JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jerry Freeman on May 15, 2019, 12:48:32 AM
-
...why did he not ever testify before the Warren Commission?
-
I notice that no one wants to touch this one with a 10 foot pole because according to the Warren Report..Charles Givens saw Oswald on the 6th floor somewhere near the 'sniper nest' around 12 noon on that Friday when JFK came through town in a motorcade. Givens did 'testify' [if you want to call it that].. in a closed room session with David Belin-- a sniveling criminal of a lawyer because of his complaisant agenda to frame Lee Oswald.
There were no Commissioners present..only the court reporter.
Here is what happened...On Saturday Nov 23 [the day after the assassination] Givens made a statement to the FBI--
click for full screen --------
(https://i.ibb.co/jfvkbDP/Screenshot-2022-08-31-at-21-14-09-Commission-Document-5-FBI-Gemberling-Report-of-30-Nov-1963-re-Oswa.png) (https://ibb.co/jfvkbDP)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=334
Notice the very last sentence..Givens said he last saw Oswald at around 11:50 in the first floor break room reading a newspaper.
That account was hidden from the Commissioners, the press and the public and that weasel Belin knew it.
In an affidavit also to the FBI..Bonnie Ray Williams stated that he had gone back up to the sixth floor also at approx 12 noon to eat his lunch but seeing no one else there after a few minutes went down to the fifth floor and ate lunch with a couple of other employees. Williams did not see Givens nor did he see Oswald on the 6th floor. None of the employees saw anyone using the stairs or elevators at this time.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=335
Subsequently... In a statement dated Feb 13 1964 one Lt Jack Revill a Dallas police detective revealed that Givens had a previous drug charge and that "Givens would change his story for money". click for full screen----
(https://i.ibb.co/wzYbbxt/Screenshot-2022-08-31-at-21-23-10-Commission-Document-735-FBI-Gemberling-Report-of-10-Mar-1964-re-Os.png) (https://ibb.co/wzYbbxt)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11133#relPageId=304
Three other employees also claimed that Lee Oswald was on the first floor around noon on that Friday.
Charles Givens lied and stated in his obviously rehearsed interview that he forgot his cigarettes on the sixth floor and went back up to get them from his jacket and lo, there was Oswald.
Here is where I catch the lie right in that contrived misrepresentation of truth....
Mr. BELIN. Is that what you call the domino room?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir. ~
Mr. BELIN. You put your lunch there?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you wear a jacket to work that day?
Mr. GIVENS. I wore a raincoat, I believe. It was misting that morning.
Mr. BELIN. Did you hang up your coat in that room, too?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you know Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, I knew of him.
Mr. BELIN. When did you see Lee Harvey Oswald next?
Mr. GIVENS. Next?
Mr. BELIN. Yes.
Mr. GIVENS. Well, it was about a quarter till 12, we were on our way downstairs, and we passed him, and he was standing at the gate on the fifth floor.
I came downstairs, and I discovered I left my cigarettes in my jacket pocket upstairs, and I took the elevator back upstairs to get my jacket with my cigarettes in it. When I got back upstairs, he was on the sixth floor in that vicinity, coming from that way.
Givens said he wore a raincoat and hung it up in the break room. How is it he had cigarettes in a jacket he didn't wear?
Notice the distance he placed between himself and a fellow worker whom he called Lee by name.
That gave the sham investigation a weasel of an attorney, a snake of a cop, and one poor guy facing [back then possession of weed was 2 yrs to life]
-
Givens lied, so did BRW, Norman, Jarman and Frazier. Givens was needed to place Oswald on the 6th floor after the "elevator race". Piper put Oswald on the first floor About noon, after that event. Givens "fixed that up" for the LN narrative.
-
Ah. So everybody is lying. Got it.
Oh, wait: Pretty sure raincoats can be worn over jackets.
-
What do you call it when someone changes their story Bill? It’s in the documents. The question is not if but why.
-
I discuss this on my website in Chapter 3, which is written from the perspective of an imaginary investigator working for the Commission.
BEGIN QUOTE
Behind the Scenes with Howard Willens
Commission counsel Howard Willens kept a contemporaneous journal on the commission's investigation. In early 2014, he put his journal online. Let's pretend then that, in our imaginary investigation in 1964, we've befriended Willens and that he is showing us his journal.
Howard Willens shows us his journal entry for 3-9-64/3-10-64. (I have added some comments to put the events in context. But, of course.) His journal entry reads, in part:
2. On Tuesday, four eyewitnesses appeared before the Commission and completed their testimony at approximately 3 p.m. I had obtained a copy of the prior day’s testimony early in the morning and had planned to read it but was unable to begin this job until late in the evening.
6. After lunch and a brief discussion with Jack Miller I visited with the Deputy Attorney General for a while regarding the work of the Commission. I briefed him on the report of the Nosenko interview and the schedule of witnesses set forth in the memorandum of March 6. I discussed with him briefly the stalemate between the Treasury Department and the Commission regarding the area of security precautions. Mr. Katzenbach agreed that this was a needless problem which should be resolved without too great difficulty. He suggested that I might wish to discuss it sooner or later with Mr. McCloy.
7. Shortly after I returned to the Commission offices on Tuesday, Mr. Redlich came into my office in quite a hurry and asked me to join them in the Conference Room. Apparently the testimony for the day had been completed (eyewitnesses Rowland, Euins, Jackson and Worrell) and the Chief Justice was engaging Messrs. Redlich, Ball, Belin and Specter in conversation regarding the proposed schedule of testimony and several other matters. When I entered the room the Chief Justice was expressing his opinion that more witnesses with significant testimony should be called before the Commission as quickly as possible. This was partly because the court was currently in recess and he wanted to complete as much of the Commission’s business as possible during the next week and a half. He expressed his view that the medical witnesses were among the more important witnesses to be heard. He indicated that as a corollary to this that many of the witnesses that had already been called before the Commission did not have much testimony of substance.
Hmmm... Even beyond that newspaper accounts suggest Warren was only present for one hour of the March 9 testimony of the Secret Service agents, Warren's complaint that the witnesses recently called before the commission lacked substance doesn't pass the simplest of smell tests. The four Secret Service agents interviewed the day before indicated the last two shots were bang-bang, one behind the other. Kellerman said the last two came in in a "flurry...it was like a double bang--bang, bang." Greer said they came in "just simultaneously, one behind the other." Hill said he recalled hearing but two shots, but that the last one had "some type of an echo...almost a double sound." And Youngblood pretty much concurred: "There seemed to be a longer span of time between the first and the second shot than there was between the second and third shot." And these four problematic witnesses have now been followed up by a second four, ALL of whom add to the likelihood there was more than one shooter. Arnold Rowland, to begin with, surprised the heck out of the commission and said he saw two different men on the sixth floor before the shooting, and that the last shot was fired but two seconds after the second. Amos Euins said he'd heard four shots. Robert Jackson said "the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot." And James Worrell said he'd heard four shots. It seems obvious, then, that Warren views witnesses who can help him sell the single-assassin conclusion as substantive and those harmful to this cause as lacking substance. If so, this makes his request the medical witnesses be brought forward as soon as possible a bit suspicious. It seems possible he is afraid the investigation is about to spin out of control, and hopes to bring the investigation--and the Washington media reporting on the investigation--back in line via the gory details of the President's death.
7. cont'd) He indicated that he wanted to get our lawyers on the road as quickly as possible to interview witnesses. In the course of stating his views on this, the Chief Justice stated that he had complete faith in all of the members of the staff and wanted them to be free to have unrecorded interviews with the witnesses. Although he did not elaborate on his views in this matter, the Chief Justice apparently had been briefed on the staff discussions on this subject by someone, possibly Mr. Rankin or Mr. Ball.
Hmmm... Willens has told us of these discussions, and that several of the commission's staff think it improper to prep the witnesses via unrecorded interviews. He shows us a 3-2-64 entry in his journal which reveals:
"Most of today was consumed by two staff meetings regarding the proposed schedule of testimony before the Commission and by depositions taken by the staff. The draft memorandum for the members of the Commission which I prepared was distributed to members of the staff and was discussed at the initial meeting beginning at 11:30 a.m. The discussion quickly centered on the problem whether staff members should be permitted to interview witnesses in advance of the witness giving a deposition or testifying before the Commission. This argument went on for two hours or so and for an additional two hours or so at a continuation of the meeting beginning at 4 o’clock. Mr. Shaffer was not there and therefore his eloquence could not be brought to bear on this topic. As a result of the meetings, a set of procedures is to be made up by a committee including Messrs. Liebeler, Belin and Redlich. Mr. Redlich and Mr. Eisenberg were the most forceful proponents of the proposition that staff members should not be permitted to interview witnesses without a court reporter present. Mr. Belin was strongly opposed and Mr. Liebeler urged a somewhat intermediate position."
Willens then shows us a 3-4-64 memo from Redlich to Rankin in which Redlich reveals "I feel that an unrecorded interview with a witness creates the inevitable danger that the witness will be conditioned to give certain testimony" and that, furthermore, "If we compound the lack of cross examination with the pre-conditioning of a witness, we will be presenting a record which, in my view, will be deceptively clean..."
Well, here, on 3-10, Warren has weighed in on the matter, and has told the staff, in so many words, to go ahead and prep some witnesses and get something on the record...pronto!
We can only presume then that he wants to put some miles between the commission and its latest round of witnesses.
Willens then shows us the rest of his entry for 3-10.
7. cont'd) In response to the Chief Justice’s views I indicated to him that we would make every effort to secure witnesses for next Friday and to change the schedule for the week of March 16 so as to meet his wishes. The various members of the staff then discussed their views as to the difficulty of the medical testimony and the time necessary to prepare for it. The Chief Justice indicated that he was primarily interested in hearing the testimony of the doctors from the Bethesda Naval Hospital who conducted the autopsy.
Hmmm... It seems clear from this that Warren feels confident the testimony of these doctors will bolster the case for a single-assassin. We wonder why he feels this way.
7. cont'd) I indicated that, if possible, we would try to have these doctors appear before the Commission during the week of March 16.
...
8. After the above meeting various members of the staff gathered in my office to make their suggestions regarding alterations in the schedule. Present were Messrs. Redlich, Eisenberg, Ball, Belin, Stern, Liebeler and Ely. As usual there was considerable debate among the members of the staff regarding the function of the Commission and the definition of what constitutes a thorough job. Apparently during the day’s testimony the Chief Justice had indicated his readiness to receive a clean record and not pursue in very much detail the various inconsistencies. Mr. Ball agreed with the approach suggested by the Chief Justice completely and Mr. Specter thought that we would have to amend our approach to correspond with that of the Chief Justice. Mr. Redlich and Mr. Eisenberg took a strong and articulate contrary view. The long and short of the meeting was that we decided to bring up Mr. and Mrs. Declan Ford on Friday and to explore the possibility of having the medical testimony on Monday and Tuesday.
Well, this confirms our suspicions. Warren wants the staff to present him with a "clean" case against Oswald, one with as few inconsistencies as possible, and he is giving them the green light to prep witnesses in unrecorded interviews in order to meet this end.
END QUOTE FROM CHAPTER 3
It should be noted, moreover, that no witnesses to the shooting itself were called before the Commission after Warren's 3-10 tirade, outside that is, if I'm not mistaken, Jesse Curry and I believe Kenneth O'Donnell, who were called primarily to discuss the planning of the motorcade and not the shooting itself.
This wasn't a coincidence. Warren didn't want to hear from any problematic witnesses, and wanted his staff--primarily Specter Ball and Belin--to present him with a "clean" record suggesting Oswald's guilt.
-
I discuss this on my website in Chapter 3, which is written from the perspective of an imaginary investigator working for the Commission.
BEGIN QUOTE
Behind the Scenes with Howard Willens
Commission counsel Howard Willens kept a contemporaneous journal on the commission's investigation. In early 2014, he put his journal online. Let's pretend then that, in our imaginary investigation in 1964, we've befriended Willens and that he is showing us his journal.
Howard Willens shows us his journal entry for 3-9-64/3-10-64. (I have added some comments to put the events in context. But, of course.) His journal entry reads, in part:
2. On Tuesday, four eyewitnesses appeared before the Commission and completed their testimony at approximately 3 p.m. I had obtained a copy of the prior day’s testimony early in the morning and had planned to read it but was unable to begin this job until late in the evening.
6. After lunch and a brief discussion with Jack Miller I visited with the Deputy Attorney General for a while regarding the work of the Commission. I briefed him on the report of the Nosenko interview and the schedule of witnesses set forth in the memorandum of March 6. I discussed with him briefly the stalemate between the Treasury Department and the Commission regarding the area of security precautions. Mr. Katzenbach agreed that this was a needless problem which should be resolved without too great difficulty. He suggested that I might wish to discuss it sooner or later with Mr. McCloy.
7. Shortly after I returned to the Commission offices on Tuesday, Mr. Redlich came into my office in quite a hurry and asked me to join them in the Conference Room. Apparently the testimony for the day had been completed (eyewitnesses Rowland, Euins, Jackson and Worrell) and the Chief Justice was engaging Messrs. Redlich, Ball, Belin and Specter in conversation regarding the proposed schedule of testimony and several other matters. When I entered the room the Chief Justice was expressing his opinion that more witnesses with significant testimony should be called before the Commission as quickly as possible. This was partly because the court was currently in recess and he wanted to complete as much of the Commission’s business as possible during the next week and a half. He expressed his view that the medical witnesses were among the more important witnesses to be heard. He indicated that as a corollary to this that many of the witnesses that had already been called before the Commission did not have much testimony of substance.
Hmmm... Even beyond that newspaper accounts suggest Warren was only present for one hour of the March 9 testimony of the Secret Service agents, Warren's complaint that the witnesses recently called before the commission lacked substance doesn't pass the simplest of smell tests. The four Secret Service agents interviewed the day before indicated the last two shots were bang-bang, one behind the other. Kellerman said the last two came in in a "flurry...it was like a double bang--bang, bang." Greer said they came in "just simultaneously, one behind the other." Hill said he recalled hearing but two shots, but that the last one had "some type of an echo...almost a double sound." And Youngblood pretty much concurred: "There seemed to be a longer span of time between the first and the second shot than there was between the second and third shot." And these four problematic witnesses have now been followed up by a second four, ALL of whom add to the likelihood there was more than one shooter. Arnold Rowland, to begin with, surprised the heck out of the commission and said he saw two different men on the sixth floor before the shooting, and that the last shot was fired but two seconds after the second. Amos Euins said he'd heard four shots. Robert Jackson said "the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot." And James Worrell said he'd heard four shots. It seems obvious, then, that Warren views witnesses who can help him sell the single-assassin conclusion as substantive and those harmful to this cause as lacking substance. If so, this makes his request the medical witnesses be brought forward as soon as possible a bit suspicious. It seems possible he is afraid the investigation is about to spin out of control, and hopes to bring the investigation--and the Washington media reporting on the investigation--back in line via the gory details of the President's death.
7. cont'd) He indicated that he wanted to get our lawyers on the road as quickly as possible to interview witnesses. In the course of stating his views on this, the Chief Justice stated that he had complete faith in all of the members of the staff and wanted them to be free to have unrecorded interviews with the witnesses. Although he did not elaborate on his views in this matter, the Chief Justice apparently had been briefed on the staff discussions on this subject by someone, possibly Mr. Rankin or Mr. Ball.
Hmmm... Willens has told us of these discussions, and that several of the commission's staff think it improper to prep the witnesses via unrecorded interviews. He shows us a 3-2-64 entry in his journal which reveals:
"Most of today was consumed by two staff meetings regarding the proposed schedule of testimony before the Commission and by depositions taken by the staff. The draft memorandum for the members of the Commission which I prepared was distributed to members of the staff and was discussed at the initial meeting beginning at 11:30 a.m. The discussion quickly centered on the problem whether staff members should be permitted to interview witnesses in advance of the witness giving a deposition or testifying before the Commission. This argument went on for two hours or so and for an additional two hours or so at a continuation of the meeting beginning at 4 o’clock. Mr. Shaffer was not there and therefore his eloquence could not be brought to bear on this topic. As a result of the meetings, a set of procedures is to be made up by a committee including Messrs. Liebeler, Belin and Redlich. Mr. Redlich and Mr. Eisenberg were the most forceful proponents of the proposition that staff members should not be permitted to interview witnesses without a court reporter present. Mr. Belin was strongly opposed and Mr. Liebeler urged a somewhat intermediate position."
Willens then shows us a 3-4-64 memo from Redlich to Rankin in which Redlich reveals "I feel that an unrecorded interview with a witness creates the inevitable danger that the witness will be conditioned to give certain testimony" and that, furthermore, "If we compound the lack of cross examination with the pre-conditioning of a witness, we will be presenting a record which, in my view, will be deceptively clean..."
Well, here, on 3-10, Warren has weighed in on the matter, and has told the staff, in so many words, to go ahead and prep some witnesses and get something on the record...pronto!
We can only presume then that he wants to put some miles between the commission and its latest round of witnesses.
Willens then shows us the rest of his entry for 3-10.
7. cont'd) In response to the Chief Justice’s views I indicated to him that we would make every effort to secure witnesses for next Friday and to change the schedule for the week of March 16 so as to meet his wishes. The various members of the staff then discussed their views as to the difficulty of the medical testimony and the time necessary to prepare for it. The Chief Justice indicated that he was primarily interested in hearing the testimony of the doctors from the Bethesda Naval Hospital who conducted the autopsy.
Hmmm... It seems clear from this that Warren feels confident the testimony of these doctors will bolster the case for a single-assassin. We wonder why he feels this way.
7. cont'd) I indicated that, if possible, we would try to have these doctors appear before the Commission during the week of March 16.
...
8. After the above meeting various members of the staff gathered in my office to make their suggestions regarding alterations in the schedule. Present were Messrs. Redlich, Eisenberg, Ball, Belin, Stern, Liebeler and Ely. As usual there was considerable debate among the members of the staff regarding the function of the Commission and the definition of what constitutes a thorough job. Apparently during the day’s testimony the Chief Justice had indicated his readiness to receive a clean record and not pursue in very much detail the various inconsistencies. Mr. Ball agreed with the approach suggested by the Chief Justice completely and Mr. Specter thought that we would have to amend our approach to correspond with that of the Chief Justice. Mr. Redlich and Mr. Eisenberg took a strong and articulate contrary view. The long and short of the meeting was that we decided to bring up Mr. and Mrs. Declan Ford on Friday and to explore the possibility of having the medical testimony on Monday and Tuesday.
Well, this confirms our suspicions. Warren wants the staff to present him with a "clean" case against Oswald, one with as few inconsistencies as possible, and he is giving them the green light to prep witnesses in unrecorded interviews in order to meet this end.
END QUOTE FROM CHAPTER 3
It should be noted, moreover, that no witnesses to the shooting itself were called before the Commission after Warren's 3-10 tirade, outside that is, if I'm not mistaken, Jesse Curry and I believe Kenneth O'Donnell, who were called primarily to discuss the planning of the motorcade and not the shooting itself.
This wasn't a coincidence. Warren didn't want to hear from any problematic witnesses, and wanted his staff--primarily Specter Ball and Belin--to present him with a "clean" record suggesting Oswald's guilt.
Fascinating. Thanks, Pat. Well presented.
Mr Redlich and Mr Eisenberg ..they interest me.
Any deathbed - or mid life - confessions from those two?
Belinda and Specter..." integrity held no appeal for them".
-
Many of the witnesses show signs of "pre-prepping". Many times I believe it was counterproductive as the answers were confused, out of context or prelimiary...eg.Lovelady: I wouldn’t swear it was Vicki.....sometimes I believe it was because council was not properly briefed by the junior and confused themselves with the gravity of the testimony. The structure of how the investigation was undertaken, the compartmentalisation, meant that very few individuals had a clear overview of the narrative prior to publication.
-
Oh, wait: So everybody is lying. Pretty sure raincoats can be worn over jackets.
Placing that into evidence 57 years later are you? Do you ignore that Givens first told investigators that the last time he saw Oswald was in the lunchroom domino room at 11:50 or did you just not read it?
Maybe you don't want to? Didn't say everybody was lying... just guys like Belin and Givens who was paid off in some way. Folks that told the straight up truth about the shooting were ignored it seems.
November 22, 1963 Rt 146 p.m. Inspector Sawyer of the Dallas police issued an alert on the police radio for Charles Givens, a porter at the Book Depository, because he had "a police record and he left" (CE 705 page 30). It was known at that hour that Oswald, too, had left the scene but no alert for him was issued — Captain Will Fritz and two detectives intended to proceed to Irving perscnelly, in search of Oswald. Within an hour or two, Givens was escorted to the police headquarters, where he was questioned and where he executed an affidavit stating that he had left the sixth floor at about 11:30 a.m., had gone to the washroom, at noon had taken his lunch period, had gone to a parking lot to visit with a friend employed there (CE .2003 page 27). Givens' affidavit said nothing about a return to the sixth. floor for cigarettes or an encounter there with Oswald. Later that day Givens was interviewed by FBI agen:s Griffen and Odum. He gave them the same story as in the affidavit but added one additional piece of information that at 11:50 a.m. he had seen Oswald reading a paper in the "domino room" on the first floor (CD 5 page 329).
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/G%20Disk/Givens%20Charles/Item%2003.pdf
-
Many of the witnesses show signs of "pre-prepping".
Some said that the commission writers changed what they said in testimony.
-
What do you call it when someone changes their story Bill? It’s in the documents. The question is not if but why.
I call it typical human behavior. Human memory is unreliable. It is normal for people’s story to change over time. The only exception is if someone is working from a script and spends a good deal of effort to make certain they have all the details nailed down.
-
I call it typical human behavior. Human memory is unreliable. It is normal for people’s story to change over time. The only exception is if someone is working from a script and spends a good deal of effort to make certain they have all the details nailed down.
Givens' changing his story is not as fishy as Belin's failure to point it out to him. Belin created a memo regarding Givens' previous statements. He knew darn well that Givens had NEVER before said anything about seeing Oswald on the sixth floor AFTER the elevator race, and that he (and all his co-workers) had previously said they'd seen (or heard) Oswald on the fifth floor as they'd raced the elevators down for lunch.
Strong support for their collaboration in Givens' lie, moreover, can be found in the subsequent statements of Belin. Decades after Sylvia Meagher first pointed out the change in Givens' story, Belin continued to insist Givens was one of the most important witnesses. He was blowing smoke.
-
Givens' changing his story is not as fishy as Belin's failure to point it out to him. He knew darn well that Givens had NEVER before said anything about seeing Oswald on the sixth floor AFTER the elevator race ....Belin continued to insist Givens was one of the most important witnesses. He was blowing smoke.
Smoke was his most important client.
-
Givens' changing his story is not as fishy as Belin's failure to point it out to him. Belin created a memo regarding Givens' previous statements. He knew darn well that Givens had NEVER before said anything about seeing Oswald on the sixth floor AFTER the elevator race, and that he (and all his co-workers) had previously said they'd seen (or heard) Oswald on the fifth floor as they'd raced the elevators down for lunch.
Strong support for their collaboration in Givens' lie, moreover, can be found in the subsequent statements of Belin. Decades after Sylvia Meagher first pointed out the change in Givens' story, Belin continued to insist Givens was one of the most important witnesses. He was blowing smoke.
It's no more fishy than you lot comparing the purpose of an affidavit to the purpose of a full testimony
-
It's no more fishy than you lot comparing the purpose of an affidavit to the purpose of a full testimony
What was the purpose of the affidavit Bill? What was the focus that afternoon with the floor laying crew members, Dougherty and Frazier?
-
It's no more fishy than you lot comparing the purpose of an affidavit to the purpose of a full testimony
Both are sworn statements.... Givens' testimony was made basically in a back room with only Belin, Givens and the stenographer present. No other Commission witness was so discreetly interviewed.
So...how come?
-
The employees who had worked on the sixth floor that day, with the exception on Frazier and Norman, were taken for questioning that afternoon. This was at the request of Fritz to Senkel about the time the rifle was discovered and it became obvious the sixth floor was considered a crime scene. We have footage of Williams, Arce and Shelley on their way, and Dougherty and Lovelady ware taken in a different car. All were present when Oswald was brought in after being arrested. Givens had watched the motorcade from a location some distance from the TSBD and so by the time he arrived back there he was not allowed in. However he was taken for questioning about an hour after the others.
They all provided affidavits that afternoon. If you were the officers questioning them what are the relevant questions you would ask given the knowledge of the events at that stage?
What information would be most helpful to the investigation to capture in those affidavits?
-
The employees who had worked on the sixth floor that day, with the exception on Frazier and Norman, were taken for questioning that afternoon. This was at the request of Fritz to Senkel about the time the rifle was discovered and it became obvious the sixth floor was considered a crime scene. We have footage of Williams, Arce and Shelley on their way, and Dougherty and Lovelady ware taken in a different car. All were present when Oswald was brought in after being arrested.
Could this gentleman in short sleeves be Mr Dougherty?
(https://i.imgur.com/MQ9O9bE.jpg)
-
What was the purpose of the affidavit Bill? What was the focus that afternoon with the floor laying crew members, Dougherty and Frazier?
Affidavits are not Q&A and thefefore cannot be totally relied upon to tweak one's full recollection, as can a full testimony.
-
Affidavits are not Q&A and thefefore cannot be totally relied upon to tweak one's full recollection, as can a full testimony.
We see these discrepancies and gaps in memories, e.g., between a rushed affidavit versus a deliberate interrogation, as evidence of human fallibility, of the Rashomon effect, of people's memories failing them. If you study any other event these types of inconsistencies take place. If these eyewitness accounts were scripted out, if it was directed then there wouldn't be these gaps because everyone would be reading from their preassigned narratives. It would be a seamless narrative.
The conspiracy people see these inconsistencies as nefarious, as not being innocent failures of people's memories. So round and round we go. We see "A" and they see "not A".
-
We see these discrepancies and gaps in memories, e.g., between a rushed affidavit versus a deliberate interrogation, as evidence of human fallibility, of the Rashomon effect, of people's memories failing them. If you study any other event these types of inconsistencies take place. If these eyewitness accounts were scripted out, if it was directed then there wouldn't be these gaps because everyone would be reading from their preassigned narratives. It would be a seamless narrative.
The conspiracy people see these inconsistencies as nefarious, as not being innocent failures of people's memories. So round and round we go. We see "A" and they see "not A".
If only it were that simple! There are many inconsistencies within the record. Some of these can be chalked up to witnesses changing their minds, or FBI agents failing to accurately reflect what they were told. But not all of them.
Some switcheroos, such as Givens', are obvious lies.
As stated, the give-away is not that his story changed, but that Belin, who'd studied Givens' previous statements, failed to point out that it had changed. And, not only that, that Belin continued to claim Givens' testimony as a key, long after Meagher had pointed out its weakness, and the HSCA had dismissed it entirely.
-
If only it were that simple! There are many inconsistencies within the record. Some of these can be chalked up to witnesses changing their minds, or FBI agents failing to accurately reflect what they were told. But not all of them.
Some switcheroos, such as Givens', are obvious lies.
As stated, the give-away is not that his story changed, but that Belin, who'd studied Givens' previous statements, failed to point out that it had changed. And, not only that, that Belin continued to claim Givens' testimony as a key, long after Meagher had pointed out its weakness, and the HSCA had dismissed it entirely.
I would love for someone to analyze the psychology of a man like Belin.
Did he, at some point, forget his actions dummying up the WCR, and start to believe his own myth?
-
Affidavits are not Q&A and thefefore cannot be totally relied upon to tweak one's full recollection, as can a full testimony.
Affidavits ARE sworn statements that ARE relied on to describe one's recollection.
Quit "tweaking" stuff to bolster your already pitiful standpoint...it doesn't work :-\
You seem eager to readily choose affidavits that support your misguided lone assassin scenario huh?
-
Why did Givens have to go down to the PD and get questioned for 45 minutes?
Stated he went back to get his hat and coat afterwards. In testimony though, he said he went upstairs to get his coat or jacket before he went to watch the motorcade.
I did not see LHO when the president was shot
Why overstate the obvious?
Click to view full screen---
(https://i.ibb.co/j8kjhQH/Screenshot-2022-08-31-at-14-20-07-Warren-Commission-Volume-XXII-CE-1381-Signed-statements-obtained-f.png) (https://ibb.co/j8kjhQH)
-
Bump
Human memory is unreliable. It is normal for people’s story to change over time.
It is normal for people’s story to change over time.
No it's not. You say that is a fact?...choosing convenient facts over truth?
Lying under oath is perjury.