CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?

[Bill Chapman]

I guess Jarman and Williams just didn't have "hearing ability the equal of Norman's".

Only the window* above Norman was open
And I'm talking about Norman's position, not that of Jarman or BRW

[Colin Crow]

Unfortunately, Fisher and Edwards should have been drug tested.

FISHER'S STATEMENT

Today, November 22nd, 1963, I was with Robert E. (Bob) Edwards, we were standing on the corner of Elm and Houston, on the southwest corner; about thirty seconds before the motorcade came by, Bob turned to me and said that there was a man on the fifth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, at the window there, and I looked up and saw the man. I looked up at the window and I noticed that he seemed to be laying down there or in a funny position anyway, because all I could see was his head. I noticed that he was light-headed and that he had on an open-neck shirt, and that was before the motorcade rounded the corner. I noticed his complexion seemed to be clear, and that he was in this twenty's [sic], appeared to be in his twenty's [sic].

I turned away and by that time the motorcade rounded the corner. And then I heard what I thought was [sic] three shots, and the motorcade was about where that Stemmons Freeway sign is there.

I do remember one peculair [sic] thing happened just at the time I saw the man up there. There was a girl walked in the Texas School Book Depository Building, a rather tall girl, and she looked to me like she might be an employee in that building. She was walking in while everyone else had been coming out.

EDWARD'S STATEMENT

Today, November 22nd, 1963, I was with Ronald Fischer, and we were on the corner at Elm and Houston, and I happened to look up there at the building, the Texas School Book Depository Building, and I saw a man at the window on the fifth floor, the window was wide open all the way; there was a stack of boxes around him, I could see. Bob remarked that he must be hiding from somebody. I noticed that he had on a sport shirt, it was light colored, it was yellow or white, something to that effect, and his hair was rather short; I thought he might be something around twenty-six, as near as I could tell.

The motorcade rounded the corner about this time, and then I thought I heard four shots, but it never occurred to us what it was. The shots seemed to come from that building there.





The problem with these guys is Fisher says Edwards suggested to look at 5th story window. Fisher then does and describes "I looked up at the window and I noticed that he seemed to be laying down there or in a funny position anyway, because all I could see was his head. I noticed that he was light-headed"

Only for Edward's to describe something completely different " I saw a man at the window on the fifth floor, the window was wide open all the way; there was a stack of boxes around him, I could see. Bob remarked that he must be hiding from somebody."

Fisher thinks the man is laying down

Edwards thinks the man is trying to hide behind boxes

What is there to make of those two descriptions???

These guys provide some interesting information. The first day statements were taken in haste. Read their WC testimony.

An interesting interview here with Fisher......starts @42.40

[John Mytton]

And I'm talking about Norman's position, not that of Jarman or BRW

 

Thanks Bill, it's obvious what you meant, if you're comparing "equal" hearing then you can't have the test subject on Elm street or in New York or on the Moon that just doesn't make sense, they have to be in the same position or what's the point?

JohnM

[Bill Brown]

"In court how would you defend Oswald?"

Demand the autopsy materials be allowed in court.

Have the autopsy doctors explain in court their conclusions illustrated by the autopsy photos. (Assuming the autopsy photos of the inside of JFK's right lung, that would have shown the direction and path of the bullet that allegedly went through his neck, and the photo of the inside of the skull, after the brain was removed. that showed the wound near the EOP, were still amongst the autopsy materials.) Those photos are no longer in the archives.

In 1967 the autopsy pathologists (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), the acting chief of radiology (Ebersole) and one of the autopsy photographers (Stringer) viewed the autopsy photographs and/or X-rays and confirmed the photos and X-rays were accurate in the portrayal of the wounds of the President.

The Clark Panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck only once and from above and behind.

The Rockefeller Commission studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck only once and from behind.

The HSCA forensic panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos (and interviewed the Kennedy autopsy personnel in order to verify the validity of the photos and X-rays) and concluded that the head was struck once and only from behind.

[Bill Brown]

"In court how would you defend Oswald?"

I would have JBC and his wife testify in front of the jury that he was not hit by the same bullet that hit JFK.

John Connally heard the first.  He knew for a fact that he was not hit by this shot.  He mistakenly assumed that the President was hit by this shot.

John Connally knew he was hit by the next shot.  He knew that the President was hit in the head by the final shot.  He knew that the President was hit only twice.  Since he mistakenly assumed that the President was hit by the first shot, he also mistakenly assumed that this second shot (which did hit him) did not hit the President.

The Zapruder film verifies that these two men were NOT hit by separate shots.

[Bill Brown]

"In court how would you defend Oswald?"
Brennan would need to explain to a jury why his affidavit from 11/22/63 stated he could identify the person he allegedly saw fire from the

6th floor, yet he was unable to pick LHO from a police line up later that afternoon.

Straw man.  Howard Brennan would not be called by the Prosecution.

[Bill Brown]

Absolutely, not long after Weidmann first started posting both Bill and I independently made posts accusing Weidmann of being Roger Collins, so I gathered all the evidence from Bill, others and myself and made a Poll Thread. The Poll results were dramatically in favour of Weidmann either being Collins or Weidy used a dozen Collins posts as an exact template for his own.

JohnM

That's correct.