Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Hearsay?
« Last post by Charles Collins on April 19, 2019, 07:33:29 PM »
To me the "26 volumes of the Warren Report" means the whole package, including the report itself, nut I'm more than happy to simply agree to disagree on that.

Selectively gathered evidence published in 26 volumes is also an expression of an opinion.

From Mary Ferrell Foundation website:

Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits
The Warren Commission published 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits within a few months after issuing its report. Volumes 1 - 5 are hearings conducted by the Commission members in Washington DC. Volumes 6 - 15 are hearings conducted by staff attorneys on location in Dallas, New Orleans, and other places. Volume 15 also contains an index to names and exhibits. Volumes 16 - 26 contain photographed Commission Exhibits, usually abbreviated to CE (i.e., CE 399), plus other exhibits organized by name.

     1.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume I
     2.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II
     3.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume III
     4.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume IV
     5.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume V
     6.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume VI
     7.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume VII
     8.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume VIII
     9.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume IX
     10.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume X
     11.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XI
     12.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XII
     13.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XIII
     14.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XIV
     15.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XV
     16.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XVI
     17.   Warren Commission Hearings Volume XVII
     18.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XVIII
     19.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XIX
     20.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XX
     21.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XXI
     22.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XXII
     23.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XXIII
     24.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XXIV
     25.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XXV
     26.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XXVI
92
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Hearsay?
« Last post by Charles Collins on April 19, 2019, 07:08:00 PM »
This was a preliminary hearing, not a trial. But even so, I guess that the prosecution would object because they wouldn’t be able to examine the evidence and witnesses. Just wondering what the legal scholars have to say about this.
93
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Hearsay?
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on April 19, 2019, 07:07:14 PM »
Here is the sentence as written in the book:

“The Defense tried to introduce the 26 volumes of the Warren Report in their defense, but it was denied as hearsay.”

I certainly interpreted it that way. The 26 volumes were published separately and in support of the report.

To me the "26 volumes of the Warren Report" means the whole package, including the report itself, but I'm more than happy to simply agree to disagree on that.

Selectively gathered evidence published in 26 volumes is also an expression of an opinion.
94
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Mr Billy Lovelady
« Last post by Alan Ford on April 19, 2019, 06:33:33 PM »
Question #6!

Why does Mr Lovelady in his various '63/'64 statements give every impression of having stayed inside the building upon his return, and make no mention of going back out onto the front steps, when the Hughes and (as below) Martin films clearly show him standing there smoking a cigarette several minutes after the assassination?



95
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Mr Billy Lovelady
« Last post by Alan Ford on April 19, 2019, 06:29:19 PM »
Question #5!

Why was Mr Lovelady so paranoid about having his photograph taken by members of the public after the assassination?
96
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Mr Billy Lovelady
« Last post by Alan Ford on April 19, 2019, 06:25:46 PM »
Question #4!

Why did Mr Lovelady describe a pretty quick re-entry to the building for the WC---------------

We went as far as the first tracks and everybody was hollering and crying and policemen started running out that way and we said we better get back into the building, so we went back into the west entrance on the back dock had that low ramp and went into the back dock back inside the building.


---------------yet tell the HSCA that he didn't re-enter the building until about 20-25 minutes after the assassination?
97
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Mr Billy Lovelady
« Last post by Alan Ford on April 19, 2019, 06:21:39 PM »
Question #3!

Why does Mr Lovelady look so bald on top in the Wiegman film--------------



---------------and in this 1964 photo of him taken surreptitiously in 1964?



98
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Mr Billy Lovelady
« Last post by Alan Ford on April 19, 2019, 06:16:20 PM »
We have footage of Mr Lovelady wearing a long-sleeved red plaid shirt that day.

E.g.:



Question #2!

Why will Mr Lovelady inform the FBI in February '64, and Mr Jones Harris subsequently, that the shirt he was wearing out on the steps at the time of the motorcade was a short-sleeved, vertically striped red and white shirt?





And... why will he years later protest that he said no such thing, even posing for photographs on several occasions in the red plaid shirt?

99
By looking at the Darnell girl, Steve of the 6FM would tell you she is not Westbrook.
100
That looks good Denis. I appreciate your making the compilation. Ms. Sitzman looks nicely placed too now  Thumb1: 
James

It's funny how Iacoletti's "Gloria Calvery" in Darnell doesn't look anything like Gloria Calvery, but does look like a different Gloria -- Gloria Holt.

-- MWT  ;)
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]