Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #123  (Read 201 times)

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1669
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #123
« on: March 13, 2018, 10:34:55 PM »
📥 "Whether you agree with him or not, researchers such as Rob Caprio for example, took the sensible initiative and saved his own research, and he is now reposting them back on the Forum.
All other members are free to do the same.” –Duncan MacRae


Disclaimer: I will no longer respond to any posts that are off topic and/or meant to derail the issue of the opening post. This should not be taken as me running, but instead seen as me keeping the topic on track.

I have no issue with any WC defender, therefore, I am happy to discuss the case in a manner that uses the actual evidence with them. IF the WC was correct in their final conclusion as they claim then this should be no problem for them.

I will not participate in any personal discussions with them as these are meant to distract and discredit instead of focusing on the JFK assassination. I come here to discuss and learn about the JFK assassination and nothing more.
No more games with the LNers. The LNers have to to discuss the WC's, HSCA's and ARRB's evidence or move along.


The Warren Commission (WC) concluded all the shots fired at President John F. Kennedy (JFK) by Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) came from one place, and ONLY one place, the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD). Then why did witnesses see things that were NOT indicative of that event?

Let’s examine this area closer now.


One witness , a railroad employee, who saw smoke near the Grassy Knoll (GK) area, and NOT the TSBD area, was James Simmons. He would be interviewed by the FBI on March 19, 1964, to hear his version of events. This became Commission Exhibit (CE) 1416. Here is what the FBI wrote in CE-1416 regarding what Simmons allegedly told them.  This can be found on page 833.

Quote on

Simmons said that he recalled that a motorcycle policeman drove up the grassy slope TOWARDS the Texas School Book Depository Building, jumped off his motorcycle and then ran up the hill towards the memorial Arches. Simmons said he thought he saw EXHAUST FUMES of smoke near the embankment in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building.Simmons then ran toward the Texas School Book Depository Building with a policeman. He stopped at a fence near the Memorial Arches and could not find anyone.

Simmons advised that it was his opinion the shots came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building. (Emphasis mine)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

Is this accurate of what he said he saw? Can anyone tell me what “grassy slope” leads TOWARDS the TSBD? Also, IF he ran towards the TSBD, why did he stop at the Memorial Arches which is obviously part of the GK area? Does this account make any sense?

In March of 1966 Simmons granted Mark Lane an interview and allowed him to film it. In the filmed interview he would say the following to Mr. Lane and he would write about it in his landmark book, Rush To Judgment (RTJ).

Quote on

In filmed interviews, both James L. Simmons and Richard C Dodd told me that they had seen smoke NEAR THE BUSHES AND TREES at the corner of the WOODEN FENCE. Simmons said the sound of the shots “came from the left and in front of us, toward the WOODEN FENCE, and there was a PUFF OF SMOKE that came underneath the trees at the embankment.” (Emphasis mine)

RTJ, page 40

Quote off

On another page Mark Lane would write this concerning what Simmons said in his filmed interview.

Quote on

He said he saw “footprints in the mud around the fence, and there were footprints on the wooden two-by-four railing on the fence.”

RTJ, page 34

Quote off

So who is correct here, the FBI or Mark Lane? We can’t go to his testimony in the twenty-six volumes because the WC did NOT see fit to call Simmons before them.  Luckily though, he was called as a witness in the Clay Shaw trail. Simmons was standing on top of the triple overpass, thus, he had a great view of the whole plaza. Here is what he said at the Shaw trial.

Q: Now at the time you heard the second and third shot did you notice anything unusual in the area of the grassy knoll?

A: Well, after I heard the shots I looked to see if I could see where they were coming from and underneath the trees up on the grassy knoll by the fence I detected what appeared to be a puff of smoke or wisp of smoke.

Q: From which direction did these noises appear to come from?

A: In front and the left.

Q: Were -- will you step down and point out on the aerial photograph the location in which you heard the shots coming from and the area in which you saw the puff of smoke?

A: I was facing this way and the sound appeared to come from this general direction over along here, and there is a row of trees along the fence and towards the end of the fence there is a small building and just this side of it a few feet is where I saw the smoke.

This testimony SUPPORTS the statements attributed to him by Mark Lane in his book, and NOT what the FBI claimed he said. Let’s continue with his testimony. [Note. Keep in mind this was given in a REAL COURT with real powers of perjury too.]

Q: Will you step back, please. After having heard these shots and seeing a puff of smoke, what if anything did you do?

A: I went around -- there is a fence like I say here, and I went around the railing on top the overpass and walked around behind the fence.

Q: And when you got behind the fence did you see anything unusual to you?

A: Well, I was one of the first ones there and uh, when we got there there was no one there but it had rained that morning and there were several footprints back and forth along the fence.

Q: What drew your attention to these particular footprints, Mr. Simmons?

A: Well, 'cause there were so many of them.

Q: Did you see any footprints in any other area but this area?

A: On the fence, on the fence. On the fence there was a wooden brace or rail and there were muddy footprints on it.

Again, we see this testimony CORROBORATES what Mark Lane said he said, but DIFFERS from what the FBI claimed he said. We see clearly that Simmons believed the shots came from the GK areas (front and left of where he was standing), and NOT the TSBD as the WC, via the FBI, claimed. Also, we see that he saw a puff of smoke that was NOT from the exhaust of a motorcycle as the WC, via the FBI, claimed. IF LHO really shot JFK as claimed, why would they need to misrepresent what was said like this?

Another railroad employee, S.M. Holland, would corroborate the footprints statement as he said this before the WC.

Mr. MORRISON - Mr. Holland, is there anything you might add to this?

Mr. HOLLAND - Well, the only thing that I remember now that I didn't then, I remember about the third car down from this fence, there was a station wagon backed up toward the fence, about the third car down, and a spot, I'd say 3 foot by 2 foot, looked to me like somebody had been standing there for a long period. I guess if you could count them about a hundred foottracks in that little spot, and also mud upon the bumper of that station wagon.

Mr. MORRISON - That is Elm Street. It would be behind the fence, wouldn't it?

Mr. HOLLAND - Well, I have got the fence running up here, and this car would be back in there [indicating]. This is the trees out here, which would--and that is approximately the same location as---the car and the trees that I saw the smoke would probably be the same location.

Mr. STERN - All right. And this was a station wagon?

Mr. HOLLAND - Now, the reason I didn't think so much about that at the time, was because there was so many people out there, and there was law enforcement officers and I thought, well, if there is anything to that they would pick that up, or notice it, but it looks like someone had been standing there for a long time, because it was muddy.

Mr. STERN - Tracks you saw in the mud?

Mr. HOLLAND - It was muddy, and you could have if you could have counted them, I imagine it would have been a hundred tracks just in that one location. It was just----
Mr. STERN - And then you saw some mud on the bumper?

Mr. HOLLAND - Mud on the bumper in two spots.

Mr. STERN - As if someone had cleaned his foot, or---

Mr. HOLLAND - Well, as if someone had cleaned their foot, or stood up on the bumper to see over the fence.

Or stood on the bumper to fire at JFK? We also have other witnesses that can corroborate Simmons story too.  In his testimony before the WC Lee Bowers said this.

Mr. BALL - Did you see any activity in this high ground above Elm after the shot?

Mr. BOWERS - At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.

Mr. BALL - On his motorcycle?

Mr. BOWERS - Yes.

This is obviously the motorcycle cop Simmons saw, but unlike the statement the FBI accredited to him the cop was NOT going up to the TSBD, but rather the fence area on top of the GK. Again, why would the FBI misrepresent what Simmons said?

Here is what he FBI attributed to Simmons again.

Quote on

Simmons said that he recalled that a motorcycle policeman drove up the grassy slope TOWARDS the Texas School Book Depository Building, jumped off his motorcycle and then ran up the hill towards the memorial Arches. (Emphasis mine)

Quote off

They made it sound like the cop rode up to the TSBD and THEN JUMPED OFF and ran to the hill, but as we see from Bowers’ testimony the cop rode his motorcycle NEARLY ALL THE WAY UP THE HILL. Bowers said this soon after his above testimony.

Mr. BALL - He didn't come then by way of Elm, which dead ends there?

Mr. BOWERS - No; he left the motorcade and came up the incline on the motorcycle.

He clearly rode his motorcycle UP the hill. He did NOT get off as the FBI claimed Simmons said. S.M. Holland would corroborate Simmons on the smoke as well as the footprints. He would testify to this before the WC.

Mr. STERN - Did you hear a third report?

Mr. HOLLAND - I heard a third report and I counted four shots and about the same time all this was happening, and in this group of trees--[indicating].

Mr. STERN - Now, you are indicating trees on the north side of Elm Street?

Mr. HOLLAND - These trees right along here [indicating].

Mr. STERN - Let's mark this Exhibit C and draw a circle around the trees you are referring to.

Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.)

There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots.

Mr. STERN - So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?

Mr. HOLLAND - It could have been the third or fourth, but there were definitely four reports.

Mr. STERN - You have no doubt about that?

Mr. HOLLAND - I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either.

He had NO doubt as to where the smoke was coming from either. This is from his 11/22/63 affidavit.

Quote on

I was standing on top of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

He was very sure the smoke he saw came from the GK area. Another witness who saw smoke or steam was Austin Miller. Here is his comment about in his affidavit.

Quote on

I saw something which I thought was smoke or steam coming from a group of trees north of Elm off the Railroad tracks.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

He too places the steam or smoke near the GK area. During his WC testimony this topic was NOT explored by the WC’s lawyer. I wonder why they were afraid to question him about this? The next witness to see smoke was Richard Dodd, and like Simmons, he was NOT called before the WC to testify. All we have is the interview Mark Lane did with him and a FBI interview with him in March 1964. The FBI report makes NO mention of the smoke issue, but Mark Lane said he told him he saw it near the trees and bushes of the corner of the wooden fence area (i.e. GK). Since we saw the statements Mr. Lane attributed to Simmons were CORRECT based on his own comments before the Shaw trial, and the FBI’s were NOT, we must assume the same here since we have nothing else to go by.

On page 40 of RTJ Mr. Lane wrote that Dodd told him that “The smoke from BEHIND the hedge on the north side of the plaza.” Mr. Lane also mentions two other witness who did taped interviews with Stewart Galanor who also said they saw smoke in the tress on the knoll.  They were Walther L. Winborn (5/5/66) and Thomas J. Murphy (5/6/66). Another witness, Clemon Johnson told the FBI that he saw “white smoke” and again the FBI would claim the witness attributed this to “motorcycle fumes.”

Quote on

Mr. JOHNSON stated at that time he did not know that it was shots and he could not say how many shots he heard. His attention remained on the vehicle carrying President KENNEDY and he observed this car until it sped away. Mr. JOHNSON stated that white smoke was observed near the pavilion, but he felt that this smoke came from a motorcycle abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

Unfortunately, we have NOTHING else to compare this comment with since he too was NOT called by the WC. Why? Given the track record of the FBI in this area we have to at least leave open the option of him NOT being quoted properly. If the WC was really out for the truth, why did they IGNORE so many witnesses?

If you think rifles circa 1940 on didn’t emit smoke when fired you would be wrong.  Once again we have the WC to thank for showing this!  In CE-3133 (a letter to Rankin from Hoover) on page 811 you will see the following comment.

Quote on

The rifle [either CE-139 or a like 6.5mm M-C] was fired both in direct sunlight and in full shade and no flame was visible. A small amount of WHITE SMOKE was visible; however, the pale orange flame from burning gases emitted from the muzzle would be visible only at night or in a darkened room. (Emphasis mine)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

Obviously, NO one was discussing an “orange flame”, but rather white smoke!  No witness that I am aware of said they saw an “orange flame”.  This letter confirms that the M-C, and obviously other similar rifles, did emit a white smoke when fired.

Once again we see the claims of the WC are sunk by their OWN evidence.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2018, 09:42:25 PM by Rob Caprio »

JFK Assassination Forum

Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #123
« on: March 13, 2018, 10:34:55 PM »

Online Jerry Freeman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #123
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2018, 09:28:17 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #123
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2018, 09:28:17 PM »