JFK Assassination

Tipsy McSwagger

fergus o brien wrote: »

sadly miss mooremon was taking a picture ( a very famous picture ) so in that respect she didnt really see what jean saw in those vital seconds and then (as many did she dove on the floor telling jean to get down ) . there were pictures taken before jfk ever arrived on elm street and so i can only assume these are the pictures that jean was reffering to .someone may have other info on that .

This post. I'm asking about Jean Hill because you seem to regard her as a credible witness but on the other hand Mary Bledsoe as not credible.

fergus o brien

the reply i posted was in relation to a previous post which contained a link about mary mooremon ,what i was saying is that mary was taking a picture at about the time of the head shot and so was looking through the lens of her camera in the seconds before taking the picture . so in that respect she wouldnt have been able to see as much as jean hill did ,and following her taking the picture she fell to the ground but jean hill stayed on her feet for atleast a few seconds more .before jfk ever arrived on elm street mary and jean had taking a few pictures (with the book depository in the back ground ) atleast one of those pictures is missing ,i believe jean hill had made the comment that because the depository was in the background there could have been a chance that they caught some one in one of the windows or some other detail that may have been usefull .

as regards who would be the more credible withness her or mary bledsoe i would most definately have to say jean hill .for one thing we can easily prove that jean was there standing on elm street (within feet of jfks limo at the point of the head shot ) and she was some where in the region of about 30 to 40 feet from the knoll , the same cant be said for bledsoe . and her testimony of a maniacal looking oswald (wearing a torn shirt ) is not corroberated by a single witness in fact two witnesses on the bus contradict her testimony (mcwatters and jones ) both said oswald was wearing a jacket as did whalley whos cab oswald supposedly used within minutes of leaving the bus .

you have 3 witnesses who said oswald wore a jacket in the bus and in the cab and one witness who says that oswald wore only a shirt on the bus and in fact she said she could see a hole in the elbow of his shirt which is impossible if he is wearing a jacket , and the commission believed bledsoe over 3 witnesses who would contradict her for the sole reason that she said " Mr. BALL - Did he look at you as he went by? Did he look at you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I don't know. I didn't look at him. That is---I was just---he looked so bad in his face, and his face was so distorted. (6H 409)" i think the expression she used was he had murder in his face or words to the effect ,its easy to see why they believed one witness whos testimony was contradicted over 3 witnesses who said oswald wore a jacket . also it should be noted she says she didnt look at him but yet can describe his clothes /his distorted face and saw a tear on the elbow of his shirt ,also she didnt know which bus she took the marsalis or romana both of which travelled in the diection of her house . add to that they didnt bring her to a line up they were kind enough to come to her house show her oswalds clothes and a picture of oswald holding a rifle (the backyard photo ) showing her that picture was prejudicial to oswalds case and should not have happened . i appreciate she was an elderly lady but there are so many problems with her testimony and her identification of oswald that as i say she should not be relied upon .

of course there are issiues with jean hill also ,such as the dog she thought she saw inbetween jackie and jfk . yes she thought she saw a little dog between them (you must remember she had only a glance as the limo passed her ) of course there was no dog . jean hill a few minutes after the assassination told reporters what she thought she saw (she told them she couldnt be sure ) but when they started filming the reporters told her to mention seeing the dog ,but she has always maintained she saw some thing but wasnt sure what it was . there was a bunch of flowers but also someone had given jackie a present at love field which was next to the flowers and that is what jean saw .

she mentioned that there was a man shooting on the knoll (no one else has ever said they saw a man shooting on the knoll so jean is uncorroberated there ,however atleast 2 other witnesses on the railroad overpass said they smoke or what looked to be smoke on the knoll and there was a man on the knoll the fake secret service agent . that said i can see why jean would be viewed as unreliable as a witness ,and if that is your view as seems to be the case thats perfectly ok.

Tipsy McSwagger

Jean Hill actually seen a little furry toy dog in the middle of the Kennnedy's, it was given to them by a little kid at the airport I think. She was considered a bit mad for saying she seen a dog but it was cleared up about 25 years after she made the remark.

But nearly everything else she said was lies.

Its fair to say she got a taste for the fame and attention she was getting after the assassination. She is the only witness to write a book about what she seen and what happened to her later on. She always wore red until the day she died which cries out attention seeker to me. If I believed in a conspiracy (which I once did) I would disregard this woman's claims altogether.

fergus o brien

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Jean Hill actually seen a little furry toy dog in the middle of the Kennnedy's, it was given to them by a little kid at the airport I think. She was considered a bit mad for saying she seen a dog but it was cleared up about 25 years after she made the remark.

But nearly everything else she said was lies.

Its fair to say she got a taste for the fame and attention she was getting after the assassination. She is the only witness to write a book about what she seen and what happened to her later on. She always wore red until the day she died which cries out attention seeker to me. If I believed in a conspiracy (which I once did) I would disregard this woman's claims altogether.

well thats spoken like a true LN and as such is all opinion and speculation apart from the bit where you admit that a furry toy was given to jackie ans was what jean hill saw . but atleast you admit that she was not crazy or lying about seeing what she thought was a dog in between jackie and jfk ,fair enough she was mistaken but she only saw it for a split second but that shows us two things number 1 is her eyesight was quite good and number 2 that she has been wronged all these years atleast on that point .in order for someone to say a person has lied about everything its customary to offer proof of it ,you understand that in a court of law you simply saying a person is a liar is not enough proof is required .

that said i can understand why a person would doubt her ,and where there is any doubt a witnesses testimony should not be relied upon , so im happy to disregard the testimonies of both jean hill and mary bledsoe ,but are you .

you mention the fact that jean hill wrote a book what year did she write her book? (dont bother checking ill tell you ) it was 1992 all most 30 years after the assassination and only 8 years before she died . one has to wonder why a person who had a taste for fame and attention (and presumably money ) would wait 30 years to write a book .

Tipsy McSwagger

She wrote the book in 1992 because of the success and controversary of the film JFK. Even the foreword is written by Oliver Stone who used her as a technical advisor on the film. If she brought it out before the film it wouldn't have sold that much but with the American public believing the film as fact the book was timed perfectly. She also gave plenty of television interviews, appeared in documentaries, went to conventions and gave interviews to authors who were writing about the assassination well before the film.

Tipsy McSwagger

This interview took place a few hours after the assassination.

This interview took place over 25 years later.

Some major differences in her story.

fergus o brien

wether you like it or not the fact of the matter here is the book was written 30 years after the assassination and 2 years after the movie jfk ,so if she sought fame and fortune she waited a heck of a long time to do so .

but i think this is another of those agree to disagee areas .

Tipsy McSwagger

fergus o brien wrote: »

wether you like it or not the fact of the matter here is the book was written 30 years after the assassination and 2 years after the movie jfk ,so if she sought fame and fortune she waited a heck of a long time to do so .

but i think this is another of those agree to disagee areas .

JFK was released 20/12/1991
Book was released 31/03/1992

That's 99 days in the difference. She was a liar and a fame hungry woman.
I agree to disagree though.

fergus o brien

by my reckoning thats twice you have called the woman a liar and all the evidence you offered so far to show jean hill lied is a biased opinion and little else .

i post on a few jfk forums and so i speak with a lot of LNs ,some are reasonable and you can atleast debate with them ,but most argue only that all the witnesses who contradict the lone nut case are downright liars /seeking their 15 minutes of fame /crazy /not very bright ,so your attitude is par for the course .

atleast i try and stick to the evidence and testimony posted and so people can now see what mary bledoe said in her warren testimony and people can see the problems with her testimony ,i do not feel the need to insult witnesses and i wont insult mrs bledsoe i believe its sufficient to say her testimony is not to be relied upon .