Sean Murphy's research deserves more

[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?