Just curious as to what everyone would be curious about.

I think I would ask Bowers exactly WHO ran him off the road in Ranger that day. It could very easily be the connecting piece. Of course, he's one of the few witnesses I haven't talked with for obvious reasons. I've asked all my otehr question.


-C

[quote=Carrie Gallagher-Driscoll,Aug 16 2005, 12:24 AM]
I think I would ask Bowers exactly WHO ran him off the road in Ranger that day. It could very easily be the connecting piece. Of course, he's one of the few witnesses I haven't talked with for obvious reasons. I've asked all my otehr question.


-C



[/quote



___________________________

Hi Nic,

Since you have restricted your question to LIVING witnesses, that really narrows it
for us doesn't it?

I would like to ask Gerald Ford many questions, and have him answer with the truth as to :why he pardoned Nixon, why he and Warren would not take Ruby to Dallas, what he thought Ruby meant by "a whole new form of government is going to take over our country and I will not be alive to see it' (paraphrased).

I'd like to ask darlin arlin why he still stands by the magic bullet theory.

I'd like to ask Geraldo, who was the first to show the Zapruder film on tv in 1975, why he has abandoned us....and the truth of this case. (That's an easy one tho: to further his career, which he ovbiously has).

Dawn

being a rebellious sort of chap inclined to dis obedience without meaning any disrespect to you Nic,


I'd ask Harry D. Holmes (RIP) :

Who was with you in the office that day watching the motorcade?

What were you looking for on the plaza when you picked up and discarded the piece of bone?

Did you know H.L. Hunt personally? Bookhout? You lived near them so perhaps you met them around there sometime?

Were you asked to prolong the interview so Ruby could get there?

Did you see the Backyard photos in Oswalds mail?

When did you become aware that Oswald was receiving mail from the Soviet Union?

Did you report this directly to Dulles or Helms, or did you pass this on to your boss in Washington?

How come when communications went haywire you managed to keep an open line to your boss in Washington?

When the motorcade went behind the trees around the perisstyle did you look up from your binoculars and look at the TSBD?

Why did you perjure yourself in the WC with regards to Post office regulations?

Who approached you to become an FBI informer and when?

While illegally opening mail did you become aware of details of other people around Dallas. If so, who and what?

When did the thought occur to you (in your own words) that the TSBD would be a good place to take a crack at the president?

Were you aware that Ruby was watching the motorcade from the corner of the Postal Annex?

Who rang you to check about reports that shots had been fired from the Post Office?

Why would they take your word for there not being any and never mention it again?

Who were the staff that you questioned about this?

Please supply a full list of all personel working in the Post office.

Who was your contact in the FBI?

From when were you aware of the Motorcade route?

Was the route changed to keep the Limousine as far away from the Post Office as possible because there had been a leak about possible assassination attempt?

.........

Hi Nic-

I'd ask Fidel how he managed to blow President Kennedy's head off in broad daylight on the streets of Dallas in one of the most troubling and violent episodes in our nation's history, and suffer nary a consequence from the world's most powerful and militaristic nation. Heck, he splattered one of our most popular (by today's polls) president's brains all over his constituency, and he didn't even make George's "Axis of Evil" list. That's pretty good. We've certainly effected "regime change" in other sovereign nations for a lot less.

OK, so I guess I took this thread there. My bad. Tim, before you start composing a long post, I'm just kidding around.

I guess I'd narrow it down to E Howard Hunt, George HW Bush, and Ruth Paine. They would be my top three. Problem is, they still aren't telling what they know and they appear to be ready to take their respective secrets to the grave. The key to getting answers from people who don't wish to provide them is leverage. Of course, then you're into a dangerous game.

I think the questions one would ask people like this would mostly be obvious to those in this forum. And the list of WHO would certainly be easy enough to compile. The real question is HOW you'd get them to tell you something that they have in the past declined to reveal. This is where we need some genius.

Having said all that, someone who was close to Dave Morales back in those Miami days would be high on the list. I'm really looking forward to Brad Ayers' book coming out this Fall.

Over and Out.

What questions would you ask, though? If you could sit down with them right now, what questions would you ask?

I'd ask Robert Maheu how much Hughes paid him to have Kennedy killed, just to see his response.

I'd ask Howard Hunt what the Chief of Covert Operations for the Domestic Operations Division really did.

I'd ask Gerald Ford what reason was given by Earl Warren for forbidding the doctors and Specter from even looking at the x-rays.

I'd ask Specter why he failed to tell the WC that the autopsy photo he saw contradicted the Rydberg drawings he submitted to depict the President's wounds.

I'd ask Dr. Finck and Dr. Boswell, (who I believe are still living) what was discussed between January 20th and January 26th 1967 to get them to sign the so-called "military review" which includes several outright lies.

I'd ask the same men what Carl Eardley told them while briefing them on the Clay Shaw trial.

I'd ask Ethel Kennedy what her husband really thought of the Warren Commission, and what Bobby did with his brother's brain.

I'd ask Ted Kennedy what he really believes happened.

But, if I had to narrow it down to one:

I'd ask Caroline Kennedy to have her father's body exhumed and inspected by a team of doctors picked by the family, with no connection to the government.

I'd ask Fidel how he managed to blow President Kennedy's head off in broad daylight on the streets of Dallas in one of the most troubling and violent episodes in our nation's history, and suffer nary a consequence from the world's most powerful and militaristic nation. Heck, he splattered one of our most popular (by today's polls) president's brains all over his constituency, and he didn't even make George's "Axis of Evil" list. That's pretty good. We've certainly effected "regime change" in other sovereign nations for a lot less.

Heh- just because Fidel can run a Mickey D's doesn't mean he could arrange this. And let's also remember he has a strange problem with walking and gravity. Funny thing, that.
And I don't think Fidel was there. Nor E. Howard Hunt. Nor any of the other Washington ghosts. Nixon maybe. I heard he was having a Pepsi and hurt his knee is some Rugby accident involving a briefcase and a limo bumper. BUT, I think there were about a hundred no name people like Hill, Bowers, Moorman, Hoffman. I am REALLY curious about what people would ask THOSE people if they were alive and those that ARE alive. See, Nic and I have access to most of 'em. Maybe with all of us together, we can ask the "right" questions. I THINK that was what Nic was getting into but I'm not trying to speak for her. Forgive me if I'm wrong Nic.

-C

If it mixed it up on the quotes, the answers are mine. Never tried typing like this before.

-C

That's exactly it, I need interview questions. Hah. I didn't want to mention it, but you hit the nail on the head.

I've been scribbling down ideas all day and still feel that I need more.

Pointless exercise UNLESS they are required to answer TRUTHFULLY.

Anybody worth asking would lie their heads off.

However, if TRUTH required...

1. Marina
2. Robert Oswald
3. Ruth Paine (and Michael)
4. E. H. Hunt
5. Charles Harrelson
6. Gordon Novel
7. G.H.W. Bush
8. Gerald Ford
9. Arlen Specter
10. Dan Rather
11. Tosh Plumlee
12. all medical persons who saw body
13. any living policemen/sheriffs

unfortunately most of the good ones are deceased.

Jack

Dawn wrote:

I would like to ask Gerald Ford many questions, and have him answer with the truth as to :why he pardoned Nixon

He did it to get the nation over Watergate. It was a courageous act and it did help heal the nation. He knew full well it would probably cost him the presidency, which he did.

Dawn, I assume you know that a few years ago Sen. Edward Kennedy, who had once opposed the pardon, realized from the standpoint of history Ford's decision had been correct and so he and Caroline Kennedy presented Ford with a "Profile in Courage" award (at the JFK presidential library, if I recall correctly).

What is more difficult to understand, of course, is why (unless there were pay-offs involved and there is no evidence there were) Clinton pardoned all the crooks he did as he was leaving office.

As I have posted before, what ought to be done is to have a steering committee prioritize questions to ask living witnesses and then hire a professional investigator (either an attorney with substantial experience cross-examining adverse witnesses or an experienced police investigator) and have the professional interview the witnesses face-to-face.

The assassination research community should pool resources and come up with the money to hire the investigator.

In my opinion, telephone interviews by amateurs will not work.

However, to respond directly to the question posed, I would ask Raul who the shooters were. As Dawn would say, if nothing else I am predictable! Castro may not know; Raul does.

That shade of green is not a good color on anyone, Mr. Gratz..

How do you define a professional researcher?



Where is your evidence for this statement? I hope it is not based on one of those amateurish phone calls.

John, I distinguish an "amateur researcher" from, for example, an assistant U.S attorney with at least ten years of practice or a trained police detective with equivalent experience.

I do not subscribe to the theory that Robert Blakey deliberately messed up the HSCA investigation but I think the other Sprague was hiring the right type of staff members rather than the "green" lawyers and law students who worked on the HSCA (Fonzi being an exception of course).

If I could run it and had the funds, I'd hire the most experienced district attorney who had actually personally litigated the cases and have that person question the witnesses who are still alive.

In saying this I do not mean to denigrate the contributions made by the members of this forum and other assassination researchers not so associated who have unselfishly spent their time poring over documents, etc. Indeed the research that has been so accomplished would be of tremenduos assistance should a trained experienced professional ever get on board.

Tim, you surely must admit that many of the acknowledged experts on various areas of JFK assassination research began as "amateur researchers" who had the presence of mind to either ask the pertinent questions that weren't being asked or answered, or who questioned the answers that the public was initially given and found a way to dig a bit deeper.

As Jack White has noted, truth is usually the first casualty in interviewing many of these witnesses. As far as your suggestion of an assistant U.S. Attorney, I would have my doubts that he/she would elicit any different results. And why, you might ask, would I entertain these doubts?

Because, in the practice of law, the focus is on winning a case; arriving at the truth is a secondary or tertiary consideration. As a former attorney, you surely have seen a case or two where the complete truth may have been detrimental to the outcome of the case...so much so that the attorney had to control exactly how much of the truth was exposed in order to win the case. [The O.J. Simpson case readily comes to mind in this context.]

I do like your suggestion of a "trained police detective"...particularly one who comes in unbiased. Forty years ago, such an individual who hadn't made up his mind would have been rare; today, many people have no such predisposition to believe in any particular party's guilt or innocence...primarily because, to folks under age 30, this case is considered to be ancient history, with little or no bearing on their day-to-day lives.

To my way of thinking, that's quite the double-edged sword. While they may not have any preconceived notions, they may also bring aboard a hefty dose of apathy in their carry-on luggage.

Mark, good to have a productive dialogue with you! About time, I should say.

Re attorneys, you miss the distinction that attorneys, through depositions or cross-examination, need to attempt to elicit the truth, and often from witnesses who are quite hostile. In addition, a good attorney is trained at immersing himself or herself in the details of the case.

But a trained detective would also work. I do not think you would need to worry about apathy. Any trained detective would love to be credited with cracking the case.

My point is we ought to try to get the sharpest possible person with years of interrogation experience and have that person question the still-living witnesses.

I also believe in lie detectors and suggest the witnesses ask to submit to polygraph examinations. It would be interesting to see which witnesses would decline.

I would start with the Paines and Marina Oswald.

Tim wrote:

I would start with the Paines and Marina Oswald.

I concur. I believe they know a lot more than they have ever revealed.

But since I have never been an attorney, I can only base my conclusions upon what I've witnessed...and I stand by my previous statement, that winning the case is most often a higher priority that revealing the truth [note that I said "revealing," rather than "discovering"...important difference.]

Tim, you know where this leads. While Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich was probably the wrong thing to do, and may have been done in order to get a fat contribution for the Dems, his misuse of pardons PALES in comparison to that of Nixon and Bush I. Nixon commuted Jimmy Hoffa's sentence, in exchange for the support of the Teamsters, knowing full well this meant that Hoffa would be locked out of the Teamsters for a given time and the mob would hold onto absolute control as a result. Read Hoffa's memoirs and see what he says about the commutation.

It should also be pointed out that Bush I pardoned men whose upcoming trials would involve him as a material witness. These trials would have revealed that Bush had lied to the American public about his knowledge and involvement in the Iran-Contra affair. ln this way, Bush was even worse than Nixon, who had the opportunity to pardon Haldeman and the boys, but refused.

As for Ford, you're correct that Caroline mentioned him in her update of her father's Profiles in Courage. A close look at the history of his appointment and Nixon's pardon reveals that Ford was made VP precisely because he was middle-roader and would have the credibility to pardon Nixon, and that Haig repeatedly had conversations with Ford about the pardon before Nixon agreed to resign. According to Ford there was no quid pro quo, but this was plausible deniability. When Nixon appointed Ford veep he knew Ford might pardon him if worse came to worse, and when he left office he had every reason to believe this would come to pass.

To his credit, Ford has always insisted that Nixon's acceptance of the pardon was an acknowledgement of guilt--that he had committed crimes. Some Nixon apologists insist there was no such acknowledgement, but Ford disagrees. History will probably show Ford to be an honorable man, but it's far from black and white.

Replying to Mark Knight's previous post:

I think he is tired of it (and I am concerned that he has a bias) but if Fonzi would agree to be the interrogator . . .His learning curve would be much less than anyone coming fresh to the case.

I also would like to know who sent Diosdado to interview Veciana. That might tell us something.

Mark, can't help myself here. I assume you are of no relationship to a bishop of some notoriety in this case?

I would ask GHW Bush just what he was up to in Dealy Plaza that day.

Am I allowed to use a truth serum,or perhaps a cattle prod?

Stephen, so where is his "familiar face"? Or was he "badgeman"?

Why oh why would GHWB want to elevate his Texas rival LBJ to the presidency?

Joke Tim, a joke. I dont believe anyone who was involved in planning the assassination would have been in the Plaza, just to risky.

Yeah, you've cleared my old friend Rip Robertson!

Sorry I didn't catch the joke, Stephen. (The cattle prods should have been the give-away of course.) Must be early Alzheimer's!

Took the liberty of starting a thread for possible questions for the living witnesses.

Well, I may "trump" this thread:

How about one question to Peter Goss:

Will you now at long last produce ALL the files?

Well, I guess I fudged, Goss is not, stricly speaking, a "witness".

From what others say, it might also be interesting to interview Mr. deTorres.

I would ask a special prosecutor to make this list of witnesses to testify under oath in the last investigation of the assassination, and the first "real one."

George H.W. Bush
All living former heads of the intelligence agencies( without recourse to the plausible denial crap)
Ruth and Michael Paine
All living Dallas P.D. personnel on duty that day.
E. Howard Hunt
And I would order the same intel agencies to provide all films and secret documents that haven't already been destroyed. (Obviously I am fantasizing.)

I would like to ask Jack Revill for his memoirs. (Not that he's written any to my knowledge).

Steve Thomas

[quote=Tim Gratz,Aug 16 2005, 04:45 AM]
As I have posted before, what ought to be done is to have a steering committee prioritize questions to ask living witnesses and then hire a professional investigator (either an attorney with substantial experience cross-examining adverse witnesses or an experienced police investigator) and have the professional interview the witnesses face-to-face.


Tim,
An proffessional investigator? Why not sodium penthonal? That might work? Perhaps we hypnotixe them? Keep in mind, those that go into something assuming people will lie, usually are not disappointed. I can see why you have little personal experience. What happened to the benefit of the doubt? Perhaps respect? We've had many professional commitees with extensive experience. They were the Warren Commission, the HSCA, the AARB and about every researcher that has had the pleasure of a conversation with a witness. Still not good enough? Then the result of a new one would be the same.
As for amateur phone interviews, the only person I have seen on this board that I know for a FACT has the right to make a comment like that is Mr. White. Nic has 6 years under her belt. I have 17. We may be half your age but we have the ambition to go after the answers. We ARE the only comittee these fine people allow. So, to quote a man I have little respect for, "Case Closed."

-C

PS. I have the experience and I have also done the face to face inetrviews. I also believe that "knoll rat Oakes" has most of them on video. Perhaps a shrink could analyze them for signs of distress?

I mean no disrepect but these people are very important to me as human beings. Flesh and blood not 10 point type.

I would like to ask some of the yet-inidentified witnesses near the knoll what they saw, and I'd like to ask some of the yet-unidentified witnesses near Houston-Elm what they saw. And I'd like to find out what the Oswald note said, from anybody who saw it.

I infer that you might be contemplating contacting people associated with this case. Bravo! It's a tricky thing to do, and memories have faded, but you get a different perspective on things. Not unlike how a jury likes to observe the demeanor of witnesses or defendants in a trial.

Finding them can be tricky, but not impossible. Your approach is all-important. I try to mail an inquiry and follow up with a phone call. Some of the higher-profile people have been approached many times, and some of them have had bad experiences. You need to gain some level of confidence. Coming on too strong will not work. Who wants to be interrogated? I suggest being scholarly, casual, non-threatening, with a sense of humor.

In my Ferrie work, I have contacted many lower profile people, and my educational resume makes it easier. But I have had a few encounters with high-profile types, including a couple mentioned in other lists in this thread. In one case, I recognized a person while attending a friend's wedding! I wangled an introduction, and just chatted him up a bit. I told him that I recognized him and he seemed a bit bothered, but eventually (after a drink or two) opened up.

In another case, I consciously sought another figure, and we played cat and mouse trying to arrange an interview. Surprisingly, he wanted to put his account on the record. I bought him dinner and had a fascinating chat. I ended up looking at him differently, but eventually came to feel he was not a good source for the info I sought.

It is one thing to "know" these people from books and documents; It is a different thing altogether to talk with them or meet them. It dramatically expands the context of your understanding.

Good luck!

Thanks, Stephen. :] I was given contact information by a very special person ( ) and no longer have to tirelessly search through voter registration & tax records to get addresses & phone numbers. Now, I just need to find out where to start.

It is one thing to "know" these people from books and documents; It is a different thing altogether to talk with them or meet them. It dramatically expands the context of your understanding.

That's almost exactly what I said when I first stepped into Dealey Plaza. It's one thing to see it in books, on video, in photographs - but actually standing there and knowing the landmarks, was like being shot in the stomach. It all became more real, somehow.

One thing that seems to me to be crucial is the relative positions of Connally and Kennedy, and any observations that might resolve whether Kennedy was shot with the same bullet that struck Connally.

Apart from all that I think Pat goes to the core with a request for exhumation.

Jackie Kennedy

I would ask her to compare the way that Jack looked while on the table at Bethesda with the autopsy photos of Jack's head.

I would ask her who who were the "they" who killed her husband.

How many shots were heard and where did they come from.

Why was Jack clutching his throat.

Where on his head did the shot impact.

What was the timing.

Why the Kennedy's supported the coverup and still do.

Does she feel that Hoover and LBJ were parties to the killing.

Charlie Black

Interesting questions Charlie. I was waiting to see if anyone would bring her up. I feel that the only people that know the truth are Jackie, the otehr Kennedys and of course every President since then with Executive Authority to view them.

-C

Hi Carrie and Charles

This might seem like a silly statement but you do both know, don't you, that Jacqueline Bouvier Onassis Kennedy passed away in New York City on May 19, 1994? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Kennedy_Onassis

Best regards

Chris George

Hi Chris

Not silly at all

Thanks. Am greatly indebted to you.

I knew that she had not been feeling well!

Charlie Black

I just want to re-iterate that I am serious that I think a professional trained in interrogation might make a lot of head-way in six months. I think it might take an investigator not familiar with the case one month of solid reading to get up to speed. I think it would also be interesting to discover which witnesses refuse to be interviewed.

Carrie wrote:

Tim,
An proffessional investigator? Why not sodium penthonal? That might work? Perhaps we hypnotixe them? Keep in mind, those that go into something assuming people will lie, usually are not disappointed. I can see why you have little personal experience.

I certainly do not understand your point. I would not be qualified and do not offer myself as the professional but I spent over ten years interrogating hostile witnesses.

Certainly one can learn just from doing. But by a professional investigator I mean a person with formal training, not "seat of the pants" experience.

There is a world of difference between interviewing a witness such as a bystander in Dealey Plaza who sincerely wants to help and interviewing a hostile witness who might even be a member of the conspiracy possibly facing prosecution for a capital crime.

I have great respect for Mr. Blakey and he was working, certainly, under political constraints and limitations, but I think the staff contemplated by the "other Sprague" would have been much more effective.

Does the choice of a questiober change the results! Darn tootin' it does. That's one of the reasons why rich celebrity defendants like Simpson "walk" while other defendants who may very well be innocent are sitting in jail cells.

I am sure you are sincere but (heaven forbid!) if I was ever wrongfully charged with a serious crime, I would want the witnesses against me cross-examined by a Roy Black or a Gerry Spence; not by you.

And by the way most of the attorneys on both the WC and HSCA were very young and few if any had substantial courtroom experience. That is obvious from reading the testimony. It is possible that some avenues were not explored for "sinister" reasons (read "cover-up") but some of the failings of both the WC and the HSCA can be attributed to lack of experience. Without appearing pompous (as I know I sometimes do) I can assure you, for instance, that I would have certainly been far more aggressive, for instance, in cross-examining Santo Trafficante.

Compare, for instance, RFK's grilling of Giancana before the McCellan Committee with the relatively gentle questioning of Trafficante before the HSCA. No idea why; maybe the members of the HSCA were indeed afraid of Trafficante.

So to professional experience I would also add this qualification: irrational experience. Because this indeed could be a "high stakes" game!

Should Robert Maheu be included on the "short llist" of still-living potential witnesses?

Pat?

Someone on this Forum, knowing of my interest in Maheu, asked me to submit some questions for the man a few months back. While researching the questions, I found a half dozen major gaps in Maheu's story, where his book and his interviews contradict his sworn testimony. If any octogenarian needs to be put on the stand and grilled, it's Maheu.

Now, whether or not his lies and disinfo have anything to do with his involvement in the assassination, it's hard to say.

A skilled interrogator, possessed of the results of Pat's research, might be able to reach some conclusions re the question Pat raised.

While the term "interrogator" may be correct, in the strict definition of the word, the coercion-related baggage the word has acquired thru usage in the 20th century, e.g., the "interrogators" employed by Stalin's and Hitler's regimes, makes me wonder if there might not be a more appropriate term for such an investigator.

Let's go the next step.

I wonder if people have any candidates for a--well, let's call him an investigator--just in case we should decide to take this one step further.

Again, I suggest it be an attorney, presumably in criminal law, with years of cross-examination experience, or a police detective, presumably a homicide investigator.

It could be someone you know from personal experience or by reputation only.

I don't watch television much but I am aware of the popularity of a program called "The Cold Case File" I think that deals with the solution by police detectives of older unsolved crimes. One case that comes to mind is the case of the "Green River Killer" where a dedicated police officer spent years tracking down a serial killer.

Perhaps--just perhaps--if we can put our collective wisdom together we can come up with an agreement on a few candidates and then perhaps someone would be inspired to come up with ideas to fund the engagement of an investigator for a period of six to eight months.

I think we all agree that one or both of the Paines probably know something that might at least advance the investigation. And Marina Oswald.

See my thread on Cesar Diosdado.

He should answer at least one question:

Who told him to interview Veciana after the assassination?

Does anyone think Robert Tannenbaum would be a good investigator?

(I have no idea of his current age.)

I believe he is 63.

James

How about Terry Harris? I believe he now works in security for Federal Expess.

How about E. Howard Hunt? I can think of a few questions he could probably answer should he so choose.