The TSBD Roll Call

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

There was no "roll-call" that resulted in a single missing employee. It's
a shame that not all believers can instantly state this for the record.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I've never been sure whether there was or wasn't an actual "roll call" of
the TSBD warehouse employees, but in an interview with Gary Mack in June
of 2002, Buell Wesley Frazier said there definitely WAS a roll call of the
Depository's warehouse employees shortly after the assassination, with
names being READ OFF by someone. Here's what Frazier said in 2002:

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Mr. Shelley got us together--he and Mr.
Truly--and we had a roll call."

GARY MACK -- "And where did this take place?"

FRAZIER -- "Outside Mr. Shelley's office."

MACK -- "Did they actually read off names? Or did they just ask you guys,
'anybody missing'?"

FRAZIER -- "No, they read names off and you had to answer."

MACK -- "Okay. And who was missing?"

FRAZIER -- "The only person missing was Lee Oswald."

~~~~~~~~~

Audio of the above 6/21/2002 interview excerpt:

https://app.box.com/s/1rtitsd5catfh496qbdaxjrc96zhsp87

[David Von Pein]

DEX OLSEN SAID:

I'm not going to bicker about Buell's incorrect memory, Davy, but if
Oswald was there at the roll call would that make him any less guilty or
innocent?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dex,

I tend to think Buell Wesley Frazier's memory was, indeed, "incorrect"
about a few of the things he discussed with Gary Mack in that 2002
interview -- particularly Buell's recollection of having seen Lee Oswald
walking down Houston Street five to ten minutes after the assassination
had taken place. That observation is totally at odds with what Frazier
said in his 11/22/63 affidavit.

So, yes, I think it's a good idea to take some of Buell's 39-year-old
remembrances with a grain of salt. But, with that caveat in mind, he still
did say there definitely was a "roll call" of the TSBD warehouse workers.

Whether Frazier was relying on something that was said by someone else
regarding there being an official "roll call", or whether he (in June of
2002) had a firm independent recollection of his own of there being a roll
call of the employees, is something I guess we could debate until the cows
come home.

We'll probably never really know for sure, because a 39-year-old memory
can result in some hazy and strange recollections -- like seeing Oswald
out on the street at 12:35 or 12:40 on November 22nd, even though Frazier
specifically said this in his first-day affidavit: "I did not see Lee
anymore after about 11:00 AM today."

But you'll have to admit that this quote below is rather interesting,
don't you think? ....

"They read names off and you had to answer." -- Buell Frazier; 6/21/02

Those words should make at least a few conspiracy theorists stop and
wonder: Well, gee, I wonder if there perhaps was a roll call after all.

I know I'm wondering.

More....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1142.html

[David Von Pein]

A further observation....

The "grain of salt" rule must be applied to Buell Frazier's memory,
because we know that when Frazier said "The only person missing was Lee
Oswald", his memory must not be 100% accurate, due to the fact that if
such a roll call had occurred on 11/22/63 inside the Depository (during
which the warehouse workers "had to answer" after their names were
called), another warehouse employee besides just Lee Harvey Oswald would
have turned up missing, with that employee being Charles Givens, who would
not have had the opportunity to attend any such roll call inside the
Depository because he was unable to get back into the building following
the assassination.

[John McAdams]

On 19 Jun 2016 00:37:22 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

I've always assumed that the "roll call" was simply a misguided
assumption on Curry's part.

Would Frazier's testimony make me change my mind on that?

I'll be slow doing so, since testimony this old is really, really
suspect.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[donald willis]

Does anyone have a photo of Bill Shelley?

[Anthony Marsh]

Cute propaganda. And tell us what happened when they called GIVENS?
Was he there to answer? No. Was HE reported missing. Yes. The DPD put
out an APB for G-I-V-E-N-S.

You conveniently gloss over facts like this. So should YOU consider the
Givens was also an assassin? If not, then why did he flee the TSBD?
Of course you won't answer and everyone else here can see why. BIAS.

[Ralph Cinque]

Oh My God! This claim of Buell Frazier's is absurd. He claims there was a
roll call, an actual roll call after the assassination, in which names
were shouted and each had to respond- like in school. I'll give you the
link so that you can listen to Frazier yourself.

But first, it doesn't make sense. He said that it involved all the
warehouse workers, of which he gave these examples: the "bosses", the
"order-fillers", and the "packers." But, only the warehouse workers, not
the office people who worked on the 2nd floor or elsewhere.

We are talking about adult human beings here, right? So, Shelley read off
a list of names, saying, for instance, "Frazier" and Frazier responded by
saying "Here"? Or "Present"? Just like in school? Is that what we are
supposed to believe? But, it's ridiculous because nobody would do that.
Nobody would behave like that. If Shelley had a list, and he had these men
in front of him, he would just look and see who was there, and check off
their names. He could see, couldn't he? They were all close at hand,
weren't they? He knew them all, didn't he? He would just scan himself and
check-off who was there. And then finally, he might say something like:
"Where's Oswald?" But, there was no need to have a roll call. It wasn't
Kindergarten.

https://app.box.com/s/1rtitsd5catfh496qbdaxjrc96zhsp87

What is wrong with people that they can't see the infantileness of this?

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Mr. Shelley got us together--he and Mr.
Truly--and we had a roll call."

GARY MACK -- "And where did this take place?"

FRAZIER -- "Outside Mr. Shelley's office."

MACK -- "Did they actually read off names? Or did they just ask you guys,
'anybody missing'?"

FRAZIER -- "No, they read names off and you had to answer."

MACK -- "Okay. And who was missing?"

FRAZIER -- "The only person missing was Lee Oswald."

Buell Frazier is nothing but a mouthpiece for the official story. His job
is to support it. He speaks kindly of Oswald when he does it because it
makes him seem sympathetic to Oswald.

This claim about a roll call is bogus. Here is the testimony of Bill
Shelley in which he said nothing about a roll call.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shelley1.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm

Here is the relevant testimony in which he described what he did after the
shooting:

Mr. BALL - What did you and Billy Lovelady do?
Mr. SHELLEY - We walked on down to the first railroad track there on the
dead-end street and stood there and watched them searching cars down there
in the parking lots for a little while and then we came in through our
parking lot at the west end.
Mr. BALL - At the west end?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes; and then in the side door into the shipping room.
Mr. BALL - When you came into the shipping room did you see anybody?
Mr. SHELLEY - I saw Eddie Piper.
Mr. BALL - What was he doing?
Mr. SHELLEY - He was coming back from where he was watching the motorcade
in the southwest corner of the shipping room.
Mr. BALL - Of the first floor of the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Who else did you see?
Mr. SHELLEY - That's all we saw immediately.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Vickie Adams?
Mr. SHELLEY - I saw her that day but I don't remember where I saw her.
Mr. BALL - You don't remember whether you saw her when you came back?
Mr. SHELLEY - It was after we entered the building.
Mr. BALL - You think you did see her after you entered the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; I thought it was on the fourth floor awhile after
that.
Mr. BALL - Now, did the police come into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; they started coming in pretty fast.
Mr. BALL - Did you go with them any place?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes; Mr. Truly left me guarding the elevator, not to let
anybody up and down the elevator or stairway and some plainclothesmen came
in; I don't know whether they were Secret Service or FBI or what but they
wanted me to take them upstairs, so we went up and started searching the
various floors.
Mr. BALL - Did you go up on the sixth floor?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Were you there when they found anything up there?
Mr. SHELLEY - I was, I believe I was on the sixth floor when they found the
gun but we were searching all parts of that floor.

It goes on from there where they go to City Hall, but Shelley makes no
mention of any roll call.

Here is what Roy Truly said about it:

Mr. BELIN. About how long after these shots do you think it took you to go
all the way up and look around the roof and come all the way down again?
Mr. TRULY. Oh, we might have been gone between 5 and 10 minutes. It is hard
to say.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got back to the first floor, or what
did you see?
Mr. TRULY. When I got back to the first floor, at first I didn't see
anything except officers running around, reporters in the place. There
was a regular madhouse.
Mr. BELIN. Had they sealed off the building yet, do you know?
Mr. TRULY. I am sure they had.
Mr. BELIN. Then what?
Mr. TRULY. Then in a few minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at
a time like that--I noticed some of my boys were over in the west corner
of the shipping department, and there were several officers over there
taking their names and addresses, and so forth.
There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other
employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not
among these boys.
So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other
warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there.
First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell--I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him,
he looked around and said no.
Mr. BELIN. When you asked Bill Shelley if he had seen whom?
Mr. TRULY. Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and he
said no.
So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here
missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had another
one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there or not. He
said, "What do you think"? And I got to thinking. He said, "Well, we
better do it anyway." It was so quick after that.
So I picked the phone up then and called Mr. Aiken, at the warehouse, and
got the boy's name and general description and telephone number and address
at Irving.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have any address for him in Dallas, or did you just have
an address in Irving?
Mr. TRULY. Just the address in Irving. I knew nothing of this Dallas
address. I didn't know he was living away from his family.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm

Again, there's nothing about any roll call.

So, am I saying that Frazier just made it up about the roll call?
Yes! YES! YES! He made it up.

Why did he make it such a childish story? Because he's a childish kind of
guy. Haven't you noticed that about him?

It's possible that someone told him to say it. But, if so, it was long
ago, the traumatized Frazier has long lost the ability to distinguish
between reality and fiction. Who knows, at this point, he may actually
believe there was a roll call. But, there is no reason for you to believe
it. It's ridiculous. It's stupid. Nobody would do such a thing. And, I
have given you concrete evidence that nobody did. There was NO roll call.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

And just how many of those on "roll call" knew about Oswald's uh, past?
If I might ask.

[mainframetech]

Most kooky LNs would say that 2002 is 39 years old and witness memory
is no good at the length of time. Or is that excuse only used on CT
arguments?

Chris

[David Von Pein]

Here's a snippet of testimony from Roy Truly (at 3 H 230), which I think
is pretty interesting. The conspiracy theorists who think Mr. Truly was
part of a plot to frame and railroad Lee Harvey Oswald for JFK's murder
must also think Roy was telling one whopper of a lie when he said these
words to the Warren Commission: "I don't want to say anything about a boy
I don't know anything about. This is a terrible thing." ....


Mr. TRULY -- “So Captain Fritz left the men he was with and walked
over about 8 or 10 feet and said, "What is it, Mr. Truly?," or words to
that effect. And I told him about this boy missing and gave him his
address and telephone number and general description. And he says, "Thank
you, Mr. Truly. We will take care of it." And I went back downstairs in a
few minutes. There was a reporter followed me away from that spot, and
asked me who Oswald was. I told the reporter, "You must have ears like a
bird, or something. I don't want to say anything about a boy I don't know
anything about. This is a terrible thing." Or words to that effect. I
said, "Don't bother me. Don't mention the name. Let's find something out."
So I went back downstairs with Chief Lumpkin.”

[Ralph Cinque]

Why did you reject my response to this, John? On what grounds?

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/06/oh-my-god-this-claim-of-buell-fraziers.html

[donald willis]

McAdams & Cinque in agreement! Yow!

[donald willis]

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:40:14 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2016 00:37:22 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >A further observation....
> >
> >The "grain of salt" rule must be applied to Buell Frazier's memory,
> >because we know that when Frazier said "The only person missing was Lee
> >Oswald", his memory must not be 100% accurate, due to the fact that if
> >such a roll call had occurred on 11/22/63 inside the Depository (during
> >which the warehouse workers "had to answer" after their names were
> >called), another warehouse employee besides just Lee Harvey Oswald would
> >have turned up missing, with that employee being Charles Givens, who would
> >not have had the opportunity to attend any such roll call inside the
> >Depository because he was unable to get back into the building following
> >the assassination.
>
> I've always assumed that the "roll call" was simply a misguided
> assumption on Curry's part.

Kent Biffle reported, in the 11/23/63 Dallas Morning News:

"Oswald later failed to report at a 1:15pm roll call of employes. Truly
reported this to police." (in The Assassination Story)

dcw

[John McAdams]

On 19 Jun 2016 17:22:45 -0400, donald willis <dcwi...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Interesting piece of data, but I'm inclined to think that Biffle mixed
things up a bit, just like Curry did.

Truly's on the record testimony trumps.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Von Pein]

BTW, Billy Lovelady said there was a "roll call" too....

"Billy Lovelady told the media back in 1964 that "a roll call was taken of
the dozen or so men in my work gang. Only Oswald was missing" (New York
Herald Tribune, May 24, 1964, p.10)." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 57 of
"Reclaiming History" Endnotes

[David Von Pein]

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

Buell Frazier is nothing but a mouthpiece for the official story.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, sure, Ralph. That must be why Frazier has always insisted that the
package Oswald was carrying on Nov. 22 could not have held a rifle, since
it was way too small.

Great "mouthpiece" there, eh Ralph?

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

I believe Buell. Because……. Ralph.

[Ralph Cinque]

Wesley Frazier claiming that there was a "roll call", which conflicts with
what both Shelley and Truly said even though they were the ones who
supposedly conducted the roll call, is really very important.

But first, let's recognize something: it's not just Shelley and Truly who
contradict Frazier. It's all the other workers as well.

Think about it: Frazier said that all the warehouse workers were present
at the roll call except for Lee Oswald.

That means that Billy Lovelady was there for the roll call. So, why didn't
he mention it?

It means that Danny Arce was there for the roll call. So, why didn't he
mention it?

It means that Bonnie Ray Williams was there for the roll call. So, why
didn't he mention it?

Do you want me to go put up their testimonies to show you that they cover
the time period without mentioning any roll call?

But, what makes it important is that if Frazier could cite something as
bogus as that- a roll call- then his whole claim that Oswald carried a
long package into the building that morning becomes ever more suspect and
doubtful.

Remember: of all the TSBD employees, the ONLY one who saw Oswald with a
long package was Wesley Frazier. Nobody else. And Jack Dougherty saw
Oswald right when he entered the building.

And if anyone else had seen Oswald carrying a long bag, you can be certain
that that person would have been called to testify about it. So, in this
case, the absence of any such witness is tantamount to there being no such
person; that nobody saw Oswald walking through that building with a long
bag.

The whole claim, the whole presumption, of Oswald bringing a rifle into
the building that morning rests on Frazier- the guy who waxes on about an
imaginary roll call. So, why should he be believed about the long package?
Oswald denied it. He said that the only thing he brought to work that
morning was his lunch: a cheese sandwich and an apple. Presumably, it was
in a bag, but how long a bag would he need to contain it? And who would
carry his lunch in his arm pit?

Do you see now how crucial Frazier is to the whole official story, the
whole official lie? He's like the lock that connects the Atlantic Ocean to
the Pacific Ocean at the Panama Canal. Without him, they couldn't push it
through.

Am I saying that Frazier is unreliable? Oh, I'm saying much more than
that. I'm saying Wesley Frazier is completely out of touch with reality,
that he has no ability to distinguish real memories of real experiences
from the raving concoctions of his own mind. Mentally, he is gone. THERE
IS NOT A WORD COMING OUT OF HIM THAT AN INTELLIGENT PERSON SHOULD ACCEPT
AS VALID. Frazier doesn't "remember" anything. It's past that for him.
He's out of touch with reality. His thoughts are a bizarre mixture of
vague memories and stilted scripts that were imposed on him by others long
ago- and perhaps not so long ago. You know they keep a close watch on
Frazier. You might say he's still got handlers.

Frazier is loony! And yet the whole official story of the JFK
assassination rests on him.

[Anthony Marsh]

What past?

[Anthony Marsh]

Pretty much. But you also have to factor in LEADING the witness.
A reporter asks Frazier if anyone did a roll call and he tells his
story, then the reporter writes that Frazier said there was a roll call.
That's not exactly what he said.
It's called hearsay.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/19/2016 12:36 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> DEX OLSEN SAID:
>
> I'm not going to bicker about Buell's incorrect memory, Davy, but if
> Oswald was there at the roll call would that make him any less guilty or
> innocent?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Dex,
>
> I tend to think Buell Wesley Frazier's memory was, indeed, "incorrect"
> about a few of the things he discussed with Gary Mack in that 2002
> interview -- particularly Buell's recollection of having seen Lee Oswald
> walking down Houston Street five to ten minutes after the assassination
> had taken place. That observation is totally at odds with what Frazier
> said in his 11/22/63 affidavit.
>

Why would you believe anything that Gary Mack said? What the Hell is
wrong with you? Gary Mack was a professional liar.

> So, yes, I think it's a good idea to take some of Buell's 39-year-old
> remembrances with a grain of salt. But, with that caveat in mind, he still
> did say there definitely was a "roll call" of the TSBD warehouse workers.
>

Something like that.

> Whether Frazier was relying on something that was said by someone else
> regarding there being an official "roll call", or whether he (in June of
> 2002) had a firm independent recollection of his own of there being a roll
> call of the employees, is something I guess we could debate until the cows
> come home.
>

Isn't THAT what this newsgroup is for?

[Jason Burke]

On 6/19/2016 2:21 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Why did you reject my response to this, John? On what grounds?
>
> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/06/oh-my-god-this-claim-of-buell-fraziers.html
>

Cinque, even *you* can't possibly believe 85% of the, uh, "stuff", you
post.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe Givens wasn't in his work crew or he told them what they wanted to
hear.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/19/2016 5:21 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Why did you reject my response to this, John? On what grounds?
>
> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/06/oh-my-god-this-claim-of-buell-fraziers.html
>

A tyrant doesn't need grounds.

[Ralph Cinque]

What? That is not concrete. It is what you call hearsay. It is without
substance. He told "the media"? What media? And if he told the media, how
did it not get mentioned in his WC testimony and that of the dozen men?

Frazier said that Shelley and Truly conducted the roll call, but neither
of them reported it. And since, according to Frazier, it included all the
warehouse workers except Lee Oswald, that's a lot of other people who
should have reported it in their testimonies.

How could Lovelady not have mentioned it here if there was a roll call?

Mr. BALL - You came in through the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.
Mr. BALL - Who is Vickie?
Mr. LOVELADY - The girl that works for Scott, Foresman.
Mr. BALL - What is her full name?
Mr. LOVELADY - I wouldn't know.
Mr. BALL - Vickie Adams?
Mr. LOVELADY - I believe so.
Mr. BALL - Would you say it was Vickie you saw?
Mr. LOVELADY - I couldn't swear.
Mr. BALL - Where was the girl?
Mr. LOVELADY - I don't remember what place she was but I remember seeing a
girl as she was talking to Bill or saw Bill or something, then I went over
and asked one of the guys what time it was and to see if we should continue
working or what.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any other people on the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, yes; by that time there were more; a few of the guys had
come in.
Mr. BALL - And you stayed on the first floor then?
Mr. LOVELADY - I would say 30 minutes. And one of the policemen asked me
would I take them up on the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL - Did you take them up there?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir; I sure did.

So, he came in through the back door with Shelley. He may or may not have
seen Victoria Adams. Then, he hung around there on the first floor for 30
minutes. If there was a roll call, he would have said so. Then, he took
the police up to the 6th floor.

And according to Shelley, as soon as he got back inside, Truly assigned him
to guard the freight elevator, not to let anyone up or down. He did that
until it was time to take the cops up to the 6th floor.

This contradicts the hearsay claim that you are making, David. Your claim
reaches nowhere near the threshold of credibility. It wouldn't even be
allowed in court.

[Ralph Cinque]

Way too short? He said 24 inches as opposed to the 35 that it had to be.
And you know very well how your side deals with that. You just say that
Frazier was and is mistaken, and it's something that's easy to be mistaken
about. Has it caused you to abandon your case against Oswald? No.

So yes, Fraizer is a mouthpiece for you. He's been the most frequent
special guest at the Sixth Floor Museum. Would they keep having him there
if he wasn't supporting the official story?

The fact is that the discrepancy between what he claims about the length
of the bag and what you say has been processed, digested, and settled.
It's been laid to rest. And it's something that you can live with, while
Frazier continues to be the darling of the "community." What a
spectacle.

[Jason Burke]

On 6/19/2016 7:44 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Wesley Frazier claiming that there was a "roll call", which conflicts with

> =hat both Shelley and Truly said even though they were the ones who

Guess ol' BWF didn't respond to your "open letter," eh, Ralph?
Or maybe he did and you didn't like his answer.
Which one is it, Ralph?

Oh, you might want to remove said "open letter" from you site. You know,
the one from 03may15.

Mebbe the one from 24aug14 as well.

And hope that google and archive.org somehow lose the posts as well...

I'm thinking the dude could make things *very* uncomfortable for you if
he chose. All that fame you've built up for yourself down the the drain.

Lucky for you, he probably would rather Garbo it.

[donald willis]

This seems pretty conclusive. Ball in LN court....

[David Emerling]

I think it's irrelevant whether there was an official roll call or not. In
fact, we know some employees of the TSBD were not in the building and
never returned - mostly because the building was sealed off.

Isn't it really enough that they noticed that Lee Oswald wasn't there? He
was the only one who was not there and had absolutely ZERO alibi for his
whereabouts at the time of the shooting. Those who did not return were
either seen out on the street during the motorcade or were accompanied by
somebody who could vouch for their whereabouts. None of the others were
shooters. That's just silly.

For instance, there's Gloria Jeanne Holt. She was an employee of the TSBD
who never returned to the building. I doubt she was one of the shooters.
In her statement she said, "Following the assassination of President John
Fitzgerald Kennedy I tried to return to work in the Texas School Book
Depository but was told by other employees that no one would be allowed in
the building so I did not return to work that day." In her statement, she
says she was accompanied by Sharon Simmons and Stella Jacob - both of whom
were also TSBD employees. Were these three ladies a team of assassins?

So, when CTs challenge that 1) Oswald was not the only employee absent or
2) that there was no roll call ... what's their point? As long as they
stipulate that 1) Oswald was not there and 2) Oswald had no verifiable
alibi during the shooting and 3) the other employees who were not there
had solid alibis ... what difference does it really make?

Then, of course, there's Oswald's clear consciousness-of-guilt behavior in
the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Oswald was clearly running from
some awful deed. All the evidence points directly at him. The notion that
all this evidence was either planted, altered, or is fraudulent is simply
... well ... there's no other word for it other than STUPID.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

Ball is a liar. He's part of the cover-up. I once had the chance to talk
to one of the WC lawyers and he denied that he handled the Mafia
allegations.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/21/2016 6:52 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> I think it's irrelevant whether there was an official roll call or not. In
> fact, we know some employees of the TSBD were not in the building and
> never returned - mostly because the building was sealed off.
>
> Isn't it really enough that they noticed that Lee Oswald wasn't there? He

No, they noticed tha Givens was not there. Or do you claim that Givens
was a shooter/

> was the only one who was not there and had absolutely ZERO alibi for his
> whereabouts at the time of the shooting. Those who did not return were

He had an alibi. He was in the Domino room.

> either seen out on the street during the motorcade or were accompanied by
> somebody who could vouch for their whereabouts. None of the others were
> shooters. That's just silly.
>

Something like that. Of course you can't prove a word of it.

> For instance, there's Gloria Jeanne Holt. She was an employee of the TSBD
> who never returned to the building. I doubt she was one of the shooters.
> In her statement she said, "Following the assassination of President John
> Fitzgerald Kennedy I tried to return to work in the Texas School Book
> Depository but was told by other employees that no one would be allowed in
> the building so I did not return to work that day." In her statement, she
> says she was accompanied by Sharon Simmons and Stella Jacob - both of whom
> were also TSBD employees. Were these three ladies a team of assassins?
>

OK, so you give her a pass just because she is a woman. No woman are
allowed to be assassins?

Maybe they were Manson girls.

> So, when CTs challenge that 1) Oswald was not the only employee absent or
> 2) that there was no roll call ... what's their point? As long as they
> stipulate that 1) Oswald was not there and 2) Oswald had no verifiable
> alibi during the shooting and 3) the other employees who were not there
> had solid alibis ... what difference does it really make?
>

No one stipulated that. You make up false stories.

> Then, of course, there's Oswald's clear consciousness-of-guilt behavior in
> the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Oswald was clearly running from

That's why he stopped to get a Coke. Coke, the drink of assassins!

> some awful deed. All the evidence points directly at him. The notion that
> all this evidence was either planted, altered, or is fraudulent is simply
> ... well ... there's no other word for it other than STUPID.
>

You would frame a corpse for J walking.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Ralph Cinque]

Oswald had an alibi. He was the standing in the doorway of the TSBD, and
he cited someone who was also there: Bill Shelley. And we have images of
him standing there. What is wrong with you? What more do you need?


[IMG]http://i67.tinypic.com/24l77so.jpg[/IMG]

[donald willis]

Is this change of subject accidental or amusingly intentional? Still, if
you want to talk WC lawyers, the most interesting one to me is David
Belin. It once seemed to me that he had deliberately misled poor Virginia
Davis, a witness from Oak Cliff. But looking more closely at her
testimony, I think she misled herself. With help not from Belin but
behind the scenes, from someone who wanted her to place the Davis phone
call to the cops earlier than it really was. In other words, to make it
look like the Davises had seen the Tippit perp. But their call came
*later* than the other calls from the scene--they apparently saw only
another witness with Tippit's revolver....

Belin did seem to be curious re the fact that almost all the "sixth" floor
witnesses testified that the supposed "nest" window was wide open. He
asked each one, in turn, how wide the window was open, and they all said
"wide" or words to that effect. But Belin never followed up on his
curiosity.

dcw

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 10:53:21 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/21/2016 6:52 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> > I think it's irrelevant whether there was an official roll call or not. In
> > fact, we know some employees of the TSBD were not in the building and
> > never returned - mostly because the building was sealed off.
> >
> > Isn't it really enough that they noticed that Lee Oswald wasn't there? He
>
> No, they noticed tha Givens was not there. Or do you claim that Givens
> was a shooter/
>
>
> > was the only one who was not there and had absolutely ZERO alibi for his
> > whereabouts at the time of the shooting. Those who did not return were
>
> He had an alibi. He was in the Domino room.

Yes, that's where I placed him, several years ago, thanks to the Fritz
notes. But Cinque has found another Oswald in the front doorway. And
LNers see a third Oswald in the "nest" on the 6th....

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

What change of subject?

> you want to talk WC lawyers, the most interesting one to me is David
> Belin. It once seemed to me that he had deliberately misled poor Virginia

I wouldn't even bother talking to Belin. He always lied.

> Davis, a witness from Oak Cliff. But looking more closely at her
> testimony, I think she misled herself. With help not from Belin but

Is that what they call leading the witness in the trade?

> behind the scenes, from someone who wanted her to place the Davis phone
> call to the cops earlier than it really was. In other words, to make it
> look like the Davises had seen the Tippit perp. But their call came

Earlier? No one knew the exact time. Time is relative.

> *later* than the other calls from the scene--they apparently saw only
> another witness with Tippit's revolver....
>
> Belin did seem to be curious re the fact that almost all the "sixth" floor
> witnesses testified that the supposed "nest" window was wide open. He

Nope.

> asked each one, in turn, how wide the window was open, and they all said
> "wide" or words to that effect. But Belin never followed up on his
> curiosity.
>

define "wide."
Something like that.

> dcw
>

[bigdog]

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 3:50:48 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Way too short? He said 24 inches as opposed to the 35 that it had to be.

Do you think he had a yardstick with him when he saw the bag? Do you think
at the time he saw it he made a judgement as to the length of the bag? Do
you think the length of the bag would have seemed the least bit important
to him at the time?

Frazier made no such judgement. The FBI asked him to estimate how much of
the back seat the bag took up and then they measured his estimate. Do you
think he could have made an accurate estimate of how much of the backseat
the bag was taking up with just a glance over his shoulder. Why would he
even try? On the morning of 11/22/63, nothing could have seemed less
important to Frazier then the length of that bag. The length of that bag
became very important later but Frazier wasn't able to look at the bag
later. He had to make his guess based on a memory of something he would
have done nothing more than take a glance at and which wouldn't have
seemed important to him when he took that glance.

Frazier isn't important to establish the length of the bag. Frazier is
important to establish that a bag was brought into the TSBD by Oswald. The
length of the bag was determined by measuring the bag that was actually
found on the sixth floor with Oswald's prints on it. Now if you want to
believe that the bag Frazier saw was too short to be the bag later found
on the 6th floor, then you have evidence of two bags being brought into
the TSBD by Oswald, the one Frazier saw and the one the cops found on the
6th floor. The latter was long enough to hold the disassembled rifle. I
happen to think it is far more likely the two bags are one and the same
but if you want to believe that Oswald brought two different bags into the
TSBD at different times, that's your privilege. What we do know is that at
some time he carried the bag that was found on the 6th floor which was
long enough to hold his rifle.

[Anthony Marsh]

Was it Henry, the CIA agent?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/24/2016 8:39 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 3:50:48 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> Way too short? He said 24 inches as opposed to the 35 that it had to be.
>
> Do you think he had a yardstick with him when he saw the bag? Do you think
> at the time he saw it he made a judgement as to the length of the bag? Do
> you think the length of the bag would have seemed the least bit important
> to him at the time?
>
> Frazier made no such judgement. The FBI asked him to estimate how much of
> the back seat the bag took up and then they measured his estimate. Do you
> think he could have made an accurate estimate of how much of the backseat

Accurate estimate? WFT are you babbling about? That's an oxymoron, as are
you. It's either an accurate MEASUREMENT or it's an estimate, not a
measurement. You also cherry pick evidence and testimony just like our
resident kook. You forget that he described how Oswald carried it to the
TSBD, cupped in his hand and tucked under his armpit.

Try that some time with a 2X4 cut to 40" and then get back to us. Unlike a
certain TV show which say, Don't try this at home, I am telling you to try
this at home and then try repeating your fairy tale.

> the bag was taking up with just a glance over his shoulder. Why would he
> even try? On the morning of 11/22/63, nothing could have seemed less
> important to Frazier then the length of that bag. The length of that bag
> became very important later but Frazier wasn't able to look at the bag
> later. He had to make his guess based on a memory of something he would
> have done nothing more than take a glance at and which wouldn't have
> seemed important to him when he took that glance.
>
>> And you know very well how your side deals with that. You just say that
>> Frazier was and is mistaken, and it's something that's easy to be mistaken
>> about. Has it caused you to abandon your case against Oswald? No.
>>
>> So yes, Fraizer is a mouthpiece for you. He's been the most frequent
>> special guest at the Sixth Floor Museum. Would they keep having him there
>> if he wasn't supporting the official story?
>>
>> The fact is that the discrepancy between what he claims about the length
>> of the bag and what you say has been processed, digested, and settled.
>> It's been laid to rest. And it's something that you can live with, while
>> Frazier continues to be the darling of the "community." What a
>> spectacle.
>
> Frazier isn't important to establish the length of the bag. Frazier is
> important to establish that a bag was brought into the TSBD by Oswald. The

Which bag? You mean the one that was carried out of the TSBD or the one
the FBI fabricated?

> length of the bag was determined by measuring the bag that was actually
> found on the sixth floor with Oswald's prints on it. Now if you want to
> believe that the bag Frazier saw was too short to be the bag later found
> on the 6th floor, then you have evidence of two bags being brought into
> the TSBD by Oswald, the one Frazier saw and the one the cops found on the
> 6th floor. The latter was long enough to hold the disassembled rifle. I
> happen to think it is far more likely the two bags are one and the same
> but if you want to believe that Oswald brought two different bags into the
> TSBD at different times, that's your privilege. What we do know is that at
> some time he carried the bag that was found on the 6th floor which was
> long enough to hold his rifle.
>

Can you answer a question for me? No, you're too afraid.
Could the DPD create the bag within 20 minutes from scratch to then
carry it out of the TSBD? Could the FBI do it when they weren't even there?

>

[Ralph Cinque]

As I stated, the discrepancy in length between what Frazier claimed (24
inches) and the required length of nearly 36 inches has already been
processed by the Oswald accusers. "It was just an estimate and easy to be
wrong about." Buell Frazier has been the most frequently invited special
guest of the Sixth Floor Museum, and that would not be the case if they
didn't think his story supported the official story.

But, Frazier's story is extremely tenuous since nobody in that vast
building which was full of employees saw what he saw, including a guy who
saw Oswald when he first came in: Jack Dougherty. Oswald would have had to
carry that bag through the building to whatever spot he hid it. Don't we
have to assume he hit it on the 6th floor? But, there were men up there
already. They were building a floor, right? So, why didn't they see
Oswald with his big bag, and why didn't they notice him stashing it
somewhere?

So, what you've got here is just one guy, flapping his lips, just saying
something that isn't substantiated by anyone or anything at the TSBD. Is
Frazier's statement bankable? Not by a long shot.

[donald willis]

On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 5:3 cut

> >>>> And if anyone else had seen Oswald carrying a long bag, you can be certain
> >>>> that that person would have been called to testify about it. So, in this
> >>>> case, the absence of any such witness is tantamount to there being no such
> >>>> person; that nobody saw Oswald walking through that building with a long
> >>>> bag.
> >>>
> >>> This seems pretty conclusive. Ball in LN court....
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ball is a liar. He's part of the cover-up. I once had the chance to talk
> >> to one of the WC lawyers and he denied that he handled the Mafia
> >> allegations.
> >
> > Is this change of subject accidental or amusingly intentional? Still, if
>
> What change of subject?
>

I was invoking the saying "The ball is in their court". You seem to be
referring to WC counsel Ball....

> > you want to talk WC lawyers, the most interesting one to me is David
> > Belin. It once seemed to me that he had deliberately misled poor Virginia
>
> I wouldn't even bother talking to Belin. He always lied.

No one is *that* consistent....

>
> > Davis, a witness from Oak Cliff. But looking more closely at her
> > testimony, I think she misled herself. With help not from Belin but
>
> Is that what they call leading the witness in the trade?

She seemed, rather, to be leading *him*....

>
> > behind the scenes, from someone who wanted her to place the Davis phone
> > call to the cops earlier than it really was. In other words, to make it
> > look like the Davises had seen the Tippit perp. But their call came
>
> Earlier? No one knew the exact time.

Myers pretends to.

Time is relative.
>
> > *later* than the other calls from the scene--they apparently saw only
> > another witness with Tippit's revolver....
> >
> > Belin did seem to be curious re the fact that almost all the "sixth" floor
> > witnesses testified that the supposed "nest" window was wide open. He
>
> Nope.

Yep.

>
> > asked each one, in turn, how wide the window was open, and they all said
> > "wide" or words to that effect. But Belin never followed up on his
> > curiosity.
> >
>
> define "wide."

The bottom half of the window is pulled up as far as it can be, over the
top (stationary) half. Note that in the "nest" the bottom half is raised
only half the distance it could have been! Give Belin a plus for
curiosity, a minus for follow-up....

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/25/2016 11:56 AM, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 5:3 cut
>>>>>> And if anyone else had seen Oswald carrying a long bag, you can be certain
>>>>>> that that person would have been called to testify about it. So, in this
>>>>>> case, the absence of any such witness is tantamount to there being no such
>>>>>> person; that nobody saw Oswald walking through that building with a long
>>>>>> bag.
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems pretty conclusive. Ball in LN court....
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ball is a liar. He's part of the cover-up. I once had the chance to talk
>>>> to one of the WC lawyers and he denied that he handled the Mafia
>>>> allegations.
>>>
>>> Is this change of subject accidental or amusingly intentional? Still, if
>>
>> What change of subject?
>>
>
> I was invoking the saying "The ball is in their court". You seem to be
> referring to WC counsel Ball....
>

I forget what they called it in classical rhetoric when I studied Latin.
Is that a malapropism? I know my bridge partners use that to make bad
jokes when they see Donald Trump on TV.

>>> you want to talk WC lawyers, the most interesting one to me is David
>>> Belin. It once seemed to me that he had deliberately misled poor Virginia
>>
>> I wouldn't even bother talking to Belin. He always lied.
>
> No one is *that* consistent....
>
>>
>>> Davis, a witness from Oak Cliff. But looking more closely at her
>>> testimony, I think she misled herself. With help not from Belin but
>>
>> Is that what they call leading the witness in the trade?
>
> She seemed, rather, to be leading *him*....
>
>>
>>> behind the scenes, from someone who wanted her to place the Davis phone
>>> call to the cops earlier than it really was. In other words, to make it
>>> look like the Davises had seen the Tippit perp. But their call came
>>
>> Earlier? No one knew the exact time.
>
> Myers pretends to.
>
> Time is relative.
>>
>>> *later* than the other calls from the scene--they apparently saw only
>>> another witness with Tippit's revolver....
>>>
>>> Belin did seem to be curious re the fact that almost all the "sixth" floor
>>> witnesses testified that the supposed "nest" window was wide open. He
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Yep.

You haven't quoted them verbatim.

>>
>>> asked each one, in turn, how wide the window was open, and they all said
>>> "wide" or words to that effect. But Belin never followed up on his
>>> curiosity.
>>>
>>
>> define "wide."
>
> The bottom half of the window is pulled up as far as it can be, over the
> top (stationary) half. Note that in the "nest" the bottom half is raised
> only half the distance it could have been! Give Belin a plus for
> curiosity, a minus for follow-up....
>

Belin knew nothing about Windows then. It hadn't been invented yet.

> dcw
>

[Anthony Marsh]

How come I've never seen you once address the way Oswald carried the
package? Why don't you just deny that there was ANY package at all?

[donald willis]

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 8:15:13 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> There was no "roll-call" that resulted in a single missing employee. It's
> a shame that not all believers can instantly state this for the record.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I've never been sure whether there was or wasn't an actual "roll call" of
> the TSBD warehouse employees, but in an interview with Gary Mack in June
> of 2002, Buell Wesley Frazier said there definitely WAS a roll call of the
> Depository's warehouse employees shortly after the assassination, with
> names being READ OFF by someone. Here's what Frazier said in 2002:
>
> BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Mr. Shelley got us together--he and Mr.
> Truly--and we had a roll call."
>
> GARY MACK -- "And where did this take place?"
>
> FRAZIER -- "Outside Mr. Shelley's office."
>
> MACK -- "Did they actually read off names? Or did they just ask you guys,
> 'anybody missing'?"
>
> FRAZIER -- "No, they read names off and you had to answer."
>
> MACK -- "Okay. And who was missing?"
>
> FRAZIER -- "The only person missing was Lee Oswald."
>
> ~~~~~~~~~
>
> Audio of the above 6/21/2002 interview excerpt:
>
> https://app.box.com/s/1rtitsd5catfh496qbdaxjrc96zhsp87

Many years ago, Dave Dix here noted that Eddie Piper later told Joe Molina
that Oswald was found missing from the depository. This was in a DPD
report from notes taken by Det. Senkel on 11/23/63, while interviewing
Molina. This would seem to prove (a) that there was a roll call, and (b)
that there wasn't a roll call, or that it was a very informal, slipshod
roll call, since Molina was also apparently missing! I can see the light
dawning in Piper's eyes: Wait a minute--*You* were missing too, then,
Joe! You and Oswald!

dcw

[Ralph Cinque]

It's preposterous to think that they were all there except Oswald. It's
not as though they all knew they had to gather there for a roll call. So,
they were all gathered there outside Shelley's office spontaneously? It's
ridiculous. Shelley didn't even come in the building right away. He was
walking around the railway area with Lovelady. Then they returned and
re-entered through the back door. And all the workers were gathered
outside his office waiting for roll call? Why? They had no reason to
expect that. It's just a fanciful idea from the child-like mind of Buell
Frazier. He's got truth issues.

[donald willis]

I have, before, and all sorts of excuses were made here by LNers to
explain the mass "error". They never fail to find a way to explain away
testimony or evidence that they don't cotton to.... And don't you mean
"verBelin"?

dcw

[David Emerling]

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 12:53:21 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> OK, so you give her a pass just because she is a woman. No woman are
> allowed to be assassins?
>
> Maybe they were Manson girls.

This is the most intelligent response you have to the common conspiracy
argument: "Oswald was not the only TSBD employee absent from work and
never returned"? (the clear implication being that, maybe, the OTHERS were
somehow involved in the assassination plot.)

> You would frame a corpse for J walking.

It's always entertaining when Tony is out of substantive/intelligent
things to say.

Yeah, Oswald was framed ... pfft!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

I always say clever things that you aren't smart enough to think of.