David G. Healy Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 excellent discussion... thanks one and all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 10 hours ago, Steve Thomas said: David, I'm not ready to knowledgeably (is that a real word?) discuss this yet, because I'm still researching it, but for what it's worth, I've come to believe that the Fritz Interrogation notes are a fraud. Not so much a fraud, as fraudulent; because I believe that a page has been removed between pp. 4 and 5 of those notes in an effort to hide the Interview at 12:35. What do you make of the bottom on page 5 of Fritz's Interrogation notes where he says that Oswald was complaining on Saturday night about wanting a jacket for a lineup? There was no lineup on Saturday night. in the DPD Archives Box 6, Folder# 1, Item# 73, there is a list of the lineups and when they took place. The only line-up on Saturday took place at 2:15 in the afternoon. If Oswald was complaining about wanting a jacket, he couldn't have been doing that at 6:30 in the evening. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box6.htm Steve Thomas I'm sorry, I forgot to include the bibliographic citation for this. I was referring to his Interrogation notes Here: http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 To anyone, In Box 15 of the DPD Archives Box 15, Folder# 1, Item# 111. Interrogation, by J. W. Fritz. Draft of the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, (Photocopy) Poor Quality), date unknown DPD Archives, Box 15, Folder# 1, Item# 111. This consists of 13 pages. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box15.htm On page 9 of this Report, the 12:35 time has been crossed out, and 6:00 PM has been written in. There is an additional note written in that I can't make out. (Brd Int?/Bnd Intv?) Is Intv an abbreviation for Interview? Can anyone hazard a guess what this writing stands for? Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Butler Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 Looks like 3rd Int ? On the page 11 there is a 4th Int I believe so it's like he was keeping tracks of the numbers ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 39 minutes ago, David Butler said: Looks like 3rd Int ? On the page 11 there is a 4th Int I believe so it's like he was keeping tracks of the numbers ? David, Thank you. I believe you're right. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 (edited) I agree with David, it looks like 3rd interview. Both that and the '4th' interview on page 11 looks like the number has been written on top of something else. The scribbled out bit underneath 3rd int (on page 9) looks to me like it original said 4th interview and has been scored out! Perhaps on looking over the notes he wrote 4th int. there and then realising it was wrong scored it out and put 3rd int. above it and perhaps the scoring out of the time (12.35) and writing the 6pm above it was his way of saying that was when the 4th one actually was. On page 10 at the time 6pm he seems to have at first written 3rd int then scored that out and written over it 4th interview (although when I view that it looks to me like the 3 is on top of the 4, but the 'th' is on top of the 'rd') and then on page 11 at the end of that interview has also placed 4th int to mark the end point... Regards Oh, just noticed Steve responded as I typed this. Edited December 31, 2016 by Alistair Briggs Edited for clarity (I hope) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 11 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said: I agree with David, it looks like 3rd interview. Both that and the '4th' interview on page 11 looks like the number has been written on top of something else. The scribbled out bit underneath 3rd int (on page 9) looks to me like it original said 4th interview and has been scored out! Perhaps on looking over the notes he wrote 4th int. there and then realising it was wrong scored it out and put 3rd int. above it and perhaps the scoring out of the time (12.35) and writing the 6pm above it was his way of saying that was when the 4th one actually was. On page 10 at the time 6pm he seems to have at first written 3rd int then scored that out and written over it 4th interview (although when I view that it looks to me like the 3 is on top of the 4, but the 'th' is on top of the 'rd') and then on page 11 at the end of that interview has also placed 4th int to mark the end point... Regards Oh, just noticed Steve responded as I typed this. Alistair, To my eye, on page 10 the note originally said 4th, and Fritz wrote 3rd over the top of it to reflect what he had written on the page before it, page 9. By changing the time from 12:35 to 6:00 PM and re-numbering the Interrogations, Fritz is making an attempt to hide the 12:35 Interrogation. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 You could well be correct there Steve. It does look to me that the 3 is on top of the 4... I base that observation mostly on the (oh dear how to describe it. lol) top of the lower 'loop' of the 3 looks to be a much bolder line stroke than the 'upstroke' of the 4 (which looks thicker beaneath it and slightly narrower atop it... *Have circled the are I mean below.... My intial observation was that the 'th' appears to be above the 'rd' but that was really just a gut reaction to seeing it. With some thinking about it, if the 3 is above the 4 it surely must follow that the 'rd' is written over the 'th', which goes a long to validating your thinking about trying to hide the 12:35 interview. *To play 'devil's advocate' a bit, I feel I have to say that it is, of course, difficult to say for sure which one was written on top of the other because we are looking at a 'scan' of something that was handwritten. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 To add to my above post. On reflection, in the other examples on pg 9 and pg 11 there is a distinct gap between the 'rd' and 'th' before the 'int' and such a gap is a natural thing to do when writing something for the first time. Yet the one on pg 10 there is no gap before the 'int' (and indeed the 'downstroke' of the 'd' goes over the 'top loop' of the 'I') and that seems unnatural - that does tend to validate the thinking that the 3rd was written over the original 4th. Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted December 31, 2016 Author Share Posted December 31, 2016 Well done everyone... Imagine the horror on Fritz's face when he realizes he asked AND SHOWED Oswald these prints before the evidence shows they were available to him. And for certain 133-C existed at this time since Det Brown is placed in that exact pose 13 years before it becomes public. Rose will testify to seeing 1 print with 2 negatives... and then proceeds to forget the photo and ultimately lose one of these negatives... 1 negative to create 3 images.... Steve - if there was no Sat evening lineup... Mr. BALL. Now, you say you sat in on the interrogation of Oswald later that day? Mr. ROSE. On Saturday evening--that Saturday evening. Mr. BALL. What time? Mr. ROSE. I don't remember--it was late--it seemed like it was around 9 or 10 o'clock, I don't remember. Mr. BALL. Who was present? Mr. ROSE. Well, Captain Fritz, Detective Sims, and myself--I don't remember--there was an FBI agent and a Secret Service agent there, but I don't remember their names. what's Rose here talking about?, he goes on to describe the showing of the BYP to Oswald? Mr. BALL. That this took place in Captain Fritz' office? Mr. ROSE. In Captain Fritz' office--yes. Well, the occasion was--I got back to the office and I took this small picture of Oswald holding the rifle, and left the rest of them with the Captain and I took one up to the I.D. bureau and had them to make me an enlargement of it, and they made an almost 8" by 10" enlargement of this picture and I brought it back to the captain and Oswald was brought in and the captain showed him this picture, and Oswald apparently got pretty upset when he saw the picture and at first he said, "Well, that's just a fake, because somebody has superimposed my face on that picture." Then, the captain said, "Well, is that you face on the picture?" And he said, "I won't even admit that. That is not even my face." I remember that part of it distinctly. I remember him volunteering some information about when he was in Russia. I read some work on the Altgens 6 timeline suggesting that Jaggers, which was central to AP/City Hall and DMN and where Oswald worked, had the most advanced photographic manipulation equipment in the US and was set up specifically to make changes to images and create new negatives. food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 On 12/28/2016 at 4:29 PM, David Josephs said: This is Box 1 Folder 15 where the archives say the rest of the "typed draft" Steve, do we know where the final report is? David, You asked where the final report is. I believe that the version in Box 15, Folder# 1, Item# 111 is the final version. You can see the same version in CD 81 AG Texas Letter with attachments dated 07 Jan 1964 beginning on page 452. CE 2003 (24H) p. 268 Appendix XI of the Warren Report. On page 607 The version in Box 1 is the original, you can see where Fritz went over this with a stenographer, and indicated where he wanted to break with new paragraphs. These changes are reflected in the version in Box 15. The anomaly here, is that someone, at some point, went back in and changed the Box 15 version. I think it was after the Warren Report came out in September, 1964, and Thomas Kelley's Report showed up in Appendix XI. I have run across six versions of this Interrogation. I explore this, but it's too long to be inserted here, so I put it up on a web site here: http://myjfksite.weebly.com/ look at the bottom of the page If, for some reason you can't pull it up, let me know and I'll post it here. In a later post on this thread, you said that Fritz probably *** a brick when he realized that the finding of the rifle photo did not match the 12:35 Interrogation. Somebody did, I just don't know if it was Fritz. I am finding differences between the DPD Case file in the DPD Archives, with what's in CD 81 - which is also supposed to be the DPD Case File. Things have been removed. I have come to suspect that Fritz and Kelley were the only ones there and that either: a) Oswald was being questioned about the pictures before they had officially been found; or, The 12:35 Interview had nothing to do with the pictures, but was about something else. An effort has been made to eliminate references to the 12:35 Interrogation. They succeeded in some places, but failed in others. The tipping point for me was the jail checkout card. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 On 1/2/2017 at 3:34 AM, Steve Thomas said: I have run across six versions of this Interrogation. I explore this, but it's too long to be inserted here, so I put it up on a web site here: http://myjfksite.weebly.com/ look at the bottom of the page I have come to suspect that Fritz and Kelley were the only ones there and that either: a) Oswald was being questioned about the pictures before they had officially been found; or, The 12:35 Interview had nothing to do with the pictures, but was about something else. An effort has been made to eliminate references to the 12:35 Interrogation. They succeeded in some places, but failed in others. The tipping point for me was the jail checkout card. Steve Thomas I found another copy in Box 5 of the DPD Archives, so that makes 7 copies. Why would someone go into the DPD Archives and alter this Report in Boxes 5 and 15 after the Warren Report, and CE 2003 of the 26 volume Hearings had been published? CE 2003 pp 268+ https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=286&tab=page Warren Report Appendix XI pp 607+ https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=631&tab=page DPD Archives Box 15, Folder# 1, Item# 111, pp 9+ http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box15.htm The Federal Government documents were already a matter of public record. What good would it have accomplished? Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 3, 2017 Author Share Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) From what we've been able to find it appears that only 2 copies have the 6pm correction: In Box 15 of the DPD Archives Box 15, Folder# 1, Item# 111. and Box 5 file 3 item #3 Yet as you say Steve, these changes did not make ce2003 or CD81. I did the same exercise as Alistair. "4th" is written over to make it "3rd" On pages 10 and 11 there are also changes trying to keep the # of interviews correct. A 3rd interview occurs Sat the 23rd at 12:35. a 4th interview happens at 6pm (does this actually happen?) while a 5th interview at 9:30 am is changed to 4th. The other problem is they missed a significant change.. At the end of the first paragraph on page 10 "He is placed back in jail at 1:10 PM" Changing 12:35 to 6 pm on page 9, then reiterating 6 pm on page 10 forgets that he was placed back in jail. The page 9 6 pm is a CYA for the photograph statement since the train of thought is completed regarding the 12:35-1:10 pm interview at the top of page 10. Can't "bring him back in" if he never left.... Steve - your question, "what good would it accomplish" ie to change draft versions after the final has been produced.... The time conflict was just never recognized. Could these changes have been made in preparation for Fritz's book? (edit - Fritz didn't write one... did he) Edited January 3, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339071/?q=will fritz Who is M.M.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Butler Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 22 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339071/?q=will fritz Who is M.M.? Maurice McDonald ? (aka Nick McDonald) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now