Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Fritz Confirms Oswald's Alibi
524 views
Skip to first unread message
donald willis
Dec 8, 2015, 5:00:23 PM12/8/15
to
Fritz Confirms Oswald's Alibi
In his Commission testimony, DPD Homicide Captain Fritz confirms Oswald's
12:30pm alibi, first broached in his report re the Oswald interviews in
which--"in talking with him further about his location at the time the
President was killed"--Oswald said that he "was having his lunch about
that time on the first floor", and that he "ate lunch with some of the
colored boys who worked with him." (WR p605).
In his testimony, Fritz reiterates this Oswald statement: "[Oswald] told
me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees." He then goes on,
and goes Oswald one better: "Our investigation shows that [Patrolman
Baker] actually saw [Oswald] in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they
were eating, and he held his gun on this man.... [Oswald] had a cheese
sandwich and a Coca-Cola." (v4p213)
This statement, then, is not Oswald's--it was, says Fritz, part of the
broader "investigation". Not only does Fritz, then, testify that Homicide
determined that Oswald was eating lunch on the first floor, but that that
was where Baker accosted him! Capt. Fritz, CT....
dcw
In his Commission testimony, DPD Homicide Captain Fritz confirms Oswald's
12:30pm alibi, first broached in his report re the Oswald interviews in
which--"in talking with him further about his location at the time the
President was killed"--Oswald said that he "was having his lunch about
that time on the first floor", and that he "ate lunch with some of the
colored boys who worked with him." (WR p605).
In his testimony, Fritz reiterates this Oswald statement: "[Oswald] told
me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees." He then goes on,
and goes Oswald one better: "Our investigation shows that [Patrolman
Baker] actually saw [Oswald] in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they
were eating, and he held his gun on this man.... [Oswald] had a cheese
sandwich and a Coca-Cola." (v4p213)
This statement, then, is not Oswald's--it was, says Fritz, part of the
broader "investigation". Not only does Fritz, then, testify that Homicide
determined that Oswald was eating lunch on the first floor, but that that
was where Baker accosted him! Capt. Fritz, CT....
dcw
mainframetech
Dec 8, 2015, 8:09:45 PM12/8/15
to
lunchroom, which had a door with a window in it. Did the 1st floor
lunchroom have a window in it too?
Chris
Ralph Cinque
Dec 8, 2015, 8:13:13 PM12/8/15
to
That amounted to a jumbling, a rearranging, a reassigning of the things
Oswald said to Fritz. The reality was:
Oswald was a loner, and he ate with no one- not even on a good day. He
wasn't hostile or belligerent, but he preferred his own company. He pretty
much avoided interacting with the people there as much as he could. There
is no doubt about that. So, Oswald wasn't eating with anyone. He ate alone
in the first floor lunch room, but it was well before 12:30 at a time that
James Jarman and Harold Norman were in view. Either they came in the
domino room OR Oswald could see them from the domino room. That's all
Oswald meant when he brought up their names. He did not say or mean that
the three of them were eating lunch together. And, his sighting of them
had to be well before the assassination because by the time of the
assassination, Jarman and Norman were up at the window on the 5th floor,
below the Sniper's Nest.
Vincent Bugliosi places Oswald in the first floor lunch room eating until
12:15. It may have been a bit longer than that, perhaps 12:20. He ate
alone- a cheese sandwich and an apple. From there, he went out to the
doorway and watched the motorcade with the others. But, Oswald left early-
perhaps before the fatal head shot, and if not then immediately after it.
He went back inside, turned right at the stairwell, and went up the one
flight to the 2nd floor. He walked through the offices or he took the
hallway and wound up at the vestibule to the lunch room. As he was going
through the door to the vestibule, Baker saw him through the glass of the
door that faced the stairwell. That's the other stairwell, the rear
stairwell- the one that went to the 6th floor. He followed Oswald into
the vestibule and by the time he got there, Oswald was already walking
through the lunch room. The door to the lunch room was propped open. He
ordered Oswald to stop and turn around. Oswald did. Oswald had nothing in
his hands. Truly got there and ID'd Oswald as an employee. Then Baker and
Truly left. Oswald never said a word.
Now, that's what happened, and all the rest is flim-flam. Fritz, who by
that time was a conspirator, was jumbling Oswald's words in order to hide
the simple fact that Oswald was standing in the doorway at the time of the
shots.
Oswald said to Fritz. The reality was:
Oswald was a loner, and he ate with no one- not even on a good day. He
wasn't hostile or belligerent, but he preferred his own company. He pretty
much avoided interacting with the people there as much as he could. There
is no doubt about that. So, Oswald wasn't eating with anyone. He ate alone
in the first floor lunch room, but it was well before 12:30 at a time that
James Jarman and Harold Norman were in view. Either they came in the
domino room OR Oswald could see them from the domino room. That's all
Oswald meant when he brought up their names. He did not say or mean that
the three of them were eating lunch together. And, his sighting of them
had to be well before the assassination because by the time of the
assassination, Jarman and Norman were up at the window on the 5th floor,
below the Sniper's Nest.
Vincent Bugliosi places Oswald in the first floor lunch room eating until
12:15. It may have been a bit longer than that, perhaps 12:20. He ate
alone- a cheese sandwich and an apple. From there, he went out to the
doorway and watched the motorcade with the others. But, Oswald left early-
perhaps before the fatal head shot, and if not then immediately after it.
He went back inside, turned right at the stairwell, and went up the one
flight to the 2nd floor. He walked through the offices or he took the
hallway and wound up at the vestibule to the lunch room. As he was going
through the door to the vestibule, Baker saw him through the glass of the
door that faced the stairwell. That's the other stairwell, the rear
stairwell- the one that went to the 6th floor. He followed Oswald into
the vestibule and by the time he got there, Oswald was already walking
through the lunch room. The door to the lunch room was propped open. He
ordered Oswald to stop and turn around. Oswald did. Oswald had nothing in
his hands. Truly got there and ID'd Oswald as an employee. Then Baker and
Truly left. Oswald never said a word.
Now, that's what happened, and all the rest is flim-flam. Fritz, who by
that time was a conspirator, was jumbling Oswald's words in order to hide
the simple fact that Oswald was standing in the doorway at the time of the
shots.
David Von Pein
Dec 9, 2015, 3:07:25 PM12/9/15
to
DONALD WILLIS SAID:
Not only does Fritz, then, testify that Homicide determined that Oswald
was eating lunch on the first floor, but that that was where Baker
accosted him!
DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
Not only does Fritz, then, testify that Homicide determined that Oswald
was eating lunch on the first floor, but that that was where Baker
accosted him!
Utter nonsense. Fritz testified to no such thing. Just read the *complete*
testimony. Joe Ball asks Fritz:
"At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen
Oswald on the **second floor**?"
Fritz responded with:
"They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or
someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me,
person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the
stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a
lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun
on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer
let him go."
Then....
Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer
stopped him all right.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a
Coca-Cola.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola.
================
Captain Fritz' notes reflect very nearly the same version of events as
above, although in the notes, Fritz doesn't say that Oswald actually *HAD
LUNCH* on the second floor. The notes reflect that Oswald told Fritz that
he (Oswald) went "to 1st floor had lunch".
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cccbyzkaGcY/VLcIyeV6aiI/AAAAAAABCy4/Bgxowpb6KZE/s1600/Fritz-Notes.jpg
But, Donald, you aren't *really* trying to make a case for the
Baker/Oswald/Truly encounter taking place on the FIRST floor instead of
the second floor, are you? Because that's a cockeyed version of events
that only really *desperate* CTers have embraced. (Are you *that*
desperate, Don?)
The "encounter" was confirmed as having occurred on the SECOND floor by
both Roy Truly and Marrion Baker---and even by Lee Oswald *himself*, via
Fritz' notes --- "claims 2nd floor Coke when off [officer] came in".
How can anybody---even a hardnosed CTer---possibly still think that Baker
saw Oswald anywhere OTHER than the second floor?
~shrug~
donald willis
Dec 9, 2015, 3:08:24 PM12/9/15
to
results of Homicide's investigation. I doubt it (intentional jumbling,
that is) though--why would Fritz want to look like a bumbling idiot?
dcw
donald willis
Dec 9, 2015, 3:08:59 PM12/9/15
to
instead of debating whether or not Oswald had already gotten his soda, we
can debate whether Oswald was already at a table eating, or had just
rushed in and was Fooling and Pretending (to borrow from W.C. Fields)....
But if so why didn't the other diners mention the scene?
dcw
David Emerling
Dec 9, 2015, 8:15:06 PM12/9/15
to
On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 7:13:13 PM UTC-6, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> From there, he (Oswald) went out to the
at the doorway? He never did.
Why did not a single other TSBD employee remember seeing Oswald at the
doorway since, as you say, he was "with the others"?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
> From there, he (Oswald) went out to the
> doorway and watched the motorcade with the others.
If that's true, then why didn't Oswald say that he watched the motorcade
at the doorway? He never did.
Why did not a single other TSBD employee remember seeing Oswald at the
doorway since, as you say, he was "with the others"?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
Dec 9, 2015, 8:18:45 PM12/9/15
to
On 12/8/2015 8:13 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> That amounted to a jumbling, a rearranging, a reassigning of the things
> Oswald said to Fritz. The reality was:
>
> Oswald was a loner, and he ate with no one- not even on a good day. He
> wasn't hostile or belligerent, but he preferred his own company. He pretty
> much avoided interacting with the people there as much as he could. There
> is no doubt about that. So, Oswald wasn't eating with anyone. He ate alone
> in the first floor lunch room, but it was well before 12:30 at a time that
Close, but you know nothing about the TSBD.
> That amounted to a jumbling, a rearranging, a reassigning of the things
> Oswald said to Fritz. The reality was:
>
> Oswald was a loner, and he ate with no one- not even on a good day. He
> wasn't hostile or belligerent, but he preferred his own company. He pretty
> much avoided interacting with the people there as much as he could. There
> is no doubt about that. So, Oswald wasn't eating with anyone. He ate alone
> in the first floor lunch room, but it was well before 12:30 at a time that
That first floor room is called the Domino room, not the Lunch room.
The lunch room is on the second floor. That's the one with the Coke
of Dr. Pepper, so he had to buy a coke.
I have two competing theories about that. You can choose whichever one you
like best. One theory is that when Oswald could not get a Dr. Pepper, he
was frustrated and had to settle for a Coke instead. But what he didn't
know is that Coke was still being made Down South with cocaine still in
it, So was on a drug high when he shot at President Kennedy. I call that
the Twinkie Defense (Google it). The other theory is that Oswald knew that
Nixon was in Dallas to attend the Pepsi convention so he chose a Coke to
spit Nixon. I call this the Pepsi Revenge Theory (don't Google it).
> James Jarman and Harold Norman were in view. Either they came in the
> domino room OR Oswald could see them from the domino room. That's all
> Oswald meant when he brought up their names. He did not say or mean that
> the three of them were eating lunch together. And, his sighting of them
> had to be well before the assassination because by the time of the
> assassination, Jarman and Norman were up at the window on the 5th floor,
> below the Sniper's Nest.
>
look like Oswald was lying about everything.
> Vincent Bugliosi places Oswald in the first floor lunch room eating until
> 12:15. It may have been a bit longer than that, perhaps 12:20. He ate
> alone- a cheese sandwich and an apple. From there, he went out to the
Did he stuff them in his pants, because Frazier only saw one bag on the
back seat of his car?
> doorway and watched the motorcade with the others. But, Oswald left early-
> perhaps before the fatal head shot, and if not then immediately after it.
> He went back inside, turned right at the stairwell, and went up the one
> flight to the 2nd floor. He walked through the offices or he took the
> hallway and wound up at the vestibule to the lunch room. As he was going
> through the door to the vestibule, Baker saw him through the glass of the
> door that faced the stairwell. That's the other stairwell, the rear
> stairwell- the one that went to the 6th floor. He followed Oswald into
> the vestibule and by the time he got there, Oswald was already walking
> through the lunch room. The door to the lunch room was propped open. He
> ordered Oswald to stop and turn around. Oswald did. Oswald had nothing in
> his hands. Truly got there and ID'd Oswald as an employee. Then Baker and
> Truly left. Oswald never said a word.
>
Because the WC thought there was not enough time for Oswald to buy a Coke?
> Now, that's what happened, and all the rest is flim-flam. Fritz, who by
> that time was a conspirator, was jumbling Oswald's words in order to hide
> the simple fact that Oswald was standing in the doorway at the time of the
> shots.
>
look bad.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 9, 2015, 8:20:27 PM12/9/15
to
Ralph Cinque
Dec 9, 2015, 9:06:24 PM12/9/15
to
That was an utter lie by Fritz. He knew very well that Oswald told him
that he ate in the first floor lunch room and it was well before the
motorcade. And could it be otherwise? In another instance, he said Oswald
ate with other employees, a reference to Jarman and Norman. Were they on
the 2nd floor too when Baker arrived?
Fritz was juggling, jumbling, and jostling- anything to admit the truth
that Oswald told him he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the
shooting. So, Fritz just took the other stuff, that came before and after,
and just sewed it all together in a different way. He took the elements
and changed the timeline.
And note that Fritz never at any time reported "out with Bill Shelley in
front." He wrote it down in notes to himself, but he didn't fit that into
his story anywhere.
that he ate in the first floor lunch room and it was well before the
motorcade. And could it be otherwise? In another instance, he said Oswald
ate with other employees, a reference to Jarman and Norman. Were they on
the 2nd floor too when Baker arrived?
Fritz was juggling, jumbling, and jostling- anything to admit the truth
that Oswald told him he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the
shooting. So, Fritz just took the other stuff, that came before and after,
and just sewed it all together in a different way. He took the elements
and changed the timeline.
And note that Fritz never at any time reported "out with Bill Shelley in
front." He wrote it down in notes to himself, but he didn't fit that into
his story anywhere.
OHLeeRedux
Dec 10, 2015, 4:05:16 PM12/10/15
to
Anthony Marsh
On 12/8/2015 8:13 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> That amounted to a jumbling, a rearranging, a reassigning of the things
> Oswald said to Fritz. The reality was:
>
> Oswald was a loner, and he ate with no one- not even on a good day. He
> wasn't hostile or belligerent, but he preferred his own company. He pretty
> much avoided interacting with the people there as much as he could. There
> is no doubt about that. So, Oswald wasn't eating with anyone. He ate alone
> in the first floor lunch room, but it was well before 12:30 at a time that
Close, but you know nothing about the TSBD.
Neither do you. You make things up as you go.
> That amounted to a jumbling, a rearranging, a reassigning of the things
> Oswald said to Fritz. The reality was:
>
> Oswald was a loner, and he ate with no one- not even on a good day. He
> wasn't hostile or belligerent, but he preferred his own company. He pretty
> much avoided interacting with the people there as much as he could. There
> is no doubt about that. So, Oswald wasn't eating with anyone. He ate alone
> in the first floor lunch room, but it was well before 12:30 at a time that
Close, but you know nothing about the TSBD.
donald willis
Dec 10, 2015, 5:11:57 PM12/10/15
to
WHAT was an "utter lie by Fritz"? Can't tell without the original
statement here....
dcw
statement here....
dcw
donald willis
Dec 10, 2015, 5:21:36 PM12/10/15
to
On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:07:25 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> DONALD WILLIS SAID:
>
> Not only does Fritz, then, testify that Homicide determined that Oswald
> was eating lunch on the first floor, but that that was where Baker
> accosted him!
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Utter nonsense. Fritz testified to no such thing. Just read the *complete*
> testimony. Joe Ball asks Fritz:
>
> "At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen
> Oswald on the **second floor**?"
>
> Fritz responded with:
>
> "They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or
> someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me,
> person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the
> stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a
> lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun
> on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer
> let him go."
>
David -- On what floor would Baker have seen employees in a "little
> DONALD WILLIS SAID:
>
> Not only does Fritz, then, testify that Homicide determined that Oswald
> was eating lunch on the first floor, but that that was where Baker
> accosted him!
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Utter nonsense. Fritz testified to no such thing. Just read the *complete*
> testimony. Joe Ball asks Fritz:
>
> "At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen
> Oswald on the **second floor**?"
>
> Fritz responded with:
>
> "They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or
> someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me,
> person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the
> stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a
> lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun
> on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer
> let him go."
>
lunchroom... eating"?
And note that Fritz opposes "stairway" with "lunchroom": Baker, he
testifies, did not see him on a stairway... he "actually saw him in a
lunchroom... "where THEY WERE EATING". That "actually" cancels the
reference to "stairway". In Fritz's testimony account, there's no
stairway involved....
> Then....
>
> Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer
> stopped him all right.
>
> Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a
> Coca-Cola.
>
> Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola.
>
> ================
>
> Captain Fritz' notes reflect very nearly the same version of events as
> above, although in the notes, Fritz doesn't say that Oswald actually *HAD
> LUNCH* on the second floor. The notes reflect that Oswald told Fritz that
> he (Oswald) went "to 1st floor had lunch".
>
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cccbyzkaGcY/VLcIyeV6aiI/AAAAAAABCy4/Bgxowpb6KZE/s1600/Fritz-Notes.jpg
>
> But, Donald, you aren't *really* trying to make a case for the
> Baker/Oswald/Truly encounter taking place on the FIRST floor instead of
> the second floor
course, several employees including Oswald might have been eating in the
2nd-floor "snack bar" (as Truly called it), but that would still mean
Oswald couldn't have been on the 6th floor at 12:30, and eating lunch with
other employees on the 2nd floor at 12:31.... You're not really saying
that that's possible, are you?
, are you? Because that's a cockeyed version of events
> that only really *desperate* CTers have embraced. (Are you *that*
> desperate, Don?)
>
> The "encounter" was confirmed as having occurred on the SECOND floor by
> both Roy Truly
originally said the encounter happened on the first floor, in a
"storeroom", however....
dcw
BOZ
Dec 10, 2015, 10:36:29 PM12/10/15
to
Pepper on the first floor. The Coke machine was on the second floor.
Oswald didn't have to go to the second floor to get a sodeeeee pop.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 10, 2015, 10:42:32 PM12/10/15
to
On 12/9/2015 8:15 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 7:13:13 PM UTC-6, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>
>> From there, he (Oswald) went out to the
>> doorway and watched the motorcade with the others.
>
> If that's true, then why didn't Oswald say that he watched the motorcade
> at the doorway? He never did.
>
He never got the chance. They silenced him.
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 7:13:13 PM UTC-6, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>
>> From there, he (Oswald) went out to the
>> doorway and watched the motorcade with the others.
>
> If that's true, then why didn't Oswald say that he watched the motorcade
> at the doorway? He never did.
>
That's the advantage of a cover-up.
> Why did not a single other TSBD employee remember seeing Oswald at the
> doorway since, as you say, he was "with the others"?
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
Anthony Marsh
Dec 11, 2015, 12:00:05 PM12/11/15
to
get a soda after, not during.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 11, 2015, 12:00:16 PM12/11/15
to
floor is too complicated for a Dallas cop.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 11, 2015, 7:17:57 PM12/11/15
to
they call them tonic. You're not playing along with my pet theory of the
day. Let's pretend that the Dr. Pepper machine was not working or out of
soda, so Oswald had to go to the second floor to get a Coke.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 11, 2015, 11:05:10 PM12/11/15
to
On 12/10/2015 5:21 PM, donald willis wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:07:25 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
>> DONALD WILLIS SAID:
>>
>> Not only does Fritz, then, testify that Homicide determined that Oswald
>> was eating lunch on the first floor, but that that was where Baker
>> accosted him!
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>>
>> Utter nonsense. Fritz testified to no such thing. Just read the *complete*
>> testimony. Joe Ball asks Fritz:
>>
>> "At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen
>> Oswald on the **second floor**?"
>>
>> Fritz responded with:
>>
>> "They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or
>> someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me,
>> person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the
>> stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a
>> lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun
>> on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer
>> let him go."
>>
>
> David -- On what floor would Baker have seen employees in a "little
> lunchroom... eating"?
>
You have to be a linguistics expert to translate Southern speech into
> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:07:25 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
>> DONALD WILLIS SAID:
>>
>> Not only does Fritz, then, testify that Homicide determined that Oswald
>> was eating lunch on the first floor, but that that was where Baker
>> accosted him!
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>>
>> Utter nonsense. Fritz testified to no such thing. Just read the *complete*
>> testimony. Joe Ball asks Fritz:
>>
>> "At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen
>> Oswald on the **second floor**?"
>>
>> Fritz responded with:
>>
>> "They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or
>> someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me,
>> person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the
>> stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a
>> lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun
>> on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer
>> let him go."
>>
>
> David -- On what floor would Baker have seen employees in a "little
> lunchroom... eating"?
>
Standard English.
http://www.thedialectdictionary.com/view/letter/Southern+US/
Do you know what a hog piece is? A lot of Brits were confused by that
reference in the Bond movie.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 12, 2015, 2:22:09 PM12/12/15
to
You can't.
BOZ
Dec 12, 2015, 6:07:33 PM12/12/15
to
donald willis
Dec 12, 2015, 6:09:56 PM12/12/15
to
On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 4:17:57 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 12/10/2015 10:36 PM, BOZ wrote: cut
around noon, as per the Bookhout/Hosty report....
dcw
> On 12/10/2015 10:36 PM, BOZ wrote: cut
> >
> > Marsh what is Coke of Dr. Pepper? There was a soda machine with Dr.
> > Pepper on the first floor. The Coke machine was on the second floor.
> > Oswald didn't have to go to the second floor to get a sodeeeee pop.
> >
>
> Coke or Dr. Pepper. Down South some people call all sodas coke. Up here
> they call them tonic. You're not playing along with my pet theory of the
> day. Let's pretend that the Dr. Pepper machine was not working or out of
> soda, so Oswald had to go to the second floor to get a Coke.
Yeah, but that was soon after he went down to the first floor for lunch,
> > Marsh what is Coke of Dr. Pepper? There was a soda machine with Dr.
> > Pepper on the first floor. The Coke machine was on the second floor.
> > Oswald didn't have to go to the second floor to get a sodeeeee pop.
> >
>
> Coke or Dr. Pepper. Down South some people call all sodas coke. Up here
> they call them tonic. You're not playing along with my pet theory of the
> day. Let's pretend that the Dr. Pepper machine was not working or out of
> soda, so Oswald had to go to the second floor to get a Coke.
around noon, as per the Bookhout/Hosty report....
dcw
Bud
Dec 12, 2015, 8:13:16 PM12/12/15
to
On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 10:42:32 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 12/9/2015 8:15 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 7:13:13 PM UTC-6, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> >
> >> From there, he (Oswald) went out to the
> >> doorway and watched the motorcade with the others.
> >
> > If that's true, then why didn't Oswald say that he watched the motorcade
> > at the doorway? He never did.
> >
>
> He never got the chance. They silenced him.
Heres a photo of Oswald being silenced...
> On 12/9/2015 8:15 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 7:13:13 PM UTC-6, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> >
> >> From there, he (Oswald) went out to the
> >> doorway and watched the motorcade with the others.
> >
> > If that's true, then why didn't Oswald say that he watched the motorcade
> > at the doorway? He never did.
> >
>
> He never got the chance. They silenced him.
http://www.presentationsunplugged.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/07172012_EDU_hm6_oswald-and-media-crush_large1.jpg
Bud
Dec 12, 2015, 8:13:50 PM12/12/15
to
was anyone with Oswald during the encounter. None of the other employees
say they ate lunch with Oswald. If you are a conspiracy hobbyist the
conclusion is obvious. Oswald ate lunch with other people.
BOZ
Dec 13, 2015, 9:47:51 PM12/13/15
to
slam. EXCELLENT BUD.
donald willis
Dec 13, 2015, 9:54:45 PM12/13/15
to
although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
dcw
Anthony Marsh
Dec 14, 2015, 4:00:02 PM12/14/15
to
took place was on the SECOND floor. The Domino room is on the first floor
where Oswald was at the time of the shooting.
Bud
Dec 14, 2015, 8:25:29 PM12/14/15
to
the encounter. Nothing in evidence indicates that there was anyone with
him during the encounter.
> The sessions were not recorded,
> although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
> myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
> a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
was going to trial? How does it make sense, if you are going to lie about
what he said, to have so many different people from such diverse agencies
present (Secret Service, Dallas Police, FBI, Postal inspector, ect)? Why
entertain ideas that don`t make any sense?
The fact is they were gathering information for their ongoing
investigation, not to prove things to people playing silly games in the
future.
Bud
Dec 14, 2015, 10:50:14 PM12/14/15
to
say when you respond to me.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 15, 2015, 12:30:18 PM12/15/15
to
They didn't even own a magment so they couldn't even test the Walker
bullet. If only they had a magnet Oswald might be in prison now.
For want of a magnet . . .
> dcw
>
Anthony Marsh
Dec 15, 2015, 12:33:23 PM12/15/15
to
conference but there were too many people in the way.
donald willis
Dec 15, 2015, 12:37:43 PM12/15/15
to
On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 1:00:02 PM UTC-8 cancels the
happen on the first floor, too, and that Oswald (as per the Bookhout/Hosty
report) didn't get his 2nd-floor soda much earlier.
So, I'm assuming, as per your familiarity with Southern customs, Oswald
finished his lunch at 12:30, then went up to wash it down with a Dr. Coke
or a Mr. Pepper....
dcw
> >> reference to "stairway". In Fritz's testimony account, there's no
> >> stairway involved....
> >
> > None of the three people who were there (Baker, Truly, Oswald) say there
> > was anyone with Oswald during the encounter. None of the other employees
> > say they ate lunch with Oswald. If you are a conspiracy hobbyist the
> > conclusion is obvious. Oswald ate lunch with other people.
> >
>
> You still don't seem to understand that the lunchroom where the encounter
> took place was on the SECOND floor. The Domino room is on the first floor
> where Oswald was at the time of the shooting.
>
I can go with that, though I'm still not sure that the encounter didn't
> >> stairway involved....
> >
> > None of the three people who were there (Baker, Truly, Oswald) say there
> > was anyone with Oswald during the encounter. None of the other employees
> > say they ate lunch with Oswald. If you are a conspiracy hobbyist the
> > conclusion is obvious. Oswald ate lunch with other people.
> >
>
> You still don't seem to understand that the lunchroom where the encounter
> took place was on the SECOND floor. The Domino room is on the first floor
> where Oswald was at the time of the shooting.
>
happen on the first floor, too, and that Oswald (as per the Bookhout/Hosty
report) didn't get his 2nd-floor soda much earlier.
So, I'm assuming, as per your familiarity with Southern customs, Oswald
finished his lunch at 12:30, then went up to wash it down with a Dr. Coke
or a Mr. Pepper....
dcw
donald willis
Dec 15, 2015, 2:38:12 PM12/15/15
to
On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25:29 PM UT cut
what his interrogators heard....
Nothing in evidence indicates that there was anyone with
> him during the encounter.
There's only witness evidence, and as Marsh loves to say, don't rely on
witnesses....
dcw
> > > None of the three people who were there (Baker, Truly, Oswald) say there
> > > was anyone with Oswald during the encounter.
> >
> > Sorry, we don't know *what* Oswald said.
>
> OK, nobody in the room heard him say there was someone with him during
> the encounter.
Still not good enough. If we don't know what Oswald said, we don't know
> > > was anyone with Oswald during the encounter.
> >
> > Sorry, we don't know *what* Oswald said.
>
> OK, nobody in the room heard him say there was someone with him during
> the encounter.
what his interrogators heard....
Nothing in evidence indicates that there was anyone with
> him during the encounter.
witnesses....
dcw
donald willis
Dec 15, 2015, 4:49:44 PM12/15/15
to
On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
How does it make sense, if you are going to lie about
> what he said, to have so many different people from such diverse agencies
> present (Secret Service, Dallas Police, FBI, Postal inspector, ect)?
Funny--didn't the DPD and FBI (in the 2nd Bookhout report on the same
interview) collude, in their reports, on Oswald supposedly saying the cop
stopped him in the 2nd-floor lunchroom? When we know (based partly on the
Bookhout/Hosty report) that Oswald got his coke/pepsi early & did not run
into a cop up there. Partly from Fritz's 12/23 report betraying ignorance
of the lunchroom story when he supposedly heard it on 11/22!
dcw
> him during the encounter.
>
> > The sessions were not recorded,
> > although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
> > myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
> > a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
>
> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
> was going to trial?
That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
>
> > The sessions were not recorded,
> > although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
> > myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
> > a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
>
> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
> was going to trial?
the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
How does it make sense, if you are going to lie about
> what he said, to have so many different people from such diverse agencies
> present (Secret Service, Dallas Police, FBI, Postal inspector, ect)?
interview) collude, in their reports, on Oswald supposedly saying the cop
stopped him in the 2nd-floor lunchroom? When we know (based partly on the
Bookhout/Hosty report) that Oswald got his coke/pepsi early & did not run
into a cop up there. Partly from Fritz's 12/23 report betraying ignorance
of the lunchroom story when he supposedly heard it on 11/22!
dcw
Anthony Marsh
Dec 15, 2015, 5:32:36 PM12/15/15
to
me.
I would put the time at 12:27.
I am not sure that Oswald ate anything.
Bud
Dec 15, 2015, 7:59:05 PM12/15/15
to
donald willis
Dec 15, 2015, 8:01:40 PM12/15/15
to
interfere with his (and Bookhout's and Kelley's) creative rewriting of
Oswald's answers.... For instance, O's supposedly saying that he waded
into heavy traffic to catch a bus which he immediately disembarked because
of the... heavy traffic!
dcw
Bud
Dec 16, 2015, 12:20:34 AM12/16/15
to
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 2:38:12 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25:29 PM UT cut
> > > > None of the three people who were there (Baker, Truly, Oswald) say there
> > > > was anyone with Oswald during the encounter.
> > >
> > > Sorry, we don't know *what* Oswald said.
> >
> > OK, nobody in the room heard him say there was someone with him during
> > the encounter.
>
> Still not good enough. If we don't know what Oswald said, we don't know
> what his interrogators heard....
But they do.
> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25:29 PM UT cut
> > > > None of the three people who were there (Baker, Truly, Oswald) say there
> > > > was anyone with Oswald during the encounter.
> > >
> > > Sorry, we don't know *what* Oswald said.
> >
> > OK, nobody in the room heard him say there was someone with him during
> > the encounter.
>
> Still not good enough. If we don't know what Oswald said, we don't know
> what his interrogators heard....
> Nothing in evidence indicates that there was anyone with
> > him during the encounter.
>
> There's only witness evidence, and as Marsh loves to say, don't rely on
> witnesses....
> dcw
Bud
Dec 16, 2015, 11:44:02 AM12/16/15
to
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:49:44 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
> > him during the encounter.
> >
> > > The sessions were not recorded,
> > > although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
> > > myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
> > > a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
> >
> > How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
> > was going to trial?
>
> That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
> the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
> reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
> pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
Thats just silly.
> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
> > him during the encounter.
> >
> > > The sessions were not recorded,
> > > although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
> > > myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
> > > a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
> >
> > How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
> > was going to trial?
>
> That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
> the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
> reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
> pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
> How does it make sense, if you are going to lie about
> > what he said, to have so many different people from such diverse agencies
> > present (Secret Service, Dallas Police, FBI, Postal inspector, ect)?
>
> Funny--didn't the DPD and FBI (in the 2nd Bookhout report on the same
> interview) collude, in their reports, on Oswald supposedly saying the cop
> stopped him in the 2nd-floor lunchroom? When we know (based partly on the
> Bookhout/Hosty report) that Oswald got his coke/pepsi early & did not run
> into a cop up there. Partly from Fritz's 12/23 report betraying ignorance
> of the lunchroom story when he supposedly heard it on 11/22!
it is reasonable to railroad a person by having a lot of unnecessary and
unconnected people attending. A conspiracy hobbyist figuring he sees
collusion is worth less than nothing.
> dcw
Bud
Dec 16, 2015, 11:45:07 AM12/16/15
to
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:49:44 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
> > him during the encounter.
> >
> > > The sessions were not recorded,
> > > although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
> > > myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
> > > a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
> >
> > How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
> > was going to trial?
>
> That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
> the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
> reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
> pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
Lets examine this a little bit. You have Fritz being involved in the
> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
> > him during the encounter.
> >
> > > The sessions were not recorded,
> > > although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
> > > myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
> > > a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
> >
> > How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
> > was going to trial?
>
> That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
> the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
> reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
> pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
conspiracy to kill two people. Fritz has climbed to the top of his
profession, he was at the pinnacle of what he could reasonably hope to
achieve being a Dallas Police chief. He doesn`t seem political, some
police chiefs are able to move on to become Mayor or some such, but Fritz
doesn`t seem cut from that cloth. So Fritz is risking the career he worked
his whole life building. He is risking his life, he will be facing the
death penalty if his role is uncovered. He risks blacking his family name
for all eternity by taking part in this vile deed. He seems to be risking
everything for no conceivable gain. Why would he do this?
Only a political extremist, a fanatical dreamer would entertain the idea
of doing such a thing for no gain. There is such a person associated with
this case that fits this bill, a person for whom there is a truckload of
indications of his guilt. Yet still after all this time there are still
people playing silly games pretending he is innocent, and blaming innocent
people for his crimes.
donald willis
Dec 16, 2015, 3:02:05 PM12/16/15
to
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 9:20:34 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 2:38:12 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25:29 PM UT cut
> > > > > None of the three people who were there (Baker, Truly, Oswald) say there
> > > > > was anyone with Oswald during the encounter.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, we don't know *what* Oswald said.
> > >
> > > OK, nobody in the room heard him say there was someone with him during
> > > the encounter.
> >
> > Still not good enough. If we don't know what Oswald said, we don't know
> > what his interrogators heard....
>
> But they do.
But they may not be telling...
> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 2:38:12 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25:29 PM UT cut
> > > > > None of the three people who were there (Baker, Truly, Oswald) say there
> > > > > was anyone with Oswald during the encounter.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, we don't know *what* Oswald said.
> > >
> > > OK, nobody in the room heard him say there was someone with him during
> > > the encounter.
> >
> > Still not good enough. If we don't know what Oswald said, we don't know
> > what his interrogators heard....
>
> But they do.
>
> > Nothing in evidence indicates that there was anyone with
> > > him during the encounter.
> >
> > There's only witness evidence, and as Marsh loves to say, don't rely on
> > witnesses....
>
> The employees can`t be trusted to know whether they ate with Oswald?
know, at first, that he had been up on the fifth floor with Williams at
12:30. His first statement, 11/23, has Williams *out front* with him
during the parade! Go to Williams, and he says he did not go out front at
all, until after 12:30.... The second Williams!
Can Jarman be trusted?
dcw
donald willis
Dec 16, 2015, 9:15:14 PM12/16/15
to
If Fritz were the only one to interview Oswald, who would believe him?
And notice that when the Postal Inspector attended, he was the only one
(of three--besides Fritz & Kelley, I believe) who said that Oswald said
that the cop had stopped him at the front door. Check his testimony!
Fritz & Kelley said nothing....
dcw
donald willis
Dec 16, 2015, 9:15:33 PM12/16/15
to
Anthony Marsh
Dec 16, 2015, 10:34:05 PM12/16/15
to
On 12/16/2015 11:45 AM, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:49:44 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
>> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
>>> him during the encounter.
>>>
>>>> The sessions were not recorded,
>>>> although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
>>>> myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
>>>> a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
>>>
>>> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
>>> was going to trial?
>>
>> That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
>> the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
>> reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
>> pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
>
> Lets examine this a little bit. You have Fritz being involved in the
> conspiracy to kill two people. Fritz has climbed to the top of his
No. Again you are two simple minded to understand the subtle difference
> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:49:44 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
>> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
>>> him during the encounter.
>>>
>>>> The sessions were not recorded,
>>>> although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
>>>> myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
>>>> a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
>>>
>>> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
>>> was going to trial?
>>
>> That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
>> the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
>> reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
>> pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
>
> Lets examine this a little bit. You have Fritz being involved in the
> conspiracy to kill two people. Fritz has climbed to the top of his
between a crime and the cover-up. So you think it was Richard Nixon who
picked the lock to break into the Watergate.
> profession, he was at the pinnacle of what he could reasonably hope to
> achieve being a Dallas Police chief. He doesn`t seem political, some
> police chiefs are able to move on to become Mayor or some such, but Fritz
> doesn`t seem cut from that cloth. So Fritz is risking the career he worked
> his whole life building. He is risking his life, he will be facing the
innocent person. Something he did every day.
> death penalty if his role is uncovered. He risks blacking his family name
> for all eternity by taking part in this vile deed. He seems to be risking
> everything for no conceivable gain. Why would he do this?
>
> Only a political extremist, a fanatical dreamer would entertain the idea
> of doing such a thing for no gain. There is such a person associated with
Anthony Marsh
Dec 16, 2015, 10:34:53 PM12/16/15
to
assassin an alibi.
And once again your straw man argument is phony. Oswald did not say that
they ate lunch with him that day.
>> dcw
>
>
Bud
Dec 16, 2015, 10:36:51 PM12/16/15
to
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 3:02:05 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 9:20:34 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 2:38:12 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25:29 PM UT cut
> > > > > > None of the three people who were there (Baker, Truly, Oswald) say there
> > > > > > was anyone with Oswald during the encounter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, we don't know *what* Oswald said.
> > > >
> > > > OK, nobody in the room heard him say there was someone with him during
> > > > the encounter.
> > >
> > > Still not good enough. If we don't know what Oswald said, we don't know
> > > what his interrogators heard....
> >
> > But they do.
>
> But they may not be telling...
Extraordinary ideas require extraordinary support.
> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 9:20:34 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 2:38:12 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25:29 PM UT cut
> > > > > > None of the three people who were there (Baker, Truly, Oswald) say there
> > > > > > was anyone with Oswald during the encounter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, we don't know *what* Oswald said.
> > > >
> > > > OK, nobody in the room heard him say there was someone with him during
> > > > the encounter.
> > >
> > > Still not good enough. If we don't know what Oswald said, we don't know
> > > what his interrogators heard....
> >
> > But they do.
>
> But they may not be telling...
> >
> > > Nothing in evidence indicates that there was anyone with
> > > > him during the encounter.
> > >
> > > There's only witness evidence, and as Marsh loves to say, don't rely on
> > > witnesses....
> >
> > The employees can`t be trusted to know whether they ate with Oswald?
>
> Witness evidence is witness evidence. James Jarman apparently did not
> know, at first, that he had been up on the fifth floor with Williams at
> 12:30. His first statement, 11/23, has Williams *out front* with him
> during the parade!
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/jarman1.htm
> Go to Williams, and he says he did not go out front at
> all, until after 12:30....
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338434/m1/1/sizes/
> The second Williams!
>
> Can Jarman be trusted?
> dcw
Anthony Marsh
Dec 17, 2015, 10:38:14 AM12/17/15
to
that there may be another reason. Like the Watergate tapes, maybe someone
would accidentally say something dangerous. Maybe Hosty would say that
they knew Oswald went to Mexico City because they had been watching him.
Maybe Oswald would accidentally blurt out the name of his CIA contact.
Maybe he'd accidentally blurt out the code word to start WWIII just at
Penkovsky did. Maybe Fritz would accidentally blurt out that they already
had the confession from Oswald's accomplice.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 17, 2015, 10:38:33 AM12/17/15
to
be a reporter.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 17, 2015, 10:41:43 AM12/17/15
to
On 12/15/2015 4:49 PM, donald willis wrote:
> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
>> him during the encounter.
>>
>>> The sessions were not recorded,
>>> although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
>>> myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
>>> a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
>>
>> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
>> was going to trial?
>
> That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
> the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
> reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
> pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
>
> How does it make sense, if you are going to lie about
>> what he said, to have so many different people from such diverse agencies
>> present (Secret Service, Dallas Police, FBI, Postal inspector, ect)?
>
> Funny--didn't the DPD and FBI (in the 2nd Bookhout report on the same
> interview) collude, in their reports, on Oswald supposedly saying the cop
> stopped him in the 2nd-floor lunchroom? When we know (based partly on the
> Bookhout/Hosty report) that Oswald got his coke/pepsi early & did not run
Pepsi? Cheap slander.
> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
>> him during the encounter.
>>
>>> The sessions were not recorded,
>>> although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
>>> myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
>>> a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
>>
>> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
>> was going to trial?
>
> That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
> the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
> reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
> pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
>
> How does it make sense, if you are going to lie about
>> what he said, to have so many different people from such diverse agencies
>> present (Secret Service, Dallas Police, FBI, Postal inspector, ect)?
>
> Funny--didn't the DPD and FBI (in the 2nd Bookhout report on the same
> interview) collude, in their reports, on Oswald supposedly saying the cop
> stopped him in the 2nd-floor lunchroom? When we know (based partly on the
> Bookhout/Hosty report) that Oswald got his coke/pepsi early & did not run
Bud
Dec 17, 2015, 1:49:27 PM12/17/15
to
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 10:34:05 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 11:45 AM, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:49:44 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> >> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
> >>> him during the encounter.
> >>>
> >>>> The sessions were not recorded,
> >>>> although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
> >>>> myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
> >>>> a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
> >>>
> >>> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
> >>> was going to trial?
> >>
> >> That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
> >> the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
> >> reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
> >> pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
> >
> > Lets examine this a little bit. You have Fritz being involved in the
> > conspiracy to kill two people. Fritz has climbed to the top of his
>
> No. Again you are two simple minded to understand the subtle difference
> between a crime and the cover-up.
Again you jump into the middle of a discussion when you don`t understand
> On 12/16/2015 11:45 AM, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:49:44 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> >> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
> >>> him during the encounter.
> >>>
> >>>> The sessions were not recorded,
> >>>> although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
> >>>> myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
> >>>> a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
> >>>
> >>> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
> >>> was going to trial?
> >>
> >> That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
> >> the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
> >> reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
> >> pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
> >
> > Lets examine this a little bit. You have Fritz being involved in the
> > conspiracy to kill two people. Fritz has climbed to the top of his
>
> No. Again you are two simple minded to understand the subtle difference
> between a crime and the cover-up.
what is being discussed. dw here believes that Fritz knew beforehand that
both Kennedy and Oswald were slated to die. Thats not cover-up.
> So you think it was Richard Nixon who
> picked the lock to break into the Watergate.
>
> > profession, he was at the pinnacle of what he could reasonably hope to
> > achieve being a Dallas Police chief. He doesn`t seem political, some
> > police chiefs are able to move on to become Mayor or some such, but Fritz
> > doesn`t seem cut from that cloth. So Fritz is risking the career he worked
> > his whole life building. He is risking his life, he will be facing the
>
> Risk what?
> Straw man argument. Just another routine case, framing an
> innocent person. Something he did every day.
> > death penalty if his role is uncovered. He risks blacking his family name
> > for all eternity by taking part in this vile deed. He seems to be risking
> > everything for no conceivable gain. Why would he do this?
> >
>
> Where do you get these grandiose ideas from? Watching too much TV?
> > Only a political extremist, a fanatical dreamer would entertain the idea
> > of doing such a thing for no gain. There is such a person associated with
>
> Only YOU would dream up such silly straw man arguments.
donald willis
Dec 17, 2015, 1:50:55 PM12/17/15
to
you for my supporting quote.
>
> > Go to Williams, and he says he did not go out front at
> > all, until after 12:30....
>
> No, he doesn`t.
>
> http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338434/m1/1/sizes/
>
did not go out front until after 12:30! Damn, you're good!
dcw
donald willis
Dec 17, 2015, 6:09:47 PM12/17/15
to
Jason Burke
Dec 17, 2015, 6:10:25 PM12/17/15
to
On 12/15/2015 1:49 PM, donald willis wrote:
> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
>> him during the encounter.
>>
>>> The sessions were not recorded,
>>> although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
>>> myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
>>> a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
>>
>> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
>> was going to trial?
>
> That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
> the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
> reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
> pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
Well, yeah, after that unfortunate incident with Ruby. Or are you
> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
>> him during the encounter.
>>
>>> The sessions were not recorded,
>>> although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
>>> myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
>>> a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
>>
>> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
>> was going to trial?
>
> That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
> the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
> reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
> pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
snarkingly fantasizing that Fritz was in on *that* also?
How cute.
What a great imagination you have `donald`. You should get together with
Cinque and write a book.
donald willis
Dec 17, 2015, 8:51:31 PM12/17/15
to
On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:38:14 AM cut
Or, like they did with the DPD radio logs, just have someone, in the
latter case, Sgt. Henslee, rewrite, er transcribe, portions of the radio
conversations they didn't like. Like the Insp. Sawyer reference to the
"third floor", which Henslee changed to "fifth floor". The latter they
could deal with--just a little miscounting. But the actual words "third
floor": Hard to say Sawyer meant *sixth floor*, eh? Shooting from the
third or 4th floor? Yow!
dcw
> >
> > Like I said, Fritz didn't want an actual record of the sessions around to
> > interfere with his (and Bookhout's and Kelley's) creative rewriting of
> > Oswald's answers.... For instance, O's supposedly saying that he waded
>
> Well, maybe you've missed the fact that I've pointed out dozens of times
> that there may be another reason. Like the Watergate tapes, maybe someone
> would accidentally say something dangerous. Maybe Hosty would say that
> they knew Oswald went to Mexico City because they had been watching him.
> Maybe Oswald would accidentally blurt out the name of his CIA contact.
> Maybe he'd accidentally blurt out the code word to start WWIII just at
> Penkovsky did. Maybe Fritz would accidentally blurt out that they already
> had the confession from Oswald's accomplice.
>
That's what redaction is for, isn't it? Just delete the offending words?
> > Like I said, Fritz didn't want an actual record of the sessions around to
> > interfere with his (and Bookhout's and Kelley's) creative rewriting of
> > Oswald's answers.... For instance, O's supposedly saying that he waded
>
> Well, maybe you've missed the fact that I've pointed out dozens of times
> that there may be another reason. Like the Watergate tapes, maybe someone
> would accidentally say something dangerous. Maybe Hosty would say that
> they knew Oswald went to Mexico City because they had been watching him.
> Maybe Oswald would accidentally blurt out the name of his CIA contact.
> Maybe he'd accidentally blurt out the code word to start WWIII just at
> Penkovsky did. Maybe Fritz would accidentally blurt out that they already
> had the confession from Oswald's accomplice.
>
Or, like they did with the DPD radio logs, just have someone, in the
latter case, Sgt. Henslee, rewrite, er transcribe, portions of the radio
conversations they didn't like. Like the Insp. Sawyer reference to the
"third floor", which Henslee changed to "fifth floor". The latter they
could deal with--just a little miscounting. But the actual words "third
floor": Hard to say Sawyer meant *sixth floor*, eh? Shooting from the
third or 4th floor? Yow!
dcw
donald willis
Dec 17, 2015, 8:51:54 PM12/17/15
to
On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:41:43 AM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 12/15/2015 4:49 PM, donald willis wrote:
> > On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
> >> him during the encounter.
> >>
> >>> The sessions were not recorded,
> >>> although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
> >>> myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
> >>> a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
> >>
> >> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
> >> was going to trial?
> >
> > That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
> > the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
> > reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
> > pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
> >
> > How does it make sense, if you are going to lie about
> >> what he said, to have so many different people from such diverse agencies
> >> present (Secret Service, Dallas Police, FBI, Postal inspector, ect)?
> >
> > Funny--didn't the DPD and FBI (in the 2nd Bookhout report on the same
> > interview) collude, in their reports, on Oswald supposedly saying the cop
> > stopped him in the 2nd-floor lunchroom? When we know (based partly on the
> > Bookhout/Hosty report) that Oswald got his coke/pepsi early & did not run
>
> Pepsi? Cheap slander.
Remember the end of "One Two Three"? Cagney's company promotes Pepsi, and
> On 12/15/2015 4:49 PM, donald willis wrote:
> > On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
> >> him during the encounter.
> >>
> >>> The sessions were not recorded,
> >>> although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
> >>> myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
> >>> a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
> >>
> >> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
> >> was going to trial?
> >
> > That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
> > the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
> > reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
> > pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
> >
> > How does it make sense, if you are going to lie about
> >> what he said, to have so many different people from such diverse agencies
> >> present (Secret Service, Dallas Police, FBI, Postal inspector, ect)?
> >
> > Funny--didn't the DPD and FBI (in the 2nd Bookhout report on the same
> > interview) collude, in their reports, on Oswald supposedly saying the cop
> > stopped him in the 2nd-floor lunchroom? When we know (based partly on the
> > Bookhout/Hosty report) that Oswald got his coke/pepsi early & did not run
>
> Pepsi? Cheap slander.
he gets a Coke? Or vice versa. From a machine, I think....
dcw
Bud
Dec 17, 2015, 8:56:33 PM12/17/15
to
Bud
Dec 17, 2015, 8:57:09 PM12/17/15
to
say anything about Williams being out front during the parade.
> >
> > > Go to Williams, and he says he did not go out front at
> > > all, until after 12:30....
> >
> > No, he doesn`t.
> >
> > http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338434/m1/1/sizes/
> >
>
> Again, thank you for the affidavit supporting my contention that Williams
> did not go out front until after 12:30! Damn, you're good!
read the evidence and stop trying to write it.
> dcw
Bud
Dec 17, 2015, 8:57:57 PM12/17/15
to
don`t know how to come to rational and reasonable conclusions based on
evidence.
Bud
Dec 17, 2015, 8:59:20 PM12/17/15
to
rely on "They can do it, they can do anything my ideas require", the
weaker your ideas appear.
donald willis
Dec 18, 2015, 9:44:12 PM12/18/15
to
On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 3:10:25 PM UTC-8, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 12/15/2015 1:49 PM, donald willis wrote:
> > On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
> >> him during the encounter.
> >>
> >>> The sessions were not recorded,
> >>> although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
> >>> myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
> >>> a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
> >>
> >> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
> >> was going to trial?
> >
> > That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
> > the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
> > reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
> > pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
>
> Well, yeah, after that unfortunate incident with Ruby. Or are you
> snarkingly fantasizing that Fritz was in on *that* also?
>
> How cute.
>
> What a great imagination you have `donald`. You should get together with
> Cinque and write a book.
Boy do you fall into things.... *You* should get together with Hare///
> On 12/15/2015 1:49 PM, donald willis wrote:
> > On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
> >> him during the encounter.
> >>
> >>> The sessions were not recorded,
> >>> although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
> >>> myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
> >>> a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
> >>
> >> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
> >> was going to trial?
> >
> > That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
> > the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
> > reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
> > pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
>
> Well, yeah, after that unfortunate incident with Ruby. Or are you
> snarkingly fantasizing that Fritz was in on *that* also?
>
> How cute.
>
> What a great imagination you have `donald`. You should get together with
> Cinque and write a book.
dcw
donald willis
Dec 19, 2015, 11:11:19 AM12/19/15
to
noon and, later, during the parade. Is English only your 7th language?
Bud, Bud, wake up!
>
> > >
> > > > Go to Williams, and he says he did not go out front at
> > > > all, until after 12:30....
> > >
> > > No, he doesn`t.
> > >
> > > http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338434/m1/1/sizes/
> > >
> >
> > Again, thank you for the affidavit supporting my contention that Williams
> > did not go out front until after 12:30! Damn, you're good!
>
> It doesn`t say anything about 12:30, you made that up. You should just
> read the evidence and stop trying to write it.
>
out front only *after* the shooting. What time was the shooting? I know
it's hard for you to put 2 & 2 together without getting 127....
dcs
PS In later statements, Williams says he didn't go out front until even
later
Anthony Marsh
Dec 19, 2015, 5:25:53 PM12/19/15
to
Anthony Marsh
Dec 19, 2015, 5:26:49 PM12/19/15
to
Anthony Marsh
Dec 19, 2015, 5:29:03 PM12/19/15
to
Anthony Marsh
Dec 19, 2015, 8:49:55 PM12/19/15
to
machine would never have Pepsi.
During principal photography, Wilder received a call from Joan Crawford,
recently appointed to the board of directors of Pepsi-Cola following her
husband Alfred Steele's death. In response to Crawford's protests over the
use of the Coca-Cola brand in the film, Wilder scattered some references
to Pepsi, including the final scene.[11]
Don't you remember the running sketch in Saturday Night Live?
NO COKE! PEPSI!
But you aren't playing along with my theory of the month. The idea is that
Oswald wanted a Dr. Pepper and they ran out so he had to go up to the
second floor and get a Coke.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 19, 2015, 8:50:35 PM12/19/15
to
On 12/17/2015 8:51 PM, donald willis wrote:
slip. Like Oswald saying that he was under the protection of the US
government.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 19, 2015, 8:51:03 PM12/19/15
to
On 12/17/2015 6:10 PM, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 12/15/2015 1:49 PM, donald willis wrote:
>> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
>>> him during the encounter.
>>>
>>>> The sessions were not recorded,
>>>> although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
>>>> myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for
>>>> him,
>>>> a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
>>>
>>> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said
>>> when it
>>> was going to trial?
>>
>> That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
>> the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
>> reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
>> pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
>
> Well, yeah, after that unfortunate incident with Ruby. Or are you
> snarkingly fantasizing that Fritz was in on *that* also?
>
Or maybe Fritz was smart enough to not get into the line of fire.
> On 12/15/2015 1:49 PM, donald willis wrote:
>> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
>>> him during the encounter.
>>>
>>>> The sessions were not recorded,
>>>> although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
>>>> myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for
>>>> him,
>>>> a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
>>>
>>> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said
>>> when it
>>> was going to trial?
>>
>> That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
>> the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
>> reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
>> pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
>
> Well, yeah, after that unfortunate incident with Ruby. Or are you
> snarkingly fantasizing that Fritz was in on *that* also?
>
Let Leavelle take the bullet.
That's even cuter.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 19, 2015, 8:51:58 PM12/19/15
to
On 12/17/2015 1:49 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 10:34:05 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 12/16/2015 11:45 AM, Bud wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:49:44 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
>>>> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
>>>>> him during the encounter.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The sessions were not recorded,
>>>>>> although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
>>>>>> myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
>>>>>> a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
>>>>>
>>>>> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
>>>>> was going to trial?
>>>>
>>>> That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
>>>> the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
>>>> reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
>>>> pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
>>>
>>> Lets examine this a little bit. You have Fritz being involved in the
>>> conspiracy to kill two people. Fritz has climbed to the top of his
>>
>> No. Again you are two simple minded to understand the subtle difference
>> between a crime and the cover-up.
>
> Again you jump into the middle of a discussion when you don`t understand
> what is being discussed. dw here believes that Fritz knew beforehand that
> both Kennedy and Oswald were slated to die. Thats not cover-up.
>
I don't care what his silly theory is, it's just fun to make fun of it.
> On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 10:34:05 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 12/16/2015 11:45 AM, Bud wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:49:44 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
>>>> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:25 cut tes that there was anyone with
>>>>> him during the encounter.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The sessions were not recorded,
>>>>>> although the technology existed at the time. I used tape recorders
>>>>>> myself! Of course, if you want to write the interviewee's words for him,
>>>>>> a tape recorder is a handy thing not to have around....
>>>>>
>>>>> How would it make sense to plan on lying about what Oswald said when it
>>>>> was going to trial?
>>>>
>>>> That's a good question. But if Oswald said one thing at his trial, and
>>>> the DPD/FBI & SS personnel agreed that he had said something else, the
>>>> reports would back them, not him. And I think that Fritz, for one, was
>>>> pretty sure there would not need to be a trial....
>>>
>>> Lets examine this a little bit. You have Fritz being involved in the
>>> conspiracy to kill two people. Fritz has climbed to the top of his
>>
>> No. Again you are two simple minded to understand the subtle difference
>> between a crime and the cover-up.
>
> Again you jump into the middle of a discussion when you don`t understand
> what is being discussed. dw here believes that Fritz knew beforehand that
> both Kennedy and Oswald were slated to die. Thats not cover-up.
>
Someone here said something stupid on the 10th and I couldn't find the
original message to correct it.
>> So you think it was Richard Nixon who
>> picked the lock to break into the Watergate.
>>
>>> profession, he was at the pinnacle of what he could reasonably hope to
>>> achieve being a Dallas Police chief. He doesn`t seem political, some
>>> police chiefs are able to move on to become Mayor or some such, but Fritz
>>> doesn`t seem cut from that cloth. So Fritz is risking the career he worked
>>> his whole life building. He is risking his life, he will be facing the
>>
>> Risk what?
>
> Clearly stated.
>
for saying the rifle was a Mauser? Was anyone fired for anything. Do you
want to claim that Roger Craig was killed for spilling the beans? Why do
you always play the Hissy?
>> Straw man argument. Just another routine case, framing an
>> innocent person. Something he did every day.
>
> Like you saying stuff you can`t support.
>
Bud
Dec 19, 2015, 11:37:40 PM12/19/15
to
<Quote on>
"I work for the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, as a
Checker on the first floor for Mr. Roy S. Truly. On Friday, November 22,
1963, I got to work at 8:05 a.m. The first time I saw Lee Oswald on
Friday, November 22, 1963 was about 8:15 a.m. He was filling orders on the
first floor. A little after 9:00 a.m. Lee Oswald asked me what all the
people were doing standing on the street. I told him that the President
was supposed to come this way sometime this morning. He asked me, "Which
way do you think he is coming?". I told him that the President would
probably come down Main Street and turn on Houston and then go down Elm
Street. He said, "Yes, I see". I only talked with him for about three or
four minutes. The last time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963
was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon when he was taking the elevator
upstairs to go get some boxes. At about 11:45 a.m. all of the employees
who were working on the 6th floor came downstairs and we were all out on
the street at about 12:00 o'clock noon. These employees were: Bill
Shelley, Charles Givens, Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray (last name not known)
and a Spanish boy (his name I cannot remember). To my knowledge Lee Oswald
was not with us while we were watching the parade."
<Quote off>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Go to Williams, and he says he did not go out front at
> > > > > all, until after 12:30....
> > > >
> > > > No, he doesn`t.
> > > >
> > > > http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338434/m1/1/sizes/
> > > >
> > >
> > > Again, thank you for the affidavit supporting my contention that Williams
> > > did not go out front until after 12:30! Damn, you're good!
> >
> > It doesn`t say anything about 12:30, you made that up. You should just
> > read the evidence and stop trying to write it.
> >
>
> You're amazing, HobbyBud! Don't give up your day job. Williams & co. go
> out front only *after* the shooting. What time was the shooting? I know
> it's hard for you to put 2 & 2 together without getting 127....
sentences in his affidavit?
You do realize two of these guys were photographed shortly after the
assassination on the fifth floor, right?
> dcs
>
> PS In later statements, Williams says he didn't go out front until even
> later
Bud
Dec 20, 2015, 7:10:12 PM12/20/15
to
filled with imperfect people.
Bud
Dec 20, 2015, 7:11:02 PM12/20/15
to
> Also known as arguing dishonestly.
Bud
Dec 20, 2015, 7:11:24 PM12/20/15
to
claimed.
donald willis
Dec 20, 2015, 7:25:45 PM12/20/15
to
On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 8:37:40 cut were making stuff up. It doesn`t
he adds that the named individuals "were watching the parade". And he
says "we", meaning he, Jarman, was out there too, which he later testified
that he was, at least until about 12:20. But Williams never said he went
out front until after the shots were fired.
dcw
> > > say anything about Williams being out front during the parade.
> >
> > It's right there if you have eyes. Williams & co. were out front about
> > noon and, later, during the parade. Is English only your 7th language?
> > Bud, Bud, wake up!
>
> I`ll supply the whole affidavit, you show me where he says he was out front with Williams during the parade...
>
> <Quote on>
>
> "I work for the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, as a
> Checker on the first floor for Mr. Roy S. Truly. On Friday, November 22,
> 1963, I got to work at 8:05 a.m. The first time I saw Lee Oswald on
> Friday, November 22, 1963 was about 8:15 a.m. He was filling orders on the
> first floor. A little after 9:00 a.m. Lee Oswald asked me what all the
> people were doing standing on the street. I told him that the President
> was supposed to come this way sometime this morning. He asked me, "Which
> way do you think he is coming?". I told him that the President would
> probably come down Main Street and turn on Houston and then go down Elm
> Street. He said, "Yes, I see". I only talked with him for about three or
> four minutes. The last time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963
> was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon when he was taking the elevator
> upstairs to go get some boxes. At about 11:45 a.m. all of the employees
> who were working on the 6th floor came downstairs and we were all out on
> the street at about 12:00 o'clock noon. These employees were: Bill
> Shelley, Charles Givens, Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray
Here it is. Jarman says BRW was out on the street at about noon. Then,
> >
> > It's right there if you have eyes. Williams & co. were out front about
> > noon and, later, during the parade. Is English only your 7th language?
> > Bud, Bud, wake up!
>
> I`ll supply the whole affidavit, you show me where he says he was out front with Williams during the parade...
>
> <Quote on>
>
> "I work for the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, as a
> Checker on the first floor for Mr. Roy S. Truly. On Friday, November 22,
> 1963, I got to work at 8:05 a.m. The first time I saw Lee Oswald on
> Friday, November 22, 1963 was about 8:15 a.m. He was filling orders on the
> first floor. A little after 9:00 a.m. Lee Oswald asked me what all the
> people were doing standing on the street. I told him that the President
> was supposed to come this way sometime this morning. He asked me, "Which
> way do you think he is coming?". I told him that the President would
> probably come down Main Street and turn on Houston and then go down Elm
> Street. He said, "Yes, I see". I only talked with him for about three or
> four minutes. The last time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963
> was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon when he was taking the elevator
> upstairs to go get some boxes. At about 11:45 a.m. all of the employees
> who were working on the 6th floor came downstairs and we were all out on
> the street at about 12:00 o'clock noon. These employees were: Bill
> Shelley, Charles Givens, Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray
he adds that the named individuals "were watching the parade". And he
says "we", meaning he, Jarman, was out there too, which he later testified
that he was, at least until about 12:20. But Williams never said he went
out front until after the shots were fired.
dcw
Jason Burke
Dec 21, 2015, 2:24:24 PM12/21/15
to
I am having trouble believing how any of the CT folks even think they're
even still in the game.
(Face it, Donald {oh, excuse me... 'donald',} it was LHO all by himself.)
Bud
Dec 21, 2015, 2:27:23 PM12/21/15
to
interview is superior to track movement and details, rather than a
mishmash of statements that jump around from event to event. For instance
he says Shelley came down with them, but he actually left before the rest
did.
donald willis
Dec 21, 2015, 2:28:57 PM12/21/15
to
dcw
Anthony Marsh
Dec 22, 2015, 10:27:12 AM12/22/15
to
English please.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 22, 2015, 10:27:19 AM12/22/15
to
donald willis
Dec 22, 2015, 10:27:38 AM12/22/15
to
between 12 & 12:30. Which means that he was not with Williams upstairs or
downstairs during that time....
dcw
donald willis
Dec 22, 2015, 10:28:01 AM12/22/15
to
you mean by "all by himself".
dcw
Jason Burke
Dec 23, 2015, 12:34:17 AM12/23/15
to
Bud
Dec 23, 2015, 10:19:10 AM12/23/15
to
donald willis
Dec 23, 2015, 8:27:54 PM12/23/15
to
depository until Sgt Hill got there, circa 12:50, looking for the 5th
floor, where officers (Patrolmen Hill & Harkness) said the shots came
from. He was in the building till about 1pm, was there when the shells
were found, on the 5th floor: Officer Valentine, who went up with them,
stated he was left to guard the 5th-floor area. And, about 1:12, Sawyer
indeed radioed that they had found the hulls on the 5th floor, and it was
no mistake in counting floors--he was there at the finding.
Related item: Fritz picked up the hulls, later sort of said he didn't.
Why? Because they were on the 5th floor....
If you want the references (as Marsh would), I'll try to ferry them into
this site....
dcw
donald willis
Dec 24, 2015, 10:24:09 AM12/24/15
to
they're not good on explaining, just dismissing...
dcw
Bud
Dec 24, 2015, 10:32:50 AM12/24/15
to
Oswald at the press conference.
Jason Burke
Dec 24, 2015, 7:31:59 PM12/24/15
to
On 12/23/2015 5:27 PM, donald willis wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9:34:17 PM UTC-8, Jason Burke wrote:
>> On 12/22/2015 7:28 AM, donald willis wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 11:24:24 AM UTC-8, Jason Burke wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2015 4:25 PM, donald willis wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 8:37:40 cut were making stuff up.. It doesn`t
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9:34:17 PM UTC-8, Jason Burke wrote:
>> On 12/22/2015 7:28 AM, donald willis wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 11:24:24 AM UTC-8, Jason Burke wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2015 4:25 PM, donald willis wrote:
What a surprise!
Anthony Marsh
Dec 24, 2015, 7:57:02 PM12/24/15
to
English please.
Bud
Dec 24, 2015, 7:58:31 PM12/24/15
to
the rest of them.
> But
> they're not good on explaining, just dismissing...
silly games. You want to carve into stone a few sentences from a few
disjointed statements. You won`t apply the proper reasoning, because that
would ruin the fun. What proper reasoning you will ask, because you have
no ability to attempt such a thing. I`ll tell you. People speak
imprecisely, especially when it comes to details they feel are trivial.
But more than that, if you could reason you would realize that these are
generalized statements, it isn`t likely that all everyone went down en
mass, and went outside all together. Some ate in the domino room. Givens
washed up and went back upstairs. I think Norman said he wandered around
eating a sandwich before heading out. It isn`t likely that Jarmnan took a
head count when he went out. The only way to get anything close to a true
accounting of movements and details is from a step by step walkthrough
(and even that will be flawed).
> dcw
Anthony Marsh
Dec 24, 2015, 9:25:24 PM12/24/15
to
Anthony Marsh
Dec 25, 2015, 2:54:19 PM12/25/15
to
On 12/10/2015 5:21 PM, donald willis wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:07:25 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
>> DONALD WILLIS SAID:
>>
>> Not only does Fritz, then, testify that Homicide determined that Oswald
>> was eating lunch on the first floor, but that that was where Baker
>> accosted him!
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>>
>> Utter nonsense. Fritz testified to no such thing. Just read the *complete*
>> testimony. Joe Ball asks Fritz:
>>
>> "At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen
>> Oswald on the **second floor**?"
>>
>> Fritz responded with:
>>
>> "They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or
>> someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me,
>> person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the
>> stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a
>> lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun
>> on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer
>> let him go."
>>
>
> David -- On what floor would Baker have seen employees in a "little
> lunchroom... eating"?
>
> And note that Fritz opposes "stairway" with "lunchroom": Baker, he
> testifies, did not see him on a stairway... he "actually saw him in a
> lunchroom... "where THEY WERE EATING". That "actually" cancels the
> reference to "stairway". In Fritz's testimony account, there's no
> stairway involved....
>
>
>> Then....
>>
>> Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
>>
>> Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer
>> stopped him all right.
>>
>> Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?
>>
>> Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a
>> Coca-Cola.
>>
>> Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?
>>
>> Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola.
>>
>> ================
>>
>> Captain Fritz' notes reflect very nearly the same version of events as
>> above, although in the notes, Fritz doesn't say that Oswald actually *HAD
>> LUNCH* on the second floor. The notes reflect that Oswald told Fritz that
>> he (Oswald) went "to 1st floor had lunch".
>>
>> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cccbyzkaGcY/VLcIyeV6aiI/AAAAAAABCy4/Bgxowpb6KZE/s1600/Fritz-Notes.jpg
>>
>> But, Donald, you aren't *really* trying to make a case for the
>> Baker/Oswald/Truly encounter taking place on the FIRST floor instead of
>> the second floor
>
> Fritz's "investigation" makes that case...: "where they were eating". Of
> course, several employees including Oswald might have been eating in the
> 2nd-floor "snack bar" (as Truly called it), but that would still mean
No. The manual labor had to eat in the Domino room. The Lunchroom was
only for the office workers, as in white.
> Oswald couldn't have been on the 6th floor at 12:30, and eating lunch with
> other employees on the 2nd floor at 12:31.... You're not really saying
> that that's possible, are you?
>
> , are you? Because that's a cockeyed version of events
>> that only really *desperate* CTers have embraced. (Are you *that*
>> desperate, Don?)
>>
>> The "encounter" was confirmed as having occurred on the SECOND floor by
>> both Roy Truly
>
> Read Kent Biffle's accounts of the incident, in '63 and '64: Truly
> originally said the encounter happened on the first floor, in a
> "storeroom", however....
>
Biffle was there and witnessed it? Man, did he run fast or what?
> dcw
>
> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:07:25 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
>> DONALD WILLIS SAID:
>>
>> Not only does Fritz, then, testify that Homicide determined that Oswald
>> was eating lunch on the first floor, but that that was where Baker
>> accosted him!
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>>
>> Utter nonsense. Fritz testified to no such thing. Just read the *complete*
>> testimony. Joe Ball asks Fritz:
>>
>> "At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen
>> Oswald on the **second floor**?"
>>
>> Fritz responded with:
>>
>> "They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or
>> someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me,
>> person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the
>> stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a
>> lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun
>> on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer
>> let him go."
>>
>
> David -- On what floor would Baker have seen employees in a "little
> lunchroom... eating"?
>
> And note that Fritz opposes "stairway" with "lunchroom": Baker, he
> testifies, did not see him on a stairway... he "actually saw him in a
> lunchroom... "where THEY WERE EATING". That "actually" cancels the
> reference to "stairway". In Fritz's testimony account, there's no
> stairway involved....
>
>
>> Then....
>>
>> Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
>>
>> Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer
>> stopped him all right.
>>
>> Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?
>>
>> Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a
>> Coca-Cola.
>>
>> Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?
>>
>> Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola.
>>
>> ================
>>
>> Captain Fritz' notes reflect very nearly the same version of events as
>> above, although in the notes, Fritz doesn't say that Oswald actually *HAD
>> LUNCH* on the second floor. The notes reflect that Oswald told Fritz that
>> he (Oswald) went "to 1st floor had lunch".
>>
>> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cccbyzkaGcY/VLcIyeV6aiI/AAAAAAABCy4/Bgxowpb6KZE/s1600/Fritz-Notes.jpg
>>
>> But, Donald, you aren't *really* trying to make a case for the
>> Baker/Oswald/Truly encounter taking place on the FIRST floor instead of
>> the second floor
>
> Fritz's "investigation" makes that case...: "where they were eating". Of
> course, several employees including Oswald might have been eating in the
> 2nd-floor "snack bar" (as Truly called it), but that would still mean
No. The manual labor had to eat in the Domino room. The Lunchroom was
only for the office workers, as in white.
> Oswald couldn't have been on the 6th floor at 12:30, and eating lunch with
> other employees on the 2nd floor at 12:31.... You're not really saying
> that that's possible, are you?
>
> , are you? Because that's a cockeyed version of events
>> that only really *desperate* CTers have embraced. (Are you *that*
>> desperate, Don?)
>>
>> The "encounter" was confirmed as having occurred on the SECOND floor by
>> both Roy Truly
>
> Read Kent Biffle's accounts of the incident, in '63 and '64: Truly
> originally said the encounter happened on the first floor, in a
> "storeroom", however....
>
Biffle was there and witnessed it? Man, did he run fast or what?
> dcw
>
Bud
Dec 25, 2015, 4:12:31 PM12/25/15
to
place.
> English please.
Use English words to explain how being in a room with someone constitutes
trying to shoot them.
OHLeeRedux
Dec 25, 2015, 4:13:21 PM12/25/15
to
Anthony Marsh
- hide quoted text -
Show us a photo of Ruby at the press conference with the gun in his hand.
You can't say he "tried" to shoot Oswald if he never pulled out his gun. Would you say a person "tried" to shoot someone because they bought a gun and put it in their pocket? Even walked past the person's house? An attemted murder charge would never stick under those circumstances.
And "tried" means "attempted."
Learn English, Anthony.
- hide quoted text -
You can't say he "tried" to shoot Oswald if he never pulled out his gun. Would you say a person "tried" to shoot someone because they bought a gun and put it in their pocket? Even walked past the person's house? An attemted murder charge would never stick under those circumstances.
And "tried" means "attempted."
Learn English, Anthony.
donald willis
Dec 25, 2015, 4:13:43 PM12/25/15
to
donald willis
Dec 25, 2015, 10:45:17 PM12/25/15
to
donald willis
Dec 25, 2015, 10:46:20 PM12/25/15
to
that day. It may take me a while to sort it out. Meanwhile, thanks!
dcw
Anthony Marsh
Dec 26, 2015, 10:32:18 AM12/26/15
to
The blacks and poor whites have to eat in the Domino room while the
white office workers eat in the Lunch room on the second floor.
donald willis
Dec 26, 2015, 1:22:14 PM12/26/15
to
Exculpated!!
> > Oswald couldn't have been on the 6th floor at 12:30, and eating lunch with
> > other employees on the 2nd floor at 12:31.... You're not really saying
> > that that's possible, are you?
> >
> > , are you? Because that's a cockeyed version of events
> >> that only really *desperate* CTers have embraced. (Are you *that*
> >> desperate, Don?)
> >>
> >> The "encounter" was confirmed as having occurred on the SECOND floor by
> >> both Roy Truly
> >
> > Read Kent Biffle's accounts of the incident, in '63 and '64: Truly
> > originally said the encounter happened on the first floor, in a
> > "storeroom", however....
> >
>
> Biffle was there and witnessed it? Man, did he run fast or what?
>
dcw
BOZ
Dec 27, 2015, 12:11:58 AM12/27/15
to
donald willis
Dec 27, 2015, 12:24:13 AM12/27/15
to
Sawyer's car, and Brennan & the cops squeezed into the front seat, as they
left the depository. (Sorrels, who supposedly went with Brennan, was
nowhere in sight, in the film footage.)
dcw
Anthony Marsh
Dec 27, 2015, 1:56:43 PM12/27/15
to
>
> You can't say he "tried" to shoot Oswald if he never pulled out his gun. Would you say a person "tried" to shoot someone because they bought a gun and put it in their pocket? Even walked past the person's house? An attemted murder charge would never stick under those circumstances.
>
> And "tried" means "attempted."
>
> Learn English, Anthony.
>
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages