29-01-2011, 11:40 PM
Thanks Allan for your praise and praise to Jim Fetzer and Jack White for refusing to cuss me out.
I do not have a whole lot to say except to note that Jim and Jack have not changed their positions. The implications are interesting. I did not know in advance what their response would be. Apparently the testimony of Frank Caplett and Imogene Adams identifying Robert Adams in the photo had no impact. I must infer that the new evidence is worthless (in their opinion). I wonder what would change their opinions? Maybe we could find Conein's widow and ask if that's her husband? Oh, yeah, if she says NO that would be covering up her husband's presence in Dealey Plaza that day. In any event, Jim and Jack adhere to their earlier "Conein enthusiasm," strongly in Jim's case while inconclusive for Jack but leaning toward Conein and against Adams. These positions are based on their personal assessments of the photos and not much else. The testimony of Frank and Imogene carry no weight.
J&J's unwillingness to weaken or reverse their opinions is a little hard to understand so let us tease out further implications. Certainty or even an "odds on" belief that Adams was not in the Altgens photo implies that widow Imogene Adams is wrong about her deceased husband appearing in the 1963 picture. That means she is either mistaken about the whole affair and innocently believes to this day that her husband appeared in the photo or else she lied to me in claiming her husband appeared in the photo. She did not sound confused to me in the least, she was clear and coherent, entirely rational, so I rule that out error or confusion on her part. The widow identified her husband in the treasured newspaper photo in her home, a rather easy thing to believe. What about lying? I would shift the burden at this point to Jim so he can explain what her motive was in concocting this story in 1999 or earlier. Why does she insist it is her husband in the photo? Jim rejects the widow's identification of her husband, confirmed by her recollection of events at the time and "immortalized" in her framed photo with her amateur caption to look like it was from the newspaper, because Jim relies on his superior visual perception and facial identification skills. This seems more a conceit than something in evidence. I doubt Jim's photo analysis and conclusions would prevail in a court of law. After the jury heard from Robert Adams' 86-year-old widow, the professor's opinion would be shredded in cross-examination, no matter how confidently held.
A conspiracy here, a conspiracy there, I see a conspiracy everywhere, oops, not this time, I beg to differ. We have serendipity this time, a coincidence if you will. I interviewed two honest, credible people about the person in the Altgens photo and in this case I'll take their testimony over Jim's and Jack's anytime, not to mention my own photo opinion contrary to theirs.
Finally, Jack, I look forward to your interviews of Frank Caplett and Imogene Adams confirming or rejecting your photo analysis. Isn't outside evidence useful in resolving an inconclusive photo identification? Maybe you can test to see if Imogene makes an error in picking her husband's face out of a photo lineup that includes Lucien Conein!?
I do not have a whole lot to say except to note that Jim and Jack have not changed their positions. The implications are interesting. I did not know in advance what their response would be. Apparently the testimony of Frank Caplett and Imogene Adams identifying Robert Adams in the photo had no impact. I must infer that the new evidence is worthless (in their opinion). I wonder what would change their opinions? Maybe we could find Conein's widow and ask if that's her husband? Oh, yeah, if she says NO that would be covering up her husband's presence in Dealey Plaza that day. In any event, Jim and Jack adhere to their earlier "Conein enthusiasm," strongly in Jim's case while inconclusive for Jack but leaning toward Conein and against Adams. These positions are based on their personal assessments of the photos and not much else. The testimony of Frank and Imogene carry no weight.
J&J's unwillingness to weaken or reverse their opinions is a little hard to understand so let us tease out further implications. Certainty or even an "odds on" belief that Adams was not in the Altgens photo implies that widow Imogene Adams is wrong about her deceased husband appearing in the 1963 picture. That means she is either mistaken about the whole affair and innocently believes to this day that her husband appeared in the photo or else she lied to me in claiming her husband appeared in the photo. She did not sound confused to me in the least, she was clear and coherent, entirely rational, so I rule that out error or confusion on her part. The widow identified her husband in the treasured newspaper photo in her home, a rather easy thing to believe. What about lying? I would shift the burden at this point to Jim so he can explain what her motive was in concocting this story in 1999 or earlier. Why does she insist it is her husband in the photo? Jim rejects the widow's identification of her husband, confirmed by her recollection of events at the time and "immortalized" in her framed photo with her amateur caption to look like it was from the newspaper, because Jim relies on his superior visual perception and facial identification skills. This seems more a conceit than something in evidence. I doubt Jim's photo analysis and conclusions would prevail in a court of law. After the jury heard from Robert Adams' 86-year-old widow, the professor's opinion would be shredded in cross-examination, no matter how confidently held.
A conspiracy here, a conspiracy there, I see a conspiracy everywhere, oops, not this time, I beg to differ. We have serendipity this time, a coincidence if you will. I interviewed two honest, credible people about the person in the Altgens photo and in this case I'll take their testimony over Jim's and Jack's anytime, not to mention my own photo opinion contrary to theirs.
Finally, Jack, I look forward to your interviews of Frank Caplett and Imogene Adams confirming or rejecting your photo analysis. Isn't outside evidence useful in resolving an inconclusive photo identification? Maybe you can test to see if Imogene makes an error in picking her husband's face out of a photo lineup that includes Lucien Conein!?