On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:16:13 PM UTC-6, Donald Willis wrote:
Turnabout: Guinyard undercuts Callaway undercuts Guinyard
In "Ted Callaway & the '55 feet'", we found Sam Guinyard contradicting, compellingly, Callaway's claim that the latter was, at the closest, about 55 feet away from the man with the gun, who (said Callaway) was running down the west side of Patton.
Never to be outdone--Callaway wasn't shy about criticizing fellow witnesses like W.W. Scoggins and Domingo Benavides--Callaway, in turn--with the west-side story assigned (and apparently happily accepted by) him--Callaway undercut Guinyard's claim that
the latter saw the gunman knocking out shells all along the (east) sidewalk of Patton.
Guinyard: "Just as [the gunman] come around the corner on Patton, he cut through the yard and missed the corner on 10th... He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol... [Benavides] picked up all them empty hulls that come
out of the gun..."
Counsel Ball: "Where were they?"
Guinyard: "Laying across the yard as he kicked them out all around the sidewalk." (v7pp397-399)
Callaway: "[The gunman] had come through this yard and cut behind this taxicab, over to this side of [Patton]... the west side of the street..." (v3p353) Nowhere in his testimony does Callaway mention the man discarding shells. Again, an inexplicable
little contretemps. Of course, if Callaway had backed Guinyard's story of the shells, he would have, at the same time, negated his own story of a "mistake" re an automatic, which he could not or would not then have made. That is, he could not have seen
both manual discarding of shells *and* loading of an automatic. The Guinyard story cannot be reconciled with the Callaway story. Ironic, because, individually, the two stories have the same goal--positing the presence of a revolver on Patton.
Now if Guinyard had cut off his story of the shells right at the point where the gunman is discarding them, it might have had some traction. However...
A lesser implication of Guinyard's testimony is that he pointed out the shells on Patton to Benavides. But another, more serious one is that Benavides picked up *all* the shells the shooter left behind. Benavides himself testified that he picked up
shells only from the front yard, on 10th; Guinyard says that Benavides picked up shells on Patton, too. That is, the shells that the Davises testified that they pointed out or picked up. Guinyard is undercut by everyone on this point.
Guinyard doth witness too much, it seems. Like Callaway, he seems to be bending over backwards, in his own way, to help the police nullify reports of an automatic at the scene. Callaway has the gunman shunted over to the west side of Patton; Guinyard
brings him right back, scattering shells on the east side. They can't both be wrong. Or can they?
They can--they effectively make a hash of each other's testimony. Together, they have the gunman running down both sides of the street, at the same time, shouting from one side, discarding shells on the other side. The magic Oswald. Both, in fact, ID'd
Oswald in a lineup, but it can't be ruled out that, once again, they were just trying their darnedest to help out the authorities. If they can't agree on what they saw, it's hard to take their word re *who* they saw. And was it the shooter, an accomplice,
or some vigilante with a gun? Maybe the two were *not* together, and one saw the shooter or an accomplice, the other saw a vigilante.
At any rate, the man, or one of the men, thus spotted was wielding an automatic, although the detritus of the respective, dueling testimonies of Guinyard and Callaway was meant to suggest, but oh so haplessly, that the gunman--whoever or whatever he
was--was wielding a revolver. Both versions were credibly undercut, Callaway's by Guinyard, Guinyard's by everyone else. Even his buddy Benavides ("Donnie") couldn't help him.
dcw
The Warren Commission forged testimony making it hard to figure out and argue.
"What the Commission did was to publish a printed version but in Volume 1 of the Report the Commission states that it reserves the right to edit the testimony edit the transcript to improve the accuracy and the clarity of the witness's statement. Doesn't
that frighten you a little bit?" Mark Lane
Most of the text from my webpage on Warren Commission altering documents:
Neither Callaway nor Guinyard apparently read nor signed the testimony produced for them by the Warren Commission.
Benavides may have read his testimony but if so I have found no record of it being read nor signed by Benavides.
Mr. BELIN. Now you have a right, if you want to, to come back and read the deposition and sign it, or you can just rely on the court reporter’s accuracy and
waive the signing of it. Do you want to waive it or not?
Mr. BENAVIDES. I would like to read it.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BENA~IDES. Maybe I could add something I didn’t add.
Mr. BELIN. All right, I will ask the court reporter to trr and get in touch with you.
Mr. BENAVIDEB. 3112 June Drive.
Mr. BELIN. She can reach you at Dootch Motors?
Mr. BENAVIDES. D‘ootch Motors.
Mr. BELIN. What is the address?
Mr. BENAVIDES. 501 East Jefferson.
Mr. BELIN. You did get notice of the taking of this deposition here today?
Mr. BENAVIDES. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. You are here voluntarily appearing in front of the Commission?
Mr. BENAVIDES. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Well, we surely appreciate all of the cooperation you have
shown here, sir, and if there is anything else that you think is important, we would appreciate your getting in touch with us.
Mr. BENAVIDEB. That is the reason I wanted to read this, in case I might
have left out something.
Mr. BELIN. Would you please thank whoever is the general manager at Dootch Motors for letting you come here and appear before us?
Mr. RENAVIDRR. That is Mr. Harris.
Mr. BELIN. Thank you very much.
<begin quotes>
In his memo, ["WC assistant counsel "] Hubert wrote:
"1. At the [WC] staff meeting on Friday, I raised objections to 'editing' of the transcripts of depositions; but I did not make one objection which I thought of later and what perhaps is stronger than any else I made."
Later in the memo, Hubert added:
"4. With regard to unsigned depositions, the foregoing is also applicable. A waiver of signature certainly does not include permission to alter ['alter' is crossed out and 'change' handwritten in] meaning...."
<end quotes>
from
http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/FBI_Swipes_the_Evidence.htm
People who indicated the Warren Commission altered their testimony
Lee Bowers
Jean Hill
Don Archer
Sandra Styles
Roger Craig
Sam Holland
Ken O'Donnell
Victoria Adams
<begin quote>
In any evaluation of the Warren Commission as a fact-finding body, the historian would have to consider if the Commission itself allowed or participated in any adulteration of the record. If they did, this would cast serious aspersions on their honesty
and objectivity. Bugliosi does not address this serious point. But it should be addressed since there is evidence that it occurred.
For instance, John Hart Ely was the commission staffer responsible for putting together chronologies of Oswald and his mother Marguerite. After this was done, on April 10, 1964, Albert Jenner wrote a memo to Rankin about it. It read in part, "Our
depositions and examinations of records and other data disclose that there are details in Mr. Ely's memoranda which will require material alteration and in some instances omission." (Armstrong, p.960)
In James Cadigan's original deposition he revealed that the FBI had some of the Dallas evidence the night of the assassination. They then returned it to Dallas within 2-3 days. Evidently, Hoover did not want the public to know this at the time. So
someone drew lines through that part of Cadigan's testimony and then wrote the word "delete" in the margin. So that part of his deposition does not appear in Volume VII of the Commission volumes. (ibid, p. 908)
Lt. Don Archer of the DPD told the HSCA that he originally refused to sign his deposition for the Commission. There were too many discrepancies between what he said and what appeared in the transcript. He was instructed by his commanding officer to
correct the differences and return it to the Commission. He did. But when it was returned for his signature, he again refused to sign since there were even more discrepancies. So he again corrected it and returned it to the Commission. But when returned,
it still had errors in it. This time he made the corrections and was ordered to sign it. But he was told to make the corrections in pencil, not ink. (ibid p. 960))
Archer is not the only one who complained about this practice. As we saw in Part 2, Sandra Styles also said her testimony was changed. When I interviewed the late Jim Rose, he told me that he saw Roger Craig at a party at Maggie Field's house when they
were both working for Jim Garrison. Field had the Warren Commission volumes there. Craig pulled out the one containing his testimony and indicated several places where his words had been changed.
One of the key Dealey Plaza witnesses was S. M. Holland. In 1966, Josiah Thompson interviewed him for his book Six Seconds in Dallas. Holland was reluctant to talk to Thompson. Thompson insisted that he only wanted to find out the truth. Holland said he
had heard the same thing from the Commission, who had then altered his testimony. Even after he corrected it. (Thompson pgs. 83, 112)
There is also the instance of White House assistants Ken O'Donnell and Dave Powers, who were in the motorcade that day. O'Donnell told Congressman Tip O'Neill about how his testimony was changed. He said he first told the FBI that shots came from the
front of the limousine. The FBI discouraged him from repeating this. So when he testified before the Commission he changed his story by altering the direction of the shots. (Tip O'Neill, Man of the House, p. 178) Dave Powers reinforced this later. When
he was interviewed he was being constantly interrupted because what he said did not jibe with the Commission's theory. Powers' published affidavit was unsigned by any witness and does not bear the name of the Commission counsel who oversaw its
preparation. Lamar Waldron found the original in the National Archives. It shows that Arlen Specter prepared the altered document. (Legacy of Secrecy, p. 308)
A famous example of evidence tampering is in Oswald's radio debate in New Orleans with Ed Butler and Bill Stuckey. When asked how he lived in Russia, Oswald slipped up. He said, "Well I worked in Russia and I was under the protection of the United States,
uh, I was under the uh that is to say, I was not under the protection of the United States Government." The printed transcript in the Commission volumes inserts a 'not' before 'under' in the first phrase, thereby altering its meaning.(Robert Groden, The
Search for Lee Harvey Oswald, p. 74; WC Vol. XXI, pgs 638-39)
<end quote>
from
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk.moderated/browse_thread/thread/784b80b7cd240dec/753b5269757f0177?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=altered+testimony+bowers
<begin quote of jack white>
REGARDING ALTERED TESTIMONY...WAIT TILL YOU SEE A PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN DOCUMENT JUST UNCOVERED BY JOHN ARMSTRONG. IT IS A COVER-YOUR-ASS MEMO WRITTEN BY A STAFF WC LAWYER ADVISING AGAINST ALTERING AFFIDAVITS AND
TESTIMONY AS HE OBSERVED WAS BEING DONE, SAYING IT WAS NOT ONLY ILLEGAL BUT **DANGEROUS** IF DISCOVERED. I WILL ASK JOHN IF I CAN POST IT. IT IS A BOMBSHELL. JOHN IS BUYING COPIES OF HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS DAILY FROM THE ARCHIVES, MOST OF WHICH ARE
PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN. HE IS FINDING STUFF WHICH WILL CHANGE THE COURSE OF ASSASSINATION STUDY. HE BROUGHT ME ABOUT 70 OF THE NEW DOCUMENTS TODAY TO SHOOT SLIDES OF.
<end quote of jack white>
"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. " - Will Rogers
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)