Oswald did NOT say, "Shelley told me I could leave" -- LNers fooling & pretending again....
dcwi...@yahoo.com
> Oswald lied repeatedly about things he would have no reason to lie
> about if he was innocent. (Curtain rods, anyone? .... I never owned a
> rifle. .... Shelley told me I could leave.
This is actually an LN exaggeration. According to Fritz, Hosty, &
Bookhout, it wasn't that cut & dry.
Fritz note re O interview: "out with Bill Shelley in front
left wk opinion nothing be done that day"
Fritz report (WR p600): "I asked why he left the building, & he said
there was so much excitement he didn't think there would be any more
work done that day... & he thought it would be just as well that he
left for the rest of the afternoon"
Hosty-Bookhout report (WR p613): "After hearing what had happened, he
said that because of all the confusion there would be no work
performed that afternoon so he decided to go home"
Bookhout report (WR p619): O "went outside & stood around for 5 or 10
minutes with foreman Bill Shelley, & thereafter went home. He stated
that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of Bill
Shelley, he did not believe that there was going to be any more work
that day...."
Fritz's report & the Hosty-Bookhout report don't even mention
Shelley. The Fritz note & the Bookhout report make it pretty clear
that (as per O) Shelley was saying to whomever that there probably
wouldn't be much work done that afternoon, & O simply seized on that
observation as an excuse to leave. Nowhere do Fritz, Hosty or
Bookhout state that Oswald said Shelley told him that he could leave.
Note: A "+" for Bugliosi, who did NOT exaggerate the issue in his book.
Bud
Another appearance of Oswald the invisible man. He is always
somewhere that nobody sees him.
David Von Pein
>>> "Oswald did NOT say, "Shelley told me I could leave" -- LNers fooling & pretending again. .... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: "Oswald lied repeatedly about things he would have no reason to lie about if he was innocent. (Curtain rods, anyone? .... I never owned a rifle. .... Shelley told me I could leave." [END DVP QUOTE.] .... This is actually an LN exaggeration. According to Fritz, Hosty, & Bookhout, it wasn't that cut & dry." <<<
Yes, Don, I will admit my (possible) error when I said this in an
earlier post (re: Oswald's lies):
"Shelley told me I could leave."
What I should have said, instead, is this:
"I figured there would be no more work done that day, so I just
went home."
The "Shelley" portion of that statement is possibly not accurate
(although I don't know for sure that it is not accurate, and my
comments and citation near the end of this post make it clear that the
Warren Commission most certainly was not lying or making up false
stories with respect to the topic of Bill Shelley).
Once again, the best place to turn for a detailed examination of
virtually any sub-topic connected to the JFK assassination is Vincent
Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", wherein we find these excerpts
(and I'll have more to say about these VB book excerpts later in this
post, explaining where Mr. Bugliosi has made a mistake here, which is
really a mistake in the Warren Report):
"There is one alleged lie of Oswald’s that doesn’t stand up.
Page 182 of the Warren Report reads that “Oswald told [Captain] Fritz
that after lunch [and presumably the shooting] he went outside, talked
with Foreman Bill Shelley for 5 or 10 minutes and then left for home.
He said that he left work because Bill Shelley said that there would
be no more work done that day in the building.”
"But there is nothing in the three citations the Warren Report
gives to back this statement up. Indeed, the name Bill Shelley isn’t
even mentioned in the text referred to by the three citations.
(Shelley, by the way, testified that he did not tell anyone to go home
after the shooting, and it is clear from his testimony that he did not
see Oswald after the shooting [7 H 391; 6 H 329–331].)
"Wondering where in the world the Commission had come up with
this, if at all, the closest I could come is in the contemporaneous
handwritten notes of Captain Fritz, taken at the time of the
interrogation--five brief pages written during twelve hours of
interrogation. Such severe condensation automatically causes
distortion.
"On page 1, Fritz writes, “Claims 2nd Floor Coke when Off
[Officer] came in, to 1st fl had lunch, out with Bill Shelley in
front. Left wk [work] opinion nothing be done that day.”
"With respect to Fritz’s handwritten note that Oswald said he
had lunch on the first floor after the confrontation with the officer
on the second floor, Oswald couldn’t have told Fritz this, since he
couldn’t expect anyone to believe that after his confrontation with
the officer (Baker) in the second-floor lunchroom, which had to be
after the shooting in Dealey Plaza, he proceeded to go down to the
first floor and have his lunch and then left."
>>>[DVP INTERJECTION HERE: Although Buell Wesley Frazier is on record as having done that very thing--i.e., eating his lunch inside the TSBD Building AFTER the assassination had taken place, amidst all the commotion and confusion following the shooting. It does, indeed, sound unbelievable, but Frazier did it anyway; and Frazier went DOWN INTO THE BASEMENT, no less, to eat his lunch after the shooting, making it even harder to believe, since such an eating location would be even further away from all the excitement and action following the assassination. Boy, Wesley must have been hungry that day! Back to Bugliosi's quotes now:]<<<
"And in his subsequent thirteen-page typewritten report of his
interrogations of Oswald (WR, pp.599–611), Fritz says that Oswald told
him he was having lunch on the first floor at the time of the
shooting. When Fritz asked him where he was when the officer stopped
him, Oswald said he was on the second floor drinking a Coca-Cola.
(Fritz doesn’t say, as his contemporaneous notes do, that Oswald then
told him he returned to the first floor to have lunch.)
"When Fritz asked him why he left the building thereafter,
Oswald said there was so much excitement that he didn’t think there
would be any more work that day. Fritz makes no reference to Oswald
telling him that Shelley had told him this. (WR, pp.600–601)
"It would seem that Fritz’s writing, in his handwritten notes,
“Bill Shelley in front” probably was a reference to Oswald telling him
during the interrogation that on his way out of the building, he saw
Bill Shelley in front of the building.
"In any event, I could find no evidence that Oswald told the lie
that Shelley told him he could leave because there would be no more
work that day." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 537 of Endnotes in
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
-----------------
WHERE VINCENT BUGLIOSI WENT WRONG HERE:
This is actually a situation where Vince Bugliosi didn't know exactly
where to look for a certain statement to confirm something that he saw
in the Warren Commission Final Report.
And, in this particular (rare) instance, it would appear to be the
fault of the Warren Commission itself, because the Warren Report's
three citations on the page cited by Bugliosi above (WR Page 182) are,
indeed, a bit misleading.
The WC should have added another citation in Source Note #695 on Page
182 of the Warren Report, and that citation was supplied by Donald
Willis in his thread-starting post above, and I've confirmed it via
the link below, WR Page #619 [from FBI agent James Bookhout's 11/22/63
report concerning the matter]. Thanks Don.
WR Pg. 619:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
Bookhout's FBI report dated 11/22/63 (and dictated on 11/24/63)
specifically backs up (almost verbatim) the verbiage we find on Page
182 of the Warren Report that Vince Bugliosi cited in his book. Here's
what we find in Bookhout's report:
“[Oswald] went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes
with foreman Bill Shelley, and thereafter went home. He [Oswald]
stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks
of Bill Shelley, he did not believe that there was going to be any
more work that day due to the confusion in the building.” -- WR; Page
619
Now, let's compare those words written by Jim Bookhout to the Warren
Report passage on Page 182 (shown below):
“Oswald told Fritz that after lunch he went outside, talked with
Foreman Bill Shelley for 5 or 10 minutes and then left for home. He
said that he left work because Bill Shelley said that there would be
no more work done that day in the building.”
So, quite obviously, the Warren Commission DID have a report to back
up the above words printed on Page 182 of the WR. It's just that the
source note that was attached to those words on Page 182 didn't make
reference to the specific source for these words found on that page:
"Bill Shelley said that there would be no more work done that day in
the building".
And I also think Vince Bugliosi was a little confused because of the
first three words that we find in that paragraph on Page 182 --
"Oswald told Fritz".
Bugliosi, therefore, was probably searching for a specific "Shelley"
reference ONLY in Captain Fritz's written notes and reports concerning
this matter, instead of looking for additional references to "Shelley"
elsewhere, such as Bookhout's reports.
It should also be noted that just because the Warren Commission was
relying on a report submitted by FBI agent James Bookhout for the
"Shelley" reference on Page 182, that doesn't mean that the Commission
was incorrect when it said on the same page that "Oswald told Fritz"
certain things.
And that's because Oswald WAS being interviewed BY CAPTAIN FRITZ at
the time, not by BOOKHOUT. Bookhout just happened to be there, just as
it says in Agent Bookhout's 11/22/63 report. We find these words at
the very top of Bookhout's report:
"Lee Harvey Oswald was interviewed at the Homicide and Robbery
Bureau, Dallas Police Department, by Captain J.W. FRITZ in the
presence of Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT, Federal Bureau of
Investigation."
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/reclaiming-history.html
Gil Jesus
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > Oswald lied repeatedly about things he would have no reason to lie
> > about if he was innocent. (Curtain rods, anyone? .... I never owned a
> > rifle. .... Shelley told me I could leave.
>
> This is actually an LN exaggeration. �According to Fritz, Hosty, &
> Bookhout, it wasn't that cut & dry.
>
> Fritz note re O interview: �"out with Bill Shelley in front
> � � � � � � � � � left wk opinion nothing be done that day"
> Fritz report (WR p600): "I asked why he left the building, & he said
> there was so much excitement he didn't think there would be any more
> work done that day... & he thought it would be just as well that he
> left for the rest of the afternoon"
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0312b.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0313a.htm
> Hosty-Bookhout report (WR p613): �"After hearing what had happened, he
> said that because of all the confusion there would be no work
> performed that afternoon so he decided to go home"
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0319a.htm
> Bookhout report (WR p619): �O "went outside & stood around for 5 or 10
> minutes with foreman Bill Shelley, & thereafter went home. �He stated
> that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of Bill
> Shelley, he did not believe that there was going to be any more work
> that day...."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
> Fritz's report & the Hosty-Bookhout report don't even mention
> Shelley. �The Fritz note & the Bookhout report make it pretty clear
> that (as per O) Shelley was saying to whomever that there probably
> wouldn't be much work done that afternoon, & O simply seized on that
> observation as an excuse to leave. �Nowhere do Fritz, Hosty or
> Bookhout state that Oswald said Shelley told him that he could leave.
> Note: A "+" for Bugliosi, who did NOT exaggerate the issue in his book.
And an "F" for Von Pein, who exaggerates and omits.
David Von Pein
>>> "And an "F" for Von Pein, who exaggerates and omits." <<<
You mean to say I didn't even earn a cookie from you kooks for proving
that Vincent Bugliosi made a mistake? I should at least get a
snickerdoodle for that, right Gil-Kook?
Granted, as I pointed out in my last post, it was really more of a
mistake on the Warren Commission's part, but the fact remains that Jim
Bookhout's Nov. 22 report confirms that the WC wasn't telling any
tales out of school on page 182.
mucher1
> On Feb 18, 2:03 am, dcwill...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > Oswald lied repeatedly about things he would have no reason to lie
> > > about if he was innocent. (Curtain rods, anyone? .... I never owned a
> > > rifle. .... Shelley told me I could leave.
>
> > This is actually an LN exaggeration. According to Fritz, Hosty, &
> > Bookhout, it wasn't that cut & dry.
>
> > Fritz note re O interview: "out with Bill Shelley in front
> > left wk opinion nothing be done that day"
> > Fritz report (WR p600): "I asked why he left the building, & he said
> > there was so much excitement he didn't think there would be any more
> > work done that day... & he thought it would be just as well that he
> > left for the rest of the afternoon"
>
>
> > Hosty-Bookhout report (WR p613): "After hearing what had happened, he
> > said that because of all the confusion there would be no work
> > performed that afternoon so he decided to go home"
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0319a.htm
>
> > Bookhout report (WR p619): O "went outside & stood around for 5 or 10
> > minutes with foreman Bill Shelley, & thereafter went home. He stated
> > that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of Bill
> > Shelley, he did not believe that there was going to be any more work
> > that day...."
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
>
> > Fritz's report & the Hosty-Bookhout report don't even mention
> > Shelley. The Fritz note & the Bookhout report make it pretty clear
> > that (as per O) Shelley was saying to whomever that there probably
> > wouldn't be much work done that afternoon, & O simply seized on that
> > observation as an excuse to leave. Nowhere do Fritz, Hosty or
> > Bookhout state that Oswald said Shelley told him that he could leave.
> > Note: A "+" for Bugliosi, who did NOT exaggerate the issue in his book.
>
> And an "F" for Von Pein, who exaggerates and omits.
Gilly is projecting. Again.
Walt
Oswald is only "invisible " to LNer's..... Honest folks with their
eyes open can see him in several photos that were taken in front of
the TSBD after the shooting. One of the best photos is a color photo
that is seen on page 68 of Robert Groden's "The Killing of a
President" . Oswald, in his brown shirt and dark trousers, can be
seen standing with his hands in his pockets, just to the right of the
center of the photo. Billy Lovelady is just to Oswald's left. This
is a particularly good photo because the viewer can compare Oswald's
brown shirt with Lovelady's maroon shirtand see that it was Oswald who
was standing on the the front steps of the TSBD at the time that
Altgen's anapped the photo of JFK's Lincoln on Elm street.
>
>
>
> > Note: A "+" for Bugliosi, who did NOT exaggerate the issue in his book.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gil Jesus
> One of the best photos is a color photo
> that is seen on page 68 of Robert Groden's �"The Killing of a
> President" . �Oswald, in his brown shirt and dark trousers, can be
> seen standing with his hands in his pockets, just to the right of the
> center of the photo. Billy Lovelady is just to Oswald's left. � This
> is a particularly good photo because the viewer can compare Oswald's
> brown shirt with Lovelady's maroon shirtand see that it was Oswald who
> was standing on the the front steps of the TSBD at the time that
> Altgen's anapped the photo of JFK's Lincoln on Elm street.
That's not Lovelady on page 68.
That guy has a full head of hair.
Lovelady had a bald spot, apparent on page 92.
http://i50.tinypic.com/2e55e6t.jpg
The other guy has his back to the camera.
How you can say with all certainty that that's Oswald is beyond me.
Walt
When did you become a LNer?
j leyden
> > Oswald lied repeatedly about things he would have no reason to lie
> > about if he was innocent. (Curtain rods, anyone? .... I never owned a
> > rifle. .... Shelley told me I could leave.
>
> This is actually an LN exaggeration. �According to Fritz, Hosty, &
> Bookhout, it wasn't that cut & dry.
But Oswald did leave, didn't he. Couldn't get out of the TSBD fast
enough. Imagine that. The President has just been shot in Dealey
Plaza and he could care less. He wanted to catch a second-run movie
in another part of town. Nothing strange about that... if you're a
CT. You guys just keep going in circles.
JGL
dcwi...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 18, 2:03 am, dcwill...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > Oswald lied repeatedly about things he would have no reason to lie
> > > about if he was innocent. (Curtain rods, anyone? .... I never owned a
> > > rifle. .... Shelley told me I could leave.
>
> > This is actually an LN exaggeration. According to Fritz, Hosty, &
> > Bookhout, it wasn't that cut & dry.
>
> But Oswald did leave, didn't he. Couldn't get out of the TSBD fast
> enough. Imagine that. The President has just been shot in Dealey
> Plaza and he could care less. He wanted to catch a second-run movie
> in another part of town. Nothing strange about that... if you're a
> CT. You guys just keep going in circles.
>
> JGL
>
downstairs to eat lunch after the shooting!
Walt
> On Feb 18, 2:03 am, dcwill...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > Oswald lied repeatedly about things he would have no reason to lie
> > > about if he was innocent. (Curtain rods, anyone? .... I never owned a
> > > rifle. .... Shelley told me I could leave.
>
> > This is actually an LN exaggeration. According to Fritz, Hosty, &
> > Bookhout, it wasn't that cut & dry.
>
> But Oswald did leave, didn't he. Couldn't get out of the TSBD fast
> enough. Imagine that. The President has just been shot in Dealey
> Plaza and he could care less. He wanted to catch a second-run movie
> in another part of town. Nothing strange about that... if you're a
> CT.
There are a couple of distinct possibilities, that are good reasons
for LHO to have gone to the Texas theater... But lets get it straight
that neither you nor I know WHY he went to the theater.
You like to pretend he went there to see a "B" movie.... I believe
his haste to get to he theater indicates that he wasn't going to the
theater just to see an old movie. I believe that he thought that he
had an important appointment to keep there in the theater.
However ....According to you LNER's Oswald would have had no way to
know for a fact that JFK had been shot when he left the TSBD. Sure
there were people on the street who were saying that someone had shot
at JFK but very few actually KNEW that he had been hit. So LHO would
have heard that someone had shot at JFK....No big deal in that fact by
itself. He rightly deduced that there wasn't going to be anymore work
done that day, so he decided to take the afternoon off.
You asholes like to assume that he was fleeing the scene....but you
really don't have ANY evidence that he FLED. What kind of an
assassin would calmly stand on the street in front of the TSBD looking
unconcerned and then walk up the street to catch a bus that was headed
right back toward the TSBD?? Only an idiot or a conspiritor would try
to make Oswald's actions seem suspictious.
You guys just keep going in circles.
>
> JGL
>
>
>
>
>
> > Fritz note re O interview: "out with Bill Shelley in front
> > left wk opinion nothing be done that day"
>
> > Fritz report (WR p600): "I asked why he left the building, & he said
> > there was so much excitement he didn't think there would be any more
> > work done that day... & he thought it would be just as well that he
> > left for the rest of the afternoon"
>
> > Hosty-Bookhout report (WR p613): "After hearing what had happened, he
> > said that because of all the confusion there would be no work
> > performed that afternoon so he decided to go home"
>
> > Bookhout report (WR p619): O "went outside & stood around for 5 or 10
> > minutes with foreman Bill Shelley, & thereafter went home. He stated
> > that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of Bill
> > Shelley, he did not believe that there was going to be any more work
> > that day...."
>
> > Fritz's report & the Hosty-Bookhout report don't even mention
> > Shelley. The Fritz note & the Bookhout report make it pretty clear
> > that (as per O) Shelley was saying to whomever that there probably
> > wouldn't be much work done that afternoon, & O simply seized on that
> > observation as an excuse to leave. Nowhere do Fritz, Hosty or
> > Bookhout state that Oswald said Shelley told him that he could leave.
>
j leyden
> And as DVP points out, Frazier cared possibly even lesser, went
> downstairs to eat lunch after the shooting!
>
"even lesser?" But Frazier was not a suspect. LHO was the No. 1
suspect.
JGL
> > > Note: A "+" for Bugliosi, who did NOT exaggerate the issue in his book.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
j leyden
Nonsense, Walt, like most of your posts. Oswald ducked into the Texas
Theater to get off the street and out of sight of police cruisers. He
had just killed Officer Tippit nearby.
JGL
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
>
> > One of the best photos is a color photo
> > that is seen on page 68 of Robert Groden's "The Killing of a
> > President" . Oswald, in his brown shirt and dark trousers, can be
> > seen standing with his hands in his pockets, just to the right of the
> > center of the photo. Billy Lovelady is just to Oswald's left. This
> > is a particularly good photo because the viewer can compare Oswald's
> > brown shirt with Lovelady's maroon shirtand see that it was Oswald who
> > was standing on the the front steps of the TSBD at the time that
> > Altgen's anapped the photo of JFK's Lincoln on Elm street.
>
> That's not Lovelady on page 68.
>
> That guy has a full head of hair.
> Lovelady had a bald spot, apparent on page 92.
I don't know, You may be right ....Lovelady looks heavier than the
guy to Oswald's left. I was looking at the maroon shirt that looks
just like the one Lovelady was wearing that day.
>
> http://i50.tinypic.com/2e55e6t.jpg
>
> The other guy has his back to the camera.
> How you can say with all certainty that that's Oswald is beyond me.
On page 52 of The Search for LHO there is a photo of Oswald standing
with his hands in his pockets ...the exact same posture that is seen
om page 68 of TKOAP.
I'm quite sure that the man seen in the photo on page 68 is in fact
Lee Oswald, just before he left to catch the bus, which he could
easily have seen traveling west on Elm street
by looking to the east toward Lamar street.
dcwi...@yahoo.com
You did such a thorough job coordinating Bugliosi and Bookhout and the
WR, I'm surprised you didn't notice the oddities of that Bookhout
report. Yes, I used it, too, but not without some trepidation:
1) According to Hosty's WC testimony, "the procedure is that when
there are 2 agents involved, they both must approve it, so there can
be no discrepancies." (p468). This procedure was followed with the
joint Hosty-Bookhout report. Not so with the solo Bookhout report on
p619 (WR). Hosty didn't co-sign it. Meanwhile, Bookhout signed the
joint report & thus suggested there were "no discrepancies".
2) Bookhout talked about the joint Hosty-Bookhout report in his WC
testimony, but I believe he did not say one word about the solo
Bookhout report.
3) Bookhout testified that he destroyed his notes "at the time" he
signed off on the joint report 11/23 (p313). The solo Bookhout report
was dictated 11/24. In other words, he had no notes from which to
work on 11/24! He was going solely on memory, and adding things to
the joint report, on 11/24, or...
4) The signed initials for the solo Bookhout report do not quite
match the signed initials for other Bookhout reports--compare with the
signed initials for the 11/23 interview (WR p621) and for the joint
Hosty-Bookhout report re 11/22 (Hosty, "Assignment: Oswald" p257).
Upshot: Bookhout may never have seen that 11/24 report
>
> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/reclaiming-history.html
dcwi...@yahoo.com
> >>> "And an "F" for Von Pein, who exaggerates and omits." <<<
>
> You mean to say I didn't even earn a cookie from you kooks for proving
> that Vincent Bugliosi made a mistake?
Hey! I gave you 4 stars out of 5 at alt.assassination.jfk for your
more reasoned follow-up to your less-reasoned Shelley/Oswald jab.
I should at least get a
> snickerdoodle for that, right Gil-Kook?
>
> Granted, as I pointed out in my last post, it was really more of a
> mistake on the Warren Commission's part, but the fact remains that Jim
> Bookhout's Nov. 22 report confirms that the WC wasn't telling any
> tales out of school on page 182.
But, as I noted elsewhere, there's reason to question Bookhout's 11/24
(not 11/22) report, which is why you didn't get 5 stars. And you've
found other discrepancies--odd, yes, that the WR seems to incorporate
material from the solo Bookhout report, but doesn't footnote it, tho
it includes it in the text. Curiouser and...
dcwi...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 18, 12:08 pm, dcwill...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > And as DVP points out, Frazier cared possibly even lesser, went
> > downstairs to eat lunch after the shooting!
>
> "even lesser?" But Frazier was not a suspect. LHO was the No. 1
> suspect.
We were talking about insouciance, not suspiciousness
Walt
> On Feb 18, 5:30 pm, j leyden <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 12:08 pm, dcwill...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > And as DVP points out, Frazier cared possibly even lesser, went
> > > downstairs to eat lunch after the shooting!
>
> > "even lesser?" But Frazier was not a suspect. LHO was the No. 1
> > suspect.
>
> We were talking about insouciance, not suspiciousness
INSOUCIANCE !! ...... You can't discus that here.... This is a
family group...:-).
Walt
> On Feb 18, 3:40 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> Nonsense, Walt, like most of your posts. Oswald ducked into the Texas
> Theater to get off the street and out of sight of police cruisers. He
> had just killed Officer Tippit nearby.
>
> JGL
Hey Jiggles.... You're FOS ...... Oswald simply didn't have time
enough to travel from the rooming house to the murder scene between
1:04 and 1:06. He was seen by his landlady standingin front of the
rooming house at 1:04. Helen Markham saw Tippit shot to death at 1:06.
There was nearly a mile between the rooming house and the murder
scene. Lee Oswald could not have gotten to the murder scene in two
minutes. He told Captain Fritz that he had decided to go to the
movies at the time he left the TSBD because there wasn't going to be
anymore work done at the TSBD that day. He probably had another
reason for going to the theater but never-the-less he planned to go to
the theater when he left the TSBD. There is a lot of evidence which
refutes the official lie that LHO killed Tippit, not the least of
which is the deadly accuracy of the killer. The autopsy report
indicates that all four bullets were traveling at an upward trajectory
which means the killer fired from the hip. All four shots hit in a
vital area (three in the chest area, and one in the head) ...That kind
of shooting takes a lot of practice. ...and lots of practice requires
lots of ammunition. There isn't a scintilla of evidence that Oswald
ever practiced shooting that worn out old revolver with the sawed off
barrel. Even with lots of practice it's very doubtful that the best
gunslinger in the world could hit that target four times with that
piece of junk revolver.
j leyden
> Hey Jiggles.... You're FOS ...... Oswald simply didn't have time
> enough to travel from the rooming house to the murder scene between
> 1:04 and 1:06. He was seen by his landlady standingin front of the
> rooming house at 1:04. Helen Markham saw Tippit shot to death at 1:06.
> There was nearly a mile between the rooming house and the murder
> scene. Lee Oswald could not have gotten to the murder scene in two
> minutes.
These are settled issues, Walt. Both the WC and HSCA concluded that
Oswald killed Tippit. Numerous witnesses identified him as the gunman
and the cartridge cases found near the scene of the shooting matched
Oswald's pistol "to the exclusion of all other weapons." As Posner
would say, "Case Closed."
JGL
Walt
> On Feb 19, 1:43 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > Hey Jiggles.... You're FOS ...... Oswald simply didn't have time
> > enough to travel from the rooming house to the murder scene between
> > 1:04 and 1:06. He was seen by his landlady standingin front of the
> > rooming house at 1:04. Helen Markham saw Tippit shot to death at 1:06.
> > There was nearly a mile between the rooming house and the murder
> > scene. Lee Oswald could not have gotten to the murder scene in two
> > minutes.
>
> These are settled issues, Walt. Both the WC and HSCA concluded that
> Oswald killed Tippit. Numerous witnesses identified him as the gunman
> and the cartridge cases found near the scene of the shooting matched
> Oswald's pistol "to the exclusion of all other weapons." As Posner
> would say, "Case Closed."
>
> JGL
You're even more FOS..... But if it doesn't bother you to expose
yourself as a gullible idiot, then who am I to stand in your way.
Hitler loved people like you....
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/d7b7b7affb5834c5
GREG SAID:
>>> "David, you have added punctuation [to Captain Fritz's handwritten notes] where there was none in the original." <<<
DVP SAID:
I didn't add a darn thing, Greg. It's a direct copy-&-paste quote from
Bugliosi's book.
Bugliosi didn't add any punctuation either, btw. He merely added
bracketed text for clarification. The Fritz quotes are verbatim
otherwise.
GREG SAID:
>>> "The second floor Baker-Truly-Oswald encounter was a pure fabrication." <<<
DVP SAID:
You're silly.
CHARLES SAID:
>>> "Bookhout (FBI) did not join the interrogation of Oswald by Fritz until 3:15 pm, some 15 minutes after the interrogation started. Bookhout said in the interrogation sessions that he attended, questions and answers were not repeated. When Fritz left the room the interrogation stopped. The notes that Fritz made about the coke, lunch, Shelley, and leaving were made in the first 15 minutes of Oswald's interrogation without the FBI present. During one of Fritz's many interruptions, Bookhout copied Fritz's notes that were taken before the FBI was allowed to join the sessions. During Bookhout's writing of his report, he assumed what the notes meant and then destroyed his notes. That is the reason you do not find Fritz saying in reports or testimony what you wish you could find." <<<
DVP ASKED:
How do you know all this, Charles? Citation please.
And Bookhout supposedly just MADE UP the part about Oswald saying that
he stood outside with Shelley for "5 or 10 minutes"??
Is that what you want to believe--that Bookhout just MADE UP the "5 or
10 minutes" portion of his 11/22/63 report?
Is there ANYBODY connected in any way with this case who wasn't a liar
or a person doing underhanded and/or devious things? Anybody at all?
(Besides a CTer's favorite cop, Roger D. Craig, that is.)
DON WILLIS SAID:
>>> "The FBI interview report [that appears on Page 619 of the WCR] was dated 11/24/63..." <<<
DVP SAID:
It was DICTATED on November 24, yes. But there are TWO other dates on
the document as well -- November 22 (lower left) and November 25
(upper right).
But the November 22 date at the lower left is, IMO, the most important
date, because that is almost certainly the date when FBI agent James
W. Bookhout WROTE THAT REPORT.
It wasn't dictated and typed up into an "official" report until
November 24, true. But the material in the report was certainly
WRITTEN on November 22.
What do you think the November 22 date means here, Donald? Do you
think that date was inserted there for no reason whatsoever?:
WR; Pg. 619 [Bookhout's 11/22/63 Report]:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
DON WILLIS SAID:
>>> "Yeah, even Oswald made some fibs." <<<
DVP SAID [REFERRING TO MY EARLIER POST RE: ROGER CRAIG]:
The (big) difference being:
Lee Oswald had a lot of reasons to lie--he had just murdered two
people.
Roger Craig, OTOH, wasn't a murderer. He was just a big fat liar.
DON WILLIS SAID:
>>> "As noted elsewhere, Bookhout may have had nothing to do with it." <<<
DVP SAID:
You're silly. It's BOOKHOUT'S OWN REPORT, for heaven's sake!
The bottom-line fact that arises to the surface after all this talk
about Bill Shelley and Jim Bookhout's 11/22/63 FBI report is this:
There is positively a SOLID SOURCE for these words that we find on
Page 182 of the Warren Commission Report:
“Oswald told Fritz that after lunch he went outside, talked with
Foreman Bill Shelley for 5 or 10 minutes and then left for home. He
said that he left work because Bill Shelley said that there would be
no more work done that day in the building.”
WR; Pg. 182:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0103b.htm
And that source is James Bookhout's FBI report that appears on Page
619 of the Warren Report (linked earlier).
In other words -- The Warren Commission did NOTHING WRONG and was NOT
MAKING STUFF UP when the Commission wrote what it wrote on Page #182
of its Final Report.
And upon realizing that the Bookhout report was obviously the source
that was being relied upon by the Warren Commission when it wrote
those words on Page 182, I wrote an e-mail to Vince Bugliosi (via his
secretary) on February 18, 2010, to tell him about the Bookhout
report, because Vince couldn't find any specific source for the "Bill
Shelley" and "no more work done that day" portions of Page 182.
===============================================
Subject: JFK Research
Date: 2/18/2010 4:57:30 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton
------------------
Hi Rosemary,
I came across something today that I think Vince Bugliosi might be
interested in seeing. Here's the link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/86653e8a1a6c5243
Thanks.
David Von Pein
===============================================
Subject: Re: JFK Research
Date: 2/18/2010 12:21:25 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Celeste (Newton)
To: David Von Pein
------------------
Hi Dave,
Thanks so much for your e-mail. It was great hearing from you. I'll be
faxing this to Vince and know it will be appreciated. Also, have a
great 2010 (even though there's only about 10 months left.)
Regards, Rosemary
===============================================
j leyden
> You're even more FOS..... But if it doesn't bother you to expose
> yourself as a gullible idiot, then who am I to stand in your way.
> Hitler loved people like you....
>
Poor Walt. Being a CT must be very frustrating. He reposts the same
nonsense a couple of hundred times a month (411 in Dec.) and nobody
pays him the slightest attention. Hence the schoolyard insults and
taunts. But I suspect he's a harmless little man. May kick a stray
dog now and then if it gets in his way but that's about it.
JGL