Subject: Re: CT: Oswald's Defense Team Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:48:07 GMT From: bishopm@my-deja.com Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk In article <8q2l8e$jm9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Jerry wrote: > mb, Once again we are treated to the sickening spectacle of Jerry refusing to provide actual "evidence" of ANYTHING, and instead of answering questions already posed to him, only asking other questions instead, as though their mere asking is sufficient. Apparently citing anything of actual probative value requires too much effort and would interfere greatly with time spent scribbling inanities here. Quelle horreur! > Where was Oswald at the time of the shooting? According to the notes Fritz claimed, under oath, not to have written: "...had lunch." Why did he leave within > minutes of the shooting? According to the notes Fritz claimed, under oath, not to have written: "...out with Bill Shelley in front." > Prove that Fritz is a PERJURER Sure. From his Commission testimony: "Mr. McCloy. I will ask you to stand and raise your right hand, sir. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give in this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir." Are we agreed that Fritz took a sworn oath to tell the truth? Good, then let's continue. Again, from Fritz's own sworn testimony: "Mr. Ball. Do you remember what you said to Oswald and what he said to you? Mr. Fritz. I can remember the thing that I said to him and what he said to me, but I will have trouble telling you which period of questioning those questions were in because I kept no notes at the time…." Are we agreed that Fritz denied taking any notes contemporaneous to the interrogations? Good. Then what, pray tell, did the ARRB obtain from an anonymous donor 34 years later? NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOVEMBER 20, 1997 CONTACT: EILEEN SULLIVAN (202) 724-0088, EXT. 253 JFK ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD ACQUIRES DALLAS POLICE HOMICIDE CHIEF'S HANDWRITTEN NOTES ON OSWALD INTERROGATION The Assassination Records Review Board, an independent federal agency overseeing the identification, review, and release of records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, announced today that it has acquired original handwritten notes on the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald taken by the late Dallas Police Captain who was in charge of questioning the alleged presidential assassin. This is the second time that the Board has obtained previously unavailable Oswald interrogation notes made bya law enforcement official. Dallas Police Captain J. W. "Will" Fritz, who headed the homicide and robbery bureau, was the primary interrogator of Oswald while he was inpolice custody from the afternoon of November 22 until the morning of November 24, 1963, when Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby in the basement of the Dallas police station. The Board recently acquired the notes along with other papers and photographs found after Captain Fritz's death in 1984. The materials had been in the possession of the donor, who wishes to remain anonymous, until they were voluntarily turned over to the Board last month. "Captain Fritz's original notes on the Oswald interrogations add depth to the primary record of what went on during the hours following the shooting of the President while Oswald was in custody," said Dr. Henry F. Graff, a member of the Review Board. "The notes are important because a stenographer was not present and no audio recording was made during the interrogation sessions." >>>>>end quote<<<<< Seems your unimpeachable Homicide Captain told a wee fib, no? and a PLANTER of evidence. Sure. Glad to oblige. Seems that Day and Studebaker took photos of TWO cartridges on the 6th floor. I refer you to CE 715. Seems that the initial DPD report itemized the discovery of TWO shells. Seems that Lt. Day marked - albeit, belatedly - only TWO shells. And yet..... After staging a SECOND round of 6th floor photographs three days later, Day and Studebaker now had photos of THREE shells. And, at an undetermined date subsequent to 11/22/63, a virtually identifical version of the initial DPD report now itemized the discovery of THREE shells. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to have been a chance for Lt. Day - even belatedly - to affix his mark to this third shell. And, of course, we have the interesting evidence receipt signed by Hosty when Fritz passed to him, among other things, a THIRD shell, four days after Kennedy's death, in the wee hours of the morning, whilst nobody else was around. Surely the sudden emergence of a third shell, so many days after the fact, COULDN'T have been the result of some clever dick realizing that the assassination couldn't have been carried out by only TWO shots being fired from the TSBD, and accommodated the scenario by providing a THIRD shell? Why, that would be falsification of EVIDENCE, and we all know that this was beneath the authorities, right? Um.... we DO *know* that, don't we? And yet..... "....the extractor and ejector marks on C6 as well as on C7, C8 and C38 did not possess sufficient characteristics for identifying the weapon which produced them..... Another set of follower marks were found on C8... These marks were NOT (emphasis mine) identified with the C14 rifle." (J. Edgar Hoover, to the Commission, CE 2968) Seems there was a third shell that didn't possess the same attributes as the first two. Gee, I wonder why. Since it is demonstrable that ONLY two of the shells bore even a POSSIBLE relation to the assassination (a dented lip precluded one of the shells from being used during the crime, and was evidence of a dry- firing at SOME point prior to the shell's emergence), it appears, AGAIN, that only two shells were *possibly* genuine and germane. Of course, we MIGHT know far more about the genesis and bona fides of all three shells had the letter written to the Commission on this subject by Captain Fritz not been, first, suppressed, and then "lost." More's the pity. If Fritz was not PERSONALLY responsible for the tardy introduction of tainted evidence, he was at the very least the conduit by which it was accomplished. But how could THAT have occurred without Fritz's own knowledge and complicity? Care to explain? Or just resort to more dodges and evasions, as per your usual SOP? > Prove that Oswald could have been eating lunch downstairs or near the > front door and yet only Arnold saw him there. Prove the opposite is impossible. I've only asked you to do this, what?... a half dozen times? Yet you can't be bothered to even get straight the names of the 'colored boys' who remain interchangeable to you. This is made even MORE shocking by your contention that you've interviewed one of them three times. One would think that after three such opportunities, you'd at least be able to get HIS story straight. But one would be wrong, apparently. Moreover, provide a SINGLE reason to think Ms. Arnold is something less than credible. That, at least, would be SOME kind of contribution. > Explain which version of Carolyn Arnold you prefer? Since they are not mutually exclusive, there is no reason to assume acceptance of one comes at the expense of dismissing the other. Explain why Summers > didn't use all she said -- indeed they (here I include Goltz) denied > credibility to the claims that she considered most important. By "Goltz," I presume you mean Earl Golz. Care to cite which of her "claims" were "denied credibility" by Summers and Golz? With specific citations and exact quotations, if that's not much EFFORT, please? Since both Summers and Golz are respected journalists - whereas you are not - perhaps you'd care to explain why both men accepted only portions of Arnold's testimony without notifying readers there was reason to suspect she wasn't telling the truth.....? Were they cut from the same cloth as Gary Webb, whom you slander here with predictable regularity? Such omissions would be self-defeating, since BOTH men must have realized that their shenanigans would be uncovered some day. You claim to have done so. Please provide specifics for your conclusion, or withdraw your slander against two men who have contributed FAR more to our understanding of this case than you have done. > Jerry Who else COULD it be? > In article <8q2k9s$igi$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > bishopm@my-deja.com wrote: > > In article <8q2gme$enl$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > > Jerry wrote: > > > > > Oswald's indefatigable defense team never ceases to work on his > > behalf. > > > > Too little too late, I'm afraid, but as a citizen he WAS entitled to > > representation, and to his day in court. He was denied both. > > > > "I have not been given legal representation or anything.... I request > > that SOMEONE come forward...." > > > > Those words ring a bell, Jerry? > > > > > Indeed, they're efforts are along two lines: > > > > > > 1) Make up aliabis for Oswald that even he never thought of, > > > > WRONG! > > > > The "efforts" are undertaken to make sense of the chronology that > > Oswald allegedly DID offer. Is that a crime? If so, state which law > > is being contravened. If not, what's YOUR problem? (Other than your > > repeatedly demonstrated inability to counter them, of course.....) > > > > Why is it that you're so anxious to give Citizen Oswald the bum's > > rush? Why is HE any less entitled to constitutionally guaranteed > > rights and liberties than the rest of us? > > > > Because you have found him guilty BEFORE the trial and cannot be > > bothered to actually produce sufficient evidence to secure that > verdict > > legitimately. > > > > Your scam is as "old" as it is transparent, Jerry. > > > > > 2) Thunder that every person or agency involved in gathering or > > testing > > > or investigating evidence in the case is either bad or stupid. The > > DPD, > > > FBI, WC, CIA, Secret Service, Media -- all were bad or stupid! > > > > WRONG! The corrupt and/or incompetent behaviour of SOME authorities > is > > demonstrated by the contrary reports of those authorities who were > NOT. > > > > If Harry Holmes reported that while being questioned, Oswald admitted > > going to Mexico City , yet others present at the very same > > interrogation reported otherwise, YOU have a problem. Perhaps Holmes > > just misheard, and/or innocently misreported. But in any event, ONE > or > > more of those present must have been wrong, at best; lied, at worst. > > > > It is you, and ONLY you, who tries to simplistically reduce the > > impeachment of SOME authorities into a blanket indictment of ALL > > persons involved. Because without such absurd reductionism, you have > > NOTHING to offer whatsoever. As you repeatedly demonstrate here, > daily. > > > > Your inexplicable lack of interest in reconciling these discrepancies > > speaks VOLUMES about your TRUE agenda, Jerry, which has NOTHING to do > > with a desire to achieve the truth (to the extent that this is still > > possible.) > > > > > I am continually suprised by how deep is the sympathy that CT holds > > for > > > Lee Oswald. Surprised by the ingrained animosity they hold for > anybody > > > or any organization they see as threatening him. > > > > Speaking ONLY for my own motives, I have done nothing more than raise > > the very same issues that would have been addressed by any half- assed > > duty counsel. If a public defender would have done the same in '63- > 64, > > why is it sudden verboten to do so in the year 2000? Just because you > > have NOTHING constructive to offer in rebuttal? That's YOUR problem, > > bub. > > > > > Perhaps they see in Oswald something of themselves. > > > > There but for the grace of God go you or I, Jerry. > > > > > Jerry > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > > > Before you buy. > > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > > Before you buy. > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy. > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.