bullet that might have hit us both."
When the interviewer (who, btw, was Eddie Barker, who was part of the original 11/22/63 TV coverage for Dallas CBS affiliate KRLD-TV) then asked Connally the follow-up question of -- "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first bullet could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the third one hit President Kennedy?"....Connally's immediate response was -- "That's possible. That's possible."
That scenario of the second gunshot equating to the "SBT" shot, which Governor Connally admitted back in '67 to having been "possible", also perfectly corresponds to other evidence in the case which bolsters the likelihood of the SBT being an absolute fact, including Mr. Connally's always unshakable stance, which is repeated again for the CBS cameras in that 1967 program, of -- "the first bullet did NOT hit me....the second bullet DID hit me."
Mr. Connally also provided this on-camera statement during that same '67 "Warren Report" special....
"All I can say, with any finality, if the Single-Bullet Theory IS correct, then it had to be the second bullet that hit President Kennedy and me."
Therefore, the above almost forgotten words spoken by Governor Connally should (IMO) forever erase the widely accepted erroneous idea that Mr. Connally never even once admitted that he thought the SBT could have possibly occurred that day in Dallas.
Upon digging up some older (circa 2001) newsgroup postings from various alt.jfk members, I came across this interesting thread, in which Jean Davison makes these remarks regarding Connally's non-SBT beliefs:
"Yes, Tony [Marsh], the SEPost [Saturday Evening Post] was quoting verbatim from a LIFE article of 11/26/66 [sic; Jean was off by just one day on the date; it was actually the 11/25/66 edition of LIFE Magazine; Click Here to read the Connally article], and Connally did indeed say there that he was certain he was hit by a separate bullet. He said this after viewing Z frames at LIFE's offices and deciding that he'd been hit in Z 234, which is of course after JFK was visibly reacting. However, he hasn't "ALWAYS" said this. He told the HSCA he didn't know when JFK was hit because he never saw him after the firing began." -- Jean Davison; July 25th, 2001
Now, what's rather interesting about the above comments, IMO, would be the date when Connally stated that he was "certain" he'd been hit by a separate bullet (November of 1966) -- which was months PRIOR to apparently doing a flip-flop (at least partially in his own mind) concerning the viability and "possibility" of the SBT. He told Eddie Barker and CBS-TV in mid-1967 the verbatim quotes I copied above, saying to the world that the Single-Bullet Theory was certainly not IMPOSSIBLE in his mind.
More of my thoughts regarding John Connally's and Nellie Connally's beliefs in association with the JFK assassination can be found in the various articles available at this link.
PAT SPEER SAID:
I believe Connally said much this same thing in his HSCA testimony. He said that he believed he was hit by the second shot and since the first shot hit Kennedy, he assumed that they were hit by separate shots... but if the first shot didn't hit Kennedy, well...
But if you read on, you'll see that he always ends up deferring to Nellie... well, Nellie says we were hit by separate shots, and she's the best witness I know, etc.
Unfortunately, neither Connally's testimony is completely reliable. What I find ironic is that so many Warren Commission defenders will quote Connally as if his testimony supports [Gerald] Posner, when it does anything but. Connally makes it quite clear that he heard the first shot when the limo was far past its position at Z-160. While he was open-minded about which shot hit him, he never waivered [sic] on where he was when he heard the first shot.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And just exactly how do the following [John] Connally remarks made to the Warren Commission in 1964 equate to Governor Connally hearing "the first shot when the limo was far past its position at Z-160"? ....
"We had--we had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don't recall how far it was, heading down to get on the freeway .... We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right..." -- John B. Connally; April 21, 1964 [at 4 H 132]
There's a slight conflict within those two sentences spoken by Connally -- "We had gone 150-200 feet" ... and ... "We had just made the turn".
It boils down, I suppose, to precisely how many FEET travelled down Elm Mr. Connally equates to his comment "We had JUST made the turn..." (my emphasis).
But how do those words, in any fashion, negate the possibility of an early Z160 (approx.) gunshot? IMO, they do no such thing. They are ambiguous words at best. He's estimating things...."150 feet"; "200 feet"; "We just made the turn". None of those words refute the notion of an early Z160 shot.
Plus, the ONLY visible "turn to the right" made by Governor Connally occurs just 4 frames after Z160. Conspiracy theorists cannot explain this evidence in a "pro-conspiracy" manner (believably, that is). It's fairly obvious that Mr. Connally's "First-Shot" right turn begins at circa Z164 on the Zapruder Film, because there's NO OTHER TURN that could possibly account for a "1st-Shot Right Turn" on Mr. Connally's behalf during the entire assassination/shooting sequence, unless you want to believe, like some CTers do, that Connally made an ultra-fast "glance" over his right shoulder during the precise one-second timeframe when he was blocked from Mr. Zapruder's view while behind the Stemmons sign.
Per CTers, that signage sure helped out the conspirators a hell of a good bit -- it hid Connally's "1st-Shot Right Turn"; it hid the exact moment that JFK was first hit (which I agree in this instance...the sign DID technically do that); and, of course (per some conspiracists), the sign is hiding Kennedy's initial reaction to being hit by a bullet at circa Z190-Z200.
Even the Dallas Department Of Signage must have been in on the conspiracy, placing that sign in the perfect spot to hide the evidence of multiple gunmen on November 22nd.
David Von Pein
March 21, 2006
August 26, 2017
JACK RUBY, WES WISE, MAL COUCH,
AND THE DISHONESTY OF MARK LANE....
MARK ULRIK SAID:
Unfortunately for Ben, Couch also makes it clear that the person who saw Ruby in Dealey Plaza was Wes Wise.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Excellent post, Mark, on the Wise/Couch/Ruby matter. I'm coming in late on this topic about Couch and Wise, and I'm not entirely sure what Mark Lane wrote in his book about this matter, but from the posts in this [Amazon.com] thread [which, of course, is no longer there], it would seem as if Lane was trying to utilize Mal Couch's Warren Commission testimony to leave the readers of his pro-conspiracy book with the distinct impression that Jack Ruby had, indeed, been seen by someone in Dealey Plaza just "moments" after JFK was murdered.
But Mark Lane is most certainly not telling his readers the whole (truthful) story, because as Mark Ulrik quoted from Couch's WC session, Mr. Couch positively says who it was who supposedly saw Ruby coming out of the Depository on 11/22/63 -- it was Wes Wise.
And since we know for a fact that Wes Wise was NOT in Dealey Plaza when the President was shot (Wise was reporting from the Trade Mart for KRLD), and since we also know that Wise only saw Ruby in Dealey Plaza ONE TIME that weekend in November '63 -- and it was on SATURDAY, not FRIDAY -- then it becomes fairly obvious that Mark Lane is doing what he has done many other times in his book and during his college lectures and interviews --- he is deliberately not telling people the whole story in a desperate and determined effort to get people to believe that something "fishy" occurred, when, in fact, the only thing "fishy" and underhanded is the way Mark Lane tries to deceive the public on many matters concerning the assassination of JFK.
BTW, there is audio proof that Wes Wise was located at the Dallas Trade Mart just after the assassination on Friday. You can hear Wise reporting live from the Trade Mart for KRLD-Radio here.
Would some conspiracy theorist like to suggest that I have "faked" the above audio recordings of Wise's voice? Mark Lane might like to think so.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Couch also makes it clear what day this was.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Sure. But the person from whom Couch got that information was obviously wrong about the day. Wise didn't talk to Ruby in Dealey Plaza "moments" after the assassination. Wise talked to Ruby on Saturday. And Mark Lane surely HAD to have known that fact.
So it's a complete non-issue that Lane evidently wants to pretend isn't solved. He wants his book readers to think that Ruby was, in fact, in Dealey Plaza on 11/22 talking to Wes Wise. But Wes Wise was at the Trade Mart speaking into a microphone for radio station KRLD.
So, as stated previously, Lane is deliberately misleading his readers. (Par for the Lane course, of course.)
Now, if I have misrepresented what Mark Lane said in his book, "Rush To Judgment", I'll gladly retract my last two posts and say I was wrong. But, generally speaking, I have no qualms at all in placing more faith (and truth-telling) in any post written by an "LNer" than I do in anything uttered by a "CTer" any day of the week. Because it goes pretty much without saying that most conspiracists are dead wrong way way more often than any LNer regarding the JFK case. Just think "Jim DiEugenio, Ralph Cinque, Bob Groden, Ben Holmes". That pack of CTers rarely gets anything right.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Game, Set, and Match. Sorry you lost...try again later.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Come now, Benji. Be a nice little conspiracy kook and respond to my WHOLE argument. Here's the part you conveniently chopped off:
"But the person from whom Couch got that information was obviously WRONG about the day. Wise didn't talk to Ruby in Dealey Plaza "moments" after the assassination. Wise talked to Ruby on Saturday. And Mark Lane surely HAD to have known that fact. So it's a complete non-issue that Lane evidently wants to pretend isn't solved. He wants his book readers to think that Ruby was, in fact, in DP on 11/22 talking to Wes Wise. But Wes Wise was at the Trade Mart speaking into a microphone for radio station KRLD. So, as stated previously, Lane is deliberately misleading his readers. (Par for the Lane course, of course.)"
-- DVP; 7/23/13
BEN HOLMES SAID:
And, by the way, you *ARE* lying about Mark Lane "deliberately misleading his readers".
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Once more we're treated to Holmes springing to his keyboard to call someone a liar.
I didn't lie at all in this matter, Ben. I just now looked up the relevant portion of text in Lane's book "Rush To Judgment" (it's on page 263; see it for yourself right here) and, just as I expected, Mr. Lane is not telling his readers the entire story regarding the key question relating to Wes Wise, Jack Ruby, and Mal Couch -- with that key question being:
Did Wes Wise see Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza shortly after JFK was shot on 11/22/63?
If Mark Lane had any real interest in telling his RTJ readers the COMPLETE story regarding Wes Wise and Jack Ruby, Lane would have certainly offered up the information supplied by Mr. Wise in CE3039 (at 26 H 582-585), which is a Commission Exhibit mentioned by Mark Ulrik previously in this Amazon thread (thanks, Mark, for citing it too).
In that December 1, 1963, FBI interview that we find in CE3039 (and Mark Lane could certainly have found it too, because it's not hidden; it's right there in Volume 26 of the Warren Commission's set of published volumes), we find some very important information, with the FBI report going into considerable detail concerning Wes Wise's encounter with Ruby near the Depository on Saturday, November 23rd. The report even says how Wise saw Ruby approaching his car "from the rear of the Texas School Book Depository along Houston Street on the east side of the building", which perfectly matches the testimony of Mal Couch. Couch said he had heard that Wise had seen Ruby "coming around the side of the building, coming around the east side going south".
Therefore, in the Warren Commission volumes themselves, Mark Lane has the key to answering the question of whether or not Wes Wise actually observed Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza right after the assassination on Friday. And the undeniable answer to that question is: No, he did not. And can any sensible person really believe that CE3039 is talking about a SECOND Wise/Ruby encounter, with one encounter taking place "moments after the shooting" on Friday and the second one occurring on Saturday--with Wise (both times) seeing Ruby approaching him along Houston Street on the east side of the TSBD? Come now.
Plus, Lane could have also utilized Wes Wise's testimony at Jack Ruby's trial (also mentioned by Mark Ulrik in his earlier post concerning this matter; another tip of the hat to Mark for finding all kinds of references to the Wise/Ruby meeting on 11/23/63, any one of which could also have been used by Mark Lane in his 1966 book, but evidently they weren't). Wise's Ruby Trial testimony was published by the Warren Commission in Volume 25 (as CE2413), beginning on page 498.
Now, you can argue that Mr. Lane was just not very thorough when it came to this Wise/Couch/Ruby matter, and perhaps Lane never looked at CE3039 or CE2413. But I doubt that type argument will garner very much support, knowing (as most of us do) the way Mr. Lane scoured all 26 WC volumes between 1964 and the time when his book was published in 1966.
So, we're left with this text to mislead the "Rush To Judgment" readers:
[RTJ Quote On:]
"Malcolm Couch, a cameraman for WFAA-TV in Dallas, told Commission counsel that 'Wes Wise, who works for KRLD', saw Ruby near the Book Depository soon after the assassination.
Couch: Yes--saw him moments after the shooting--how many moments, I don't know--5 minutes, 10 minutes--coming around the side of the building, coming around the east side going south, I presume.
Question: Did you ever talk to Wes Wise as to whether or not he actually saw this, or is this just hearsay?
Couch: No; I didn't. This is just hearsay.
Question: Let me ask you this: Is there any observation, other than hearsay, that you have about this entire sequence of events that you have not related here?
Much of the testimony taken by the Commission consisted of hearsay, of course, as did all of the interview reports upon which it relied; much of it was irrelevant as well. In this instance, however, counsel precipitately invoked the hearsay rule and prevented further discussion of a relevant subject--Ruby's presence in Dealey Plaza. The rule regarding hearsay testimony was designed not to stifle evidence but to assure its reliable presentation. In a trial situation, where the rules of evidence are strictly adhered to, with certain exceptions, Couch would not be permitted to testify regarding the observations of another person, since the original source could be called as a witness. The Commission did not call Wes Wise." -- Mark Lane; Page 263 of "Rush To Judgment" (c.1966)
[END LANE BOOK QUOTE.]
And in addition to the above batch of crap concerning Mal Couch and "hearsay testimony", Lane also says the following on that same page of RTJ:
"Possible corroboration for Miss [Vickie] Adams is provided by a photograph taken minutes after the assassination. It shows a man who looks just like Ruby standing at the place where Miss Adams recalled seeing him. As we shall see, this photograph was published by the Commission only after it had been cropped in such a fashion that the man's face was partially removed."
[END LANE BOOK QUOTE.]
Now, as we all know, Mr. Lane was undoubtedly referring to this picture linked below [click to enlarge]:
And as we all also know, the man on the far right-hand side of the above picture (wearing the dark glasses) is not Mr. Jack L. Ruby. And the photo below, which shows the same man in dark glasses from a different angle, proves that it is not Ruby:
EDIT: Here's another photo showing the same man in sunglasses, and it's obviously not Jack Ruby [click to enlarge]:
Now, I have no idea exactly when those last two pictures first surfaced. They might have only become available after Lane published his book in '66. So, if that's the case, Lane wouldn't have seen the verifiable proof that the man in the first picture was not Jack Ruby. But Mr. Lane can use no such "It Wasn't Available At The Time I Wrote My Book" excuse when it comes to Commission Exhibit No. 3039 and that December 1963 FBI interview with Wes Wise....because CE3039 has been available to the public in Volume #26 since late 1964. And the same can be said of CE2413 too. It's been available since 1964 as well, in Volume 25.
Plus, Lane could have also easily called up Wes Wise on the telephone to confirm the fact that Wise could not possibly have seen Ruby in Dealey Plaza around 12:30 on November 22, seeing as how Wise was a few miles away at the Trade Mart at that time. I doubt that Wes would have hung up on Mr. Lane.
In short -- Mark Lane doesn't WANT his readers to read the WHOLE story about many of these purported "unknowns" revolving around the murder of JFK. Lane would much rather have his readers finish reading his book with the idea swirling in their heads that maybe Wes Wise REALLY DID see Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza within "moments" of the President being shot....even though the truth of the matter rests elsewhere....specifically on pages 582 to 584 of Warren Commission Volume No. 26. Too bad Mark Lane didn't share that information with his readers.
David Von Pein
July 23-24, 2013
July 24, 2013
August 6, 2017