Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Testimony of the witnesses to the assassination of John F. Kennedy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete as a POV fork. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Testimony_of_the_witnesses_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy

 * Delete  This page is little more than a copy of a consiracy webpage that slants the Dealy Plaza eyewitness testimony towards the grassy knoll shot origin POV. It's basically propaganda Mytwocents 21:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] AfD? 22:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete But what website is it? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV essay, original research. MCB 04:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's been a dumping ground for conspiracy nonsense; better to start from scratch. Gamaliel 05:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, The article should be kept. - RPJ 22:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete appears to be a POV fork. Stifle 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments from RPJ
There appear to be a large number of man hours spent developing the start of a  comprehensive list of eyewitnesses. Some contributors seem to disagree with the summaries provided of the witnesses’ testimony. There certainly isn’t anything unusual about that.

What the contributor should do if he or she does not agree with the summary, is merely prepare a corrected one. Doing witness summaries are done every day. Its time consuming –but not technically beyond the ability of the average reader without paralegal training in summarizing testimony.

The answer is not to remove the work that has already been done, even if it is imperfect. Is someone suggesting that a comprehensive list of the JFK witnesses is not a good idea. With the constant stream of information coming out of the documents found under the JFK Records Act, this would be a great resource for researchers and students alike.

The references for the testimony needs supplied. This is an absolute requirement. Otherwise how can one check the summary.

__________________________________

''' No good reasons are given for deleting

The neutrality of this article is disputed because''':

1.	'''After the first paragraph, this article is all grassy knoll POV. '''

This isn’t a very specific criticism. May be some one summarized the  witnesses that testified   about the shots from the grassy knoll. If there are other missing witnesses put them in. If the summaries are not accurate; improve the accuracy.

2.	This article contains many errors of grammar and vocabulary mistakes, e.g., using "burrow" when "furrow" was meant.P0M 21:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Noted. Find the rest of the errors.. You can spell check by cut and paste through your computer’s spell checker. The same advice should be followed for grammatical errors.

3.	'''Delete. It's been a dumping ground for conspiracy nonsense; better to start from scratch. Gamaliel 05:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)'''

This isn’t a very specific criticism. May be these are the witnesses that testified about the shots from the grassy knoll. If there are other missing witnesses put them in. If the summaries are not accurate; improve the accuracy.

 "Delete" This page is little more than a copy of a consiracy webpage that slants the Dealy Plaza eyewitness testimony towards the grassy knoll shot origin POV. It's basically propaganda Mytwocents 21:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)'''

This isn’t a very specific criticism. May be these are the witnesses that testified about the shots from the grassy knoll. If there are other missing witnesses put them in. If the summaries are not accurate; improve the accuracy.


 * Delete appears to be a POV fork. Stifle 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a point of view fork. The number of witnesses is huge and cannot reasonably be included in the main article. This is is perfectly acceptable: "'Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article . . . '"

This rule applies even if the subject is controversial: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork.'"

No signs of POV forking have been established, such as repeated attempts to place information in the main article and having it repeatedly rejected by consensus. all that this article has at its core is a long list of witnesses with summaries of their statements. The rule is, just because one doen't agree with the content one shouldn't delete it but debate it and do some work on the article. Put some work at least in the explanation on why it should be deleted if not the article itself. RPJ 22:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Bold text - The entire article is grassy knoll based on the webpage that is linked on the main page |216 Witnesses to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

The unknown website author breaks it down this way using their own criteria: 216 Witnesses 52 Knoll 48 Depository 5 Knoll & Depository 4 Elsewhere 37 Could Not Tell 70 Not Asked

Well OK... Here's an example from a Dallas Deputy that pretty much sums up the value of the sound of the gunshots as a means to tell where the shots came from.

''It was hard to tell because-uh-they had an echo you know. There was actually two explosions with each one. There was the-uh-the shot and then the echo from it. So, it was hard to tell."''
 * Roger Craig
 * OCCUPATION :Dallas Deputy Sheriff
 * LOCATION : Main & Houston
 * SOURCE OF SHOTS : Could Not Tell
 * NUMBER OF SHOTS : 3
 * DEPOSITION: April 1, 1964. 6H263

So...... Here is |eye-witness testimony, given under oath, before the Warren Commision. I will point out in particular the statements of Howard L. Brennan and the young Amos Lee Euins. They saw Oswald shoot his rifle at the presidents limosine from the TSBD.

I'll conclude with this quote from the WCR: The cumulative evidence of eyewitnesses, firearms and ballistic experts and medical authorities demonstrated that the shots were fired from above and behind President Kennedy and Governor Connally, more particularly, from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. Mytwocents 04:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Mytwocents

 * The web site that is being criticized by "Mytwocents' has about the same percentage split between the witnesses as do the two researchers cited in the main JFK Assassination article (roughly 50-50).


 * The Warren Report was heavily criticized by the HSCA for not reviewing the medical records, did not try to make reasoned analysis of why the witnesses heard gunshots from different directions, nor even inquire into a conspiracy by two shooters. The Commission started off with the FBI conclusion there was one shooter, and the objective of the Commission was to convince the public that there was only one shooter and no conspiracy.


 * It is no wonder that so very few people believe the Warren Commission's conclusions.


 * The polls show only from 17% to 35% of the people believe the one shooter theory espoused by the Warren Commission.

 


 * In 1998, the Assassination Records Review Board issued this statement in footnote 17:

"Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings."




 * Mytwocents should also realize that the fact that one shooter exists (even if known positively to be true) does not in any way preclude a second shooter.


 * The official statements of well over 40 witnesses that shots came from some where else besides the Book Depository should be looked at rather than dismissing them because someone else states that he doesn't seem to know where the shots came from. Using that logic, many prosecutors would likely lose perfectly good cases. He has plenty of witnesses, but defense counsel trots out a couple of witnesses that testify "I couldn't really tell you what I saw and heard", and on that basis the defendant goes free. Does tha make any sense?


 * This is the reason for assembling all of the witness statement, researcher can make up their own minds. For many years the Warren Commission kept much of its proceedings secret, and took its testimony in secret.

RPJ 01:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Another good example of why witness testimony is important

 * The testimony of Deputy Craig cited by "Mytwocents" provides another good example why actual witness testimony is important; and the first step towards getting testimony all sorted out and analyzed is getting it summarized. This is an invaluable help. One should never stop at summary but it is a great place to start.

Deputy Roger Craig gave these statements:

On Nov 22, 1963 Roger Craig. was a  Deputy  Sheriff near the scene of  the assassination. He was up looking for evidence near the railroad tracks right after the shooting. He talked to witnesses that saw two men together up on the sixth floor of the Book depository before the shooting and one had a rifle with a scope on it.

Then he was across the street from the grassy knoll about 15 minutes after the shooting and said “ I saw a light-colored station wagon, driving real slow, coming west on Elm Street from Houston. . . . And the driver was leaning to his right looking up the hill at [a] man running down.”

He said in a written statement the man was running “from the direction of the book depository, and jump into [the] station wagon driven by another man that drove away quickly.”

Deputy Craig testified: “I kept thinking about this subject that had run and got in the car. So, I called Captain Fritz' office and talked to one of his officers and--uh--told him what I had saw and give him a description of the man, asked him how it fit the man they had picked up as a suspect [Oswald]. And--uh--it was then they asked me to come up and look at him at Captain Fritz' office.”

Then Deputy Craig said in a written statement, that “later that afternoon I went to the City Hall and identified the suspect they had in custody as being the same person I saw running down this hill and get into the station wagon and leave the scene.” Then, while Deputy Craig was there identifying the man, Captain Fritz then asked "What about this station wagon?" and the suspect interrupted him and said, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine"---I believe is what he said. "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."

Captain Fritz then said “All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and this man saw you leave from the scene."

And the suspect again interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you people I did.. Everybody will know who I am now."

Now for those who have read about Oswald know that  Mrs. Paine is the very woman that Oswald’s wife was living with, and in whose garage Oswald allegedly stored his rifle.

This information seems to have collided with a favorite theory of the Warren Commission that Oswald made his get-away after assassinating the president by taking  a bus and have some evidence they claim to have rounded up to thatt effect. The Warren Commission did not want to find an accomplice. So they tried to shake the deputy’s story which seems to be a useful tactic “Have you discussed with Sheriff Decker the fact that when Oswald was picked up they found a bus transfer in his pocket? Mr. CRAIG - No; I knew--uh nothing about a bus transfer.”

Then he is asked again if he was sure of his identification and tried to shake him again but again the deputy stuck to his story.

Mr. BELIN - Do you feel, in your own mind, that the man you saw at Captain Fritz's office was the same man that you saw running towards the station wagon? Mr. CRAIG - Yes, I feel like it was. Mr. BELIN - Do you feel that you might have been influenced by the fact that you knew he was the suspect---subconsciously, or do you Mr. CRAIG - Well, it's---it's possible, but I still feel strongly that it was the same person.

Now, at this point the reader must remember that the Warren Commission didn’t want any accomplice picking up Oswald when he was making a run for it. J. Edgar Hoover is on record wanting to convince the public that Oswald did this alone, and the Warren Commission’s objective was convince the public that there was no conspiracy. Hoover and a deputy attorney general drafted amemo to form the commission and said "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large." It is still a mystery why this should have been an objective.


 * Conclusion

This is why the testimony of all the witnesses should be available, indexed, summarized and otherwise made available to the public to historians, and importantly to criminal prosecutors. There may be murderers still running around that need to be arrested, tried and convicted of killing the president. There is no statute of limitations on murder.

RPJ 05:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.