05-01-2019, 02:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-01-2019, 03:28 PM by Milo Reech.)
On further reflection there is a way to arbitrate among the competing witnesses. It requires a closer look at W. A. Smith's WC testimony.
Mr. BALL. You live with whom? Whom do you live with?
Mr. SMITH. My mother.
Note Ball's canny use of anadiplosis to test the credibility of the witness, which Smith passed with aplomb. Continuing...
Mr. BALL. Where did you spend the day that day?
Mr. SMITH. 505 East 10th.
Mr. BALL. Why were you there?
Mr. SMITH. Visiting a friend.
Mr. BALL. What is his name?
Mr. SMITH. Jimmy Burt.
Mr. BALL. When did you go over there that day?
Mr. SMITH. In the morning. In the morning.
Based on the preceding Smith evidently discerned a need to specify the straightforward "in the morning" twice. Perhaps he wished to spare Ball the necessity of repeating the question. If a single iteration of "in the morning" may be fraught with ambiguity, two should settle the matter without further ado, but Ball was not about to be put off the scent by such a transparent subterfuge. Smith's evasive simplicity aroused him to probe with heightened intensity.
Mr. BALL. In the morning?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Wraps up that thorny issue, or so it would seem, but Ball is on a roll.
Mr. BALL. What time did you leave there that day?
Mr. SMITH. In the evening.
Mr. BALL. So, you spent the whole day there?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
A mind like a circular steel trap! Ball clearly establishes that the whole day that day ran from morning to evening to the exclusion of all other whole days!
If he would pursue the opening soon provided by Smith relative to the Markhams (mother & son) with the same alacrity he might actually resolve some of the confusion as to the truth about what happened at 10th Street, but he nips that in the bud.
Mr. BALL. Mrs. Markham talked to you?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And did you tell Mrs. Markham?
Mr. SMITH. I told her what I saw and that is the reason I am here, I a--
Mr. BALL. Did the police come out and see you?
Mr. SMITH. The FBI.
The blather ends, and Ball proceeds to the gist of the matter:
Mr. BALL. The FBI did? Did you tell them the same story you told me?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
A lie. In the FBI statement Smith said "he had arrived at JIMMY'S house prior to the time of JIMMY'S arrival." Compare WC:
Mr. BALL. Now, at the time the policeman was shot, where were you?
Mr. SMITH. In the front yard, at 505 East 10th.
Mr. BALL. Who was with you?
Mr. SMITH. Jimmy Burt.
It's all one to Ball, a trivial item, not worth pursuing further, unlike the extraordinary length of that day running from morning to evening.
Now we cut to the chase:
Mr. BALL. First time you ever saw this man [Tippit's killer] was after you heard these shots?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Is that right? You had never seen him walking?
Mr. SMITH. No.
Mr. BALL. You hadn't seen him walking in front of the house--
Mr. SMITH. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Where you were standing?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir.
Invitation to negation thrice tried, thrice denied, thrice belied -- one for his safety, one for his friend & one for the bricklayer who worked across the street.
But Smith wasn't done, holding in reserve a rhetorical device of his own.
Mr. BALL. Now, when the deposition is completed it will be written up and you will have a right to look it over and sign it, or if you want to you can waive your signature. They will accept your waiver and send it on to the Commission without it. Do you have any choice on that?
Mr. SMITH. I will sign it. It don't make any difference to me.
Mr. BALL. Would you just as leave waive your signature?
Mr. SMITH. Ever what that means.
Brilliant anastrophe -- the biter bit! -- but Ball was nothing if not obsessive about minutiae. Slow to get the drift he rattled on about the signature waiver before finally giving up.
As to Burt, his FBI statement was a forgery of sorts, sole purpose was to detach him from 505 E. 10th, where he saw Tippit's killer walking on the other side. Frank Wright's story was a fiction inculcated to ready a disinformation alternative in case one was needed. He may have been miffed when dropped from the active list, and spilled his guts out to the Nashes.
This is not the conclusion anticipated when the analysis commenced, but it follows from the premise that William Lawrence Smith told the truth.
Mr. BALL. You live with whom? Whom do you live with?
Mr. SMITH. My mother.
Note Ball's canny use of anadiplosis to test the credibility of the witness, which Smith passed with aplomb. Continuing...
Mr. BALL. Where did you spend the day that day?
Mr. SMITH. 505 East 10th.
Mr. BALL. Why were you there?
Mr. SMITH. Visiting a friend.
Mr. BALL. What is his name?
Mr. SMITH. Jimmy Burt.
Mr. BALL. When did you go over there that day?
Mr. SMITH. In the morning. In the morning.
Based on the preceding Smith evidently discerned a need to specify the straightforward "in the morning" twice. Perhaps he wished to spare Ball the necessity of repeating the question. If a single iteration of "in the morning" may be fraught with ambiguity, two should settle the matter without further ado, but Ball was not about to be put off the scent by such a transparent subterfuge. Smith's evasive simplicity aroused him to probe with heightened intensity.
Mr. BALL. In the morning?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Wraps up that thorny issue, or so it would seem, but Ball is on a roll.
Mr. BALL. What time did you leave there that day?
Mr. SMITH. In the evening.
Mr. BALL. So, you spent the whole day there?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
A mind like a circular steel trap! Ball clearly establishes that the whole day that day ran from morning to evening to the exclusion of all other whole days!
If he would pursue the opening soon provided by Smith relative to the Markhams (mother & son) with the same alacrity he might actually resolve some of the confusion as to the truth about what happened at 10th Street, but he nips that in the bud.
Mr. BALL. Mrs. Markham talked to you?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And did you tell Mrs. Markham?
Mr. SMITH. I told her what I saw and that is the reason I am here, I a--
Mr. BALL. Did the police come out and see you?
Mr. SMITH. The FBI.
The blather ends, and Ball proceeds to the gist of the matter:
Mr. BALL. The FBI did? Did you tell them the same story you told me?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
A lie. In the FBI statement Smith said "he had arrived at JIMMY'S house prior to the time of JIMMY'S arrival." Compare WC:
Mr. BALL. Now, at the time the policeman was shot, where were you?
Mr. SMITH. In the front yard, at 505 East 10th.
Mr. BALL. Who was with you?
Mr. SMITH. Jimmy Burt.
It's all one to Ball, a trivial item, not worth pursuing further, unlike the extraordinary length of that day running from morning to evening.
Now we cut to the chase:
Mr. BALL. First time you ever saw this man [Tippit's killer] was after you heard these shots?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Is that right? You had never seen him walking?
Mr. SMITH. No.
Mr. BALL. You hadn't seen him walking in front of the house--
Mr. SMITH. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Where you were standing?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir.
Invitation to negation thrice tried, thrice denied, thrice belied -- one for his safety, one for his friend & one for the bricklayer who worked across the street.
But Smith wasn't done, holding in reserve a rhetorical device of his own.
Mr. BALL. Now, when the deposition is completed it will be written up and you will have a right to look it over and sign it, or if you want to you can waive your signature. They will accept your waiver and send it on to the Commission without it. Do you have any choice on that?
Mr. SMITH. I will sign it. It don't make any difference to me.
Mr. BALL. Would you just as leave waive your signature?
Mr. SMITH. Ever what that means.
Brilliant anastrophe -- the biter bit! -- but Ball was nothing if not obsessive about minutiae. Slow to get the drift he rattled on about the signature waiver before finally giving up.
As to Burt, his FBI statement was a forgery of sorts, sole purpose was to detach him from 505 E. 10th, where he saw Tippit's killer walking on the other side. Frank Wright's story was a fiction inculcated to ready a disinformation alternative in case one was needed. He may have been miffed when dropped from the active list, and spilled his guts out to the Nashes.
This is not the conclusion anticipated when the analysis commenced, but it follows from the premise that William Lawrence Smith told the truth.