New Critique of the CIT Interview of Sgt William Lagasse

Previously on my website ( I posted an analysis of Craig Ranke's interview of Albert Hemphill that displays the deceptive interview techniques used to slant the interview toward a predetermined outcome of supposedly supporting the CIT North of CITGO hypothesis.

I have now added a second ananysis: the interview of Sgt. William Lagasse. Lagasse is CIT's star witness. It seems that email correspondence between Lagasse and Dick Eastman prior to CIT's interview may have been the origin of the North of CITGO hypothesis. In that email correspondence Lagasse makes the erroneous statement that he was standing on the "Starboard side of the aircraft." I say erroneous because the word "starboard" is used three times in that correspondence. It is first introduced by Eastman. Lagasse, who exhibits a fondness for using jargon, then uses the word, but the context shows he has port and starboard reversed in his mind. Therefore he is really saying he was on the left side of the plane, which is consistent with a South of CITGO flight path, which is consistent with the trail of physical evidence.

In researching this article I ran across a number of other significant points, including the fact that the photograph Craig Ranke handed Lagasse (and Brooks) to draw their flight paths were highly biased toward a North of CITGO outcome and that anyone wanting to testify to the official path as their response would likely not be successful.

I also ran across an off topic comment by Brooks where he points at trees that waved from the airflow as the plane passed. Paying attention to the direction he was pointing, it is clear that the trees are located near the South of CITGO path of the plane.

--This link takes you to the introduction to both the Lagasse and Hemphill interviews and has useful reference links at the bottom:

--This link takes you directly to the Lagasse interview analysis:

--To find the articles from the home page of the web site, in the main menu, go to the Pentagon / Critique of CIT