Maybe Oswald's Coke Doesn't Mean Anything At All

19efppp

unread,

Jul 11, 2019, 8:40:43 PM7/11/19

to

Perhaps I'm making too big a deal of the Coke inconsistencies here. Truly
surely is a conspiracy tool, and yet in his WC testimony he unequivocally
agrees with Marrion Baker that Oswald had nothing in his hands, no Coke.
If the conspirators thought that the Coke was so important, they probably
would have had Truly corroborate Oswald's possession of said Coke. It
would not have overtly contradicted his earlier statements. He had never
mentioned the Coke before, but he had never denied it either. He could
have told the WC that Oswald had a Coke, and it would not have been
inconsistent with anything he had said before. So, I need to consider the
innocent explanations.

The first problem is the apparent contradiction in the Bookhout vs. Hosty
accounts of one of the Oswald interviews. They sat in on the same
interview, and Hosty does not mention the Baker/Oswald encounter, while
Bookhout does, and includes the Coke. I don't think it is reasonable that
Hosty would miss the account of this event, but Bookhout sat in on other
interviews and filed other reports of those interviews, and he was
dictating his reports after all of these interviews had occurred, so
Bookhout could have been confused as to which interview Oswald mentioned
the Baker encounter. Maybe Oswald mentioned it in an interview where
Bookhout was present and Hosty was not. This allows both Hosty and
Bookhout to be honest on this point, and therefore the Bookhout vs. Hosty
inconsistency is not necessarily relevant to the Coke question. Maybe
Oswald really did get a Coke AFTER the Baker encounter.

Mrs. Reid said Oswald had the Coke while he walked through the office, but
she also said that he was wearing a T-shirt, not the brown shirt that
Baker saw. So, I've been thinking that she's a conspiracy liar for hire.
But Truly also remembered Oswald wearing a white T-shirt, which is what
Truly said the warehouse employees usually wore. And that may be the
point; since Oswald usually wore a T-shirt, perhaps the TSBD personnel
thought of him as a T-shirt-wearer, and that corrupted their memories.
They were biased to think that Oswald was wearing a T-shirt because they
always saw him that way. Baker did not have this bias, so he had no
expectation of seeing Oswald as he usually was dressed. He saw what was
really there and remembered what he saw. Truly and Reid, in their
memories, retrospectively "saw" what they expected to see, Oswald in a
white T-shirt. Therefore, both Truly and Reid could be honest on this
point. And therefore, Reid would more likely be honest on the point of
Oswald having a Coke.

And in the handwritten September 1964 statement of Marrion Baker, Marsh's
Holy Grail, it could be that the FBI agent knew the story included a Coke
and just wrote it down because that was part of the story, even though
Baker didn't say so. That certainly makes more sense than Marsh's
explanation that Baker forgot one of his key "lies" while he was answering
questions. Baker simply saw the agent's mistake and corrected it. So, the
hand written statement could simply be a special agent mistake, and not an
attempt to insert a coverup Coke.

So, perhaps the most reasonable explanation is that there is no dishonesty
here, except on the part of Oswald. He did not go to the 2nd floor to get
a Coke. But perhaps he did get a Coke after meeting Baker. Perhaps. This
is a reasonable explanation, even in the conspiracy scenario.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,

Jul 12, 2019, 3:32:43 PM7/12/19

to

Applause. Seriously and sincerely. You actually worked something out with
resorting to calling half the witnesses liars for the cover-up. You do
understand how unusual that is for a conspiracy theorist, right?

Hank

19efppp

unread,

Jul 12, 2019, 3:33:53 PM7/12/19

to

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 8:40:43 PM UTC-4, 19efppp wrote:

Well, I forgot here that Fritz's notes specify that Hosty and Bookhout
were both present during the interview in which Oswald supposedly
mentioned meeting Baker, saying that Oswald had a Coke when the officer
came in. I think I'm not making too much out of the Coke. Never mind.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jul 12, 2019, 4:30:35 PM7/12/19

to

On 7/11/2019 8:40 PM, 19efppp wrote:
> Perhaps I'm making too big a deal of the Coke inconsistencies here. Truly
> surely is a conspiracy tool, and yet in his WC testimony he unequivocally
> agrees with Marrion Baker that Oswald had nothing in his hands, no Coke.
> If the conspirators thought that the Coke was so important, they probably
> would have had Truly corroborate Oswald's possession of said Coke. It
> would not have overtly contradicted his earlier statements. He had never
> mentioned the Coke before, but he had never denied it either. He could

WHo? Oswald or Baker? Why should Oswald mention it when he was arrested?
Did he need 20 alibis? He said he saw the 2 black guys in the Domino
Room. How could he do that from the 6th floor?

> have told the WC that Oswald had a Coke, and it would not have been
> inconsistent with anything he had said before. So, I need to consider the
> innocent explanations.
>

Why would Baker tell them that?
Ever wonder what was in those conversations off the record?
The WC coaching the witness on what to say and what not to say.

> The first problem is the apparent contradiction in the Bookhout vs. Hosty
> accounts of one of the Oswald interviews. They sat in on the same
> interview, and Hosty does not mention the Baker/Oswald encounter, while
> Bookhout does, and includes the Coke. I don't think it is reasonable that

Does Brookhouse say that Oswald had a Coke? How would he know?

> Hosty would miss the account of this event, but Bookhout sat in on other
> interviews and filed other reports of those interviews, and he was
> dictating his reports after all of these interviews had occurred, so
> Bookhout could have been confused as to which interview Oswald mentioned

Welcome to the real world.

> the Baker encounter. Maybe Oswald mentioned it in an interview where
> Bookhout was present and Hosty was not. This allows both Hosty and

Hmm, could be. Or maybe one of them was late or distracted.

> Bookhout to be honest on this point, and therefore the Bookhout vs. Hosty
> inconsistency is not necessarily relevant to the Coke question. Maybe
> Oswald really did get a Coke AFTER the Baker encounter.
>

BEFORE.

> Mrs. Reid said Oswald had the Coke while he walked through the office, but
> she also said that he was wearing a T-shirt, not the brown shirt that
> Baker saw. So, I've been thinking that she's a conspiracy liar for hire.

Gee, that's so hard to figure out.
Oswald was wearing a T-shirt under his brown shirt.
OMG, BROWN shirt? Now some kook will call HIM a brown shirt, as in Nazi!
See, I can use the word Nazi without naming names.

> But Truly also remembered Oswald wearing a white T-shirt, which is what
> Truly said the warehouse employees usually wore. And that may be the
> point; since Oswald usually wore a T-shirt, perhaps the TSBD personnel
> thought of him as a T-shirt-wearer, and that corrupted their memories.

It's a matter of when? Employees did not usually wear their jackets
while they work. It was not illegal for workers to strip down to just
their T-shirts while doing heavy work.
I'm surprised that the WC defenders don't make a big deal out of Oswald
leaving behind his jacket. They should claim that it proves
consciousness of guilt. He couldn't go back and get it because the cops
were swarming the TSBD and he might have been caught again.

> They were biased to think that Oswald was wearing a T-shirt because they
> always saw him that way. Baker did not have this bias, so he had no
> expectation of seeing Oswald as he usually was dressed. He saw what was
> really there and remembered what he saw. Truly and Reid, in their
> memories, retrospectively "saw" what they expected to see, Oswald in a
> white T-shirt. Therefore, both Truly and Reid could be honest on this
> point. And therefore, Reid would more likely be honest on the point of
> Oswald having a Coke.
>
> And in the handwritten September 1964 statement of Marrion Baker, Marsh's
> Holy Grail, it could be that the FBI agent knew the story included a Coke
> and just wrote it down because that was part of the story, even though
> Baker didn't say so. That certainly makes more sense than Marsh's
> explanation that Baker forgot one of his key "lies" while he was answering
> questions. Baker simply saw the agent's mistake and corrected it. So, the
> hand written statement could simply be a special agent mistake, and not an
> attempt to insert a coverup Coke.
>
> So, perhaps the most reasonable explanation is that there is no dishonesty
> here, except on the part of Oswald. He did not go to the 2nd floor to get
> a Coke. But perhaps he did get a Coke after meeting Baker. Perhaps. This
> is a reasonable explanation, even in the conspiracy scenario.
>

Yeah, perhaps there was something sinister about Oswald getting a Coke
and drinking it in the lunch room. Maybe he was hiding from the cops.
Keep trying.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,

Jul 12, 2019, 10:21:16 PM7/12/19

to

You're making too much out of the Coke. There are other explanations for
the failure of Hosty to include the mention of the encounter with Oswald /
Truly and Baker. Like he stepped out of the room to go to the john. Or he
was having a separate conversation off to the side with someone else as
the interrogation continued. Or he simply - being human - failed to note
it or made a judgment call that the encounter wasn't important and not
worth noting.

A discrepancy doesn't necessarily point to conspiracy. But if that's all
you got, then I understand entirely your desire not to give up on any
discrepancy.

Hank

donald willis

unread,

Jul 13, 2019, 3:16:44 PM7/13/19

to

None of these excuses fly. Bookhout signed the report, too, meaning he
saw nothing amiss about what Hosty wrote. Hosty did not, however, sign
the solo Bookhout report from a day or so later.

dcw

19efppp

unread,

Jul 13, 2019, 3:18:32 PM7/13/19

to

Of course it is possible that Hosty missed it, but I think it is unlikely.

19efppp

unread,

Jul 13, 2019, 3:18:46 PM7/13/19

to

Go back to sleep, Tony. It was just a bad dream.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jul 13, 2019, 10:21:05 PM7/13/19

to

You are conflating two different interviews.
Did Oswald ever say he had a Coke?

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,

Jul 13, 2019, 10:24:31 PM7/13/19

to

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 4:30:35 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> On 7/11/2019 8:40 PM, 19efppp wrote:
> > Perhaps I'm making too big a deal of the Coke inconsistencies here. Truly
> > surely is a conspiracy tool, and yet in his WC testimony he unequivocally
> > agrees with Marrion Baker that Oswald had nothing in his hands, no Coke.
> > If the conspirators thought that the Coke was so important, they probably
> > would have had Truly corroborate Oswald's possession of said Coke. It
> > would not have overtly contradicted his earlier statements. He had never
> > mentioned the Coke before, but he had never denied it either. He could
>
> WHo? Oswald or Baker? Why should Oswald mention it when he was arrested?
> Did he need 20 alibis? He said he saw the 2 black guys in the Domino
> Room. How could he do that from the 6th floor?

Were the two black guys in the Domino room at the time of the
assassination? No. They had gone up the fifth floor. I fail to see how
this gives Oswald an alibi for 12:30pm Dallas time on 11/22/63. If the two
black guys had time to go to the fifth floor, surely Oswald had time to
get to the sixth floor.

>
> > have told the WC that Oswald had a Coke, and it would not have been
> > inconsistent with anything he had said before. So, I need to consider the
> > innocent explanations.
> >
>
> Why would Baker tell them that?
> Ever wonder what was in those conversations off the record?
> The WC coaching the witness on what to say and what not to say.

HILARIOUS!

You don't know what was in the conversations off the record, so you ASSUME
what was in the conversations off the record, and then post your
assumption as if it's a fact. It's not. Much of what you post as a fact is
just your interpretation or assumption being posted as a fact.

>
> > The first problem is the apparent contradiction in the Bookhout vs. Hosty
> > accounts of one of the Oswald interviews. They sat in on the same
> > interview, and Hosty does not mention the Baker/Oswald encounter, while
> > Bookhout does, and includes the Coke. I don't think it is reasonable that
>
> Does Brookhouse say that Oswald had a Coke? How would he know?

Who is Brookhouse? Focus, Tony. Brookhouse wasn't in any of the
interrogation sessions, but Bookhout was.

>
> > Hosty would miss the account of this event, but Bookhout sat in on other
> > interviews and filed other reports of those interviews, and he was
> > dictating his reports after all of these interviews had occurred, so
> > Bookhout could have been confused as to which interview Oswald mentioned
>
> Welcome to the real world.

The same one where you assume what you need to prove, and post it as fact,
as in the case of the off-the-record conversations? That real world?

>
> > the Baker encounter. Maybe Oswald mentioned it in an interview where
> > Bookhout was present and Hosty was not. This allows both Hosty and
>
> Hmm, could be. Or maybe one of them was late or distracted.

Yes, I suggested exactly that.

>
> > Bookhout to be honest on this point, and therefore the Bookhout vs. Hosty
> > inconsistency is not necessarily relevant to the Coke question. Maybe
> > Oswald really did get a Coke AFTER the Baker encounter.
> >
>
> BEFORE.

You know this how?

>
> > Mrs. Reid said Oswald had the Coke while he walked through the office, but
> > she also said that he was wearing a T-shirt, not the brown shirt that
> > Baker saw. So, I've been thinking that she's a conspiracy liar for hire.
>
> Gee, that's so hard to figure out.
> Oswald was wearing a T-shirt under his brown shirt.
> OMG, BROWN shirt? Now some kook will call HIM a brown shirt, as in Nazi!
> See, I can use the word Nazi without naming names.

It's still a meaningless distraction. Something you apparently like to
specialize in.

>
> > But Truly also remembered Oswald wearing a white T-shirt, which is what
> > Truly said the warehouse employees usually wore. And that may be the
> > point; since Oswald usually wore a T-shirt, perhaps the TSBD personnel
> > thought of him as a T-shirt-wearer, and that corrupted their memories.
>
> It's a matter of when? Employees did not usually wear their jackets
> while they work. It was not illegal for workers to strip down to just
> their T-shirts while doing heavy work.
> I'm surprised that the WC defenders don't make a big deal out of Oswald
> leaving behind his jacket. They should claim that it proves
> consciousness of guilt. He couldn't go back and get it because the cops
> were swarming the TSBD and he might have been caught again.

I've left a jacket behind at work on more than one occasion. When the
weather goes from cold in the morning to warm by the afternoon, I'm more
likely to either forget it or deliberately choose to leave it behind.
Sometimes I forget or deliberately leave behind an umbrella. The jacket
left behind is meaningless.

You know what is NOT meaningless? Oswald leaving behind a rifle. One that
was used to assassinate the President. The one that bore the serial number
C2766. One that has his prints on it. One that was ordered by him, paid
for by him, and shipped to his PO box. One that he is pictured holding in
photos taken by his wife, with his camera.

That rifle is not meaningless.

>
> > They were biased to think that Oswald was wearing a T-shirt because they
> > always saw him that way. Baker did not have this bias, so he had no
> > expectation of seeing Oswald as he usually was dressed. He saw what was
> > really there and remembered what he saw. Truly and Reid, in their
> > memories, retrospectively "saw" what they expected to see, Oswald in a
> > white T-shirt. Therefore, both Truly and Reid could be honest on this
> > point. And therefore, Reid would more likely be honest on the point of
> > Oswald having a Coke.
> >
> > And in the handwritten September 1964 statement of Marrion Baker, Marsh's
> > Holy Grail, it could be that the FBI agent knew the story included a Coke
> > and just wrote it down because that was part of the story, even though
> > Baker didn't say so. That certainly makes more sense than Marsh's
> > explanation that Baker forgot one of his key "lies" while he was answering
> > questions. Baker simply saw the agent's mistake and corrected it. So, the
> > hand written statement could simply be a special agent mistake, and not an
> > attempt to insert a coverup Coke.
> >
> > So, perhaps the most reasonable explanation is that there is no dishonesty
> > here, except on the part of Oswald. He did not go to the 2nd floor to get
> > a Coke. But perhaps he did get a Coke after meeting Baker. Perhaps. This
> > is a reasonable explanation, even in the conspiracy scenario.
> >
>
> Yeah, perhaps there was something sinister about Oswald getting a Coke
> and drinking it in the lunch room. Maybe he was hiding from the cops.
> Keep trying.

Meaningless distraction. You're raising a straw man argument because you
can't rebut the points made.

Hank

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,

Jul 13, 2019, 10:44:50 PM7/13/19

to

So what? Hosty didn't mention the encounter story. Bookhout signed off on
it. That's evidence there was no encounter, or evidence Bookhout didn't
note the ommission? Or noticed it, but didn't think it pertinent?

Please tell us what you conclude from Bookhout's signature, and why. And
how you eliminated other possible explanations.

> Hosty did not, however, sign
> the solo Bookhout report from a day or so later.

Because -- as you note -- it was a SOLO report by Bookhout, not
co-authored by Hosty. Really, keep tossing those beachballs over the
plate.

>
> dcw

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,

Jul 13, 2019, 10:45:43 PM7/13/19

to

Or that he didn't bother to mention it because he didn't deem it
pertinent, or he failed to mention it because he's human.

Please explain how you eliminated all other possible explanations. And why
you're focusing on a discrepancy between what two different men noted in
memorandum for the record.

I wager if you went to your local college, and looked at notes in any
class taken by any two students at random, there would be differences in
what each student thought was pertinent and worth noting. Do you think
every student's notes should agree precisely? Do you think two different
LEOs notes should likewise agree?

This discrepancy in what two different LEOs noted is meaningless.

Keep harping on meaningless discrepancies.

Hank

donald willis

unread,

Jul 14, 2019, 6:12:20 PM7/14/19

to

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 7:24:31 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 4:30:35 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 7/11/2019 8:40 PM, 19efppp wrote:
> > > Perhaps I'm making too big a deal of the Coke inconsistencies here. Truly
> > > surely is a conspiracy tool, and yet in his WC testimony he unequivocally
> > > agrees with Marrion Baker that Oswald had nothing in his hands, no Coke.
> > > If the conspirators thought that the Coke was so important, they probably
> > > would have had Truly corroborate Oswald's possession of said Coke. It
> > > would not have overtly contradicted his earlier statements. He had never
> > > mentioned the Coke before, but he had never denied it either. He could
> >
> > WHo? Oswald or Baker? Why should Oswald mention it when he was arrested?
> > Did he need 20 alibis? He said he saw the 2 black guys in the Domino
> > Room. How could he do that from the 6th floor?
>
> Were the two black guys in the Domino room at the time of the
> assassination? No. They had gone up the fifth floor. I fail to see how
> this gives Oswald an alibi for 12:30pm Dallas time on 11/22/63. If the two
> black guys had time to go to the fifth floor, surely Oswald had time to
> get to the sixth floor.

Yes, and run into Williams--who says he has heard the two on the floor
below: This would be about 12:26, since Norman was listening to the
police radio about 12:23, before going in the back way with Jarman. So, W
would be hearing N&J about the same time as O reaches the 6th floor. "I
warmed up a spot for you," W tells O as they pass each other.

Actually, I don't believe the words of W, N or J, and I don't believe the
words which Bookhout put in O's mouth....

dcw

donald willis

unread,

Jul 14, 2019, 6:12:52 PM7/14/19

to

Choose one of the above! Actually, none of the above seems about
right.... It's just evidence that Oswald did NOT sign off on a 2nd-floor
encounter. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, though it may not have.
Doesn't matter to me, since I now put O upstairs in the 5th-floor
"nest"....

> Please tell us what you conclude from Bookhout's signature, and why. And
> how you eliminated other possible explanations.
>
>
> > Hosty did not, however, sign
> > the solo Bookhout report from a day or so later.
>
> Because -- as you note -- it was a SOLO report by Bookhout, not
> co-authored by Hosty. Really, keep tossing those beachballs over the
> plate.
>

As Hosty told the Commission, when two agents attend an interview, BOTH
are obliged to sign any report on same. Which means the solo report was a
complete fabrication....

dcw

19efppp

unread,

Jul 14, 2019, 6:16:06 PM7/14/19

to

If you really want a response, explain your first sentence.

19efppp

unread,

Jul 14, 2019, 6:17:02 PM7/14/19

to

I disagree. Hosty was a professional, not some random student at a
community college taking notes in class, wondering if she looks too fat in
her dress. Hosty knew he looked too fat in a dress; that's why he wore
business suits. He should be expected to note what Oswald said about
encountering a police officer. I'm not harping. It is YOU who keep
bringing it up. Can't we disagree without you accusing me of murdering a
harp?

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jul 14, 2019, 10:16:33 PM7/14/19

to

So you think that official notes in a criminal investigation are just like
a college student's class notes? Full of speculation and doodles? How
would you know if you have never taken either?

> This discrepancy in what two different LEOs noted is meaningless.
>
> Keep harping on meaningless discrepancies.
>

Isn't that what this newsgroup is for?

> Hank
>

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jul 14, 2019, 10:17:00 PM7/14/19

to

Did Oswald need a straw to drink his Coke?
Do you need cahones to answer my questions?

> Hank
>
>

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jul 15, 2019, 9:13:12 PM7/15/19

to

2 agents from the same agency. FBI. FBI protocol.
Who was the second FBI agent?

> dcw
>

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jul 16, 2019, 9:47:21 AM7/16/19

to

Don't you know how to play the harp? I studied that in college.

> bringing it up. Can't we disagree without you accusing me of murdering a
> harp?
>

Oh, was it you who broke his heart?

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jul 16, 2019, 9:49:25 AM7/16/19

to

Oswald said nothing about the Coke when he was being interviewed. Baker
mentioned the coke many months later in his 302 interview.
Oswald did not get a 302 interview.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jul 16, 2019, 9:49:41 AM7/16/19

to

On 7/14/2019 6:12 PM, donald willis wrote:

> On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 7:24:31 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
>> On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 4:30:35 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 7/11/2019 8:40 PM, 19efppp wrote:
>>>> Perhaps I'm making too big a deal of the Coke inconsistencies here. Truly
>>>> surely is a conspiracy tool, and yet in his WC testimony he unequivocally
>>>> agrees with Marrion Baker that Oswald had nothing in his hands, no Coke.
>>>> If the conspirators thought that the Coke was so important, they probably
>>>> would have had Truly corroborate Oswald's possession of said Coke. It
>>>> would not have overtly contradicted his earlier statements. He had never
>>>> mentioned the Coke before, but he had never denied it either. He could
>>>
>>> WHo? Oswald or Baker? Why should Oswald mention it when he was arrested?
>>> Did he need 20 alibis? He said he saw the 2 black guys in the Domino
>>> Room. How could he do that from the 6th floor?
>>
>> Were the two black guys in the Domino room at the time of the
>> assassination? No. They had gone up the fifth floor. I fail to see how
>> this gives Oswald an alibi for 12:30pm Dallas time on 11/22/63. If the two
>> black guys had time to go to the fifth floor, surely Oswald had time to
>> get to the sixth floor.
>
> Yes, and run into Williams--who says he has heard the two on the floor
> below: This would be about 12:26, since Norman was listening to the
> police radio about 12:23, before going in the back way with Jarman. So, W

How could Williams be listening to the police radio? You think he had a
special cell phone?

> would be hearing N&J about the same time as O reaches the 6th floor. "I
> warmed up a spot for you," W tells O as they pass each other.
>
> Actually, I don't believe the words of W, N or J, and I don't believe the
> words which Bookhout put in O's mouth....
>
> dcw
>

Don't believe anything. Reality is just an illusion!

19efppp

unread,

Jul 17, 2019, 10:31:57 AM7/17/19

to

Now, Marshie dearest, I agree with you. But what do you say to Fritz
mentioning the Coke in his alleged notes of the Oswald interview, and
Bookhout saying he heard Oswald give the Coke alibi in that same
interview? Do you say that fritz and Bookhout were lying, or just
mistaken?

donald willis

unread,

Jul 17, 2019, 10:21:22 PM7/17/19

to

Lying. At least Fritz. Bookhout never mentioned that solo report of his
own in his WC testimony. Either he was rejecting it or he had never heard
of it, and someone else initialed for him....

dcw

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jul 18, 2019, 11:55:32 AM7/18/19

to

Oh no, sweetheart! Don't tell .John or he might ban you.

> mentioning the Coke in his alleged notes of the Oswald interview, and

Well, his notes were not taken DURING the interview. He wrote them days
later. Did you see the JFK Lancer site?

http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html

Previously it had been claimed there were no notes taken during the Oswald
interrogations the weekend of President Kennedy's assassination, but first
FBI Agent James Hosty found his notes and included them in his book, and
then Captain Fritz' notes are found. Released by the ARRB 11-20-97.

An ARRB representative brought a copy of the notes to JFK Lancer
President, Debra Conway, at the 1997 November In Dallas Conference, which
was then shared with the conference audience.

http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/fritz1-5.jpg

> Bookhout saying he heard Oswald give the Coke alibi in that same
> interview? Do you say that fritz and Bookhout were lying, or just
> mistaken?
>

I think Fritz included things that he had heard elsewhee.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 18, 2019, 8:54:16 PM7/18/19

to

He most certainly did. (See Captain Fritz' formal report at 24 H 265,
below.) Oswald, though, was most likely lying about the part which says
LHO was "drinking a Coca-Cola when the officer came in", because neither
Baker nor Truly saw anything in either one of Oswald's hands during the
Lunchroom Encounter.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0142a.htm

> Baker mentioned the coke many months later in his 302 interview.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html

19efppp

unread,

Jul 18, 2019, 9:09:52 PM7/18/19

to

I agree with Brother Donald! Amen, brother. Really, there are liars in
this world. Even an cop can lie. Even a legend.

Steve M. Galbraith

unread,

Jul 18, 2019, 10:13:24 PM7/18/19

to

Hosty said his notes were written after the interrogation. That was the
usual FBI procedure. As I understand it that's still their procedure.

Fritz testified that he made no notes during the questioning.

Mr. BALL. Did you make notes as of that time?
Mr. FRITZ. We made this, not at that time, we made this after the tragedy.

19efppp

unread,

Jul 19, 2019, 11:40:32 AM7/19/19

to

Fritz is said to have a photographic memory. Some Dallas lawyer, I forget
his name. I'm no Fritz.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jul 20, 2019, 9:48:54 AM7/20/19

to

Yes, that happens on an obervation with local police. If the person was
being interviewed one on by by an FBI agent, the agent takes notes and
then he types up the 302.

> Fritz testified that he made no notes during the questioning.
>
> Mr. BALL. Did you make notes as of that time?
> Mr. FRITZ. We made this, not at that time, we made this after the tragedy.
>

Well, obviosuly a stupid answer. They did not take notes during the
shooting. He wrote down note several days later. He took no notes during
the interrogation.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,

Jul 21, 2019, 9:54:49 PM7/21/19

to

Straw man argument. Not at all what I said. I said because the memorandum
for the record were prepared by two different men, they would of course
have as many differences in noting pertinent information as any two
college students notes would have. You, as always, avoid the point I'm
making to attack a different point of your own design.

> How
> would you know if you have never taken either?

And there's the ever-present ad hominem we've come to expect from a CT
when he's stuck for a response.

One thing I recall from my college days is buying used textbooks to save a
few bucks and always being surprised at what was highlighted in yellow by
the previous owner. "They found *that* significant? Wow."

Anyone who's been to college must have a similar experience or two. Why
would you expect notes from two LEO's to agree in every particular? I
wouldn't. I also wouldn't expect the claims from two witnesses to a crime
to agree in every particular either. That's totally normal absent
collusion.

Critics however treat these simple explainable human differences that
establish no collusion and turn them upside down and see them as major
discrepancies that must be accounted for, otherwise conspiracy. See this
entire thread for an example.

It's more drivel.

Hank

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,

Jul 21, 2019, 9:55:55 PM7/21/19

to

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 10:17:00 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/13/2019 10:24 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 4:30:35 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 7/11/2019 8:40 PM, 19efppp wrote:
> >>> Perhaps I'm making too big a deal of the Coke inconsistencies here. Truly
> >>> surely is a conspiracy tool, and yet in his WC testimony he unequivocally
> >>> agrees with Marrion Baker that Oswald had nothing in his hands, no Coke.
> >>> If the conspirators thought that the Coke was so important, they probably
> >>> would have had Truly corroborate Oswald's possession of said Coke. It
> >>> would not have overtly contradicted his earlier statements. He had never
> >>> mentioned the Coke before, but he had never denied it either. He could
> >>
> >> WHo? Oswald or Baker? Why should Oswald mention it when he was arrested?
> >> Did he need 20 alibis? He said he saw the 2 black guys in the Domino
> >> Room. How could he do that from the 6th floor?
> >
> > Were the two black guys in the Domino room at the time of the
> > assassination? No. They had gone up the fifth floor. I fail to see how
> > this gives Oswald an alibi for 12:30pm Dallas time on 11/22/63. If the two
> > black guys had time to go to the fifth floor, surely Oswald had time to
> > get to the sixth floor.

AVOIDED MY POINT.

> >
> >
> >>
> >>> have told the WC that Oswald had a Coke, and it would not have been
> >>> inconsistent with anything he had said before. So, I need to consider the
> >>> innocent explanations.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Why would Baker tell them that?
> >> Ever wonder what was in those conversations off the record?
> >> The WC coaching the witness on what to say and what not to say.
> >
> > HILARIOUS!
> >
> > You don't know what was in the conversations off the record, so you ASSUME
> > what was in the conversations off the record, and then post your
> > assumption as if it's a fact. It's not. Much of what you post as a fact is
> > just your interpretation or assumption being posted as a fact.

AVOIDED MY POINT.

> >
> >
> >>
> >>> The first problem is the apparent contradiction in the Bookhout vs. Hosty
> >>> accounts of one of the Oswald interviews. They sat in on the same
> >>> interview, and Hosty does not mention the Baker/Oswald encounter, while
> >>> Bookhout does, and includes the Coke. I don't think it is reasonable that
> >>
> >> Does Brookhouse say that Oswald had a Coke? How would he know?
> >
> > Who is Brookhouse? Focus, Tony. Brookhouse wasn't in any of the
> > interrogation sessions, but Bookhout was.

AVOIDED MY POINT.

> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Hosty would miss the account of this event, but Bookhout sat in on other
> >>> interviews and filed other reports of those interviews, and he was
> >>> dictating his reports after all of these interviews had occurred, so
> >>> Bookhout could have been confused as to which interview Oswald mentioned
> >>
> >> Welcome to the real world.
> >
> > The same one where you assume what you need to prove, and post it as fact,
> > as in the case of the off-the-record conversations? That real world?

AVOIDED MY POINT.

> >
> >
> >>
> >>> the Baker encounter. Maybe Oswald mentioned it in an interview where
> >>> Bookhout was present and Hosty was not. This allows both Hosty and
> >>
> >> Hmm, could be. Or maybe one of them was late or distracted.
> >
> > Yes, I suggested exactly that.

AVOIDED MY POINT.

> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Bookhout to be honest on this point, and therefore the Bookhout vs. Hosty
> >>> inconsistency is not necessarily relevant to the Coke question. Maybe
> >>> Oswald really did get a Coke AFTER the Baker encounter.
> >>>
> >>
> >> BEFORE.
> >
> > You know this how?

AVOIDED MY POINT.

> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Mrs. Reid said Oswald had the Coke while he walked through the office, but
> >>> she also said that he was wearing a T-shirt, not the brown shirt that
> >>> Baker saw. So, I've been thinking that she's a conspiracy liar for hire.
> >>
> >> Gee, that's so hard to figure out.
> >> Oswald was wearing a T-shirt under his brown shirt.
> >> OMG, BROWN shirt? Now some kook will call HIM a brown shirt, as in Nazi!
> >> See, I can use the word Nazi without naming names.
> >
> > It's still a meaningless distraction. Something you apparently like to
> > specialize in.

AVOIDED MY POINT.

> >
> >
> >>
> >>> But Truly also remembered Oswald wearing a white T-shirt, which is what
> >>> Truly said the warehouse employees usually wore. And that may be the
> >>> point; since Oswald usually wore a T-shirt, perhaps the TSBD personnel
> >>> thought of him as a T-shirt-wearer, and that corrupted their memories.
> >>
> >> It's a matter of when? Employees did not usually wear their jackets
> >> while they work. It was not illegal for workers to strip down to just
> >> their T-shirts while doing heavy work.
> >> I'm surprised that the WC defenders don't make a big deal out of Oswald
> >> leaving behind his jacket. They should claim that it proves
> >> consciousness of guilt. He couldn't go back and get it because the cops
> >> were swarming the TSBD and he might have been caught again.
> >
> > I've left a jacket behind at work on more than one occasion. When the
> > weather goes from cold in the morning to warm by the afternoon, I'm more
> > likely to either forget it or deliberately choose to leave it behind.
> > Sometimes I forget or deliberately leave behind an umbrella. The jacket
> > left behind is meaningless.
> >
> > You know what is NOT meaningless? Oswald leaving behind a rifle. One that
> > was used to assassinate the President. The one that bore the serial number
> > C2766. One that has his prints on it. One that was ordered by him, paid
> > for by him, and shipped to his PO box. One that he is pictured holding in
> > photos taken by his wife, with his camera.
> >
> > That rifle is not meaningless.

AVOIDED MY POINT.

>
> Did Oswald need a straw to drink his Coke?
> Do you need cahones to answer my questions?

More drivel direct from Tony Marsh's keyboard. He avoids all the points
made to derive a meaningless play on words (taking the 'straw' from the
logical fallacy pointed out of a straw man argument and asking if Oswald
used a straw for his coke. This is the kind of meaningless distraction
from the argument that make TM's posts mostly worthless of any perceived
value.

>
> > Hank
> >
> >

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,

Jul 21, 2019, 9:58:15 PM7/21/19

to

Nobody expects the person being interrogated to sign off on the notes or
the memorandum prepared by an FBI agent. Except you.

> Doesn't mean it didn't happen, though it may not have.
> Doesn't matter to me, since I now put O upstairs in the 5th-floor
> "nest"....
>

And if he had time to get to the fifth floor, why not the sixth floor?
That's where numerous witnesses outside the building saw a gunman
resembling Oswald, and where Oswald's rifle was found. And of course,
shells from Oswald's rifle. And a long paper bag bearing Oswald's
prints.

Nah, that solution's too easy.

We gotta come up with something different, to stand out. Lovelady in the
sixth floor window, firing blanks. The real shooter, one of the black men
on the fifth floor. And 'Frankie Bender' on the knoll.

And somebody on the overpass, and someone in the storm drain, and the
DRIVER! Can't forget the driver! And 'Saul' from the County Courthouse
building shooting from out of a window that doesn't open. And another
shooter from the second floor of the Dal-Tex. And another shooter from the
opposite grassy knoll.

Did I leave anyone out?

Umbrella man and Black Dog man! And the Secret Service agent in the
followup car!

The guy in the bush in Z323! The guy behind the fence in the Moorman
photo! The guy shooting from the top of the car in the Moorman photo!

Anyone else?

BADGEMAN! How could I forget Badgeman!?

Who did I miss?

> > Please tell us what you conclude from Bookhout's signature, and why. And
> > how you eliminated other possible explanations.
> >
> >
> > > Hosty did not, however, sign
> > > the solo Bookhout report from a day or so later.
> >
> > Because -- as you note -- it was a SOLO report by Bookhout, not
> > co-authored by Hosty. Really, keep tossing those beachballs over the
> > plate.
> >
>
> As Hosty told the Commission, when two agents attend an interview, BOTH
> are obliged to sign any report on same. Which means the solo report was a
> complete fabrication....
>
> dcw

Or Bookhout sat in on one interrogation session that Hosty was not at, and
therefore prepared a memorandum for that session himself, signing it
himself. Gee, which is the most reasonable conclusion we can reach here?

For a CT, whatever points to a conspiracy. Always conspiracy. So of course
Don charges that "the solo report was a complete fabrication" on the basis
of nothing at all and avoids the more reasonable conclusion.

If the LEOs were preparing false memoranda for the record, why not prepare
ones where Oswald admitted in custody he owned a rifle? Or better yet,
that he shot JFK?

No, that's too obvious. They prepared false memoranda for the record where
they failed to note the precise same things in all memoranda. Wow. That's
significant!

No, that's meaningless drivel.

Hank

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,

Jul 21, 2019, 9:58:59 PM7/21/19

to

Bottom Line: Hosty and all the LEOs who took part in the interrogation
session, as well as all LEOs everywhere, were all human. Last time I
checked.

They noted what they thought pertinent at the time. They created
memorandum for the record from those notes. The fact that there are
differences is entirely to be expected, just as there would be differences
of opinion between what's pertinent to note from a cellular biology class
by any two students selected at random, and just as there are
disagreements here on what is significant, and what is not.

That doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. Or anything worth wasting time
over.

But when you got nothing meaningful to discuss, you have to resort to the
meaningless. I get it. Honestly, I do.

"You believe, therefore it is. It must be."

Hank

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jul 23, 2019, 7:55:08 PM7/23/19

to

Is that a challenge?
Ok, how about The Umbrella Man was a decoy so that no one would be
looking up at the TSBD?
Now for Black Dog Man, I came up with a theory for a friend who likes
Doctor Who. That is Doctor who (I can't remember which number) who
traveled back in time to OBSERVE the JFK assassination. He is not
allowed to interfere and stop it.

> The guy in the bush in Z323! The guy behind the fence in the Moorman
> photo! The guy shooting from the top of the car in the Moorman photo!
>
> Anyone else?
>
> BADGEMAN! How could I forget Badgeman!?
>
> Who did I miss?
>

OMG, how could you forget the guy in the storm drain?
Maybe you aren't old enough to remember :ifton's sniper inside the fake
oak ree on the grassy knoll.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jul 23, 2019, 7:56:38 PM7/23/19

to

Then SHOW me which was prepared by each and how thy differ?
Is one more correct than the other?

>
>> How
>> would you know if you have never taken either?
>
> And there's the ever-present ad hominem we've come to expect from a CT
> when he's stuck for a response.
>

For you I do it regardless.

> One thing I recall from my college days is buying used textbooks to save a
> few bucks and always being surprised at what was highlighted in yellow by
> the previous owner. "They found *that* significant? Wow."
>

Yes, sometimes they knew more than you and sometimes less.

> Anyone who's been to college must have a similar experience or two. Why
> would you expect notes from two LEO's to agree in every particular? I

I don't. SHOW me the differences. Who was right?

> wouldn't. I also wouldn't expect the claims from two witnesses to a crime
> to agree in every particular either. That's totally normal absent
> collusion.
>

Like when one witness says the shooter was black and the other witness
said he was white. Maybe they's both right and the shooter was black on
one side of his face and white on the other like Startrek.

> Critics however treat these simple explainable human differences that
> establish no collusion and turn them upside down and see them as major
> discrepancies that must be accounted for, otherwise conspiracy. See this
> entire thread for an example.
>
> It's more drivel.
>

Then stop driveling.

> Hank
>

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jul 23, 2019, 7:56:59 PM7/23/19

to

What did? You are talking to yourself.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,

Jul 25, 2019, 12:19:36 AM7/25/19

to

No, just a summation of some of the speculation advanced by CTs in the
past 56 years.

> Ok, how about The Umbrella Man was a decoy so that no one would be
> looking up at the TSBD?

Yes, more speculation.

> Now for Black Dog Man, I came up with a theory for a friend who likes
> Doctor Who. That is Doctor who (I can't remember which number) who
> traveled back in time to OBSERVE the JFK assassination. He is not
> allowed to interfere and stop it.

Acknowledged Fiction doesn't count here. We're talking about actual
theories advanced by real CTs in all earnestness.

>
> > The guy in the bush in Z323! The guy behind the fence in the Moorman
> > photo! The guy shooting from the top of the car in the Moorman photo!
> >
> > Anyone else?
> >
> > BADGEMAN! How could I forget Badgeman!?
> >
> > Who did I miss?
> >
>
> OMG, how could you forget the guy in the storm drain?

I mentioned him initially above: "And somebody on the overpass, and
someone in the storm drain, and the DRIVER!" On one trip to Dallas, I got
down there with the help of Jack Brazil, who invented that theory, as I
recall.

> Maybe you aren't old enough to remember :[L]ifton's sniper inside the fake
> oak [t]ree on the grassy knoll.

Actually, I'm old enough to have forgotten that. Thanks for the reminder.
Lifton felt the entire knoll was an underground bunker, as I recall. I
don't recall that he specifically named the species of tree, however (did
he really say 'Oak', as opposed to 'Maple' or 'Walnut'? More nonsense from
the CT squadron.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jul 26, 2019, 4:52:58 PM7/26/19

to

I personally do not think he would know the difference. Just sayig Oak
ia not good enough. It has to be Live Oak to blend in.
Have you ever cut down trees?

Ace Kefford

unread,

Jul 27, 2019, 12:59:24 AM7/27/19

to

"Sometimes a bottle is just a bottle." S. Freud

19efppp

unread,

Jul 27, 2019, 7:01:23 PM7/27/19

to

I'm sure the ED forum really misses you.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,

Jul 29, 2019, 12:14:24 PM7/29/19

to

> ia [sic - is] not good enough. It has to be Live Oak to blend in.

> Have you ever cut down trees?

And so Tony has managed to deflect the JFK assassination discussion to
horticulture. And we all know what Dorothy Parker said about that.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jul 30, 2019, 9:35:14 PM7/30/19

to

Well, some moron asked about Lifton's theory. No one else here knew the
answer so I had to answer it.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,

Jul 31, 2019, 6:43:15 PM7/31/19

to

Not what, who. Anthony Marsh did. Avoided my points. Review the above.

> You are talking to yourself.

No, you simply keep avoiding responding to the points I make.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 1, 2019, 11:13:13 PM8/1/19

to

LIE. I answer all your silly messages. You have no points.
Then McAdams helps you out by erasing my messages.
It's easy to win an argument when you muzzle your opponent.
You two make a lovely couple.

John McAdams

unread,

Aug 1, 2019, 11:16:00 PM8/1/19

to

On 1 Aug 2019 23:13:11 -0400, Anthony Marsh

The only messages of yours I delete are the abusive ones, Tony.

And I don't always catch those.

If you really have an argument to make, you are free to make it.

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

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 3, 2019, 4:14:34 PM8/3/19

to

On 8/1/2019 11:15 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2019 23:13:11 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/31/2019 6:43 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 7:56:59 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> You are talking to yourself.
>>>
>>> No, you simply keep avoiding responding to the points I make.
>>>
>>
>> LIE. I answer all your silly messages. You have no points.
>> Then McAdams helps you out by erasing my messages.
>> It's easy to win an argument when you muzzle your opponent.
>> You two make a lovely couple.
>>
>
> The only messages of yours I delete are the abusive ones, Tony.
>

Another lie. You said that if I mentioned HE WHO CAN NOT BE NAMED, you
would delete 3 of my messages at random.

> And I don't always catch those.
>

I try to slip them past you by using big words and Cockney slan, you
bloody wanker.

> If you really have an argument to make, you are free to make it.
>

False. When I make a point you delete it.
That is the ONLY way you can win an argument.

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

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,

Aug 5, 2019, 8:56:23 PM8/5/19

to

I count over a dozen "AVOIDED MY POINT" notices by me in the above where
you AVOIDED MY POINT and failed to respond to the point whatsoever.

Anyone can see it.

> Then McAdams helps you out by erasing my messages.

I don't need any help to demolish your arguments. You have a lot of
beliefs that you post as assertions. But when asked for the evidence to
support your beliefs, you never post it. You always claim you already did.

> It's easy to win an argument when you muzzle your opponent.
> You two make a lovely couple.

So it's a conspiracy to muzzle you and keep the truth of the conspiracy to
kill Kennedy from coming out!

>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Did Oswald need a straw to drink his Coke?
> >>>> Do you need cahones to answer my questions?
> >>>
> >>> More drivel direct from Tony Marsh's keyboard. He avoids all the points
> >>> made to derive a meaningless play on words (taking the 'straw' from the
> >>> logical fallacy pointed out of a straw man argument and asking if Oswald

> >>> used a straw for his coke). This is the kind of meaningless distraction

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 6, 2019, 9:47:28 PM8/6/19

to

Yes. here.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 6, 2019, 9:47:57 PM8/6/19