Re: Palamara AND BEHN'S 'version' of "Changed Parade Route"
From: "Vincent M. and Jessica K. Palamara"
John McAdams wrote:
> On 5 May 1998 07:55:41 -0500, "Vincent M. and Jessica K. Palamara"
> >John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 2 May 1998 17:54:29 -0500, "Vincent M. and Jessica K. Palamara"
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Vince, the passage you are citing doesn't seem to mean what you're
> >> >> interpreting it to mean.
> >> >
> >> >You are entitled to your opinion ("seem" is the operative word you used).
> >> OK, here is the page you cited. Let's let everybody form their own
> >> "opinion" as to whether it says anything about "the motorcade route
> >> was to have proceeded straight down Main Street."
> >FINE: SEE BELOW FOR MY COMMENTS (WITHIN THE TEXT):
> >> VII. THE RESIDUAL ROLE OF THE SECRET SERVICE IN MOTORCADE
> >> PLANNING
> >> (A) THE MAIN STREET-HOUSTON-ELM TURN
> >> (60) As the Dallas SAIC, Forrest Sorrels told the Warren
> >> Commission, he selected the Main-Houston-Elm turn through Dealey Plaza
> >> because it was the "most direct" route to the Trade Mart. (189) Sor-
> >> 522
> >> rels' questioning by Warren Commission staff counsel Samuel M.
> >> Stern, however, prevented a total picture of motorcade route logistics
> >> from emerging.
> >[IMPORTANT POINT TO KEEP IN MIND]
> >> Stern asked Sorrels why the expressway was proached
> >> from the Elm Street ramp instead of from Main Street just beyond the
> >> triple overpass at the westen boundary of Dealey Plaza. Sorrels
> >> explained that the size and cumbersomeness of the motorcade, along
> >> with the presence of a raised divider separating the Elm Street lane
> >> from the Elm Street lane at the foot of the ramp up to the expressway,
> >> deterred him from trying to route the motorcade under and through the
> >> overpass on Main Street. Such a route would have assigned the drivers
> >> in the motorcade the almost impossible task of making a reverse S-turn
> >> in order to cross over the raised divider to get from the Main Street
> >> lane into the Elm Street lane. (190)
> >[THIS ISN'T "IT" YET, BUT READ THIS NEXT LINE CAREFULLY:]
> >> However, this
> >> question-and-answer process failed to make clear that the Trade Mart
> >> was accessible from beyond the triple overpass in such a way that it
> >> was not necessary to enter the Elm Street ramp to the expressway. The
> >> motorcade could have progressed westward through Dealey Plaza on Main
> >> Street, passed under the overpass, and then proceeded on Industrial
> >> Boulevard to the Trade Mart. (191)
> >[SOUNDS GOOD, HUH? UH OH: HERE COMES THE SOLE DPD SOURCE TO "SHOOT" THIS IDEA
> >DOWN (DARN!):]
> >> (61) George L. Lumpkin, assistant police chief in Dallas in
> >> 1963, was consulted by the Secret Service about the motorcade aspect
> >> of security planning. (192) Lumpkin explained that the alternate
> >> route
> >[ONLY ONE OF AT LEAST TWO...AND, WHO SAID IT WASN'T ALSO *THE* ROUTE, AT LEAST
> I don't see Lumpkin saying anything about any change in the motorcade
OF COURSE NOT---THAT WAS NEVER MY POINT, NOR ANYONE ELSES! THE POINT IS,
JUST AS YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT THE SAIC OF THE WHD'S HSCA TESTIMONY/ WORD
ABOUT THERE BEING A CHANGE IN THE MOTORCADE ROUTE (GERALD A. "JERRY"
BEHN), THEN I CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE THIS SOLE DPD OFFICER'S "WORD" ABOUT
> >> , continuing straight on Main through and beyond Dealey Plaza and
> >> thereby reaching the Trade Mart on Industrial Boulevard, was rejected
> >> because the neighborhood surrounding Industrial Boulevard was "filled
> >> with winos and broken pavement." (193)
> >[JFK RODE IN MORTORCADES IN OTHER LESS-THAN-IDEAL AREAS, SUCH AS IN A PART OF
> >TAMPA, A PART OF CHICAGO, AND A PART OF NY]
> I don't see how that changes the fact that the City Fathers in Dallas
> would not want to show him the seedy part of town. Had there been no
> Stemmons Freeway, they might well have been forced to go down
THERE WAS A PRECEDENT FOR THIS. AND, IN ADDITION, THERE WERE ANTI-JFK
SIGNS ALONG THE ROUTE, THE PINT BEING THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO "SHIELD"
PRESIDENT KENNEDY FROM ALL SORTS OF IMPROPER AND "SEEDY" THINGS. IN
ADDITION, I DOUBT IF JFK WOULD HAVE REALLY NOTICED OR CARED (ESP. AT THE
FAST CLIP THEY WERE GOING BEFORE ELM STREET) ABOUT INDUSTRIAL BLVD.'S
SO-CALLED "SEEDY" CONDITIONS: HE DIDN'T SEEM TO MIND THEM IN OTHER
> >> Additionally, Lumpkin stated
> >> that Kennedy wanted exposure and that there would have been no crowds
> >> cn Industrial Boulevard. (194)
> >WHAT?!?! ANYWHERE THE PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO BE, SO WOULD THE PEOPLE-'NUFF SAID.
> Huh? The big Dallas crowds were on Main Street, where a lot of people
> worked during the day. Even in Dealey Plaza the crowds were thinning
MAINLY BECAUSE OUR FRIENDS IN THE DPD DIDN'T WANT SPECTATORS IN THE CENTER
OF DEALEY PLAZA...
> There would have been even fewer people on Industrial. Makes
> more sense to get directly to the Trade Mart.
AGAIN, WHEREVER AND WHATEVER ROUTE THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE TAKEN, THE
PEOPLE WOULD HAVE WENT AND SAW HIM ACCORDINGLY...EVEN THE "SEEDY" PEOPLE!
> >HERE IT IS, AT LEAST AS FAR AS *THIS* SOURCE IS CONCERNED:
> >> (62) Advance Agent Lawson informed committee investigators
> >> that he had nothing to do with the selection of the Main-Houston-Elm
> >> turn before November 14, since only Main Street, not Dealey Plaza, had
> >> been selected for the motorcade at that time.
> >"SINCE ONLY MAIN STREET, NOT DEALEY PLAZA, HAD BEEN SLECTED FOR THE MOTORCADE AT
> >THAT TIME"!IN ADDITION, THE FOLLOWING NEWSPAPERS SUPPORT LAWSON'S CLAIM:
> Vince, this is not the same as saying that a route down Main to
> Industrial had been chosen. He seems
> to be saying that it had been
> decided that the motorcade would go down Main through the center of
> town. That's perfectly consistent with turning on Houston, or not
> turning on Houston.
> >1. CE 1361 - undated Dallas paper: Main street only;
> I can't read this from my CD. The resolution is too poor. What
> exactly does it say?
22 H 613---IT MENTIONS MAIN STREET ONLY: NO MENTION OF HOUSTON OR ELM.
> >2. CE 1364 - Dallas Morning News 11/20/63: Main street only;
> You're correct it doesn't mention Houston and Elm, BUT IT DOESN'T
> MENTION INDUSTRIAL EITHER. It just doesn't tell people about the
> route after the motorcade leaves the downtown. Yet you seem to be
> citing it as though it mentions Industrial.
NO, AS WITH THE ABOVE TWO EXAMPLES ("SINCE ONLY MAIN STREET..."; CE 1361)
> And Vince, you missed a couple.
NO I DID NOT: THEY ARE DULY NOTED IN MY BOOK. I AM WELL AWARE OF THESE
ACCOUNTS. IN ANOTHER POST, I INCLUDED EVERY ACCOUNT TO DEMONSTRATE THE
NEWSPAPER CONFUSION AND (DELIBERATE?)OBFUSCATION OF THE ROUTE. PLEASE SEE
DAVE PERRY'S ARTICLE IN THE LATEST "JFK/DPQ" JOURNAL---WHILE WE BOTH AGREE
THERE WAS NO *LAST MINUTE* CHANGE IN THE MOTORCADE ROUTE, HE DULY NOTES
THE "ERRORS" IN THE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS; IN FACT, IN AN E-MAIL MESSAGE, HE
SAID HE DOES NOT DIPUTE MY TAKE ON THE ROUTE CHANGE, JUST THAT THE JAMES
FILES/ GARRISON STORY OF A *LAST MINUTE* CHANGE IS FALSE(WHICH, AS I SAID,
I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH HIM)
> Check out the following, both from
> Nov. 19, 1963.
> They are consistent and accurate.
YEAH, WITH THE ROUTE THEY DROVE ON 11/22/63; THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
> >3. CE 1375 - Dallas Morning News 11/8/63: Governor Connolly - luncheon cite
> >"uncertain" because the Secret Service "had not cleared the matter". Connolly
> >later stated that he was never informed about the exact route of 11/22/63!(NY
> >Herald Tribune 11/29/63);
> What's the point here, Vince? I thought you were supposed to be
> proving that there was an earlier motorcade route, and it was somehow
> *changed* to the route that the motorcade in fact took.
> I don't see what the above has to do with this.
THIS WAS TO DEMONSTRATE THE SS'S INVOLVEMENT IN THESE MATTERS, AS WELL AS
CONNALLY'S BEING OUT-OF-THE-LOOP REGARDING THE ROUTE.
> >4. Dallas Times Herald 11/22/63 - Industrial Boulevard to the Trade Mart
> >(Alternate route of Main to Industrial to Trade Mart)!
> Vince, you need to post a source for this. Indeed, it would be
> helpful if you would post the actual passage, so that all of us can
> decide how to interpret it.
> I know the source is the TIMES HERALD, but this apparently is a "late
> edition" that didn't get microfilmed.
FINAL EDITION, P. 19
> >5. CE 1365 - Dallas Morning News 11/22/63: Main Street only: Map without Elm
> >Street turn (Warren Commission deleted).
> And on 11/21/63, the TIMES HERALD printed a map *with* the turn.
> VINCE, WHAT IS THE POINT OF ALL THIS? All this happened *after* you
> admit the route was set to include a turn on Houston and Elm.
AGAIN, THIS JUST ADDS TO THE NEWSPAPER CONFUSION/ OBFUSCATION AND THE
ELEMENT OF PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY THAT THESE CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS
OFFERED---JUST PICK THE ACCOUNT THAT FITS YOUR IDEAS! THERE IS NO SUCH
OBFUSCATION IN ANY PREVIOUS TRIP I HAVE SEEN: IF THE ROUTE IS PUBLICIZED
AT ALL, IT IS STRAIGHT-FORWARD WITH NO CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS/
DETAILS...THIS IS THE POINT (AMONG OTHERS...)
> >> He did not specify the
> >> exact date on which the turn was selected nor did he identify the
> >> person selecting the turn.(195)
> >HOW CONVENIENT! REMEMBER, DAVID GRANT JOINED LAWSON ON 11/18/63 FROM THE FLORIDA
> >TRIPO BUT HE WAS WORKING WITH LAWSON---AND SORRELS ---SINCE 11/13/63 [17 H 601]
> And how does this prove an earlier motorcade route?
THIS ADDS ANOTHER ELEMENT INTO THE EQUATION---WHY DIDN'T THE WC OR THE HSCA INTERVIEW
HIM? WHY, INDEED...
> >> Sorrels stated that he and Lawson did
> >> drive the entire route together, but did not specify when this
> >> occurred. (196)
> >HOW CONVENIENT!
> And how does this prove an earlier motorcade route?
THIS JUST ADDS TO THE IMPRECISE. "I-DO-NOT-RECALL" MENTALITY OF ALOT OF THE
TESTIMONY---WAS IT DELIBERATE?
> >> (63) Sorrels' Warren Commission exhibit No. 4 suggested that
> >> both men drove the entire route on November 18. (197) It is not
> >> certain that both men knew about the turn earlier than this date.
> >CAN YOU SAY "CONFUSING"? [INTENTIONAL?]
> And how does this prove an earlier motorcade route?
SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT
> >> (B) THE PROTECTIVE RESEARCH SECTION
> >> (64) In making a determination as to whether the advance
> >> agents for the Texas trip, as well as local field agents, were duly
> >> informed of any potential problems that might occur, a thorough review
> >> of the function of the Secret Service Protective Research Section was
> >> conducted. The Protective Research Service (PRS) was meant to function
> >> both as repository of information about threats to the security of
> >> Secret Service protectees and as a provider of such information to
> >> agents in all types of assignments. It acquired and made available
> >> information received from its own agents and from other sources. (198)
> >> (65) In 1963, information acquired from any source external
> >> to the
> >> 523
> >> Perhaps you would be kind enough to underline the text that you
> >> interpret as meaning that "the motorcade route was to have proceeded
> >> straight down Main Street."
> >> >See also "High Treason", pp. 130-132; "Deep Politics and the Death of
> >> >JFK", pp. 272-278; "The Warren Omission" by Walt Brown, p. 282.
> >> Vince, these are secondary sources, and dubious ones at that. Surely
> >> you know about the *primary* sources that supposedly support your
> >> contention that the parade route was "changed."
> >THE SPECIAL AGENT OF THE WHITE HOUSE DETAIL, GERALD A. BEHN, TOLD ME ON 9/27/92
> >THAT THE ROUTE WAS CHANGED IN DALLAS---THE HSCA EVEN ASKED HIM WHY (NOT IF) THE
> >ROUTE WAS INDEED CHANGED IN *EXECUTIVE SESSION* (THESE RECORDS ARE STILL NOT
> >RELEASED)!BEHN, TO ME ON 9/27/92, RE: THE HSCA: "ISN'T THAT THE ONE THAT STOKES
> >WAS ON? WELL, THEY WANTED TO KNOW WHY THE ROUTE WAS CHANGED---I KNOW IT WAS
> >CHANGED, BUT WHY---I'VE FORGOTTEN COMPLETELY; I DON'T KNOW"
> OK, you have one witness who says the route was changed. And he said
> this (maybe
> --you only have a 1992 version of his testimony) in the
> late 70s. He's "forgotten completely" and he "doesn't know."
HE'S "FORGOTTEN COMPLETELY" AND "DOESN'T KNOW" THE REASONS FOR THE CHANGE,
NOT THE CHANGE ITSELF: THE HSCA ASKED HIM WHY---NOT IF---IT WAS CHANGED,
AND HE SAID IT WAS!!!
> And you
> have chosen to believe him in preference to all the witnesses who told
> the WC and the HSCA about "the motorcade route" and made it clear that
> no route was set before the one that turned on Houston and Elm.
AMONG OTHER REASONS (THE CONFLICTING NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS AMONG THEM), THE
SAIC OF THE WHD---WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING STAGES---CARRIED MORE
AUTHORITY THAN ALL OF THOSE UNDER HIM WHO TESTIFIED; DNC ADVANCE MAN JERRY
BRUNO EVEN SAID THIS TO THE HSCA!
> >> >MOST
> >> >IMPORTANTLY, SEE 4 H 328 (SS AGENT WIN LAWSON'S TESTIMONY):"MR. MCCLOY: I
> >> >DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU WANT TO--I HAVE GOT TO LEAVE.ARE YOU GOING TO ASK
> >> >WHY THEY DIDN'T GO DOWN MAIN STREET? [!!!]
> >> >
> >> >MR. STERN: YES.
> >> >
> >> >MR MCCLOY: TAKE CARE OF THAT. THE SUGGESTION WAS MADE YESTERDAY---YOU ARE
> >> >GOING TO COVER THAT? (DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)" [!!!]
> >> >
> >> >We're still waiting!
> >> >
> >> I'm happy to inform you that your waiting is over!
> >YES, BUT WHAT WAS SAID "OFF THE RECORD" AT *THAT* TIME? WE WILL NEVER KNOW....
> The question was answered *on* the record.
> And how does any of this show the existence of an earlier motorcade
> route that was "changed?"
THIS JUST ADDS ANOTHER ELEMENT INTO THE BIG PICTURE: WHY GO OFF THE RECORD
AT ALL REGARDING THIS MATTER? WHO'S TO SAY THAT THE LATER TESTIMONY WAS
WHAT WAS COVERED OFF THE RECORD?
> >> The following is from 4H332-333:
> >> Mr. LAWSON. I imagine it was a little faster at this time,
> >> sir, because the downtown section where it was quite heavily populated
> >> with people watching the motorcade, we had been out of that for a
> >> while before we got to the Houston Street turn. So we were probably
> >> back up to perhaps 12 or 15 miles an hour by then.
> >> Mr. McCLOY. But you would have had to slow up a bit coming
> >> around the curve.
> >> Mr. LAWSON. Yes, sir.
> >> Mr. STERN. Mr. Lawson, can you tell us why you didn't plan the
> >> motorcade so that it went straight down Main Street to turn right on
> >> to the entrance to the freeway instead of taking this dogleg on
> >> Houston and Elm?
> >> Mr. DULLES. Jerry, will you take over.
> >> 332
> >> Page 333
> >> Representative FORD. Will you proceed please, Mr. Stern?
> >> Mr. STERN. Yes.
> >> Mr. LAWSON. You mean why we didn't come straight down Main
> >> Street to the Stemmons Freeway?
> >> Mr. STERN. Right.
> >> Mr. LAWSON. Because it is my understanding there isn't any
> >> entrance to the freeway on Main Street.
> >?!?!?!?!?!---SEE HSCA QUOTE ABOVE, RIGHT AFTER I WRITE "READ THIS NEXT LINE
> >> Mr. STERN. But you don't yourself recall now or do you?
> >> Mr. LAWSON. Yes, I was told that there wasn't any entrance
> >> that way, and I myself once when I went to the Trade Mart, not knowing
> >> that there was any entrance to it, went down Main Street, You must
> >> enter the freeway going in the direction that We wanted to go from the
> >> Elm Street extension.
> >> Mr. STERN. When you went down Main Street you found that you
> >> could not get on to the entrance to the Stemmons Freeway?
> >> Mr. LAWSON. Going the direction on the freeway towards the
> >> Trade Mart, that is correct.
> >> Mr. STERN. Which is the direction the motorcade was to go?
> >> Mr. LAWSON. Was to go; yes, sir.
> >> So, surprisingly, Stern got around to asking the exact question McCloy
> >> wanted answered, and it was just a few pages further on in the
> >> testimony. I found it with my high-tech CD ROM search.
> >CLEVER, BUT I WAS REFERRING TO THIS PARTICULAR "OFF THE RECORD" CLIP. STILL, I
> >WAS AWARE OF THIS ALREADY, AS I HAVE ALL OF THE SS TESTIMONY/ RELATED ITEMS FROM
> >THE WC REPORT AND THE 26 VOLUMES IN A MASSIVELY-BOUND PHOTOCOPIED VOLUME OF MY
> >OWN MAKING [MY COLLEGE LIBRARY HAS THE ORIGINAL, MINT CONDITION WC VOLUMES]! :-)
> Are you just *positing* that in the off the record testimony that he
> explained about the "earlier route" that when down Industrial?
> If not, how do you think the discussion off the record is any sort of
> evidence of a "changed motorcade route?"
SEE MY PREVIOUS COMMENT ABOVE
> >> But Vince, this really isn't relevant. The WC wanting to know why the
> >> motorcade didn't go right down main is *not* any evidence that there
> >> was ever another route. It's just wanting to know why this exact one
> >> was chosen.
> >I BELIEVE IT IS RELEVANT, BUT I CONCEDE IT IS NOT EVIDENCE, IN AND OF ITSELF, TO
> >A CHANGE IN THE ROUTE.
> Yes. Agreed.
> >> >>
> >> >> And Vince, where did you get this "violation of Secret Service
> >> >> regulations" thing? My experience has been that they are extremely
> >> >> tight-lipped about their procedures.
> >> >
> >> >This is based off their own SECRET SERVICE MANUAL/ regulations, as well as
> >> >my interviews with several agents. There seems to be little or no dispute
> >> >(until now) that there were violations of strict SS regulations, as
> >> >several people before me have pointed out...and, more importantly, their
> >> >own MANUAL bears this out.
> >> >
> >> Good Vince. Please tell us how we can get a look at that manual. A
> >> National Archives Document number would be good, or perhaps Jim
> >> Lesar's operation has a copy that researchers can look at.
> >WELL, BESIDES THE EXCERPTS FROM THE SS MANUAL QUOTED IN THE WC VOLUMES ABOUT
> >THE VIOLATIONS OF DRINKING WHILE IN TRAVEL STATUS [18 H 665] AND THE VARIOUS
> >QUOTES FROM THE MANUAL AS DEPICTED IN PHIL MELANSON'S 1984 BOOK "THE POLITICS OF
> >PROTECTION", THERE IS NOT A *FULL* SS MANUAL AVAILABLE "OVER THE COUNTER", SO TO
> >SPEAK (NO RIFF NUMBERS OR AARC AVAILABILITY, UNFORTUNATELY). THESE VIOLATIONS
> >CONCERNING THE MOTORCADE ROUTE (THE TURN AND THE SPEED), WHICH WAS BROUGHT UP BY
> >AUTHORS SUCH AS JIM MARRS, ROBERT GRODEN, AND HARRY LIVINGSTONE (AMONG OTHERS)
> Vince, you are not citing the most reliable authors in the world.
THAT'S YOUR OPINION; AND, ON THIS MATTER, THEY HAVE BEEN CORROBORATED.
> Let me ask you something. If *you* don't have access to the primary
> sources on this, if *you* can't put you hands on a document and say
> "this is the regulation right here" just how do you think Groden or
> Marrs or Livingstone can?
NOONE HAS ALL THE ANSWERS OR, MORE IMPORTANTLY, ALL THE DOCUMENTS, ESP.
THE SS MANUAL! THE AGENTS I SPOKE TO COULD HAVE SHOT THIS WHOLE IDEA OF
"VIOLATIONS" DOWN THE DRAIN---THEY DIDN'T: THE CONFIRMED THEM!!!
> Why are you citing secondary sources, and particularly authors who
> know less about this than you do?
> >YEARS BEFORE ME, WERE *CONFIRMED* AS BEING SS VIOLATIONS THROUGH MY INTERVIEWS
> >WITH DNC ADVANCE MAN MARTY UNDERWOOD, JOHN NORRIS, ABE BOLDEN, AND SAM KINNEY,
> >ALL OF WHOM, TO GREATER OR LESSER EXTENTS, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ROUTE WAS A
> >SECURITY HAZARD THAT, AS KINNEY TOLD ME (THE LEAST HARSH OF THE FOUR), THEY
> >"NEVER SHOULD" HAVE TAKEN JFK DOWN!
> Vince, you were supposed to be providing evidence that there was a
> "violation of regulations." What they seem to have told you is that
> -- especially with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight -- the turn was
> dangerous. That's different.
NOT HINDSIGHT---JUST CONFIRMATION OF SS VIOLATIONS. KEEP IN MIND, AS IN
THE DRINKING INCIDENT (NOT AN ISOLATED INCIDENT), RULES ARE MEANT TO BE
BROKEN, ESP. WHEN THEY SUIT THE "BREAKERS"
> >> Vince, you are not citing any sources about any *change.*
> >> You are citing sources that say the route was established that day.
> >> That's only a "change" if there was an earlier different route.
> >> In citing these sources as showing a "change," you are *assuming* that
> >> there was an earlier route. But that's what you are supposed to be
> >> proving.
> >SEE ABOVE, ESP. SAIC BEHN---IS HE LYING? REMEMBER, KNOWING YOUR FONDNESS FOR
> >HSCA MATERIAL, IT WAS THE HSCA THAT ASKED BEHN IN *EXECUTIVE SESSION* WHY WAS
> >THE ROUTE CHANGED IN DALLAS [HOW DID THEY KNOW THIS, LET ALONE TO ASK HIM?]!.
> Vince, you are citing his vague 1992 recollection of what the HSCA
> asked him.
NOT VAGUE AT ALL
> If they really had evidence of any change, why isn't it in
> their report, or at least in HSCA documents?
SO WHAT?!?! WHAT ABOUT ALL THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE DOCUMENTS THAT TOTALLY
CONTRADICT THE HSCA'S REPORT/ CONCLUSIONS AND WERE NOT MADE A PART OF THE
> This sounds a lot to me like your citing Groden, et al. above.
> are positing that they knew something that you don't. But you have no
> evidence that, *if* they really did ask Behn this, they had any
> evidence that it happened. It's possible that some staffer bought
> into the silly Joesten/Garrison version of the "changed parade route."
POSSIBLY---BUT BEHN TOLD ME THE HSCA ASKED HIM WHY, AND HE SAID IT WAS...
> Behn -- especially a 1992 interview where he tells you he's "forgotten
> completely" and he "doesn't know" -- is a thin reed to use to
> challenge the mass of WC and HSCA testimony on this.
SEE ABOVE---NOT A "THIN REED" AT ALL.
VINCE PALAMARA :-)