Oswald Leaving TSBD?

[Michael Clark]

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Ray,

Do you think Frazier was mistaken about the lunch bag? (He said LHO didn't have one that day, right?)

Speaking of Frazier... I've seen him say on more than one occasions that the long paper bag was too short for a rifle. But I could have sworn that one time I heard him go along with with the bag being able to hold the rifle. It seems like it was at that mock trial with Bugliosi and Spence, but I'm not sure.

Does this ring true to anybody?

Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Mr. BALL. Did Frazier ever tell you how long the package was?
Mr. FRITZ. He just measured, told me about that long.
Mr. BALL. Approximately how long?
Mr. FRITZ. I am guessing at this, the way he measured, probably 26 inches, 27 inches, something like that. Too short for the length of that rifle unless he took it down, I presume he took it down if it was in there, and I am sure it was.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember what time you--was it the way Frazier showed it to you--was it the size of a rifle that was broken down?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; it would be just about right.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Paul Trejo]

6 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

...Fritz said that LHO told him that he had brought his lunch, and had it with him in the front seat or at his side while driving with Frazier.

Frazier said that LHO did not bring a lunch with him. 

It seems clear to me who would be telling the truth here, and who would have a motive to lie. It seems to me like Frazier is telling the truth.

Cheers,

Michael

Michael,

I agree.   Fritz is lying.  Also, Holmes is lying. 

Also -- against Alistair's point -- we  have Baker and Truly witnessing to the 2nd floor encounter with a Coke -- but we DON'T have LHO as a witness to it.  We have Harry Holmes alluding to it in his messy way -- but not by memory, IMHO.  Rather, Holmes is merely trying to make  his record match Baker and Truly -- whose testimony Holmes had already seen along with Will Fritz in all those DPD Affidavits.

If Fritz is lying then Holmes is lying.  There is some truth in the lies -- but most of that truth comes from DPD Affidavits.   Here is where the Conspiracy unfolds, IMHO.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Sandy Larsen]

14 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Interestingly that's what I thought originally, the narrowness of the landing means the door has to open inside only. And yet, the only photos I can find (thus far) all show the door opening outwards. I can't yet find a photo that shows the door opening inwards. I did find a First Floor Plan that shows the door could swing both ways, but in a comment from William Kelly from 2009 in a thread entitled Why Oswald Is Innocent, he makes note that those plans were made specifically for the WC and are NOT architectural renderings - he points out a couple of things erroneous about them - so I don't know.

The door definetly opens out the way though (one example)

I'm still digging around to find even just one photo that shows it opening inwards (has to be a 'contemporary' photo though, as I understand they redesigned the landing at some later point and moved the door backwards, if memory serves me right).

Regards.

In America most residential doors open inward and most commercial doors open outward. Doors that swing both ways are usually reserved for loading/unloading areas and other entryways where people carry things in and out on a regular basis.

But there are exceptions, of course. So I don't know. I don't recall ever opening a commercial door that would open both ways.

[Alistair Briggs]

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In America most residential doors open inward and most commercial doors open outward. Doors that swing both ways are usually reserved for loading/unloading areas and other entryways where people carry things in and out on a regular basis.

But there are exceptions, of course. So I don't know. I don't recall ever opening a commercial door that would open both ways.

Pretty much the same here in Scotland.

[Alistair Briggs]

12 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

I agree.   Fritz is lying.  Also, Holmes is lying. 

Also -- against Alistair's point -- we  have Baker and Truly witnessing to the 2nd floor encounter with a Coke -- but we DON'T have LHO as a witness to it.  We have Harry Holmes alluding to it in his messy way -- but not by memory, IMHO.  Rather, Holmes is merely trying to make  his record match Baker and Truly -- whose testimony Holmes had already seen along with Will Fritz in all those DPD Affidavits.

If Fritz is lying then Holmes is lying.  There is some truth in the lies -- but most of that truth comes from DPD Affidavits.   Here is where the Conspiracy unfolds, IMHO.

Paul, to be fair, Michael didn't mention the 2nd floor encounter or a Coke in his comment, only about a lunch being brought in.

Consider this, if Frazier is correct that Oswald didn't take a lunch in; what reason would Fritz have to make it up? There remains the possibility that it was Oswald that was making it up.

I'm very open to the suggestion of Fritz making things up, it's just I have yet to be given anything that Fritz has Oswald saying that would incriminate him, and surely that would be the point if Fritz was making things up.

Regards

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm curious Alistair... do you make an effort to write, here on the forum, the way Americans write? (I assume you are Scottish.) I ask because I detect nothing foreign in your writing, with the exception of your use of the word "anyroad," which we would say as "anyway."

For example, you just wrote, "Pretty much the same here in Scotland." Which is precisely the way I would have worded it.

[Paul Trejo]

16 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Paul, to be fair, Michael didn't mention the 2nd floor encounter or a Coke in his comment, only about a lunch being brought in.

Consider this, if Frazier is correct that Oswald didn't take a lunch in; what reason would Fritz have to make it up? There remains the possibility that it was Oswald that was making it up.

I'm very open to the suggestion of Fritz making things up, it's just I have yet to be given anything that Fritz has Oswald saying that would incriminate him, and surely that would be the point if Fritz was making things up.

Regards

Alistair,

I assert that the LHO "lunch bag in the lap" remark was completely made up by Fritz-Holmes.  It comes from their imagination.  There is no support for it anywhere that I know.

Why did Fritz-Holmes make it up?  Because they were lying so fast that they stumbled over their own feet.  That's the obvious reason, IMHO.

The evidence that Fritz and Holmes were lying in this regard is based on all the OTHER lies that they told about LHO in their sworn testimony.

Now you say that "there remains the possibility."   Please, let's not open up to every possible possibility, because that is infinite and flaps in the wind, IMHO.

Let's stick with facts as far as possible.  We can no longer insist that LHO said *anything* in his interviews with Fritz-Holmes-Hosty-Bookhout because there is no chain of evidence -- no notes that can be traced to that interview day.   These men had WEEKS to coordinate their lies.

Your repeated claim, that if Fritz is lying, then Fritz should be trying to incriminate LHO, is superfluous.  More likely, Fritz is lying in order to cover his own activities.  Fritz and gang tried to invent the most plausible last words of LHO in his final interrogation -- so that people would stop asking questions!

Harry Holmes unraveled the whole thing by his claim that LHO spilled the beans about Mexico City trip -- but most likely Holmes was merely remembering what he had read from FBI reports showed to the inner circle by James Hosty -- a co-conspirator.   The lies just kept coming.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 2, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Alistair Briggs]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I'm curious Alistair... do you make an effort to write, here on the forum, the way Americans write? (I assume you are Scottish.) I ask because I detect nothing foreign in your writing, with the exception of your use of the word "anyroad," which we would say as "anyway."

For example, you just wrote, "Pretty much the same here in Scotland." Which is precisely the way I would have worded it.

I don't make a conscious effort to do so, I just pretty much type the way I would normally say things - not much difference really in the language. If you want me to burst out the Scottish in me I can do that nae bawhair at aw. A lot of 'Americanisms' make their way over here all the same because a lot of out Television is from the US.

Re: the anyroad. lol I do like saying that, interestingly enough it's not a common word to use in Scotland, it is more used in Northern England, but I like it so adopted it (mostly because John Lennon used it. lol) I do use anyway also quite often.

But, no, no efforts on my part to write the way Americans write, I reckon it's just that the language isn't as different as sometimes it seems it should be.

Regards

[Michael Clark]

22 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Paul, to be fair, Michael didn't mention the 2nd floor encounter or a Coke in his comment, only about a lunch being brought in.

Consider this, if Frazier is correct that Oswald didn't take a lunch in; what reason would Fritz have to make it up? There remains the possibility that it was Oswald that was making it up.

I'm very open to the suggestion of Fritz making things up, it's just I have yet to be given anything that Fritz has Oswald saying that would incriminate him, and surely that would be the point if Fritz was making things up.

Regards

I am speculating that Fritz has to have LHO inside, somewhere, with a cover story that he was having lunch. That's tough to do if he doesn't have a lunch. Certainly, people were questioned and we never heard about it. So the lunch wagon guy, or caterer, as Frazier put it, probably said that he didn't see LHO. 

[Alistair Briggs]

7 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

I assert that the LHO "lunch bag in the lap" remark was completely made up by Fritz-Holmes.  It comes from their imagination.  There is no support for it anywhere that I know.

Why did Fritz-Holmes make it up?  Because they were lying so fast that they stumbled over their own feet.  That's the obvious reason, IMHO.

The evidence that Fritz and Holmes were lying in this regard is based on all the OTHER lies that they told about LHO in their sworn testimony.

Now you say that "there remains the possibility."   Please, let's not open up to every possible possibility, because that is infinite and flaps in the wind, IMHO.

Let's stick with facts as far as possible.  We can no longer insist that LHO said *anything* in his interviews with Fritz-Holmes-Hosty-Bookhout because there is no chain of evidence -- no notes that can be traced to that interview day.   These men had WEEKS to coordinate their lies.

Your repeated claim, that if Fritz is lying, then Fritz should be trying to incriminate LHO, is superfluous.  More likely, Fritz is lying in order to cover his own activities.  Fritz and gang tried to invent the most plausible last words of LHO in his final interrogation -- so that people would stop asking questions!

Paul, you say they were lying so fast that they stumbled over their own feet, yet also mention that they had 'weeks' to coordinate their lies. So which is it?

Nope, saying that there remains the possibility that it was Oswald making it up does not open up 'infinite' possibilities, it opens only one and that is that there remains the possibility that it was Oswald making it up.

And for clarity, it is not my repeated claim that if Fritz is lying, then Fritz should be trying to incriminate LHO. I merely put forth that "if Fritz is lying, then Fritz should be trying to incriminate LHO more than it appears he is" - that's a very important qualifier btw. So really, calling it superflous is erroneous.

Also, note that it wasn't just in the final interrogation that the 'lunch' was mentioned btw...

You say that Fritz and gang tried to invent the most plausible last words of LHO in his final interrogation - so that people would stop asking questions! Let me ask you this then, how's that working out for them? Seems to me that people haven't stopped asking questions. lol

Regards

 

[Alistair Briggs]

29 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Harry Holmes unraveled the whole thing by his claim that LHO spilled the beans about Mexico City trip -- but most likely Holmes was merely remembering what he had read from FBI reports showed to the inner circle by James Hosty -- a co-conspirator.   The lies just kept coming.

Sorry Paul, missed that part.

Can you link to the whole 'spilled the beans about Mexico City trip' please. (just for clarity. )

Regards

[Michael Clark]

17 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Sorry Paul, missed that part.

Can you link to the whole 'spilled the beans about Mexico City trip' please. (just for clarity. )

Regards

Paul may be referring to this. 

WC testimony of Larry Holmes

 

Mr. BELIN. Anything else about Russia? Did he ever say anything about going to Mexico? Was that ever covered?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes. To the extent that mostly about--well--he didn't spend, "Where did you get the money?" He didn't have much money and he said it didn't cost much money. He did say that where he stayed it cost $26 some odd, small ridiculous amount to eat, and another ridiculous small amount to stay all night, and that he went to the Mexican Embassy to try to get this permission to go to Russia by Cuba, but most of the talks that he wanted to talk about was how he got by with a little amount.

They said, "Well, who furnished you the money to go to Mexico?"
"Well, it didn't take much money." And it was along that angle, was the conversation. Mr. BELIN. Did he admit that he went to Mexico?
Mr. HOLMES. Oh, yes. 

Mr. BELIN. Did he say what community in Mexico he went to? Mr. HOLMES. Mexico City.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say what he did while he was there?
Mr. HOLMES. He went to the Mexican consulate, I guess. (Discussion off the record.)

Mr. BELIN. Now, with regard to this Mexican trip, did he say who he saw in Mexico?
Mr. HOLMES. Only that he went to the Mexican consulate or Embassy or something and wanted to get permission, or whatever it took to get to Cuba. They refused him and he became angry and he said he burst out of there, and I don't know. I don't recall now why he went into the business about how mad it made him.
He goes over to the Russian Embassy. He was already at the American. This was the Mexican--he wanted to go to Cuba.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Alistair Briggs said:

I don't make a conscious effort to do so, I just pretty much type the way I would normally say things - not much difference really in the language. If you want me to burst out the Scottish in me I can do that nae bawhair at aw. A lot of 'Americanisms' make their way over here all the same because a lot of out Television is from the US.

Re: the anyroad. lol I do like saying that, interestingly enough it's not a common word to use in Scotland, it is more used in Northern England, but I like it so adopted it (mostly because John Lennon used it. lol) I do use anyway also quite often.

But, no, no efforts on my part to write the way Americans write, I reckon it's just that the language isn't as different as sometimes it seems it should be.

Regards

Interesting. Thanks for explaining.

BTW, we don't use the word "reckon" in the part of the States I live. But I recall they did in the old Westerns like Bonanza and Gunsmoke. I think they still use the word in the southern states. I use it for fun sometimes.

[Alistair Briggs]

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Interesting. Thanks for explaining.

BTW, we don't use the word "reckon" in the part of the States I live. But I recall they did in the old Westerns like Bonanza and Gunsmoke. I think they still use the word in the southern states. I use it for fun sometimes.

Can't say I have heard of Gunsmoke, have heard of Bonanza (think that was shown over here, but before my time - I'd need to ask my parents; just did and my mother reliable informed me that both Gunsmoke and Bonanza were shown over here and she used to watch them back in the day).

Am I right in thinking you are from Utah?

Regards

 

[Bill Miller]

36 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Interesting. Thanks for explaining.

BTW, we don't use the word "reckon" in the part of the States I live. But I recall they did in the old Westerns like Bonanza and Gunsmoke. I think they still use the word in the southern states. I use it for fun sometimes.

The word 'reckon' is used often in the south and in the midwest U.S.