 |
LOL. Yeah, right, Ralph! Let's just accept YOUR inaccurate
*interpretation* of the Fritz notes. Too funny.
And an even bigger laugh is needed here because, via Cinque's skewed
interpretation of the Fritz notes, Ralph actually thinks that the *accused
assassin* (to whom all the evidence leads) was telling the unvarnished
*truth* when he said "out front with Shelley". Which, per Cinque, means
that LHO was "out front with Shelley" *when the shooting was occurring*
(which is not what Fritz meant in those sketchy notes at all).
What Oswald meant, of course, was that AFTER the shooting, and AFTER his
lunchroom encounter with Officer Baker, he went "out front" and saw
"Shelley" there near the entrance.
We know that Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was "having his lunch about
that time [of the assassination] on the first floor" (quote from Fritz'
police report; WCR; page 600).
http://history-matters.com/
Fritz didn't say there on page 600 of the Warren Report that Oswald told
him that he was "out front with Shelley" as the assassination was taking
place. Oswald specifically said something completely different---that he
was *inside the building* on the first floor having his lunch (which was a
big fat lie, of course).
If Oswald was innocent, Ralph, why did he tell that lie to Fritz about
having lunch on the 1st floor at the time of the assassination?
Let me guess --- Cinque really thinks it was *Captain Fritz* who was the
liar in that "first floor" statement allegedly made by Oswald. Right,
Ralph?
Request ---- The minute Ralph Cinque gets *anything* right regarding the
events of November 22nd, 1963, somebody call MSNBC or CBS right away.
Because that'll be big news.
Ralph Cinque:
Listen, Von Pein: You desperate people can misconstrue this as many times as you want, but the result is going to be a slap-down by me every time.
How many times do I have to tell you: SHELLEY WASN'T OUT THERE AFTER THE ASSASSINATION. HE LEFT THE IMMEDIATELY, BY HIS OWN ACCOUNT, AND DID NOT COME BACK.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that Fritz would have asked Oswald for his alibi, and Oswald would have wanted to tell it? And if you read the Fritz Notes, you'd know that Oswald spoke of eating his lunch in the 1st floor lunch room WHEN JUNIOR JARMAN AND THE SHORT NEGRO (HAROLD NORMAN) WERE HANGING AROUND. THAT WAS WELL BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION.
AND HOW DENSE AND SCLEROTIC HAS ALL THAT KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN MADE YOU? By the time of his Warren Commission testimony, Will Fritz knew very well what was expected of him. He knew very well what it was, a Stalinist show trial with the explicit purpose of convicting Oswald, and they didn't want to hear anything to the contrary, least of all from him. By that point in time, Will Fritz was part of the conspiracy.
Shelley WAS in the doorway during the assassination. Shelley was WAS NOT in the doorway after the assassination. Oswald correctly cited Shelley being in the doorway, which means that he must have been with him WHEN SHELLEY WAS ACTUALLY THERE which was during the motorcade.
Shelley was not out front when Oswald left for home.
Shelley was not out front when Oswald left for home.
Shelley was not out front when Oswald left for home.
Shelley was not out front when Oswald left for home.
Shelley was not out front when Oswald left for home.
Shelley was a supervisor who was asked to give police a tour of the 6th floor. He was not milling around out front chewing the fat when Oswald left for home.
You're tap dancing on a lie, Von Pein. Oswald never said he was in the lunch room eating at 12:30. Even your pal Vincent Bugliosi, in Reclaiming History, said that Oswald ate his lunch in the 1st floor lunch room and he was finished by 12:15.
Why don't you think, Von Pein? What is the very first and most important thing that any investigator wants to ask a suspect who denies guilt? WHERE WERE YOU AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME? It's called an alibi, and it comes up right away in the first interview. So, what's Oswald's alibi in his first interview? That he was out with Bill Shelley in front. The alibi has got to be in there, and that's it; it can't be anything else.
And remember, we also have this:
And that combined with "out with Bill Shelley in front" is a sweeping exoneration of Oswald. The notes support the imagery, and the imagery supports the notes. Oswald was innocent. But, I can't say the same for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.