Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )

[Alan Ford]

Now!

From Captain Fritz's interrogation 'notes'--------------



4706? Wrong number!

From Agent Bookhout's interrogation report--------------



4706? Wrong number! But not just that.................. This is the same wrong number as in Captain Fritz's 'notes'! Gee whizz, the fact that Captain Fritz reproduces Agent Bookhout's exact error would almost make a soul think Captain Fritz's notes must derive their contents from Agent Bookhout's report..............

But wait! All this shows is Mr Oswald gave the wrong number in interrogation (the wily commie scoundrel). Right?

Wrong! From Inspector Kelley's report on the same interrogation session-------------



4907? Right number!

Sorry to break Lunchroom Derangement Syndrome hearts here, but Captain Fritz's 'notes' are just scribblings based on Agent Hosty's reports. Their independent evidentiary value is ZILCH 

[Dan O'meara]

Now!

From Captain Fritz's interrogation 'notes'--------------



4706? Wrong number!

From Agent Bookhout's interrogation report--------------



4706? Wrong number! But not just that.................. This is the same wrong number as in Captain Fritz's 'notes'! Gee whizz, the fact that Captain Fritz reproduces Agent Bookhout's exact error would almost make a soul think Captain Fritz's notes must derive their contents from Agent Bookhout's report..............

But wait! All this shows is Mr Oswald gave the wrong number in interrogation (the wily commie scoundrel). Right?

Wrong! From Inspector Kelley's report on the same interrogation session-------------



4907? Right number!

Sorry to break Lunchroom Derangement Syndrome hearts here, but Captain Fritz's 'notes' are just scribblings based on Agent Hosty's reports. Their independent evidentiary value is ZILCH 

Also from the Kelley report:

"I asked him if he viewed the parade and he said he had not..."

 

[Alan Ford]

Also from the Kelley report:

"I asked him if he viewed the parade and he said he had not..."

 

Inspector Kelley is lying here. But he has no cause to lie about Mr Oswald's N.O. address.

Do you believe that both Captain Fritz and Agent Bookhout independently misheard the number 4907 as 4706? Or that Mr Oswald gave the wrong number, then corrected himself---------but both Captain Fritz and Agent Bookhout failed to notice the correction and so stuck with the original error?

[Dan O'meara]

Inspector Kelley is lying here. But he has no cause to lie about Mr Oswald's N.O. address.

Do you believe that both Captain Fritz and Agent Bookhout independently misheard the number 4907 as 4706? Or that Mr Oswald gave the wrong number, then corrected himself---------but both Captain Fritz and Agent Bookhout failed to notice the correction and so stuck with the original error?

I have seen it convincingly argued elsewhere that Fritz copied Bookhout's notes and don't really have a problem with that suggestion.
I don't know if that exonerates Fritz as a Hoaxer.

[Alan Ford]

I have seen it convincingly argued elsewhere that Fritz copied Bookhout's notes and don't really have a problem with that suggestion.
I don't know if that exonerates Fritz as a Hoaxer.

Well, it means that Captain Fritz's "claims 2nd Fl Coke when off came in" cannot be used as independent corroboration of Agent Bookhout's solo-report claim as to what Mr Oswald said----------------as it's actually derived from same.

[Dan O'meara]

Well, it means that Captain Fritz's "claims 2nd Fl Coke when off came in" cannot be used as independent corroboration of Agent Bookhout's solo-report claim as to what Mr Oswald said----------------as it's actually derived from same.

Agreed, but it doesn't alter Bookhout's report, it just means Fritz can't be trusted.
The interesting thing about Bookhout's solo report is that he mentions Oswald had bought a coke before Baker and Truly came in. If Bookhout is a Hoaxer and making all this up why does he include this detail about Oswald having bought the coke only to have this refuted by his fellow Hoaxers, Baker and Truly

[Walt Cakebread]

I have seen it convincingly argued elsewhere that Fritz copied Bookhout's notes and don't really have a problem with that suggestion.
I don't know if that exonerates Fritz as a Hoaxer.

I have seen it convincingly argued elsewhere that Fritz copied Bookhout's notes

I believe that Fritz was at least senile. and possibly  in the early stages of dementia.   As a consequence he couldn't take accurate notes, so it's possible that he asked Bookhout if he could borrow the notes that he had taken.   This would explain why he said he didn't take notes at the time, and jotted them down later.    However, As I recall Hosty said in his book, that the typed up reports had to be filed within 24 hours of the interrogation and  any notes taken were to be destroyed.  If that is true, and Bookhout followed orders,  then Fritz must have copied Bookhout's notes on SaPersonay 11/23 / 63.   

[Alan Ford]

Agreed, but it doesn't alter Bookhout's report, it just means Fritz can't be trusted.

If Captain Fritz's 'notes' are derived from Agent Bookhout's report, then the former cannot be used as independent corroboration of the latter. The discrepancies between Bookhout solo and the earlier reports (Hosty solo, Bookhout-Hosty joint) remain radioactive.
 

The interesting thing about Bookhout's solo report is that he mentions Oswald had bought a coke before Baker and Truly came in. If Bookhout is a Hoaxer and making all this up

He's not making it all up-----------he's merely taking what Mr Oswald really said (bought coke, down to 1, then outside = all PRE-assassination) and changing the timeframe to POST-assassination to fit it into the post-assassination lunchroom story

why does he include this detail about Oswald having bought the coke

Not being pedantic here, Mr O'Meara, but the detail he's including is about Mr Oswald having claimed to have bought the coke. I'll return to this below.

only to have this refuted by his fellow Hoaxers, Baker and Truly

Interesting point, and one lost on most CTers: if Mr Oswald really said what the Bookhout solo report says he did, then he confirmed a lunchroom encounter but not the lunchroom encounter that Officer Baker and Mr Truly would tell the WC about.

EXPLANATION A: Agent Bookhout just went for a straightforward transposition of Mr Oswald's claims, including the coke detail. Under pressure of circumstances, he didn't ponder the implications of including this detail.

EXPLANATION B: Retaining Mr Oswald's actual claim about buying the coke gets a double result: Mr Oswald confirms a lunchroom encounter, but does so in a way that makes him look a liar.

EXPLANATION C: Mr Oswald with a coke in hand may well have been an element in the original lunchroom story put out. E.g....... “The two men scrambled up the stairs to the second floor. As they made their way to the back stairway, the policeman saw Oswald standing beside a soft-drink machine, sipping from a coke bottle” (Washington Post, December 1).