The Floor-Laying Crew

[Charles Collins]

What's sinister is the way Bugliosi misrepresents the details in order to fit his preferred narrative.

But Givens was interviewed several times by the FBI and the Secret Service between November and April.  It wasn't until April that the story about going back for his cigarettes and seeing Oswald first popped up.  And that was after Revill told Gemberling that Givens had been previously handled by the Special Services Bureau on a marijuana charge and he believes that Givens would change his story for money.

Reading Don Thomas’ rant against Bugliosi it appears to me that much of his “argument” hinges upon the last paragraph in the FBI report of their interview of Givens dated 11/23/63:

GIVENS said all employees enter the back door of the building when Jack Dougherty, the foreman opens the door at about 7 A.M. On the morning of November 22, 1963, GIVENS observed LEE reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M.


So, how does one interpret the above paragraph? It appears that Don Thomas interprets the last sentence to mean that Givens said he saw LHO reading a newspaper in the domino room about 11:50. However, it appears to me that that really isn’t what that sentence says. I believe that, technically, the sentence says that Givens observed Lee reading a newspaper in the domino room that morning [no time given, however the preceding sentence is about early morning] and that the domino room is where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M. A couple of commas would be required (before and after the phrase “where the employees eat lunch”) in order to technically correctly interpret that sentence the way Don Thomas apparently does.

I think that the somewhat similar construction of the first sentence (to the second sentence) supports the above argument. The writer of the report uses imprecise and less than ideal sentence construction which can be misleading and confusing. If we were to interpret the first sentence the way that Don Thomas appears to interpret the second sentence, the first sentence appears to say that all employees entered the building at 7 A.M. However, the testimonies of almost all of the employees indicates they normally arrive at about 8 A.M. So, it seems logical that the two somewhat similarly constructed sentences should be interpreted similarly because they were apparently written by the same person.

This argument isn’t easy to put into words that are easily followed. Hopefully, I have explained it in a way that makes sense.   

[Charles Collins]

What is the significance of quoting a statement that "Givens never testified to the Warren Commission"?  Givens was interviewed at length by Belin in his capacity as an assistant counsel for the WC.  Belin asked him those questions in Dallas rather than flying him to DC.  Big deal.  Maybe that was Givens' preference.  Regardless, it makes no difference since Givens did testify and his testimony is part of the record taken into consideration by the WC.

Exactly! The Don Thomas rant is full of false stuff like that which in my opinion is sinister due to how it misleads the gullible masses who aren’t familiar with the details of this case…

[Jon Banks]

There are normally conflicts in various witness accounts. Showing these conflicts and suggesting they represent something sinister is apparently what CTs do.

Do witnesses normally give contradictory testimonies as often as seen in the accounts of JFK assassination investigation witnesses?

I tend to believe that the initial account tends to be the most accurate. The passage of time and other factors in my opinion can contribute to changing recollections of events. But there's also some evidence that witnesses were pressured into changing their testimonies. In the case of Charles Givens, who appears to have had some personal issues with his criminal record, he might've been manipulated into giving a different account than what he told the police initially after the assassination.

I think Thomas' theory is that the manipulation happened because Givens saw an armed man on the Sixth Floor but it wasn't Oswald. If he saw Oswald with a rifle on the Sixth floor, there would've been no reason to pressure Givens to alter his testimony (assuming that Givens was pressured by someone to change his account of that day):

Did Givens actually say it was "Mr. Lee" at the window, or like Sawyer, did Revill confound Givens' statement? What exactly did Givens say to the police? A witness to Given’s statement was a secret service agent named Mike Howard. Howard related his account to Fort Worth Star Telegram reporter, Thayer Waldo, on 9 February 1964, apparently unaware that Waldo was a newsman. According to Waldo,

"Mike Howard then explained that the negro witness had been arrested in the past by the Special Services office of the Dallas Police for gambling; and, since he was familiar with that branch of the Dallas Police, he immediately gave himself up to that branch. Mr. Howard alleged that he had visited the negro witness while he was in custody of the Special Services in the Dallas Jail."

Waldo quotes Agent Howard as saying,

"Wait till that old black boy gets up in front of the Warren Commission and tells his story. That will settle everything. Yes, sir. He was right there on the same floor, looking out the next window; and, after the first shot, he looked and saw Oswald, and then he ran. I saw him in the Dallas Police station. He was still the scaredest nigger I ever seen. I heard him tell the officer, "Man you don't know how fast fast is, because you didn't see me run that day." He said he ran and hid behind the boxes because he was afraid that Oswald would shoot him." (CE 2516)

None of this may be a problem for Mr. Bugliosi, but for those of us who insist on a reliable account of the events that day, the implications are horrendous. If Charles Givens saw Lee Harvey Oswald shoot the president, then why on earth would he not tell the FBI and the Warren Commission? Or if he did not see Lee Harvey Oswald shoot the President why did he claim that he did? Was Givens a pathological liar? If so, then none of his statements should be used as evidence. Alternatively, were Inspector Sawyer, Lt. Revill and Agent Howard lying? In May 1964 the FBI interviewed Agent Howard (CE 2578) who adamantly denied that he had ever told Waldo that Givens had seen the assassin. The FBI then interviewed Waldo (CE 2579) who was equally adamant that Howard had said exactly that. Mark Lane, on retainer with the Oswald family, complained in a letter to the Secret Service that Howard had made up the story and planted it with the press in order to falsely incriminate his client’s son. The larger concern is not that any of these officers were lying – but that they might have been telling the truth. The problem is that Waldo’s version of Howard’s story meshes with the accounts by Revill and Sawyer.

Givens’ deposition is full of holes. He states that after retrieving his jacket he left the building and walked to a parking lot at the corner of Main and Record and was there when the President went by. He further states that he was walking in front of the Record Building when he heard gunfire [6 WCH 351]. At some point he decided to return to work and tried to reenter the book depository but was refused entry by the DPD who by this time had locked down the building.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-_Bugliosi_Parses_the_Testimony.html

[Charles Collins]

Do witnesses normally give contradictory testimonies as often as seen in the accounts of JFK assassination investigation witnesses?

I tend to believe that the initial account tends to be the most accurate. The passage of time and other factors in my opinion can contribute to changing recollections of events. But there's also some evidence that witnesses were pressured into changing their testimonies. In the case of Charles Givens, who appears to have had some personal issues with his criminal record, he might've been manipulated into giving a different account than what he told the police initially after the assassination.

I think Thomas' theory is that the manipulation happened because Givens saw an armed man on the Sixth Floor but it wasn't Oswald. If he saw Oswald with a rifle on the Sixth floor, there would've been no reason to pressure Givens to alter his testimony (assuming that Givens was pressured by someone to change his account of that day):

Did Givens actually say it was "Mr. Lee" at the window, or like Sawyer, did Revill confound Givens' statement? What exactly did Givens say to the police? A witness to Given’s statement was a secret service agent named Mike Howard. Howard related his account to Fort Worth Star Telegram reporter, Thayer Waldo, on 9 February 1964, apparently unaware that Waldo was a newsman. According to Waldo,

"Mike Howard then explained that the negro witness had been arrested in the past by the Special Services office of the Dallas Police for gambling; and, since he was familiar with that branch of the Dallas Police, he immediately gave himself up to that branch. Mr. Howard alleged that he had visited the negro witness while he was in custody of the Special Services in the Dallas Jail."

Waldo quotes Agent Howard as saying,

"Wait till that old black boy gets up in front of the Warren Commission and tells his story. That will settle everything. Yes, sir. He was right there on the same floor, looking out the next window; and, after the first shot, he looked and saw Oswald, and then he ran. I saw him in the Dallas Police station. He was still the scaredest nigger I ever seen. I heard him tell the officer, "Man you don't know how fast fast is, because you didn't see me run that day." He said he ran and hid behind the boxes because he was afraid that Oswald would shoot him." (CE 2516)

None of this may be a problem for Mr. Bugliosi, but for those of us who insist on a reliable account of the events that day, the implications are horrendous. If Charles Givens saw Lee Harvey Oswald shoot the president, then why on earth would he not tell the FBI and the Warren Commission? Or if he did not see Lee Harvey Oswald shoot the President why did he claim that he did? Was Givens a pathological liar? If so, then none of his statements should be used as evidence. Alternatively, were Inspector Sawyer, Lt. Revill and Agent Howard lying? In May 1964 the FBI interviewed Agent Howard (CE 2578) who adamantly denied that he had ever told Waldo that Givens had seen the assassin. The FBI then interviewed Waldo (CE 2579) who was equally adamant that Howard had said exactly that. Mark Lane, on retainer with the Oswald family, complained in a letter to the Secret Service that Howard had made up the story and planted it with the press in order to falsely incriminate his client’s son. The larger concern is not that any of these officers were lying – but that they might have been telling the truth. The problem is that Waldo’s version of Howard’s story meshes with the accounts by Revill and Sawyer.

Givens’ deposition is full of holes. He states that after retrieving his jacket he left the building and walked to a parking lot at the corner of Main and Record and was there when the President went by. He further states that he was walking in front of the Record Building when he heard gunfire [6 WCH 351]. At some point he decided to return to work and tried to reenter the book depository but was refused entry by the DPD who by this time had locked down the building.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-_Bugliosi_Parses_the_Testimony.html

Do witnesses normally give contradictory testimonies as often as seen in the accounts of JFK assassination investigation witnesses?


Yes, I believe that is typical.


Hard physical evidence is more reliable. When deciding which witness accounts to believe, corroborating physical evidence is helpful. Having an alternate theory and finding a witness account to support it is what CTs tend to do. That’s why there are so many different conspiracy theories. And one of the main reasons I decided to take a fresh look at the case with an open mind…

[Jon Banks]

Hard physical evidence is more reliable. When deciding which witness accounts to believe, corroborating physical evidence is helpful. Having an alternate theory and finding a witness account to support it is what CTs tend to do. That’s why there are so many different conspiracy theories. And one of the main reasons I decided to take a fresh look at the case with an open mind…

We agree that hard evidence is more reliable than eye witness accounts.

Thomas does a decent job of deconstructing the eye witness accounts from the Book Depository in his essay but I highly recommend Sylvia Meagher's book, "Accessories After The Fact" on this topic (the Book Depository witnesses).

And with all the conflicting evidence and eye witness accounts we're left with is what Jesse Curry said:

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."

[Jerry Organ]

We agree that hard evidence is more reliable than eye witness accounts.

Thomas does a decent job of deconstructing the eye witness accounts from the Book Depository in his essay but I highly recommend Sylvia Meagher's book, "Accessories After The Fact" on this topic (the Book Depository witnesses).

Meagher, a New Yorker, had a huge bias against the South and thought the Dallas Police was among those "Accessories". When she found out Lifton was being friendly to Liebeter, she tore into him.

And with all the conflicting evidence and eye witness accounts we're left with is what Jesse Curry said:

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."

You're expecting the Oswald evidence to be on Hollywood-quality film? Or for you and fellow Conspiracy Theorists be given a front row seat through time-travel?

I think Curry meant "we don't have anyone who had a clear nearby view who watched Oswald shoot the President". His department, whom he said in his book performed with honor, found and processed plenty of circumstantial evidence tying Oswald to the assassination. Critics look at those items in isolation but, in totality, the evidence is persuasive to reasonable people.

[Alan Ford]

Question!

How do you know when a Warren Gullible is uncomfortable with a subject?

Answer!

He talks about anything BUT that subject! 

We've seen it a hundred times before, and we're seeing it again from the usual suspects on this thread.

Here, once again, is the elephant in the room which the Warren Gullibles are doing everything they can to deflect attention from:

In 1993, Mr. Harold Norman let out some startling information-----------------------------

“Why the fifth floor? Why not the sixth floor, or the seventh floor?”
“Well, at first, we were going to do it on the sixth floor, but they were working, they were putting down some flooring, some 3/8” plywood, so there was quite a bit of noise, and they were painting up there too."
[...]
“So there was an outside contractor doing the work on the floors, right?”
“Right. There was a crew of about five or six, maybe up to eight men.”
“Were they only doing work on the sixth floor?”
“At that particular time, I think they were. They were planning on doing something up on the seventh floor after they were finished with the sixth floor.”

Those of us who find it hard to believe that Mr. Norman just imagined these men out of thin air will be able to tune out the Warren Gullibles' off-topic speculative fantasies about Mr. Oswald, who (let us remind ourselves) was not even involved in the floor-laying project!

 

[Alan Ford]

Now!

For plywood to be laid, it would first need to be brought into the building, yes? In (one presumes) long boxes or packages------much longer than any of the book boxes used in the Depository.

Easiest way in the world to smuggle in a rifle or two.