Message #12

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 20:22:48 -0500
From: Doug Weldon 
To: jfetzer
Subject: Re: windshield

       My latest repose to Anthony:

> Anthony:
>       Thanks for your reply and further information.  I have, of
> course,
> reviewed in the past,  the evidence you presented .  I still do not
> understand the logic of your argument.  Not only did officers Ellis
> and
> Freeman corroborate  Dudman when interviewed  Officer Ellis addressed
> the conflict with the secret service agent you alluded to.  Ellis
> stated
> " It was a hole, You could put a pencil through it.... You could take
> a
> regular standard writing pencil... and stick (it) through there."  At
> the hospital he noted "Some Secret Service agent ran up {and} said,
> "That's no bullet hole.  That's a fragment! " It wasn't a damn
> fragment.  It was a hole."  Freeman noted "{I was}  right beside it.
> I
> could of touched it.... It was a bullet hole.  You could tell what it
> was."
>      When the vehicle was examined by the FBI in Washington by the
> five
> man team from the FBI lab (the diagram I believe you referred to
> also),
> Secret Service agent Charles Taylor Jr., who observed the examination
> wrote in his report, "Of particular note was the small hole just left
> of
> center in the windshield."
>      You defend your position by misstating my argument. I did not
> claim
> that a switch took place in Dallas or when the vehicle was flown to
> Washington.  The switch took place on Monday in Detroit.  I don't
> know
> how to be more clear.  You have selectively chosen testimony that
> supports your position.  That testimony is the least reliable.  It is
> the FBI that was an active participant in the cover-up to sustain
> Hoover's mandate that there was one assassin.  A hole is very easy to
> distinguish. The sanitation began at Parkland.  However, the witnesses
> there saw a hole. When the FBI lab examined the windshield  Taylor SAW
> a
> hole.  Frazier testified in 1964.  Of course he maintained the FBI's
> position.  Helms admitted that government agents would lie under oath.
>      The official record maintains that the windshield was removed by
> the Arlington Glass Company on 11/27/97.  By that time, the vehicle
> had
> been to Detroit and back with a windshield that had been replaced and
> then damaged again to deceive any investigators.  Note that there
> observation of that windshield was  inconsistent with other
> observations.  It was clear that other switched had been made to get
> the
> "evidence" right.
>      One still cannot observe the windshield in the archives.  A well
> renown researcher from Dallas told me this week that she has reviewed
> a
> document suggesting that there may be a SECOND windshield in the
> Gerald
> Ford Library!!  I intend to investigate that
> contention as the library is only 45 minutes from my home.
>      You have yet to answer the simple question that I and Jim have
> posed again and again.  How do you authenticate CE 350?  There is
> nothing that you have presented that would prepare a foundation for
> admissibility in any court of law.  I must also respond to a
> suggestion
> that you make to the effect that eyewitness testimony is the least
> reliable of any evidence.  This assertion is a myth overplayed by too
> many television shows.  In this instance , where there are at least 5
> witnesses observing a windshield at different times, and not in
> collusion with each other, and those 5 witnesses corroborate each
> other
> with identical observations, and their observations are later compared
> to FBI testimony proven to be of a deceitful nature in other areas,
> and
> the FBI  corroboration is a heavily shadowed photograph  taken at some
> time that cannot be substantiated,  which evidence would a reasonable
> person find more reliable?
>      I have posed a very simple inquiry.  You have responded with
> answers to questions not asked and said, " There's you answer." When
> the
> question is asked again you have provided a similar response.  In a
> courtroom I would demand that you be instructed to answer the
> question.
> In its exchange, the failure to answer questions speaks loudly.  I
> have
> found such an exchange to buttress the validity of what I believe
> truly
> took place.
> With that, we open the floodgate to all the ramifications that ensue.
> We walk one step closer to the truth.