EYE WITNESS IDENTIFICATION vs. MIS-IDENTIFICATION:

Knowing the truth about the Kennedy Assassination is understanding America today.

Moderators: kenmurray, dankbaar, Bob, Dealey Joe

EYE WITNESS IDENTIFICATION vs. MIS-IDENTIFICATION:

Postby Bruce Patrick Brychek » Sat May 20, 2017 4:43 pm

05.20.2017:

Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:

EYE WITNESS IDENTIFICATION vs. MIS-IDENTIFICATION:

12.05.2015 - I Originally Posted the below information and material.

FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION PLEASE CONCENTRATE ON THE SECTION WHERE I WRITE: EXAMPLE.

12.05.2015

Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:

TIGER IN THE RAIN, by Robert Clayton Buick, 2006, was First Published by Author House, on 02.14.2006.
Printed in the United States of America, Bloomington, Indiana.

This is the Second of Ten (10) books chronicling the life history, and times of Robert Clayton Buick. His
acquaintances, associates, business contacts, Chicago Outfit Contacts, CIA contacts, enemies, FBI contacts,
friends, governmental contacts, Mafia Contacts from California, Florida, Mexico, New Orleans, New York, and
elsewhere are unbelievable - except they are true, and documented.

Robert Clayton Buick's (RCB's) involvment with Lee Harvey Oswald, David Atlee Phillips, Frank Sturgis, Richard
Case Nagell, and others were well documented, and writing about RCB in Mexico in 1963 began in 1988 by
Phillip Hemenway's book RIDING THE TIGER'S BACK.

The very first book written in 1992 was by Phillip Hemenway dedicated IN MEMORIAM OF RICARD von KLEIST,
and lays the beginnings and groundwork for the incredible life of Robert Clayton Buick. RIDING THE TIGER'S
BACK is eye-opening, in depth, and revealing about material that may be totally unfamiliar to 90% of the JFK
Research Community.

I personally think that this RCB's recounting of LHO is possibly the most important ever written about LHO.

Remember that The JFK Removal was Totally Compartmentalized, and On A Need To Know Basis. Opinions
and recollections vary. Stories and tales greatly varied. But the core of the facts remain essentially the same
from some of these inter-connected people who have spoken honestly with nothing to gain.

RCB and B spent hours conversing and reviewing The JFK Removal this week as we often do. RCB's details
about LHO, David Atlee Phillips, Frank Sturgiss, Richard Case Nagell, Johnny Rosselli, and many others is
overall very exacting for a man in his 80's. We have remained good friends for years, and I have learned
much from him.

As always, I strongly recommend that you make sure that you independently read, research, and study to develop
your own perspectives, and opinions on all Subject Matter's, especially JFK and Related Subject Matter Material.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

EXAMPLE: Years ago in the second week of a CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURES GRADUATE
SCHOOL CLASS, the Professor, a Former Famed Trial Court Lawyer, Trial Court Judge, and then an Appellate
Court Judge held a surprise experiment.

Two (2) male students, one blond haired, and one with brown hair, burst into the class room, and charged the
Professor. The blond male was pale skinned, and the brunette male sported a light tan.

The blond haired male yelled and screamed. The brunette haired male merely held a CAP GUN, SIX (6) SHOT
REVOLVER, and never spoke.

The brunette male fired three (3) CAP SHOTS.

Both ran out.

On the way In a Very Attractive LONG HAIRED, buxom, blond female with No Glasses held the door open,
then left. After the three (3) CAP SHOTS THE TWO (2) WHITE MALES RAN OUT, and a very studious looking,
librarian type female with SHORT RED HAIR, and Wearing Large Glasses, held the door open, then left.

The Professor then distributed a 50 Question Multiple Choice Form Questionnaire, and with 10 Essay Questions.
The "Whole Exam" was based upon Police Type Questions for Eye Witnesses Reports for a Shooting Crime Scene,
and for use for Grand Jury and Jury Trial Procedures.

This was the most seemingly perfect clinical conditions for a HAND GUN SHOOTING SCENARIO WITH TWO
(2) PERPETRATOR'S, AND ONE (1) REVOLVER HAND GUN, WITH THREE (3) SHOTS FIRED OUT OF A SIX (6)
SHOT CAPACITY.

These QUESTIONS WERE answered by 60 Above Average, High Grade Point College Graduate Students. They
were in as an ideal of witness conditions in a Graduate School, sitting in a comfortable class room environment,
good lighting, good visibility, unobstructed views, etc., etc. And immediately questioned. No discussion was
allowed until the Questionnaire was completed and collected.

Simply put there was less than 50% accuracy in all of the Test Results given immediately after the Incident,
in Near Perfect Conditions.

The Answers and Narratives ran the gamut from being slightly wrong, to appearing as if the "Eye Witnesses"
were not even physically present. Wrong hair colors, wrong racial identification, wrong sex identification,
wrong weapons, wrong number of weapons, wrong type of weapons, wrong number of shots fired, wrong
language, misidentification of both females, and speaking part mis-identifications, etc., etc.

In Some Of The Narratives, weapons were either handed from or to the blond female, and/or the red headed
female, as the Perpetrator's entered, and/or exited.

This begs the Questions about Reports about The JFK Removal 52+ years later not only from Eye Witness
Accounts, but for All Forms of Forensic, and Interpretive Analysis, days, weeks, months, years and decades
later.

Think about that as you read, research, and study yourself going forward. Read, research, and study
critically. In some cases your Analytical Opinion can be as good as,or better than, those who came before
you. My Opinion.

Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, studies, thoughts, or writings on
any aspect of this Subject Matter ?

Bear in mind that we are trying to attract and educate a Whole New Generation of JFK Researcher's who
may not be as well versed as you.

Comments ?

Respectfully,
BB.

05.20.2017 - MY POINT OF ANALYSIS FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION IS TO MERELY RAISE
EXTRA AWARENESS TO INFORMATION AND MATERIAL THAT YOU REVIEW.

By 11.22.2017 there will be 25,000 +/- PIECES OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE JFK REMOVAL OF
11.22.1963. MORE THAN HALF WILL BE OUT OF PRINT THEN, OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER.

While the Removal of JFK is one of the most analyzed, discussed, studied, and written about
Crimes and Occurrences in Modern American History and Politics, I AM STRONGLY OF THE
OPINION THAT LESS THAN 10% OF THE SALIENT INFORMATION AND TRUTH HAS BEEN REVEALED.
(05.20.2017, BB).

As always, I strongly recommend that you first read, research, and study material completely
yourself about a Subject Matter, and then formulate your own Opinions and Theories.

Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, studies, thoughts,
or writings on any aspect of this Subject Matter ?

Bear in mind that we are trying to attract and educate a Whole New Generation of JFK
Researchers who may not be as well versed as you.

Comments ?

Respectfully,
BB.
Bruce Patrick Brychek
 
Posts: 2016
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 9:09 am

Re: EYE WITNESS IDENTIFICATION vs. MIS-IDENTIFICATION:

Postby Bob » Sun May 21, 2017 3:41 pm

Bruce brings up some excellent points here. But first, Robert Clayton Buick is a key witness in regards to various instrumental people involved in the JFK assassination. His books and his discussions with Bruce add more insight as to what really went down when JFK was eliminated.

In terms of identifying or misidentifying things, there are witnesses who see the same thing differently. But there are also witnesses who just lie about what they claim they saw. I wrote about that in my Dave Perry CTKA (now Kennedys and King) story.

The situation involves how Lee Harvey Oswald got to his boarding house from the TSBD. Here is one witness account and it just happens to be from a person with great integrity and honesty, Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig:

"As I was searching the south curb of Elm Street, I heard a shrill whistle. I looked up, and it just drew my attention, and it was coming from across the street. There was a light green Rambler station wagon driving real slow west on Elm Street.

And the driver was leaning over to his right and looking up at a man running down the grass. So I immediately tried to cross the street to take these two people into custody for questioning. Everyone else was coming to the scene, these were the only two people leaving. This was suspicious in my mind at the time, so I wanted to talk to them.

But I couldn't get across the street because the city officer that was stationed at Houston and Elm had left his post and the traffic was so heavy, I just couldn't get across the street. But I did get a good look at the man coming down the grassy knoll and he got into the station wagon and they drove west on Elm Street.

That afternoon, after Officer Tippit was killed, they took a suspect into custody. I was thinking about this man getting away from me, the man who got into the green Rambler, and I called Captain Fritz at his office and gave him a description of the man I saw get into the Rambler. He told me, and I quote him, 'It sounds like the suspect we have in custody, come on up and take a look at him.'

I went into Captain Fritz's inner office, and a man was sitting in a chair behind a desk and there was another gentleman, who I assume was one of Fritz's people because he had the white cowboy hat on which was the trademark at the time of the Dallas homicide bureau.

Fritz turned to me and asked if this was the man you saw. And I said yes it was. So Fritz said to the suspect this man saw you leave, at which time the suspect became a little excited. And he said, 'I told you people that I did', and Fritz said to take it easy son, we are just trying to find out what happened here.

Now what about the car? He didn't say station wagon, he said what about the car? At which time the suspect leaned forward and put both hands up on the desk and said. 'that station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine. Don't try to drag her into this.' Then he leaned back and very disgustedly said, 'Everyone will know who I am now.' This was not brag...he was disgusted he had blown his cover or has been caught." (From Two Men in Dallas, and Gil Jesus' short video, The Green Rambler.)


The man Craig was talking about was Lee Harvey Oswald.

As we know, the Warren Commission essentially disregarded Craig. But his story today has now been fortified by pictures garnered from the Assassination Records Review Board by researchers like John Armstrong and Anna Marie Kuhns Walko.

So the Warren Commission didn't believe Craig. But they did believe the testimony of Mary Bledsoe, who was LHO's former landlady. Bledsoe said LHO got on a bus with her. This is part of her testimony:


Mr. Ball: In September of 1963, you were living there alone, were you?

Mrs. Bledsoe: No; my son was living there.

Mr. Ball: And he left?

Mrs. Bledsoe: Uh-huh.

Mr. Ball: Did you rent rooms before your son left your home?

Mrs. Bledsoe: Well, let's see, now, oh, yes; uh-huh, in September I –

Mr. Ball: Except his bedroom?

Mrs. Bledsoe: Yes; uh-huh.

Mr. Ball: When he left you rented another bedroom, did you?

Mrs. Bledsoe: Well yes; I am trying to. Haven't got it rented.

We will return to her son later. But let us first go to her identifying Oswald on the bus.

Mr. Ball. All right, now, tell me what happened?

Mrs. Bledsoe. And, after we got past Akard, at Murphy – I figured it out. Let's see. I don't know for sure. Oswald got on. He looks like a maniac. His sleeve was out here [indicating]. His shirt was undone.

(Let's jump a bit forward and continue with her identification:)

Mr. Ball. When Oswald got on, you then weren't facing him, were you?

Mrs. Bledsoe. No; but I saw that it was him.

Mr. Ball. How close did he pass to you as he boarded the bus?

Mrs. Bledsoe. Just in front of me. Just like this [indicating].

Mr. Ball. Just a matter of a foot or two?

Mrs. Bledsoe. Uh-huh.

Mr. Ball. When he got on the bus, did he say anything to the motorman?

Mrs. Bledsoe. Oh, the motorman? I think – I don't know. I don't know.

Mr. Ball. Where did he sit?

Mrs. Bledsoe. He sat about halfway back down.

Mr. Ball. On what side?

Mrs. Bledsoe. On the same side I was on.

Mr. Ball. Same side

Mrs. Bledsoe. No, sir.

(Let's jump forward again:)

Mr. Ball. Did he say anything to the motorman when he got off?

Mrs. Bledsoe. They say he did, but I don't remember him saying anything.

Mr. Ball. Did you ever see the motorman give him a transfer?

Mrs. Bledsoe. No; I didn't pay any attention but I believe he did.

Mr. Ball. Well, what do you mean he – you believe he did? Did you remember seeing him get on or are you telling me something you read in the newspapers?

Mrs. Bledsoe. No; I don't remember. I don't remember.

Mr. Ball. Did you pay any attention at that time as to whether he did, or did not get a transfer?

Mrs. Bledsoe. I didn't pay any attention to him.

Mr. Ball. Well, did you look at him as he got off the bus?

Mrs. Bledsoe. No; I sure didn't. I didn't want to know him.

Mr. Ball. Well, you think you got enough of a glimpse of him to be able to recognize him?

Mrs. Bledsoe. Oh, yes.

Mr. Ball. You think you might be mistaken?

Mrs. Bledsoe. Oh, no.

Mr. Ball. You didn't look very carefully, did you?

Mrs. Bledsoe. No; I just glanced at him, and then looked the other way and I hoped he didn't see me.


Not exactly a coherent or consistent testimony, huh?

I mentioned that Bledsoe was once the landlady for LHO a month or so before the assassination. That relationship ended because a tussle in which police were called to her boarding house because of a fight with LHO and another man. Here is that part of my article, which also discusses her son Porter:

When I asked Roger Rainwater, the head of the Special Collections division of TCU's Burnett Library, about the Mary Bledsoe arrest report, he would only say, "Although I am aware that this is part of the "folklore" of the department, I have no direct knowledge or recollection of this situation." However, the Marguerite Oswald TCU collection DOES contain another very interesting document. It is a UPI story that mentions a man named H.H. Grant, who is also mentioned in the Bledsoe police report. The report describes a tussle between one "Alek Hidell" and J. R. Rubinstein, obviously Oswald and Ruby. Bledsoe was complaining because during the scuffle, some furniture in the room she rented to Oswald was damaged. But there was a fourth person named on the report. He was listed as a witness. His name was H. H. Grant. Here is the UPI story:

Dallas, Nov. 21-UPI-"A DALLAS BUILDER TODAY DENIED THAT HE HAD BEEN ARRESTED IN 1963 WITH LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND JACK RUBY IN AN OAK CLIFF ROOMING HOUSE – AFTER A REPORTED ALTERCATION.

H.H. GRANT, 35, SAID HE WAS TAKEN TO THE DALLAS POLICE STATION "SOMETIME IN OCTOBER" OF THAT YEAR FOR QUESTIONING. BUT THAT HE AND TWO OTHER MEN ALSO QUESTIONED WERE RELEASED "WHEN IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT THE REPORT WAS A MISTAKEN ONE."

DALLAS POLICE CHIEF CHARLES BATCHELOR SAID DALLAS POLICE RECORDS SHOWED NO RECORD OF SUCH AN ARREST.

GRANT'S STORY CAME TO LIGHT RECENTLY WHEN SEVERAL DALLAS NEWS-MEN GOT WIND OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT RUBY AND OSWALD MIGHT HAVE BEEN SEEN TOGETHER AT THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE WARREN COMMISSION, REACHING THE CONCLUSION THAT BOTH APPARENTLY ACTED ALONE IN THEIR NOVEMBER, 1963 ACTIONS, INDICATED THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT LINKED OSWALD TO THE FORMER NIGHTCLUB OWNER.

GRANT, FORMERLY OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION IN DALLAS, DETROIT AND OTHER CITIES, NOW OPERATES A BUILDING FIRM IN DALLAS.

IT IS REPORTED THAT GRANT HAS RECENTLY VISITED NEW ORLEANS FOR QUESTIONING BY DIST. ATTY. JIM GARRISON, WHO IS CURRENTLY INVESTIGATING PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY'S ASSASSINATION, ALONG WITH RELATED EVENTS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE OCCURRED IN THE LOUISIANA CITY IN MID-1963. GRANT DENIED THAT HE HAD EVER MET GARRISON AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT.

GRANT DENIED HE HAD EVER MET RUBY, BUT SAID HIS WIFE..."_

The UPI story does not give a year as to when the story was written. But if the report is genuine, it was probably done around 1967 or 1968, when Jim Garrison was doing his investigation._Notice, according to this report, a version of the incident did happen. And parties were questioned about it. (In this regard, when John Armstrong tried to find the matching report at DPD HQ, he was told that since no action was taken – no one was booked or prosecuted – the original was probably routinely destroyed. Folliard, p. 32) Further, Grant does not deny being there during the incident, he just denies being arrested. Notice too that, according to the story, Grant was in the FBI at one time. Oswald and Ruby were both believed to have been FBI informants as well.

In addition to this, we also have some interesting family connections with the Bledsoes. When Mary Bledsoe died in 1969, Penn Jones wrote an obituary and a brief story was done about her in The Midlothian Mirror. Jones wrote that her son Porter was in the Louisiana Civil Air Patrol with Oswald when David Ferrie was a Captain there. Where and how Jones garnered this information is not revealed. So it cannot be certified as being accurate. (See Michael Benson's Who's Who in the JFK Assassination, pgs. 42, 133) In addition, I have learned that in 1963, Porter Bledsoe lived with his mother Mary. I have also learned that Porter went to the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. In addition, the H.H. Grant who was also named in the infamous police report never denied that he was there and had been in the FBI at one time.

If the police report is legitimate (and I stress the word 'if') then all three men in the report – Oswald, Ruby and Grant – could have been FBI informants at the time. And the rightwing Mary Bledsoe – she was reportedly a member of the Daughters of the Confederacy and the Dallas Navy Mothers Club – and her intelligence oriented son, would be willing to cover it all up. As, for obvious reasons, the Dallas Police would be after the fact. After all, they had two people involved in the JFK case in their hands over a month before Kennedy was killed.

Let me add one more possible point. It is these connections that may have allowed Bledsoe to be such a pliable and cooperative witness for the FBI and the Commission.


The bottom line in identification cases, people like Mary Bledsoe will lie (or are coached to lie). Especially regarding the events of 11/22/1963.

Another example is in the J.D. Tippet murder. Acquilla Clemons said that she saw two men involved in the attack on Tippit. She later testified that the gunman was a "short guy and kind of heavy" (perhaps Jack Ruby). The other man was tall and thin (perhaps Gary Marlow) in khaki trousers and a white shirt. The Dallas Police warned her not to repeat this story to others or "she might get hurt" if it did.

Did what Clemons saw ever get into the Warren Report? Hell no.
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5735
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

Re: EYE WITNESS IDENTIFICATION vs. MIS-IDENTIFICATION:

Postby kenmurray » Mon May 22, 2017 2:30 pm

And Yet the WC believed everything Howard Brennan said even though he was looking in the wrong direction when the shots were fired! :roll:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/key-jfk-witn ... direction/
kenmurray
 
Posts: 4903
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: EYE WITNESS IDENTIFICATION vs. MIS-IDENTIFICATION:

Postby kenmurray » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:02 pm

kenmurray
 
Posts: 4903
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:55 pm


Return to Who shot JFK, and why?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests