Sean Murphy's research deserves more

[Bob Prudhomme]

Is it possible Fritz's notes were written during the Oswald interrogation but Fritz had to say they were written later in order not to expose evidence suppression orders?

Not likely. In fact, I once again am having difficulty even comprehending what you are talking about.

I would think that notes taken during the interrogation would make it seem there were no "evidence suppression orders", whatever they are.

Bob, those are the same notes that disappeared with DPD saying they never took them. Do you believe DPD never took any notes on the most important suspect in their history? You are assuring us this did not constitute evidence suppression?


I'm still waiting for an answer to whether or not someone instructed Baker to include the window in the lunch-room door and who exactly that was if Baker never entered? Or told him to fabricate a man on the 4th floor landing? Since you are saying Baker fabricated this report how could that not be evidence of falsification? And since you yourself are saying Baker falsified evidence then why couldn't Fritz have misrepresented the notes?

From the Warren Commission testimony of J.W. Fritz, 1964:

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

Can you think of one logical reason why Fritz would be telling a lie here about not taking notes at the time of the interrogation?

[Albert Doyle]

I'm skeptical about Oswald being PM mostly because it shows the plotters having a total lack of control over the patsy. At the very least, Oswald's handler would have told him a story about needing to hang around inside the building at 12:20-30, maybe in the first floor warehouse where there was a phone. Maybe he was told to wait for a call at 12:25 (the motorcade was running late), and by 12:30, he got tired of waiting and went upstairs to the second floor lunchroom. Or something like that. In any case, you can't have Oswald just wandering around outside where he could be photographed by a dozen people.

I agree. If you look at the overall assassination conspiracy there's an extreme degree of convert control that doesn't exclude the murder of witnesses. The conspiracy involves the guiding of Oswald into the Depository by CIA operatives; Oswald's cooperation in being set-up as a pro-Castro-ite; and a tight covert operation in the Plaza. Why then would they allow the main person in the plot to wander out and expose himself, blowing the plan? Dark Complected Man seems to be a spotter. Barker was a fake Secret Service controller in the Plaza. With this degree of fore-planning and control would it be likely they would then allow the whole operation to be blown by allowing the patsy to stand outside in full view in the portal? It doesn't seem likely. A much more likely place would be the lunch-room where Oswald would be segregated from all potential exposures. So far the evidence puts Oswald in the lunch-room and no witness describes him being right out in front watching the assassination. I think it is what it is.

[Albert Doyle]

Can you think of one logical reason why Fritz would be telling a lie here about not taking notes at the time of the interrogation?

Already have. Because Fritz could not expose the fact DPD personnel had been instructed to subvert evidence from that day. We already know DPD disappeared interview notes that day. Or do you believe their story that they handled a presidential assassin "Texas style", taking no notes?

Could it be that Fritz's notes look like real-time hastily-scribbled notes because they were?

[David Josephs]

Is it possible Fritz's notes were written during the Oswald interrogation but Fritz had to say they were written later in order not to expose evidence suppression orders?

Not likely. In fact, I once again am having difficulty even comprehending what you are talking about.

I would think that notes taken during the interrogation would make it seem there were no "evidence suppression orders", whatever they are.

Bob, those are the same notes that disappeared with DPD saying they never took them. Do you believe DPD never took any notes on the most important suspect in their history? You are assuring us this did not constitute evidence suppression?


I'm still waiting for an answer to whether or not someone instructed Baker to include the window in the lunch-room door and who exactly that was if Baker never entered? Or told him to fabricate a man on the 4th floor landing? Since you are saying Baker fabricated this report how could that not be evidence of falsification? And since you yourself are saying Baker falsified evidence then why couldn't Fritz have misrepresented the notes?

From the Warren Commission testimony of J.W. Fritz, 1964:

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

Can you think of one logical reason why Fritz would be telling a lie here about not taking notes at the time of the interrogation?

Bookout's notes on the interrogation are dated 11/25... Hosty/Bookout report is dated 11/23, SA Clements 11/23, Kelly's notes have no date... Holmes are from 12/17


Then again since I discovered the FBI backdated a report from Sept 64 to Dec 63, who knows....


You ask about Fritz falsifying the notes... I put the notes on one page to see how much was known FACT... they seem pretty true to the facts as they've been presented. There are some conflicts in the Kelly/Holmes reports about how he got to the theater... one says he took a bus all the way there, another he took a bus all the way home first... and then they correct themselves with the taxi ride...

Bookout claims that "out front with Shelley" happens after the coke, after lunch on the 1st floor and THEN out front... btw

I have not seen Sorrels' notes - anyone?

[Bob Prudhomme]

"I'm still waiting for an answer to whether or not someone instructed Baker to include the window in the lunch-room door and who exactly that was if Baker never entered? Or told him to fabricate a man on the 4th floor landing? Since you are saying Baker fabricated this report how could that not be evidence of falsification? And since you yourself are saying Baker falsified evidence then why couldn't Fritz have misrepresented the notes?"

Baker's first day affidavit makes no mention whatsoever of a 2nd floor encounter with Oswald, or anyone else, for that matter. However, the 4th floor encounter, which closely mirrors the 2nd floor encounter, is in this first day statement.

If, in fact, the 2nd floor encounter was a fabrication, wouldn't it be necessary to include such details as the window on the 2nd floor lunch room door? Could someone not supply Baker with such details?

The point of this matter is Baker may very well have ascended the TSBD stairs with Truly, but the available evidence points to this event occurring much later than either Truly's or Baker's testimony would have us believe.

For instance, Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles left the 4th floor immediately after the shots, and should have encountered Baker and Truly at some point, but did not. They also should have heard Oswald on the noisy wooden stairs, but did not.

Ms. Adams DID testify to seeing Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley on the main floor, near the elevators, but this is an impossibility, too, if Ms. Adams' PLUS Shelley's and Lovelady's testimonies are to be believed.

The weak link in this entire chain is the testimony of Shelley and Lovelady. Their first day statements put them re-entering the TSBD almost immediately, while their testimonies have them standing on the TSBD steps for 3-4 minutes following the shots, and then going down to the rail yards and re-entering the TSBD from the rear. Ms. Adams testified that she immediately exited the TSBD by a rear door, upon her arrival on the main floor, and she would have been long gone before Shelley and Lovelady re-entered the rear of the TSBD.

However, this testimony from Shelley and Lovelady presents us with yet another timing problem, as Baker testified to the WC that he entered the front of the TSBD within 20 seconds of the final shot. Shelley and Lovelady are the only witnesses who could recall seeing Baker and Truly entering the front of the TSBD, and they testified to being 25 steps down the Elm St. extension when they observed this event.

If they remained on the TSBD steps for 3-4 minutes, how could they possibly be 25 steps down the Elm St. extension when they saw Baker entering the front of the TSBD?

There are some serious lies being told here, and the fact that several witnesses on the steps who were standing right at the front door could not recall, in questioning by a WC lawyer, seeing a white helmeted motorcycle cop entering the front door of the TSBD, strongly indicates that Baker did NOT enter the front of the TSBD but, rather, ran right past the TSBD front steps and, if he did enter the TSBD, did so by a rear door, and did so much later than he testified.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Can you think of one logical reason why Fritz would be telling a lie here about not taking notes at the time of the interrogation?

Already have. Because Fritz could not expose the fact DPD personnel had been instructed to subvert evidence from that day. We already know DPD disappeared interview notes that day. Or do you believe their story that they handled a presidential assassin "Texas style", taking no notes?

Could it be that Fritz's notes look like real-time hastily-scribbled notes because they were?

Albert

Obviously, you have not taken the time to read Fritz's WC testimony. I highly recommend it, as it is quite revealing, not only about Fritz, but about police practices in general in 1963 Dallas, Texas.

During the course of questioning, Ball continuously asks Fritz for times and dates surrounding events of the assassination, and whether or not Fritz kept notes of these events. It is almost comical to watch Fritz fumble for answers, and it becomes quite apparent, early on, that Fritz did not take any notes at all, at any time during the assassination.

If Fritz was in charge of the interrogation of Oswald, can you really see him putting himself in the subordinate role of note taker? Not in Texas.

If what you are saying is true, and DPD personnel were instructed to subvert evidence from that, don't you have things a little bit backwards here? If first day evidence had to be subverted, wouldn't that mean that any notes Fritz took during the interrogation would be first day evidence and, therefore, had to be subverted and destroyed?

Could it be that Fritz's notes look like real-time hastily-scribbled notes because his first day notes were destroyed and the notes in the possession of the ARRB really were written several days after the assassination, as Fritz testified, and only made to look like real-time hastily-scribbled notes?

[Albert Doyle]

I doubt no notes were taken of Oswald's interrogation. So therefore they were subverting evidence. It isn't surprising in this situation that Fritz would fumble.

I find it unlikely that Baker would dash for the entrance of the Depository and not enter. The act of running towards the structure that is the means of entering the building and not entering is contrary to that action. It could be that Frazier was intimidated at the hospital into not getting involved. Therefore he just might not have been answering any questions about anything when asked about Baker.

[David Josephs]

[quote=Bob Prudhomme]

My responses in BOLD

"I'm still waiting for an answer to whether or not someone instructed Baker to include the window in the lunch-room door and who exactly that was if Baker never entered? Or told him to fabricate a man on the 4th floor landing? Since you are saying Baker fabricated this report how could that not be evidence of falsification? And since you yourself are saying Baker falsified evidence then why couldn't Fritz have misrepresented the notes?"

That's a question that you will never get answered Bob. Never. Three times he mentions his affidavit during his testimony and three times they ignore it and move on. Baker's testimony is from March 20th while Truly was the next week.... BELIN was most certainly aware of Baker's affidavit yet lets Truly do his little dance:

Mr. BELIN. Now, Mr. Truly, you then went up to the third floor with Officer Baker.
Mr. TRULY. We continued on until we reached the fifth floor.
Mr. BELIN. Now, by the way, I have used the name Officer Baker. When did you find out what his name was?
Mr. TRULY. I never did know for sure what his name was until he was down to the building and you were interviewing him last week.
Mr. BELIN. This was on Friday, March 20th

And yes... Somehow Baker is convinced to support the lunchroom story...


Baker's first day affidavit makes no mention whatsoever of a 2nd floor encounter with Oswald, or anyone else, for that matter. However, the 4th floor encounter, which closely mirrors the 2nd floor encounter, is in this first day statement.

If, in fact, the 2nd floor encounter was a fabrication, wouldn't it be necessary to include such details as the window on the 2nd floor lunch room door? Could someone not supply Baker with such details?

The point of this matter is Baker may very well have ascended the TSBD stairs with Truly, but the available evidence points to this event occurring much later than either Truly's or Baker's testimony would have us believe.

For instance, Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles left the 4th floor immediately after the shots, and should have encountered Baker and Truly at some point, but did not. They also should have heard Oswald on the noisy wooden stairs, but did not.

Ms. Adams DID testify to seeing Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley on the main floor, near the elevators, but this is an impossibility, too, if Ms. Adams' PLUS Shelley's and Lovelady's testimonies are to be believed.

The weak link in this entire chain is the testimony of Shelley and Lovelady. Their first day statements put them re-entering the TSBD almost immediately, while their testimonies have them standing on the TSBD steps for 3-4 minutes following the shots, and then going down to the rail yards and re-entering the TSBD from the rear. Ms. Adams testified that she immediately exited the TSBD by a rear door, upon her arrival on the main floor, and she would have been long gone before Shelley and Lovelady re-entered the rear of the TSBD.

However, this testimony from Shelley and Lovelady presents us with yet another timing problem, as Baker testified to the WC that he entered the front of the TSBD within 20 seconds of the final shot. Shelley and Lovelady are the only witnesses who could recall seeing Baker and Truly entering the front of the TSBD, and they testified to being 25 steps down the Elm St. extension when they observed this event.

We do need to consider that some of this was simply bad memory or poor recollection - timing of things are sequence can be very difficult months after the fact... I agree they are both very suspicious and the conflicts abound... yet relying on people to be accurate related to how long things take is not where I'd rest my conclusions. POWELL shows that Adams is not at the window any longer and that was 30 seconds? afterward...

If they remained on the TSBD steps for 3-4 minutes, how could they possibly be 25 steps down the Elm St. extension when they saw Baker entering the front of the TSBD?

There are some serious lies being told here, (DJ !!!) and the fact that several witnesses on the steps who were standing right at the front door could not recall, in questioning by a WC lawyer, seeing a white helmeted motorcycle cop entering the front door of the TSBD, strongly indicates that Baker did NOT enter the front of the TSBD but, rather, ran right past the TSBD front steps and, if he did enter the TSBD, did so by a rear door, and did so much later than he testified

What can't be argued is what the physical evidence offered says... the affidavit and the obvious conflict with the entire lunchroom scene. I know I sound like a broken record but if Armstrong is right, it may have been Lee coming down the stairs and Harvey in the lunchroom... yet then we get the story from Mrs Reid about Oswald in only a T-shirt - so it would have to be LEE who leaves that way.

Mr. BELIN. How did you know the person you saw was Lee Harvey Oswald on the second floor?
Mrs. REID. Because it looked just like him.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the picture with the name Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mrs. REID. Oh, yes.
Mr. BELIN. But you had seen him in the building?
Mrs. REID. Other than that day, sure.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what clothes he had on when you saw him?
Mrs. REID. What he was wearing, he had on a white T-shirt and some kind of wash trousers. What color I couldn't tell you.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit, first 157 and then 158, and I will ask you if either or both look like they might have been the trousers that you saw him wear or can you tell?
Mrs. REID. I just couldn't be positive about that. I would rather not say, because I just cannot.
M[B]r. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over his T-shirt?
Mrs. REID. He did not. He did not have any jacket on. [/B]


This could also be part of the "assisted testimony" to better ID this person as Oswald - and Truly is never asked what the man was wearing... EVERYONE is asked what he was wearing except Truly.

Mr. BELIN - Did you notice what clothes the man was wearing as he came up to you?
Mr. BAKER - At that particular time I was looking at his face, and it seemed to me like he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt.
Anyway, as I noticed him walking away from me, it was kind of dim in there that particular day, and it was hanging out to his side.
Mr. BELIN - Handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 150, would this appear to be anything that you have ever seen before?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I believe that is the shirt that he had on when he came. I wouldn't be sure of that. It seemed to me like that other shirt was a little bit darker than that whenever I saw him in the homicide office there

Mr. BELIN. Could you see Lee Harvey Oswald's hands?
Mr. TRULY. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Could you see--
Mr. TRULY. I am sure I could, yes. I could see most of him, because I was looking in the room on an angle, and they were this way.

Representative FORD. In your description of Oswald to Captain Fritz, did you describe the kind of clothes that Oswald had on that day?
Mr. TRULY. I don't know, sir. No, sir; I just told him his name and where he lived and his telephone number and his age, as 23, and I said 5 feet, 9, about 150 pounds, light brown hair--whatever I picked up off the description there. I did not try to depend on my memory to describe him. I just put down what was on this application blank. That's the reason I called Mr. Aiken, because I did not want to mislead anybody as to a description. I might call a man brown-halted, and he might be blonde.

[Albert Doyle]

That's a question that you will never get answered Bob. Never. Three times he mentions his affidavit during his testimony and three times they ignore it and move on. Baker's testimony is from March 20th while Truly was the next week.... BELIN was most certainly aware of Baker's affidavit yet lets Truly do his little dance:



What can't be argued is what the physical evidence offered says... the affidavit and the obvious conflict with the entire lunchroom scene. I know I sound like a broken record but if Armstrong is right, it may have been Lee coming down the stairs and Harvey in the lunchroom... yet then we get the story from Mrs Reid about Oswald in only a T-shirt - so it would have to be LEE who leaves that way.

If I could respond to what was addressed to Bob - this is what I'm trying to say, is the pressure about seeing two Oswald's would create the need to leave one out and fit the pattern of conflicts in the evidence. They are aware there is a problem and working around it. Truly was the Potemkin minder. If you were going to omit one Oswald it would be the one that was further away.


It fits doesn't it?


And don't forget Carolyn Arnold places Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:25 - making it more likely he was there the whole time.

[David Josephs]

That's a question that you will never get answered Bob. Never. Three times he mentions his affidavit during his testimony and three times they ignore it and move on. Baker's testimony is from March 20th while Truly was the next week.... BELIN was most certainly aware of Baker's affidavit yet lets Truly do his little dance:



What can't be argued is what the physical evidence offered says... the affidavit and the obvious conflict with the entire lunchroom scene. I know I sound like a broken record but if Armstrong is right, it may have been Lee coming down the stairs and Harvey in the lunchroom... yet then we get the story from Mrs Reid about Oswald in only a T-shirt - so it would have to be LEE who leaves that way.

If I could respond to what was addressed to Bob - this is what I'm trying to say, is the pressure about seeing two Oswald's would create the need to leave one out and fit the pattern of conflicts in the evidence. They are aware there is a problem and working around it. Truly was the Potemkin minder. If you were going to omit one Oswald it would be the one that was further away.


It fits doesn't it?


And don't forget Carolyn Arnold places Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:25 - making it more likely he was there the whole time.

Albert - Carolyn places him walking past the front doors on the inside at 12:25... not the lunchroom.

And it would make more sense to place Oswald CLOSER to the 6th floor, not farther away, giving the timing. Walking down the stairs 1-2 flights up is much more incriminating thatn in the lunchroom with the mechanical door closed with a coke in his hand... so they at least tried to lose the Coke... but the man on the stairs in the affidavit is completely eliminated from consideration.

If Prayerman is HARVEY, which is looking more and more likely, the lunchroom thing NEVER HAPPENED and the man in the stairs was indeed LEE.
the lunchroom scene is created to get Oswald from the Prayerman location - and it being impossible he was on the 6th floor, at least in the building. Mrs Reid sees LEE. Craig sees Harvey get into the car since we also know the McWatters bustrip was fabricated as well.