Conspiracy Theory Forum

[pio]

THE POSNER REPORT: A Study In Propaganda: One Hundred Errors in Gerald Posner's Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK
by David Starks
Copyright 1997, Imagi-Vision, Inc.


Gerald Posner's book Case Closed received almost universal praise in the media when it was released just before the thirtieth anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He appeared on many television and radio programs promoting his book and the lone assassin theory. The Case Closed dust jacket contains several famous authors hailing it as if it was, at long last, the final solution to the crime of the century. According to these authors, Case Closed is, "a long-awaited, much needed antidote to the conspiracy theorists", (1) "an account of the Kennedy assassination devoid of speculation", (2) "a brilliant and meticulous analysis", (3) "a model of historical research" (4) and "a deliberate, detailed, thoroughly documented, sometimes brutal, always conclusive destruction of one Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory after another." (5)

Despite this praise, I believe it can be conclusively demonstrated that Case Closed is not what these seemingly impressive pronouncements proclaim it to be. Did these enthusiastic supporters actually read the book? Perhaps they did. Did they check the sources for his information? If they did, it is unlikely they would have endorsed a book that presents such a distorted view of reality. The uncritical acceptance of his work by the media appears disgraceful, but in many cases they were probably just victims of Posner's deception. The arguments in Case Closed do seem convincing to those not intimately familiar with the vast body of published information and evidence on the assassination. The few writers who tried to call attention to Mr. Posner's inaccuracies went mostly unheard due to the small number of persons that subscribe to the obscure publications in which they appeared.

Many of these Posner-related articles were collected and permission was obtained from the authors to reprint them. These articles are now available on the Internet as the first issue of the Electronic Assassinations Newsletter or EAN. In the newsletter you will see articles provided by Professor Peter Dale Scott, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Martin Shackelford, Professor Jerry Rose and others. Access to this newsletter is free to anyone who visits the Web site at http://assassinationweb.com/ . A large amount of the raw information contained in this newsletter formed the basis of this article. I also carefully read Mr. Posner's book, and Harold Weisberg's book-length answer to Case Closed entitled Case Open. Many of Posner's references in the volumes of the Warren Commission, the volumes of the House Select Committee on Assassinations and other books were checked and double-checked.

The importance in challenging Posner, in my opinion, has long-term benefits. One benefit is that, in the creation of this list, I believe that a convincing and well documented record is established that demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the case is not "closed." Secondly, this effort should serve as a caution that all future work by this author must be viewed with suspicion. This analysis (or a shorter version of it) could be published in a periodical that concerns itself with the question of journalistic integrity. It would be interesting to see if "media watchdogs" show interest in Gerald Posner.

There is also the fact that Vincent Bugliosi (who won a guilty verdict in a televised mock trial against Lee Harvey Oswald in 1986) is coming out with a lone assassin-oriented book. Bugliosi has gone on the record about Posner in a recent interview in the April 1997 issue of Playboy Magazine. Bugliosi stated that he is aware of Posner's tendency to avoid or deceive when confronted by something that doesn't fit his theory. He seems to be suggesting that he's about to take the lone-assassin theory to a new level. I hope the kind of scrutiny found in this article can be applied to Bugliosi's book at an early time. If his intent is to publish an even more sophisticated misrepresentation, it should be pointed out as he is in the process of promoting the book. If he's honest about his theory then it will be interesting to see how he responds to criticism. Mr. Posner has not been very cooperative when it comes to addressing the problems with his questionable assertions concerning the case.

The assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963, perhaps more than any other single event, defines the time at which Americans began to seriously doubt the reliability of what the government tells us. From that point on, the public gradually lost trust in government, our institutions and our elected officials. This has been an ongoing public relations problem for the government and its agencies, in light of other assassinations, revelations of spying on American citizens and the various political scandals in the years since 1963.

In a recent Time magazine we see an article by Posner about the Oklahoma City bombing case. (6) It is ironic that, in this article he seems to be arguing the case that there are one or more conspirators that were involved in the bombing that are still on the loose. At the end of the article we see that Gerald Posner is now working on a book about the Martin Luther King assassination. The King family recently came out in support of James Earl Ray's innocence and are advocating a trial for Ray to settle the question of conspiracy. Can we expect Posner to be truthful, to accurately state the facts of the case and to act with journalistic integrity in his evaluation of this explosive issue?

The mistakes are listed in order of appearance in the book. I will cite the page number of Case Closed that it appears on, explain the error and give references for any who have interest in checking the actual sources. These one hundred errors were selected from a larger list. Errors that appear more than once are treated as one item. I offer a challenge to Posner and his apologists to refute the examples that I present and explain how these all could be accidental or innocent errors.

Harold Weisberg pointed out something interesting in his book-length response to Posner's work entitled Case Open. At the end of Case Closed, Posner acknowledges help from Peter Earnest (who is listed as "the chief of the CIA's Office of Public and Agency Information"). Mr. Earnest was described by Posner as being "very generous in his assistance." (7) Harold noticed the fact that Posner does not credit a single reference in the end notes (out of over 2200) to Mr. Earnest or the CIA. (8) He does cite confidential intelligence sources a couple of times in his end notes. (9) Is keeping the identity of these people secret done because they are active intelligence agents (and must remain anonymous for legitimate security reasons) or is it to prevent any challenge to the truthfulness of the information?

Posner engages in citing non-existent testimony, refers to testimony that actually shows the reverse of what is implied, embraces discredited witnesses, combines witness testimony into composites to misrepresent the meaning and violates his own stated principle that "Testimony closer to the event must be given greater weight than changes and additions made years later." (10) At the end of each item, I will indicate whether the error falls on the side of strengthening the argument for the lone assassin theory (L), falls on the side of likely conspiracy (C) or neither (N). At the end of item number one hundred I will exclude those items that have no bearing on either conclusion and do a simple statistical analysis that compares the percentage of lone assassin errors versus mistakes that would indicate conspiratorial possibilities.

Some of the misrepresentations are so obvious (after checking his cited sources) that it appears likely that he had to know that much of what he was saying was wrong. In his relentless efforts to discredit those who feel Oswald was not a lone assassin, Posner claims that an increasing amount of published work is a "dangerous mixture of good information with a liberal dose of falsehoods." (11) This statement was intended as an attack on the Warren Commission critics but there are writings on both sides of the case that fit this description. One of them is the book Case Closed

read more of this article here
http://www.assassinationweb.com/ecc.htm

[pio]

POSNER AND WITNESS TESTIMONY: A FEW EXAMPLES
by Barb Junkkarinen

Like any author, Posner is, of course, entitled to his opinons and conclusions. He is not entitled, however, to provide his readers with incorrect information as compared to the facts on record from official documents. And that is exactly what he does time and again. That is the only thing I criticize him for, debating his conclusions is a whole other bowl of beans. You want some examples? Here's a few.

One of my personal favorite Posnerisms is his treatment of the death of Mary Sherman. While I do not see her death as having had anything to do with the assassination, Posner chose to include her in his chapter on debunking mysterious deaths, so he has to live with what he wrote.

This is all Posner has to say about Sherman's death, from page 496 of Case Closed :

"Dr. Mary Sherman (house fire) had no connection to the case, though she was acquainted with David Ferrie. Marrs says she was 'possibly shot'. According to medical records, she was killed in an accidental fire, and there was no gunshot wound on her body."
Well, he's got it partly right, no gunshots. But I am left wondering just what "medical records" he got his information from when he wrote that she died in an accidental fire! According to her autopsy report she died of multiple stab wounds, then, her bedding was placed on top of her body and set afire in her own house! Now that is SOME accident! Maybe Posner should have checked old issues of the New Orleans papers if he was confused by the "medical records." Her murder was front page news.
Here's another assertion of Posner's that is blatantly opposite of available testimony. On page 223 of Case Closed , Posner says:

"The following morning when the alarm sounded, it was Marina, half-asleep, who urged him to get up. USUALLY, MARINA PREPARED BREAKFAST FOR HIM, but that morning she remained in bed." [emphasis mine]
Marina's testimony to the Warren Commission, from Vol. I, page 66:
"In the morning, he got up, said goodbye, and left, and that I shouldn't get up -- AS ALWAYS, I DID NOT GET UP TO PREPARE BREAKFAST. THIS WAS QUITE USUAL." [emphasis mine]
Posner plays it fast and loose with the facts. And all in a way that leads the reader to see things the way he wants.
Posner also makes it seem odd and unusual that Oswald came to the window at the Randle home that morning. "He never came up to our house before," he quotes Frazier. What he doesn't quote is the part of Frazier's testimony where he says that generally, Frazier was already out by the car before Oswald came down the street. Frazier was running late that morning. And when he saw Oswald, he looked at his watch and realized that. But that wouldn't make it sound like Oswald was acting out of character that morning, now would it?

From Frazier's Warren Commission testimony, Volume II: [emphasis mine]

FORD: Did this different method of him meeting you raise any questions in your mind

FRAZIER: No, sir, it didn't. I just thought maybe, you know, he just left a little bit earlier BUT WHEN I LOOKED UP AND SAW THAT THE CLOCK WAS, I KNEW I WAS THE ONE RUNNING A LITTLE BIT LATE because, as I say, I was talking, sitting there eating breakfast and talking to the little nieces, IT WAS LATER THAN I THOUGHT IT WAS.

[pio]

Those on the news groups have seen how Posner mangled the testimony of Linnie Mae Randle and Wesley Frazier on how Oswald allegedly carried the "bag." This was the bag presented by the Warren Commission, allegedly used by Oswald to sneak the rifle into the building where he worked. Posner, by merging parts of two people's testimony into one, serves to make readers (unfamiliar with the actual testimony) believe that the package was actually long enough for Lee Harvey Oswald to have concealed the murder weapon that he supposedly brought into the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of the assassination.

Posner adds an interesting footnote on page 225, where he claims that Frazier:

"later admitted the package could have been longer than he thought,"
and quotes Frazier as saying:

"I only glanced at it... hardly paid any attention to it. He had the package parallel to his body, and it's true it could have extended beyond his body and I wouldn't have noticed it."
Hmmmm. Posner cites that from London Weekly Television, "Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald". The problem, and error, is that unless that show changed Frazier's *original* testimony to the WC, what Frazier was talking about there was NOT the LENGTH of the package, but the WIDTH. They had quite a discussion about that during his testimony before the WC and they certainly clarified the point. Frazier said the package could have extended out IN FRONT of Oswald's body.... beyond the width of his hand... and Frazier would not have been able to see that because Oswald was walking in front of him. They got into this discussion because the bag the WC showed him was a bit wider than Frazier remembered.

Why did Posner choose to cite a television mock trial (from many years later) rather than Frazier's original testimony to the Warren Commission? It seems he broke his own rule here about the earliest being the best. Not only that, but someone posted the exchange Frazier had at the "trial" on the news groups, and he said nothing remotely similar to the quote Posner gives his readers. That quote is from Frazier's WC testimony and refers to the width of the bag, not the length. Only a reader very familiar with the evidence would be aware of that. Here's the exchange from Frazier's testimony, Volume II, pg 241: [emphasis mine]

Mr. FRAZIER. Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his
hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL. But you said a moment ago you weren't sure whether the
package was longer or shorter.
Mr. FRAZIER. And his hands because I couldn't see that about the
package.
Mr. BALL. By that, do you mean that you don't know whether the
package extended beyond his hands?
Mr. FRAZIER. This way?
Mr. BALL. No; lengthwise, toward his feet.
Mr. FRAZIER. NO; NOW I DON'T MEAN THAT.
Mr. BALL. What do you mean?
Mr. FRAZIER. What I was talking about, I said I didn't know where
it extended. It could have or couldn't have, out this way, WIDTHWISE NOT LENGTHWISE.
Mr. BALL. In other words, you say it could have been wider than
your original estimate?
Mr. FRAZIER. Right.
Mr. BALL. But you don't think it was longer than his hands?
Mr. FRAZIER. Right.

Continuing along with Frazier..... How did Posner do on how he presented what Frazier said happened upon arrival at the TSBD that morning??
In Case Closed, Chapter 11, page 224, Posner says:

"When they arrived at the Book Depository, Frazier parked the car in the employee lot behind the warehouse. Usually, they went in together, but on that morning, though they were early, Oswald quickly left the car and walked ahead."
That does sound sinister, doesn't it? But what did Frazier actually say? There's a BIG difference!

From Warren Commission, Vol. II, page 227:


FRAZIER: He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he walked down behind the car and STANDING OVER THERE AT THE END OF THE CYCLONE FENCE WAITING FOR ME to get out of the car, and so quick as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I was starting out just like getting out of a car, he started walking off and so I followed him. [emphasis mine]
What Frazier does not mention in that exchange, but does state elsewhere in his testimony, is that he sat there for a few minutes with the engine running to charge up his battery. And, remember, he testified, that Oswald was WAITING for him during this time. When Frazier got out, Oswald started walking and got further and further ahead of Frazier, not because Oswald was in a hurry, but because, as Frazier testified, he had plenty of time and was watching the trains and switching going on in the railroad yard.

Here's that exchange from Frazier's testimony, VolumeII: [emphasis mine]

FRAZIER: So, eventually there he kept getting a little further ahead of me and I noticed we had plenty of time to get there and because it is not too far from the Depository and usually I walk around and watch them switching trains because you have to watch where you are going if you have to cross the tracks.
One day you go across the track and maybe there would be some cars sitting there and there would be another diesel coming from there, so you have to watch when you cross the tracks, I just walked along and I just like to watch them swith the cars, SO EVENTUALLY HE KEPT GETTING A LITTLE FURTHER AHEAD OF ME and by the time we got down there pretty close to the Depository Building there, i say, he would be as much as, I would say, roughly 50 feet in front of me BUT I DIDN'T TRY TO CATCH UP WITH HIM because I knew I had plenty of time SO I JUST TOOK MY TIME WALKING UP THERE. Posner's presentation has Oswald practically bolting from the car and leaving Frazier in the dust. Obviously, from Frazier's own testimony, that is not the case. Oswald didn't rush ahead, Frazier lagged behind to watch the trains!

Here's the bottom line. Posner attempts to make it appear that Oswald was acting out of character that morning, and Posner used, in every sense of the word, selective, misapplied and misstated cites from the documentary record to lay that foundation. With the exception of the Mary Sherman debacle, the rest of the errors presented here all appeared on just three consecutive pages in the original hardback edition of Case Closed (pgs 223-225). Personally, I expect better from someone purporting to close the case.

[pio]

The Posner Follies - Part 1
by
Wallace Milam
CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE OBSERVATIONS OF CERTAIN PARKLAND DOCTORS AS REPORTED IN THE OFFICIAL RECORD AND AS REPORTED BY GERALD POSNER IN "CASE CLOSED"



Background

A. The first issue to be examined is whether or not the Parkland doctors could (and did) observe the President's head wound in the emergency room between 12:38 and 1:00 on November 22.

Posner writes: "...it is questionable to rely on the Parkland doctors for any assertions about the head wound since, by their own admission, they did not examine it in detail." (p. 308)

As will be noted below, the previous record of statements by the doctors in question tells quite a different story about the degree of observation of the head wound.


B. The second issue concerns the nature of the head wound, its location and its character.

C. Are the statements made to Posner and included in his book "Case Closed" consistent with the previous statements, made under oath as parts of official investigations?


Dr. Marion Jenkins


A. The issue of observation and examination

1. Dr. Jenkins told Posner: "We were trying to save the President, and no one had time to examine the wounds." (p. 309)

2. BUT THE RECORD IS QUITE DIFFERENT:

a. On Friday afternoon, just hours after treating Kennedy, Jenkins wrote these words:

"These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after they were carried out attention was turned to all other evidence of injury." He then proceeds to describe the head wound. (CE 392, Warren Report, p. 530, emphasis added)

b. Testifying before the Warren Commission on March 25, 1964, Jenkins stated: "Almost by the time I was--had the time to pay more attention to the wound in the head, all these other activities were under way..." He then lists some of the activities he helped with before noting: "and then turned attention to the wound in the head." He also stated. "...my mental appreciation for a wound--a wound in the neck, I believe, was sort of-was overshadowed by recognition of the wound to the scalp and skull plate." (Hearings and Exhibits, Volume VI, p. 48)

c. In a deposition for the House Select Committee on Assassinations on November 10, 1977, this report is made:

He [Jenkins] said the President's thick shock of hair largely covered up the head wound. However, Dr. Jenkins was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the clearest views of the head wound (believes he was "...the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.") His location was customary for an anesthesiologist. (HSCA Hearings, Volume VII, p. 286, emphasis added)

d. In addition to Dr. Jenkins' sworn statements concerning his ability to see the head wound, we have this from the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Paul Peters, who was also present in the emergency room:

PETERS. "It was pointed out that an examination of the brain had been done. Dr. Jenkins had observed the brain and Dr. Clark had observed the brain and it was pointed out to Dr. Perry that it appeared to be a mortal wound." (Hearings and Exhibits, VI, p. 70)

B. The issue of the damaged cerebellum

1. Jenkins told Posner: "The description of the cerebellum was my fault. When I read my report over, I realized there could not be any cerebellum." (p. 311)

2. BUT THE RECORD IS QUITE DIFFERENT:

a. On Friday afternoon, in CE 392 Jenkins wrote that the brain was damaged "to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (Warren Report, p. 530, emphasis added)

b. Four months later, long after he had had time to "read his report over," Jenkins testified before the Warren Commission: "Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound." (Hearings and Exhibits, Volume VI, p. 48)

c. Fourteen years later, in his HSCA deposition, Jenkins still had not corrected his "mistake." "He [Jenkins] noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) was hanging out from a hole in the right-rear of the head." (HSCA Hearings, Volume VII, p. 287)

d. Of further note: Jenkins has never stated, under oath, that his was not cerebellar tissue. Also, at the American Forum in Dallas in June, 1992, Jenkins did say that if there was one thing he would like to change about his testimony, it would be his statement identifying the cerebellum. In point of fact, he had ample opportunity to do so in 1977, but did not do so.

C. The issue of the location of the head wound

1. Jenkins, according to Posner "The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and the protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital." (p. 312 emphasis added)

2. BUT THE RECORD IS QUITE DIFFERENT:

a. CE 392, November 22, 1963: "There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital). (Warren Report, p. 530, emphasis added)

b. In his HSCA deposition in 1977: "Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out--it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone." (HSCA, Volume VII, p. 287)

c. It is almost humorous that, of the bones of the sides and rear of the head, the parietal bone (where he now locates the wound for Posner), far from being where he had located the wound previously, is a bone that Jenkins did not even mention in his sworn testimony!

read more of this article here
http://www.assassinationweb.com/milam1.htm

[pio]

The Posner Follies - Part 3
by
Wallace Milam
WHAT GERALD POSNER DECIDED TO TELL READERS--AND KEEP FROM THEM--IN THE TESTIMONY OF RICHARD WORRELL, AMOS EUINS, AND HOWARD BRENNAN


Introduction
1. In his pursuit of the truth about the Kennedy assassination, Gerald Posner is said to have been the most meticulous of researchers. According to both his Random House publishers and the fawning account by Gerald Parshall in U. S. News & World Report's, promotional article for Case Closed, Posner left no stone unturned. The lawyer had to fully reappraise a massive evidentiary record.... reindexed all 26 volumes of Warren Commission testimony and the 1979 report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations and cross-referenced material in hundreds of books and articles. Then, to fill gaps not bridged by his labyrinth of 3-by-5 cards, he did more than 200 interviews of his own. (U.S. News & World Report, August 30, 1993, pp. 63-64)


2. It is reasonable to assume, then, that Posner claims to know this case. (That is certainly the impression his publisher has attempted to create; and, if one can judge from Posner's appearances on recent documentaries dealing with the case, from PBS' Frontline to "JFK: The Final Chapter? on CBS, the media establishment has designated him the ranking authority on this case.)


3. It follows that when Gerald Posner distorts the testimony of eyewitnesses to the assassination by selecting from their sworn testimony only those portions which suit his own conclusions while ignoring their other statements--often made at the same time and recorded on the same pages--he must have been aware both of the whole record of the witness and of the fact that he was abusing that record by borrowing from it what he needed and failing to report that which he most definitely did not need.

4. Posner himself laid down impressive ground rules for assessing the worth of eyewitness testimony. On page 235 of Case Closed he wrote, "Testimony closer to the event must be given greater weight than changes or additions made years later, when the witness's own memory is often muddled or influenced by television programs, films, books, and discussions with others." He then repeatedly violated his own standard. When confronted with two very different and unequal records: contemporaneous reports and/or sworn statements on the one hand, compared with recollections taken informally by himself or others some twenty to thirty years after the fact, Mr. Posner, when it suited his purposes, chose to cite the latter while ignoring the former, and to blur--for the reader-- the distinction between the two. It must be concluded that this man (as an expert) was aware of what he was doing, and have had his own motives in skewing the evidence.

5. In writing of the eyewitnesses to the actual shooting in Dealey Plaza, Posner reported on the accounts given by. Richard Worrell, Amos Euins and Howard Brennan. In Posner's version of the information provided by these three people, found on pages 247-250 of Case Closed, he employed both techniques mentioned above: selective use of the record and substitution of later, informal accounts for contemporaneous and sworn testimony.


James Richard Worrell, Jr.
1.According to Gerald Posner (Case Closed, p. 247)
A. Posner correctly places Worrell in front of the Texas School Book Depository, almost directly beneath the sixth floor window at the time of the shots, drawing from Worrell's Warren Commission testimony, found in Volume III, pages 190-201.

B. He accurately relates that Worrell thought the first shot came from over his head, looked up and saw the rifle protruding from a high window.

C. Worrell described the rifle as having about 4 inches of the barrel showing beyond the two inches of wooden stock which was visible. The remainder of the weapon was hidden by the window.

D. Worrell was able to actually see the gun fire, emitting a flash of light and a small quantity of smoke.

E. Posner then gives us his version of the importance of witness Richard Worrell to this case: "His description of a long wooden stock with only four inches of barrel exposed at the end of the rifle, exactly describes Oswald's Carcano."

F. With that comment, Posner puts Worrell aside, having used him for his purposes.

2. According to the Official Record
A. Posner does not see fit to mention two other items which Worrell gave to the Warren Commission and which the Commission memorialized on the same pages Posner cited: Worrell heard four shots (not Posner and Officialdom's three) and Worrell saw a man run out the back of the School Book Depository and rush south on Houston Street just after the shots were fired.

B. Worrell's statement that he heard four shots occurs first on page 193 of Volume II, the very page from which Posner chose to selectively quote. Worrell repeated his recollection of four shots twice more during his testimony.

C. After hearing (and apparently seeing) the shots fired, as well as seeing President Kennedy slump in the limousine on Elm Street, Worrell panicked and ran, turning north on Houston Street and headed out of Dealey Plaza. He stopped to get his breath and saw a "w/m, 5'8" to 5' 10", dark hair, average weight for height, dark shirt or jacket open down front, no hat, didn't have anything in hands, come out of the building and run in the opposite direction from me." This statement was part of an affidavit sworn by Worrell to the Dallas authorities on the morning after the assassination. In this same affidavit, Worrell told of hearing four shots and of seeing the rifle protruding from the window and firing. He had returned to his home in nearby Farmers' Branch then contacted the local police when he heard that Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry was asking that anyone who was an eyewitness to the shooting come forward.

D. In the Warren Commission testimony so selectively ignored by Posner, Worrell said the man was in his twenties or early thirties, wore a dark jacket and light pants, and was last seen headed south into Dealey Plaza. Commission Exhibit 361, labeled by Worrell during his testimony, placed the fleeing man at the south curb of Houston, just past Elm, headed in a southerly direction. In Worrell's words, "He went on further." (2 H 196)

E. Worrell certainly fits the profile of an important witness: present during the event, advantageous viewpoint, came forward immediately, no important contradictions in his accounts. Yet Posner shows no interest in the assertions about the fleeing man, only in the claims that some of the shots came from the TSBD and that the rifle looked like Oswald's Carcano.

F. Incidentally, his detailed description of the rifle's stock and barrel is not a part of Worrell's original statement given on the 23rd. When he was shown his affidavits, Worrell offered several corrections. One involved the rifle:


SPECTER. Is there any other respect in which your current recollection differs from the affidavit?

WORRELL. Well, I left out on the barrel of the rifle, I left out part of the stock. I didn't recollect that at that time. (2 H 199--emphasis added)


So that part of Worrell's testimony which Posner finds to be footnote-worthy is something which he did not include in his contemporaneous statements but recalled later.

G. What Posner lacks in methodology he makes up for in audacity. His final mention of Richard Worrell comes in a chapter attempting to debunk the "mysterious deaths." It is very "lawyerly" :

James Worrell (car accident) was a Dealey Plaza witness who testified in detail about the Carcano rifle he saw fire the shots from the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Book Depository. His testimony supports the Warren Commission conclusion about the location of the assassin." (Case Closed, p. 495--emphases added)

H. Worrell never once gave even the slightest indication that he saw a Carcano rifle, only that he the gun he saw had four inches of metal barrel showing beyond the stock. Posner simply performs another of his frequent permutations of "might have been" into "fact." Notice the careful phrasing of how Worrell "supports the Warren Commission." Only in terms of the location of some of the shots (Worrell never claimed to have seen the fourth shot fired from above his head.) Worrell's evidence is decidedly at odds with the Commission (and Posner) in terms of the number of shots fired, so that small item is not mentioned. And, of course, there is no reference at all to Worrell's having seen a man hurrying from the rear of the Book Depository.

read more of the article here
http://www.assassinationweb.com/milam3.htm

read more about posner here
http://qwstnevrythg.com/2010/02/case-cl ... r-exposed/

[pio]

"In Dallas in early 1963, Oswald shot at General Edwin Walker, an out-
spoken right-winger, through Walker's home window. Later that year,
the abusive Oswald separated from Marina, living under an assumed
name in a rooming house while Marina stayed with a Russian-speaking
friend, Ruth Paine. Oswald got a job at the TSBD through a reference
>from Paine's neighbor."

there is no physical evidence that oswald shot at walker in fact a witness saw two men ,one man put some thing on the back seat of a car and both men drove off in seperate cars ,this alone tends to exonerate oswald of the walker shooting as he could not drive . of course marina said he did it but then we have to look at marinas reliability and credibility as a witness which i will do on another thread .

the author said oswald was living under an assumed name ,well yes he was registered as o h lee ,oswald said the landlady simply misheard him but certainly its difficult to prove either way .

" Though he had previously only stayed with Marina at the Paine's on
weekends, Oswald spent the Thursday night before the President's visit
there. He left most of his money and his wedding band on Marina's
dresser. He wrapped his disassembled rifle in paper and rode to the
TSBD with a co-worker, claiming the long package contained curtain
rods. Late in the morning, Oswald constructed a barricade with boxes
on the sixth floor of the TSBD. He assembled the rifle and shot three
times as the President passed by. The first shot missed, the second--the
so-called "magic bullet"--hit JFK and Connally, causing seven wounds,
and the third hit JFK in the back of the head"

the author neglects to say that oswald stayed over with marina for example at hollidays , and he hadnt stayed at all the week prior to the shooting . the author tells us oswald left his wedding ring and most of his money ,but neglects to mention that oswald woke up late for work and so only had time to make a sandwich and grab an apple . in oswalds haste he may have left his wedding ring on the dressing table all tho that is disputed ,however the money that was found was not left there by oswald that morning or the previous night . oswald left a wallet at the paines house and when ever he stayed over night he would put some money in this wallet for marina and the kids ,so this money was not left that morning or the previous night it was likely building up in the wallet for weeks .

the author tells us that oswald wrapped the rifle in paper but neglects to mention some important info ,that the package was never filmed or photographed in situ in the snipers nest /that the witnesses said the package was 24 to 27 inches long max but the carcano was 35.8 inches long even when broken down /that this package was strangely devoid of prints (but it did have prints ) considering it was supposedly assembled and carried by oswald /the author neglects to mention that the paper bag was forensicly checked and the expert could find no evidence marks or abrasions that the broken down rifle or any other rifle was ever in the paper bag .the author says oswald constructed a barricade (this is the snipers nest ) the author neglects to mention that the staff laying the plywood floor on the 6th floor were the ones who moved all the boxes over to the south east side of the building thus creating the so called snipers nest not oswald .that said 3 prints from a total of 25 identifiable prints were found to be oswalds ,a left palm print on one box /a righ palm print on another box and one finger print .these were very heavy boxes and couldnt be lifted with one hand yet oswlad had left only one palm print ,this is more what you would expect to see when someone like an order filler leans on a box . the author says oswald assembled the rifle but makes no mention of when this was achieved .