 |
Hi All,
A side by side comparison of FBI Bookhout's report and Will Fritz's notes
of the first post arrest interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald demonstrates
that the "out front with Bill Shelley" alibi for Oswald, often cited by
the OIC, actually refers to a time AFTER the JFK shooting.
If you don't believe me, read along, using Bookhout's report and the
second column of Fritz's notes:
Bookhout's report:
http://www.history-matters.
And DPD Fritz's notes:
http://www.jfk-info.com/
In a side by side fashion, what we see is the almost EXACT same
sequence of events documented:
BOOKHOUT: "...he was on the second floor of said building, having just
purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police
officer came into the room..."
FRITZ: "claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in"
BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor
and stood around and had lunch..."
FRITZ: "to 1st floor had lunch"
BOOKHOUT: "He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten
minutes with foreman BILL SHELLY..."
FRITZ: "out with Bill Shelley in front"
BOOKHOUT: "He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon
remarks of BILL SHELLY, he did not believe that there was going to be any
more work that day..."
FRITZ: "lft wk opinion nothing be done that day etc."
BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that his hours of work at the Texas School Book
Depository are from 8 a.m. to 4.45p.m., but that he is not required to
punch a a time clock."
FRITZ: "? punch clock" and "8-4:45 wre not rigid abt time"
BOOKHOUT: "His usual place of work in the building is on the first floor;
however he...had been on all of the floors in the performance of his
duties on November 22, 1963."
FRITZ: "wked reg 1st FL but all over"
That's just following both documents through sequentially.
It couldn't be MORE obvious what the Fritz reference to Shelley refers to
a time AFTER the assassination, not BEFORE where the OIC want it to be.
The "out front with Bill Shelley" exoneration of Oswald, using Fritz's
notes, is no longer tenable.
People like Ralph Cinque and Richard Charnin should stop citing it.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
A side by side comparison of FBI Bookhout's report and Will Fritz's notes
of the first post arrest interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald demonstrates
that the "out front with Bill Shelley" alibi for Oswald, often cited by
the OIC, actually refers to a time AFTER the JFK shooting.
If you don't believe me, read along, using Bookhout's report and the
second column of Fritz's notes:
Bookhout's report:
http://www.history-matters.
And DPD Fritz's notes:
http://www.jfk-info.com/
In a side by side fashion, what we see is the almost EXACT same
sequence of events documented:
BOOKHOUT: "...he was on the second floor of said building, having just
purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police
officer came into the room..."
FRITZ: "claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in"
BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor
and stood around and had lunch..."
FRITZ: "to 1st floor had lunch"
BOOKHOUT: "He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten
minutes with foreman BILL SHELLY..."
FRITZ: "out with Bill Shelley in front"
BOOKHOUT: "He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon
remarks of BILL SHELLY, he did not believe that there was going to be any
more work that day..."
FRITZ: "lft wk opinion nothing be done that day etc."
BOOKHOUT: "OSWALD stated that his hours of work at the Texas School Book
Depository are from 8 a.m. to 4.45p.m., but that he is not required to
punch a a time clock."
FRITZ: "? punch clock" and "8-4:45 wre not rigid abt time"
BOOKHOUT: "His usual place of work in the building is on the first floor;
however he...had been on all of the floors in the performance of his
duties on November 22, 1963."
FRITZ: "wked reg 1st FL but all over"
That's just following both documents through sequentially.
It couldn't be MORE obvious what the Fritz reference to Shelley refers to
a time AFTER the assassination, not BEFORE where the OIC want it to be.
The "out front with Bill Shelley" exoneration of Oswald, using Fritz's
notes, is no longer tenable.
People like Ralph Cinque and Richard Charnin should stop citing it.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Ralph Cinque:
Bookhout's report also said that Oswald ate lunch in the employees' lunch room after his encounter with Truly and Baker. That was not only wrong but impossible. There wasn't enough time. How could he do that and still get back to his room by 1:00?
But, just as important is the fact that Shelley wasn't out front after the assassination at the time Oswald left for home, and Shelley, himself, said so, repeatedly. Now, Brennan wants to rewrite Shelley's own words. Shelley left for the railroad tracks with Lovelady, and they were gone before Baker even reached the steps, which they saw from a distance. That is both in Shelley's testimony and Lovelady's.
So, there is NO CHANCE that Oswald saw and interacted with Shelley outside after the assassination, and Shelley said so himself.
"Out with Bill Shelley in front" was clearly Oswald's alibi for the shooting, and Fritz wrote it down. Then, amazingly, he actually told the Warren Commission that Oswald said he was eating lunch with other employees during the shooting. And even more amazingly, the Warren Commission lawyer didn't ask him who those persons were. For Christ's sake! Oswald cited two people as his alibi during the shooting, and they didn't want to talk to them?
Oswald ate his lunch before the assassination in the domino room at a time that James Jarman and Harold Norman were there, and it was well before the assassination. Oswald was definitely there at the same time that they were because how else would he have known that they were there? There were 70 employees. He didn't pull it from out his ass.
You are getting increasingly pathetic, Brennan. And I'll add that the caliber of your discourse, though base and low all along, has sunk even lower. You're a hapless, incompetent fool. You're really stupid, Man. You're at the Joseph Backes level of stupidity.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.