Jump to content
The Education Forum
Derek Thibeault

Thursday at Ruth Paines House

Recommended Posts

A follow-up on Shields....

I found the following text on a couple of Internet sites concerning Edward Shields' interview with the HSCA in the late 1970s. Here's the exchange between Shields and the HSCA investigator regarding the topic of Buell Frazier and his "rider" (whether this is the complete exchange on this topic, I'm not sure; but this is the only portion of the interview I was able to find online)....

EDWARD SHIELDS -- I think Charles Givens hollered out there and asked Frazier where was his rider and he told him: "I dropped him off at the building." Yeah, that was it...Well, I was down on the floor when they hollered out and said and the answer he gave them, I don't know, I think he said: "I dropped him off at the building." Now, whoever it was hollering asked him, I don't know.

HSCA -- This is the morning of the assassination?

SHIELDS -- Mm-hmm.

HSCA -- Somebody hollered out the window and say: "Where is your rider?" And to your recollection, Frazier says, "I dropped him off at the building."

SHIELDS -- Yes.

HSCA -- Alright. The day of the assassination, did you see Oswald come to work with Frazier?

SHIELDS -- No, I didn’t.

-------------------

So, we can see that it wasn't really Shields at all who asked Frazier anything that day. Shields thinks it was Charles Givens, who apparently hollered something to Frazier from a window of one of the Depository buildings. Was he hollering from the Houston Street TSBD warehouse building? I guess he must have been, because that's the building Shields worked in (as confirmed by Shields himself in his March 23, 1964, statement to the FBI which can be found in Commission Document No. 706).

But that's a bit confusing to me, because I thought Givens worked in the building at 411 Elm Street. He was certainly working at the Elm St. building on 11/22/63 at any rate. So this "teaming" of Edward Shields and Charlie Givens on November 22nd seems kind of odd and out of sync when it comes to the buildings they worked in. But perhaps Givens was just visiting with Shields in the building at 1917 North Houston Street before Givens started his work day on Nov. 22 at the other TSBD building on Elm Street. ~shrug~

[EDIT --- Here's a map which illustrates the locations of the two different TSBD buildings in relation to each other, and in relation to "Parking Lot No. 1", which is where Buell Frazier parked his car on 11/22/63.]

Plus....

We can see that Shields is far from certain about some of the things he was telling the HSCA investigator. We find all of these wishy-washy phrases in Shields' interview:

"I think Charles Givens hollered out."

"I don't know..."

"I think he said..."

"Whoever it was hollering asked him, I don't know."


And yet it is this witness (Edward Shields), per the conspiracy theorists, who is supposed to totally demolish the unwavering statements and testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier.

Yeah, right.  Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif

BTW....

As far as I am aware, Charles Givens never said a word about the above encounter that Shields said he and Givens had with Buell Frazier on the morning of November 22nd. (But, of course, most CTers think that Givens was a big fat l-i-a-r about many of the things he did say in his testimony and statements, so the fact that Givens himself has never corroborated the things Shields told the HSCA probably doesn't mean much to many CTers.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are so full of it Davey.

In my book, that is what I said.  That Shields heard Frazier's reply to someone else's question.

What does it matter who asked it?  

What matters is what Shields heard Frazier say.

This is another example of your  diversionary methods, and also your double standard when it comes to evaluation of witnesses.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

You are so full of it Davey.

In my book, that is what I said.  That Shields heard Frazier's reply to someone else's question.

Yeah, Givens. A guy you've called a l-i-a-r about other things connected to this case. But you really like the stuff Givens said in THIS one particular instance, huh? So, naturally, you're going to try and use it to your advantage.

 

Quote

What does it matter who asked it?  

What matters is what Shields heard Frazier say.

This is another example of your  diversionary methods, and also your double standard when it comes to evaluation of witnesses.   

Pot meets Kettle yet again. You just demonstrated your own "double standard" with regard to Charles Givens.

But, let's face the "real world" here --- almost everybody exhibits a "double standard" (or "cherry picking" of evidence) at one time or another when arguing their points connected with the JFK case. I've yet to meet one single person who hasn't exhibited a double standard at some point in their arguments. It's human nature and it always happens when you dive deep into ANY controversial issue.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

[...]

It's human nature and it always happens when you dive deep into ANY controversial issue.

 

glad you brought that up. It's long been my intention to point out that "in the real world," its a prime loon nut tactic of deception re "diving deep" into ANYTHING concerning this murder. An exercise of futility and diversion!

You're welcome, Dave. Anything to help drive traffic to your 25 websites, 140 blogs, 3 youtube channels and your 1.437,296 posts to JFK assassination murder USENET boards?

Edited by David G. Healy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He said he thought it was Givens he did not say it was him.  Read English much partner?

But he expressed no  doubt about what Frazier said.

But I am glad we smoked you out on this.  According to you Shields is lying.  So Shields and Dougherty, liars;  but Dougherty twice right?  Because he was in position to see Oswald fly down the stairs at the right time after the shots rang out.

And Adams and Styles?  Are they lying or mistaken Davey?  And Stroud?  Lying or  mistaken?

Therefore that is three instances of lying and three of either liars or mistakes or whatever you want to call it.

Shameless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Therefore that is three instances of lying and three of either liars or mistakes or whatever you want to call it. 

Shameless.

Only a conspiracy fantasist who has called DOZENS of different people liars could possibly think it's "shameless" for me to think some witnesses were "mistaken" (i.e., wrong, but not "lying").

——Shaking My Head——

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

But he [Edward Shields] expressed no doubt about what Frazier said.

You must be kidding! Shields expressed nothing BUT doubt about the whole episode. Read English much, partner?

Allow me to highlight Shields' doubts....

"Well, I was down on the floor when they hollered out and said and the answer he gave them, I don't know, I think he said: "I dropped him off at the building." Now, whoever it was hollering asked him, I don't know."

And what the heck does Shields mean when he says "I was down on the floor"? WTF is that all about? ~shrug time~

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

But I am glad we smoked you out on this.

Yeah, me too. Because it gave me a chance to find out what a wishy-washy and weak witness your Mr. Edward Shields truly is.

Thanks for "smoking me out", Jim.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is referring to the man who said it not the reply.  

Somebody hollered out the window and say: "Where is your rider?" And to your recollection, Frazier says, "I dropped him off at the building."

How did you talk with those people at KFC? Sign language?

BTW, Davey does this a lot, that is, he distorts the original testimony with all kinds of tricks, breaking it up, enlarging certain parts to make them central, when they are not etc.  Like I said, he is the equivalent of  a cardsharp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

He is referring to the man who said it, not the reply.  

How did you talk with your students at your L.A. high school? Sign language?

I know exactly what he's referring to. And in this sentence below, Shields is not referring to the person who hollered out the TSBD window, he's referring to Frazier. And it's a tentative and unsure statement by Shields. That's why he uses the words "I don't know" and "I think he said"....

"...the answer he gave them, I don't know, I think he said: "I dropped him off at the building"."

But you just keep on pretending that the above junk is something written in stone.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...