|
Post by Michael Capasse on Oct 9, 2020 10:03:53 GMT -5
Brennan in the PapersHoward Brennan attended the first lineup but failed to identify Lee Harvey Oswald. This was about 4:30p on Fri (11/22) Helen Markham was the other witness at that lineup. Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels, and a number of FBI agents were there without proper jurisdiction. In his posthumous book, "Eyewitness to History", Mr. Brennan explained he felt double crossed by the authorizes. He said he could identify this man again, but would not because of leaks he was aware of at DPD. Frightened for his own safety and his family if there were others, he declined to identify Lee. "I felt even more angry and betrayed. I hadn’t agreed to make an identification to the local authorities. I knew that there were ways my identity could become known though the leaks in the police department and I didn’t want any part of it.”Meanwhile, his face was already on the local television the day of, with pictures of him talking to the Secret Service. Brennan boasted about the expedited broadcast to attorney Belin during his Commission testimony, asking if he had seen it. His name, age, and occupation, also appeared in the Dallas Morning News as a statement to the press the day after. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim | Kent Biffle Dallas Morning News | 11/23/63 "There were many faces in the windows of the building. A few, like H. L. Brennan, a 44-year-old steamfitter, actually got a glimpse of the gunman.
"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out the window. I saw him fire a second time. "He was a slender guy, a nice-looking guy. He didn't seem to be in no hurry", said Brennan.The FBI took several statements from Brennan from Nov 22, until the day he testified. Other visits were required when Howard "appeared to revert to his earlier inability" to identify Lee Oswald. These recorded statements raise doubts, in addition to other direct contradictions in his testimony. He told the FBI in Dec. 1963, that having seen Lee Oswald on television before the lineups, "..tended to cloud any identification..." When Belin asked him specifically about that in the hearings, he transposed it to, "...something I do not know."The man described under oath wore a "light color--not a real white shirt" Lee wore a dark shirt over a white t-shirt that day, along with a dark blue trousers. Howard went on to describe his pants had a color that was lighter than his shirt. These direct contradictions with what Lee wore, raises serious doubts on the reliability of what Brennan could see at that distance. There is no observer that defined the shooter as ever standing while he was firing. The aprox 13 inch window opening near the floor of the room, make it impossible to shoot thru that frame while standing. Brennan only described the man as standing for a moment when he was through, as though admiring his handiwork. Again, this conflicts with the official narrative re: the time needed to hide the rifle and get to the 2nd floor. Skepticism follows in the accuracy of this witness' observations from the time it happened to the day he testified. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Immunity in GrievanceIn March of 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassination contacted Howard Brennan to testify. Howard told the Committee, the only way he would appear would be if he was subpoenaed. Brennan was summoned to appear May 02 nd, but by the 3 rd week of April negotiations had broken down over travel arrangements, when the witness asked to stay in Washington a day longer and to bring his wife. A suggestion was made to give a deposition from his home prior to forcing the subpoena being issued, but Brennan refused. Howard threatened he would fight any court order by getting his doctor to sign a note he was too sick to testify. Chief Council Robert Blakey secured immunity for Brennan at the end of April, and by May 1 st that legal protection went into effect and the reason given was, "He has made it clear in phone conversations that he will co-operate with the HSCA only when he wants to do so." May 1 st Ken Klein (HSCA) received a letter from Brennan's doctor saying he was too sick to travel to Washington, but perhaps he could verify 5 or so statements of testimony to be correct as fact. "...11 attempts were made between 5/13/78 and 5/19/78 to present Brennan with 5 statements that he had made before they were finally presented and left with him on the 19th. When the investigator returned on 5/21/78 to pick up the form that would indicate that Brennan's statements were accurate, the investigator found that Brennan refused to sign the form." whokilledjfk.net/howard_brennan3.htm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Right of RefusalHoward would not verify or clarify statements relating to what he witnessed November 22 nd. It became apparent the reason was more than his sickness, when he refused to testify from home or by telephone. He was completely uncooperative in the simplest ways of testifying to the HSCA before passing away in 1983. Brennan's memoir, "Eyewitness to History: The Kennedy Assassination as Seen by Howard L. Brennan", was written with J. Edward Cherryholmes, and released in 1987. Unfortunately it raises more questions than it answered. Howard Leslie Brennan was not the "accurate observer" as described in the Warren Commission Report in 1964.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Oct 17, 2020 15:11:04 GMT -5
Arnold RowlandIn 1963, Arnold Rowland was an eighteen year old high school student, living and working part time in Dallas. On November 22 nd he and his wife Barbara decided to go Dealey Plaza to watch the parade. They stood near the west entrance to the Sheriffs Office on Houston St., just before the Main St. intersection. From their position they could see the face and the windows of the TSBD Building. Arnold told the Warren Commission, that about 15 minutes before the motorcade, he saw a negro man on the east end of the building, in the "snipers nest window", that man was older, about 55, practically bald and thin, wearing a plaid shirt. Moments later, he saw another man in the SW corner window, that is, on the opposite side of that face of the building. That man, could have been light colored Latin or Caucasian, wore light colored clothing and had a high powered rifle in his hand. Mr. ROWLAND: "...I noticed on the sixth floor of the building that there was a man back from the window, not hanging out the window. He was standing and holding a rifle, This appeared to me to be a fairly high-powered rifle because of the scope and the relative proportion of the scope to the rifle..." Representative FORD - I am not clear on this now. The window that you saw the man that you describe was on what end of the building? Mr. ROWLAND - The west, southwest corner. Representative FORD - And the man you saw hanging out from the window was at what corner? Mr. ROWLAND - The east, southeast corner. Representative FORD - Southeast corner. On the same floor? Mr. ROWLAND - On the same floor. Representative FORD - When did you notice him? Mr. ROWLAND - This was before I noticed the other man with the rifle. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sheriffs Affidavit | 11/22/63"...It must have been 5 or 10 minutes later when we were just looking at the surrounding buildings when I looked up at the Texas Book building and noticed that the second floor from the top had two adjoining windows which were open, and upon looking I saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a high powered rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it.
He appeared to be holding this at a parade rest sort of position. I mentioned this to my wife and merely made the remark that it must be the secret service men. This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair...."While most witnesses testified by deposition in a small room with one attorney in Dallas, Arnold appeared before the Commission March 10, 1964, in Washington DC. One of the first witnesses to testify. Arlen Spector was the questioning attorney, and tried to shake the witness a few times. Once by remembering (without looking) the differences in the seven FBI interviews conducted since the assassination. Of course he could not, nobody could, seven times the FBI hounded Mr. Rowland, each time bringing no new information. What Arnold Rowland said became high profile evidence thru leaks of police reports and the press. Although there are some other witness that say some of the same thing, it was Rowland's immediate reports backed by a Deputy Sheriff that put him in the target of the Warren Commission. He would not identify Lee Oswald with a rifle. --------------------------------------------------- Mr. SPECTER - Was that your conclusion at this moment that you are unable to identify, with precision and certainty, the man whom you saw holding the rifle in the window of the Texas School Book Depository Building? Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; that is true.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Oct 17, 2020 15:11:24 GMT -5
Rowland AlongWhat is most important about what Arnold Rowland said, was the time he said it occurred. Whether he saw one man or two, or two men together, he saw them at a time Carolyn Arnold saw Lee on a lower floor. And if Carolyn saw Lee at 12:15p, how does that reconcile with Givens seeing Lee on the 6 th floor at 11:55a with a clipboard? These inconsistencies do not equate to the proof required to put Lee Oswald in the sniper's nest window before 12:30p. Lee had an alibi for where he was, and a witness, seen on a lower floor by Carolyn Arnold. While someone else was upstairs. Meanwhile, Arnold Rowland said the rifle man had light colored clothing, a consistent trait from other witnesses as well. He also said there was a colored man in the sniper's nest window, at the same time, there was man with a rifle at the other end. It was the statements he made to Sheriff Deputy Roger Craig, the FBI had told him directly they weren't interested in. Senator Cooper wanted to know what made him think they weren't interested in this other man. Mr. ROWLAND - "...I don't remember exactly what was said. The context was again the agents were trying to find out if I could positively identify the man that I saw." "They were concerned mainly with this, and I brought up to them about the Negro man after I had signed the statement, and at that time he just told me that they were just trying to find out about or if anyone could identify the man who was up there. They just didn't seem interested at all. They didn't pursue the point. They didn't take it down in the notation as such." Mr. ROWLAND - "...It was just the fact they didn't pursue it. I mean, I just mentioned that I saw him in that window. They didn't ask me, you know, if was this at the same time or such. They just didn't seem very interested in that at all." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Targeted InvestigationThere is no evidence that Arnold Rowland failed to report what he said. While the young man was on the stand, Spector avoided if there was anything reported not in his statement. He never asked. Five different FBI statements from him, the Commission did not call a single agent to testify. Harold Weisberg:"...At no time does Specter or any member of the Commission wonder aloud why this young couple was visited seven times by the FBI, why redundant statements were taken from the husband, no new information was not added in later interviews, and why some interviews resulted in no statements..."
"...All of the statements by Rowland that were wrong, and the only ones investigated by the FBI at the WCs request have nothing to do with his testimony about the assassination itself. It is not a broad range of mistakes in his words to be discredited. On the contrary they relate to exaggerations alone. His exaggerations have nothing to do with his testimony about events. Mrs. Rowland made this clear as well." His wife Barbara went into almost as much detail as he did on the time and places the FBI came to take statements or interviews. It was the same tactic of FBI investigation used on Marguerite Oswald, a dissenting witness that became a victim of phone taps and mail watch. In this matter, the Commission ordered an FBI investigation into Arnold Rowland's truthfulness in statements to authorities. CE 2644, included 7 pages of interviews with his teachers, principal, and counselor, along with his high school grades. As Weisberg said, what the Commission ordered has, "...nothing to do with his testimony about the assassination itself.""...the Commission requested the FBI to conduct an inquiry into the truth of a broad range of statements made by Rowland to the Commission...." WCR page 251In its final report the members rejected Arnold Rowland as having seen the negro man in the sixth floor window. It made no necessities to discredit anything Arnold said about the SW rifle man, or the time he was there. "...Rowland's failure to report his story despite several interviews until his appearance before the Commission, the lack of probative corroboration, and the serious doubts about his credibility, have led the Commission to reject the testimony that Rowland saw an elderly balding Negro man in the southeast corner window of the sixth floor of the Depository Building several minutes before the assassination..." [WCR page 252]-------------------------------------------------------------- If Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor after 12:15p, how does Carolyn Arnold see him on a lower floor at or about that time. If Lee Oswald was on a lower floor at that time, how does Charles Givens see him on the sixth floor with a clipboard in his hand. Arnold Roland saw some man on the sixth floor with a rifle, 10 minutes before the parade.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Nov 28, 2020 11:32:56 GMT -5
Amos EuinsAmos Euins was a 14 year old African American boy living in Dallas in 1963. He skipped school that day to watch the parade. He was standing along Houston St., just short of the intersection at Elm. The first statements from Amos to the officers and press at the scene, was he saw a "colored" man in the 6th floor window. Arnold Rowland, was across Houston St. more towards Main, he said just before the motorcade arrived he saw a Negro man in that window. James Underwood was Asst. News Director for KRLD-TV and Radio in Dallas. He took the first statements from Amos, even before the affidavits. The boy was clear and distinct in his response to the reporter. "I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He said, "Yes, sir"."Immediately afterwards Amos was put in to a squad car and taken to the Sheriff's Dept for an affidavit. In his statement to deputies he said the man he saw in the window was white. When on the stand in front of Arlen Specter, he said the deputies were mistaken, he never said the man was white He could not tell white or black, and only saw a bald spot on the man's head. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ James Underwood | WC Testimony"By that time there was one police officer there and he was a three-wheeled motorcycle officer and a little colored boy whose last name I remember as Eunice." Mr. BALL. Euins? Mr. UNDERWOOD. It may have been Euins. It was difficult to understand when he said his name. He was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle. He was telling this to the officer and the officer took him over and put him in a squad car. By that time, motorcycle officers were arriving, homicide officers were arriving and I went over and asked this boy if he had seen someone with a rifle and he said "Yes, sir." I said, "Were they white or black?" He said, "It was a colored man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He said, "Yes, sir", --and I asked him his name and the only thing I could understand was what I thought his name was Eunice. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Amos Euins | Affidavit 11/22/63"I am presently going to school at Franklin D. Roosevelt High School and am 1n the 9th grade. I got out or school this morning to see the President of the United States when he came to Dallas. I was standing on the corner of Elm and Houston street. From where I was standing I could look across the street and see a large red brick building. I saw the President turn the corner in front me and I waved at h1m and he waived back.
I watched the car on down the street and about the time the car got near the black and white sign I heard a shot. I started looking around and then I looked up 1n tho red brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gun and I saw him shoot twice.
Then he stepped back behind some boxes. I could tell the gun was a rifle and it sounded like an automatic rifle the way he was shooting I just"·saw a little bit of the barrel, and some of the trigger housing. This was a white man, he did not have on a hat. I just saw· this man for a few seconds. As far as I know, I had never seen this man before."
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Nov 28, 2020 11:33:27 GMT -5
In the Black and WhiteAmos Euins testified March 10, 1964, along with other witnesses that saw a rifle in the window. Robert Jackson, James Worrell, and Arnold Rowland all saw a gun with difficulty identifying Oswald. These people testified that day in Washington to full standing members of the Warren Commission. They were some of the first to testify in DC, while many other witnesses gave only attorney depositions, alone. In a shameless move, Rowland spoke in the morning and wasn't held for the afternoon session with Euins. Witnesses were sometimes grouped by topic on a date of testimony, then surprising not put together to clarify an answer. By the time Amos got to the stand on that day, his story had changed considerably. He no longer was sure if the man was white or black. Strangely, he could only identify a bald spot on his head. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Amos Euins | WC Testimony Mr. SPECTER Let me ask you about a couple of specific things here, Amos. In the statement you say here that he was a white man. By reading the statement, does that refresh your memory as to whether he was a white man or not? Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I told the man that I could see a white spot on his head, but I didn't actually say it was a white man. I said I couldn't tell. But I saw a white spot in his head. Mr. SPECTER. Your best recollection at this moment is you still don't know whether he was a white man or a Negro? All you can say is that you saw a white spot on his head? Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Then, did you tell the people at the police station that he was a white man, or did they make a mistake when they wrote that down here? Mr. EUINS. They must have made a mistake, because I told them I could see a white spot on his head. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ No Scope to the TriggerThe first volunteered statements from Euins are clear and distinct that he saw a "colored man" in the window. He may not have been African American, perhaps the Cuban or Latin man Richard Carr saw run out of the back of TSBD. Once Amos was questioned by the deputies that changed to a white man, then 3 months later he can't say, or he won't say. If he was forced to change his original statements, it could have been under the threat of reform school for truancy that day. He was then very careful about what he said to Spector three months later, and notice the attorney never asked him, "Did you say you saw a colored man?" - He can't be that direct, and Amos was not going to let anyone else tell him what he saw. His story may have changed out of fear, the Secret Service told him to keep his mouth shut or he could get in real trouble. Gen. Walker told the Commission there were fears among Tippit witnesses after Warren Reynolds was shot in the head. In the meantime, Euins had met Reynolds, and later told the HSCA that warning scared him. He did say a couple of other things that cross examination would have better clarified, the lack of which reveals the intent. The rifle barrel was exposed to the trigger and he saw no scope. If he could see the man's hand on the rifle, what color was it. If the man at some point looked toward Euins, and he said he did, he would see more than a bald spot, what color was the man? Euins added more to the getaway when he described another witness seeing a man, running out the back Mr. EUINS. "...Then he called some more cars. They got all the way around the building. And then after that, well, he seen another man. Another man told him he seen a man run out the back. Mr. SPECTER. Do you know who that man was who said somebody ran out the back? Mr. EUINS. No, sir. He was a construction man working back there. Mr. SPECTER. Were you there when the man talked about somebody running out the back? Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. He said the man had--he said he had kind of bald spot on his head. And he said the man come back there. Mr. SPECTER. Do you know what the name of the man was who told the police that someone had run out the back? Mr. EUINS. No, sir. ---------------------------------------------------------- Richard Carr"...immediately after the shooting there was three men that emerged from behind the School Book Depository, there was a Latin, I can't say whether he was Spanish, Cuban, but he was real dark-complected, stepped out and opened the door, there was two men entered that station wagon, and the Latin drove it north on Houston."
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Nov 28, 2020 11:33:55 GMT -5
Memorandum The day before Arnold Louis Rowland, Amos Lee Euins, James Worrell, and Robert H. Jackson testified. and about 2 weeks before Brennan, there was a memo from Attorney Ball and Belin to Norman Redlich and Attorney Craig over concerns re: Dealey Plaza witnesses. Arlen Spector had insisted on calling witnesses to lay the ground work for location rather than identity. His request of these witnesses was viewed as a waste of the Commission's time if the witness cannot identify Lee Oswald. Dictation was clear, the witnesses unwillingness to change their identity to Oswald, can be questioned in deposition. The Commission did not take that direction, and called the group as scheduled, yet still avoided corroborating statements. Two witnesses very close to each other, looking at the same thing nesr the same time, were not put together for clarification. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Memo | Ball/Belin to Redlich"...it could hardly be said that Euins and Jackson are definite in there willingness to say that Oswald was the person who fired the rifle..." 3/09/64
To begin with, the fact is that eyewitnesses Euins, Worrell, and Rowland are being called pursuant to the request of Mr. Spector rather than that of Mr. Ball and Belin, and the purpose of Mr. Spector is to call all eyewitnesses who saw a rifle.
Spector is not concerned with who fired the rifle --his sole concern is the place from which the shots were fired. Euins only says he saw a white man with no hat and a bald spot on his head and did not see the assassin's face and could not identify him. Worrell at the time of the shooting just saw a gun barrel and only purports to identify someone who looked like Oswald after he had run about 100 yards away from the building when he looked back and saw someone else running obviously, away from the building -- this is poor identification.
Rowland identified the person only as a white man with a light colored shirt on open at the neck and of slender build and dark hair but could not identify the person as Oswald. Thus, it could hardly be said that Euins and Jackson are "definite in there willingness to say that Oswald was the person who fired the rifle." And even though Worrell is willing to identify Oswald as the person he saw running away, as fact finders we give little weight to his testimony in light of limited basis for identification. Moreover, he saw no one firing the rifle -- all he saw was a rifle."
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Nov 28, 2020 11:34:18 GMT -5
Statements Which to KeepAmos Euins saw a gun sticking out that window, Spector wanted him for that purpose. But the observations he gives are beyond useless in confirming Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin. James Underwood told attorney Ball about 3 weeks later (Apr 01), Amos Euins was sure he saw a "colored man" It is difficult to ascertain Amos' honesty from both his lack of description and continual circumvention. I would suspect his parent(s) were nearby to protect him and be sure he did the right thing for his own assurance. Preliminary interviews for a fifteen yr. old would probably have included his mother and/or father. There could be serious trouble for skipping school in 1963, here with a significant matter at hand. The first FBI statement he gave on Dec 14, 1963 was pointed, "He stated that on November 22, 1963, he skipped school and at approximately 12:15PM..." Spector let him tell his story on the stand about the teachers inviting students to get an "excuse" to leave school. In the end the attorney reminded the boy of the FBI statement, but then only admitted the Sheriff's Affidavit into the record. Then there was something near the end, I don't think Spector expected it, and he had to ask him twice. While Amos looked at the gun and heard the sound, did he have the impression the gun was firing? He was not that far from the corner, he was looking at the gun as he heard the sound. Two times the witness said directly, no. Many witnesses said the first sound was like a backfire or firecracker. Whoever was in that window cannot stay for all "3 shots". +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sound ImpressionsMr. SPECTER. Now, as you were watching and heard, did you have the impression that the noise you heard was coming from that rifle? Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I didn't, because I wasn't thinking of the rifle at flint--you know, because it looked like a pipe at first. Mr. SPECTER. When you say the second--when you heard the second shot, when you say you were looking at the rifle, did you have the feeling that the noise came from the rifle when you heard the second shot, when you were looking at it? Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I did not. Mr. SPECTER. Well, did you have any impression at all about where the noise was coming from? Mr. EUINS. No, sir; not on the first shot. Mr. SPECTER. How about the second shot? Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ National Guardian | March 21, 1964Dealey Plaza (DP) witness Amos Euins refused to speak with or take questions from the media because “a Secret Service man said I'd be in real trouble if I talked.”
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Nov 28, 2020 11:34:40 GMT -5
HSCA Testimony | 1978 Amos Euins testified before the House Select Committee on Assassination in 1978 Researcher Greg Wagner did an excellent breakdown of the highlights on the HSCA tape retrieved by Denis Morissette. Here are some of those key points: • When asked if he had a camera with him in Dealey Plaza, Euins says he did and he took photos of “everything I could get a shot of” including the TSBD. States he did not have the camera when he got on the policeman’s motorcycle. Can’t remember what happened to the camera. Says he must have left it behind. It was a cheap $8 or $9 camera. • Euins is read his signed 11/22/63 DCS statement in which he describes the gunman as a white man. He says he does recall the interview, but says the statement was not written accurately. Euins states he told them he could not tell if the gunman was black or white. • When asked if law enforcement tried to change what he said, Euins says they “tried to add” and “They tried to make me say things I wasn’t saying.” Says he was alone during this questioning (no parent present) and scared. The guys asking him questions were in suits. He thinks they were detectives. • Mentions that he heard about a young man who took photos in Dealey Plaza and that someone came to his apartment and shot him to death shortly after the assassination. This frightened Euins about testifying before the Warren Commission. • Mentions he visited a car lot and the owner or a guy working there (something like Mr. Warren or Mr. Warner) mentioned to him that he was in Dealey Plaza that day. The guy showed him a scar and told him he got shot in the head because of what he knew. The guy told Euins to be careful. The guy lived in Oak Cliff. Euins said he didn’t know this guy, but it seemed like the guy knew him. • Euins confirms that he was about 13 years old at the time and could not read very well. States he did not read the 11/22/63 DCS statement before signing it. He told them what he saw. They typed whatever they typed and told him to sign it. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Did I Have a Camera?Here is a clip from the audio re: a camera. If true, more pictures of the front of TSBD, are lost or missing. Two others lost were from Norm Similas and Mary Moorman.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Dec 10, 2020 11:19:50 GMT -5
Robert H. JacksonRobert Hill Jackson was a staff photographer for the Dallas Times Herald. The 29 year old native of Dallas was assigned to photograph the parade and the speech at the Trade Mart. Jackson was in a "press car", about 8 back in the 20 car motorcade, and could sometimes see the president ahead. He had two cameras around his neck and was sitting on the back of the back seat of a Chevrolet convertible. In the car with him were two other photographers that were also called to the commission but regarding other matters. On this day Spector wanted to get the location of the rifle into the record without necessity to identify the shooter. Jackson told of riding on the back of the car along Main St., when he got to the turn a Houston, he had prearranged a hand off of film, when he did, the associate missed his toss and the others in the car were laughing. Just about halfway to Elm St, along Houston St. they heard the first shot, a short pause followed by two others. Spector was leading the questioning, Jackson had one empty camera on his lap, and one loaded around his neck. The attorney had him mark an aerial map where he was when he heard the first shot, but the black indicator is useless. And they never asked him, never imposed the obvious question, "Did you take a picture?" Gerald Ford came the closest, but not directly, yet other films show Bob readying to take a picture. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Robert Jackson | WC Testimony Representative Ford - At the time you heard the first shot, what was your position in the car? Were you standing or sitting? Mr. JACKSON - I was sitting on the back of the seat, on the right hand side of the back seat, sitting up. Representative Ford - Did you have a camera in your hand? Mr. JACKSON - Yes; I had one camera around my neck and the camera I had just emptied, it was in my lap. I had thrown my film out to this reporter over the side of the car as we rounded the corner and I still had the camera lying in my lap, and the other one was around my neck. ----------------------------------------------- Mr. SPECTER - Now, will you mark a black "X" on CE 347 the spot where your car was at the time you heard the first shot? Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Dec 10, 2020 11:20:10 GMT -5
Cause to ShutterThe Commission should have done much more in it's power to acquire all the photographs in the plaza. This investigation only acquired pictures that had been leaked thru the press. Those photos had to be addressed. At times it took decisive action not to call a photographer, or track down a negative when it had an obligation to do so. Phil Willis took his number 5 just before hearing a shot, Hugh Betzner took his number 3 just before that happened. The members did not call Betzner, did nothing to sequence the two photographs, and the FBI lost the original Betzner negative. Abraham Zapruder filmed the assassination from the north side of Elm St., Orville Nix did the same thing from the south side. The staff was troubled by sequencing the two, they never called Mr. Nix, and the FBI lost the original camera loaded Nix film. Norman Similas, took a picture of the front of TSBD as it happened, after leaving his negatives with a photo editor, they vanished. Mary Moorman also took a photo facing toward TSBD as the motorcade approached, she gave the photo to a DPD friend, it too was lost. The famous photograph Mary took from behind the car facing the knoll, was only accepted in the poorest quality then deemed unusable. And on the stand comes Robert H Jackson, he was sitting on the back of the car along Houston as he approached the building. A professional photographer, he must have had a camera loaded, but he doesn't say, and they don't ask, "Did you take a picture?" In the car with him are, Jim Underwood from KRLD-TV station, Tom Dillard, chief photographer for the Dallas Morning News, and two newsreel cameramen, James Darnell and Malcolm Couch, both immediately departed the vehicle but continued filming. Tom Dillard looked up and took a photo of the windows as the car passed TSBD. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to the Commission, and from some inside authority, James Powell also took pictures around the plaza. Powell, an Army Intelligence Officer, took a photo looking up at the windows after Dillard, yet his picture wasn't seen until the 1970s. Examination of the two by the HSCA found that someone rearranged the boxes within two minutes after the shooting. The simple point made, all these films and photographs are not gathered as would be required in an authentic investigation. There is no concerted effort to sequence as many films and pictures as possible to create a timeline. Tom Alyea's film taken inside the building, showing important scenes of the sniper's nest and finding the rifle, was cut to pieces. The original Darnell and Couch film are lost. Dave Wiegman, a news cameraman like Darnell and Couch, also had his original film lost. Robert Jackson later denied taking a photo along Houston, and his Chief Photographer became flustered when asked about it. Richard Sprague, Chief Council for the HSCA, said Jackson testified to having taken the picture, but like other films, it was lost. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Taking of America | Richard Sprague"Jackson can be seen taking this picture in the Robert Hughes film and in some of the TV footage taken by other photographers. He also testified that he took the picture. When the author asked, [chief photographer at the Dallas Times Herald] John Mazziotta, about the Jackson photo in early 1967, he became very flustered and claimed to know nothing about it."
Jackson himself was finally located and, when asked about it, became very angry and denied taking a picture. That photograph has never been seen by anyone outside of the Times Herald staff. It’s not difficult to speculate about what it probably showed, since the Hughes film, the Weaver photo, the Dillard photo and the Tom Alyea TV sequence all show the same thing. Jackson’s photo, without doubt, showed "Oswald’s window" in the Depository building empty when Oswald should have been in it—an embarrassing counterpoint to Jackson’s testimony that he saw someone in that window with a rifle. If Jackson’s photo (or anyone else’s for that matter) showed Oswald in the sixth floor window, the whole world would have heard about it on November 22, 1963."
|
|