Fifty Years Ago WCR Debunked LHO's Shelley Alibi

[tims...@gmail.com]

Hi All,

Say, despite what some claim, more than fifty years ago the WCR considered
and discarded Lee Oswald's "out front with Bill Shelley" OIC alibi:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0103b.htm

They made a point of questioning Shelley on it at the time:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0199b.htm

Could hardly get any more dismissive than that.

Oswald was simply lying. As usual...

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where SENIOR OIC MEMBER Mark Lane lied!

Stop the LIES! Oswald INSIDE!! Disband the OIC!!!

ps Oh yeah, and for those who claim that Oswald's lie referred to a time
BEFORE or DURING the assassination, read this:

-----------------------------------

A side by side comparison of FBI Bookhout's report and Will Fritz's notes
of the first post arrest interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald demonstrates
that the "out front with Bill Shelley" alibi for Oswald, often cited by
the OIC, actually refers to a time AFTER the JFK shooting.

If you don't believe me, read along, using Bookhout's report and the
second column of Fritz's notes:

Bookhout's report:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

And DPD Fritz's notes:

http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm

In a side by side fashion, what we see is the almost EXACT same
sequence of events documented:

BOOKHOUT: "...he was on the second floor of said building, having just
purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police
officer came into the room..."

FRITZ: "claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in"

BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor
and stood around and had lunch..."

FRITZ: "to 1st floor had lunch"

BOOKHOUT: "He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten
minutes with foreman BILL SHELLY..."

FRITZ: "out with Bill Shelley in front"

BOOKHOUT: "He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon
remarks of BILL SHELLY, he did not believe that there was going to be any
more work that day..."

FRITZ: "lft wk opinion nothing be done that day etc."

BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that his hours of work at the Texas School Book
Depository are from 8 a.m. to 4.45p.m., but that he is not required to
punch a a time clock."

FRITZ: "? punch clock" and "8-4:45 wre not rigid abt time"

BOOKHOUT: "His usual place of work in the building is on the first floor;
however he...had been on all of the floors in the performance of his
duties on November 22, 1963."

FRITZ: "wked reg 1st FL but all over"

That's just following both documents through sequentially.

TB

[Ralph Cinque]

Because of YOU, Brennan, a new article is going up on the OIC website
about "out with Bill Shelley in front". It will be on the top of the Wrap
page, which is the last page, but there will be an announcement about it
at the top of the Home page and a link to it. So, it will be the first
thing people see when they visit the site.

You can read a preliminary version of the article below. Once editing,
it's going up, hopefully this evening.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/ok-i-have-pretty-much-completed-new.html

[mainframetech]

Thank you TB!

That leaves Carolyn Arnold's statements that she saw Oswald in the 2nd
floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm, and at about that time 2 men were seen
in the 6th floor window with a gun. They weren't Oswald, obviously!
Minutes later, Baker and Truly came to the 2nd floor lunchroom, and Baker
saw Oswasld in the lunchroom through the window in the door. Since th 6th
floor window was occupied, Oswald couldn't go there to fire any rifle.

Chris

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Makes sense to me.

[Alex Foyle]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[mainframetech]

Naturally the folks that can't follow simple logic will no doubt fall
asleep. Don't wake them, it would be too rude an awakening...:)

Chris

[Alex Foyle]

On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:07:20 PM UTC+1, mainframetech wrote:

> Naturally the folks that can't follow simple logic ...

That's hilarious coming from you, lecturing others about following logic,
priceless. Your constant autobot repetition of the worthless Carolyn
Arnold legend shows again just how far you are from any form of logical
discourse.

Maybe reread her first statement where she said that "she thought she
caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald" and "she could not be sure that this
Oswald", from her statement to the FBI from 11/26/63. That you take this
and her later embellishments courtesy of Earl Golz to keep claiming her
"sighting" of Oswald as fact is truly super logical, like a confused
parrot mimicking a broken record ad nauseam.

[mainframetech]

Well, now we have your opinion. Let me know when you want to provide
facts to back up that opinion. As well, you'cve aded in your adhominem
attack to tell us who you are. Carolyn Arnold had no reason to lie when
she found out that the FBI had lied about her statement in 1978, and she
didn't only give an interview to Earl Golz, but also to another
interviewer. And here you are quoting the FBI's sucker bait! Looks like
their ploy worked on you at least.

Since she had no reason to lie, and the FBI had been shown before lying
about witness statements, it's far easier to take her word that they lied
than assume that she lied. Now where's your proof? Got none? Thought
so.

Chris

[tims...@gmail.com]

Well I wouldn't be the FIRST person that said "out front with Bill
Shelley" was a CROCK, Cinque:

WARREN COMMISSION IN 1964:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0103b.htm

RECENT BLOG PIECE:

https://toseekanewrworld.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/you-are-correct-he-was-outside-just-before-he-went-home/

Seems the only folks who can't GRAB A CLUE re the matter are OIC members,
Cinque.

[Alex Foyle]

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 1:34:50 AM UTC+1, mainframetech wrote:

> Well, now we have your opinion. Let me know when you want to provide
> facts to back up that opinion.

Look up her FBI statement, that's a fact, no matter how many times you
claim that the FBI lied. Your opinion is that you believe her later
embellished story although there are no facts whatsoever to prove her
claims, none.

> And here you are quoting the FBI's sucker bait!

That's where you have it backwards. The sucker bait is Earl Golz's
ridiculous series of articles in the late 1970s. Remember, Golz also gave
us the complete bullshit story of Gordon Arnold, another one of your
cherished "fact" stories.

That you pimp Arnold's alleged sighting of Oswald as fact is extremely
tiring. So in the future I will snooze again, just as when you tout your
prosector bs or Gordon Arnold or Jerry Craig or the King siblings. Because
it's all pure nonsense and not worthy more than a long Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Sweet dreams, Chris.

Sorry, Tim, for disrupting this thread, but I see there are several
threads in which you rightfully expose Cinque for his "out with Shelley"
crapola.

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 4:11:32 PM UTC-4, tims...@gmail.com wrote:

Nice job, Tim Brennan.

The Bookhout report and Fritz' note sync together perfectly.

Excellent work. Thank you.

[Ralph Cinque]

"The sucker bait is Earl Golz's ridiculous series of articles in the late
1970s."

Well, I don't know about his other articles, but his Carolyn Arnold
article is pure bull. She most certainly knew about her prior statements
because her 1964 statement she signed. And, it is preposterous to think
that Special Agent Harrison pulled the idea of her seeing Oswald between
the glass door and the double doors from out his ass. What she tried to
claim in 1978- that she saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room eating
lunch at 12:25- was impossible because Oswald definitely ate in the first
floor lunch room, as he always did. That's always as in without
exception.

What do you do with somebody who completely revises her story 5600 days
later? You ignore her. Nobody gets to do that.

Shortly before the slaughter, Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald at the doorway on
11/22/63. It is as much a part of the official record as any other
testimony, and it always will be. We don't need it because we can clearly
see Oswald in the doorway, and it is absolute. Still, it's nice to have
it.

[mainframetech]

When I asked for proof, it was of your contention that Arnold was
lying when she corrected the false statements put out FOR HER, by the FBI,
who had been proved in the past to have changed witness statements in the
record.

The proof that Arnold was telling the truth when she was in a position
to speak for herself, and NOT be quoted by FBI agents that had a proven
agenda to change her words, was what she did when she heard what they haed
done to her. It is proof of veracity when we can find absolutely NO
motive for her to lie. There was no effiort on her part to make any money
from her correction, no effort to grab fame, and no further effort to gain
more attention. She merely heard that she had been falsely quoted and she
corrected the error, showing her contempt for the statements that had been
falsely entered into the record without her knowledge.

How easily you crap on the integrity of an individual with absolutley NO
proof whatsoever that she had lied at any time.

It is far more obvious that the FBI is suspect, since they've PROVEN
their duplicity with witness statements in the past. I've seen that
information and proof, have you? Or are you just going with your gut,
which is mainly opinion?

Chris

[tims...@gmail.com]

Thanks Mark. And thanks to Bud we also now have this on the matter:

https://toseekanewrworld.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/you-are-correct-he-was-outside-just-before-he-went-home/

Looks like Cinque's "out front with Bill Shelley" red herring should never
have been proposed in the first place.

[donald willis]

I hate to interrupt the celebration, David, Tim, but the report and the
notes are NOT in sync.

Nowhere, actually, does Fritz link Oswald's decision to leave the
depository with the chat with Shelley. (Gasp!)

His notes read,

"out with Bill Shelley in
front

lft wk. opinion nothing be
done that day etc."

They are two separate, unrelated notes.

How do I know this?

Fritz's own report reads,

"I asked [Oswald] why he left the building, and he said there was so much
excitement he didn't think there would be any more work done that day...
and he thought it would be just as well that he left for the rest of the
afternoon" (WR pp600-601).

His testimony reads,

"I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much
excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done
that afternoon... and I just left" (v4p213).

That note re Shelley in Fritz's notes is unconnected with Oswald's
decision to vamoose. In fact, the Shelley note seemed so unimportant to
Fritz that he never mentioned it again, at least not in his report or his
Commission testimony. The decision to leave was all Oswald's, according
to Fritz--he "didn't think" there'd be any more work that day.

Where Bookhout got the Shelley/leave-work idea is anyone's guess. It's
not supported by Fritz, Hosty or... Bookhout, in the initialed
Hosty/Bookhout report.

Hate to end your victory party....

dcw

[tims...@gmail.com]

Someone sounds a bit down in the mouth, Donald!

Actually, I think you're clutching at straws, mate, since Bookhouts
personally INITIALED report is almost a TRANSLATION of Fritz's notes found
years later.

It seems that only you and Ralph can't see this, Donald. So must be time
for a repost:

QUOTE ON:

It couldn't be MORE obvious what the Fritz reference to Shelley refers to
a time AFTER the assassination, not BEFORE where the OIC want it to be.

The "out front with Bill Shelley" exoneration of Oswald, using Fritz's
notes, is no longer tenable.

QUOTE OFF

Also don't forget THIS, Donald:

https://toseekanewrworld.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/you-are-correct-he-was-outside-just-before-he-went-home/

Corrective Regards,

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 3:28:13 PM UTC-5, Alex Foyle wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 1:34:50 AM UTC+1, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > Well, now we have your opinion. Let me know when you want to provide
> > facts to back up that opinion.
>
> Look up her FBI statement, that's a fact, no matter how many times you
> claim that the FBI lied. Your opinion is that you believe her later
> embellished story although there are no facts whatsoever to prove her
> claims, none.
>

Naturally I looked up the FBI statement that the FBI placed in the
record and did NOT allow her to read through to be sure it was right. So
where is your proof that they recorded the information from her correctly?
Nowhere, since she later corrected it.

And why did the FBI feel it was necessary to have 2 agents countersign
that statement? Were they worried about something? Was she ever even
contacted to get that second statement? We have no way of knowing, and
you have no proof whatsoever that the FBI ever wrote down anything
correctly, when they had proved previously that they had an agenda, which
Arnold did NOT!

> > And here you are quoting the FBI's sucker bait!
>
> That's where you have it backwards. The sucker bait is Earl Golz's
> ridiculous series of articles in the late 1970s. Remember, Golz also gave
> us the complete bullshit story of Gordon Arnold, another one of your
> cherished "fact" stories.
>

And how did you determine that Golz AND the other interviewer had
gotten Arnold's statement wrong? So far we just have your OPINION that
Golz was somehow making it up. But we have a second interviewer to prove
that the story that Arnold gave Golz was correct. A verification of her
words, and proof that Golz didn't lie.

> That you pimp Arnold's alleged sighting of Oswald as fact is extremely
> tiring. So in the future I will snooze again, just as when you tout your
> prosector bs or Gordon Arnold or Jerry Craig or the King siblings. Because
> it's all pure nonsense and not worthy more than a long Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
> Sweet dreams, Chris.
>

What's tiring is your interrupting with nothing but your opinion,
which is useless in these debates. I've shown proof, and you've shown
nothing but your OPINIONS. And it's more proof to me of your inability to
use evidence and logic by the many OPINIONS you've expressed in just one
small paragraph above.

> Sorry, Tim, for disrupting this thread, but I see there are several
> threads in which you rightfully expose Cinque for his "out with Shelley"
> crapola.

and well you should express sorrow for interrupting with nothing but a
bunch of opinions and no proof of your contentions. The FBI proved they
had an agenda previous to the Arnold statement, and she had not shown
anything whatsoever that made her out a liar, or someone after fame and
fortune, or even attention. So the proof is there, where's yours?

Chris

[tims...@gmail.com]

Hi David,

Thanks mate! Appreciate it.

Also we have this excellent piece, as sourced by Bud, on the matter:

https://toseekanewrworld.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/you-are-correct-he-was-outside-just-before-he-went-home/

[Bud]

You don`t. Bookout`s report puts them together in the exact sequence.

> Fritz's own report reads,
>
> "I asked [Oswald] why he left the building, and he said there was so much
> excitement he didn't think there would be any more work done that day...
> and he thought it would be just as well that he left for the rest of the
> afternoon" (WR pp600-601).
>
> His testimony reads,
>
> "I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much
> excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done
> that afternoon... and I just left" (v4p213).

So the question becomes how did he come to omit the part about Shelley.

> That note re Shelley in Fritz's notes is unconnected with Oswald's
> decision to vamoose. In fact, the Shelley note seemed so unimportant to
> Fritz that he never mentioned it again, at least not in his report or his
> Commission testimony. The decision to leave was all Oswald's, according
> to Fritz--he "didn't think" there'd be any more work that day.

Fritz`s notes indicate otherwise. Clearly Bookout and Fritz both heard
Oswald relate that he was out front with Shelley. The only question is why
that was lost in later renditions by Fritz. More trivia for a conspiracy
hobbyist to dwell upon.

> Where Bookhout got the Shelley/leave-work idea is anyone's guess.

Don`t need to guess. It came from Oswald.

> It's
> not supported by Fritz, Hosty or... Bookhout, in the initialed
> Hosty/Bookhout report.

It is supported by Fritz`s notes and Bookout`s report.

Just like the "one Jr. + short negro - ask ? for lunch says cheese
sandwich + apple" in Fritz`s notes is obviously the same thing related by
Oswald that Kelley heard when he wrote "He said he ate his lunch with the
colored boys who worked with him. He described one of them as "Junior," a
colored boy, and the other was little short negro boy. He said his lunch
consisted of cheese, fruit, and apples, and was the only package he had
with him when he went to work." in his report. There are just too many
informational "hits" for the cause not to be information Oswald related.

[Ralph Cinque]

Chris:

Carolyn Arnold signed her 1964 statement, so she knew what it said.
Carolyn Arnold signed her 1964 statement, so she knew what it said.
Carolyn Arnold signed her 1964 statement, so she knew what it said.
Carolyn Arnold signed her 1964 statement, so she knew what it said.
Carolyn Arnold signed her 1964 statement, so she knew what it said.
Carolyn Arnold signed her 1964 statement, so she knew what it said.
Carolyn Arnold signed her 1964 statement, so she knew what it said.
Carolyn Arnold signed her 1964 statement, so she knew what it said.

So, are you aware that she signed her 1964 statement, so she must have
known what it said?

[Anthony Marsh]

No, he doesn't. You do.

>> Fritz's own report reads,
>>
>> "I asked [Oswald] why he left the building, and he said there was so much
>> excitement he didn't think there would be any more work done that day...
>> and he thought it would be just as well that he left for the rest of the
>> afternoon" (WR pp600-601).
>>
>> His testimony reads,
>>
>> "I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much
>> excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done
>> that afternoon... and I just left" (v4p213).
>
> So the question becomes how did he come to omit the part about Shelley.
>
>> That note re Shelley in Fritz's notes is unconnected with Oswald's
>> decision to vamoose. In fact, the Shelley note seemed so unimportant to
>> Fritz that he never mentioned it again, at least not in his report or his
>> Commission testimony. The decision to leave was all Oswald's, according
>> to Fritz--he "didn't think" there'd be any more work that day.
>
> Fritz`s notes indicate otherwise. Clearly Bookout and Fritz both heard
> Oswald relate that he was out front with Shelley. The only question is why

No. Just that he knew Shelley was out front.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/7/2015 5:30 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 3:28:13 PM UTC-5, Alex Foyle wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 1:34:50 AM UTC+1, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>> Well, now we have your opinion. Let me know when you want to provide
>>> facts to back up that opinion.
>>
>> Look up her FBI statement, that's a fact, no matter how many times you
>> claim that the FBI lied. Your opinion is that you believe her later
>> embellished story although there are no facts whatsoever to prove her
>> claims, none.
>>
>
> Naturally I looked up the FBI statement that the FBI placed in the
> record and did NOT allow her to read through to be sure it was right. So
> where is your proof that they recorded the information from her correctly?
> Nowhere, since she later corrected it.
>
> And why did the FBI feel it was necessary to have 2 agents countersign
> that statement? Were they worried about something? Was she ever even

One may be the principal agent and the other the witness to the statement.

[Alex Foyle]

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 11:30:18 PM UTC+1, mainframetech wrote:

> What's tiring is your interrupting ...

You started by interrupting this thread with your Carolyn Arnold nonsense,
once again. Now it's back to ignoring you since it's much more fun
watching you arguing over Carolyn Arnold with Cinque.

[Bud]

Wrong. I only recognize that they do. Don`t you?

> >> Fritz's own report reads,
> >>
> >> "I asked [Oswald] why he left the building, and he said there was so much
> >> excitement he didn't think there would be any more work done that day...
> >> and he thought it would be just as well that he left for the rest of the
> >> afternoon" (WR pp600-601).
> >>
> >> His testimony reads,
> >>
> >> "I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much
> >> excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done
> >> that afternoon... and I just left" (v4p213).
> >
> > So the question becomes how did he come to omit the part about Shelley.
> >
> >> That note re Shelley in Fritz's notes is unconnected with Oswald's
> >> decision to vamoose. In fact, the Shelley note seemed so unimportant to
> >> Fritz that he never mentioned it again, at least not in his report or his
> >> Commission testimony. The decision to leave was all Oswald's, according
> >> to Fritz--he "didn't think" there'd be any more work that day.
> >
> > Fritz`s notes indicate otherwise. Clearly Bookout and Fritz both heard
> > Oswald relate that he was out front with Shelley. The only question is why
>
> No. Just that he knew Shelley was out front.

<snicker> You think that is what Oswald told them, that he knew Shelley
was out front?

[donald willis]

Good! Notice that unlike Bookhout Fritz does NOT make a connection
between the Shelley note and the "lft wk" note....

>
> BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that his hours of work at the Texas School Book
> Depository are from 8 a.m. to 4.45p.m., but that he is not required to
> punch a a time clock."
>
> FRITZ: "? punch clock" and "8-4:45 wre not rigid abt time"
>
> BOOKHOUT: "His usual place of work in the building is on the first floor;
> however he...had been on all of the floors in the performance of his
> duties on November 22, 1963."
>
> FRITZ: "wked reg 1st FL but all over"
>
> That's just following both documents through sequentially.
>
> It couldn't be MORE obvious what the Fritz reference to Shelley refers to
> a time AFTER the assassination, not BEFORE where the OIC want it to be.
>
> The "out front with Bill Shelley" exoneration of Oswald, using Fritz's
> notes, is no longer tenable.
>

I don't endorse it. I'm not interested in it....
dcw

[OHLeeRedux]

Alex Foyle

I agree. It is very amusing to watch the CTs tangle with one another.

It's like watching a fistfight at the "special" school.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. I think they confused what he said.

[Anthony Marsh]

Interrupting? This is a public UseNet newsgroup.

[tims...@gmail.com]

OIC, well why don't YOU give us your completely FICTITIOUS take on the
matter then, Marsh?

I could use a GOOD laugh.

BTW, guess that honorary OIC membership must be arriving any day now, eh
Marsh?

Informative Regards,

[Bud]

Based on what?

[tims...@gmail.com]

Another completely VALUELESS contribution from Marsh.

Hey Marsh, KUTGW, mate.

I mean, everybody is SOOO impressed...

NOT!

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Marsh's hero Mark Lane lied!

[tims...@gmail.com]

What a pathetically WEAK point, Donald. You can't see that they occur at
the same point in the conversation? Well they DO, Donald You ought to try
again.

> >
> > BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that his hours of work at the Texas School Book
> > Depository are from 8 a.m. to 4.45p.m., but that he is not required to
> > punch a a time clock."
> >
> > FRITZ: "? punch clock" and "8-4:45 wre not rigid abt time"
> >
> > BOOKHOUT: "His usual place of work in the building is on the first floor;
> > however he...had been on all of the floors in the performance of his
> > duties on November 22, 1963."
> >
> > FRITZ: "wked reg 1st FL but all over"
> >
> > That's just following both documents through sequentially.
> >
> > It couldn't be MORE obvious what the Fritz reference to Shelley refers to
> > a time AFTER the assassination, not BEFORE where the OIC want it to be.
> >
> > The "out front with Bill Shelley" exoneration of Oswald, using Fritz's
> > notes, is no longer tenable.
> >
>
> I don't endorse it. I'm not interested in it....
> dcw

Is that why you were propping it up just above, Donald? HELLUVA way to run
a railroad, in my view.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where SENIOR OIC MEMBER Mark Lane lied!

Stop the LIES! Oswald INSIDE!! Disband the OIC!!!

ps Donald, your honorary OIC membership must be due any day now, pal! TB

[Alex Foyle]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 5:57:06 PM UTC+1, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Interrupting? This is a public UseNet newsgroup.

Can you please direct your questions and groundbreaking comments to the
proper recipients?

[donald willis]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at hey, doesn't anybody here believe in
CUTTING?

> > > FRITZ: "claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in"
> > >
> > > BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor
> > > and stood around and had lunch..."
> > >
> > > FRITZ: "to 1st floor had lunch"
> > >
> > > BOOKHOUT: "He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten
> > > minutes with foreman BILL SHELLY..."
> > >
> > > FRITZ: "out with Bill Shelley in front"
> > >
> > > BOOKHOUT: "He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon
> > > remarks of BILL SHELLY, he did not believe that there was going to be any
> > > more work that day..."
> > >
> > > FRITZ: "lft wk opinion nothing be done that day etc."
> >
> > Good! Notice that unlike Bookhout Fritz does NOT make a connection
> > between the Shelley note and the "lft wk" note....
> >
>
> What a pathetically WEAK point, Donald. You can't see that they occur at
> the same point in the conversation? Well they DO, Donald You ought to try
> again.
>

Speaking of pathetic, Timothy, you're on pretty shaky ground here. I was
just reading in Fritz's testimony that he wrote up his stuff several days
later, and not to trust the order of what he wrote! So neither he nor I
nor you knows at what point the comments occurred, or even if they
occurred in the same interview....

> > >
> > > BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that his hours of work at the Texas School Book
> > > Depository are from 8 a.m. to 4.45p.m., but that he is not required to
> > > punch a a time clock."
> > >
> > > FRITZ: "? punch clock" and "8-4:45 wre not rigid abt time"
> > >
> > > BOOKHOUT: "His usual place of work in the building is on the first floor;
> > > however he...had been on all of the floors in the performance of his
> > > duties on November 22, 1963."
> > >
> > > FRITZ: "wked reg 1st FL but all over"
> > >
> > > That's just following both documents through sequentially.
> > >
> > > It couldn't be MORE obvious what the Fritz reference to Shelley refers to
> > > a time AFTER the assassination, not BEFORE where the OIC want it to be.
> > >
> > > The "out front with Bill Shelley" exoneration of Oswald, using Fritz's
> > > notes, is no longer tenable.
> > >
> >
> > I don't endorse it. I'm not interested in it....
> > dcw
>
> Is that why you were propping it up just above, Donald? HELLUVA way to run
> a railroad, in my view.

I was just noting that the respective comments re Shelley and leaving work
were not connected, at least explicitly, in Fritz's notes. If I'm helping
Ralph it's not intentional, believe me!

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

The discrepancy between the notes, the reports and the testimonies.

[Anthony Marsh]

I've made up several fictitious theories for friends. Rarely posted here.
But I have tried to help the WC defenders here by making up some
fictitious to fit their misconceptions. And don't forget how I hoaxed the
guys at the gun shop. I thought that one was hilarious. They ALMOST fell
for it.

> I could use a GOOD laugh.
>
> BTW, guess that honorary OIC membership must be arriving any day now, eh
> Marsh?
>

Junk.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/12/2015 7:09 PM, donald willis wrote:
> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at hey, doesn't anybody here believe in
> CUTTING?
>
>
>>>> FRITZ: "claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in"
>>>>
>>>> BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor
>>>> and stood around and had lunch..."
>>>>
>>>> FRITZ: "to 1st floor had lunch"
>>>>
>>>> BOOKHOUT: "He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten
>>>> minutes with foreman BILL SHELLY..."
>>>>
>>>> FRITZ: "out with Bill Shelley in front"
>>>>
>>>> BOOKHOUT: "He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon
>>>> remarks of BILL SHELLY, he did not believe that there was going to be any
>>>> more work that day..."
>>>>
>>>> FRITZ: "lft wk opinion nothing be done that day etc."
>>>
>>> Good! Notice that unlike Bookhout Fritz does NOT make a connection
>>> between the Shelley note and the "lft wk" note....
>>>
>>
>> What a pathetically WEAK point, Donald. You can't see that they occur at
>> the same point in the conversation? Well they DO, Donald You ought to try
>> again.
>>
>
> Speaking of pathetic, Timothy, you're on pretty shaky ground here. I was

What do you expect? He's a WC defender. He doesn't do evidence.
BTW, who is Timothy? Is that a fictional character from a cartoon?

[Anthony Marsh]

You are hopeless. You can't see that Fritz made those notes out of
sequence from memory days later.

[donald willis]

Neither Tim nor Ralph wants to give up his little orphan baby, the
Bookhout solo thing, nor the Fritz notes which each says support him. It
somehow suits the purposes of *each* of them!

dcw

[donald willis]

Well, Tim does seem to be sort of a cartoon. mate....
dcw

[donald willis]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 4:09:09 PM UTC-8, donald willis wrote:
> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at hey, doesn't anybody here believe in
> CUTTING?
>
>
> > > > FRITZ: "claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in"
> > > >
> > > > BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor
> > > > and stood around and had lunch..."
> > > >
> > > > FRITZ: "to 1st floor had lunch"
> > > >
> > > > BOOKHOUT: "He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten
> > > > minutes with foreman BILL SHELLY..."
> > > >
> > > > FRITZ: "out with Bill Shelley in front"
> > > >
> > > > BOOKHOUT: "He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon
> > > > remarks of BILL SHELLY, he did not believe that there was going to be any
> > > > more work that day..."
> > > >
> > > > FRITZ: "lft wk opinion nothing be done that day etc."
> > >
> > > Good! Notice that unlike Bookhout Fritz does NOT make a connection
> > > between the Shelley note and the "lft wk" note....
> > >
> >
> > What a pathetically WEAK point, Donald. You can't see that they occur at
> > the same point in the conversation? Well they DO, Donald You ought to try
> > again.
> >
>
> Speaking of pathetic, Timothy, you're on pretty shaky ground here. I was
> just reading in Fritz's testimony that he wrote up his stuff several days
> later, and not to trust the order of what he wrote! So neither he nor I
> nor you knows at what point the comments occurred, or even if they
> occurred in the same interview....

Notice that Timmy has no response to this! Maybe he's waiting for Lassie
to come to his aid....

dcw

[Ralph Cinque]

I can't see it because it's not true. Even Oswald voiced that Fritz was
taking notes during the interrogations.

Marsh, I address that issue and many more on the OIC website. You need to
read it:

http://www.oswald-innocent.com/wrap.html

[David Von Pein]

What makes you think Fritz wrote his notes "days later", Tony? Where is
that confirmed? Got a link?

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 13 November 2015 11:09:09 UTC+11, donald willis wrote:
> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at hey, doesn't anybody here believe in
> CUTTING?
>

> >

> > What a pathetically WEAK point, Donald. You can't see that they occur at
> > the same point in the conversation? Well they DO, Donald You ought to try
> > again.
> >
>
> Speaking of pathetic, Timothy, you're on pretty shaky ground here. I was
> just reading in Fritz's testimony that he wrote up his stuff several days
> later, and not to trust the order of what he wrote! So neither he nor I
> nor you knows at what point the comments occurred, or even if they
> occurred in the same interview....
>

I think we've got a pretty good idea, Donald. You just can't accept it, is
all:

QUOTE ON:

FRITZ: "claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in"

BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor
and stood around and had lunch..."

FRITZ: "to 1st floor had lunch"

BOOKHOUT: "He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten
minutes with foreman BILL SHELLY..."

FRITZ: "out with Bill Shelley in front"

BOOKHOUT: "He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon
remarks of BILL SHELLY, he did not believe that there was going to be any
more work that day..."

FRITZ: "lft wk opinion nothing be done that day etc."

QUOTE OFF

It was at the end of the first interview, Donald. Even Hosty's report
seems to agree.

> > > >
> > > > BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that his hours of work at the Texas School Book
> > > > Depository are from 8 a.m. to 4.45p.m., but that he is not required to
> > > > punch a a time clock."
> > > >
> > > > FRITZ: "? punch clock" and "8-4:45 wre not rigid abt time"
> > > >
> > > > BOOKHOUT: "His usual place of work in the building is on the first floor;
> > > > however he...had been on all of the floors in the performance of his
> > > > duties on November 22, 1963."
> > > >
> > > > FRITZ: "wked reg 1st FL but all over"
> > > >
> > > > That's just following both documents through sequentially.
> > > >
> > > > It couldn't be MORE obvious what the Fritz reference to Shelley refers to
> > > > a time AFTER the assassination, not BEFORE where the OIC want it to be.
> > > >
> > > > The "out front with Bill Shelley" exoneration of Oswald, using Fritz's
> > > > notes, is no longer tenable.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't endorse it. I'm not interested in it....
> > > dcw
> >
> > Is that why you were propping it up just above, Donald? HELLUVA way to run
> > a railroad, in my view.
>
> I was just noting that the respective comments re Shelley and leaving work
> were not connected, at least explicitly, in Fritz's notes. If I'm helping
> Ralph it's not intentional, believe me!
>

They're side by side in Fritz's notes and sequential with Bookhout's
UNFAKE report, Donald. You need to try harder to comprehend the bleeding
obvious.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 15 November 2015 01:28:20 UTC+11, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/12/2015 7:09 PM, donald willis wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at hey, doesn't anybody here believe in
> > CUTTING?
> >
> >
> >>>> FRITZ: "claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in"
> >>>>
> >>>> BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor
> >>>> and stood around and had lunch..."
> >>>>
> >>>> FRITZ: "to 1st floor had lunch"
> >>>>
> >>>> BOOKHOUT: "He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten
> >>>> minutes with foreman BILL SHELLY..."
> >>>>
> >>>> FRITZ: "out with Bill Shelley in front"
> >>>>
> >>>> BOOKHOUT: "He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon
> >>>> remarks of BILL SHELLY, he did not believe that there was going to be any
> >>>> more work that day..."
> >>>>
> >>>> FRITZ: "lft wk opinion nothing be done that day etc."
> >>>
> >>> Good! Notice that unlike Bookhout Fritz does NOT make a connection
> >>> between the Shelley note and the "lft wk" note....
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a pathetically WEAK point, Donald. You can't see that they occur at
> >> the same point in the conversation? Well they DO, Donald You ought to try
> >> again.
> >>
> >
> > Speaking of pathetic, Timothy, you're on pretty shaky ground here. I was
>
> What do you expect? He's a WC defender. He doesn't do evidence.
> BTW, who is Timothy? Is that a fictional character from a cartoon?

I think it's Donald who doesn't do evidence, Marsh.

There are a number of threads he's run from now on this matter when
confronted with evidence.

And of course YOU don't do evidence either, do you, Marsh?

Unless off topic sob stories about your dad getting the boot out of the
NSA count as evidence, Marsh.

And I don't think they do.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Anthony Marsh]

Because he said so. JFK Lancer.

[donald willis]

Oh! snap! It wasn't "Hosty's report". Hosty and Bookhout both signed it,
both agreed on the contents. Then Bookhout or his ghostwriter comes along
with the fake "Bookhout" report, and, like magic, Oswald is now saying he
had lunch *after* 12:30. Check Hosty-BOOKHOUT: They have O saying he
went to lunch at about NOON. The Hosty-BOOKHOUT report hardly agrees with
Fritz & "Bookhout".... Oh, I know--only off by a half hour.... And
Hosty-BOOKHOUT does not mention a police officer or Shelley. Nouveau
definition de le mot "agree"....

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/14/2015 10:22 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> I can't see it because it's not true. Even Oswald voiced that Fritz was
> taking notes during the interrogations.
>

You are manufacturing phony controversies to make yourself look like the
hero. I never said that Fritz did not take notes. He made them in his own
form of shorthand. But he admitted that he made more notes a few days
later from memory.

[David Von Pein]

Link?

[donald willis]

I believe I saw that in the intro to the Fritz notes....
dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

I just gave you the link. JFK Lancer.
http://jfk-info.com/fritztit.htm

From Captain Fritz' Warren Commission testimony...

Mr. BALL. Do you remember what you said to Oswald and what he said to you?

Mr. FRITZ. I can remember the thing that I said to him and what he said to
me, but I will have trouble telling you which period of questioning those
questions were in because I kept no notes at the time, and these notes and
things that I have made I would have to make several days later, and the
questions may be in the wrong place...

[Bud]

The corroboration between Fritz`s notes and Bookhout`s report is too
strong to disregard. Your ideas require coordination and complications
that you could never muster the kind of support they require, so why even
bother?

[Anthony Marsh]

Exactly. Have you ever seen in movies how kids will peek and copy the
answers from the kids next to them?

[donald willis]

So Tim has gotten timid and left you to defend his indefensible position,
HobBud? As for your "too strong" stuff, see my post (coming soon!) re DPD
vs. FBI vs Truth....

dcw

[Ralph Cinque]

But, those are notes that Fritz never made public and never admitted
having and even denied having. What significant is that Fritz, himself,
never reported "out with Bill Shelley in front." Nor did Hosty ever report
it. Only the third person who heard it reported it, and he twisted it to
mean that Oswald said he saw Shelley after the assassination when he was
going home, which was impossible since Shelley wasn't out there at the
time.

You don't have a corroboration. What you have is two guys (Fritz and
Hosty) who omitted completely what Oswald said, and another guy who
twisted its meaning. In other words, all three of them, in one way or
another, tried to bury the truth: that Oswald had an alibi, and it was
that he was out in the doorway with Shelley during the shooting.

[Bud]

I wasn`t defending a position, I was making a point. One you had no
answer to, apparently.

> As for your "too strong" stuff, see my post (coming soon!) re DPD
> vs. FBI vs Truth....

Speaking of "indefensible positions", how can you hope to support the
massively fantastic premise that everyone was out to get Oswald using this
pathetically weak approach?

> dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

Was Shelley in the doorway? How many people can you fit in that doorway?

[tims...@gmail.com]

Notice Donald had NO response when he was confronted with the three
similarly initialed Bookhout reports?

All "Donny" had left in the tank was LAME jokes about Lassie!

Well THAT ain't gonna work, Mr Willis.

Expect some INCOMING...

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[donald willis]

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 7:19:29 PM cut

> > > >
> > > > dcw
> > >
> > > The corroboration between Fritz`s notes and Bookhout`s report is too
> > > strong to disregard. Your ideas require coordination and complications
> > > that you could never muster the kind of support they require, so why even
> > > bother?
> >
> > So Tim has gotten timid and left you to defend his indefensible position,
> > HobBud?
>
> I wasn`t defending a position, I was making a point. One you had no
> answer to, apparently.
>

You've seen my answer, as I suggested below--Fritz's notes were still
incomplete as of his 12/23 report to Curry, in which Fritz reiterates his
reliance on Baker's "3rd or 4th floor stairway" observations. Fritz was
out of the loop until the FBI took charge....

dcw

[donald willis]

I have had a response, to you or Bud or both. But for the best
pulverizing of the Fritz and Bookhout notes/reports, see my "DPD vs FBI vs
Truth" post right here on this station!

>
> All "Donny" had left in the tank was LAME jokes about Lassie!
>
> Well THAT ain't gonna work, Mr Willis.
>
> Expect some INCOMING...

It's already there. It came in...!
dcw

[Bud]

And despite all your objections Fritz`s notes still strongly corroborate
Bookout`s report. And that fact continues to speak louder than your
objections.

[Anthony Marsh]

Could that be because I copied from them?

[donald willis]

Fritz's 12/23 report and his WC testimony cancel out the references in the
notes. Fritz never heard Oswald say "2nd floor lunchroom"....

dcw

[Bud]

Only in a world where conspiracy hobbyist figuring counts for something.

> Fritz never heard Oswald say "2nd floor lunchroom"....

Its right there in his notes. Fritz`s notes strongly corroborate
Bookhout`s report. These facts aren`t going anywhere, despite your
desperation to brush them aside.

>
> dcw

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 15 November 2015 14:21:34 UTC+11, donald willis wrote:

> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:51:33 AM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 11/12/2015 2:19 PM, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 13:37:02 UTC+11, donald willis wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 4:16:56 PM UTC-6, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, 6 November 2015 15:15:37 UTC+11, donald willis wrote:
> > >>>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:31:35 PM UTC-6, David Von Pein wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 4:11:32 PM UTC-4, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>> Hi All,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Say, despite what some claim, more than fifty years ago the WCR considered
> > >>>>>> and discarded Lee Oswald's "out front with Bill Shelley" OIC alibi:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0103b.htm
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> They made a point of questioning Shelley on it at the time:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0199b.htm
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Could hardly get any more dismissive than that.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Oswald was simply lying. As usual...
> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Tim Brennan
> > >>>>>> Sydney, Australia
> > >>>>>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> > >>>>>> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> > >>>>>> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
> > >>>>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>> X marks the spot where SENIOR OIC MEMBER Mark Lane lied!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Stop the LIES! Oswald INSIDE!! Disband the OIC!!!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> ps Oh yeah, and for those who claim that Oswald's lie referred to a time
> > >>>>>> BEFORE or DURING the assassination, read this:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -----------------------------------
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> A side by side comparison of FBI Bookhout's report and Will Fritz's notes
> > >>>>>> of the first post arrest interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald demonstrates
> > >>>>>> that the "out front with Bill Shelley" alibi for Oswald, often cited by
> > >>>>>> the OIC, actually refers to a time AFTER the JFK shooting.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If you don't believe me, read along, using Bookhout's report and the
> > >>>>>> second column of Fritz's notes:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Bookhout's report:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> And DPD Fritz's notes:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In a side by side fashion, what we see is the almost EXACT same
> > >>>>>> sequence of events documented:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> BOOKHOUT: "...he was on the second floor of said building, having just
> > >>>>>> purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police
> > >>>>>> officer came into the room..."
> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>> FRITZ: "claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in"
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor
> > >>>>>> and stood around and had lunch..."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> FRITZ: "to 1st floor had lunch"
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> BOOKHOUT: "He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten
> > >>>>>> minutes with foreman BILL SHELLY..."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> FRITZ: "out with Bill Shelley in front"
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> BOOKHOUT: "He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon
> > >>>>>> remarks of BILL SHELLY, he did not believe that there was going to be any
> > >>>>>> more work that day..."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> FRITZ: "lft wk opinion nothing be done that day etc."
> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>> BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that his hours of work at the Texas School Book
> > >>>>>> Depository are from 8 a.m. to 4.45p.m., but that he is not required to
> > >>>>>> punch a a time clock."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> FRITZ: "? punch clock" and "8-4:45 wre not rigid abt time"
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> BOOKHOUT: "His usual place of work in the building is on the first floor;
> > >>>>>> however he...had been on all of the floors in the performance of his
> > >>>>>> duties on November 22, 1963."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> FRITZ: "wked reg 1st FL but all over"
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> That's just following both documents through sequentially.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> TB
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Nice job, Tim Brennan.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The Bookhout report and Fritz' note sync together perfectly.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Excellent work. Thank you.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I hate to interrupt the celebration, David, Tim, but the report and the
> > >>>> notes are NOT in sync.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Nowhere, actually, does Fritz link Oswald's decision to leave the
> > >>>> depository with the chat with Shelley. (Gasp!)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> His notes read,

> > >>>> "out with Bill Shelley in
> > >>>> front

> > >>>> lft wk. opinion nothing be
> > >>>> done that day etc."
> > >>>>

> > >>> FRITZ: "claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in"
> > >>>
> > >>> BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor
> > >>> and stood around and had lunch..."
> > >>>
> > >>> FRITZ: "to 1st floor had lunch"
> > >>>
> > >>> BOOKHOUT: "He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten
> > >>> minutes with foreman BILL SHELLY..."
> > >>>
> > >>> FRITZ: "out with Bill Shelley in front"
> > >>>
> > >>> BOOKHOUT: "He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon
> > >>> remarks of BILL SHELLY, he did not believe that there was going to be any
> > >>> more work that day..."
> > >>>
> > >>> FRITZ: "lft wk opinion nothing be done that day etc."
> > >>
> > >> Good! Notice that unlike Bookhout Fritz does NOT make a connection
> > >> between the Shelley note and the "lft wk" note....
> > >>
> > >
> > > What a pathetically WEAK point, Donald. You can't see that they occur at
> > > the same point in the conversation? Well they DO, Donald You ought to try
> > > again.
> > >
> >

> > You are hopeless. You can't see that Fritz made those notes out of
> > sequence from memory days later.
> >
> > >>>
> > >>> BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that his hours of work at the Texas School Book
> > >>> Depository are from 8 a.m. to 4.45p.m., but that he is not required to
> > >>> punch a a time clock."
> > >>>
> > >>> FRITZ: "? punch clock" and "8-4:45 wre not rigid abt time"
> > >>>
> > >>> BOOKHOUT: "His usual place of work in the building is on the first floor;
> > >>> however he...had been on all of the floors in the performance of his
> > >>> duties on November 22, 1963."
> > >>>
> > >>> FRITZ: "wked reg 1st FL but all over"
> > >>>
> > >>> That's just following both documents through sequentially.
> > >>>
> > >>> It couldn't be MORE obvious what the Fritz reference to Shelley refers to
> > >>> a time AFTER the assassination, not BEFORE where the OIC want it to be.
> > >>>
> > >>> The "out front with Bill Shelley" exoneration of Oswald, using Fritz's
> > >>> notes, is no longer tenable.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I don't endorse it. I'm not interested in it....
> > >> dcw
> > >
> > > Is that why you were propping it up just above, Donald? HELLUVA way to run
> > > a railroad, in my view.
> > >

> > > Informative Regards,
> > >
> > > Tim Brennan
> > > Sydney, Australia
> > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> > >
> > > *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> > > neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> > > Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
> > >
> > > And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
> > > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
> > >

> > > X marks the spot where SENIOR OIC MEMBER Mark Lane lied!
> > >
> > > Stop the LIES! Oswald INSIDE!! Disband the OIC!!!
> > >
> > > ps Donald, your honorary OIC membership must be due any day now, pal! TB
> > >
>

> Neither Tim nor Ralph wants to give up his little orphan baby, the
> Bookhout solo thing, nor the Fritz notes which each says support him. It
> somehow suits the purposes of *each* of them!
>
> dcw

Huh? Er, BUT Donald... How EXACTLY is the Bookhout solo report an ORPHAN
report when it was published in FULL in the WCR as an IMPORTANT report in
Appendix XI?!:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0311b.htm

And:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

The report's ORPHAN status appears to be a figment of your IMAGINATION,
Donald.

Which is because it IS!

Corrective Regards,

[Ralph Cinque]

Fritz wrote down:

claims 2nd fl. Coke when Off(icer) came in

which is an obvious reference to the lunch room.

And, it's more proof that the Notes were taken during the interrogations
because he never would have written so cryptically except in haste from
trying to keep up with a speaker.

[Anthony Marsh]

I saw an interview on TV yesterday about the ISIS attack on Bataclan.
And the reporter asked him where the terrorists where when he went in.
So he said "first floor." And the reporter corrected him and said, "Do
you mean the balcony." And said "Yes, the balcony on the first floor."

[donald willis]

You're a card, Hobbud! As late as 12/23/63, Fritz was still using his
original Baker info: The latter stopped Oswald on the stairway.
Finally, in April '64, he rejected that, long after he supposedly heard
Oswald say 2nd floor lunchroom! Boy that Fritz is slow! Not quite as
slow as you, however. You've had some 50 years and still can't get it
right....

And, in his testimony, Fritz is saying that Baker pulled a gun on Oswald
while he was eating lunch, with other employees, apparently, then, on the
first floor. Was he right, finally?

dcw

[donald willis]

Supposedly, he signed it, then never mentioned it again. And he had a
chance to, at the hearings. Papa Bookhout disowned little orphan
Bookhout. Wonder why he didn't want to bring it up? Maybe because he
also signed the contradictory Hosty/Bookhout report....

dcw

[donald willis]

On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 7:54:14 PM UTC-8, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Fritz wrote down:
>
> claims 2nd fl. Coke when Off(icer) came in
>
> which is an obvious reference to the lunch room.
>
> And, it's more proof that the Notes were taken during the interrogations

Then, Fritz lied when he testified that he didn't take notes....
dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

No, it's called shorthand. Are you calling Fritz a liar?

[donald willis]

Fritz lied about taking notes. Why wouldn't he lie *within* those notes?
dcw

[Bud]

So you figure. But hobbyist figuring counts for nothing.

[donald willis]

Tell me how Fritz did *not* lie about this. He testified that he took no
notes; years later, the Fritz notes turn up.... Tell me, hobbud....

dcw

[Bud]

Shifting the burden.

> He testified that he took no
> notes; years later, the Fritz notes turn up.... Tell me, hobbud....

This is your idea. Tell me what process you used to rule out every other
possibility.

> dcw

[donald willis]

Okay, I think I see the problem. I should have said, Fritz took no notes
during the Oswald interviews. As per his testimony:

Ball: "Did you make notes as of that time?"
Fritz: "We made these, not at that time...."

dcw

[Bud]

The notes speak pretty loudly that he had. Bookhouts reports supports
that they were taken during the interrogations, as does the way the notes
were taken.

[donald willis]

Aw, Bud! Calling Fritz a liar, eh?
dcw

[Bud]

There is no end to the silly ideas you are willing to entertain yet lack
the imagination necessary to consider someone relating information that is
not accurate, and that person not being a liar.

[tims...@gmail.com]

OIC. But before your position was that he DIDN'T sign it, or that the
signature was fake. WHAT position is operational TODAY, Donald?

> chance to, at the hearings. Papa Bookhout disowned little orphan
> Bookhout. Wonder why he didn't want to bring it up? Maybe because he

It was up to Stern, who was questioning him, to bring it up. Stern never
did, though the supposedly FAKE report was used as the basis for OTHER WC
questioning. Some FAKE/ORPHAN report, Donald!

> also signed the contradictory Hosty/Bookhout report....

OIC, so now it's BOTH reports WERE signed by Bookhout, eh, Donald? About
TIME you rolled on the BLEEDING OBVIOUS, pal.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[donald willis]

True, I'm not hidebound, as you are. Bookhout may have signed the solo report, but I doubt it. The "J" ain't right. Either way, however, I do maintain that the report was FAKE....

>
> > chance to, at the hearings. Papa Bookhout disowned little orphan
> > Bookhout. Wonder why he didn't want to bring it up? Maybe because he
>
> It was up to Stern, who was questioning him, to bring it up. Stern never
> did, though the supposedly FAKE report was used as the basis for OTHER WC
> questioning. Some FAKE/ORPHAN report, Donald!
>
> > also signed the contradictory Hosty/Bookhout report....
>
> OIC, so now it's BOTH reports WERE signed by Bookhout, eh, Donald? About
> TIME you rolled on the BLEEDING OBVIOUS, pal.

Again, whether or not it was Bookhout who wrote the solo report, it
contradicts what Bookhout signed earlier. Try not to deal with that....

dcw

[Bud]

Try not to focus on anomalies, you might be able to figure out the most
easily figured out murder ever.

[donald willis]

On Sunday, November 29, 2

> > > TIME you rolled on the BLEEDING OBVIOUS, pal.
> >
> > Again, whether or not it was Bookhout who wrote the solo report, it
> > contradicts what Bookhout signed earlier. Try not to deal with that....
> >
> > dcw
>
> Try not to focus on anomalies, you might be able to figure out the most
> easily figured out murder ever.

Bud doing Tim's work again! An FBI agent signing two contradictory
reports is an anomaly? New definition....

dcw

[Bud]

Nothing new about the way I used that word.

[donald willis]

A fraudulent official document is just an anomaly?

[tims...@gmail.com]

Why would Bookhout dictate a number of reports on the same day to the SAME
stenographer but the one that DISAGREES with YOUR pet theory is the only
one you pronounce as a fake?

Bookhout gave slightly different variations of his initials on document to
document, but it is quite plainly JWB. And the B is quite distinctive.
See:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

And:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57698#relPageId=4&tab=page

You are simply NOT a handwriting expert who can pronounce with certainty
that something is FAKE or not, Donald.

> >
> > > chance to, at the hearings. Papa Bookhout disowned little orphan
> > > Bookhout. Wonder why he didn't want to bring it up? Maybe because he
> >
> > It was up to Stern, who was questioning him, to bring it up. Stern never
> > did, though the supposedly FAKE report was used as the basis for OTHER WC
> > questioning. Some FAKE/ORPHAN report, Donald!
> >
> > > also signed the contradictory Hosty/Bookhout report....
> >
> > OIC, so now it's BOTH reports WERE signed by Bookhout, eh, Donald? About
> > TIME you rolled on the BLEEDING OBVIOUS, pal.
>
> Again, whether or not it was Bookhout who wrote the solo report, it
> contradicts what Bookhout signed earlier. Try not to deal with that....
>

Try to deal with the fact that Hosty was the one under pressure, who held
the Oswald case file, and who had to file his report as soon as he could
to cover his ass, which in this case was the next day. The Hosty/Bookhout
report is largely his work, though Bookhout agreed the content.

Bookhout, on the other hand, was the FBI/DPD liaison guy. He conducted
further interviews with Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine and sat in on another
Oswald interview or two. He dictated his reports a day later, the 24th,
and by then the word had come down, EVERYTHING had to be put on an FD 302.
As per this from Hosty's WC testimony:

QUOTE ON:

Routine-type matters do not have to be put on these interview forms, but
pertinent interviews would be. Now everything in this case after the
assassination was declared to be pertinent. All interviews, regardless of
how insignificant, were to be put on these forms.

QUOTE OFF

So Bookhout goes through his notes on 24 November with stenographer "wvm"
and EVERYTHING goes onto an FD 302, just like Hoover wants, one after the
other, Donald, as we see here:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

And:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0323a.htm

And:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0325a.htm

Case CLOSED on your "the report is FAKE" nonsense!

It's all just fake in your IMAGINATION, Donald.

Corrective Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Anthony Marsh]

How do you know they're not the same guy?

[Bud]

Your silly hobbyist figuring counts for nothing.

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at cut

> > > OIC. But before your position was that he DIDN'T sign it, or that the
> > > signature was fake. WHAT position is operational TODAY, Donald?
> >
> > True, I'm not hidebound, as you are. Bookhout may have signed the solo report, but I doubt it. The "J" ain't right. Either way, however, I do maintain that the report was FAKE....
> >
>
> Why would Bookhout dictate a number of reports on the same day to the SAME
> stenographer but the one that DISAGREES with YOUR pet theory is the only
> one you pronounce as a fake?

It's pretty sure that that the first solo report is the only Bookhout
report ehivh contradicted another signed report by him. This is *your*
problem....

dcw

[tims...@gmail.com]

You haven't proved that the document is fraudulent, Donald.

That is simply a figment of your imagination.

In fact, the supposedly FRAUDULENT document was published in full as an
IMPORTANT document in the WCR!

AND it's been PROVEN to have been used in the questioning of Bill Shelley
re Oswald's excuse for why he left the building and went home!

After 22 November, if it moved it got put on an FD 302, as per this from
Hosty's testimony:

QUOTE ON:

Routine-type matters do not have to be put on these interview forms, but
pertinent interviews would be. Now everything in this case after the
assassination was declared to be pertinent. All interviews, regardless of
how insignificant, were to be put on these forms.

QUOTE OFF

Hosty dictated his reports on 23 November because Hosty was under the gun
over his handling of the Oswald file. Bookhout dictated his reports on 24
November because he WASN'T under the gun.

It's as simple as that, Donald. The Bookhout solo report is fraudulent
simply in your hobbyist imagination. Nowhere else.

It's another ridiculous JFK-CT canard like "the money order was never
cashed" or "Oswald never received a rifle" and it's time you gave it all
away, Donald.

Your theory that the report is a fraud is complete nonsense.

Corrective Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[donald willis]

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 11:33:10 AM UTC-8, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 12:12:00 UTC+11, donald willis wrote:
> > On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 8:33:52 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 4:45:53 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, November 29, 2
> > > > > > > TIME you rolled on the BLEEDING OBVIOUS, pal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, whether or not it was Bookhout who wrote the solo report, it
> > > > > > contradicts what Bookhout signed earlier. Try not to deal with that....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > dcw
> > > > >
> > > > > Try not to focus on anomalies, you might be able to figure out the most
> > > > > easily figured out murder ever.
> > > >
> > > > Bud doing Tim's work again! An FBI agent signing two contradictory
> > > > reports is an anomaly? New definition....
> > > >
> > > > dcw
> > >
> > > Nothing new about the way I used that word.
> >
> > A fraudulent official document is just an anomaly?
>
> You haven't proved that the document is fraudulent, Donald.
>
> That is simply a figment of your imagination.
>
> In fact, the supposedly FRAUDULENT document was published in full as an
> IMPORTANT document in the WCR!
>
> AND it's been PROVEN to have been used in the questioning of Bill Shelley
> re Oswald's excuse for why he left the building and went home!

Proven by its *exclusion* from the WR footnotes supporting this
questioning?!? Interesting manner of proving something!

dcw