2 IMPOSSIBLE - Welcome to Krusch.com . . . IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD The following is the text that preceded the table related to the markings on the shells. The

2 IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD

The following is the text that preceded the table related to the markings on the shells. The data in that table was extracted from the following evidence on the record:

Let’s look at an excerpt from the Hoover letter related to CE 543.

We learn here that CE 543, a/k/a C6, had a mark from the magazine‐ follower (the spring‐tensioned lever that pushes a cartridge up in the clip: RH Endnotes 422), and three marks on the base of the cartridge case unique to this cartridge: 1

Next, an excerpt from the Hoover letter related to CE 544, a/k/a

C7, tells us that this shell has a chambering mark (an impression made in the side of the shell when it is seated in the chamber), and a mark made by a contact with the bolt in the rifle:

In the next paragraph, related to CE 141 (the live round that

Captain Fritz ejected from the rifle), we learn that it has not one, but two sets of magazine follower marks:

1 http://www.history‐matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0243a.htm (retrieved December 20, 2011).

Appendix One 3

Finally, we learn about CE 545, a/k/a C38, that it also has a magazine follower mark as well as a chambering mark:

But the Hoover letter does not list all the markings on the exhibits.

From the HSCA, we learn that there are three sets of striations on the head of the CE 543 cartridge case (7 HSCA 368): 1

Also from the HSCA, we learn that in addition to these marks,

there is also a dent on the mouth of the CE 543 cartridge case (7 HSCA 371): 2

Finally, from Josiah Thompson, we learn that there was an

additional chambering mark on CE 141, not quite as pronounced as on the other cartridge cases (Six Seconds In Dallas, p. 145):

1 “HSCA Report, Volume VII, Current Section: Kennedy Shooting,” http://www.maryferrell.org/ mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=82&relPageId=378 (retrieved June 30, 2011). 2 “HSCA Report, Volume VII, Current Section: Kennedy Shooting” http://www.maryferrell.org/ mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=82&relPageId=381 (retrieved June 30, 2011).


Thompson provided a photo with an arrow pointing to the place where he claimed the mark was situated (Six Seconds In Dallas, p. 145):

Appendix Two 5

Appendix Two: Can The Warren Commission Testimony and Evidence Be

Trusted? There are several examples of Warren Commission reconstruction

(and destruction) of the record on the record. One of the most detailed, and the one we will pay the most attention to in this section, was given in the book When They Kill A President by Roger Craig, a Dallas County Deputy Sheriff who in 1960 had been named Officer of the Year by the Dallas Traffic Commission (Cover‐Up, p. 27). Within the first twenty pages of his Internet‐available book, 1 Craig details — in a before and after framework — how the Warren Commission modified testimony he gave related to an affidavit) he submitted on November 23, 1963, whose essential point was that “a light colored Rambler station wagon with luggage rack on top” pulled over to the curb and picked up someone who looked like Lee Harvey Oswald (Decker Exhibit 5323; 19 H 524): 2

In fact, there is photographic evidence of a station wagon appearing in Dealey Plaza between 12:40 and 12:45 p.m. CST, and Craig is in at least one of those photographs, which provides the best possible verification of his story (in addition to other corroborating testimony that we will see shortly) (Cover‐Up, p. 16; note that the time on the sign at the top of the building is “12:40”):

1 http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.pdf. 2 http://www.history‐matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0271b.htm (retrieved December 15, 2011).


Notice that the car is behind a bus (Cover‐Up, p. 17):

And next is a photo of Craig staring towards the station wagon up

Elm Street, as the bus is about to go past him (Cover‐Up, p. 17):

Appendix Two 7

So, it’s clear: we know that Craig was where he said he was, and

that he easily could have seen the station wagon that would have been driving right by him.

Craig reiterated this testimony before the Warren Commission, indicating that his judgment regarding the make and model of the station wagon was inferential in nature (6 H 267): 1

This turns out to be significant, because a two‐tone green station

wagon with a luggage rack was owned by Ruth Paine, a friend of Oswald and his wife connected with Oswald in a number of different ways (for example, Oswald’s rifle was supposedly stored in her garage), the rack indicated by the following testimony (3 H 19): 2

But could this car have been the Paine’s? The official record tells us

that her station wagon was not a Nash Rambler, but a Chevrolet (Dallas Municipal Archives, Box 18, Folder Five, Document 31, Image 2; see also CE 2125 at 24 H 696‐7): 3

1 http://www.history‐matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0139a.htm (retrieved December 15, 2011). 2 http://www.history‐matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0014a.htm (retrieved December 15, 2011). 3 http://www.history‐matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0357b.htm (retrieved December 16, 2011).


If this official record is correct, and has not been altered (and

therefore Ms. Paine actually did own a Chevrolet and not a Nash Rambler), and the car in question was Paine’s, then we have to conclude that Craig’s inferential judgment regarding the make and model of the car was mistaken, which would be understandable because he told us that his judgment was based exclusively on the fact that the car had a luggage rack. In any event, what is clear and is undisputed is that Ms. Paine did own a light‐colored station wagon with a luggage rack, which takes us to the point at hand.

Because this could not have been the Oswald thought to have been boarding Cecil McWatter’s bus at the time (Harvey and Lee, p. 823) this was a provocative statement indeed. That the real Oswald and an imposter Oswald would be connected through an escape vehicle which could have been the car of Ms. Paine would be pretty explosive stuff, if true. And, in fact, Craig relates that this very point was brought out in Oswald’s interrogation two hours after the assassination, when Oswald turned a question about a “car” into an answer about a “station wagon,” information he had not been given at the time (When They Kill A President, pp. 12‐3; similar testimony was given by Craig to the Warren Commission at 6 H 270, but for reasons which will become clear, I will be citing the version which comes strictly from Craig’s pen; emphasis supplied):

Fritz and I entered his private office together. He told Oswald, “This man (pointing to me) saw you leave.” At which time the suspect replied, “I told you people I did.” Fritz, apparently trying to console Oswald, said, “Take it easy, son — we’re just trying to find out what happened.” Fritz then said, “What about the car?” Oswald replied, leaning forward on Fritz’ desk, “That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine — don’t try to drag her into this.” Sitting back in his chair, Oswald said very disgustedly and very low, “Everybody will know who I am now.”

Appendix Two 9

Now, if this was the only information that connected the Paine

station wagon with Oswald, it would still be significant, given the improbability that Craig would have (or even could have) manufactured this connection. However, there is perhaps an even more significant document, from the official record, that indicates that there is more to the Paine/Oswald connection than meets the eye.

In the following excerpt from an FBI report, a telephone operator reported to the FBI a conversation between Ruth Paine and her husband Michael (which supposedly took place on November 23, 1963), that he felt Oswald killed the President, but, oddly, did not feel that Oswald was responsible, with an even more provocative coda (CD 206, p. 66): 1

If this conversation is indeed between the Paines, and the

statements in the last paragraph were accurately transcribed, this is news indeed!!

How do we know these CR5‐5211 and BL3‐1628 phone numbers are connected with the Paines? Well, we certainly would not know from this redacted document belatedly issued by the Warren Commission (CD 516, p. 14): 2

1 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=341664 (retrieved December 15, 2011). 2 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10916&relPageId=15 (retrieved December 15, 2011).


This screen capture tells me all I need to know: that there is

information there that someone wants to hide, and they are hiding it because they know the reaction people will have when they find out.

Now, I don’t know about you, but whenever I find a highly redacted document, it creates a burning desire in me to locate the original to discover the information that someone decided to hide from our view. More on this in a second.

Even if we were unable to locate the original, however, one striking discrepancy emerges from a cursory glance of these documents. Notice the difference in the dates between CD 206 (“we both know who is responsible”) and CD 516 (the redacted telephone call record) (compare the gray highlights):

CD 206 says the conversation took place on November 23. CD 516 says the conversation took place on November 22.

Is this one of those strategically placed “typographical errors”

which crop up in this case far more than the laws of probability predict?

One might think that there was an additional telephone call between the Paines, but if you look at CD 516 (the redacted telephone call records), you can see that only one call took place on 11/23, a call to Columbus Ohio, and that call was not between the same two phone numbers. So there is definitely a discrepancy. But for what reason?

Luckily, we are actually able to discern the reason, when we put several pieces together, the most important piece being the non‐redacted document, which was discovered by John Armstrong, in a

Appendix Two 11

document released on October 7, 1997 (available at the Baylor University web site), as well as an additional document (which may be the second page of CD 516, which throws light on the whole issue)(CD 516, p. 14): 1

Well, well, what have we here! Looks like we discovered one

extraordinarily probable reason why the document was redacted! But are you surprised?

The next page Armstrong located seals the deal, and proves that the discrepancy in the date was no “typographical error”: 2

1 http://contentdm.baylor.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/15poage‐arm&CISOPTR=23733&REC=2 (retrieved October 11, 2011). 2 Same URL. See page 3 of the document.


Armstrong’s incredibly important research, as documented in his

absolutely essential book Harvey and Lee (whose source documents are archived at the Baylor University website), has opened up an important window on the world for us.

These FBI documents shows us not only that the collect call was between the Paines, but for present purposes, give us two additional critically important pieces of information. In the first place, recall that the CD 506 FBI report said that the call took place on November 23, but here, we have verified that the telephone conversation actually took place on November 22. In fact, according to the DL 100‐10461 document discovered by Armstrong (a document which the author was unable to locate in any documents published by the Warren Commission), there was only one telephone call between those phone numbers (the second important piece of information) and that that (collect) phone call took place before Oswald had been arrested, as Armstrong tells us in the following screen capture from his book (Harvey and Lee, p. 832):

Appendix Two 13

Astonishing information from a man who owned a station wagon that could have transported Oswald (or an Oswald look‐alike) from the scene of the crime!! Information like this had to be modified in some way when Paine was questioned on the incident by the Warren Commission ne (Harvey and Lee, p. 832):

Most likely to avoid a potential charge of perjury for Michael

Paine, Paine could not be addressed directly by the Warren Commission about a telephone call on November 22, and had to be asked about a telephone call supposedly placed on November 23; yet we have seen that there was only one telephone call on November 22, and none on November 23 (Harvey and Lee, p. 832):

This was not a new tactic by the Warren Commission, as

Armstrong reported in reference to evidence related to his mind‐blowing thesis that an Oswald look‐alike (possibly the one who


entered the station wagon) had been in the making for many years (Harvey and Lee, p. 833):

With this background information, we can now see the Paine (and

therefore Craig) testimony in a whole new light. It teaches us something critically important: the fact that information is given in testimony (or evidence) as reported by the Warren Commission does not mean that it is true; there may have been a reconstruction or demolition of the record, either before the testimony is given or after it has been given. In the immediate case, a reconstruction took place before testimony was given. As Armstrong noted, Liebeler asked Paine about a nonexistent telephone conversation, using an FBI document which had an incorrect (i.e. reconstructed) date that was not justified by telephone company records. The background information which we have now which we didn’t before, enables us to critically read the following testimony (2 H 428): 1

1 http://www.history‐matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0218b.htm (retrieved December 19, 2011).

Appendix Two 15

This information about Michael Paine and his knowledge about a

possible conspiracy to assassinate the President, which up to this point may have seemed to be merely an extensive sidebar to our digression, gives us important background about what is to follow as we return to the immediate topic at hand, the testimony by Roger Craig related to what may have been a station wagon owned by the Paines.

Regarding the Craig testimony, we should understand that not everything published in relation to it is necessarily the case, or necessarily occurred. Apropos to this point, when Craig appeared before the Warren Commission, Craig’s testimony was modified (according to Craig), in an example of testimony that was possibly reconstructed after it had been given. Craig’s statements regarding what he actually said, in bold below, are followed by a reproduction of the page of the Warren Commission testimony referring to his statements. The page numbers below are from the PDF edition available on the Internet: 1

Craig: “I said the Rambler station wagon was light green.” (p.

15) Compare the Warren version (6 H 267): 2

1 http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html (retrieved September 12, 2011). Other references are RH Endnotes, pp. 496‐97, http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html, 2 http://www.history‐matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0139a.htm (retrieved December 16, 2011).


Craig: “I said the driver of the Station Wagon had on a tan jacket.” (p. 15) No, says the Warren Commission, it was really “white‐looking” (6 H 266): 1

Craig: “I said the license plates on the Rambler were not the same color as Texas plates.” (p. 16) But the Warren Commission reversed that testimony, according to Craig (this would have been puzzling, since the document from the Dallas archives indicated that the Paine car had a Texas plate, and therefore this information would serve to confirm the Craig story, not disprove it. If that document from the Dallas archives was correct, and it was Paine’s car, license plates may have been swapped, if Craig gave his testimony as indicated and that testimony was accurate. That would indicate premeditation, not to mention conspiracy. If not, the car may have been someone else’s station wagon, but resembled the Paines’. (John Armstrong reported in Harvey And Lee on p. 823 that “light‐colored Nash Rambler station wagons were owned by two people whose names are familiar to JFK researchers. A 1962 Rambler Ambassador, 4‐door station wagon, M#H171787 was owned by Clay Shaw. A 1959 or 1960 light blue or light green Nash Rambler was owned by Lawrence Howard.”) (6 H 267): 2

Craig: “I said that I got a good look at the driver of the Rambler.” (p. 16) Sorry, Craig, you didn’t, reports the Warren Commission (6 H 267):

1 http://www.history‐matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0138b.htm (retrieved December 16, 2011). 2 http://www.history‐matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0139a.htm (retrieved December 16, 2011).

Appendix Two 17

If these changes were made as Craig had stated, they prevented

correct identification of the station wagon by future researchers since the false information reported would throw them on the wrong trail.

It should be noted that these are just a few of the changes reported by Craig. The reader is urged to download Craig’s book from the Internet and read the other changes. If what he has to say is true, then all of the Warren Commission testimony and exhibits are suspect, the true information polluted by the false, in the same way that one drop of vinegar can ruin an entire glass of milk.

However, if you surf the Internet to further research this issue, you will be linked to certain individuals who, possibly given the impact of his testimony here and in other areas and/or the possibility that a station wagon identified as a Rambler was actually a Chevrolet, refer to Craig as a “crank” or “malcontent,” etc. etc. (choose the pejorative statement of your choice), so, as always, we need to verify his remarks, and look for other testimony that can corroborate what Craig had to say via the method of triangulation: if multiple independent observers from different locations report the same reality, we can typically assume with a high degree of confidence that the statements are true given the mutual confirmation (of course, if the observers are not independent but the statements are coordinated in advance, then all bets are off).

When we look for evidence to substantiate the Craig claim, apart from the photographs we saw earlier, we can see that the statement of Craig in its most essential aspects is corroborated by a number of different individuals are for the most part unconnected. Marvin Robinson, who was driving his Cadillac west on Elm Street directly behind what he identified as a Nash Rambler station wagon, provided similar information in a statement that was not released contemporaneous with the Warren Commission report and exhibits (CD 5, p. 70): 1

1 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=73 (retrieved December 16, 2011).


Robinson’s employee,1 Roy Cooper, gave approximately the same

information in a document that was only released in 1997: 2

Cooper could be seen as linked to Robinson because he was an

employee, but there are still others who verified the testimony of Craig. In another document that was not included in the original Warren Commission exhibits, Steelworker Richard Carr provided an

1 Harvey and Lee, p. 822. 2 http://contentdm.baylor.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/15poage‐arm&CISOPTR=34156&REC=1

Appendix Two 19

affidavit on February 1, 1964, more than three months after Craig made his statement, verifying Craig’s statement in its most essential details (CD 385, p. 24): 1

There is additional testimony to the same effect from at least one

other source. Historian Michael Kurtz, Professor of History at Southeastern Louisiana University, did interviews for his book Crime Of The Century, and on page 132, published this report of an interview with another witness who provided not only corroboration, but a very strong identification of Oswald — or at least, someone who looked very much like him (emphasis supplied):

Mrs. James Forrest was standing in a group of people who were gathered on the incline near the Grassy Knoll. As she was standing, she saw a man suddenly run from the rear of the Depository building, down the incline, and then enter a Rambler station wagon. The man she saw running down and entering the station wagon strongly resembled Lee Harvey Oswald. “If it wasn’t Oswald,” Mrs. Forrest has declared, “it was his identical twin.” So, let’s connect the dots. It is perfectly clear that a light‐colored

vehicle that either was or greatly resembled a Nash Rambler station wagon (most likely driven by a man with a dark complexion) picked up a Caucasian male resembling Oswald very soon after the assassination, so when Craig made that statement, we know that these examples provide dispositive verification that the reality that Craig was describing actually existed. Therefore, regarding this, Craig was not

1 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10786&relPageId=29 (retrieved December 15, 2011).


only telling the truth about his state of mind at the time, he was accurate.

The triangulation method allows us to, in addition, assess the credibility of those who sought to contradict him. In this regard, let’s look at the testimony of Captain Fritz (6 H 245): 1

But was Fritz lying? The wishi‐washiness of his denial is our first

telling clue, because not only do we have the statements of the corroborating witnesses, we have the Craig affidavit on record that Craig made the statement, and therefore we know that the Dallas Police Department was aware that Craig had made this observation. Specifically, so was Fritz, as the following evidence will show.

We also know that Craig was in Fritz’s outer office, not only by this photograph (Cover‐Up, p. 27),

but also by Fritz’ own testimony (who refers to Craig as “this man”)

(7 H 404), where he admits to hearing the Craig story firsthand): 2

1 http://www.history‐matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0128a.htm (retrieved December 16, 2011). 2 http://www.history‐matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0206b.htm (retrieved December 16, 2011).

Appendix Two 21

With these facts, we can use our common sense to assess the

credibility of the various parties. Here are the three things we know from the Fritz affidavit and the above photo:

1. Craig was in the outer office of Fritz. 2. Fritz talked to “a man” in the outer office who told him “a story” about Oswald leaving the building, who obviously was Craig, being the only officer present on record as having filed an affidavit with that claim.

3. Lee Harvey Oswald was in the office of Fritz at the time. Now let’s fill in the gaps: with Craig present, and Fritz aware of his

claim, it would have been the most natural thing in the world for Fritz to bring Craig into the office to have him identify the prime suspect in the murder of the President; in fact, not only the most natural thing in the world, but a job requirement. Here we have a Dallas County Deputy Sheriff telling a Captain of the Dallas Police Department in charge of the investigation of the murder of the President of the United States that he saw a suspect leave the building, and that suspect is just a few feet away. That deputy is right on the scene: a hop, skip, and a jump would take him to the door of the office where Oswald is located! And, if Craig does make a positive identification, this would be extremely important information to introduce at trial. Consequently, it is perfectly obvious that Craig would be brought into the office to make that identification! We also can be sure that if Craig was brought into the office, the issue regarding Oswald’s leaving in a car surely would have been raised, and so Craig’s testimony that in fact the issue was raised is eminently plausible.

The only statements made by Oswald in this report by Craig that could be remotely seen as “improbable” (and that would be because no member of the Dallas Police Department would corroborate it, at least on record) would be the statements regarding Ms. Paine (“don’t try to


drag her into this”) and the “everybody will know who I am” remark. But as far as the Paine statement goes, we have to ask ourselves, why would Craig make up something like that at the time? In fact, how could he make up something like that at the time, when he obviously would not have known at the time that Oswald knew Ruth Paine, and certainly would therefore not have known that she owned a station wagon!

With reference to the “everybody/I am” comment, there is a contradiction by Fritz on the record (6 H 245): 1

However, we know that Fritz has denied as true virtually identical statements on the record by multiple individuals, and that Craig was validating these statements, and that Fritz has denied asking Craig to identify Oswald, when it would have been his job to have given Craig the opportunity to make that identification; given these points, we have to pick Craig and not Fritz as telling the truth in this instance. If Craig was in fact telling the truth, the attempt to discredit him by not only bringing in an unreliable contradicting witness (Fritz), and by not only failing to call in any of the other officers present to testify about what actually happened (who most likely would have corroborated Craig’s story and contradicted Fritz’s), but also by modifying his testimony, would not demonstrate Craig’s lack of awareness but instead the ruthlessness of the Warren Commission: that they would eliminate or modify or otherwise discredit any evidence contradicting their main thesis, and that evidence would include the extremely critical Craig testimony.

So, the bottom line is this: when Craig alleges that the

Warren record was modified, he is far more believable than the people who contradicted him, because the people who

contradicted him have themselves contradicted information that is part of the official record.

1 http://www.history‐matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0128a.htm (retrieved December 16, 2011).

Appendix Two 23

The allegation of the re‐creation of a record, which as we noted is a

very significant charge, requires other examples for ultimate substantiation, examples which are not as complex and elaborate as the previous, so let’s continue our digression with a much simpler example that is objectively verifiable, one beyond questioning: the Warren Commission decided to doctor one of the statements contained in a transcript of a debate Lee Harvey Oswald participated in at a radio station. Coincidentally enough, this revision of the statement, apart from showing that the Warren Commission would not hesitate to revise reality when circumstances called for it, throws a light on Oswald’s oblique “everybody will know who I am now” remark.

In that debate, Oswald was responding to this question: “I’m curious to know just how you supported yourself during the three years that you lived in the Soviet Union. Did you have a government subsidy?” Now, when the questioner was referring to a “government subsidy,” he was referring to the Russian government. In other words, he was asking Oswald if he was able to support himself because he was receiving a subsidy from the Russian government.

According to the Warren Commission, here was Oswald’s response (21 H 639): 1

Note: in an extraordinary semi‐Freudian slip, Oswald

misinterpreted this remark as not referring to the Russian government!

Take a look at the transcript: according to its representation of reality, Oswald began “I was not under the protection of”, and then referred to the American government! Oops! If you remember your history, Oswald was supposed to be a “defector,” not an “undercover agent.” So if he was a “defector,” why would anyone think that he would be under the protection of the American government in the first place?

1 http://www.history‐matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0332a.htm (retrieved December 16, 2011).


Also, why would Oswald say that he was not under the protection of the American government, only to “correct” his statement to say, yet again, that he was not under the protection of the American government? So, even without external verification, we could infer that something about this transcription is just not right.

So let’s go to the audiotape. The following far more exact transcription by the author shows Oswald’s hemming and hawing on a subject about which he is obviously most uncomfortable, and something even more revealing:

uh . . . Well as I uh . . . uh well I will answer that que‐ uh that question directly then uh since uh uh you will not rest until you get your answer. Uh I worked in Russia uh I was under uh the protection of the uh . . . of the uh, I w‐ that is to say I was not under the protection of the uh american government but that is I was at all times uh considered an American citizen . . . Aha! Note the change:

The Commission could not allow Oswald’s slip of the tongue that he was “under the protection . . . of the American government” to stand unvarnished, so they inserted the word “not” after the first

“I was”!! The reader can hear this extract for him or herself at jfk‐

online.com) 1 or on a higher quality MP3 the author extracted from the CD Oswald Self‐Portrait In Red (Amazon ASIN: B002CSKBFM), archived at in the audio folder in the research archive linked to from www.krusch.com/jfk/.

Back in 1964, there was no Internet available for cross‐checking and fact‐checking purposes to make sure that the Warren Commission was reporting reality correctly, so they felt safe in misreporting a key fact because they didn’t believe that anyone would be able to contradict them. And for three or so decades, they were right.

Now that we know they tried to cover it up — which not only reveals the kind of information they feared but also their “the facts be damned” attitude — that objective evidence therefore adds additional confirmation to the statements of at least two other witnesses who

1 http://www.jfk‐online.com/lhodebate.mp3 (retrieved September 13, 2011).

Appendix Two 25

have alleged similar misreporting of their remarks in books on the assassination. The first is Jean Hill. In her book The Last Dissenting Witness, Ms. Hill reported to co‐author Bill Sloan that Arlen Specter (assistant counsel for the Warren Commission who later became a United States Senator) had been briefed on her background as a dissenting witness who refused to have her memory “refreshed,” and so Specter went on the attack (a “tough love” approach designed to get Ms. Hill to change her story). Apparently that was not successful, so the Warren Commission made a post hoc decision that some judicious modifications were in order (The Last Dissenting Witness, p. 102; emphasis supplied):

Jean says that Specter accused her of talking “insanity” and warned that if she continued with what she was saying, she would end up looking as “crazy” as Marguerite Oswald, mother of the accused assassin.

None of this unseemly exchange appears, of course, among the 19 pages of testimony by Jean Hill in Volume Six (pages 205‐223) of the official report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. What does appear is a heavily edited, completely distorted and shamelessly fabricated version of Jean’s testimony, which she describes today as a “total travesty.”

There were long intervals, she says, when, at a hand signal from Specter, the stenographer stopped taking notes. In countless instances, she charges, the meaning of her remarks were altered and her actual words were changed. The very first introductory sentence of the document graphically points up the fallacious nature of the entire transcript. It reads: “The testimony of Mrs. Jean Lollis Hill was taken at 2:30p.m. on March 24, 1964, in the office of the U.S. Attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex.” (6 H 205): 1

1 http://www.history‐matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0108a.htm (retrieved December 16, 2011).


But even this seemingly innocuous report of where an interview took place was incorrect (The Last Dissenting Witness, p. 102):

In point of fact, of course, Jean’s testimony was actually given some five miles away from Bryan and Ervay Streets, in the very same building where President Kennedy had been pronounced dead. The fact that those who prepared the published transcript could make such a careless mistake — or be so unconcerned with the truth — seems utterly incredible under the circumstances. But it is no more incredible than the rest of the document.

Early in the transcript, for example, Specter said: “May the record show that a court reporter is present and is taking verbatim transcript of the deposition of Mrs. Hill . . . and that all of the report is being transcribed and has been transcribed from the time Mrs. Hill arrived. Is that correct, Mrs. Hill?”

To which Jean is alleged to have replied: “That is correct.” (6 H 206): 1

“That is a barefaced lie and a total misrepresentation of what really happened,” Jean charges today. “The whole transcript is a pack of lies.”

After the heated exchange that had just occurred — not one word of which appears in the transcript — this represents a flagrant falsification. And as a secondary point, there was no “court reporter” present, only a public stenographer, whose identity, incidentally, cannot presently be established.

The transcript shows Specter directing question after question at Jean concerning the location in the Presidential limousine of Governor Connally and Connally’s movements at the time of the shooting. Most of these questions came after Jean had clearly stated that, having just recently moved to

1 http://www.history‐matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0108b.htm (retrieved December 16, 2011).

Appendix Two 27

Texas from Oklahoma, she did not even know Connally or recognize him by sight.

Whoever concocted the final version of the transcript was careful to include a shaky reference by Jean to the idea that the running man she had seen in Dealey Plaza looked like Jack Ruby, and they also took pains to make it seem that she was, in effect, discrediting her own observations. Another witness who did not escape the blue pencils of the

Warren editorial crew was Victoria Adams, who gave testimony that, if true, could have exonerated Oswald. Several years after giving her testimony, Ms. Adams decided to revisit it when she went to her local library. Imagine the look on her face when she saw that the words on paper were different from the words she uttered in person (The Girl on the Stairs, pp. 168‐9; emphasis supplied)

One day, while wandering along the bookshelves of a local public library, she spied a set of the 26 volumes. Curiosity prevailed once again.

Turning to the sixth volume, she read for the very first time the words she had offered‐what was it now, some four or five years ago? — to that visiting Commission lawyer.

She could not believe what she saw. She remembered being given the opportunity in Dallas to

make corrections to any spelling or grammatical errors she found in her official testimony. In fact, someone had hand‐delivered a copy of it right to her office, just for that very purpose. A wordsmith and nitpicker with the English language, she had found several typographical mistakes and had made the necessary changes.

She now discovered that each one of her changes had gone uncorrected.

The errors left standing, she now realized, made her look stupid.

And why did it say at the end of her testimony that she waived her right to review her testimony when that is not what had happened? She did review her statement. She did make corrections, even if it had been for naught (6 H 393): 1

1 http://www.history‐matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0202a.htm retrieved December 16, 2011).


There was that Shelley and Lovelady stuff again too. Not

only had there been a reference made to them in the Warren Report — saying that she had seen them on the first floor — but now words to the same effect were mysteriously in her own testimony.

She was quoted in her testimony as saying to those two men, “The President has been shot. “ (6 H 393): 1

She thought back, long and hard, but she was certain

neither Shelly nor Lovelady were on the first floor when she arrived there.

There was a guy — a black guy standing near the elevators, she remembered him — who she had made that comment to as she and Sandra Styles ran out the back door. But Shelley and Lovelady? No, that just wasn’t right.

Why were they saying she talked with two men who weren’t there?

She didn’t even recall seeing the Shelly/Lovelady passage in the copy of the testimony she had been given to review back in Dallas that day.

What was going on here?

One final example: take a look at the following screen capture from what is supposed to be a verbatim record of Warren Commission testimony (7 H 434):

1 http://www.history‐matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0202a.htm retrieved December 16, 2011).

Appendix Two 29

But notice how the testimony was modified:

To the question “Do you know why Exhibit No. 820 was not

reprocessed or delivered?”, Cadigan esponded “I could only speculate,” but his response was changed to “no, this is a latent fingerprint matter” on the deposition transcript. And, as you can see, a question and answer colloquy immediately following . . .

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes? Mr. Cadigan. It may be that there was a very large volume of evidence being examined at the time. Time was of the essence, and this material, I believe, was returned to the Dallas Police within two or three days, and it was merely in my opinion a question of time. We have (sic) a very large volume of evidence. There was insufficient time to desilver it.


And I think in many instances where latent fingerprints are developed they do not desilver it.

. . . was completely eliminated. For more on the background of the preceding, see the article

“What a Difference a Day (or Two) Makes!” 1 If even one instance of the examples on the preceding pages are

true, then we know that the Warren Commission has modified the record. And, since we know for a certainty that at least one of them is true, it therefore is no stretch of the imagination to assert that more than one, and most likely all, are true. Synchronized testimony is extremely easy to achieve when you have control of the printing press!

However, it is not always the case that the written record was altered. In certain cases, witnesses could have been rehearsed to provide key testimony, and because these witnesses were cooperating, there was no need to revise their testimony after‐the‐fact (unlike the uncooperative outliers on the wrong end of the bell curve).

We already saw one possible example of this, when Day alluded to an earlier off‐the‐record session with David Belin regarding his testimony about the empty hulls. Because the session was off the record, it could conceivably have been a rehearsal, about which the Kennedy literature has a number of anecdotal claims. Still, it would be good to have an officially verifiable source which demonstrated this, and there is at least one, related to medical testimony by Drs. James Humes and J. Thornton Boswell, which is part of the confirmed government record by the Assassination Records Review Board (Breach of Trust, p. 158; emphasis supplied):

Years later, when they were deposed by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), both Humes and Boswell recalled that they had had “an awful lot” of sessions with Specter before they testified. Humes’s best guess was that there had been at least eight to ten meetings. The painstaking and intense handling of these key material witnesses assured that there would be no surprises when they went on record and under oath before the Warren Commission. It had to be a great comfort to Humes to know exactly how Specter was going to choreograph his testimony and to anticipate that the commissioners would not bat an eye

1 http://www.truedemocracy.net/td‐28/24.html (retrieved April 18, 2012).

Appendix Two 31

when he admitted to the destruction of the first draft of the autopsy report on the slain President.

What is completely apparent from the preceding is this: when it comes to Warren Commission testimony and evidence, caveat emptor.

, WOLBABJSJpPJiiR F L 102-S26 (JTCK A0tfi REPRODUCED AT THE NATIONALARC^VES

T7~~r

JFK ASSASSINATION SYSTEM

IDENTIFICATION FORM

Date:08/17/93 Page:1

AGENCY INFORMATION

AGENCY RECORD NUMBER

RECORDS SERIES NUMBERED FILES

AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 003 015

HSCA 180-10107-10130

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

ORIGINATOR : FROM :

TO :

TITLE :

HSCA NORMAN, HAROLD DEAN DAY, A. M.C.

DATE : 10/20/77 PAGES : 44

SUBJECTS : NORMAN, HAROLD DEAN TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY OSWALD, LEE, ACTIVITIES OF NOV. 22, 1963 MOTORCADE WC

DOCUMENT TYPE : TRANSCRIPT CLASSIFICATION : U RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL

CURRENT STATUS : O DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 05/18/93

OPENING CRITERIA :

COMMENTS : Audio cassette available. Box 71.

[R] - ITEM IS RESTRICTED

, K&LIiAaiSD Pfija p.L 102- Pfl f i w ^ . — - = JJr"Lj- -L^--0*JO (lOJK A G REPRODUCED AT THE NATlONALA CJiyES

\.

Day:

Norman:

Day :

Norman

Day :

Norman:

Day :

Day ;

Maxwell

Norman:

Maxwell:

Norman;

Maxwell

Interview with Harold Dean Norman

- 28 -

They told you that?

Yes

Alright, then there came a time when you went

to--when was the next time you heard from some

body pertaining to the assassination?

Well, I got a letter; and this letter was

telling me when I had to go to Washington

to testify before the Warren Commission and

what time that they were going to come by and

take me up and take back to the airport, but

otherwise than that I didn't have not contact

with anyone else.

Okay I'm going to take this tape off for one

second.

O.K.

We're going to take a short break.

We're back now. We're starting all over again.

We had a short break.

Now I have some information here. Is says: did

you-were you ever, that you can recall— inter-

'; viewed by the Dallas Police Department

' No

Alright. Now on the 26th on Nov., I believed you

' were interviewed by an agent from the F.B.I.?

Yes

Can you recall that?

I K E L £ A a ^ / L 102-326 (<MK Mfx

Norman:

Maxwell

Norman:

Maxwell

*


~ 29 ~

I think.

Did he take a statement from you. or did he

ask you to tell him what happened and he wrote

it out and you signed it or you didn't sign?

I don't reoall of anybody taking a statement.

j.11 read to you and you tell me if this is

Correct as far as you can remember what happened-

WQat you told this agent. You told him your

name is Harold Dean Norman and you lived at

4858 Beulah St.. you were employed as a shipping

clerk in the Texas Schoold Book Depository,

411 Elm St., Dallas, Texas. You stated that

around noon, Nov. 22, 1963: "He and fellow

employees Ja.es Jar.in and Bonnie Ray Williams

were watching the Presidential motorcade from

•h. fifth floor of the Texas School the windows on the fifth " » »

Book Depository Building. He stated that about

the time the car in which the President was riding

tur„ed onto Elm St. he heard a shot. He said he

erectly above him. He further stated at this

:oof but could not see nothing upwar d towards the r«

http://Ja.es

UUAA8IBDH»J.L. 102-326 (JfflK A0rREPR00UCE0ATJNAT^WS

^ & A _ ^ £ _ DATBi^gL


- 30 -

»

because small particles of dirt were falling

from above him. He stated two additional

shots were fired after he pulled his head

back in from the window. He stated that he

could see people walking towards the other end

of the building. He Jarmin and Williams ran

to the other end of the room and looked out

of the window there. He stated he saw nothing

and he then returned to the window from which

he had been previously looking.

Norman stated he knew Lee Harvey Oswald as a

fellow employee in the Texas School Book Depository

and only talked to him when his work required. He

stated he does not recall Oswald ever having

visiters at the Texas School Book Depository or

ever associating with anyone employed there. And

it's signed—well, it's not signed —but it was

typed in by Special Agent Benjamin 0. Keutzer.

And that's FBI file No. DL 89-43 on 11/26/63.

Now When they talked to you they made this up •I V " . J

as on result of a conversation with you?

j\ Nprman:':.I.really don't recall giving no statement to

'••••' the FBI. If this happened, it must have happened

one morning prior to that long way to the airport;

but just as far as the one coming back I don't

recall any.

KBiLfiASiSD PfiiR p T ino CJOQ / rurv • «.— ** •* ^ffSkSS • L V-~°*0 (CM^K, AJJT REPRODUCED AT THE NATlONAt ARCHIVES

**BA 7ftrfr*- , DATB.^O%§t.

Maxwell

Norman:

Day ;

Norman

Day:

Norman

Day:

Norman

Maxwell

Norman:

Day :

Norman:

Day:

Norman;


- 31 -

Now they say this was written up on the 26th,—

would have made it the Monday or the Tuesday after

the assassination. When you came back to work

that Monday, did someone talk to you?

I don't recall; I don't think anybody did.

Did you ever testify before the Warren Commission?

Yes

You went to Washington, D.C,?

Yes

Alright now, as far as this statement is concered,

is there anything in that statement that you think

is not right?

I think the part about I said, where he said that

I got'up and looked out the window and looked up,

then left and came back—we left and came back to

the window—I don't...

You don't recall ever doing that?

No

Do you recall giving that statement to an FBI

agent?

No, I:don't

Do you recall ever having to sign a statement?

No

KttLhLAaiSD P£fo p J inociOR tranr .-| . ^-J-3i^>- AVrt-OSJO (t'.HiR. A G r

REPRODUCE0 AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

Day :

Norman:

^

Maxwell:

Day :

Norman:

Maxwell:

Norman:

Maxwell

Norman:

Maxwell

Norman:

Day :

Norman:


- 32 -

Do you recall sitting with somebody and they

were typing as you were talking?

The only time I recall somebody typing when

we were talking is when we were at the Warren

Commission..

Warren Commission.

Tell me how you got to the Warren Commission

They had a agent. I believe he came and picked

us up in a car. And he carry us ...

To the airport?

Well, I know that it was a gent picked up at

Airport and carry to the Willard Hotel.

How did you get to Washington--they sent you a

ticket or.- -?

Yes

The Willard Hotel where? .

In Washington I believe that's the name of the

Hotel on Pennsylvania before they tore it down, isn't it?

Right, okay. This was agent Joe—John Joe Harlett

the card that you showed me?

I believe that was him. I did have one or two

more cards, but I don't recall what happened to

them.

K B L E A S i S D Pflift p x . 102-^328 f.rwx * n r • *-r-+%Ss * w o « o It-jJA iUJ TREPRODUCEO AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

***** Jf^~ - DATB '

r.

r

Day :

Norman:

Day :

Norman

Day:

Norman

Day :

Norman

Day :

Norman

Day :

Norman

Day:

Norman

Day:


- 33 -

When you got to Washington, name some of the

people, if you can, or if there were any there

from Dallas that was there the day you were

there, the time you were there?

I know Jarmin and Williams, Bonnie Ray Williams

--they were there.

You all travel together?

Righ

O.K.

And I think Truly went with us.

Truly?

Yes

Alright

Then there was another guy. He didn't work

at the Depository; he was a construction

contracter or somethin. I think he went the

same day that we did.

Do you know what he was testifying about?

I think he was the guy that was testifying that

he saw a rifle hanging out the window. He was

a construction worker, I can't recall what his

name was.

Do you remember seeing a kid there?

Kid? No, I don't recall seeing one-

So as far as this statement is concerned, you don't

Secret Service Report 491 http://mysite.verizon.net/respxxbt/dukelane/ss491.htm This article was originally published in the non-copyrighted journal, The Continuing Inquiry, Volume 2, Issues 3 and 4, October and November 1977, Penn Jones, editor. It has been edited for spelling, punctuation and layout only; internet links, where available, have also been added. All errors, factual and otherwise, whether or not noted here, are the author's. Readers finding this of interest may also enjoy reading Sylvia Meagher's treatise, "The Curious Testimony of Mr. Givens," originally published in The Texas Observer, August 13, 1971, and available on this site. SECRET SERVICE REPORT 491 By Patricia Lambert On December 2, 1963, three agents from the Dallas field office of the U.S. Secret Service, Arthur Blake, William Carter and Elmer Moore, began a series of interviews with the employees of the Texas School Book Depository which ultimately influenced the Warren Commission's reconstruction of events on November 22, 1963. The interviews were conducted over a four-day period and are summarized in a Secret Service Report designated "491."[1] Three of the witnesses interviewed, Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams and Charles Givens gave totally new evidence to the Secret Service during these December interviews, evidence which conflicted dramatically with earlier statements made by each of them to the FBI. Harold Norman, who was directly beneath the alleged sniper's nest during the shooting, claimed he heard the gunman working the bolt action of this rifle and that he also heard the ejected shells as they hit the floor overhead; Bonnie Ray Williams provided an explanation for the presence of chicken bones found on the sixth floor; and Charles Givens' testimony linked "Oswald with the point from which the shots were fired." These three stories, first garnered by the Secret Service, were later quoted in the Warren Report to support the Commission's version of what occurred that Friday in Dallas. Some of the testimony has been challenged in the past by critics of the Warren Commission but no one has demonstrated how much these stories have in common, nor examined the implications of the extraordinary parallels. In each instance these witnesses first gave totally different testimony to the FBI; in each instance their testimony changed the first week in December; in each instance the new story surfaced during interviews conducted by the same three Secret Service agents; in each instance the story influenced the Warren Commission's interpretation of the events of November 22; and finally, all three stories were important enough to be included in the Commission's one-volume Report. And the parallels do not end there. None of these stories holds up under close scrutiny. A review of the evidence casts serious doubt on their credibility and suggests that all of them evolved days after the assassination in order to support a particular interpretation of certain evidence, an interpretation which is inconsistent with the real facts. If this view is correct, the fact that all these stories originated in Secret Service Report 491 casts doubt on the integrity of the investigation conduced by that agency's Dallas field office. For if these stories are fabrications, the witnesses who supplied them had guidance from someone. Someone in a position to screen out and coordinate information at its source. The testimony of these three witnesses is import then not only because it supplies certain details about the events of that day, but because it suggests that basic evidence was falsified at a very

early stage, evidence which influenced the direction of the investigation and, in time, affected the conclusions reached by the Warren Commission. HAROLD NORMAN — The Man Beneath the Sniper's Nest On the day of the assassination, Harold Norman and two other employees of the Depository, Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman, watched the motorcade from windows on the fifth floor of their building, one floor below the alleged sniper's nest. The three men positioned themselves at the pair of double windows in the southeast corner, each man at a different window, with Harold Norman directly beneath the window allegedly used by Oswald to kill the President. Harold Norman made no statement to anyone on the Friday the President was shot. He made no statement to anyone on the following Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Finally, on Tuesday, November 26, four days after the President was assassinated, Norman was interviewed by the FBI. (Both of his companions were interviewed much earlier. By Sunday, November 24, both Jarman and Williams had been interviewed twice, once by the Dallas Police and once by the FBI. This four-day gap between the shooting and Norman's first interview has never been explained. It is difficult to understand Norman's silence on the day of the assassination and the days immediately following, difficult to understand why he failed to tell anyone what he had heard. But even more inexplicable was his failure to tell the FBI about it when he was questioned by that agency on November 26. During that interview, Norman made no mention of hearing the shells and the bolt action of the rifle. He told the FBI that after the first shot: ... he stuck his head from the window and looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing because small particles of dirt were falling from above him. He stated two additional shots were fired after he had pulled his head back in from the window.[2] This is Norman's earliest, most credible statement and there are no falling shells here only falling "particles of dirt" which struck Norman when he stuck his head out the window. This original version is buttressed by testimony from two other sources: Witnesses on the street below saw Norman with his head out the window. Four people present at Dealey Plaza during the shooting later testified that they saw two Negro men at windows on the fifth floor of the Depository below the alleged sniper's nest who were looking up toward the top of the building.[3] Two of these witnesses described the Negroes as "leaning out" of the windows at the time.[4] (Norman was one of these men and the other was Bonnie Ray Williams, as indicated by his statement to the FBI on November 23.[5]) In addition, James Jarman told the FBI on November 24 that, when the shots were fired, Harold Norman said "something had fallen from above his head and that a piece of debris ... had hit him in his face.[6] This is entirely consistent with Norman's own statement to the FBI. What Jarman called "debris," Norman called "particles of dirt" but both statements obviously referred to the same thing. In his first interview, Norman did not mention the sounds which the gunman supposedly generated as he killed the President. Instead he gave the FBI an entirely different account of what happened when the shots were fired. Later before the Warren Commission, Norman

repudiated this statement. And that body, anxious to accept his valuable testimony, did not pursue the matter. If they had, they would have been confronted with the unsettling fact that the testimony which Norman repudiated in March of 1964 had been corroborated four months earlier by the initial testimony of one of the men who was with him on the fifth floor during the shooting, and by the testimony of four witnesses who were present on the street below. Secret Service Interview (SS491) Norman's allegation that he heard the shells hit the floor and the bolt action of the rifle surfaced in toto in SS491. Twelve days after the assassination and eight days after his interview by the FBI, Norman's startling disclosure made its belated appearance. Norman's sworn affidavit to the Secret Service states: I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I could also hear the bolt action of the rifle. I also saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me.[7] Missing entirely from this new version is the description of Norman putting his head out the window and looking up toward the roof, a gesture which was witnessed by at least four people. Norman permanently eliminated this event from this testimony at this point. Also, the particles of dirt, which he told the FBI fell outside the building and prevented him from seeing anything when he looked up, are changed in this version to "some dust." This dust fell "from the ceiling" inside the building and the intended implication appears to be that it was dislodged by the shells hitting the floor of the sniper's nest. This then is Norman's new story. Not only are the sounds of the gunman added for the first time, but one part of his earlier statement to the FBI is excised and another part altered to accommodate the new information. This new story transformed Norman from an inconsequential witness to one of major importance who provided firsthand evidence linking the shots that were fired at 12:30 to the hulls that were found on the sixth floor 40 minutes later. This important information became the focus of his interview three months later before the Warren Commission. Warren Commission Interview On March 24, 1964, Norman told the Warren Commission what he heard on the fifth floor during the shooting: Well, I couldn't see at all during the time, but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle. ... I remember saying that I thought I could hear the shell hulls and the ejection of the rifle.[8] The essential part of this statement, the description of what Norman heard, is the same as that first recounted in SS491. In other respects, certain changes appeared. The particles of dirt which fell outside the window in his original story to the FBI and which were converted to "some dust" which fell from the ceiling in his statement to the Secret Service, assumed still another form in this interview. In response to a question from Commission attorney George [sic - Joseph] Ball, Norman stated, "I didn't see any falling [dust or dirt] but I saw some in Bonnie Ray Williams' hair." [9] Later, when Ball asked Norman about the head-out-the-window story in the FBI report and the falling dirt, Norman said that he did not "recall" telling that to the FBI, and he also said: "I don't remember ever putting my head out the window."[10]

In essence, Norman simply denied making his earlier statements to the FBI and which were converted to "some dust" which fell from the ceiling in his statement to the Secret Service version, except for the falling dust which he handed off to Bonnie Ray Williams. He also introduced one new item. He told the Commission, at the time he heard the shots overhead, he told his companions what he heard. This new fact enabled Jarman and Williams to corroborate Norman's story insofar as what he said at the time. Unfortunately, for Norman's credibility, this corroboration suffers from the same problems afflicting the story it is intended to support. It surfaced late, even later than Norman's story, appearing for the first time during their Warren Commission interviews in March. Also, while Williams' testimony supports Norman's version, Jarman's account of when and where Norman made his statement is substantially different.[11] The net result of this late-blooming, conflicting "corroboration" is the creation of additional suspicious testimony. The Re-Enactment The Warren Commission gave Norman's story great weight and went to some lengths in their efforts to verify the fact that Norman could have heard what he claimed he did. These efforts were only partially successful, but that fact is carefully disguised in the Warren Report. First, the Commission's legal staff arranged a re-enactment of the audio effects allegedly heard by Norman on November 22. On March 20, 1964, Norman, Jarman and Williams took their places at the windows on the fifth floor and, the Report states: A Secret Service agent operated the bolt of a rifle directly above them at the southeast corner window of the sixth floor. At the same time, three cartridge shells were dropped to the floor at intervals of about 3 seconds.[12] Norman told the Commission that the sounds he heard during this re-enactment were the same sounds he heard on November 22. The Report does not relate what, if anything, Jarman and Williams heard. Later, this same re-enactment was conducted for all seven members of the Warren Commission: The experiment with the shells and rifle was repeated for members of the Commission on May 9, 1964, on June 7, 1964, and again on September 6, 1964. All seven of the Commissioners clearly heard the shells drop to the floor.[13; emphasis added] Notice that while the "experiment" included both "the shells and rifle," the Report says only that the Commissioners "heard the shells drop to the floor," omitting any reference to the bolt action. This can only mean that the Commissioners were not able to hear the bolt action as it was "operated" by the Secret Service agent. If the Commissioners could not hear the bolt action during the re-enactment, why should we believe that Norman heard it on the day of the shooting? But that is not the most important question raised by this experiment. If all seven Commissioners heard the shells, why didn't either Williams or Jarman hear them on the day of the shooting? Since Jarman was in the far side of the second set of double windows, it might be argued that he was too far away, but that reasoning cannot apply to Williams, who was at the window right next to Norman's. A strip of wood less than a foot wide separated the two men, but Norman alone heard the shells. Williams was obviously troubled by this anomaly,

and attempted to explain it by offering the following curious explanation to the Warren Commission: "... But I did not hear the shell being ejected from the gun, probably because I wasn't paying attention."[14] During Norman's testimony it was pointed out that there were spaces between the boards in the ceiling separating the fifth and sixth floors which were wide enough to permit "daylight" to pass through in at least two places. Considering the condition of the ceiling, it is understandable that the Commissioners heard the shells during the re-enactment, and quite remarkable that Williams did not hear them on November 22. By proving that the ejected shells hitting the floor of the sniper's nest would have been audible on the fifth floor, the Warren Commission's re-enactment underscored the importance of Norman's testimony. If the shots came from the sixth floor sniper's nest, anyone directly beneath it surely would have heard the shells as they hit the floor, just as the seven Commissioners heard them months later. Yet Williams and Jarman admit they did not hear them on November 22 and the evidence strongly indicates that Norman did not hear them either, and that his belated claim that he did is simply not true. All of which points to the possibility that the shots which killed the President were not fired from the so-called sniper's nest but from some other location, and that the shells found on the sixth floor of the Depository were merely planted there. Long after the shooting, the Commission's re-enactment demonstrated that these men should have heard the shells as they landed overhead. Much earlier, someone else identified the problem: anyone familiar with the condition of the floor at the sniper's nest, and aware of the early statements made by Norman, Williams and Jarman to the FBI, needed no re-enactment to realize that a gap existed in their testimony. That gap was, in effect, closed on December 4, 1963, when Harold Norman signed the affidavit included in SS491. The Dropped Carton A reasonable assessment of Norman's testimony leads to the conclusion that the original statement he gave to the FBI was truthful and his later testimony a fabrication. When the shots were fired on November 22, Norman did not hear the shells hit the floor above him, nor did he hear the bolt action of the rifle. Something prompted him to lean out the window and look up. While doing so "particles of dirt" fell on him. The question is, what prompted him to lean out the window and what caused the dirt to fall? One possible answer to these questions is found in the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, who was the first to see the sniper's nest when he discovered the spent shells on the floor in front of the window. Mooney told the Commission that the box in the windows with the crease on it appeared to have been "tilted." He said it "looked like he might have knocked it off," referring to the gunman.[15] In the picture which Mooney identified, this box (which contained books) is resting partially on the brickwork in front of the window and partially on the wooden sill.[16] If Mooney was correct, and the person who arranged the boxes at the sniper's nest "knocked" this particular one off, or if he accidentally dropped it onto the window sill, the resulting jolt may have prompted Norman to lean out the window below and look upward. If this is the case, the falling dirt was dislodged by the same jolt. Evidence that someone, other than Oswald, arranged the boxes at the sniper's nest is found in the testimony of Lillian Mooneyham, a District Court clerk in Dallas. On November 22, Lillian

Mooneyham was in the court house on Main Street and she watched the motorcade from a window facing toward the Depository. On December 31, 1963, Dallas attorney S.L. Johnson told the FBI that Mooneyham told him that she saw "some boxes moving" in the window from which the shots allegedly came.[17] Interviewed by the FBI on January 8, 1964, Mooneyham stated that: 4½ to 5 minutes following the shots ... she looked up towards the sixth floor of the TSBD and observed the figure of a man standing in a sixth floor window behind some cardboard boxes.[18] The man she saw was standing back from the window and "looking out." Since a Dallas policeman, M.L. Baker, encountered Oswald in the lunchroom on the second floor of the Depository only 90 seconds after the shots were fired, the man seen by Mooneyham "4½ to 5 minutes" after the shooting could not have been Oswald. He could, however, have been the person who arranged the boxes at the sniper's nest and in the process dropped the carton, described by Deputy Mooney, onto the window ledge. He could also have planted the shells on the floor. Lillian Mooneyham was not called to testify before the commission, and her statement to the FBI was not pursued. Bonnie Ray Williams — The Chicken Bone Story Forty minutes after the shots were fired, Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney discovered the so-called sniper's nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Several tall stacks of boxes were arranged around the southeast corner window concealing it from view on three sides. Inside this enclosure, other boxes were stacked directly in front of the window. Presumably the gunman rested his rifle on this smaller pile of boxes. On the floor in front of the window, Mooney found three spent shell casings. And at the west end of the enclosure, on top of one of the tall stacks of boxes, Mooney saw a partially-eaten chicken bone and a lunch sack.[19] Four other men were on the sixth floor when Mooney found the sniper's nest: Police officers E.D. Brewer, G. Hill and CA.A. Haygood, and Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig. When Mooney saw the shell casings he yelled out, and the other men responded immediately by going to his location.[20] All of them - Brewer, Hill, Haygood and Craig - later testified that they too saw some portion of the chicken lunch at the same window where the shells were found.[21] In addition, Officer L.A. Montgomery, who arrived on the sixth floor after the shells were found and was one of the two men assigned to guard the scene, testified to seeing the lunch remnants at the sniper's nest.[22] There is a remarkable unanimity in the statements of these six men. The lunch remnants consisted of at least two chicken bones, an ordinary lunch sack, and a Dr. Pepper bottle. Not all six men saw all of these items, some saw more than others, but no one saw anything differently. They all described what they saw and where they saw it in similar terms. The similarity of language used to describe the bones is particularly striking. Three of these men gave almost identical descriptions. Mooney said he saw "one partially eaten piece of fried chicken," while Brewer saw "a partially eaten piece of chicken," and Montgomery saw "one piece ... I believe it was partially eaten."[23] Obviously, these men were describing the same chicken bone. This is further supported by the fact that they all saw the bone at the same location: on top of a box. Mooney indicated that the bone and sack were on top of one of the larger stacks of boxes at the west side of the window. This corresponds with the testimony of Gerald Hill, who said the "chicken leg bone" and the sack were "on top of the larger stack of

boxes that would have been used for concealment." Montgomery, too, saw a piece of chicken "on a box" (he also noticed another piece on the floor). And Roger Craig, who remembered only the sack, saw it "on top of a box."[24] Three of these men - Haygood, Brewer and Montgomery - saw the Dr. Pepper bottle, but only Montgomery described its location in any detail. (Montgomery's testimony regarding the location of the bottle as well as the second piece of chicken on the floor deserves great weight since he guarded the scene after the others left, and had greater opportunity to observe the area.) He said that the bottle was "over a little more to the west of that window ... sitting over there by itself."[25] This means that the bottle was separated from the stack of boxes on which the bone and sack rested, that it was on the floor somewhat farther west of the sniper's nest. This may explain why Mooney, Hill and Craig did not see the bottle. A precise and consistent picture emerges from the testimony of these six witnesses. On top of one of the tall stacks of cartons which formed the west end of the enclosure encircling the sniper's nest was a partially eaten chicken bone and a paper sack; on the floor nearby was another bone; and outside the enclosure and farther to the west was a Dr. Pepper bottle. Exactly one hour after Deputy Sheriff Mooney discovered the sniper's nest and saw the chicken bone and lunch sack there, Dallas Police Inspector J.H. Sawyer told the Associated Press about the chicken lunch and that wire service, quoting Sawyer, carried the story: Police found the remains of fried chicken and paper on the fifth floor. Apparently the person had been there quite a while.[26] This first public reference to the chicken lunch (which incorrectly identified the sniper's nest as being on the fifth floor) occurred one hour and 42 minutes after the assassination. In it, Inspector Sawyer linked the "fried chicken" to the assassin and word flashed around the world that the gunman had eaten fried chicken shortly before killing President Kennedy. United Press International actually photographed the "Dallas police technician" as he removed part of the lunch from the building. This photograph shows the "police technician" holding two sticks, one protruding into the mouth of a Dr. Pepper bottle and the other attached to a small lunch sack. The caption reads: A lunch bag and a pop bottle, held here by a Dallas police technician, and three spent shell casings were found by the sixth floor window. The sniper had dined on fried chicken and pop while waiting patiently to shoot the President.[27] Many other stories appeared in the new media that day describing the gunman's chicken lunch. On November 22, it was generally believed that the chicken lunch belonged to the assassin. The first five witnesses to see the sniper's nest thought so, as did Inspector Sawyer, who first relayed the information to the press. Furthermore, the photograph of the "technician" carefully removing the sack and bottle from the building indicates that the Dallas Police regarded them as significant evidence. Nevertheless, when the Warren Report was published ten months later, the chicken lunch was dismissed as inconsequential. It was not found at the sniper's nest, the commission decided, but 20 or 30 feet west at the third or fourth set of double windows. Furthermore, according to the Commission, it was left there not by the assassin, but by Bonnie Ray Williams, the same

witness who later watched the motorcade from a windows on the fifth floor next to Harold Norman. Part II In arriving at its conclusions, the Warren Commission relied on two pieces of evidence: (1) the Dallas Police photographs of the sixth floor taken by R.L. Studebaker which show no sack, no bones, and no bottle at the sniper's nest, but do show a sack and a bottle on the floor at the third set of double windows; and (2) the testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams, who claimed he left the sack and bottle on the floor as shown in the Studebaker picture. The Studebaker Picture Detective Studebaker testified before the Warren Commission that he took the picture of the chicken lunch "before anything was touched and before it was dusted." The picture shows a Dr. Pepper bottle and a lunch sack on the floor near a two-wheel cart in front of the third set of windows.[28] There are no chicken bones visible in this picture nor in any other picture taken that day. Studebaker explained why. The chicken bones, he told the Commission, "were all inside the sack, wrapped up and put right back in."[29] By the time Studebaker took this picture, the chicken bones seen at the sniper's nest by Deputy Sheriff Mooney and police officers Brewer, Hill and Montgomery were no longer visible because they were "inside the sack." Also, the sack and bones were no longer atop a box in the southeast corner, but now were on the floor in front of the third set of windows. Studebaker may have taken this picture "before [anything] was dusted," but he certainly did not take it "before anything was touched." The fact is, no one who saw the chicken lunch that day saw what Studebaker photographed. In addition to the six men who saw the lunch at the sniper's nest, other witnesses arrived on the sixth floor later that afternoon. These later witnesses saw the lunch at various locations, but none of them saw the sack and bottle as photographed. Like Mooney and the others, these men also saw the chicken bones. But unlike the first group of witnesses, each of these men saw the lunch at a different place. Officer Marvin Johnson saw the sack, "remnants of fried chicken" and the bottle at the second set of double windows; Detective E.L. Boyd saw "some chicken bones" and a "lunch sack" on "top of some boxes" at the third set of double windows; and FBI agents Nat Pinkston and J. Doyle Williams, accompanied by an employee of the Depository, William Shelley, viewed the scene after the sack and bottle were removed from the building, and saw the bones along with some wax paper on the floor near the center (i.e., third) window.[30] The wide variety of these later sightings and their chronology (that is the fact that they all occurred after the initial group saw the lunch at the sniper's nest) suggest that the lunch was removed from its original position and moved about on the sixth floor before it was finally placed on the floor in front of the third set of double windows where it was photographed. Clearly, the Studebaker picture, supposedly taken before anything was touched on the sixth floor, suffers from a severe credibility problem. During his Warren Commission interview, Studebaker was asked if he saw any chicken bones at the sniper's nest, and he replied that he did not recall any, and if there had been, "it ought to be in one of these pictures ...."[31] There, Studebaker defined the problem. Not only did the deputities and officers who saw the lunch on November 22 fail to provide testimony that supported the picture, but the two of them who saw the picture unequivocally

rejected it. When Deputy Sheriff Mooney and Officer Montgomery were shown the Studebaker picture, both of them told the Warren Commission that they did not remember the scene it depicted. And Montgomery, after looking at the picture, continued to insist that there were chicken bones "over here around where the hulls were found ... I know there was one piece laying up on top of the box there."[32] [Dallas Police] Lieutenant J.C. Day, who also took photographs of the sixth floor that afternoon, arrived on the scene with Studebaker and was his immediate superior. Day is the only one of these later witnesses who provided any support for Studebaker's picture. He is the only one of this group, except Studebaker, who did not see the chicken bones outside the sack. Also, he recalled seeing the lunch sack and pop bottle at the third set of windows. However, when he was shown the picture, he was unable to locate th sack and commented that it didn't show in the picture. He then stated that he didn't remember where the sack was located.[33] Day's failure to see the sack in the picture is understandable. As shown, the sack is practically hidden from sight. It is on the floor at the east end of of a two-wheel cart between the cart and a stack of boxes. A sack in that position would have been difficult to spot on November 22. Certainly no sack in that location could have been confused with one on top of a box in the southeast corner, 20 or 30 feet to the east. If the chicken bones were inside the sack as Studebaker claims and as his picture indicates, none of the people on the sixth floor that day would have seen them. But six of them did: three from the first group at the scene, and three who arrived later.[34] The only explanation for this contradiction is that the bones were outside initially and were put inside the sack before the picture was taken. Since the bones were obviously moved from outside the sack to inside, it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that the entire lunch was then moved from one location to another, from the sniper's nest to the third set of double windows before being photographed. The question that remains is why this was done. A police affidavit contained in the 26 volumes of Commission Hearings and Exhibits provides the motive. Sometime on November 22, Wesley Frazier, the man who drove Oswald to work that Friday morning, signed a sworn statement which included the following information: Lee (Oswald) did not carry his lunch today. He told me this morning he was going to buy his lunch today.[35] This statement, made the day of the assassination, established that the remnants of a chicken lunch found at the sniper's nest were not Oswald's. This meant someone else ate his lunch there, and the bones, sack and bottle were evidence of that fact. Once it was known that Oswald did not bring his lunch to work that day, the chicken lunch became an impediment to the theory that Oswald, acting alone, fired the fatal shots from the southeast corner window of the sixth floor. Consequently, the chicken bones, lunch sack and Dr. Pepper bottle were moved away from the alleged sniper's nest in order to disassociate them from the gunman. The Chicken "Sandwich" Two weeks after the assassination, the Secret Service found a witness to support the Studebaker picture. Bonnie Ray Williams was interviewed on November 23 by the FBI, but not until he was interviewed by the Secret Service in December did he lay claim to the chicken lunch found on the sixth floor.

The day after the assassination, Williams was interviewed by the FBI and gave a detailed account of his movements on November 22: At approximately 12 noon, Williams went back upstairs ... to the 6th floor with his lunch. He stayed on that floor only about three minutes, and seeing no one there, descended to the fifth floor ....[36] Here Williams described a brief three-minute trip to the sixth floor. There is no suggestion in this FBI report (1) that he at his lunch on the sixth floor; (2) that his lunch contained chicken bones; or (3) that he left anything behind on the sixth floor. Williams' entire chicken bone story materialized in December when he was interviewed by the Secret Service. SS491 summarizes Williams' statement in part as follows: After Williams picked up his lunch on the first floor he returned to the sixth floor and sat near the windows in the center of the building overlooking Elm Street and ate his lunch. Included in his lunch was a chicken sandwich and Williams claims that there were some chicken bones in the sandwich and he left them on the floor at the time he ate. He also left an empty Dr. Pepper bottle at the same location. He drank the Dr. Pepper with his lunch. Williams ... went to the fifth floor ... prior to 12:15 p.m.[37] Williams' three-minute trip to the sixth floor, which he described to the FBI the day after the assassination, expended here to 15 minutes during which he at his curious "chicken sandwich" and left the bones behind. Williams' Secret Service story is not only late-blooming but, like Norman's, it conflicts with his earlier statement to the FBI. This December testimony is the final solution to the problem posed by the chicken bones. It is an important solution, however, one that fails to explain the most credible evidence, the testimony of those who saw the chicken bones at the sniper's nest. On the contrary, it is a story that corroborates the Studebaker picture, the only testimony to do so, and that alone is cause for skepticism. Three months later, when Williams testified before the Warren Commission, he improved his story somewhat. He included the two-wheel cart (shown in the Studebaker picture), claiming he sat on it while eating his "sandwich." And he added a sack, saying he put the bones back inside before he "threw the sack down." To his credit, Williams' reluctance to associate himself with the chicken bones is apparent in his refusal to call his lunch "fried chicken." He repeatedly referred to it as a "chicken sandwich." This "sandwich" prompted the following exchange between Williams and Commission attorney Ball: WILLIAMS: I had a chicken sandwich. BALL: Describe the sandwich. What did it have in it besides chicken? WILLIAMS: Well, it just had chicken in it. Chicken on the bone. BALL: Chicken on the bone?

WILLIAMS: Yes. BALL: The chicken was not boned? WILLIAMS: It was just chicken on the bone. Just plain old chicken. BALL: Did it have bread around it? WILLIAMS: Yes it did.[38] Understandably, Ball had difficulty visualizing a chicken sandwich with bones in it. That was Williams' story, however, and Ball resolved the problem by suggesting that Williams' "chicken on the bone" had bread around it. This conjured up a strange culinary image but it permitted Williams to have his "sandwich" and the Commission to have an explanation for the bones found on the sixth floor. There is no doubt about the function of Williams' testimony. As first outlined in the December report, the message imparted was clear: the bones found on the sixth floor which received so much early publicity were not found at the sniper's nest as first reported, but at a totally different windows, well removed from the southeast corner, and they were not left there by the assassin, but by Bonnie Ray Williams. This story, secured by the Secret Service ten days after the assassination and passed on to the staff of the Warren Commission, determined the course of the inquiry regarding the chicken lunch. By providing this innocent explanation early in the investigation, the Secret Service precluded the exploration of other possibilities which might have yielded quite a different story. Certainly if someone other than Oswald ate his lunch at the sniper's nest, and that person was there when the shots were fired or shortly before, that information would have had an impact on the Commission's investigation. There is evidence that such a person was seen at the sniper's nest. A witness outside the building, Arnold Rowland, testified that he saw an elderly Negro at the window of the sniper's nest five or six minutes before the shooting. In addition, there is other evidence that another witness, Amos Euins, moments after the shooting, said the man at the sniper's nest was black. (Euins later said he could not say whether the man was black or white.) The Warren Report explains that while Rowland was not regarded as a credible witness, his assertion about the elderly Negro at the sniper's nest was investigated. This investigation consisted of interviews with certain employees of the Depository which determined that the only two men who might fit Rowland's description were on the first floor "before and during the assassination.[39] A more vigorous inquiry might have been conducted if the Commission, in addition to investigating Rowland's clam, had been actively seeking an explanation for the presence of chicken bones found at the sniper's nest. The chicken lunch would have given Rowland's allegation more substance and additional steps might have been taken. For instance, the Commission could have made an effort for Rowland to identify the Negro he saw from among the employees of the building. Also, fingerprints on both the lunch sack and the bottle could have been checked against those of the employees. Since the chicken lunch was dismissed early in the Commission's investigation, it was not associated with Rowland's testimony, and

only a superficial effort was made to identify the man Rowland claimed he saw at the sniper's nest only minutes before the shooting. The Warren Commission's attitude toward the lunch remnants was determined early in December when the Commission's inquiry was just beginning. The testimony in SS491 indicated to the Commission staff that the lunch was totally unrelated to both the sniper's nest and to the assassin. This position is challenged by the testimony of the Deputy Sheriff who found the shells, and four other law enforcement officers present on the sixth floor at the time, as well as by the testimony of the officer who guarded the sniper's nest. Unfortunately, these men all testified late in the investigation, long after the Secret Service interview with Williams had steered the Commission's inquiry away from the chicken lunch. Charles Givens - Oswald at the Crime Scene The day of the assassination, Givens told the FBI he saw Oswald three times that morning: 1. Working on the fifth floor during the morning filling orders; 2. Standing by the elevator in the building at 11:50 AM when givens went to the first floor; and 3. Reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M.[40] The original version of when and where Givens saw Oswald during that day is totally different from his later statement to the Secret Service. In this first account given to the FBI on November 22, Givens last saw Oswald on the first floor in the room where the employees, including Oswald, normally ate lunch. At that time, roughly 40 minutes before he allegedly committed the crime of the century, Oswald was behaving quite normally, doing what he did at lunchtime: reading a newspaper. To some extent, this testimony by Givens corroborates Oswald's own statement made that afternoon after his arrest. During his interrogation at Police headquarters, Oswald claimed he was on the first floor when the President's motorcade passed the building. Two FBI agents heard Oswald make this statement: Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom.... Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building.[41] Oswald claimed he was in the first floor lunchroom "at approximately noon." Givens' statement to the FBI placed him there at 11:50, indicating that Oswald was telling the truth about his whereabouts at that time. Oswald also claimed he was still on the first floor when the motorcade passed the building, but it does not make Oswald's assertion plausible. Givens' November 22 statement lent credibility to Oswald's alibi and this presented a problem for those intent on establishing Oswald's guilt. This problem was solved two weeks later when Givens withdrew his original testimony and converted to a witness for the prosecution. Secret Service Interview (SS491)

Sometime between December 2 and 5, 1963, Givens was interviewed by the Secret Service, and according to SS491: Givens stated that he saw Oswald on the sixth floor at about 11:45 A.M. ... and that Oswald was carrying a clipboard that appeared to have some orders on it. Givens felt that Oswald was looking for some books to fill an order, which is his job, and did not give the matter further thought. Shortly thereafter, Givens and the other employees working on the floor-laying project quit for lunch and they took both elevators. They were racing the elevators to the first floor and Givens heard Oswald call to them to send one of the elevators back up.[42] This account describes only one sighting of Oswald and it took place on the sixth floor at about 11:45. At this point, the picture of Oswald last seen reading a newspaper in the domino room is replaced by a totally new image. Now he is last seen on the sixth floor. The purpose of this new version is obvious: to incriminate Oswald. The Clipboard A new and important item was added to Givens' story during this December interview: Oswald's clipboard. SS491 contains the first mention of the clipboard Oswald was supposedly carrying when last seen on the sixth floor: "Oswald was carrying a clipboard that appeared to have some orders on it," the report states. The Warren Report explains the importance of this item: The significance of Given's observation that Oswald was carrying his clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee, Frankie Kaiser, found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the northwest corner of the sixth floor at the west wall a few feet from where the rifle had been found ... Kaiser identified it as the clipboard which Oswald had appropriated from him when Oswald came to work at the Depository.[43] This narrative outlines the following sequence of events: once alone on the sixth floor, Oswald hid the clipboard near the spot where he later concealed his rifle; it went undetected for ten days; on or about December 2, Givens made his statement to the Secret Service, but the "significance" of his reference to the clipboard was not apparent until the clipboard was found by Kaiser on December 2. This interpretation raises numerous questions. First, why would Oswald bother to hide his clipboard? And if he did, why wasn't it found during the search of the sixth floor on November 22? According to Kaiser's description of its location, the clipboard wasn't hidden at all, merely lying on the floor between some cartons and the wall. How then did it go unnoticed for ten days? The major question, however, relates to the timing of the clipboard's discovery and Givens' testimony about it. The Warren Report implies that Givens' reference to the clipboard occurred prior to the clipboard's discovery, but in fact, both arrived on the scene with the juxtaposition of Siamese twins. Givens' statement to the Secret Service occurred between December 2 and December 5, which means his reference to the clipboard was made the same day it was "found" or within three days afterward. The true implication of this tardy, simultaneous appearance is ominous and far-reaching. It means that whoever was reshaping the testimony of witnesses also had access to certain items of physical evidence. The clipboard and Givens' Secret Service testimony are virtually inseparable. They appeared at the same time, each supported the other, and together they provided the Warren Commission with evidence "linking Oswald with the point from which the shots were fired." Yet in the first

statement that Givens made on November 22, he stated that he last saw Oswald on the first floor, not the sixth, and that Oswald was reading a newspaper, not carrying a clipboard. Only one version can be true: Oswald was either in one place or the other, and the earliest most reliable evidence places him in the lunch room. There is no reason do doubt Givens' first statement to the FBI, but there is abundant reason to doubt his later statement to the Secret Service. Givens had no motive to fabricate the first version. It served no purpose and helped no one, except Oswald, a fact Givens could not have known when he gave the statement on November 22. On the other hand, the later story served a valuable function. Coupled with the physical evidence provided by the clipboard, it contributed to the web of circumstantial evidence used to incriminate Oswald. Moreover, it effectively eliminated Givens' earlier testimony which had raised the disquieting possibility that Oswald's statements about his whereabouts during the assassination might be true. SS491 — What Does It Mean? In evaluating the significance of this document, it is useful to consider how different the record would be if the original statements made by Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams and Charles Givens to the FBI had prevailed. There would be no audio evidence, raising the question of why the men below the sniper's nest heard nothing overhead during the assassination. There would be no explanation for the remnants of a chicken lunch found on the sixth floor, necessitating further investigation in that area. And there would be no testimony placing Oswald on the sixth floor after everyone else went to lunch, instead there would be support for Oswald's claim that he was on the first floor when the shots were fired. (It should be noted that the FBI reports detailing the initial statements of the three men were not published in the Commission's 26 volumes but, instead, were placed in the Archives.) This report by the Secret Service suggests a certain pattern of activity. It is extremely unlikely that these three stories blossomed independently of each other and appeared for the first time in the same document either by accident or coincidence. On the contrary, a systematically coordinated effort appears to be be operating. One designed to steer the Warren Commission's inquiry in a particular direction during its early stages and to prevent the Commission from pursuing certain areas where investigation might have yielded conclusions different from those finally reached. (It is possible, in fact likely, that similar efforts too place in other, more critical areas.) When viewed in this way, SS491 could be interpreted as circumstantial evidence implicating the Secret Service in an orchestrated effort to conceal the truth about the assassination. On the other hand, it could be argued that the Secret Service was merely an unwitting conduit for the new information supplied by these three witnesses. That possibility prompts a number of questions: * Who decided it was necessary to re-interview the employees of the TSBD en masse? * Why was the Secret Service chosen to do the job, instead of the FBI? *

And what bureaucratic process was involved in these decisions; who set the process into motion; and why? * Were these interviews really necessary, or were they only set up to allow Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams and Charles Givens to revise their earlier testimony, and to put their new stories into the record? The obvious implication of this line of thinking is that someone involved in manipulating the testimony of these three men was in a position to influence the actual mechanics of the Warren Commission's field investigation. In the final analysis, the ultimate dimensions of SS491 cannot be adequately defined at this point; more information is needed. But what we know is grim enough: eyewitness testimony was falsified and physical evidence manipulated. Regardless of the role played by the Secret Service, whether that agency was the source of the revised testimony or merely a conduit for it, the implications are unpleasant in the extreme. For such a complex and calculated effort could not have succeeded without high level assistance from within the investigation itself. NOTES: Note: All references open in new window, and display scanned pages of the appropriate documents on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website (www.MaryFerrell.org). 1. CD87, page 775, et seq. (return to text) 2. CD5, page 26 (return to text) 3. 2H159 (Jackson); 6H169 (Underwood); 7H523 (Altgens); CD5, page 13 (Brennan) (return to text) 4. 6H169 (Underwood); 7H523 (Altgens) (return to text) 5. CD5, page 330 (return to text) 6. 3H175 (Williams); 3H211 (Jarman) (return to text) 7. CD87, page 797 (return to text) 8.

3H191 (return to text) 9. 3H192 (return to text) 10. 3H196 (return to text) 11. 3H175 (Williams); 3H211 (Jarman) (return to text) 12. Report, page 71 (return to text) 13. ibid. (return to text) 14. 3H175 (return to text) 15. 3H287 (return to text) 16. 17H222 (return to text) 17. CD329, page 16 (return to text) 18. 24H531 (return to text) 19. 3H288 (return to text) 20. 3H284-85 (Mooney); 6H267 (Craig); 6H300 (Haygood); 6H306 (Brewer); 7H46 (Hill) (return to text) 21. 6H267-68 (Craig); 6H300 (Haygood); 6H307 (Brewer); 7H46 (Hill) (return to text) 22. 7H97-98 (return to text) 23. 3H286 (Mooney); 6H307 (Brewer); 7H98 (Montgomery) (return to text) 24. 3H286-88 (Mooney); 7H46 (Hill); 7H97-98 (Montgomery); 7H268 (Craig) (return to text)

25. 7H97 (return to text) 26. AP/A345DN, 2:12PM (return to text) 27. Four Days, page 29 (return to text) 28. 17H507 (return to text) 29. 7H146 (return to text) 30. 7H102-103 (Johnson); 7H121-22 (Boyd); 6H330 (Shelley); CD5, page 371 (FBI agents); CD1245, page 84 (Studebaker). FOOTNOTE: Shelley's testimony to the Warren Commission about the lunch remnants differs from the FBI version, but since the FBI report was written the day of the sighting and Shelley's testimony was not given until April, the FBI report is the most reliable recollection of what was seen. (return to text) 31. 7H147 (return to text) 32. 7H93 (return to text) 33. 4H266 (return to text) 34. 3H288 (Mooney); 7H46 (Hill); 6H307 (Brewer); 7H97-98 (Montgomery); 7H102 (Johnson); 7H121 (Boyd) (return to text) 35. 24H209 (return to text) 36. CD5, page 330 (return to text) 37. CD87, page 784 (return to text) 38. 3H169 (return to text) 39.

2H175, 178, 188 (Rowland); 6H170 and 2H207 (Euins); Report, 252 (elderly Negroes) (return to text) 40. CD5, page 329 (return to text) 41. 17H786 (return to text) 42. CD87, page 780 (return to text) 43. Report, page 143 (return to text) This article contributed by Paige Turner. Feedback, submissions, ideas? Email Duke at Verizon.net Duke at Verizon.net

Documents

2 IMPOSSIBLE - Welcome to Krusch.com . . . IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD The following is the text that preceded the table related to the markings on the shells. The