How Do LNers Deal With Givens?

[John Corbett]

Oswald was trying to get down to the first floor while the elevator race was on.
Both elevators were now on the first floor.
Givens never went back up to the 6th floor.
Williams took a few minutes to clean up, collect his lunch and buy a bottle of Dr. Pepper before returning to the 6th floor. He could have been on the 6th floor as early as 11:55am.
Oswald was seen on the first floor by Piper around 12 noon which means he did make his way down from the 5th floor. He either called up an elevator and rode it down or, if the gate had not been put down, he had to get down using the stairs.

The point is that the Givens story about going back up to the 6th and seeing Oswald near the southeast corner was a total fabrication.
We know from the testimonies of Lovelady, Williams and Arce that Oswald wanted to get down to the first floor.
We know from the testimony of Piper that he did make it down to the first floor.,
But all this testimony was deliberately omitted in favour of the fake Givens story which gave the impression that Oswald was last seen on the 6th floor near the location from which the shooting had taken place when, in fact, he was last seen on the first floor around 12 noon.

The above claims demonstrate why nobody should ever take anything you write serious. I doubt anybody does.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Even worse (somehow) is the sketch artist who drew the above (and below) awful pictures for the Warren Commission also didn't see the autopsy photos. He was instructed by Humes on the drawings. And Humes too didn't have access to the photos. So he had to go from memory and his notes.

Earl Warren's order to not allow the photos and x-rays to be examined gets more absurd each time I think about it.

From Epstein's book "Inquest": "Commander James J. Humes, the Navy pathologist who had conducted the autopsy and signed the Commission’s autopsy report, testified that the conclusion that the bullet had exited was based mainly on the fact that “the wound in the anterior portion of the neck [was] physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly.”31 Humes supported his assertion with two schematic drawings of the President—profile and back—which show the purported point of entry in the back of the neck (Commission Exhibit 385, on the next page, is one of these drawings). Although the artist who made these drawings was not familiar with the autopsy itself or photographs of it—he had made the drawings solely on the basis of the verbal instructions of Commander Humes32—these schematic drawings were offered as evidence in lieu of the photographs and X-rays of the autopsy, which were “unavailable.”33

Given what Ford was told and shown I think it's entirely defensible that he located the wound in the neck. That's where he was told it was.

[John Corbett]

Even worse (if possible) is that the sketch artist who drew the above (and below) awful pictures also didn't see the autopsy photos. He was instructed by Humes on the drawings. And Humes too didn't have access to the photos. He had to go from memory.

Warren's order not to allow the photos and x-rays to be examined gets more absurd each time I think about it.

From Epstein's book "Inquest": "Commander James J. Humes, the Navy pathologist who had conducted the autopsy and signed the Commission’s autopsy report, testified that the conclusion that the bullet had exited was based mainly on the fact that “the wound in the anterior portion of the neck [was] physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly.”31 Humes supported his assertion with two schematic drawings of the President—profile and back—which show the purported point of entry in the back of the neck (Commission Exhibit 385, on the next page, is one of these drawings). Although the artist who made these drawings was not familiar with the autopsy itself or photographs of it—he had made the drawings solely on the basis of the verbal instructions of Commander Humes32—these schematic drawings were offered as evidence in lieu of the photographs and X-rays of the autopsy, which were “unavailable.”33

Given what Ford was told I think it's entirely defensible that he located the wound in the neck. That's where he was told it was.

I agree completely. There is no justification for the medical evidence to have been withheld from the commissioners, staff lawyers, and prosectors. If Warren thought the autopsy pictures and x-rays were too gruesome for public consumption, then he could have had them placed in the National Archives without the stipulation that the Kennedy family controlled who had access to them. I wonder if the Freedom of Information Act could be invoked to make those materials available for public consumption. Has that ever been tried? Why should Warren's decision still be binding?

[Dan O'meara]

Why wouldn't I accept it? Givens said that he saw Oswald on the 6th floor at about 11:55 AM. So what?

Why wouldn't you accept it??
Is that supposed to be a joke?
The reasons you wouldn't accept it have been laid out in Technicolor detail in this thread.
When grilled by Fritz and the FBI on the day of the assassination, Givens specifically never mentions seeing the prime suspect at the scene of the crime. The single, credible reason for this is that his story about returning to the 6th floor and seeing Oswald in the southeast corner is a later fabrication.
That is why you wouldn't accept it.
Because Givens was specifically grilled about his own movements and what he knew about Oswald and never mentioned it.
That's why.

And that this newly fabricated theory contradicts the well established, well documented elevator race story.
That's why you wouldn't accept it.

And "so what"??
So what that the Warren Commission fabricated/omitted evidence to create a false narrative??
So what?
Really?

[Dan O'meara]

The above claims demonstrate why nobody should ever take anything you write serious. I doubt anybody does.

You specialise in empty statements.
You daren't engage in debate because you're made to look a complete buffoon every time you try, so you come up with these nothing statements instead.

[John Corbett]

You specialise in empty statements.
You daren't engage in debate because you're made to look a complete buffoon every time you try, so you come up with these nothing statements instead.

Are you trying to get people to take you seriously? It's not working.

[Dan O'meara]

Are you trying to get people to take you seriously? It's not working.

Just another empty statement.
People can see the evidence that I have posted and how it supports the arguments I am making.
You are just posting petulant, childish statements that are completely meaningless.
I stand by what I have posted and am willing to debate at anytime.

You are just making snide, cowardly comments that lack any content.

I know which I would take more seriously.