mal couch

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:This will unfortunately be vague and probably unhelpful but maybe it'll jog the memories of others. Many years ago on the Lancer Forum there was a brief discussion about Dealey Plaza shooting scenarios and the question of "shell game"-type misdirection ploys being used; for instance, I probably argued for a cherry-bomb being tossed on the Grassy Knoll. Someone then mentioned that firing a pistol (on the GK) would work the same way; and then someone else did mention a pool of blood being found, I can't recall if they cited a source or not. But the gist of it was that the pool of blood was found on or near the GK area, and that it was more blood than could be accounted for by (for instance) "spatter" from Pres. Kennedy's head wound. I think I speculated about someone possibly squeezing ground beef or some such thing (in order to account for how it got there). I still can't imagine what it could possibly mean, or would work as "misdirection" (in the investigation?); but it may be that Bill Cheslock or Richard Smith might know about it. Other than that, I can only say that such a thing was mentioned at that time.

Dan, a lot of people thought the initial shot was a fire cracker. A few years back someone came on one of these boards saying he/she was in DP and that Mexicans had been going around all morning lighting fireworks. If that's true, it explains why so many mistook the first shot. The problem is that I have never found any corroboration for that. Which brings me back to Couch. Was there any other witness to the pool of blood? If there was, I can't find them.

On a different note, I found this interesting from your 1st source:

"First, like many degree mills, the school misrepresents their faculty by including well-known persons whose books they use. The problem is that several of them are dead. If you find that hard to believe, I'll quote the exact wording they use in the brochure ... - 'The following men help us explain Scripture at Tyndale because they are part of our faculty and teach here through their writings and books: Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, Hodge, Warfield, C.I. Scofield, J. Vernon McGee, Criswell, Walvoord, Pentecost, Hal Lindsey, Charles Stanley, John McArthur [sic], Ryrie, and many, many others.' "

While the whole premise is ridiculous, what stood out was the prominence given (immediately after the last-name dead guys) to Hal Lindsey, author of the best-selling pop prophecy book The Late Great Planet Earth -- and its various sequels, culminating in Countdown to Armageddon (1980), which came out just in time to argue that "the last best hope" was to build up the US military, support (Begin's) Israel, and elect Ronald Reagan as US President (the last being unstated but clearly meant as the obvious conclusion to be drawn from all other arguments). Evidently God would take care of the rest.

I have to admit that I hold a serious grudge against Lindsey and his book(s) for helping warp my teenaged mind, but his prominence among the author-"faculty" combined with the association with LaHaye just means that Couch and Tyndale et al are heavy into "teaching" Bible prophecy and promoting the wonderful agenda of the "Christian" Right.

This is Couch being quoted in the DMN story: "The Bible speaks of the end of days. So I see it as the beginning piece of the train of the last days.And I was there when it happened." I don't think it hurts his credibility. The only thing I doubt, unless other witnesses are found, is the pool of blood - and even then, I don't doubt that he saw it - I only doubt that it was actually there. 

Traveller11 wrote:One good misdirection ploy would be to fit one or more of the rifles in Dealey Plaza with a suppressor or silencer, as they are more commonly known.

As a rifle bullet travels at supersonic speeds until it has travelled a few hundred yards, the rifle would not be completely silenced. However, the muzzle blast would be silenced, and all that would be heard, outside of the bullet hitting its target, is the "crack" as the bullet broke the sound barrier. This "crack" will be heard by different people in different places, depending on where they are standing, and has the effect of not giving away the shooter's position.

Richard Gilbride wrote:I am of the opinion that Couch's religious tenacity makes him a good witness- honesty is a virtue I think he'd want to adhere strictly to. Couch gave this interview for his local paper, the Clifton Record, in 2000, taking an excerpt where he reminisces about what happened after he got off the camera car:

"I'll never forget running along- with my camera going- yelling at the top of my lungs, 'They can't do it! They just can't do it! You just don't shoot the President!

The next moment, a woman came walking toward me slowly, crying her eyes out. Then a man ran past me, pursued by an FBI man.

At the scene, people were still lying on the ground, some protecting their children. Others were running. Policemen were scattering in every direction with shotguns and pistols drawn.

I started toward the building where I had seen the rifle in the window. Then I saw something very weird. There was a trail of blood from the spot where the shooting occurred to the entrance of the Texas School Book Depository. I pointed it out to a man with me.


Just then an FBI man stepped out of the building, and in his hand was an object dripping blood. It looked like a piece of hairy flesh. I know I didn't imagine this. The scene is very clear to me...."

I believe Couch is misremembering "the spot where the shooting occurred" and he's actually referring to the spot where he noticed the pool of blood. He recounted this in his testimony, and it's apparent that the man he was with was WFAA news editor A.J. L'Hoeste (or L'Hoste).

VI, pp. 159-160:

...L'Hoste- he came running up and-uh- when he ran up, why I said, "You stay here and get shots of the building and go inside- and I'm going to go back- I'm going to follow the President."

BELIN: All right. Was he also a moving picture cameraman?

COUCH: Yes; right.

BELIN: Where was he at the time you made this statement?

COUCH: Uh- he was standing on that little sidewalk that runs between the- I met him on the little sidewalk between the Book Depository property and the beginning of the parkway.

BELIN: That would be the west side of the Depository Building?

COUCH: That's right; that's right. It's there that I saw the blood on the sidewalk.

BELIN: All right. Now, you say you saw blood on the sidewalk, Mr. Couch?

COUCH: That's right.

BELIN: Where was that?

COUCH: This was the little walkway- steps and walkway that leads up to the corner, the west corner, the southwest corner of the Book Depository Building. Another little sidewalk, as I recall, turns west and forms that little parkway and archway right next to the Book Depository Building.

BELIN: Did this appear to be freshly created blood?

COUCH: Yes; right.

BELIN: About how large was this spot of blood that you saw?

COUCH: Uh- from 8 to 10 inches in diameter.

BELIN: Did people around there say how it happened to get there, or not?

COUCH: No; no one knew. People were watching it- that is, watching it carefully and walking around it and pointing to it. 
Uh, just as I ran up, policemen ran around the west corner and ran-uh-northward on the side of the building. And my first impression was that-uh- they had chased someone out of the building around that corner, or possibly they had wounded someone. All the policemen had their pistols pulled. And people were pointing back around those shrubs around that wets corner and- uh- you would think that there was a chase going on in that direction.
Again, the reason that I didn't follow was that A.J. had come up, and my first concern was to get back with the President.

greg parker wrote:.....I think his inability to name whether it was the 5th or 6th floor and his inability to offer a description of the person both go to his honesty as a witness here.....

I'd agree with that analysis. dwd


What those later recollections in fact do, is reinforce the distinct possibility that this part of his story was the result of religious mania. His protests that he did not imagine it are a classic sign that he actually thinks he may have imagined it.

I will add that John the Baptist seems to play some sort of role in Rapture/End Time beliefs - and John the Baptist was beheaded.

Richard Gilbride wrote:I could accept that Couch's "religious mania" is responsible for his Stephen Kind-esque memory 37 years later, of an FBI agent carrying a piece of hairy flesh dripping blood out of the front of the Depository. But I can't see where his being a holy roller discounts the reality of witnessing the pool of blood. There was a fair amount of further detail in his testimony concerning the blood pool, perhaps the most substantial was

BELIN: Was there anything else you noticed by this pool of blood?

COUCH: No. There were no objects on the ground. We looked for something. We thought there would be something else, but-


Unfortunately, I am unable to find a single report from A.J. L'Hoste, at Mary Ferrell or otherwise on Google, that could corroborate Couch. Why is L'Hoste a mere footnote to the day's events?

Personally I accept the pool of blood as authentic, and see it tying into the rumor of the dead Secret Service agent that was floating around as far as Parkland that afternoon. Somebody got knifed at the west corner of the Depository. Just past the carport. This West Annex area was where, in my view, an assassin or two escaped the building. And not far up the Elm St. Extension, a Chevy Impala kept its engine running during the shooting sequence.

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:

greg parker wrote:.....I think his inability to name whether it was the 5th or 6th floor and his inability to offer a description of the person both go to his honesty as a witness here.....

I'd agree with that analysis. dwd


What those later recollections in fact do, is reinforce the distinct possibility that this part of his story was the result of religious mania. His protests that he did not imagine it are a classic sign that he actually thinks he may have imagined it.

I will add that John the Baptist seems to play some sort of role in Rapture/End Time beliefs - and John the Baptist was beheaded.

Greg, I don't know what you've been reading, or where you're going on this, how it relates, etc, or indeed what you're meaning by "religious mania" exactly, but I'm thinking I might weigh in on your last sentence here, since I allegedly may have some knowledge in this area. It would be of course typically long-winded though, so I don't want to jump ahead of where you're heading with this.

but I'm thinking I might weigh in on your last sentence here [about John the Baptist and the Rapture]

greg parker wrote:
Back on to Mal Couch -- is no one concerned that he was at a DRE meeting on Oct 20?

Lee Farley wrote:

greg parker wrote:
Back on to Mal Couch -- is no one concerned that he was at a DRE meeting on Oct 20?

Yes.

Do we know who was organising DRE meetings in Dallas/Fort Worth?

greg parker wrote:

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:

greg parker wrote:.....I think his inability to name whether it was the 5th or 6th floor and his inability to offer a description of the person both go to his honesty as a witness here.....

I'd agree with that analysis. dwd


What those later recollections in fact do, is reinforce the distinct possibility that this part of his story was the result of religious mania. His protests that he did not imagine it are a classic sign that he actually thinks he may have imagined it.

I will add that John the Baptist seems to play some sort of role in Rapture/End Time beliefs - and John the Baptist was beheaded.

Greg, I don't know what you've been reading, or where you're going on this, how it relates, etc, or indeed what you're meaning by "religious mania" exactly, but I'm thinking I might weigh in on your last sentence here, since I allegedly may have some knowledge in this area. It would be of course typically long-winded though, so I don't want to jump ahead of where you're heading with this.

Dan, my initial interest in him was his attendance at a DRE meeting.

My interest was further piqued when I came across the fact that he had been running a degree mill and writing books about bible prophecy. Then I found his quote in the DMN in which he saw the assassination in terms of the End Days "I see it as the beginning piece of the train of the last days.And I was there when it happened." 

So I began to ponder how he might fit in to any plot. Half way through, I decided his testimony basically exonerated him of any role except maybe that of someone "in the know" who wanted to be there to see the beginning of the end. I went ahead and posted to get other views.

Richard reminded me about the pool of blood and the later recollection of a scalp or head being carried out of the TSBD. None of that was part of why I made the initial post. The "religious mania" was my attempt to explain it.

What I mean by "religious mania" is no different to what most people mean by it. "Mania" is virtually the opposite to depression. Mania caused by hyper-religiosity can and does cause visions, voices and delusions.   

but I'm thinking I might weigh in on your last sentence here [about John the Baptist and the Rapture]

By all means, weigh in.

In other words, the goal would be reconciliation. In the New Testament, Jesus reveals that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy: “All the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come” (Matthew 11:13-14). This fulfillment is also mentioned in Mark 1:2-4 and Luke 1:17; 7:27.

Specifically related to Malachi 4:5-6 is Matthew 17:10-13: “His disciples asked Him, saying, ‘Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. . . .’ Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.”

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Elijah-end-times.html#ixzz2sWsvQtf4

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:


I seem to have wandered a bit. I suppose it's possible that Couch might really believe that "the End Times" began with "Oswald's assassination of President Kennedy," especially since he was a witness at the event, but I think that would make him rare among his peers (who usually point to the establishment of the nation-state of Israel in 1948 as "the beginning of the End Times"). It does "sound good" (for public consumption, in a Dallas newspaper interview), but I'd be more inclined to see it as an attempt to co-opt the memory of President Kennedy into the larger Religious Right/conservative agenda: the emphasis is not on "what President Kennedy stood for," but on the accused assassin and what he stood for (Communism, Socialism); and the outrage not at the loss of JFK but at the attack on the President of the United States of America, the institution.


An astute observation, Dan.  (And nice summary of the OT/NT connection.)

4. There is a long-standing tradition of equating the End Times Antichrist with the Papacy (and Catholicism in general). This didn't start with Martin Luther, as there were schismatic sects and individuals making the accusation prior to his time; but it's an especially prominent strain of thought in Protestantism, especially among evangelical, fundamentalist churches (usually Bible prophecy believers). This is based on the Book of Revelation, where the Beast (Antichrist) is to have his seat of power at the "city of seven hills" (Rome). In The Late Great Planet Earth, Hal Lindsey tiptoed around this but left plenty of hints (for instance, advising readers at one point to "keep an eye on the papacy"). After I'd begun to question and critique his ideas and arguments, few things bothered me more than his using President Kennedy's assassination as an example of how the Beast might achieve world power: since Revelation says that the Beast will recover from a fatal head wound, a "Satanic counterfeit of the Resurrection" (of Christ), just imagine what might have happened had John F. Kennedy recovered from his assassination -- all the world would have been amazed and followed after him. Since John F. Kennedy remains the only Catholic to ever serve as US President, at some point one has to wonder what is feared about such a thing; the answer is very likely to be that a Catholic becoming the leader of the most powerful country on earth sounds a helluva lot like what might be expected at "the End Times"; but they just can't come out and say that, nor can they admit that there were such fears regarding John Kennedy (and his brothers) at the time.

The medieval millenarian tradition itself was to some degree responsible for this, perhaps not yet in the commentaries on Revelation like that of Adso of Montierender (end of 10th c.), where the end times are supposedly coincident with the end of the Carolingian dynasty, but certainly in the Divine Comedy (1320s), which drew heavily on the spiritual Franciscans, and especially on Joachim of Flores, for its criticism of the papacy and its portrayal of the church precisely in terms of the whore of Babylon and the beast.

And I agree with Dan: I do not know of any explicit cases, at least from the Middle Ages, of a predicted "return" of the Baptist, but I do believe Antipas may figure as an exemplum connected to apocalyptic warnings (in things like the speculum principum, or "mirror [for] princes", or other texts directed, usually by monks, at secular rulers as lessons in disaster).

greg parker wrote:Thanks, Dan.

Since Couch never mentioned the bloody lump of flesh contemporaneously, I'm more inclined to place it as being in the delusional/false memory category rather than a "vision" he actually had at the time.

Is it possible at all to place what he describes in any "end Time" belief?

I guess any individual person could subscribe to any particular belief, so it might not fit into larger, more "codified" ideas; but that was why it caught my attention and didn't "sound right," particularly for a fundamentalist Bible prophecy believer. As I said, it sounds mostly like someone throwing an idea out there for public consumption specific to Dallas, and possibly trying to co-opt the memory of JFK. The real problem is there's not much to go on; if he'd written a tract or essay on the subject, it would be easier to assess. 

The following was one source I relied upon when I brought John the Baptist into this:

In other words, the goal would be reconciliation. In the New Testament, Jesus reveals that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy: “All the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come” (Matthew 11:13-14). This fulfillment is also mentioned in Mark 1:2-4 and Luke 1:17; 7:27.

Specifically related to Malachi 4:5-6 is Matthew 17:10-13: “His disciples asked Him, saying, ‘Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. . . .’ Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.”

Yes, this is what I was referring to, the idea being that the End Times were NOW (during Jesus' time) and John  the Baptist was held to be "returned Elijah" who had "cleared a path for the Lord" -- that Lord being Jesus, not God (as Jews would have believed/expected). So it's not applicable to modern beliefs about End Times (what will happen at that time), but to the perceived Coming of the End during Jesus' time and later (first century).   

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Elijah-end-times.html#ixzz2sWsvQtf4

As for Couch being at the DRE meeting... I originally thought that maybe he was there in an official capacity as a media rep covering the story... but I can find nothing to suggest it ever was covered by any media outlet.

My impression of End-Timers is that they WANT the End Time to arrive... 

In relation to Cuba... having them blamed for the assassination might just bring on nuclear war... and a Whole Lotta Joy for the Hallelujah Brigade. I'm just tossing that out there as another possible dimension to the blame Castro motive...

Albert Rossi wrote:

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:


I seem to have wandered a bit. I suppose it's possible that Couch might really believe that "the End Times" began with "Oswald's assassination of President Kennedy," especially since he was a witness at the event, but I think that would make him rare among his peers (who usually point to the establishment of the nation-state of Israel in 1948 as "the beginning of the End Times"). It does "sound good" (for public consumption, in a Dallas newspaper interview), but I'd be more inclined to see it as an attempt to co-opt the memory of President Kennedy into the larger Religious Right/conservative agenda: the emphasis is not on "what President Kennedy stood for," but on the accused assassin and what he stood for (Communism, Socialism); and the outrage not at the loss of JFK but at the attack on the President of the United States of America, the institution.


An astute observation, Dan.  (And nice summary of the OT/NT connection.)

4. There is a long-standing tradition of equating the End Times Antichrist with the Papacy (and Catholicism in general). This didn't start with Martin Luther, as there were schismatic sects and individuals making the accusation prior to his time; but it's an especially prominent strain of thought in Protestantism, especially among evangelical, fundamentalist churches (usually Bible prophecy believers). This is based on the Book of Revelation, where the Beast (Antichrist) is to have his seat of power at the "city of seven hills" (Rome). In The Late Great Planet Earth, Hal Lindsey tiptoed around this but left plenty of hints (for instance, advising readers at one point to "keep an eye on the papacy"). After I'd begun to question and critique his ideas and arguments, few things bothered me more than his using President Kennedy's assassination as an example of how the Beast might achieve world power: since Revelation says that the Beast will recover from a fatal head wound, a "Satanic counterfeit of the Resurrection" (of Christ), just imagine what might have happened had John F. Kennedy recovered from his assassination -- all the world would have been amazed and followed after him. Since John F. Kennedy remains the only Catholic to ever serve as US President, at some point one has to wonder what is feared about such a thing; the answer is very likely to be that a Catholic becoming the leader of the most powerful country on earth sounds a helluva lot like what might be expected at "the End Times"; but they just can't come out and say that, nor can they admit that there were such fears regarding John Kennedy (and his brothers) at the time.

The medieval millenarian tradition itself was to some degree responsible for this, perhaps not yet in the commentaries on Revelation like that of Adso of Montierender (end of 10th c.), where the end times are supposedly coincident with the end of the Carolingian dynasty, but certainly in the Divine Comedy (1320s), which drew heavily on the spiritual Franciscans, and especially on Joachim of Flores, for its criticism of the papacy and its portrayal of the church precisely in terms of the whore of Babylon and the beast.

And I agree with Dan: I do not know of any explicit cases, at least from the Middle Ages, of a predicted "return" of the Baptist, but I do believe Antipas may figure as an exemplum connected to apocalyptic warnings (in things like the speculum principum, or "mirror [for] princes", or other texts directed, usually by monks, at secular rulers as lessons in disaster).

One of the important outcomes of the War of June 1967 for evangelical Christians expecting the second coming of Jesus has been the Israeli take-over of the territory on which the Temple could be rebuilt and the priestly sacrificial rituals reinstated. The prospect of building the Temple excited premillennialist Christians as a meaningful act standing between this era and the next.

Albert Rossi wrote:Just a footnote to "This didn't start with Martin Luther, as there were schismatic sects and individuals making the accusation prior to his time."