[Ben Holmes]

Mary Ann Moorman, an eyewitness to the assassination equipped with a Polaroid camera, was positioned in a strategic location in Dealey Plaza. She was standing with her friend, Jean Hill, across the street from and southwest of the Depository. Consequently, as she took a picture of the approaching motorcade the Book Depository formed the backdrop. Her camera was aimed, providentially, a trifle higher than the occasion demanded, and her photograph therefore contained a view of the sixth-floor of the building, including the alleged assassination window.

Mrs Moorman thus became a most important witness and her photograph an essential part of the evidence. Her presence at the scene and the fact that she did take the picture were vouched for by Mrs Hill when she testified before a Commission attorney. An FBI report filed by two agents discloses that they both interviewed Mrs Moorman on November 22. On that same day she signed an affidavit for the Dallas Sheriff's office. Deputy Sheriff John Wiseman submitted a report in which he said that he talked with Mrs Moorman that afternoon and that he took the picture from her. Wiseman stated that in examining the picture he could see the sixth-floor window from which the shots purportedly were fired. 'I took this picture to Chief Criminal Deputy Sheriff, Allan Sweatt, who later turned it over to Secret Service Officer Patterson,' Wiseman said. A report submitted by Sweatt reveals that he also questioned Mrs Moorman and Mrs Hill on November 22 and that he received and examined the photograph. Sweatt said that 'this picture was turned over to Secret Service Agent Patterson'.

Since Mrs Moorman had used a Polaroid camera, the consequences were twofold: she was able to see the picture before it was taken from her by the police; she was not able to retain a negative. She told the FBI that the picture showed the Book Depository in the background, a fact confirmed by the two deputy sheriffs who also saw it.

Mrs Moorman was a witness with inordinately pertinent evidence to offer. Pictures of her in the act of photographing the motorcade appear in the volumes of evidence published by the Commission and in the Warren Commission Report itself. Yet the Report makes no mention of her or of her photograph; her name does not appear in the index to the Report. Although the Commission published many photographs, some of doubtful pertinency, it refused to publish the picture that possibly constituted the single most important item of evidence in establishing Oswald's innocence or guilt.

If the photograph depicted Oswald and his rifle at the window, may we not confidently presume that it would have been published? The Commission stated that it refrained from publishing certain exhibits only if they were 'of negligible relevance' and 'because of their length or for reasons of taste'. A photograph of the sixth-floor window was quite obviously of relevance and was not too long. Nor could it be held to be offensive to 'taste', unless, as I hardly think likely, the overthrow of a theory issued as fact by seven august men could so qualify it.

Examination of another Commission explanation relating to the disposition of the evidence discloses the assertion that all items of evidence 'which are relied upon in this report' were published. This last explanation seems the most appropriate: the Moorman photograph was not 'relied upon' and was therefore suppressed.

[David Healy]

(09-13-2016, 03:20 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Mary Ann Moorman, an eyewitness to the assassination equipped with a Polaroid camera, was positioned in a strategic location in Dealey Plaza. She was standing with her friend, Jean Hill, across the street from and southwest of the Depository. Consequently, as she took a picture of the approaching motorcade the Book Depository formed the backdrop. Her camera was aimed, providentially, a trifle higher than the occasion demanded, and her photograph therefore contained a view of the sixth-floor of the building, including the alleged assassination window.

Mrs Moorman thus became a most important witness and her photograph an essential part of the evidence. Her presence at the scene and the fact that she did take the picture were vouched for by Mrs Hill when she testified before a Commission attorney. An FBI report filed by two agents discloses that they both interviewed Mrs Moorman on November 22. On that same day she signed an affidavit for the Dallas Sheriff's office. Deputy Sheriff John Wiseman submitted a report in which he said that he talked with Mrs Moorman that afternoon and that he took the picture from her. Wiseman stated that in examining the picture he could see the sixth-floor window from which the shots purportedly were fired. 'I took this picture to Chief Criminal Deputy Sheriff, Allan Sweatt, who later turned it over to Secret Service Officer Patterson,' Wiseman said. A report submitted by Sweatt reveals that he also questioned Mrs Moorman and Mrs Hill on November 22 and that he received and examined the photograph. Sweatt said that 'this picture was turned over to Secret Service Agent Patterson'.

Since Mrs Moorman had used a Polaroid camera, the consequences were twofold: she was able to see the picture before it was taken from her by the police; she was not able to retain a negative. She told the FBI that the picture showed the Book Depository in the background, a fact confirmed by the two deputy sheriffs who also saw it.

Mrs Moorman was a witness with inordinately pertinent evidence to offer. Pictures of her in the act of photographing the motorcade appear in the volumes of evidence published by the Commission and in the Warren Commission Report itself. Yet the Report makes no mention of her or of her photograph; her name does not appear in the index to the Report. Although the Commission published many photographs, some of doubtful pertinency, it refused to publish the picture that possibly constituted the single most important item of evidence in establishing Oswald's innocence or guilt.

If the photograph depicted Oswald and his rifle at the window, may we not confidently presume that it would have been published? The Commission stated that it refrained from publishing certain exhibits only if they were 'of negligible relevance' and 'because of their length or for reasons of taste'. A photograph of the sixth-floor window was quite obviously of relevance and was not too long. Nor could it be held to be offensive to 'taste', unless, as I hardly think likely, the overthrow of a theory issued as fact by seven august men could so qualify it.

Examination of another Commission explanation relating to the disposition of the evidence discloses the assertion that all items of evidence 'which are relied upon in this report' were published. This last explanation seems the most appropriate: the Moorman photograph was not 'relied upon' and was therefore suppressed.

adds to Harold Weisberg's determination, the Warren Commission (Whitewash-Photographic Evidence) wanted nothing to do with in-camera *original* photographic evidence. I have no doubt if published, the 6th floor alleged sniper window image would have been cropped out entirely or, the image 'published' contrast levels would have been such where you could see absolutely nothing in the window area...

[Patrick C]

It is perplexing that IF there was indeed another Moorman photo that it is missing from  the evidence.

However there is no doubt that a rifle was seen pointing out of the 6th floor SE corner window as it was seen by at least 5 and possibly 6 people as I recall and it was seen as the sound of shots was heard.

It is possible that IF Moorman did take an earlier picture that she did so when the assassin was not visible - or for example was indescernable given the rather poor quality of the camera and film.

It is also possible that there was no earlier picture and than Moorman only took one picture.

[Ben Holmes]

(09-17-2016, 12:10 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  It is perplexing that IF there was indeed another Moorman photo that it is missing from  the evidence.

In cases where it's beyond dispute that there were photos missing - such as the interior shots of JFK's chest - you don't appear "perplexed" at all. Why is that, Patrick?

Or will you publicly state that you're perplexed at the missing interior photos?
 

(09-17-2016, 12:10 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  However there is no doubt that a rifle was seen pointing out of the 6th floor SE corner window as it was seen by at least 5 and possibly 6 people as I recall and it was seen as the sound of shots was heard.

It is possible that IF Moorman did take an earlier picture that she did so when the assassin was not visible - or for example was indescernable given the rather poor quality of the camera and film.

This is a silly hypothesis... it offers no explanatory power to the question of why it was covered up. If it showed nothing, then there was NO REASON WHATSOEVER that it wouldn't be retained as evidence. Not showing an assassin simply means it was taken seconds before or seconds after he was at the window.

But if the photo DID show an assassin, it must have clearly contradicted the official story... either by demonstrating that it wasn't Oswald, or by showing that there were two people there - as some witnesses have stated.

The only real and credible reason for the disappearance of this photo is that it contradicted the emerging story.

This is only simple logic, and it's "perplexing" as to why you couldn't come up with it on your own...

 

(09-17-2016, 12:10 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  It is also possible that there was no earlier picture and than Moorman only took one picture.

Only by labeling the witnesses as liars or morons. You clearly disbelieve that the Sniper's Nest was in view on the photo.

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

(09-17-2016, 12:10 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  However there is no doubt that a rifle was seen pointing out of the 6th floor SE corner window as it was seen by at least 5 and possibly 6 people as I recall and it was seen as the sound of shots was heard.

It is possible that IF Moorman did take an earlier picture that she did so when the assassin was not visible - or for example was indescernable given the rather poor quality of the camera and film.

This is a silly hypothesis... it offers no explanatory power to the question of why it was covered up. If it showed nothing, then there was NO REASON WHATSOEVER that it wouldn't be retained as evidence. Not showing an assassin simply means it was taken seconds before or seconds after he was at the window.

It did not venture an argument as to cover up IF the picture actually existed.

Can  you not understand plain English!

---

Ben Holmes Wrote:Only by labeling the witnesses as liars or morons.

I did not state Moorman was a moron nor any other witness.

I actually met Mary Moorman twice in Dallas in the 80s and found her to be a very pleasent lady so I would never describe her as you suggest.

Do you get pleasure from just making stuff up Holmes....or do you just deliberately lie?

[Ben Holmes]

(09-17-2016, 04:22 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:

(09-17-2016, 12:10 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  However there is no doubt that a rifle was seen pointing out of the 6th floor SE corner window as it was seen by at least 5 and possibly 6 people as I recall and it was seen as the sound of shots was heard.

It is possible that IF Moorman did take an earlier picture that she did so when the assassin was not visible - or for example was indescernable given the rather poor quality of the camera and film.

This is a silly hypothesis... it offers no explanatory power to the question of why it was covered up. If it showed nothing, then there was NO REASON WHATSOEVER that it wouldn't be retained as evidence. Not showing an assassin simply means it was taken seconds before or seconds after he was at the window.

It did not venture an argument as to cover up IF the picture actually existed.

Can  you not understand plain English!

Of course. As I prove time and time again...

You made the hypothesis that the photo disappeared because it DID NOT show the assassin.

I point out how silly such an hypothesis is - since it has no explanatory power over the fact that the photo disappeared from this case. (despite multiple witnesses to it's existence)

I have trouble believing that you can't understand this. You keep complaining that others can't understand plain English - yet you continue to fail to do so.

Let me break it down in simple words.
 

• FACT: The photo doesn't exist.
  
• FACT: It's original existence was asserted by multiple witnesses.
  
• FACT: It's completely consistent with the above facts, and with credible reasoning, that the photo disappeared from the record FOR A REASON.
  
• FACT: You provided reasoning that fails to fit the facts.
  

So I merely point it out. You know that the evidence shows that the photo originally existed... yet you provide a silly reason why it disappeared.

What's so difficult for you to follow?
 

---

 

(09-17-2016, 04:22 PM)Patrick C Wrote:   

Ben Holmes Wrote:Only by labeling the witnesses as liars or morons.

I did not state Moorman was a moron nor any other witness.

Yes Patrick, you did.

You imply that the photo never existed, yet Mary Moorman says that it did, and says that it showed the 6th floor.

You refuse to deal with the contradiction - even though I point it out.
 

(09-17-2016, 04:22 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  I actually met Mary Moorman twice in Dallas in the 80s and found her to be a very pleasent lady so I would never describe her as you suggest.

Do you get pleasure from just making stuff up Holmes....or do you just deliberately lie?

Where's the lie, Patrick?

You imply that Mary Moorman either lied, was mistaken, or was a moron. There must be SOME EXPLANATION why she described a photo you imply never existed. Yet you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to give it. Why the cowardice, Patrick? Why do you keep running from the evidence?

Give a credible reason - and if you keep refusing to do so, don't complain when people draw the natural conclusions...

There's absolutely no reason to believe that the photo didn't exist. NONE AT ALL! It has multiple independent witnesses to it's existence.