Discussion:
Flash! Latest Heresy! Oswald detained at the front door
(too old to reply)
donald willis
2020-06-27 23:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
stopped him at the front door of the depository, in the vestibule.
Holmes' report on this matter has been dismissed, in part because the
timing would be wrong for someone rushing down from the sixth floor.

But Holmes is the only one of the participants in the Oswald
interrogations who, at least credibly, described the Baker-Oswald
encounter, in a report (on the Sunday interview) and in testimony. (Yes,
Fritz and Bookhout reported, separately, that Oswald said, in the first
interview, that he was stopped on the second floor, but Bookhout had
already negated that factoid when he joined, in a report earlier, with
Hosty in detailing a trip upstairs to the second floor by Oswald to get a
soda--and did NOT mention running into a policeman. Sorry, no do-overs
even for the FBI.)

And the timing might be right for a front-vestibule encounter if Oswald
was rushing down from the FIFTH floor. But Fritz & co. certainly did not
want to entertain THAT idea....

dcw
JUDGE RHINEHOLD
2020-06-28 17:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
stopped him at the front door of the depository, in the vestibule.
Holmes' report on this matter has been dismissed, in part because the
timing would be wrong for someone rushing down from the sixth floor.
But Holmes is the only one of the participants in the Oswald
interrogations who, at least credibly, described the Baker-Oswald
encounter, in a report (on the Sunday interview) and in testimony. (Yes,
Fritz and Bookhout reported, separately, that Oswald said, in the first
interview, that he was stopped on the second floor, but Bookhout had
already negated that factoid when he joined, in a report earlier, with
Hosty in detailing a trip upstairs to the second floor by Oswald to get a
soda--and did NOT mention running into a policeman. Sorry, no do-overs
even for the FBI.)
And the timing might be right for a front-vestibule encounter if Oswald
was rushing down from the FIFTH floor. But Fritz & co. certainly did not
want to entertain THAT idea....
dcw
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
donald willis
2020-06-29 00:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by JUDGE RHINEHOLD
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
stopped him at the front door of the depository, in the vestibule.
Holmes' report on this matter has been dismissed, in part because the
timing would be wrong for someone rushing down from the sixth floor.
But Holmes is the only one of the participants in the Oswald
interrogations who, at least credibly, described the Baker-Oswald
encounter, in a report (on the Sunday interview) and in testimony. (Yes,
Fritz and Bookhout reported, separately, that Oswald said, in the first
interview, that he was stopped on the second floor, but Bookhout had
already negated that factoid when he joined, in a report earlier, with
Hosty in detailing a trip upstairs to the second floor by Oswald to get a
soda--and did NOT mention running into a policeman. Sorry, no do-overs
even for the FBI.)
And the timing might be right for a front-vestibule encounter if Oswald
was rushing down from the FIFTH floor. But Fritz & co. certainly did not
want to entertain THAT idea....
dcw
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
A very reazzzzzzoned response
John Corbett
2020-06-29 00:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
stopped him at the front door of the depository, in the vestibule.
Holmes' report on this matter has been dismissed, in part because the
timing would be wrong for someone rushing down from the sixth floor.
But Holmes is the only one of the participants in the Oswald
interrogations who, at least credibly, described the Baker-Oswald
encounter, in a report (on the Sunday interview) and in testimony. (Yes,
Fritz and Bookhout reported, separately, that Oswald said, in the first
interview, that he was stopped on the second floor, but Bookhout had
already negated that factoid when he joined, in a report earlier, with
Hosty in detailing a trip upstairs to the second floor by Oswald to get a
soda--and did NOT mention running into a policeman. Sorry, no do-overs
even for the FBI.)
And the timing might be right for a front-vestibule encounter if Oswald
was rushing down from the FIFTH floor. But Fritz & co. certainly did not
want to entertain THAT idea....
Oswald told so many provable lies that it would be rather silly to take
his word for anything, even if he did tell Holmes that. It might also be
that Holmes misunderstood where Oswald said he encountered Baker. In any
case, it is much ado about nothing.
donald willis
2020-06-29 14:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
stopped him at the front door of the depository, in the vestibule.
Holmes' report on this matter has been dismissed, in part because the
timing would be wrong for someone rushing down from the sixth floor.
But Holmes is the only one of the participants in the Oswald
interrogations who, at least credibly, described the Baker-Oswald
encounter, in a report (on the Sunday interview) and in testimony. (Yes,
Fritz and Bookhout reported, separately, that Oswald said, in the first
interview, that he was stopped on the second floor, but Bookhout had
already negated that factoid when he joined, in a report earlier, with
Hosty in detailing a trip upstairs to the second floor by Oswald to get a
soda--and did NOT mention running into a policeman. Sorry, no do-overs
even for the FBI.)
And the timing might be right for a front-vestibule encounter if Oswald
was rushing down from the FIFTH floor. But Fritz & co. certainly did not
want to entertain THAT idea....
Oswald told so many provable lies that it would be rather silly to take
his word for anything, even if he did tell Holmes that. It might also be
that Holmes misunderstood where Oswald said he encountered Baker. In any
case, it is much ado about nothing.
He made it very clear in his testimony. And, oddly enough, neither of the
other participants--Fritz & I believe the SS's Kelley--made mention of
this.

dcw
Bud
2020-06-30 03:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
stopped him at the front door of the depository, in the vestibule.
Holmes' report on this matter has been dismissed, in part because the
timing would be wrong for someone rushing down from the sixth floor.
But Holmes is the only one of the participants in the Oswald
interrogations who, at least credibly, described the Baker-Oswald
encounter, in a report (on the Sunday interview) and in testimony. (Yes,
Fritz and Bookhout reported, separately, that Oswald said, in the first
interview, that he was stopped on the second floor, but Bookhout had
already negated that factoid when he joined, in a report earlier, with
Hosty in detailing a trip upstairs to the second floor by Oswald to get a
soda--and did NOT mention running into a policeman. Sorry, no do-overs
even for the FBI.)
And the timing might be right for a front-vestibule encounter if Oswald
was rushing down from the FIFTH floor. But Fritz & co. certainly did not
want to entertain THAT idea....
Oswald told so many provable lies that it would be rather silly to take
his word for anything, even if he did tell Holmes that. It might also be
that Holmes misunderstood where Oswald said he encountered Baker. In any
case, it is much ado about nothing.
He made it very clear in his testimony. And, oddly enough, neither of the
other participants--Fritz & I believe the SS's Kelley--made mention of
this.
dcw
It is in Fritz`s report...

"Mr. Truly had told me that one of the police officers had stopped this
man immediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway, so I
asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he
was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app11.htm

And notes...

"claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in"

http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
donald willis
2020-06-30 10:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
stopped him at the front door of the depository, in the vestibule.
Holmes' report on this matter has been dismissed, in part because the
timing would be wrong for someone rushing down from the sixth floor.
But Holmes is the only one of the participants in the Oswald
interrogations who, at least credibly, described the Baker-Oswald
encounter, in a report (on the Sunday interview) and in testimony. (Yes,
Fritz and Bookhout reported, separately, that Oswald said, in the first
interview, that he was stopped on the second floor, but Bookhout had
already negated that factoid when he joined, in a report earlier, with
Hosty in detailing a trip upstairs to the second floor by Oswald to get a
soda--and did NOT mention running into a policeman. Sorry, no do-overs
even for the FBI.)
And the timing might be right for a front-vestibule encounter if Oswald
was rushing down from the FIFTH floor. But Fritz & co. certainly did not
want to entertain THAT idea....
Oswald told so many provable lies that it would be rather silly to take
his word for anything, even if he did tell Holmes that. It might also be
that Holmes misunderstood where Oswald said he encountered Baker. In any
case, it is much ado about nothing.
He made it very clear in his testimony. And, oddly enough, neither of the
other participants--Fritz & I believe the SS's Kelley--made mention of
this.
dcw
It is in Fritz`s report...
"Mr. Truly had told me that one of the police officers had stopped this
man immediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway, so I
asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he
was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in."
No, it's not in Fritz's report. What you quote concerns the first
interview. Holmes is reporting on a later one, the next day in fact.
Neither Fritz nor Kelley mentions Oswald mentioning the encounter in that
interview.
Post by Bud
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app11.htm
And notes...
"claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in"
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
Again, that concerns the first interview.

dcw
Bud
2020-07-01 02:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
stopped him at the front door of the depository, in the vestibule.
Holmes' report on this matter has been dismissed, in part because the
timing would be wrong for someone rushing down from the sixth floor.
But Holmes is the only one of the participants in the Oswald
interrogations who, at least credibly, described the Baker-Oswald
encounter, in a report (on the Sunday interview) and in testimony. (Yes,
Fritz and Bookhout reported, separately, that Oswald said, in the first
interview, that he was stopped on the second floor, but Bookhout had
already negated that factoid when he joined, in a report earlier, with
Hosty in detailing a trip upstairs to the second floor by Oswald to get a
soda--and did NOT mention running into a policeman. Sorry, no do-overs
even for the FBI.)
And the timing might be right for a front-vestibule encounter if Oswald
was rushing down from the FIFTH floor. But Fritz & co. certainly did not
want to entertain THAT idea....
Oswald told so many provable lies that it would be rather silly to take
his word for anything, even if he did tell Holmes that. It might also be
that Holmes misunderstood where Oswald said he encountered Baker. In any
case, it is much ado about nothing.
He made it very clear in his testimony. And, oddly enough, neither of the
other participants--Fritz & I believe the SS's Kelley--made mention of
this.
dcw
It is in Fritz`s report...
"Mr. Truly had told me that one of the police officers had stopped this
man immediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway, so I
asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he
was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in."
No, it's not in Fritz's report. What you quote concerns the first
interview. Holmes is reporting on a later one, the next day in fact.
Neither Fritz nor Kelley mentions Oswald mentioning the encounter in that
interview.
From Fritz`s report....

"Inasmuch as this report was made from rough notes and memory, it is
entirely possible that one of these question could be in a separate
interview from the one indicated in this report."
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app11.htm
And notes...
"claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in"
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
Again, that concerns the first interview.
dcw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-06-29 00:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
stopped him at the front door of the depository, in the vestibule.
Holmes' report on this matter has been dismissed, in part because the
timing would be wrong for someone rushing down from the sixth floor.
But Holmes is the only one of the participants in the Oswald
interrogations who, at least credibly, described the Baker-Oswald
encounter, in a report (on the Sunday interview) and in testimony. (Yes,
Fritz and Bookhout reported, separately, that Oswald said, in the first
interview, that he was stopped on the second floor, but Bookhout had
already negated that factoid when he joined, in a report earlier, with
Hosty in detailing a trip upstairs to the second floor by Oswald to get a
soda--and did NOT mention running into a policeman. Sorry, no do-overs
even for the FBI.)
And the timing might be right for a front-vestibule encounter if Oswald
was rushing down from the FIFTH floor. But Fritz & co. certainly did not
want to entertain THAT idea....
dcw
Since when do we rely on the second-hand hearsay report of what the
*accused* said to establish the truth of the matter?

We don't.

Elsewhere Oswald is reported as describing his encounter with a person at
the TSBD doorstep (which was most likely a reporter) as a "Secret Service
agent".

It was most likely either Robert MacNeil or Pierce Allman that Oswald
encountered at the front door, not a SS agent.

================

Addendum: We don't have to rely on the word of the accused, or the hearsay
of Holmes, or the recollection of the police officer involved (who was not
familiar with the building) to establish where the encounter took place.
There was another employee of the TSBD who was involved in that encounter,
and who was familiar with the building, and who, as a neutral party had no
reason to fudge the truth of the matter. That person was Roy Truly. And
when we consult his testimony we find the encounter with the policeman
happened on the second floor.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. TRULY. Yes. This is the vestibule, when you first come up the stairs
on the second floor--this is what you will find right there....
...
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. TRULY. I came back to the second floor landing.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. TRULY. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the
lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24.
Mr. BELIN. All right. And I see that there appears to be on the second
floor diagram, a room marked lunchroom.
Mr. TRULY. That is right.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. TRULY. I ran over and looked in this door No. 23.
Mr. BELIN. Through the glass, or was the door open?
Mr. TRULY. I don't know. I think I opened the door. I feel like I did. I
don't remember.
Mr. BELIN. It could have been open or it could have been closed, you do not
remember?
Mr. TRULY. The chances are it was closed.
Mr. BELIN. You thought you opened it?
Mr. TRULY. I think I opened it. I opened the door back and leaned in this
way.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. TRULY. I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the
lunch-room facing Lee Harvey Oswald.
...
Mr. BELIN. ...What did you see or hear the officer say or do?
Mr. TRULY. When I reached there, the officer had his gun pointing at Oswald.
The officer turned this way and said, "This man work here?" And I said,
"Yes."
Mr. BELIN. And then what happened?
Mr. TRULY. Then we left Lee Harvey Oswald immediately and continued to run
up the stairways until we reached the fifth floor.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
== UNQUOTE ==

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes1.htm

Of course you ignore the evidence of Roy Truly's testimony, and go instead
with the *hearsay* account related by Harry Holmes of what the *accused*
said.

That's not the best way to get to the truth of the matter. But then, the
truth of the matter hasn't been established as what you're after.

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2020-06-29 00:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
Post by donald willis
stopped him at the front door of the depository, in the vestibule.
Holmes' report on this matter has been dismissed, in part because the
timing would be wrong for someone rushing down from the sixth floor.
But Holmes is the only one of the participants in the Oswald
interrogations who, at least credibly, described the Baker-Oswald
encounter, in a report (on the Sunday interview) and in testimony. (Yes,
Fritz and Bookhout reported, separately, that Oswald said, in the first
interview, that he was stopped on the second floor, but Bookhout had
already negated that factoid when he joined, in a report earlier, with
Hosty in detailing a trip upstairs to the second floor by Oswald to get a
soda--and did NOT mention running into a policeman. Sorry, no do-overs
even for the FBI.)
I don't think Baker was lying.
Post by donald willis
And the timing might be right for a front-vestibule encounter if Oswald
was rushing down from the FIFTH floor. But Fritz & co. certainly did not
want to entertain THAT idea....
dcw
donald willis
2020-06-29 14:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.

dcw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-06-30 03:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
But Fritz and Bookhout had the same source as Holmes -- the suspect in
custody Oswald. What did I say about that?

Here it is: Since when do we rely on the second-hand hearsay report of
what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the matter?

You're still doing it.

What did Roy Truly say? Was he lying as well? The encounter happened on
the second floor.

Hank
donald willis
2020-06-30 10:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
Of course, there is no "Fritz-Bookhout report". I meant the
Hosty-Bookhout report.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
dcw
But Fritz and Bookhout had the same source as Holmes -- the suspect in
custody Oswald. What did I say about that?
Here it is: Since when do we rely on the second-hand hearsay report of
what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the matter?
You're still doing it.
What did Roy Truly say? Was he lying as well? The encounter happened on
the second floor.
Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-07-01 02:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
Of course, there is no "Fritz-Bookhout report". I meant the
Hosty-Bookhout report.
That's a distinction without a difference, Don.

The points I made still apply, and are still ignored and unaddressed by you. You do this too frequently to be accidental. You address some relatively unimportant point and ignore the heart of the matter entirely.

Here you correct the source of your claim (from "Fritz-Bookhout report" to "Hosty-Bookhout report" (big deal), but the rebuttal to the points you made remain ignored and unaddressed by you.

Again, happens too frequently to be accidental.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
dcw
But Fritz and Bookhout had the same source as Holmes -- the suspect in
custody Oswald. What did I say about that?
Here it is: Since when do we rely on the second-hand hearsay report of
what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the matter?
You're still doing it.
What did Roy Truly say? Was he lying as well? The encounter happened on
the second floor.
Hank
And the points I made continue to be ignored by you.

Hilarious!

Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-07-05 01:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
Of course, there is no "Fritz-Bookhout report". I meant the
Hosty-Bookhout report.
That's a distinction without a difference, Don.
The points I made still apply, and are still ignored and unaddressed by you. You do this too frequently to be accidental. You address some relatively unimportant point and ignore the heart of the matter entirely.
Here you correct the source of your claim (from "Fritz-Bookhout report" to "Hosty-Bookhout report" (big deal), but the rebuttal to the points you made remain ignored and unaddressed by you.
Again, happens too frequently to be accidental.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
dcw
But Fritz and Bookhout had the same source as Holmes -- the suspect in
custody Oswald. What did I say about that?
Here it is: Since when do we rely on the second-hand hearsay report of
what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the matter?
You're still doing it.
What did Roy Truly say? Was he lying as well? The encounter happened on
the second floor.
Hank
And the points I made continue to be ignored by you.
Hilarious!
Hank
When I have to point out repeatedly that Don's points aren't a rebuttal in
any fashion to my arguments and evidence, and Don continues to ignore
them, I am inclined to judge that Don isn't willing to be convinced. He
will continue to ignore anything he cannot rebut, or just call the
witnesses part of the conspiracy or cover-up. In other words, typical
conspiracy theorist behavior exhibited way too frequently on this and
other boards.

Hank
Bud
2020-06-30 03:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...

"Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of
the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he
was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a
Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came
into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there."
JUDGE RHINEHOLD
2020-06-30 10:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
"Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of
the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he
was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a
Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came
into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there."
Oswald was out front wearing Billy Lovelady's shirt.
Anthony Marsh
2020-07-01 13:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
Frit's notes are full of errors. He did not write them DURING the
interrogations. He wrote them later that weekend from memory.
Fritz the Klutz
Post by Bud
"Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of
the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he
was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a
Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came
into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there."
Doesn't make sense that Baker would wait for Oswald to go buy a Coke. He
was in hot pursuit and the door had just closed.
Bud
2020-07-01 20:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
Frit's notes are full of errors. He did not write them DURING the
interrogations.
I believe he did.
Post by Anthony Marsh
He wrote them later that weekend from memory.
Fritz the Klutz
Post by Bud
"Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of
the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he
was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a
Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came
into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there."
Doesn't make sense that Baker would wait for Oswald to go buy a Coke.
It doesn`t make sense for Baker to buy Oswald a Coke.
Post by Anthony Marsh
He
was in hot pursuit
Of Truly?
Post by Anthony Marsh
and the door had just closed.
But before that it had been open.
donald willis
2020-07-02 01:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
Frit's notes are full of errors. He did not write them DURING the
interrogations.
I believe he did.
And I believe that Hosty looked around, during the first interrogation,
and saw that no one else but he was making notes....
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
He wrote them later that weekend from memory.
Fritz the Klutz
Post by Bud
"Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of
the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he
was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a
Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came
into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there."
Doesn't make sense that Baker would wait for Oswald to go buy a Coke.
It doesn`t make sense for Baker to buy Oswald a Coke.
Post by Anthony Marsh
He
was in hot pursuit
Of Truly?
Post by Anthony Marsh
and the door had just closed.
But before that it had been open.
Bud
2020-07-02 12:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
Frit's notes are full of errors. He did not write them DURING the
interrogations.
I believe he did.
And I believe that Hosty looked around, during the first interrogation,
and saw that no one else but he was making notes....
Well, there is a few reasons I believe the notes were taken at the time.

One, they look like they were.

http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm

If I was going to write from memory, they wouldn`t look like this. It
would be a lot neater sitting at a desk. Some of the writing is slanted,
some runs uphill. There would be no reason to abbreviate anything writing
from memory. Some of the times seem too precise (11:26, 11:34).

Also, things there are 7-8 issues that are addressed in the exact same
chronological order as they appear in Bookout`s solo report. This seems
incredibly unlikely to occur by chance.

For these reasons, despite what Hosty and Fritz said about it, my
assessment is that there notes were written at the time of the
interview.
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
He wrote them later that weekend from memory.
Fritz the Klutz
Post by Bud
"Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of
the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he
was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a
Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came
into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there."
Doesn't make sense that Baker would wait for Oswald to go buy a Coke.
It doesn`t make sense for Baker to buy Oswald a Coke.
Post by Anthony Marsh
He
was in hot pursuit
Of Truly?
Post by Anthony Marsh
and the door had just closed.
But before that it had been open.
donald willis
2020-07-03 01:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
Frit's notes are full of errors. He did not write them DURING the
interrogations.
I believe he did.
And I believe that Hosty looked around, during the first interrogation,
and saw that no one else but he was making notes....
Well, there is a few reasons I believe the notes were taken at the time.
One, they look like they were.
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
If I was going to write from memory, they wouldn`t look like this. It
would be a lot neater sitting at a desk. Some of the writing is slanted,
some runs uphill. There would be no reason to abbreviate anything writing
from memory. Some of the times seem too precise (11:26, 11:34).
Also, things there are 7-8 issues that are addressed in the exact same
chronological order as they appear in Bookout`s solo report. This seems
incredibly unlikely to occur by chance.
Strange that Bookhout's solo report mirrors Fritz's notes more closely
than it does the Hosty-Bookhout report! In other words, he agrees with
Fritz more than he agrees with hiself!

dcw
Bud
2020-07-03 14:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
Frit's notes are full of errors. He did not write them DURING the
interrogations.
I believe he did.
And I believe that Hosty looked around, during the first interrogation,
and saw that no one else but he was making notes....
Well, there is a few reasons I believe the notes were taken at the time.
One, they look like they were.
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
If I was going to write from memory, they wouldn`t look like this. It
would be a lot neater sitting at a desk. Some of the writing is slanted,
some runs uphill. There would be no reason to abbreviate anything writing
from memory. Some of the times seem too precise (11:26, 11:34).
Also, things there are 7-8 issues that are addressed in the exact same
chronological order as they appear in Bookout`s solo report. This seems
incredibly unlikely to occur by chance.
Strange that Bookhout's solo report mirrors Fritz's notes more closely
than it does the Hosty-Bookhout report!
Bookout`s solo report being so heavily corroborated by Fritz`s notes
makes that the stronger evidence. Plus your imagination doesn`t have to
run wild inventing fantastic possibilities to account for any
discrepancies that might exist. Of course that would take all the fun out
of your hobby.
Post by donald willis
In other words, he agrees with
Fritz more than he agrees with hiself!
Who wrote Bookout`s solo report if not Bookout?
Post by donald willis
dcw
donald willis
2020-07-04 03:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
Frit's notes are full of errors. He did not write them DURING the
interrogations.
I believe he did.
And I believe that Hosty looked around, during the first interrogation,
and saw that no one else but he was making notes....
Well, there is a few reasons I believe the notes were taken at the time.
One, they look like they were.
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
If I was going to write from memory, they wouldn`t look like this. It
would be a lot neater sitting at a desk. Some of the writing is slanted,
some runs uphill. There would be no reason to abbreviate anything writing
from memory. Some of the times seem too precise (11:26, 11:34).
Also, things there are 7-8 issues that are addressed in the exact same
chronological order as they appear in Bookout`s solo report. This seems
incredibly unlikely to occur by chance.
Strange that Bookhout's solo report mirrors Fritz's notes more closely
than it does the Hosty-Bookhout report!
Bookout`s solo report being so heavily corroborated by Fritz`s notes
makes that the stronger evidence.
On the premise that two liars are stronger than one liar, eh?

Plus your imagination doesn`t have to
Post by Bud
run wild inventing fantastic possibilities to account for any
discrepancies that might exist. Of course that would take all the fun out
of your hobby.
Post by donald willis
In other words, he agrees with
Fritz more than he agrees with hiself!
Who wrote Bookout`s solo report if not Bookout?
Who is this "Bookout" you speak about? Apparently someone renown for
checking books out of a library....

dcw
Bud
2020-07-04 13:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
Frit's notes are full of errors. He did not write them DURING the
interrogations.
I believe he did.
And I believe that Hosty looked around, during the first interrogation,
and saw that no one else but he was making notes....
Well, there is a few reasons I believe the notes were taken at the time.
One, they look like they were.
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
If I was going to write from memory, they wouldn`t look like this. It
would be a lot neater sitting at a desk. Some of the writing is slanted,
some runs uphill. There would be no reason to abbreviate anything writing
from memory. Some of the times seem too precise (11:26, 11:34).
Also, things there are 7-8 issues that are addressed in the exact same
chronological order as they appear in Bookout`s solo report. This seems
incredibly unlikely to occur by chance.
Strange that Bookhout's solo report mirrors Fritz's notes more closely
than it does the Hosty-Bookhout report!
Bookout`s solo report being so heavily corroborated by Fritz`s notes
makes that the stronger evidence.
On the premise that two liars are stronger than one liar, eh?
You can imagine anything you like, Don. Free country and all that.
Post by donald willis
Plus your imagination doesn`t have to
Post by Bud
run wild inventing fantastic possibilities to account for any
discrepancies that might exist. Of course that would take all the fun out
of your hobby.
Post by donald willis
In other words, he agrees with
Fritz more than he agrees with hiself!
Who wrote Bookout`s solo report if not Bookout?
Who is this "Bookout" you speak about? Apparently someone renown for
checking books out of a library....
dcw
donald willis
2020-07-04 18:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
Frit's notes are full of errors. He did not write them DURING the
interrogations.
I believe he did.
And I believe that Hosty looked around, during the first interrogation,
and saw that no one else but he was making notes....
Well, there is a few reasons I believe the notes were taken at the time.
One, they look like they were.
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
If I was going to write from memory, they wouldn`t look like this. It
would be a lot neater sitting at a desk. Some of the writing is slanted,
some runs uphill. There would be no reason to abbreviate anything writing
from memory. Some of the times seem too precise (11:26, 11:34).
Also, things there are 7-8 issues that are addressed in the exact same
chronological order as they appear in Bookout`s solo report. This seems
incredibly unlikely to occur by chance.
Strange that Bookhout's solo report mirrors Fritz's notes more closely
than it does the Hosty-Bookhout report!
Bookout`s solo report being so heavily corroborated by Fritz`s notes
makes that the stronger evidence.
On the premise that two liars are stronger than one liar, eh?
You can imagine anything you like, Don. Free country and all that.
Let me append another, more well known example of two officers
"corroborating" each other re a well-known lie: DPD Sgt. Henslee listed
the wrong officers as the sender of the 1:41 "auto 38" transmission; DPD
Sgt. Hill told the Commission that someone else must have sent the
transmission. Later, he admitted that HE had sent it, thus confirming the
joint lie of the two officers.

Fritz & Bookhout similarly "corroborate" each other on a lie.

Free country, yes--ignore official malfeasance if you wish....

dcw
Bud
2020-07-05 01:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
Frit's notes are full of errors. He did not write them DURING the
interrogations.
I believe he did.
And I believe that Hosty looked around, during the first interrogation,
and saw that no one else but he was making notes....
Well, there is a few reasons I believe the notes were taken at the time.
One, they look like they were.
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
If I was going to write from memory, they wouldn`t look like this. It
would be a lot neater sitting at a desk. Some of the writing is slanted,
some runs uphill. There would be no reason to abbreviate anything writing
from memory. Some of the times seem too precise (11:26, 11:34).
Also, things there are 7-8 issues that are addressed in the exact same
chronological order as they appear in Bookout`s solo report. This seems
incredibly unlikely to occur by chance.
Strange that Bookhout's solo report mirrors Fritz's notes more closely
than it does the Hosty-Bookhout report!
Bookout`s solo report being so heavily corroborated by Fritz`s notes
makes that the stronger evidence.
On the premise that two liars are stronger than one liar, eh?
You can imagine anything you like, Don. Free country and all that.
Let me append another, more well known example of two officers
"corroborating" each other re a well-known lie: DPD Sgt. Henslee listed
the wrong officers as the sender of the 1:41 "auto 38" transmission; DPD
Sgt. Hill told the Commission that someone else must have sent the
transmission. Later, he admitted that HE had sent it, thus confirming the
joint lie of the two officers.
Fritz & Bookhout similarly "corroborate" each other on a lie.
Free country, yes--ignore official malfeasance if you wish....
dcw
Imagine official malfeasance if you wish....
donald willis
2020-07-05 14:07:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
Frit's notes are full of errors. He did not write them DURING the
interrogations.
I believe he did.
And I believe that Hosty looked around, during the first interrogation,
and saw that no one else but he was making notes....
Well, there is a few reasons I believe the notes were taken at the time.
One, they look like they were.
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
If I was going to write from memory, they wouldn`t look like this. It
would be a lot neater sitting at a desk. Some of the writing is slanted,
some runs uphill. There would be no reason to abbreviate anything writing
from memory. Some of the times seem too precise (11:26, 11:34).
Also, things there are 7-8 issues that are addressed in the exact same
chronological order as they appear in Bookout`s solo report. This seems
incredibly unlikely to occur by chance.
Strange that Bookhout's solo report mirrors Fritz's notes more closely
than it does the Hosty-Bookhout report!
Bookout`s solo report being so heavily corroborated by Fritz`s notes
makes that the stronger evidence.
On the premise that two liars are stronger than one liar, eh?
You can imagine anything you like, Don. Free country and all that.
Let me append another, more well known example of two officers
"corroborating" each other re a well-known lie: DPD Sgt. Henslee listed
the wrong officers as the sender of the 1:41 "auto 38" transmission; DPD
Sgt. Hill told the Commission that someone else must have sent the
transmission. Later, he admitted that HE had sent it, thus confirming the
joint lie of the two officers.
Fritz & Bookhout similarly "corroborate" each other on a lie.
Free country, yes--ignore official malfeasance if you wish....
dcw
Imagine official malfeasance if you wish....
You're so trusting.
Bud
2020-07-06 00:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
Frit's notes are full of errors. He did not write them DURING the
interrogations.
I believe he did.
And I believe that Hosty looked around, during the first interrogation,
and saw that no one else but he was making notes....
Well, there is a few reasons I believe the notes were taken at the time.
One, they look like they were.
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
If I was going to write from memory, they wouldn`t look like this. It
would be a lot neater sitting at a desk. Some of the writing is slanted,
some runs uphill. There would be no reason to abbreviate anything writing
from memory. Some of the times seem too precise (11:26, 11:34).
Also, things there are 7-8 issues that are addressed in the exact same
chronological order as they appear in Bookout`s solo report. This seems
incredibly unlikely to occur by chance.
Strange that Bookhout's solo report mirrors Fritz's notes more closely
than it does the Hosty-Bookhout report!
Bookout`s solo report being so heavily corroborated by Fritz`s notes
makes that the stronger evidence.
On the premise that two liars are stronger than one liar, eh?
You can imagine anything you like, Don. Free country and all that.
Let me append another, more well known example of two officers
"corroborating" each other re a well-known lie: DPD Sgt. Henslee listed
the wrong officers as the sender of the 1:41 "auto 38" transmission; DPD
Sgt. Hill told the Commission that someone else must have sent the
transmission. Later, he admitted that HE had sent it, thus confirming the
joint lie of the two officers.
Fritz & Bookhout similarly "corroborate" each other on a lie.
Free country, yes--ignore official malfeasance if you wish....
dcw
Imagine official malfeasance if you wish....
You're so trusting.
I`m just not playing the silly games you are. You see some discrepancy
and you think that allows you to imagine any fantastic thing that pops
into your head. And you can do that if you like, it is a free country.

It seems to me that post nonsense and then challenge other people to try
to dissuade you of the nonsense you have decided to believe. I`m ok with
you believing nonsense, I just occasionally post some reasonable things
for context.
Anthony Marsh
2020-07-06 20:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
Frit's notes are full of errors. He did not write them DURING the
interrogations.
I believe he did.
And I believe that Hosty looked around, during the first interrogation,
and saw that no one else but he was making notes....
Well, there is a few reasons I believe the notes were taken at the time.
One, they look like they were.
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
If I was going to write from memory, they wouldn`t look like this. It
would be a lot neater sitting at a desk. Some of the writing is slanted,
some runs uphill. There would be no reason to abbreviate anything writing
from memory. Some of the times seem too precise (11:26, 11:34).
Also, things there are 7-8 issues that are addressed in the exact same
chronological order as they appear in Bookout`s solo report. This seems
incredibly unlikely to occur by chance.
Strange that Bookhout's solo report mirrors Fritz's notes more closely
than it does the Hosty-Bookhout report!
Bookout`s solo report being so heavily corroborated by Fritz`s notes
makes that the stronger evidence.
On the premise that two liars are stronger than one liar, eh?
You can imagine anything you like, Don. Free country and all that.
Let me append another, more well known example of two officers
"corroborating" each other re a well-known lie: DPD Sgt. Henslee listed
the wrong officers as the sender of the 1:41 "auto 38" transmission; DPD
Sgt. Hill told the Commission that someone else must have sent the
transmission. Later, he admitted that HE had sent it, thus confirming the
joint lie of the two officers.
Fritz & Bookhout similarly "corroborate" each other on a lie.
Free country, yes--ignore official malfeasance if you wish....
dcw
Imagine official malfeasance if you wish....
You're so trusting.
I`m just not playing the silly games you are. You see some discrepancy
and you think that allows you to imagine any fantastic thing that pops
into your head. And you can do that if you like, it is a free country.
It seems to me that post nonsense and then challenge other people to try
to dissuade you of the nonsense you have decided to believe. I`m ok with
you believing nonsense, I just occasionally post some reasonable things
for context.
But YOU don't see any discrepancy, because you refuse to look at the
evidence.
John Corbett
2020-07-07 22:31:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
Frit's notes are full of errors. He did not write them DURING the
interrogations.
I believe he did.
And I believe that Hosty looked around, during the first interrogation,
and saw that no one else but he was making notes....
Well, there is a few reasons I believe the notes were taken at the time.
One, they look like they were.
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
If I was going to write from memory, they wouldn`t look like this. It
would be a lot neater sitting at a desk. Some of the writing is slanted,
some runs uphill. There would be no reason to abbreviate anything writing
from memory. Some of the times seem too precise (11:26, 11:34).
Also, things there are 7-8 issues that are addressed in the exact same
chronological order as they appear in Bookout`s solo report. This seems
incredibly unlikely to occur by chance.
Strange that Bookhout's solo report mirrors Fritz's notes more closely
than it does the Hosty-Bookhout report!
Bookout`s solo report being so heavily corroborated by Fritz`s notes
makes that the stronger evidence.
On the premise that two liars are stronger than one liar, eh?
You can imagine anything you like, Don. Free country and all that.
Let me append another, more well known example of two officers
"corroborating" each other re a well-known lie: DPD Sgt. Henslee listed
the wrong officers as the sender of the 1:41 "auto 38" transmission; DPD
Sgt. Hill told the Commission that someone else must have sent the
transmission. Later, he admitted that HE had sent it, thus confirming the
joint lie of the two officers.
Fritz & Bookhout similarly "corroborate" each other on a lie.
Free country, yes--ignore official malfeasance if you wish....
dcw
Imagine official malfeasance if you wish....
You're so trusting.
I`m just not playing the silly games you are. You see some discrepancy
and you think that allows you to imagine any fantastic thing that pops
into your head. And you can do that if you like, it is a free country.
It seems to me that post nonsense and then challenge other people to try
to dissuade you of the nonsense you have decided to believe. I`m ok with
you believing nonsense, I just occasionally post some reasonable things
for context.
But YOU don't see any discrepancy, because you refuse to look at the
evidence.
We see the discrepancies. Discrepancies are not evidence of malfeasance.
They are evidence of humans being human. To make the case for conspiracy,
you have to move beyond the occasional discrepancy in the various accounts
and find real evidence that someone other than Oswald took part in the
crime. Got any? Didn't think so.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-07-06 14:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
Frit's notes are full of errors. He did not write them DURING the
interrogations.
I believe he did.
And I believe that Hosty looked around, during the first interrogation,
and saw that no one else but he was making notes....
Well, there is a few reasons I believe the notes were taken at the time.
One, they look like they were.
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
If I was going to write from memory, they wouldn`t look like this. It
would be a lot neater sitting at a desk. Some of the writing is slanted,
some runs uphill. There would be no reason to abbreviate anything writing
from memory. Some of the times seem too precise (11:26, 11:34).
Also, things there are 7-8 issues that are addressed in the exact same
chronological order as they appear in Bookout`s solo report. This seems
incredibly unlikely to occur by chance.
Strange that Bookhout's solo report mirrors Fritz's notes more closely
than it does the Hosty-Bookhout report!
Bookout`s solo report being so heavily corroborated by Fritz`s notes
makes that the stronger evidence.
On the premise that two liars are stronger than one liar, eh?
You can imagine anything you like, Don. Free country and all that.
Let me append another, more well known example of two officers
"corroborating" each other re a well-known lie: DPD Sgt. Henslee listed
the wrong officers as the sender of the 1:41 "auto 38" transmission; DPD
Sgt. Hill told the Commission that someone else must have sent the
transmission. Later, he admitted that HE had sent it, thus confirming the
joint lie of the two officers.
Let's grant fo the moment for the sake of argument that Henslee and Hill
got together to cover up Hill's gaffe.
Post by donald willis
Fritz & Bookhout similarly "corroborate" each other on a lie.
How does Henslee's and Hill's lie - which I'm granting for the sake of
argument - establish two other people lied?

I could apply that "logic" to anyone anywhere. Jack and Jill lied, so that
establishes Hansel and Gretel lied, too. Why are you stopping here with
Bookhout and Fritz? Can we not use your "logic" to allege everyone,
everywhere lied? And not just in this case. We can use your "logic" to
allege everything is a lie. That's where your "logic" logically takes
you.

Your "logic" does not compute, Don.
Post by donald willis
Free country, yes--ignore official malfeasance if you wish....
If you could prove official malfeasance instead of just alleging it you
might win some converts. But your arguments fall apart upon inspection.

Hank
John Corbett
2020-07-07 22:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
Frit's notes are full of errors. He did not write them DURING the
interrogations.
I believe he did.
And I believe that Hosty looked around, during the first interrogation,
and saw that no one else but he was making notes....
Well, there is a few reasons I believe the notes were taken at the time.
One, they look like they were.
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
If I was going to write from memory, they wouldn`t look like this. It
would be a lot neater sitting at a desk. Some of the writing is slanted,
some runs uphill. There would be no reason to abbreviate anything writing
from memory. Some of the times seem too precise (11:26, 11:34).
Also, things there are 7-8 issues that are addressed in the exact same
chronological order as they appear in Bookout`s solo report. This seems
incredibly unlikely to occur by chance.
Strange that Bookhout's solo report mirrors Fritz's notes more closely
than it does the Hosty-Bookhout report!
Bookout`s solo report being so heavily corroborated by Fritz`s notes
makes that the stronger evidence.
On the premise that two liars are stronger than one liar, eh?
You can imagine anything you like, Don. Free country and all that.
Let me append another, more well known example of two officers
"corroborating" each other re a well-known lie: DPD Sgt. Henslee listed
the wrong officers as the sender of the 1:41 "auto 38" transmission; DPD
Sgt. Hill told the Commission that someone else must have sent the
transmission. Later, he admitted that HE had sent it, thus confirming the
joint lie of the two officers.
Let's grant fo the moment for the sake of argument that Henslee and Hill
got together to cover up Hill's gaffe.
Post by donald willis
Fritz & Bookhout similarly "corroborate" each other on a lie.
How does Henslee's and Hill's lie - which I'm granting for the sake of
argument - establish two other people lied?
I could apply that "logic" to anyone anywhere. Jack and Jill lied, so that
establishes Hansel and Gretel lied, too.
I never did believe Hansel and Gretel. They killed an old blind woman by
shoving her into an oven, then made up a story about her being a witch.
donald willis
2020-07-08 00:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Nonsense, Bookout`s report is corroborated time and time again by Fritz`s
notes, including this...
Frit's notes are full of errors. He did not write them DURING the
interrogations.
I believe he did.
And I believe that Hosty looked around, during the first interrogation,
and saw that no one else but he was making notes....
Well, there is a few reasons I believe the notes were taken at the time.
One, they look like they were.
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm
If I was going to write from memory, they wouldn`t look like this. It
would be a lot neater sitting at a desk. Some of the writing is slanted,
some runs uphill. There would be no reason to abbreviate anything writing
from memory. Some of the times seem too precise (11:26, 11:34).
Also, things there are 7-8 issues that are addressed in the exact same
chronological order as they appear in Bookout`s solo report. This seems
incredibly unlikely to occur by chance.
Strange that Bookhout's solo report mirrors Fritz's notes more closely
than it does the Hosty-Bookhout report!
Bookout`s solo report being so heavily corroborated by Fritz`s notes
makes that the stronger evidence.
On the premise that two liars are stronger than one liar, eh?
You can imagine anything you like, Don. Free country and all that.
Let me append another, more well known example of two officers
"corroborating" each other re a well-known lie: DPD Sgt. Henslee listed
the wrong officers as the sender of the 1:41 "auto 38" transmission; DPD
Sgt. Hill told the Commission that someone else must have sent the
transmission. Later, he admitted that HE had sent it, thus confirming the
joint lie of the two officers.
Let's grant fo the moment for the sake of argument that Henslee and Hill
got together to cover up Hill's gaffe.
You don't have to "grant" anything here. Henslee & Hill both palmed the
"auto 38" transmission off on others, different "others", but others.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Fritz & Bookhout similarly "corroborate" each other on a lie.
How does Henslee's and Hill's lie - which I'm granting for the sake of
argument - establish two other people lied?
Did not mean to say that it "established" that Fritz & Bookhout lied.
Just saying that "corroboration" does not necessarily establish truth.
But continue on your rant....

dcw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-07-02 12:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Oswald did NOT have the coke in his hand at that time.

What part of my question above "Since when do we rely on the second-hand
hearsay report of what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the
matter?" did you not understand?

We still don't.

The source of the claim about the Coke comes from Oswald. The source of
the claim about going upstairs for a Coke comes from Oswald.

Roy Truly and Officer Baker had a different claim:
No mention of a Coke in Baker;'s 11/22/63 affidavit:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
== QUOTE ==
As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the
stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward
me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the
man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man
approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a
light brown jacket.
== UNQUOTE ==

Here's the only mention of a Coke in Baker's testimony, not in Oswald's
hand:
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN - All right. I see a coke machine off on the left. When you saw
Oswald after you got to this doorway inside the lunchroom, had he gone as
far as the coke machine?
Mr. BAKER - I didn't notice the coke machine or any item in the room there
All I was looking at was the man, and he seemed to be approximately 20 feet
down there from me.
== UNQUOTE ==

Nothing about Oswald holding a bottle of soda, pop, or Coke.

Roy Truly specifically eliminates the Coke from Oswald's hand in his
testimony:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. DULLES. When you, and the officer saw Oswald in the luncheon room. did
any words pass between you?
Mr. TRULY. No. The officer said something to the boy.
Mr. DULLES. I mean between you and Oswald.
Mr. TRULY. No, sir. Oswald never said a word. Not to me.
Mr. DULLES. What was he doing?
Mr. TRULY. He was just standing there.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have a coke?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. DULLES. No drink?
Mr. TRULY. No drink at all. Just standing there.
== UNQUOTE ==

But you're a conspiracy theorist, so you ignore the testimony (the
evidence which would be admissible in this case) and instead go to the
hearsay report of what the suspect in custody said. Of course you do.
Without crediting the hearsay claims of the accused man in custody (who
provably lied about a number of germane points to the investigators) you
don't have an argument.

You're reduced to crediting the words of a known liar to make an argument.
You lose.

Hank
donald willis
2020-07-03 01:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Oswald did NOT have the coke in his hand at that time.
What part of my question above "Since when do we rely on the second-hand
hearsay report of what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the
matter?" did you not understand?
We still don't.
The source of the claim about the Coke comes from Oswald.
No, the sources are Fritz's and Bookhout's notes & solo report, which
agree with each other, but not with the Hosty-Bookhout report, which does
not mention a police officer. The Coke-in-hand assertions are the lies of
Fritz & Bookhout. You may argue, if you want, that Hosty heard Oswald say
that he went up to get a soda, but somehow missed hearing that Oswald ran
into a policeman. Strangely selective hearing that omits the more
important detail! And Bookhout apparently agreed with Hosty's version
since he signed off on it. Bookhout 2.0 was a liar....

dcw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-07-04 03:19:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Oswald did NOT have the coke in his hand at that time.
What part of my question above "Since when do we rely on the second-hand
hearsay report of what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the
matter?" did you not understand?
We still don't.
The source of the claim about the Coke comes from Oswald.
No, the sources are Fritz's and Bookhout's notes & solo report, which
agree with each other, but not with the Hosty-Bookhout report, which does
not mention a police officer. The Coke-in-hand assertions are the lies of
Fritz & Bookhout. You may argue, if you want, that Hosty heard Oswald say
that he went up to get a soda, but somehow missed hearing that Oswald ran
into a policeman. Strangely selective hearing that omits the more
important detail!
It's a hearsay report of what the suspect says. We have better evidence in
the actual testimony of the officer involved and the words of the other
employee of the Depository, Roy Truly. The encounter happened. You are
dwelling on minutiae of everyday life and wondering why no two accounts
agree.
Post by donald willis
And Bookhout apparently agreed with Hosty's version
since he signed off on it. Bookhout 2.0 was a liar....
Not sure what you think he was lying about. Or what you're getting worked
up about. Officer Baker and Roy Truly affirmed they ran into Oswald in the
second floor lunchroom. Oswald is noted as admitting to it in some of the
LEO's memoranda for the record.

The fact that someone out of a multitude failed to note it isn't very
important in the scheme of things. Except for someone who worships at the
altar of the God of the Gaps.

Hank
donald willis
2020-07-04 12:51:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Oswald did NOT have the coke in his hand at that time.
What part of my question above "Since when do we rely on the second-hand
hearsay report of what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the
matter?" did you not understand?
We still don't.
The source of the claim about the Coke comes from Oswald.
No, the sources are Fritz's and Bookhout's notes & solo report, which
agree with each other, but not with the Hosty-Bookhout report, which does
not mention a police officer. The Coke-in-hand assertions are the lies of
Fritz & Bookhout. You may argue, if you want, that Hosty heard Oswald say
that he went up to get a soda, but somehow missed hearing that Oswald ran
into a policeman. Strangely selective hearing that omits the more
important detail!
It's a hearsay report of what the suspect says.
That's all we've got.

dcw

We have better evidence in
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
the actual testimony of the officer involved and the words of the other
employee of the Depository, Roy Truly. The encounter happened. You are
dwelling on minutiae of everyday life and wondering why no two accounts
agree.
Post by donald willis
And Bookhout apparently agreed with Hosty's version
since he signed off on it. Bookhout 2.0 was a liar....
Not sure what you think he was lying about. Or what you're getting worked
up about. Officer Baker and Roy Truly affirmed they ran into Oswald in the
second floor lunchroom. Oswald is noted as admitting to it in some of the
LEO's memoranda for the record.
The fact that someone out of a multitude failed to note it isn't very
important in the scheme of things. Except for someone who worships at the
altar of the God of the Gaps.
Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-07-05 01:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Oswald did NOT have the coke in his hand at that time.
What part of my question above "Since when do we rely on the second-hand
hearsay report of what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the
matter?" did you not understand?
We still don't.
The source of the claim about the Coke comes from Oswald.
No, the sources are Fritz's and Bookhout's notes & solo report, which
agree with each other, but not with the Hosty-Bookhout report, which does
not mention a police officer. The Coke-in-hand assertions are the lies of
Fritz & Bookhout. You may argue, if you want, that Hosty heard Oswald say
that he went up to get a soda, but somehow missed hearing that Oswald ran
into a policeman. Strangely selective hearing that omits the more
important detail!
It's a hearsay report of what the suspect says.
That's all we've got.
No, that's untrue.

We've got the direct testimony of both Roy Truly and Officer Marion Baker.

You can stick with the hearsay because without it, you don't have an
argument.

I'm fine sticking with the admissible evidence.
Post by donald willis
We have better evidence in
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
the actual testimony of the officer involved and the words of the other
employee of the Depository, Roy Truly. The encounter happened. You are
dwelling on minutiae of everyday life and wondering why no two accounts
agree.
DON IGNORED THIS!
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
And Bookhout apparently agreed with Hosty's version
since he signed off on it. Bookhout 2.0 was a liar....
Not sure what you think he was lying about. Or what you're getting worked
up about. Officer Baker and Roy Truly affirmed they ran into Oswald in the
second floor lunchroom. Oswald is noted as admitting to it in some of the
LEO's memoranda for the record.
The fact that someone out of a multitude failed to note it isn't very
important in the scheme of things. Except for someone who worships at the
altar of the God of the Gaps.
DON IGNORED THIS!
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Hank
donald willis
2020-07-05 14:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Oswald did NOT have the coke in his hand at that time.
What part of my question above "Since when do we rely on the second-hand
hearsay report of what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the
matter?" did you not understand?
We still don't.
The source of the claim about the Coke comes from Oswald.
No, the sources are Fritz's and Bookhout's notes & solo report, which
agree with each other, but not with the Hosty-Bookhout report, which does
not mention a police officer. The Coke-in-hand assertions are the lies of
Fritz & Bookhout. You may argue, if you want, that Hosty heard Oswald say
that he went up to get a soda, but somehow missed hearing that Oswald ran
into a policeman. Strangely selective hearing that omits the more
important detail!
It's a hearsay report of what the suspect says.
That's all we've got.
No, that's untrue.
We've got the direct testimony of both Roy Truly and Officer Marion Baker.
I'm talking about what Oswald supposedly said. We have only hearsay re
what he said happened upstairs (or on the first floor).
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You can stick with the hearsay because without it, you don't have an
argument.
I'm fine sticking with the admissible evidence.
Post by donald willis
We have better evidence in
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
the actual testimony of the officer involved and the words of the other
employee of the Depository, Roy Truly. The encounter happened. You are
dwelling on minutiae of everyday life and wondering why no two accounts
agree.
DON IGNORED THIS!
But, as I said, we DON'T have the testimony or observations of Oswald
himself, only Oswald as filtered through Fritz & Bookhout & Kelley &
Holmes. He did not, himself, second, or third, the words of Baker &
Truly.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
And Bookhout apparently agreed with Hosty's version
since he signed off on it. Bookhout 2.0 was a liar....
Not sure what you think he was lying about. Or what you're getting worked
up about. Officer Baker and Roy Truly affirmed they ran into Oswald in the
second floor lunchroom. Oswald is noted as admitting to it in some of the
LEO's memoranda for the record.
The fact that someone out of a multitude failed to note it isn't very
important in the scheme of things. Except for someone who worships at the
altar of the God of the Gaps.
DON IGNORED THIS!
Oh, my God! Ignored something spoken by the Supreme High Master of the
Universe, Hank S! Unthinkable!

dcw
Bud
2020-07-06 00:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Oswald did NOT have the coke in his hand at that time.
What part of my question above "Since when do we rely on the second-hand
hearsay report of what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the
matter?" did you not understand?
We still don't.
The source of the claim about the Coke comes from Oswald.
No, the sources are Fritz's and Bookhout's notes & solo report, which
agree with each other, but not with the Hosty-Bookhout report, which does
not mention a police officer. The Coke-in-hand assertions are the lies of
Fritz & Bookhout. You may argue, if you want, that Hosty heard Oswald say
that he went up to get a soda, but somehow missed hearing that Oswald ran
into a policeman. Strangely selective hearing that omits the more
important detail!
It's a hearsay report of what the suspect says.
That's all we've got.
No, that's untrue.
We've got the direct testimony of both Roy Truly and Officer Marion Baker.
I'm talking about what Oswald supposedly said. We have only hearsay re
what he said happened upstairs (or on the first floor).
Hearsay corroborated by multiple people who sat in on the interviews, Truly, Baker, and indirectly, Mrs Reid.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You can stick with the hearsay because without it, you don't have an
argument.
I'm fine sticking with the admissible evidence.
Post by donald willis
We have better evidence in
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
the actual testimony of the officer involved and the words of the other
employee of the Depository, Roy Truly. The encounter happened. You are
dwelling on minutiae of everyday life and wondering why no two accounts
agree.
DON IGNORED THIS!
But, as I said, we DON'T have the testimony or observations of Oswald
himself, only Oswald as filtered through Fritz & Bookhout & Kelley &
Holmes. He did not, himself, second, or third, the words of Baker &
Truly.
But when looked at on the whole, it becomes clear that Oswald did say
that he was confronted in the second floor lunchroom by Baker, just as
Truly and Baker said had happened.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
And Bookhout apparently agreed with Hosty's version
since he signed off on it. Bookhout 2.0 was a liar....
Not sure what you think he was lying about. Or what you're getting worked
up about. Officer Baker and Roy Truly affirmed they ran into Oswald in the
second floor lunchroom. Oswald is noted as admitting to it in some of the
LEO's memoranda for the record.
The fact that someone out of a multitude failed to note it isn't very
important in the scheme of things. Except for someone who worships at the
altar of the God of the Gaps.
DON IGNORED THIS!
Oh, my God! Ignored something spoken by the Supreme High Master of the
Universe, Hank S! Unthinkable!
If you are going to ignore challenges to your ideas, perhaps the best
course is for people to ignore your ideas.
Post by donald willis
dcw
donald willis
2020-07-06 17:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Oswald did NOT have the coke in his hand at that time.
What part of my question above "Since when do we rely on the second-hand
hearsay report of what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the
matter?" did you not understand?
We still don't.
The source of the claim about the Coke comes from Oswald.
No, the sources are Fritz's and Bookhout's notes & solo report, which
agree with each other, but not with the Hosty-Bookhout report, which does
not mention a police officer. The Coke-in-hand assertions are the lies of
Fritz & Bookhout. You may argue, if you want, that Hosty heard Oswald say
that he went up to get a soda, but somehow missed hearing that Oswald ran
into a policeman. Strangely selective hearing that omits the more
important detail!
It's a hearsay report of what the suspect says.
That's all we've got.
No, that's untrue.
We've got the direct testimony of both Roy Truly and Officer Marion Baker.
I'm talking about what Oswald supposedly said. We have only hearsay re
what he said happened upstairs (or on the first floor).
Hearsay corroborated by multiple people who sat in on the interviews, Truly, Baker, and indirectly, Mrs Reid.
Nonetheless, hearsay.
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You can stick with the hearsay because without it, you don't have an
argument.
I'm fine sticking with the admissible evidence.
Post by donald willis
We have better evidence in
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
the actual testimony of the officer involved and the words of the other
employee of the Depository, Roy Truly. The encounter happened. You are
dwelling on minutiae of everyday life and wondering why no two accounts
agree.
DON IGNORED THIS!
But, as I said, we DON'T have the testimony or observations of Oswald
himself, only Oswald as filtered through Fritz & Bookhout & Kelley &
Holmes. He did not, himself, second, or third, the words of Baker &
Truly.
But when looked at on the whole, it becomes clear that Oswald did say
that he was confronted in the second floor lunchroom by Baker, just as
Truly and Baker said had happened.
Hearsay.
Post by Bud
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
And Bookhout apparently agreed with Hosty's version
since he signed off on it. Bookhout 2.0 was a liar....
Not sure what you think he was lying about. Or what you're getting worked
up about. Officer Baker and Roy Truly affirmed they ran into Oswald in the
second floor lunchroom. Oswald is noted as admitting to it in some of the
LEO's memoranda for the record.
The fact that someone out of a multitude failed to note it isn't very
important in the scheme of things. Except for someone who worships at the
altar of the God of the Gaps.
DON IGNORED THIS!
Oh, my God! Ignored something spoken by the Supreme High Master of the
Universe, Hank S! Unthinkable!
If you are going to ignore challenges to your ideas, perhaps the best
course is for people to ignore your ideas.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Mark
2020-07-06 03:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Oswald did NOT have the coke in his hand at that time.
What part of my question above "Since when do we rely on the second-hand
hearsay report of what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the
matter?" did you not understand?
We still don't.
The source of the claim about the Coke comes from Oswald.
No, the sources are Fritz's and Bookhout's notes & solo report, which
agree with each other, but not with the Hosty-Bookhout report, which does
not mention a police officer. The Coke-in-hand assertions are the lies of
Fritz & Bookhout. You may argue, if you want, that Hosty heard Oswald say
that he went up to get a soda, but somehow missed hearing that Oswald ran
into a policeman. Strangely selective hearing that omits the more
important detail!
It's a hearsay report of what the suspect says.
That's all we've got.
No, that's untrue.
We've got the direct testimony of both Roy Truly and Officer Marion Baker.
I'm talking about what Oswald supposedly said. We have only hearsay re
what he said happened upstairs (or on the first floor).
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You can stick with the hearsay because without it, you don't have an
argument.
I'm fine sticking with the admissible evidence.
Post by donald willis
We have better evidence in
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
the actual testimony of the officer involved and the words of the other
employee of the Depository, Roy Truly. The encounter happened. You are
dwelling on minutiae of everyday life and wondering why no two accounts
agree.
DON IGNORED THIS!
But, as I said, we DON'T have the testimony or observations of Oswald
himself, only Oswald as filtered through Fritz & Bookhout & Kelley &
Holmes. He did not, himself, second, or third, the words of Baker &
Truly.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
And Bookhout apparently agreed with Hosty's version
since he signed off on it. Bookhout 2.0 was a liar....
Not sure what you think he was lying about. Or what you're getting worked
up about. Officer Baker and Roy Truly affirmed they ran into Oswald in the
second floor lunchroom. Oswald is noted as admitting to it in some of the
LEO's memoranda for the record.
The fact that someone out of a multitude failed to note it isn't very
important in the scheme of things. Except for someone who worships at the
altar of the God of the Gaps.
DON IGNORED THIS!
Oh, my God! Ignored something spoken by the Supreme High Master of the
Universe, Hank S! Unthinkable!
dcw
Whoa. Donald's frustration is showing again. His posts are getting
thrashed, and Hank, Bud, B.D., Steve and others are on a roll on this
thread and others. Mark
donald willis
2020-07-06 17:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Oswald did NOT have the coke in his hand at that time.
What part of my question above "Since when do we rely on the second-hand
hearsay report of what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the
matter?" did you not understand?
We still don't.
The source of the claim about the Coke comes from Oswald.
No, the sources are Fritz's and Bookhout's notes & solo report, which
agree with each other, but not with the Hosty-Bookhout report, which does
not mention a police officer. The Coke-in-hand assertions are the lies of
Fritz & Bookhout. You may argue, if you want, that Hosty heard Oswald say
that he went up to get a soda, but somehow missed hearing that Oswald ran
into a policeman. Strangely selective hearing that omits the more
important detail!
It's a hearsay report of what the suspect says.
That's all we've got.
No, that's untrue.
We've got the direct testimony of both Roy Truly and Officer Marion Baker.
I'm talking about what Oswald supposedly said. We have only hearsay re
what he said happened upstairs (or on the first floor).
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You can stick with the hearsay because without it, you don't have an
argument.
I'm fine sticking with the admissible evidence.
Post by donald willis
We have better evidence in
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
the actual testimony of the officer involved and the words of the other
employee of the Depository, Roy Truly. The encounter happened. You are
dwelling on minutiae of everyday life and wondering why no two accounts
agree.
DON IGNORED THIS!
But, as I said, we DON'T have the testimony or observations of Oswald
himself, only Oswald as filtered through Fritz & Bookhout & Kelley &
Holmes. He did not, himself, second, or third, the words of Baker &
Truly.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
And Bookhout apparently agreed with Hosty's version
since he signed off on it. Bookhout 2.0 was a liar....
Not sure what you think he was lying about. Or what you're getting worked
up about. Officer Baker and Roy Truly affirmed they ran into Oswald in the
second floor lunchroom. Oswald is noted as admitting to it in some of the
LEO's memoranda for the record.
The fact that someone out of a multitude failed to note it isn't very
important in the scheme of things. Except for someone who worships at the
altar of the God of the Gaps.
DON IGNORED THIS!
Oh, my God! Ignored something spoken by the Supreme High Master of the
Universe, Hank S! Unthinkable!
dcw
Whoa. Donald's frustration is showing again. His posts are getting
thrashed, and Hank, Bud, B.D., Steve and others are on a roll on this
thread and others. Mark
Isn't it pretty to think so?
Mark
2020-07-06 20:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Mark
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Oswald did NOT have the coke in his hand at that time.
What part of my question above "Since when do we rely on the second-hand
hearsay report of what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the
matter?" did you not understand?
We still don't.
The source of the claim about the Coke comes from Oswald.
No, the sources are Fritz's and Bookhout's notes & solo report, which
agree with each other, but not with the Hosty-Bookhout report, which does
not mention a police officer. The Coke-in-hand assertions are the lies of
Fritz & Bookhout. You may argue, if you want, that Hosty heard Oswald say
that he went up to get a soda, but somehow missed hearing that Oswald ran
into a policeman. Strangely selective hearing that omits the more
important detail!
It's a hearsay report of what the suspect says.
That's all we've got.
No, that's untrue.
We've got the direct testimony of both Roy Truly and Officer Marion Baker.
I'm talking about what Oswald supposedly said. We have only hearsay re
what he said happened upstairs (or on the first floor).
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You can stick with the hearsay because without it, you don't have an
argument.
I'm fine sticking with the admissible evidence.
Post by donald willis
We have better evidence in
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
the actual testimony of the officer involved and the words of the other
employee of the Depository, Roy Truly. The encounter happened. You are
dwelling on minutiae of everyday life and wondering why no two accounts
agree.
DON IGNORED THIS!
But, as I said, we DON'T have the testimony or observations of Oswald
himself, only Oswald as filtered through Fritz & Bookhout & Kelley &
Holmes. He did not, himself, second, or third, the words of Baker &
Truly.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
And Bookhout apparently agreed with Hosty's version
since he signed off on it. Bookhout 2.0 was a liar....
Not sure what you think he was lying about. Or what you're getting worked
up about. Officer Baker and Roy Truly affirmed they ran into Oswald in the
second floor lunchroom. Oswald is noted as admitting to it in some of the
LEO's memoranda for the record.
The fact that someone out of a multitude failed to note it isn't very
important in the scheme of things. Except for someone who worships at the
altar of the God of the Gaps.
DON IGNORED THIS!
Oh, my God! Ignored something spoken by the Supreme High Master of the
Universe, Hank S! Unthinkable!
dcw
Whoa. Donald's frustration is showing again. His posts are getting
thrashed, and Hank, Bud, B.D., Steve and others are on a roll on this
thread and others. Mark
Isn't it pretty to think so?
I see sarcasm is not one of your strengths, Donald. Mark
donald willis
2020-07-08 00:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by donald willis
Post by Mark
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Oswald did NOT have the coke in his hand at that time.
What part of my question above "Since when do we rely on the second-hand
hearsay report of what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the
matter?" did you not understand?
We still don't.
The source of the claim about the Coke comes from Oswald.
No, the sources are Fritz's and Bookhout's notes & solo report, which
agree with each other, but not with the Hosty-Bookhout report, which does
not mention a police officer. The Coke-in-hand assertions are the lies of
Fritz & Bookhout. You may argue, if you want, that Hosty heard Oswald say
that he went up to get a soda, but somehow missed hearing that Oswald ran
into a policeman. Strangely selective hearing that omits the more
important detail!
It's a hearsay report of what the suspect says.
That's all we've got.
No, that's untrue.
We've got the direct testimony of both Roy Truly and Officer Marion Baker.
I'm talking about what Oswald supposedly said. We have only hearsay re
what he said happened upstairs (or on the first floor).
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You can stick with the hearsay because without it, you don't have an
argument.
I'm fine sticking with the admissible evidence.
Post by donald willis
We have better evidence in
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
the actual testimony of the officer involved and the words of the other
employee of the Depository, Roy Truly. The encounter happened. You are
dwelling on minutiae of everyday life and wondering why no two accounts
agree.
DON IGNORED THIS!
But, as I said, we DON'T have the testimony or observations of Oswald
himself, only Oswald as filtered through Fritz & Bookhout & Kelley &
Holmes. He did not, himself, second, or third, the words of Baker &
Truly.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
And Bookhout apparently agreed with Hosty's version
since he signed off on it. Bookhout 2.0 was a liar....
Not sure what you think he was lying about. Or what you're getting worked
up about. Officer Baker and Roy Truly affirmed they ran into Oswald in the
second floor lunchroom. Oswald is noted as admitting to it in some of the
LEO's memoranda for the record.
The fact that someone out of a multitude failed to note it isn't very
important in the scheme of things. Except for someone who worships at the
altar of the God of the Gaps.
DON IGNORED THIS!
Oh, my God! Ignored something spoken by the Supreme High Master of the
Universe, Hank S! Unthinkable!
dcw
Whoa. Donald's frustration is showing again. His posts are getting
thrashed, and Hank, Bud, B.D., Steve and others are on a roll on this
thread and others. Mark
Isn't it pretty to think so?
I see sarcasm is not one of your strengths, Donald. Mark
Those were Hemingway's words, not mine, though you may think them
misapplied here. I don't.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-07-06 14:26:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Oswald did NOT have the coke in his hand at that time.
What part of my question above "Since when do we rely on the second-hand
hearsay report of what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the
matter?" did you not understand?
We still don't.
The source of the claim about the Coke comes from Oswald.
No, the sources are Fritz's and Bookhout's notes & solo report, which
agree with each other, but not with the Hosty-Bookhout report, which does
not mention a police officer. The Coke-in-hand assertions are the lies of
Fritz & Bookhout. You may argue, if you want, that Hosty heard Oswald say
that he went up to get a soda, but somehow missed hearing that Oswald ran
into a policeman. Strangely selective hearing that omits the more
important detail!
It's a hearsay report of what the suspect says.
That's all we've got.
No, that's untrue.
We've got the direct testimony of both Roy Truly and Officer Marion Baker.
I'm talking about what Oswald supposedly said. We have only hearsay re
what he said happened upstairs (or on the first floor).
So why are you excluding the direct testimony of a law enforcement officer
and the direct testimony of Roy Truly, the man who hired Oswald?

That testimony is *evidence*, Don. The hearsay you cite is not evidence.

And we go back to my original question, which you never did respond to.

Here it is again. I have no doubt you will ignore it once more:

== QUOTE ==
Since when do we rely on the second-hand hearsay report of what the
*accused* said to establish the truth of the matter?
== UNQUOTE ==
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You can stick with the hearsay because without it, you don't have an
argument.
I'm fine sticking with the admissible evidence.
Post by donald willis
We have better evidence in
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
the actual testimony of the officer involved and the words of the other
employee of the Depository, Roy Truly. The encounter happened. You are
dwelling on minutiae of everyday life and wondering why no two accounts
agree.
DON IGNORED THIS!
But, as I said, we DON'T have the testimony or observations of Oswald
himself, only Oswald as filtered through Fritz & Bookhout & Kelley &
Holmes. He did not, himself, second, or third, the words of Baker &
Truly.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
And Bookhout apparently agreed with Hosty's version
since he signed off on it. Bookhout 2.0 was a liar....
Not sure what you think he was lying about. Or what you're getting worked
up about. Officer Baker and Roy Truly affirmed they ran into Oswald in the
second floor lunchroom. Oswald is noted as admitting to it in some of the
LEO's memoranda for the record.
The fact that someone out of a multitude failed to note it isn't very
important in the scheme of things. Except for someone who worships at the
altar of the God of the Gaps.
DON IGNORED THIS!
Oh, my God! Ignored something spoken by the Supreme High Master of the
Universe, Hank S! Unthinkable!
Sorry, Don. An appeal to ridicule is still a logical fallacy.

You clearly have no reasoned rebuttal for the points you ignore.

Try responding to the points I make, not ignoring them and then ridiculing
me for pointing out you ignored them.

Hank
donald willis
2020-07-08 00:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Oswald did NOT have the coke in his hand at that time.
What part of my question above "Since when do we rely on the second-hand
hearsay report of what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the
matter?" did you not understand?
We still don't.
The source of the claim about the Coke comes from Oswald.
No, the sources are Fritz's and Bookhout's notes & solo report, which
agree with each other, but not with the Hosty-Bookhout report, which does
not mention a police officer. The Coke-in-hand assertions are the lies of
Fritz & Bookhout. You may argue, if you want, that Hosty heard Oswald say
that he went up to get a soda, but somehow missed hearing that Oswald ran
into a policeman. Strangely selective hearing that omits the more
important detail!
It's a hearsay report of what the suspect says.
That's all we've got.
No, that's untrue.
We've got the direct testimony of both Roy Truly and Officer Marion Baker.
I'm talking about what Oswald supposedly said. We have only hearsay re
what he said happened upstairs (or on the first floor).
So why are you excluding the direct testimony of a law enforcement officer
and the direct testimony of Roy Truly, the man who hired Oswald?
To clarify: All I'm saying is that Oswald himself is not on record as
endorsing the 2nd-floor encounter. All we have are others putting him on
the 2nd floor with Baker.

dcw
donald willis
2020-07-04 13:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Oswald did NOT have the coke in his hand at that time.
What part of my question above "Since when do we rely on the second-hand
hearsay report of what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the
matter?" did you not understand?
We still don't.
The source of the claim about the Coke comes from Oswald.
No, the sources are Fritz's and Bookhout's notes & solo report, which
agree with each other, but not with the Hosty-Bookhout report, which does
not mention a police officer. The Coke-in-hand assertions are the lies of
Fritz & Bookhout. You may argue, if you want, that Hosty heard Oswald say
that he went up to get a soda, but somehow missed hearing that Oswald ran
into a policeman. Strangely selective hearing that omits the more
important detail!
It's a hearsay report of what the suspect says. We have better evidence in
the actual testimony of the officer involved and the words of the other
employee of the Depository, Roy Truly. The encounter happened. You are
dwelling on minutiae of everyday life and wondering why no two accounts
agree.
Post by donald willis
And Bookhout apparently agreed with Hosty's version
since he signed off on it. Bookhout 2.0 was a liar....
Not sure what you think he was lying about.
That Oswald said that a cop stopped him in the 2nd-floor lunchroom, an
incident not mentioned in Hosty-Bookhout.

Or what you're getting worked
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
up about. Officer Baker and Roy Truly affirmed they ran into Oswald in the
second floor lunchroom. Oswald is noted as admitting to it in some of the
LEO's memoranda for the record.
What officers' memos? I'm willing to be convinced....

dcw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-07-05 01:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
I don't want to be mean and say tha he was deliberately lying.
Let's just say he was comfused.
I WILL say that Fritz & the Bookhout of the solo report WERE lying. The
latter had already signed on to the Fritz-Bookhout report, which had
Oswald NOT running into a cop when he went up to get a soda.
dcw
Oswald did NOT have the coke in his hand at that time.
What part of my question above "Since when do we rely on the second-hand
hearsay report of what the *accused* said to establish the truth of the
matter?" did you not understand?
We still don't.
The source of the claim about the Coke comes from Oswald.
No, the sources are Fritz's and Bookhout's notes & solo report, which
agree with each other, but not with the Hosty-Bookhout report, which does
not mention a police officer. The Coke-in-hand assertions are the lies of
Fritz & Bookhout. You may argue, if you want, that Hosty heard Oswald say
that he went up to get a soda, but somehow missed hearing that Oswald ran
into a policeman. Strangely selective hearing that omits the more
important detail!
It's a hearsay report of what the suspect says. We have better evidence in
the actual testimony of the officer involved and the words of the other
employee of the Depository, Roy Truly. The encounter happened. You are
dwelling on minutiae of everyday life and wondering why no two accounts
agree.
Post by donald willis
And Bookhout apparently agreed with Hosty's version
since he signed off on it. Bookhout 2.0 was a liar....
Not sure what you think he was lying about.
That Oswald said that a cop stopped him in the 2nd-floor lunchroom, an
incident not mentioned in Hosty-Bookhout.
Again, it was mentioned by both Roy Truly and Officer Baker, a fact you're
more than willing, apparently, to go to your grave ignoring.
Post by donald willis
Or what you're getting worked
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
up about. Officer Baker and Roy Truly affirmed they ran into Oswald in the
second floor lunchroom. Oswald is noted as admitting to it in some of the
LEO's memoranda for the record.
What officers' memos? I'm willing to be convinced....
Captain Fritz asks Oswald where he was when stopped by the officer, Oswald
says "second floor".
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0312b.htm

James Bookhout says Oswald admitted he was on the second floor when
stopped by the police officer:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

Harry Holmes: Says Oswald says he went "downstairs" (floor unstated) when
the policeman stopped him and Truly vouched for him:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0330b.htm

There is also the testimony of Roy Truly stating the encounter happened
on the second floor:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. TRULY. I came back to the second floor landing.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. TRULY. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the
lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24...
Mr. BELIN.What did you see or hear the officer say or do?
Mr. TRULY. When I reached there, the officer had his gun pointing at
Oswald. The officer turned this way and said, "This man work here?" And I
said, "Yes."

== UNQUOTE ==

And Officer Baker, who describes the SAME incident this way:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BAKER - And as soon as I saw him, I caught a glimpse of him and I ran
over there and opened that door and hollered at him Representative
BOGGS -Right.
Mr. DULLES - He had not seen you up to that point probably?
Mr. BAKER - I don't know whether he had or not.
Representative BOGGS -He came up to you?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; and when I hollered at him he turned around and
walked back to me.
Representative BOGGS -Right close to you?
Mr. BAKER - And we were right here at this position 24, right here in this
doorway.
Representative BOGGS -Right. What did you say to him?
Mr. BAKER - I didn't get anything out of him. Mr. Truly had come up to my
side here, and I turned to Mr. Truly and I says, "Do you know this man,
does he work here?" And he said yes, and I turned immediately and went on
out up the stairs.

== UNQUOTE ==

You say you're willing to be convinced, but I doubt that highly.

You will find fault with the statements of all five men.

Watch

Hank
John Corbett
2020-07-04 18:20:35 UTC
Permalink
You are dwelling on minutiae of everyday life and wondering why no two accounts
agree.
That in a nutshell sums up the flaw in Don's approach to evidence. He
treats every mundane anomaly as if it is an earth shaking revelation. He
fails to appreciate that such inconsistencies are a normal part of
everyday life.
Steven M. Galbraith
2020-07-05 01:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
You are dwelling on minutiae of everyday life and wondering why no two accounts
agree.
That in a nutshell sums up the flaw in Don's approach to evidence. He
treats every mundane anomaly as if it is an earth shaking revelation. He
fails to appreciate that such inconsistencies are a normal part of
everyday life.
If he presented evidence *supporting* his view that these were more than
just failed recollections or the confusion of people in a shocking event,
that there was a plan behind them, then we would have something to
discuss.

But whenever we ask him for this supporting evidence - When was this
scripted out? Why did they do this? Who ordered and directed this? - we
get silence.

MAYBE there was something more than just the usual failings of human
memory, of ordinary confusion of people thrown into a bewildering event.
But he hasn't presented evidence for any.
InsideSparta
2020-06-30 10:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
stopped him at the front door of the depository, in the vestibule.
Holmes' report on this matter has been dismissed, in part because the
timing would be wrong for someone rushing down from the sixth floor.
But Holmes is the only one of the participants in the Oswald
interrogations who, at least credibly, described the Baker-Oswald
encounter, in a report (on the Sunday interview) and in testimony. (Yes,
Fritz and Bookhout reported, separately, that Oswald said, in the first
interview, that he was stopped on the second floor, but Bookhout had
already negated that factoid when he joined, in a report earlier, with
Hosty in detailing a trip upstairs to the second floor by Oswald to get a
soda--and did NOT mention running into a policeman. Sorry, no do-overs
even for the FBI.)
And the timing might be right for a front-vestibule encounter if Oswald
was rushing down from the FIFTH floor. But Fritz & co. certainly did not
want to entertain THAT idea....
dcw
What "vestibule" would that be? The only vestibule Oswald was in on
11/22/63 was the one connected to the 2nd floor lunchroom.
donald willis
2020-07-01 02:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by InsideSparta
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
stopped him at the front door of the depository, in the vestibule.
Holmes' report on this matter has been dismissed, in part because the
timing would be wrong for someone rushing down from the sixth floor.
But Holmes is the only one of the participants in the Oswald
interrogations who, at least credibly, described the Baker-Oswald
encounter, in a report (on the Sunday interview) and in testimony. (Yes,
Fritz and Bookhout reported, separately, that Oswald said, in the first
interview, that he was stopped on the second floor, but Bookhout had
already negated that factoid when he joined, in a report earlier, with
Hosty in detailing a trip upstairs to the second floor by Oswald to get a
soda--and did NOT mention running into a policeman. Sorry, no do-overs
even for the FBI.)
And the timing might be right for a front-vestibule encounter if Oswald
was rushing down from the FIFTH floor. But Fritz & co. certainly did not
want to entertain THAT idea....
dcw
What "vestibule" would that be? The only vestibule Oswald was in on
11/22/63 was the one connected to the 2nd floor lunchroom.
So you believe the report(s) that Oswald went out the back way.
Otherwise, he would have to have been, however briefly, in the front-exit
vestibule.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-07-01 02:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
stopped him at the front door of the depository, in the vestibule.
Holmes' report on this matter has been dismissed, in part because the
timing would be wrong for someone rushing down from the sixth floor.
But Holmes is the only one of the participants in the Oswald
interrogations who, at least credibly, described the Baker-Oswald
encounter, in a report (on the Sunday interview) and in testimony. (Yes,
Fritz and Bookhout reported, separately, that Oswald said, in the first
interview, that he was stopped on the second floor, but Bookhout had
already negated that factoid when he joined, in a report earlier, with
Hosty in detailing a trip upstairs to the second floor by Oswald to get a
soda--and did NOT mention running into a policeman. Sorry, no do-overs
even for the FBI.)
And the timing might be right for a front-vestibule encounter if Oswald
was rushing down from the FIFTH floor. But Fritz & co. certainly did not
want to entertain THAT idea....
dcw
Reposting because Don pretended this was never posted:

Since when do we rely on the second-hand hearsay report of what the
*accused* said to establish the truth of the matter?

We don't.

Elsewhere Oswald is reported as describing his encounter with a person at
the TSBD doorstep (which was most likely a reporter) as a "Secret Service
agent".

It was most likely either Robert MacNeil or Pierce Allman that Oswald
encountered at the front door, not a SS agent.

================

Addendum: We don't have to rely on the word of the accused, or the hearsay
of Holmes, or the recollection of the police officer involved (who was not
familiar with the building) to establish where the encounter took place.
There was another employee of the TSBD who was involved in that encounter,
and who was familiar with the building, and who, as a neutral party had no
reason to fudge the truth of the matter. That person was Roy Truly. And
when we consult his testimony we find the encounter with the policeman
happened on the second floor.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. TRULY. Yes. This is the vestibule, when you first come up the stairs
on the second floor--this is what you will find right there....
...
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. TRULY. I came back to the second floor landing.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. TRULY. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the
lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24.
Mr. BELIN. All right. And I see that there appears to be on the second
floor diagram, a room marked lunchroom.
Mr. TRULY. That is right.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. TRULY. I ran over and looked in this door No. 23.
Mr. BELIN. Through the glass, or was the door open?
Mr. TRULY. I don't know. I think I opened the door. I feel like I did. I
don't remember.
Mr. BELIN. It could have been open or it could have been closed, you do not
remember?
Mr. TRULY. The chances are it was closed.
Mr. BELIN. You thought you opened it?
Mr. TRULY. I think I opened it. I opened the door back and leaned in this
way.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. TRULY. I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the
lunch-room facing Lee Harvey Oswald.
...
Mr. BELIN. ...What did you see or hear the officer say or do?
Mr. TRULY. When I reached there, the officer had his gun pointing at Oswald.
The officer turned this way and said, "This man work here?" And I said,
"Yes."
Mr. BELIN. And then what happened?
Mr. TRULY. Then we left Lee Harvey Oswald immediately and continued to run
up the stairways until we reached the fifth floor.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
== UNQUOTE ==

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes1.htm

Of course you ignore the evidence of Roy Truly's testimony, and go instead
with the *hearsay* account related by Harry Holmes of what the *accused*
said.

That's not the best way to get to the truth of the matter. But then, the
truth of the matter hasn't been established as what you're after.

Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-07-05 01:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Postal Inspector Holmes testified that Oswald said that a policeman had
stopped him at the front door of the depository, in the vestibule.
Holmes' report on this matter has been dismissed, in part because the
timing would be wrong for someone rushing down from the sixth floor.
But Holmes is the only one of the participants in the Oswald
interrogations who, at least credibly, described the Baker-Oswald
encounter, in a report (on the Sunday interview) and in testimony. (Yes,
Fritz and Bookhout reported, separately, that Oswald said, in the first
interview, that he was stopped on the second floor, but Bookhout had
already negated that factoid when he joined, in a report earlier, with
Hosty in detailing a trip upstairs to the second floor by Oswald to get a
soda--and did NOT mention running into a policeman. Sorry, no do-overs
even for the FBI.)
And the timing might be right for a front-vestibule encounter if Oswald
was rushing down from the FIFTH floor. But Fritz & co. certainly did not
want to entertain THAT idea....
dcw
Since when do we rely on the second-hand hearsay report of what the
*accused* said to establish the truth of the matter?
We don't.
Elsewhere Oswald is reported as describing his encounter with a person at
the TSBD doorstep (which was most likely a reporter) as a "Secret Service
agent".
It was most likely either Robert MacNeil or Pierce Allman that Oswald
encountered at the front door, not a SS agent.
================
Addendum: We don't have to rely on the word of the accused, or the hearsay
of Holmes, or the recollection of the police officer involved (who was not
familiar with the building) to establish where the encounter took place.
There was another employee of the TSBD who was involved in that encounter,
and who was familiar with the building, and who, as a neutral party had no
reason to fudge the truth of the matter. That person was Roy Truly. And
when we consult his testimony we find the encounter with the policeman
happened on the second floor.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. TRULY. Yes. This is the vestibule, when you first come up the stairs
on the second floor--this is what you will find right there....
...
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. TRULY. I came back to the second floor landing.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. TRULY. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the
lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24.
Mr. BELIN. All right. And I see that there appears to be on the second
floor diagram, a room marked lunchroom.
Mr. TRULY. That is right.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. TRULY. I ran over and looked in this door No. 23.
Mr. BELIN. Through the glass, or was the door open?
Mr. TRULY. I don't know. I think I opened the door. I feel like I did. I
don't remember.
Mr. BELIN. It could have been open or it could have been closed, you do not
remember?
Mr. TRULY. The chances are it was closed.
Mr. BELIN. You thought you opened it?
Mr. TRULY. I think I opened it. I opened the door back and leaned in this
way.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. TRULY. I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the
lunch-room facing Lee Harvey Oswald.
...
Mr. BELIN. ...What did you see or hear the officer say or do?
Mr. TRULY. When I reached there, the officer had his gun pointing at Oswald.
The officer turned this way and said, "This man work here?" And I said,
"Yes."
Mr. BELIN. And then what happened?
Mr. TRULY. Then we left Lee Harvey Oswald immediately and continued to run
up the stairways until we reached the fifth floor.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
== UNQUOTE ==
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes1.htm
Of course you ignore the evidence of Roy Truly's testimony, and go instead
with the *hearsay* account related by Harry Holmes of what the *accused*
said.
That's not the best way to get to the truth of the matter. But then, the
truth of the matter hasn't been established as what you're after.
Hank
And Don ignores all this still! Not the best way to built up you CQ
[Credibility Quotient], Don.

Hank
Loading...