JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Lack Of Damage To CE-399
Walt Cakebread:
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on January 26, 2019, 02:30:15 PM ---In reading "Six Seconds in Dallas," I suspect that Thompson was "leading" the witness Sam Holland. In a dramatic apogee worthy of Gordon Ramsey's "24 Hours to Hell and Back", Thompson wrote (p 127-29, Geis):
"When we took Holland to the assassination site and asked him to
stand in the position where he found the curious footprints and saw
the smoke, his head appears in the exact position defined by this
shape. Earlier, we had shown him the Moorman photo in a
particularly clear print. He looked at the photo for a long time,
and then announced:
Well, now you have something there ... I didn't see this before.
[Almost twenty seconds pass, then Holland continues:] Well do
you know I think that you're looking right down at the barrel of
that gun right now!
And that's not where Holland saw the "smoke" anyway. He saw it in a line-of-sight to the retaining wall.
The day before the interview with Holland, Thompson interviewed Marilyn Sitzman who stood about 150 ft closer to the fence corner than was Holland. Sitzman was also elevated and could see down towards the fence line and into the parking lot. She had no recollection of a figure standing there. Thompson therefore ignored the better witness.
--- End quote ---
Sam Holland speaks.....
https://jfkfacts.org/eyewitness-in-dealey-plaza/
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on January 26, 2019, 07:25:16 PM ---Because it can not be ruled out that, if anybody substituted the bullet, it was Todd himself.
--- End quote ---
So you are saying that it could be that Todd was lying. Which proves my point that the only alternative to CE399 being the bullet found by Tomlinson is one in which someone was lying.
So, again, what reliable knowledge do you have that any of those people were lying?
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on January 26, 2019, 08:37:38 PM ---
So you are saying that it could be that Todd was lying. Which proves my point that the only alternative to CE399 being the bullet found by Tomlinson is one in which someone was lying.
So, again, what reliable knowledge do you have that any of those people were lying?
--- End quote ---
Your question, to which I responded, was; "how does Todd's verification NOT verify that the bullet that Rowley received from Johnson was CE399 (unless Rowley was lying and substituted another bullet)?"
Do you now agree that Todd's verification does not automatically verify anything other than that he received a bullet from Rowley?
As for the "reliable knowledge" question, there are two sides to that coin;
Do you have reliable knowledge that nobody was lying?
Can a circumstantial case of possible evidence tampering be made? Yes...IMO it can.
Will that case ever be conclusive? Based on the evidence now available, the honest answer would be no, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth...
Chris Bristow:
The point has been made that Sitzman was a better witness than Holland because of her elevated position and close proximity to the fence. I think there is one relative fact missing here.
Both were looking at the limo during the head shot. The shooters position behind the fence was only 10 to 15 degrees off of Holland's line of sight. But from Sitzman's position the shooter would be about 120 degrees away from her line of sight to the limo and the puff of smoke about 90 degrees away
The human field of vision is about 195 degrees. So looking straight at the limo would allow Stitzman to see about 100 degrees to her right. She could have easily missed the initial event.
Found this quote on Sitzman's Wiki page but can't trust it without verifying it. Anyone familiar with this statement?
"Sitzman stated, "I have no qualms saying that I'm almost sure that there was someone behind the fence or in that area up there [near the fence], but I'm just as sure that they had silencers because there was no sound."[14]"
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on January 26, 2019, 08:52:33 PM ---Your question, to which I responded, was; "how does Todd's verification NOT verify that the bullet that Rowley received from Johnson was CE399 (unless Rowley was lying and substituted another bullet)?"
Do you now agree that Todd's verification does not automatically verify anything other than that he received a bullet from Rowley?
--- End quote ---
By itself it establishes that Rowley had possession of CE399 unless Todd was lying and he (Todd) switched the bullet he received from Rowley with CE399.
--- Quote ---As for the "reliable knowledge" question, there are two sides to that coin;
Do you have reliable knowledge that nobody was lying?
--- End quote ---
According to your statement of principle, It isn't needed.
It was you who said you should presume someone to be truthful unless there is 'reliable knowledge' that he is lying.
--- Quote ---Can a circumstantial case of possible evidence tampering be made? Yes...IMO it can.
Will that case ever be conclusive? Based on the evidence now available, the honest answer would be no, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth...
--- End quote ---
So who was lying? And what is the 'reliable knowledge' that you have of such lying?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version