View Single Post
Old 6th September 2018, 09:34 AM   #289
Henri McPhee
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,026
This is an example of CID agent Ivory's pathetic questioning of Stoeckley from the Article 32 proceedings in 1970. It's nearly as ridiculous as his interview with Mitchell during the re-investigation in 1972:


Q You mean she knew in her mind or that's all she chose to tell?
A Well, that's what she told me.
Q Did you ask for the description of the owner of that blue Mustang she was driving?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what, if anything, did she tell you in that regard?
A He was a white male, former enlisted man in the Army, and she couldn't go into more specific details, other than the physical description.
Q Did you ask her any questions about specific identification points?
A I asked her to describe the man to me as best she could, and she said he was twenty or under and a white male, dark hair.
Q Did you ask her any other questions in regard to the identification of that person, or the description of that person?
A That's all she could furnish me, in any way of a description.
Q But did you ask her any specific points of identification?
A Yes, sir, I asked her to describe any facial features, et cetera.
Q Is it fair to say that's the only type of question you put to her?
A Yes, she just could give me a general description.
Q When you say she could just give you, you mean she could or that's all she chose to give you?
A I couldn't read her mind. That's what she gave me.
Q How about her manner of demeanor? Did she strike you as being frank, candid and open?
A Yes, she struck me as being frank.
Q Candid and open. Is that right?
A Right.
Q And you though a person who did not know the names of the persons she lived with as being frank, candid and open?
A Yes.
Q And you thought that her inability to tell you the last name of the owner of the automobile that she used for the evening was also frank, candid and open?
A Yes.
Q And you thought that her telling you that she could not remember where she was for approximately four hours, because she was smoking marijuana is a frank, candid and open answer?
A That's the answer she gave me, and I couldn't get anything else.
Q Well, I appreciate your difficulty in the interview, Mr. Ivory. I don't underestimate that for a moment. What I am asking you is did you honestly take that as a frank, candid and open answer that she said because of marijuana she was not able to remember her whereabouts?
A I could not -- I could only take it as face value as what she gave me.
Q Well, the face value of that statement is a lie, since you know that marijuana doesn't have that effect on persons.
A I've never tried it. I do not know.
Q Well, I didn't suggest that. I said based upon your experience as an investigator, I am sure you've talked with physicians in regard to marijuana, the fact you are aware, I am sure, that marijuana does not -- is not reported in any way to effect the memory processes.
A As far as I know.
Q So knowing that, at least, you still felt that she was being frank, candid and open when she told you that she couldn't remember her whereabouts when she was smoking marijuana?
A What else could I say?
Q You could say that she was a liar and ask her to be more specific about what she was doing and where she was.
A I possibly could have.
Q But you did not, sir?
A No, I did not.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 6th September 2018 at 10:08 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top