Friday, February 21, 2020

This is from a correspondence I am having with Anthony Summers and another prominent JFK researcher, whom I shall not name. But, it concerns the conflicting claims of Carolyn Arnold. 

Men, I thought of something else that is very important. It is that there are witnesses in this case who are damaged goods, mentally. A glaring example is Buell Frazier. He was damaged even back then. For example, in his testimony to Joseph Ball in April 1964, he placed himself in the doorway by saying that he was right next to the median handrail, one step down from the top. But later, in that same interview, Ball asked him, why don't we see you in the photo? And Frazier said it was because he was "way back in the shadows." Well, that's a contradiction. Either he was on the steps or back in the shadows, but not both. And what about the whole idea of him saying that Oswald said that he went to Irving to get curtain rods? Oswald denied ever telling him that, and there is no reason to doubt Oswald. And then, Frazier said that Oswald had a bag that was 2 feet long and looked like curtain rods, but Oswald said he brought only a sack lunch from Mrs. Paine's house, which consisted of a cheese sandwich and an apple. So, why didn't Dallas Police go to that lunch room and look for the remnants of that lunch? Well, who's to say they didn't? 

Frazier said that he waited at the parking lot to let the engine run so as to recharge the generator, but that makes no sense because the drive from Irving would have done that. Frazier went on to contradict himself about many things. He never told the doorway story the same way twice. He told it different to Jim Garrison, and he told it different in 1984  at the mock trial in England where he said that he was several steps up above and behind Lovelady. But Lovelady, by his own admission, was on the "top level." So, there were no steps above and behind him. Frazier is a mental case. We know that they threatened him. They threatened to arrest him and charge him as Oswald's accomplice. They threatened to arrest his sister. He is damaged goods, and he has been all along. You can't trust a word he says.  

Well, the same goes for Carolyn Arnold. She was 19 years old, and when first asked, she naively thought the FBI wanted the truth. They didn't want the truth. They wanted conformity to their narrative. So, she said that she thought she saw Oswald at the doorway, on the inside of the glass looking out, shortly before the motorcade arrived. It's very likely that Agent Richard Emberley came up with the time of 12:15 because that left Oswald enough time to get up to the 6th floor. But, smarter men above Emberley realized that no, it still looked bad, real bad, if Oswald was milling around downstairs as late as 12:15. So, they went back there in March 1964, and they got her to sign a statement saying that she didn't see Oswald at all. So, what did they threaten her with? And note that the Warren Commission did not call her in to testify. They did not want to talk with her. And you should realize that the FBI did the screening of witnesses for the WC. And the FBI did not want the WC hearing from Carolyn Arnold either. The FBI did not want the WC hearing from Mary Moorman too, and that's a whole story in itself. 

Now Anthony, I understand that YOU interviewed Carolyn Arnold. I don't know exactly what she said to you, but I presume she defended her 1978 claim that she saw Oswald eating in the 2nd floor lunch room, as depicted in Oliver Stone's movie, JFK. And it is very regrettable that Stone went with that. There is absolutely no doubt that she did NOT claim that in 1963 or 1964. There is absolutely no doubt that Oswald did not eat in the 2nd floor lunch room. He ate in the 1st floor lunch room AS HE ALWAYS DID. And he said so at the very first interrogation. It was reported by Bookhout and Hosty.

Now, as for Fritz, in his WC testimony, he was asked specifically where Oswald said he was during the shooting, and Fritz said that Oswald said he was eating lunch with other employees. But that was a lie. Oswald didn't say that, and he didn't do that. For one thing, Oswald was definitely anti-social at the TSBD. He didn't eat with anybody. He wasn't friendly with anybody. He was aloof. He wasn't that way with people in Russia. There, he was outgoing, friendly, and very sociable. But, at the TSBD, he was anti-social. He was the ultimate loner. The whole place made him uncomfortable. Have you read "The Spider's Web: The TSBD and the Dallas Plot" by William Weston? It's online. In it, he makes the case that the TSBD was a CIA front company, doing espionage and gun and drug running under the guise of distributing school books. And that's all the book business was, a cover for what they were really doing. If they were really distributing books to schools, they'd have been handling large orders, enough for a classroom or several classrooms. In other words: whole boxes of books. But, all we have ever heard about are small orders, a few books that the the "order-fillers" could carry by hand. They didn't have carts or wagons.  And if you know anything about the book business, you know that you don't stack books a mile high the way they were doing there because books are heavy, and you wind up crushing them. Plus, there was no organization to the place, no system. How could you find anything in the maze of those stacks? So, the book business was a cover, and Oswald must have realized that the place wasn't what it seemed. And there is no chance that he ate lunch with anybody. Fritz lied because what Oswald really told him was that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." 

Oswald, like everyone else, broke for lunch at 11:45. That was 15 minutes early, but they wanted to give the workers enough time to eat so that they would be done with it to watch the motorcade at 12:25, the expected time of arrival. Well, Oswald knew about it. Have you read the testimony of James Jarman? Oswald went up to Jarman and asked him why people were congregating on the sidewalk. He didn't know, and Jarman told him why. So then, Oswald knew. And when he broke for lunch, he did not wait around doing nothing for 45 minutes, only to eat at 12:30 and miss the event. He ate promptly. And why not? He had eaten nothing that morning. All he had was coffee at the Paine house. And he worked all morning. So, of course, he ate right away. He got started eating in the domino room before Noon. And he was certainly done by 12:20. How long does it take to eat a sandwich and an apple? And then he went to the doorway. But, he didn't go outside right away. The whole wall of it was transparent glass. So, he could look out without going outside. And that's what he did, at first, for a bit. 

Professor Gerald McKnight makes the case in his book Breach of Trust that the real time that Carolyn Arnold gave to Emberley of seeing Oswald was 12:25. That's when she saw him at the doorway. Emberley changed it to 12:15. But then in 1964, when she deleted the claim of seeing Oswald at all, she was allowed to give the correct time of 12:25. So, McKnight, whom I have talked to about this, believes that the correct attribution is her seeing Oswald at the doorway at 12:25. So, in other words, you have to merge her two statements, to take her original statement from 1963 but add the time from 1964.  And I agree with Dr. McKnight. And the two other secretaries, both said that the three of them didn't get outside until 12:25, and they did not encounter Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room on the way out.  

Again, I don't know what Carolyn Arnold told you, Anthony, but her whole story about seeing Oswald eating in the 2nd floor lunch room is complete, utter nonsense. If she came to believe it, if she adopted it as her mindset, then so be it, but it definitely did not happen. She was undoubtedly threatened and harassed. It could not have been easy for her. We need to look at her and Frazier like PTSD victims. In other words: you can't trust a word that either says.  Thank you. Ralph Cinque    

No comments:

Post a Comment

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