Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Do you realize that Carolyn Arnold's 1978 claim of seeing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25 could not be admitted at trial? 

And that's because it's hearsay. It didn't come from Carolyn Arnold. It came from a man named Earl Golz, who claimed to talk to her. But, did he? Who knows? With all the doubles there have been in the JFK realm, who knows if he was tricked by an impostor. 

Carolyn Arnold never came forward. She never sat in front of a sea of microphones to make a statement. She never pursued having the revised statement entered into evidence. She never submitted to questioning, not even by reporters, never mind by government officials or police interrogators.     

But, in any case, regardless, there is NO CHANCE that that revised statement, made 5000+ days after the event, can be true, for the following reasons:

1) It included the claim that Oswald was seen eating in the 2nd floor lunch room, and he NEVER ate there. He ALWAYS ate in the 1st floor lunch room, where the warehouse workers and order-fillers ate because you could store your lunch there and because there was usually a newspaper there, which he liked to read. Plus, he said that he ate in the 1st floor lunch room, and it is preposterous to think that he would have lied to police about that. When you're being accused of two murders, you don't lie to the police about where you ate lunch.   

2) On November 26, 1963, 4 days after the assassination, 19 year old Carolyn Arnold told the FBI that she saw Oswald at the doorway "behind the glass" shortly before the motorcade arrived, and it is preposterous to think that this young woman, still really a girl, would have lied to the FBI. Likewise, it is preposterous to think that the FBI would have made up such a story, that was so damaging to the official story. So, there is no reason to doubt Carolyn Arnold's first and original statement to the FBI. 

3) Her original statement conforms with the photographic evidence that Oswald was at the doorway at the time of the motorcade, as seen in the Altgens photo and the Wiegman film. It also conforms with the Fritz Notes in which Oswald said that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." 

4) The 1978 statement was not testimony in the case. It was just a newspaper article- like the recent one about Jack Ruby inviting a friend to "watch the fireworks" in Dealey Plaza. Both are false, and there are myriad other false articles about the JFK assassination. 

5) It was a very heated time. The HSCA was going on, and multiple witnesses were turning up dead, such as George DeMohrenschildt and David Sanchez Morales, and also 7 FBI agents who were involved in the original investigation. Oswald in the doorway was back in the spotlight. Billy Lovelady turned up dead just 2 months later, in January 1979.  So, a phony newspaper article to distract from Oswald in the doorway- to create noise going another way- fit perfectly with the desperate measures that were being done to save the official story. The HSCA may have started with good intentions, but it became just as corrupt as the Warren Commission. And when it began in 1976, guess who was the head of the CIA? George H.W. Bush. 

6. Golz linked the revised claim to the lunchroom encounter with Baker and Truly, stating, "The question arises whether Oswald ever left the lunchroom." But, that is ridiculous because Oswald had already eaten in the 1st floor lunch room; he knew that the President was coming; and it is unreasonable to think that he would prefer to sit alone in a dank lunchroom doing nothing rather than view the President of the United States and his glamorous First Lady out in the sunlight. They were the most famous, the most celebrated couple in the world. So, how eccentric would it have been of Oswald to shun seeing them in favor of doing nothing in a lunch room? This was just Oswald-bashing, making him out to be disturbed and a freak.  

The only statement of Carolyn Arnold's that has any substance and credibility is her original one made to the FBI on 11/26/63, and there is no reason to doubt it. There is no more reason to doubt it than there is to doubt any statement made by anybody. 


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.