Jim Garrison Was Wrong -- A Lone Killer Named Lee Oswald Murdered JFK And J.D. Tippit (Part 2 Of An Essay Exposing Mr. Garrison For What He Was -- I.E.: A Person Who Desperately NEEDED A Conspiracy To Exist On 11/22/63)
David VP
DOUBLE-MURDERER NAMED LEE HARVEY OSWALD
(A Follow-Up To This Jim Garrison Essay.......)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2317ac73008b3c8a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The late Jim Garrison's book "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was in
large part the basis for Oliver Stone's 1991 motion picture "JFK",
which is a film containing so many lies, half-truths, and
misrepresentations of the facts surrounding John F. Kennedy's 1963
assassination, it's literally difficult to keep up with all of them.
I cannot watch one single scene of Oliver Stone's film without finding
some distortion of the evidence in the real JFK or J.D. Tippit murder
cases. Some are small things being distorted; and some are great big
ones. One example (among dozens) being: Oliver Stone's version of shoe
clerk Johnny Brewer's testimony re. Lee Harvey Oswald's manner of dress
when Brewer encountered Oswald shortly after Oswald had shot and killed
policeman Tippit.
Stone, in his film, has Oswald (Gary Oldman) wearing a jacket as he
enters the Texas Theater and is seen by Brewer....and in one of the
movie's "Deleted Scenes" (on the DVD version of the film), Kevin
Costner (playing Garrison) even does a voice-over (lie) re. Brewer's
testimony, with Costner saying "Brewer said the man was wearing a
jacket".
Brewer, in reality, said exactly the opposite during his Warren
Commission testimony:
Mr. BELIN -- "Will you describe the man you saw?"
Mr. BREWER -- "He was a little man, about 5'9", and weighed about 150
pounds is all. ... And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on.
His shirt tail was out."
Mr. BELIN -- "Any jacket?"
Mr. BREWER -- "No."
Another interesting part of the Tippit portion of the movie "JFK" is
Oliver Stone's Audio Commentary during this part of the film, which is
riddled with inaccuracies. Stone has the audacity to spout the
following lie re. the Tippit shooting on the DVD's Commentary
soundtrack:
"Not one credible witness has really identified Oswald as a single
shooter {of Officer Tippit}. In fact, the only significant testimony
applies two to three shooters." -- O. Stone
Therefore, per Mr. Stone (and Garrison said pretty much the same thing
years earlier), the "only credible" witness must have been Acquilla
Clemmons, who, as far as I am aware, was THE ONLY witness who ever said
there was more than one person involved in the Tippit slaying.
Stone, like Jim Garrison before him, would simply rather believe his
OWN version of events, rather than the multiple witnesses who never saw
more than one shooter (with that one single shooter being positively
identified as Oswald by said witnesses).
It's interesting, indeed, that Stone thinks the "only significant
testimony" re. the Tippit crime came from Clemmons. Whereas, people
like Markham, Tatum, and Scoggins (who were all closer than Clemmons to
the scene of the murder) are deemed less "significant", merely, no
doubt, because they don't fit into Stone's (or Garrison's) "CT
Landscape" surrounding the murder.
I wonder if people realize just how many outright lies are contained in
Oliver Stone's 3-hour, 15-minute motion picture? The number is simply
staggering. And that number of distortions is increased considerably on
the DVD version of the film, when the Audio Commentary Track by Mr.
Stone and all of the "Deleted and Extended Scenes" are included as
well.
And a great deal of this deliberate misinformation put forth on the
movie screen came directly out of this book authored by Jim Garrison.
Another great place to see more of Mr. Garrison's skewed views of the
JFK case is to read Garrison's 1967 "Playboy Magazine" interview. Like
Stone's movie, that Playboy article will keep you busy as you try to
keep up with the inaccurate things Garrison keeps saying in that
lengthy piece. The whole interview can be read here:
www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html
Selected examples of Mr. Garrison's paranoia and loony-toon conspiracy
talk, taken from that Playboy interview, are provided via the quotes
below. My own rebuttal arguments follow each quote:
"Though he {Oswald} may not have known why he was instructed to do so,
this was undoubtedly why he got the job at the Texas School Book
Depository Building. The conspirators knew this would place him on the
scene and convince the world that a demented Marxist was the real
assassin." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
The above Garrison gem totally distorts (or just flat-out ignores) the
true and documented facts about how Oswald got his job at the
Depository in mid-October of '63. It was suburban Dallas housewives
Linnie Mae Randle and Ruth Paine who were directly responsible for
placing Lee Harvey Oswald in the TSBD, by way of ordinary
garden-variety happenstance.
Garrison must, therefore, believe that Mrs. Paine, who arranged
Oswald's job interview with Depository boss Roy Truly, was one of the
main "conspirators" who was setting up Oswald to take the fall for
JFK's murder the following month (which would also have to mean that
Paine had detailed knowledge of the President's motorcade route more
than a month before November 22). Garrison must also think that Roy
Truly was a big part of the patsy plot, because it was Mr. Truly who
actually hired Oswald (even though nobody was holding a shotgun to
Truly's head forcing him to hire Lee).
The commonly-held belief that Lee Oswald was "placed" in the Texas
School Book Depository by evil plotters prior to 11/22/63 is a
desperate attempt by CTers like Mr. Garrison to attach unprovable and
unsupportable conspiratorial "strings" to a random event that involved
several individuals...individuals whose collective and synchronized
actions could not possibly have been foreseen and controlled by a group
of behind-the-scenes conspirators.
---------------
"Anyone who takes the time to read the Warren Report will find that of
the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who were able to assess the origin of the
shots, almost two-thirds said they came from the grassy-knoll area in
front and to the right of the Presidential limousine and not from the
Book Depository." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
This is pure nonsense. There were, indeed, several witnesses who said
they heard shots coming from in front of JFK's car, but Garrison has
severely skewed the stats to support his claim of Knoll shooters. His
"almost two-thirds" figure is not even close to being accurate when
talking about the number of witnesses who said they heard frontal
shots. And even amongst other CTers, virtually no other pro-conspiracy
author has ever rigged those stats in such an out-of-whack manner.
The fact is that more than half of all earwitnesses heard shots coming
from the direction of the Book Depository, and not from the Knoll. And
an even more illuminating statistic reveals that less than 5% of all
earwitnesses heard shots from more than just a single general location
(front vs. rear). That stat speaks volumes....because even CTers admit
to SOME rear shots.
An interesting tabulation of this data can be found below:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
---------------
"The second shot struck the President in the back; the location of this
wound can be verified not by consulting the official autopsy report,
but by perusing the reports filed by two FBI agents who were present at
the President's autopsy. Both stated unequivocally that the bullet in
question entered President Kennedy's back and did not continue through
his body." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
Therefore, Mr. Garrison is, in essence, saying that he is much more
likely to trust the word of FBI agents (who, of course, were not
doctors and were not conducting the President's autopsy) rather than
take the word of the three physicians who each signed the official
autopsy report. After all, why believe the autopsy doctors when you
COULD just trust as Gospel the word of a bystander? ~sarcasm alert~
Plus: Why didn't these two FBI agents get the conspirators' memo which,
if CTers are right about the success of the Patsy Plot, must have been
passed out to nearly everyone in Officialdom on 11/22, a memo that
probably said: "Attn. All Agents -- We're framing Oswald tomorrow; so
remember to falsify as much evidence as humanly possible to ensure
conviction of patsy".
Evidently some people who needed to see it never received that
important document.
---------------
"We have also located another man who was not involved in the shooting
but created a diversionary action in order to distract people's
attention from the snipers. This individual screamed, fell to the
ground, and simulated an epileptic fit, drawing people away from the
vicinity of the knoll just before the President's motorcade reached the
ambush point." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
Yet another outright lie from the lips of District Attorney Garrison.
The man who had the so-called "simulated epileptic fit" was fully
identified by the FBI on May 26, 1964. His name was Jerry Belknap, a
man who had a history of epilepsy since childhood. Belknap also proved
to the FBI that he had paid the ambulance bill ($12.50) after he was
taken to Parkland Hospital. (Would a conspirator have bothered to pay
that ambulance bill and would a conspirator have given his real name,
running the risk of possibly being exposed?)
---------------
"President Kennedy was killed for one reason: because he was working
for a reconciliation with the U.S.S.R. and Castro's Cuba. His assassins
were a group of fanatic anti-Communists with a fusion of interests in
preventing Kennedy from achieving peaceful relations with the Communist
world." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
Any solid, verifiable proof of such accusations, Mr. Garrison? Any
physical evidence whatsoever that shows JFK was killed by more than one
gun? .... The answers to those two questions are: No and No.
But the lack of physical evidence never stopped a hard-boiled
CTer....that's been proven over and over again by a vast assortment of
conspiracists who have more theories up their sleeve than a dog has
fleas.
---------------
"In summation, there were at least five or six shots fired at the
President from front and rear by at least four gunmen, assisted by
several accomplices. At this stage of events, Lee Harvey Oswald was no
more than a spectator to the assassination -- perhaps in a very literal
sense. James Altgens snapped a picture that shows a man with a
remarkable resemblance to Oswald, standing in the doorway of the
Depository. The Altgens photograph indicates the very real possibility
that at the moment Oswald was supposed to have been shooting Kennedy,
he may actually have been standing outside the front door watching the
motorcade. .... I don't believe that Oswald shot anybody on November
22nd -- not the President and not Tippit." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
It seems as though these devilishly-clever conspirators forgot one
important thing when they were setting up LHO -- they forgot their
brains. For, who WITH brains would allow their lone "Patsy" to casually
drift outside and be photographed and seen by countless witnesses when
the plotters need to have Lee Harvey on the 6th Floor at 12:30? Per Mr.
Garrison's account of Oswald possibly being "Doorway Man", evidently
the real assassins were indeed brainless and lacked the common sense to
keep Oswald where he wouldn't be able to establish a credible alibi for
his 12:30 whereabouts.
Just think about these Garrison remarks for a moment longer too -- "At
least five or six shots were fired at the President from front and rear
... by at least four gunmen".
Doesn't a "4-Shooter, 6-Shot, 1-Patsy" assassination plot seem a bit
unlikely to anyone else but this writer? Would any professional killers
actually attempt to "frame" a lone fall guy in that type of overkill
fashion? In my opinion, no pro hit men would go about the complicated
task of setting up Oswald (or anybody else) in such a
needlessly-reckless way.
A single "pro" hit man could (and would) have easily killed JFK with
one or two shots (probably just one) from Oswald's "nest", without the
need to clog the works with needless back-up gunmen hiding all around
Dealey Plaza.
There is no possible way the conspirators could have ensured the
success of a multi-shooter plot to frame JUST Oswald in the minutes
during and after the shooting. No way. There are way too many
uncontrollable factors that could block the success of that One-Patsy
venture that Jim Garrison placed his faith in.
"Uncontrollable" items such as:
1.) A frontal shooter might very well have been seen by witnesses (and
to think that EVERY witness under the sun could be easily "bought",
"taken care of", and/or coerced by these plotters is, again, just too
much wishful thinking on the conspirators' part, IMO).
2.) A frontal shooter might strike other occupants in the car, or
strike somebody else in Dealey Plaza. But even if ONLY Kennedy is hit
by a frontal gunman, there are massive problems to be "corrected" by
the conspirators....bullets to be hidden and, of course, who knows how
many obvious frontal wounds on the victim to be (somehow) eliminated --
and eliminated immediately before any non-conspirators can spill any
beans. .... Only a person straight out of the booby hatch could believe
that anyone, regardless of "power" or "pull", could get away with such
a thing. It's just plain loony.
3.) The one "Patsy" (Oswald) could have easily, by pure accident and
happenstance, established a perfect alibi for himself at the time when
he was supposed to be on the 6th Floor shooting the President (as Mr.
Garrison apparently DID think occurred, with Oswald being seen in a
photo taken as the bullets were flying; even though all reasonable
researchers know full well that "Doorway Man" was actually Billy
Lovelady, and not Oswald; Lovelady even testified to that effect in
1964). ....
Plus -- If Oswald had really been in that doorway at 12:30, WHY ON
EARTH DIDN'T HE SAY HE WAS THERE?! If he's got an ironclad alibi like
that, why wouldn't he use it? Instead, he says not a word about being
outside on the steps at 12:30, and even tells the police a provable lie
re. his whereabouts (the lie about "having lunch with Junior {Jarman}"
at the time of the shooting). How much sense does that make if Oswald
had really been in the Depository doorway? ....
And the very fact that Oswald did NOT have a usable, provable alibi for
exactly 12:30 PM is absolutely remarkable IF he had really been
wandering around on the lower floors of the Depository (or was outside
the building), as many CTers firmly believe; and even the most rabid of
conspiracy theorists have got to admit, that from the "CT/Patsy" POV,
Oswald's not having a usable/believable/solid alibi is certainly, by
far, the biggest piece of LUCK in the whole "Patsy Plot". ....
These amazing Patsy Plotters just lucked out, evidently, in that Oswald
was not seen by a single person inside or outside the TSBD at precisely
the time of the assassination -- except by Howard Brennan, Ron Fischer,
and Robert Edwards, of course, who saw Oswald or a nicely-arranged
Oswald "imposter" in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30 or just seconds before
12:30.
4.) And the likelihood that all of the non-TSBD bullets are going to
somehow get swept under the rug is extremely remote, especially in a
Bob Groden-like scenario. Mr. Groden (per his book "The Killing Of A
President"), incredibly, has ZERO of the shots coming from the Oswald
window, and a total of up to TEN shots being fired...and ALL OF THEM
coming from rifles other than the one rifle these idiot plotters are
going to attempt to frame Oswald with! Could Groden's scenario BE any
more reckless and preposterous?! I doubt it.
5.) And a biggie, that most CTers evidently don't think could have ever
happened before 12:30 on November 22nd -- The one Patsy (Mr. LHO) could
"get wise" to the plot that is brewing all around him and take measures
to guarantee he could never be blamed for the actual assassination of
John Kennedy.
When thinking about any "Frame Lee Oswald As The One Patsy" plan, I
just cannot visualize any professional assassins (even for a minute)
contemplating the use of multiple shooters; let alone some gunmen
firing from the Grassy Knoll, i.e., the exact opposite direction from
where their single dupe is supposed to be located.
---------------------
As the previously-mentioned quotes from the mouth of Mr. Garrison amply
demonstate, if anyone has a desire to set out "On The Trail Of A
Lunatic Conspiracy Theorist" -- look no further than Earling Carothers
(Jim) Garrison.
David Von Pein
February 2006
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>THE ASSASSIN "TRAIL" STOPS AT THE FEET (AND GUNS) OF ONE
>DOUBLE-MURDERER NAMED LEE HARVEY OSWALD
>
>(A Follow-Up To This Jim Garrison Essay.......)
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2317ac73008b3c8a
It's too bad that Davey-boy refuses to respond to rebuttals of silly posts like
this.
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Walt
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e1rft...@drn.newsguy.com...
"He had a BROWN sports shirt on.".......
Hmmm........ Do you suppose Lee changed his shirt at the rooming house, and
then changed it again in the Texas Theater? Brewer said the man he saw had
on a BROWN sports shirt.... Color photos of Oswald being escorted from the
Texas Theater reveal that he is wearing a GRAY shirt.
Walt
Walt
"Walt" <papako...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:4441...@news.bea.com...
The 35 year old, 175 pound man with the rifle that Howard Brennan saw in the
WEST end window of the sixth floor of the TSBD was wearing a LIGHT TAN
colored khaki shirt and trousers that were a shade LIGHTER in color.
When Mrs. Bledsoe saw Lee Oswald on the bus just a few minutes after the
shooting, she said he was wearing a BROWN long sleeved shirt with a large
HOLE in the right elbow.
Lee told his interrogators that he had changed shirts at the rooming house
at one O'clock, and the police found the BROWN shirt in Lee's room later
that afternoon. Photos taken at the time of his arrest reveal that he was
wearing a GRAY long sleeved shirt with NO HOLE in the elbow.
The FBI said that fibers found on the butt plate of the rifle found in the
TSBD after the shooting matched the shirt Oswald was wearing AT THE TIME of
his arrest.
Oswald was wearing the BROWN shirt at the time of the shooting, and the star
witness said the man who had the rifle was wearing a LIGHT TAN shirt. If
Oswald had been the killer, Brennan should have seen the DARK BROWN shirt
and DARK GRAY trousers, and the fibers the FBI found should have matched
the BROWN shirt and not the GRAY shirt.
Todd W. Vaughan
>Lee told his interrogators that he had changed shirts at the rooming house
at one O'clock, <
Oswald only began spinning that yarn on Saturday 23 November 1963 after
the shirt he was arrested in was collected from him as evidence after
the Friday night press showing and before his arraignment early
Saturday morning. On Firday 22 November 1963 he was claiming he only
changed his pants.
>Photos taken at the time of his arrest reveal that he was wearing a GRAY long sleeved shirt with NO HOLE in the elbow. <
Absolutely B.S. The color SL Reed photos show that Oswald was wearing a
t-shirt under the same brown shirt he was wearing all day Friday after
his arrest
Where do you come up with this stuff?
>Oswald was wearing the BROWN shirt at the time of the shooting,
How do you know he didn't take the shirt off and put it back on?
Todd
Walt
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145296344....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Walt,
>
> >Lee told his interrogators that he had changed shirts at the rooming
house
> at one O'clock, <
>
>
> Oswald only began spinning that yarn on Saturday 23 November 1963 after
> the shirt he was arrested in was collected from him as evidence after
> the Friday night press showing and before his arraignment early
> Saturday morning. On Firday 22 November 1963 he was claiming he only
> changed his pants.
>
took while interrogating Oswald at 3:00PM. Anybody can read his notes and
know that you are a liar.
>
>
> >Photos taken at the time of his arrest reveal that he was wearing a GRAY
long sleeved shirt with NO HOLE in the elbow. <
>
>
> Absolutely B.S. The color SL Reed photos show that Oswald was wearing a
> t-shirt under the same brown shirt he was wearing all day Friday after
> his arrest
>
> Where do you come up with this stuff?
>
>
> >Oswald was wearing the BROWN shirt at the time of the shooting,
>
>
> How do you know he didn't take the shirt off and put it back on?
>
suggestion ranks right up there with the SBT for absurity.....Only a lunatic
mind could suggest
these absurdities.
Walt
>
> Todd
>
Todd W. Vaughan
You wrote:
>>>Lee told his interrogators that he had changed shirts at the rooming
>>>house at one O'clock,
I replied:
>> Oswald only began spinning that yarn on Saturday 23 November 1963 after
>> the shirt he was arrested in was collected from him as evidence after
>> the Friday night press showing and before his arraignment early
>> Saturday morning. On Firday 22 November 1963 he was claiming he only
>> changed his pants.
You came back with:
>Todd, You're a damned liar. I know you've seen Cap't Fritz notes which he
>took while interrogating Oswald at 3:00PM. Anybody can read his notes and
>know that you are a liar.
Yes, I have seen Fritz's notes (in fact, I've held the originals in my
hands at NARA II).
And anyone who reads Fritz's notes will see that it's YOU who are the
liar.
So let's look at Fritz's notes and prove you to be that liar.
The link http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm takes us to Fritz's notes
for the 1st interrogation from 3:15 to 4:15 on Friday 22 November 1963.
Under "3:15: p.m." Fritz wrote "home by bus changed britches".
Nowhere does he say Oswald claimed to have also changed his shirt.
The link http://www.jfk-info.com/notes2.htm takes us to Fritz's notes
for the 2nd interrogation from 10:35 to 11:43 on Saturday 23 November
1963.
There Fritz wrote "at apt. Changed shirts _ tr. Put in dirty clothes -
long sleeve red sh + gray tr."
So, as I said, on Friday 22 November 1963 Oswald was claiming he only
changed his pants. He changed his story on Saturday 23 November 1963
after the shirt he was arrested in was collected from him as evidence
after the Friday night press showing and before his arraignment early
Saturday morning.
And, as I said, you, Walt, are the liar.
You also wrote:
>>>Photos taken at the time of his arrest reveal that he was wearing a GRAY long sleeved shirt with NO HOLE in the elbow.
I replied:
>> Absolutely B.S. The color SL Reed photos show that Oswald was wearing a
>> t-shirt under the same brown shirt he was wearing all day Friday after
>> his arrest
>> Where do you come up with this stuff?
Additionally you wrote:
>>>Oswald was wearing the BROWN shirt at the time of the shooting,
I replied:
>> How do you know he didn't take the shirt off and put it back on?
And for both above you came back with:
>I know because ..... What you suggest is illogical and absurd.... This
>suggestion ranks right up there with the SBT for absurity.....Only a lunatic
>mind could suggest
>these absurdities.
I notice that nowhere do you address the fact that the color SL Reed
photos show that Oswald was wearing a t-shirt under the same brown
shirt he was wearing all day Friday after his arrest.
I also note that you claim it's "absurd" that Oswald could have taken
off his brown shirt. Perhaps you think that it was glued onto his back.
Perhaps in your life you never take your own shirt off, wearing the
same shirt day in, day out, 24-7-365, and thus expect the same from
others. Disgusting, but possible
I also note that you claim "Only a lunatic mind could suggest these
absurdities."
Yes Walt, only a lunatic mind could.
Your lunatic mind.
Todd
Walt
Excuse me..... I have none of my material at hand and was posting from
memory. Yer right Fritz's notes for 11/22/63 says he changed his britches.
>
> So, as I said, on Friday 22 November 1963 Oswald was claiming he only
> changed his pants.
Not so.... Fritz may have neglected to write "changed shirt and britches"
........
Oswald had to have told them he changed his shirt, because the cops found
the brown shirt in his room on the afternoon of 11/22/63.
He changed his story on Saturday 23 November 1963
> after the shirt he was arrested in was collected from him as evidence
> after the Friday night press showing and before his arraignment early
> Saturday morning.
>
The BROWN shirt now in the archives has a large hole in the right elbow just
as Mrs Bledsoe described when she saw Oswald on the bus. Bill Winfrey's
photo ( Oswald in handcuffs) taken in the police station after Oswald's
arrest shows that the shirt he is wearing has NO hole in the right elbow.
Colored photos taken outside of the Texas Theater shoe that the shirt with
no hole in the elbow is GRAY. Furthermore, the FBI's description of the
fibers found on the butt plate of the rifle are consistant with a GRAY
shirt.
> And, as I said, you, Walt, are the liar.
>
> You also wrote:
>
> >>>Photos taken at the time of his arrest reveal that he was wearing a
GRAY long sleeved shirt with NO HOLE in the elbow.
>
> I replied:
>
> >> Absolutely B.S. The color SL Reed photos show that Oswald was wearing a
> >> t-shirt under the same brown shirt he was wearing all day Friday after
> >> his arrest
> >> Where do you come up with this stuff?
See the Bill Winfrey photo.
Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
So you called me a" damned liar" based on your faulty memory?
That's pretty sloppy research.
Besides, the notes are online, as I posted.
No excuse.
>
> >
> > So, as I said, on Friday 22 November 1963 Oswald was claiming he only
> > changed his pants.
>
> Not so.... Fritz may have neglected to write "changed shirt and britches"
> ........
"May have?"
Well the fact is that Fritz did not write that.
His report also says nothing about changing his shirt:
"I asked him where he went to when he left work, and he told me that he
had a room on 1026 North Beckley, that he went over there and changed
his trousers and got his pistol and went to the picture show."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app11.htm
But the clincher is his Warren Commission testimony, where Fritz
actually points out the fact that Oswald changed his story:
Regarding the Friday interrogation
"Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus
to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed
clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he
took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just
carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute.
That is just about it."
But regarding the Saturday morning interrogation
"Mr. FRITZ. This time he told me a different story about changing the
clothing. He told me this time that he had changed his trousers and
shirt and I asked him what he did with his dirty clothes and he said, I
believe he said, he put them, the dirty clothes, I believe he said he
put a shirt in a drawer. "
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
So it's a done deal, Walt. LHO changed his story. Another one of is
in-custody lies
Why? Why lie about changing a shirt?
Because Oswald was smart enough to know that they took the shirt as
evidence and were going to try and find fibers that matched that shirt
on the rifle.
And in fact they did.
>
> Oswald had to have told them he changed his shirt, because the cops found
> the brown shirt in his room on the afternoon of 11/22/63.
>
> He changed his story on Saturday 23 November 1963
> > after the shirt he was arrested in was collected from him as evidence
> > after the Friday night press showing and before his arraignment early
> > Saturday morning.
> >
> The BROWN shirt now in the archives has a large hole in the right elbow just
> as Mrs Bledsoe described when she saw Oswald on the bus. Bill Winfrey's
> photo ( Oswald in handcuffs) taken in the police station after Oswald's
> arrest shows that the shirt he is wearing has NO hole in the right elbow.
> Colored photos taken outside of the Texas Theater shoe that the shirt with
> no hole in the elbow is GRAY. Furthermore, the FBI's description of the
> fibers found on the butt plate of the rifle are consistant with a GRAY
> shirt.
>
The Winfrey photo simply is not taken at the right angle to show the
hole.
The color S.L. Reed photos taken outside of the Texas Theater clearly
show the brown shirt. How you come up with the shirt being gray is
anybody's guess.
>
>
> > And, as I said, you, Walt, are the liar.
> >
> > You also wrote:
> >
> > >>>Photos taken at the time of his arrest reveal that he was wearing a
> GRAY long sleeved shirt with NO HOLE in the elbow.
> >
> > I replied:
> >
> > >> Absolutely B.S. The color SL Reed photos show that Oswald was wearing a
> > >> t-shirt under the same brown shirt he was wearing all day Friday after
> > >> his arrest
> > >> Where do you come up with this stuff?
>
> See the Bill Winfrey photo.
Again, the Bill Winfrey photo is not taken at the right angle to show
the hole.
Todd
Walt
Oh no!...I didn't call you a damned liar based on faulty memory. I called
you a damned liar because you are. I believe Oswald told the interrogators
that he changed his shirt at the roominghouse at one O'clock, but since I
don't have any reference materials at hand I can't quote exact evidence.
We've debated the shirt issue before, but you aren't honest enough to see
the facts.
Pure B.S...... Monday morning quarterbacking. You're incredible....On one
hand you portray Lee as being a stupid "nut", while in this post you portray
him as being near genius.
How would Lee have known, or even guessed, that the FBI would find any
fibers on the rifle. Oswald shirt and the rifle were both sent to the FBI
lab in Washington after midnight. It wasn't until the next day that they
found the fibers.
>
> And in fact they did.
>
>
>
> >
> > Oswald had to have told them he changed his shirt, because the cops
found
> > the brown shirt in his room on the afternoon of 11/22/63.
> >
> > He changed his story on Saturday 23 November 1963
> > > after the shirt he was arrested in was collected from him as evidence
> > > after the Friday night press showing and before his arraignment early
> > > Saturday morning.
> > >
> > The BROWN shirt now in the archives has a large hole in the right elbow
just
> > as Mrs Bledsoe described when she saw Oswald on the bus. Bill Winfrey's
> > photo ( Oswald in handcuffs) taken in the police station after Oswald's
> > arrest shows that the shirt he is wearing has NO hole in the right
elbow.
> > Colored photos taken outside of the Texas Theater shoe that the shirt
with
> > no hole in the elbow is GRAY. Furthermore, the FBI's description of the
> > fibers found on the butt plate of the rifle are consistant with a GRAY
> > shirt.
> >
>
>
>
> The Winfrey photo simply is not taken at the right angle to show the
> hole.
Utter nonsense.... ask anybody who has worn a shirt with a hole worn at the
elbow, and they will tell you that when you bend your arm as Oswald is seen
doing the elbow pops out of the hole. The shirt sleeve is stretch tight
against Oswald's elbow and there is NO HOLE.
David VP
And did Lee neatly hang up his other shirt in his closet as he hastily
dashed in and out of 1026 Beckley at 1 PM? If not....where's the shirt
he must have tossed on his bed (or someplace) in his shoe-boxed-sized
room at Beckley Avenue? Was a shirt noticed lying around, off of a
hanger?
IMO, there's no way on Earth that Oswald took the time to change any
clothing after rushing into his roominghouse after assassinating the
President. Why would he feel the need to do that anyway? Makes no sense
to me. He was in too big a hurry (and for a damn good reason too).
It's my belief that Earlene Roberts' "3 to 4 minutes" estimate re. how
long Oswald stayed in his room on 11/22 was stretched-out and skewed
considerably (like many people do when estimating time -- e.g., an
assassination witness in Dealey Plaza who claimed to the WC that the
actual shooting took about "5 minutes" or so, from first shot to last).
I have no "proof", true -- but common sense (and human errors in
judging "timelines", which couldn't BE more common) are things that are
telling me that Lee Oswald was in that room nowhere near as long as the
"3 to 4 minutes" that Mrs. Roberts estimated. It was probably closer to
30 seconds...tops.
Yes, I'm just guessing re. this Oswald "In His Room Timeline". But it's
a common-sense guess, IMO. No way Oswald was twiddling his thumbs in
that tiny room for up to four minutes when all he needed to do was to
grab a jacket and his revolver (which would take only a matter of mere
seconds to accomplish).
>> "I believe Oswald told the interrogators..."
And if there's one person (above all others) we should believe and
trust, it is the accused double-murderer. Correct? His word is surely
Gospel in all matters pertaining to his situation, circa 11/22/63.
This is the same lying asswipe (Oswald) who told all these lies in very
short order while in custody (and this list probably doesn't even cover
half of Oswald's falsehoods).......
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ea04b9e6141f0098
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>> "I believe Oswald told the interrogators that he changed his shirt..."
>
>And did Lee neatly hang up his other shirt in his closet as he hastily
>dashed in and out of 1026 Beckley at 1 PM? If not....where's the shirt
>he must have tossed on his bed (or someplace) in his shoe-boxed-sized
>room at Beckley Avenue? Was a shirt noticed lying around, off of a
>hanger?
The DPD collected it. Or didn't you know that?
>IMO, there's no way on Earth that Oswald took the time to change any
>clothing after rushing into his roominghouse after assassinating the
>President.
So Baker and Brennan were what, lying?
>Why would he feel the need to do that anyway? Makes no sense
>to me. He was in too big a hurry (and for a damn good reason too).
Why? Can you cite *ANYTHING* that puts LHO in a "hurry"? For what reason do
you assert that he decided *NOT* to change his shirt?
>It's my belief that Earlene Roberts' "3 to 4 minutes" estimate re. how
>long Oswald stayed in his room on 11/22 was stretched-out and skewed
>considerably (like many people do when estimating time -- e.g., an
>assassination witness in Dealey Plaza who claimed to the WC that the
>actual shooting took about "5 minutes" or so, from first shot to last).
And yet, no such "skewing" of time took place when it comes to Tippit, is there?
>I have no "proof", true -- but common sense (and human errors in
>judging "timelines", which couldn't BE more common) are things that are
>telling me that Lee Oswald was in that room nowhere near as long as the
>"3 to 4 minutes" that Mrs. Roberts estimated. It was probably closer to
>30 seconds...tops.
You *have* to shave that time as much as you can. And then you have to move
Tippit's killing to later than it actually was. It's the only way you can get
LHO to the scene of the crime in time.
But what you *cannot* be is either consistent, or true to the actual evidence.
>Yes, I'm just guessing re. this Oswald "In His Room Timeline". But it's
>a common-sense guess, IMO.
Based *ON WHAT*???
What common-sense reason can you convince anyone of that makes LHO spend 30
seconds in his room... 1 minute in his room... 3 minutes in his room... 10
minutes in his room...
Go ahead... convince everyone.
>No way Oswald was twiddling his thumbs in
>that tiny room for up to four minutes when all he needed to do was to
>grab a jacket and his revolver (which would take only a matter of mere
>seconds to accomplish).
Speculation that is simply nonsense. I came home today, then went to class.
Did I spend 2 minutes in my home, 20 minutes, an hour? After all, all I did was
change clothes... TELL US HOW LONG IT TOOK ME!
You don't have a clue - just like you don't have a clue about LHO.
>>> "I believe Oswald told the interrogators..."
>
>And if there's one person (above all others) we should believe and
>trust, it is the accused double-murderer. Correct? His word is surely
>Gospel in all matters pertaining to his situation, circa 11/22/63.
It is when it matches the rest of the evidence.
<garbage snipped>
David VP
Just keep on a-makin' up excuses for dear beloved Saint Oswald.
Pretty soon you'll have Oswald somewhere in California during the
assassination, feeding the hungry and helping the ailing elderly.
You're pathetic.
Ben Holmes
Snip and run... snip and run...
Coward, aren't you?
In article <1145425909....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
Walt
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1145409576....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> "I believe Oswald told the interrogators that he changed his shirt..."
>
> And did Lee neatly hang up his other shirt in his closet as he hastily
> dashed in and out of 1026 Beckley at 1 PM? If not....where's the shirt
> he must have tossed on his bed (or someplace) in his shoe-boxed-sized
> room at Beckley Avenue? Was a shirt noticed lying around, off of a
> hanger?
Oswald told his interrogators that he changed his clothes in his room at
Mrs. Robert's rooming house at 1:00PM.
He told them he put the dirty clothes in a dresser drawer which is exactly
where they found the BROWN shirt later that afternoon. You can find
verification for this in appendix (XI ?) of the Warren Report, by reading
the reports of the police officers, and the interrogators.
Caution!, It's obvious that you have trouble comprehending the written
word, so perhaps you can find someone to read it to you.
Walt
Anthony Marsh
That could be true, but we can't prove it based solely on Fritz's notes.
His notes may not be complete and he may not have written down every
word Oswald said, especially when Fritz abbreviated so much. We have to
assume that tr. meant trousers.
> after the shirt he was arrested in was collected from him as evidence
> after the Friday night press showing and before his arraignment early
> Saturday morning.
>
And again, this shows the value of reinterviewing someone to get more
details.
guybann...@aol.com
well advised not to make a fool of himself/herself by denying the
REALITY of the JFK assassination conspiracy.
-- A Former Lone-Nutter
guybann...@aol.com
Grizzlie Antagonist
You know, in my heart, I never really believed that story about the
cherry tree.
No way that just one axe could have done that much damage. There had
to have been a second lumberjack surreptitiously cutting away from
behind the mossy foliage on the north side of the tree.
-- GA, A Former Lone-Axer
aeffects
there you go, AGAIN -- another believer in THE *north* side moss
conspiracy angle...
Grizzlie Antagonist
Well, that's what side of the tree the moss grows on in the northern
hemisphere. Did you find evidence of moss growing on any other side of
this particular tree? Then it must have been an Agency "plant" -- if
you'll pardon the expression.
Texextra
Yeah, someone slipped in the carriage and brought the tree down with an
errant shot, right?
John Blubaugh
Actually, it is a little known fact that George Washington was born and
spent his early years in Texas. When his father came across a chopped down
mesquite bush, he asked George about it and George said, "Father I cannot
tell a lie." George's father said, "Damn, we have to get the hell out of
Texas" and this is how they wound up in Virginia.
JB
Grizzlie Antagonist
Very good. You're thinking outside of the box.
Sam
"John Blubaugh" <jblu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152565185.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
that's almost as good as the true one i heard
neighbor: hey skull and bones boy, git yor fence off my texas land!
skull and bones boy: oh sorry, we'll take it off right now, stealin' is a
family tradition, ya know!