Oswald in the TSBD just after the shooting

[John Iacoletti]

You know that's not true, John.....  Fritz jotted it down in his notes.....

No, what Fritz "jotted down in his notes" (several days later) was "say two negr. came in. One Jr. + short negro".

[Alan Ford]

As demonstrated way back by Mr S. Murphy, the 'Fritz' notes are not Captain Fritz's independent notes so much as Captain Fritz's scribblings based on Agent Bookhout's reports (perhaps read out to Captain Fritz? He abbreviates Agent Bookhout's name to 'B.O'!).

Example!



From Agent Bookhout's FBI Interrogation Report #4 (dictated 11/24/63):

Oswald stated that he desired to contact Attorney Abt, New York City, indicating that Abt was the attorney who had defended the Smith Act case about 1949-1950. He stated that he does not know Attorney Abt personally. Captain Fritz advised Oswald that arrangement would be immediately made whereby he could call Attorney Abt.

Oswald stated that prior to coming to Dallas from New Orleans he had resided at a furnished apartment at 4706 Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. While in New Orleans, he had been employed by William B. Riley Company, 640 Magazine Street, New Orleans.

Oswald stated that he has nothing against President John F. Kennedy personally; however in view of the present charges against him, he did not desire to discuss this phase further.

Oswald stated that he would not agree to take a polygraph examination without the advice of counsel. He added that in the past he has refused to take polygraph examinations.

Oswald stated that he is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union and added that Mrs. Ruth Paine was also a member of same.

With regard to Selective Service card in the possession of Oswald bearing photograph of Oswald and the name of Alek James Hidell, Oswald admitted that he carried this Selective Service card but declined to state that he wrote the signature of Alek J. Hidell appearing on same. He further declined to state the purpose of carrying same or any use he has made of same.

Oswald stated that an address book in his possession contains the names of various Russian immigrants residing in Dallas, Texas, whom he has visited with.

Oswald denied shooting President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, and added that he did not know that Governor John Connally had been shot and denied any knowledge concerning this incident.

Now! Let's compare bit by bit! 

BOOKHOUT INTERROGATION REPORT:
Oswald stated that he desired to contact Attorney Abt, New York City, indicating that Abt was the attorney who had defended the Smith Act case about 1949-1950.
?FRITZ? NOTES:
Desires to talk to Mr. Abt. I ask who/ says Smith act att.
BOOKHOUT INTERROGATION REPORT:
Oswald stated that prior to coming to Dallas from New Orleans he had resided at a furnished apartment at 4706 Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. While in New Orleans, he had been employed by William B. Riley Company, 640 Magazine Street, New Orleans.
?FRITZ? NOTES:
Says did live N.O. 4706 Magazine St. Furn Apt, worked for B. Riley Co 640
BOOKHOUT INTERROGATION REPORT:
Oswald stated that he has nothing against President John F. Kennedy personally; however in view of the present charges against him, he did not desire to discuss this phase further.
?FRITZ? NOTES:
Says nothing against Pres does not want to talk further ?
BOOKHOUT INTERROGATION REPORT:
Oswald stated that he would not agree to take a polygraph examination without the advice of counsel. He added that in the past he has refused to take polygraph examinations.
?FRITZ? NOTES:
No poly at time in past had refused
BOOKHOUT INTERROGATION REPORT:
Oswald stated that he is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union and added that Mrs. Ruth Paine was also a member of same.
?FRITZ? NOTES:
Oswald A.C.L.U. member he says says Mrs Payne was too.
BOOKHOUT INTERROGATION REPORT:
With regard to Selective Service card in the possession of Oswald bearing photograph of Oswald and the name of Alek James Hidell, Oswald admitted that he carried this Selective Service card but declined to state that he wrote the signature of Alek J. Hidell appearing on same. He further declined to state the purpose of carrying same or any use he has made of same.
?FRITZ? NOTES:
B.O. ask abt Heidel selective s. card ? adm having it would not admit signature ? wouldn?t say why he had it.
BOOKHOUT INTERROGATION REPORT:
Oswald stated that an address book in his possession contains the names of various Russian immigrants residing in Dallas, Texas, whom he has visited with.
?FRITZ? NOTES:
Says Add. Book has names of Russian Emigrants he visits
BOOKHOUT INTERROGATION REPORT:
Oswald denied shooting President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, and added that he did not know that Governor John Connally had been shot and denied any knowledge concerning this incident.
?FRITZ? NOTES:
denied shooting Pres says didn?t know Gov. shot

Kinda similar, dontcha think? 

[Alan Ford]

As demonstrated way back by Mr S. Murphy, the 'Fritz' notes are not Captain Fritz's independent notes so much as Captain Fritz's scribblings based on Agent Bookhout's reports (perhaps read out to Captain Fritz? He abbreviates Agent Bookhout's name to 'B.O'!).

Example!



From Agent Bookhout's FBI Interrogation Report #4 (dictated 11/24/63):

Oswald stated that he desired to contact Attorney Abt, New York City, indicating that Abt was the attorney who had defended the Smith Act case about 1949-1950. He stated that he does not know Attorney Abt personally. Captain Fritz advised Oswald that arrangement would be immediately made whereby he could call Attorney Abt.

Oswald stated that prior to coming to Dallas from New Orleans he had resided at a furnished apartment at 4706 Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. While in New Orleans, he had been employed by William B. Riley Company, 640 Magazine Street, New Orleans.

Oswald stated that he has nothing against President John F. Kennedy personally; however in view of the present charges against him, he did not desire to discuss this phase further.

Oswald stated that he would not agree to take a polygraph examination without the advice of counsel. He added that in the past he has refused to take polygraph examinations.

Oswald stated that he is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union and added that Mrs. Ruth Paine was also a member of same.

With regard to Selective Service card in the possession of Oswald bearing photograph of Oswald and the name of Alek James Hidell, Oswald admitted that he carried this Selective Service card but declined to state that he wrote the signature of Alek J. Hidell appearing on same. He further declined to state the purpose of carrying same or any use he has made of same.

Oswald stated that an address book in his possession contains the names of various Russian immigrants residing in Dallas, Texas, whom he has visited with.

Oswald denied shooting President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, and added that he did not know that Governor John Connally had been shot and denied any knowledge concerning this incident.

Now! Let's compare bit by bit! 

BOOKHOUT INTERROGATION REPORT:
Oswald stated that he desired to contact Attorney Abt, New York City, indicating that Abt was the attorney who had defended the Smith Act case about 1949-1950.
?FRITZ? NOTES:
Desires to talk to Mr. Abt. I ask who/ says Smith act att.
BOOKHOUT INTERROGATION REPORT:
Oswald stated that prior to coming to Dallas from New Orleans he had resided at a furnished apartment at 4706 Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. While in New Orleans, he had been employed by William B. Riley Company, 640 Magazine Street, New Orleans.
?FRITZ? NOTES:
Says did live N.O. 4706 Magazine St. Furn Apt, worked for B. Riley Co 640
BOOKHOUT INTERROGATION REPORT:
Oswald stated that he has nothing against President John F. Kennedy personally; however in view of the present charges against him, he did not desire to discuss this phase further.
?FRITZ? NOTES:
Says nothing against Pres does not want to talk further ?
BOOKHOUT INTERROGATION REPORT:
Oswald stated that he would not agree to take a polygraph examination without the advice of counsel. He added that in the past he has refused to take polygraph examinations.
?FRITZ? NOTES:
No poly at time in past had refused
BOOKHOUT INTERROGATION REPORT:
Oswald stated that he is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union and added that Mrs. Ruth Paine was also a member of same.
?FRITZ? NOTES:
Oswald A.C.L.U. member he says says Mrs Payne was too.
BOOKHOUT INTERROGATION REPORT:
With regard to Selective Service card in the possession of Oswald bearing photograph of Oswald and the name of Alek James Hidell, Oswald admitted that he carried this Selective Service card but declined to state that he wrote the signature of Alek J. Hidell appearing on same. He further declined to state the purpose of carrying same or any use he has made of same.
?FRITZ? NOTES:
B.O. ask abt Heidel selective s. card ? adm having it would not admit signature ? wouldn?t say why he had it.
BOOKHOUT INTERROGATION REPORT:
Oswald stated that an address book in his possession contains the names of various Russian immigrants residing in Dallas, Texas, whom he has visited with.
?FRITZ? NOTES:
Says Add. Book has names of Russian Emigrants he visits
BOOKHOUT INTERROGATION REPORT:
Oswald denied shooting President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, and added that he did not know that Governor John Connally had been shot and denied any knowledge concerning this incident.
?FRITZ? NOTES:
denied shooting Pres says didn?t know Gov. shot

Kinda similar, dontcha think? 

However!

The neat point-for-point correspondence between the 'Fritz' notes and the Bookhout reports is only partially there for the all-important First Interrogation.

From the solo Bookhout Interrogation Report dictated 11/24/63:

Oswald stated that he did not own any rifle. He advised that he saw a rifle day before yesterday at the Texas School Book Depository which Mr. truly and two other gentlemen had in their possession and were looking at.

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. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home. He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of Bill Shelly, he did not believe that there was going to be anymore work that day due to the confusion in the building.. He stated after arriving at his residence, then he went to a movie where he was subsequently apprehended by the Dallas Police Department.

Oswald stated that his hours of work at the Texas School Book Depository are from 8 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., but that he is not required to punch a time clock. his usual place of work in the building is on the first floor; however, he frequently is required to go to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh floors of the building in order to get books and this was true on November 22, 1963, and he had been on all of the floors in the performance of his duties on November 22, 1963.

The 'Fritz' notes for Interrogation The First:



Nothing about Mr Oswald's claim to have been "on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed the building"-----------which was in the earlier Bookhout-Hosty report but has now been clean forgotten! 

[Walt Cakebread]

However!

The neat point-for-point correspondence between the 'Fritz' notes and the Bookhout reports is only partially there for the all-important First Interrogation.

From the solo Bookhout Interrogation Report dictated 11/24/63:

Oswald stated that he did not own any rifle. He advised that he saw a rifle day before yesterday at the Texas School Book Depository which Mr. truly and two other gentlemen had in their possession and were looking at.

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. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home. He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of Bill Shelly, he did not believe that there was going to be anymore work that day due to the confusion in the building.. He stated after arriving at his residence, then he went to a movie where he was subsequently apprehended by the Dallas Police Department.

Oswald stated that his hours of work at the Texas School Book Depository are from 8 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., but that he is not required to punch a time clock. his usual place of work in the building is on the first floor; however, he frequently is required to go to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh floors of the building in order to get books and this was true on November 22, 1963, and he had been on all of the floors in the performance of his duties on November 22, 1963.

The 'Fritz' notes for Interrogation The First:



Nothing about Mr Oswald's claim to have been "on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed the building"-----------which was in the earlier Bookhout-Hosty report but has now been clean forgotten! 

Re: the 3:15 entry by Fritz ( high lighted in pink)

The carcano was brought in by Lt Day, and Lee was asked...."Have you ever seen this before? "( The display of the murder weapon to the suspect is is a SOP with police interrogations.)

Here's how Fritz originally wrote that: [i]"Doesn't own rifle, saw at bldg,  Mr Truly and two others.".[/i]. The word "one" was added later..( notice that the word "one is added outside the rest of the text) . .And that little word  changes the meaning of what he originally wrote.

Now let's take look at How Hosty recorded Lee's response to the display of the carcano ...."Day before yesterday Mr Truly had rifle and two others 1st floor outside office"

And Bookhout recorded ...."says Doesn't own rifle"

[Richard Smith]

After taking issue with that for some unknown reason Martin goes on to agree with me that her identification of Oswald as the person she spoke with is suspect!

You need to get off whatever it is you are on, because it's making you delusional. I never took issue about anything nor did I ever agree with you. In fact, I expressed no opinion either way. You are just making stuff up, as per usual.

But chastises me for using "speculation" in reaching the very same conclusion he does. 

The only conclusion I have reached is that you were speculating.

I referenced an account from Pauline Saunders that confirms that Reid had knowledge of the Truly/Oswald lunchroom encounter.  Something Martin was ignorant of when he suggested it was "completely unfounded speculation."  As Reid was not present in the lunchroom, that tells us she must have learned of the lunchroom encounter from someone else.  Who she learned this from is unknown but unless she was psychic we know from that information that she had discussed it to know it happened. 

All of this assumes that Sanders provided an 100% acurate account of her telephone call with Reid on 11/24/63. For all we know, Sanders may well have heard herself about the lunchroom encounter with Baker and Truly, which she then discussed with Reid on the phone and later simply got her "facts" mixed up or communicated them badly to the FBI agents. It even assumes that the FBI agents wrote what she said correctly in their report. You can not simply assume that Reid must have heard it from somebody, only based on what you believe Sanders said, because that is nothing more than pure speculation on your part. 

In fact, the call with Saunders is itself confirmation of the point that Reid was discussing the facts of the case with others.

Is it now? So, who initiated the call? Can you be sure that it wasn't Sanders who called Reid to discuss the case? And even if Reid was the one who called, do you really think she was the only TSBD employee who was talking to others about what had happened? I wouldn't be surprised if they all talked to eachother, which of course makes your "confirmation" nothing more than a meaningless worthless observation.

Martin resorts here to the tired old nonsense about "accepting blindly" the FBI report.  Pathetic. 

The main argument against releasing FBI reports to the public is that they often contain unverified and incorrect information about events and people gathered during an investigation. In other words, there is no guarantee that the information in those FD 302's is 100% correct. So, what is really pathetic is that you accept the content of such a report as if it was part of the bible.

All this effort and he apparently agrees with me on the basic point that I was making.  There is doubt of Reid's encounter with Oswald.

Wrong again... the "basic point" you were making is that your find Reid's statement unreliable based solely upon your own speculations about the meaning of a text in an FBI report. No way do I agree with that kind of crap.

As for there being doubt..... Sure there is. In this case it's everywhere you look, but for the most time you don't want to see or accept it unless you can use it in support of your own weak LN nut theory!

So many words.  The point is simply that there is doubt that the person Reid spoke with was Oswald.  When I noted that you would not accept Reid's identification of Oswald as the person with whom she allegedly spoke under the same standard you use for the Tippit witnesses, you responded "rightly so."  The bottom line of your incoherent ramblings here is that you are arguing with the wind.   Then you are attempting to conflate actual doubt in this instance with fake doubt in other instances in this case.  It is truly bizarre to quibble about doubts regarding Reid's identification using reasonable standards while without missing a beat applying an impossible standard of proof in other instances of the case.  My favorite point here though has to be your contention that we can't conclude that Reid spoke with others about the case unless we know who initiated the phone call!  LOL.  So under that line of nutty logic, if Saunders called Reid and Reid told her about the Oswald/Truly lunchroom encounter it would somehow be different than if Reid called Saunders and had the very same conversation.  Wow.

[John Iacoletti]

Then you are attempting to conflate actual doubt in this instance with fake doubt in other instances in this case.

LOL.  There's only doubt when "Richard" says there is doubt.

[Martin Weidmann]

So many words.  The point is simply that there is doubt that the person Reid spoke with was Oswald.  When I noted that you would not accept Reid's identification of Oswald as the person with whom she allegedly spoke under the same standard you use for the Tippit witnesses, you responded "rightly so."  The bottom line of your incoherent ramblings here is that you are arguing with the wind.   Then you are attempting to conflate actual doubt in this instance with fake doubt in other instances in this case.  It is truly bizarre to quibble about doubts regarding Reid's identification using reasonable standards while without missing a beat applying an impossible standard of proof in other instances of the case.  My favorite point here though has to be your contention that we can't conclude that Reid spoke with others about the case unless we know who initiated the phone call!  LOL.  So under that line of nutty logic, if Saunders called Reid and Reid told her about the Oswald/Truly lunchroom encounter it would somehow be different than if Reid called Saunders and had the very same conversation.  Wow.

Oh boy, so many words and so little content.

My favorite point here though has to be your contention that we can't conclude that Reid spoke with others about the case unless we know who initiated the phone call!  LOL.  So under that line of nutty logic, if Saunders called Reid and Reid told her about the Oswald/Truly lunchroom encounter it would somehow be different than if Reid called Saunders and had the very same conversation.  Wow.

Even a brianless person would have understood the point I was making, but it went completely over your head.
.

Then you are attempting to conflate actual doubt in this instance with fake doubt in other instances in this case.  It is truly bizarre to quibble about doubts regarding Reid's identification using reasonable standards while without missing a beat applying an impossible standard of proof in other instances of the case.   

Let me guess?. you think you are the one who gets to determine what those reasonable standards are, right? 

The point is simply that there is doubt that the person Reid spoke with was Oswald.

Reasonable and sane people understand and accept there is doubt about nearly everything in this case. You invent doubt using a hearsay FBI report about something somebody may or may not have discussed with others.

If it wasn't Oswald that Reid saw then who was it and where did Oswald go after leaving the 2nd floor lunchroom?

[Richard Smith]

Oh boy, so many words and so little content.

My favorite point here though has to be your contention that we can't conclude that Reid spoke with others about the case unless we know who initiated the phone call!  LOL.  So under that line of nutty logic, if Saunders called Reid and Reid told her about the Oswald/Truly lunchroom encounter it would somehow be different than if Reid called Saunders and had the very same conversation.  Wow.

Even a brianless person would have understood the point I was making, but it went completely over your head. When the very same conversation took place it wouldn?t have mattered at all, but that wasn?t the point. My point was that if Sanders initiated the call and she was the one who brought up the matter to Reid your entire crappy argument blows up in your face.

Then you are attempting to conflate actual doubt in this instance with fake doubt in other instances in this case.  It is truly bizarre to quibble about doubts regarding Reid's identification using reasonable standards while without missing a beat applying an impossible standard of proof in other instances of the case.   

Let me guess?. you think you are the one who gets to determine what those reasonable standards are, right? 

The point is simply that there is doubt that the person Reid spoke with was Oswald.

Reasonable and sane people understand and accept there is doubt about nearly everything in this case. You invent doubt using a hearsay FBI report about something somebody may or may not have discussed with others.

If it wasn't Oswald that Reid saw then who was it and where did Oswald go after leaving the 2nd floor lunchroom?

You are doubling down on the idea that what is discussed on a telephone call is somehow dependent on who initiated the call?  LOL.  That is truly bizarre.  In the course of that call, Sanders indicated that Reid told her about the Oswald/Truly lunchroom encounter.   How would Reid know about this since she was not present in the lunchroom unless she had been told about it (i.e. discussed it or overheard someone with knowledge of the event discussing it)?  Good grief.  The point has gone way over your head.  Regardless of how the topic arose on the call, Reid could not have had knowledge of the Oswald/Truly encounter on her floor unless someone told her.  She was not present in the lunchroom.  She was not psychic.  The ONLY conclusion that can be drawn from her having this knowledge is that it was imparted to her by someone else.  We don't know who told her but that doesn't mean she wasn't told since it the only way she could have known about it.  Once she knows that Oswald was on her floor, her encounter with a person (real or imagined) lends itself in her mind to it being Oswald although she barely knows him and describes him being in a white t-shirt even though we know that is not how he was dressed moments before.  Again, though, you seemingly agree with me on the only point being made in this context.  That there is doubt about whether it was Oswald she saw or not.   Why you so strenuously object to the application of reasonable doubt in this context while embracing outlandish impossible standards of proof in other contexts is particularly ironic and humorous.