10-12-2015, 08:25 AM
(This post was last modified: 20-12-2015, 07:44 AM by Deborra Ann Low.)
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:This was one of the best and most important articles I think we ever published for Probe.
I remember reading it after the excellent Florida lawyer Carol Hewett submitted it.
I told Lisa Pease, the Paines should be called before the ARRB on this one. Which we all tried to do of course. But it didn't work out that way.
http://www.ctka.net/2015/FromTheArchive.html
Jim, there appears to be a typo on the date, for footnote #25. It looks like it should read "2/2/64" in the text, for the date to match the footnote referenced at the end of the article, but then now I'm confused by the following sentence in the text as well, "Now, as of January 29th, the FBI finally had the physical evidence to match the original inventory list of the Dallas Police Department complete with the still present film cassette." How did the FBI have it by 1/29/64 if the camera wasn't shipped to them until 2/2/64. Should this date actually be 12/2/63 instead, perhaps? I'm confused (smile), but that certainly wouldn't be a first time occurrence for me. This whole scenario is confusing, but then, I'm guessing that's the point of the FBI's camera shell game...to confuse people. It's certainly working on me.
Thanks,
Deborra