Oswald Leaving TSBD?

[Sandy Larsen]

10 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

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

 

Yup, was born and raised here. I lived in California for ten years and then returned to Utah. The storyline for Bonanza took place in Nevada, which sits right between Utah and California. These three states are among those that made up the "Wild West." ("American Frontier" in Wikipedia.)

[Alistair Briggs]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yup, was born and raised here. I lived in California for ten years and then returned to Utah. The storyline for Bonanza took place in Nevada, which sits right between Utah and California. These three states are among those that made up the "Wild West." ("American Frontier" in Wikipedia.)

Good stuff.

My knowledge of Utah is limited to be honest.

I just did a bit of digging on Google and came across something about Utah that I didn't know before, and it was something that will relate back to JFK. lol

In 2011, for the episode 'The Impossible Astronaut', British TV show Doctor Who made their first 'principal photography' shooting in the United States and the location they chose was Utah (they filmed some parts on the shore of Lake Powell).

The very first episode of Doctor Who was due to be shown at 5:15pm on the 23rd of November, but it started 80 seconds late because the news report of JFK's assassination over ran slightly.

 

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

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,

You offer a choice: EITHER they were lying too fast; OR they had weeks to coordinate their lies.  WHICH?  My answer is BOTH.  I will stand by that.

You repeatedly claim that if Fritz is lying he should be trying to incriminate LHO.  I was being courteous when I said that was superfluous.  It is more direct to simply say it is false.  There are other, more reasonable options.

The "lunch" mythology was invented by Fritz-Holmes & Co.   It is totally bogus, and it is strong evidence of fabrication.

You rightly note that the Fritz-Holmes-Hosty-Bookhout-Sorrels FABRICATIONS never did work very well.  But for some reason, many CTers (especially the CIA-did-it CTers) continue to live the fact in DENIAL.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours 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

Alistair,

Yes, Michael was right about the actual WC testimony that I'm speaking about.   Here's the rest of it:

-------- BEGIN EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF HARRY HOLMES ------------

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. Then he went to the Russian Embassy and he said, because he said then he wanted to go to Russia by way of Cuba, still trying to get to Cuba and try that angle and they refused and said, "Come back in 30 days," or something like that. And, he went out of there angry and disgusted.

Mr. BELIN. Did he go to the Cuban Embassy, did he say or not?

Mr. HOLMES. He may have gone there first, but the best of my recollection, it might have been Cuban and then the Russian, wherever he went at first, he wanted to get to Cuba, and then he went to the Russian to go by Cuba.

Mr. BELIN. Did he say why he wanted to go to Cuba?

Mr. HOLMES. No.

Mr. BELIN. Did -- this wasn't reported in your interview in the memorandum that you wrote?

Mr. HOLMES. No.

Mr. BELIN. Is this something that you think you might have picked up from just reading the papers, or is this something you remember hearing?

Mr. HOLMES. That is what he said in there.

-------- END EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF HARRY HOLMES ------------

So...what do you think?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 3, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Good stuff.

My knowledge of Utah is limited to be honest.

I just did a bit of digging on Google and came across something about Utah that I didn't know before, and it was something that will relate back to JFK. lol

In 2011, for the episode 'The Impossible Astronaut', British TV show Doctor Who made their first 'principal photography' shooting in the United States and the location they chose was Utah (they filmed some parts on the shore of Lake Powell).

The very first episode of Doctor Who was due to be shown at 5:15pm on the 23rd of November, but it started 80 seconds late because the news report of JFK's assassination over ran slightly.

 

I'll have to check out that episode of Doctor Who. Utah is quite a scenic state.

This is where I live (Provo/Orem). See the houses between Utah Lake and the Rocky Mountains? I'm sitting in one of them right now.

 

Lake Powell is a man-made lake. The dam that created it was completed two months before Kennedy's assassination. It's almost 200 miles long.

This is Robert Redford's ski resort, Sundance. He lives across the road from it.

 

There are 2000 arches at Arches National Monument:

 

And all kinds of red-rock canyons and formations all over the place. Great for rock climbing.

 

 

Thanks for indulging me.

[Michael Clark]

Winston Churchill said.... "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

I'll offer that the inverse is also true for the conspirators of the plot to kill JFK and their efforts to hide their trail.

 

Cheers, 

Mike
 

[Michael Clark]

Thanks Sandy,  I spent about 2 weeks in my new Jeep in 2001, cruising and camping in Utah. Out of all the Rocky Mountain states, Utah impressed me the most. 

Edited February 3, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Sandy Larsen]

15 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Thanks Sandy,  I spent about 2 weeks in my new Jeep in 2001, cruising and camping in Utah. Out of all the Rocky Mountain states, Utah impressed me the most. 

Thanks Michael. Yeah, I'm sort of fond of Utah. 

Alistair, I did find Doctor Who: The Impossible Astronaut on Youtube. Sure enough, right at the beginning is a place I recognized... Monument Valley. I drove through there once.

Many of you have seen this place as well... on the big screen.
 

 

Edited February 3, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Alistair Briggs]

Paul, in fairness, it would be remiss of me to say that you're ultimately wrong (I haven't ruled out the possibility that you are correct), it's just I don't see it (yet?), I'm still to be convinced...

I've said before, because there is no recording of any of the interrogations, and because the notes were 'finalised' 'weeks' after the fact we can't take any of it as a verbatim account, that is axiomatic. But it is what it is, and it's all we have to go on at this moment, so we have to consider whether it is a 'fair' representation or not.

Not only do you think it is not a 'fair' representation, you raise the bar to say that Fritz is 'lying' and is part of the 'plot' to have Oswald guilty for a crime that he wasn't guilty of...

No problem with that line of thinking, it's a reasonable thing to bring to the table, but it's just not enough to say it, it has to be 'tested'. Not just by me and you, but anyone else too...

How to test it?

On a very basic level the first thing to consider is whether or not what it is claimed Oswald said is a 'fair representation' of what was actually said.

Then one has to consider the premise, and the premise is that Fritz is 'lying' and is part of the 'plot' to have Oswald guilty for a crime that he wasn't guilty of. With such a premise we can infer that Fritz's lies would have to be to incriminate Oswald, and there are two parts to that 1) Fritz's lies and 2) incriminate Oswald. So what we need to look for is any parts of it that contradict other sources (indicating a falsehood) and then when such a thing is found we need to consider whether it does or doesn't incriminate Oswald. We also have to consider whether such contradictions can be attributed to Fritz incriminating Oswald, or Oswald incriminating himself!

That last part is important. Whilst you, Paul, have ruled out Oswald as being guilty (and whether or not I agree), it would be remiss to totally ignore the possibility (for reasons of fairness). And the reason it shouldn't be ruled out totally whilst considering the claim of what he did or didn't say under interrogation is because it is considering the claim of what he did or didn't say under interrogation.

(It's too early in the morning for me to continue here; I need to go to work. Afterwards, when I have some more time, I will continue this and say more on it. Hang tight with me, I will get there. lol )

 

 

 

 

[Paul Trejo]

8 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Paul, in fairness, it would be remiss of me to say that you're ultimately wrong (I haven't ruled out the possibility that you are correct), it's just I don't see it (yet?), I'm still to be convinced...

I've said before, because there is no recording of any of the interrogations, and because the notes were 'finalised' 'weeks' after the fact we can't take any of it as a verbatim account, that is axiomatic. But it is what it is, and it's all we have to go on at this moment, so we have to consider whether it is a 'fair' representation or not.

Not only do you think it is not a 'fair' representation, you raise the bar to say that Fritz is 'lying' and is part of the 'plot' to have Oswald guilty for a crime that he wasn't guilty of...

No problem with that line of thinking, it's a reasonable thing to bring to the table, but it's just not enough to say it, it has to be 'tested'. Not just by me and you, but anyone else too...

How to test it?

On a very basic level the first thing to consider is whether or not what it is claimed Oswald said is a 'fair representation' of what was actually said.

Then one has to consider the premise, and the premise is that Fritz is 'lying' and is part of the 'plot' to have Oswald guilty for a crime that he wasn't guilty of. With such a premise we can infer that Fritz's lies would have to be to incriminate Oswald, and there are two parts to that 1) Fritz's lies and 2) incriminate Oswald. So what we need to look for is any parts of it that contradict other sources (indicating a falsehood) and then when such a thing is found we need to consider whether it does or doesn't incriminate Oswald. We also have to consider whether such contradictions can be attributed to Fritz incriminating Oswald, or Oswald incriminating himself!

That last part is important. Whilst you, Paul, have ruled out Oswald as being guilty (and whether or not I agree), it would be remiss to totally ignore the possibility (for reasons of fairness). And the reason it shouldn't be ruled out totally whilst considering the claim of what he did or didn't say under interrogation is because it is considering the claim of what he did or didn't say under interrogation.

(It's too early in the morning for me to continue here; I need to go to work. Afterwards, when I have some more time, I will continue this and say more on it. Hang tight with me, I will get there. lol )

Alistair,

I'm glad we're at least on the same page.  I agree that much needs to be done to make the case against the Dallas cops and the Radical Right in Dallas, since most of the past half-century was wasted trying to prove that the CIA-did-it.

Again -- I disagree with the premise that if Fritz was lying, that he had to make the lie a Big One.  All that Fritz really had to do -- realistically -- was to get people to stop asking questions about the Dallas cops.  He was successful.  The people started asking questions about the CIA instead.

Yet after a half-century, it is clear that the CIA was mostly clueless about the JFK assassination (Simpich, 2014) and only two mid-level CIA guys knew about it (Hunt and Morales).

The core of the JFK plot was centered in Dallas.  The principals were the Dallas cops, deputies, and their leader was a former US Army General named Edwin Walker, who resigned in 1961, forfeiting his Army Pension -- the only General in the 20th century to do so.   JFK and RFK had him stripped naked and sent to an insane asylum on October 1, 1962.  LHO tried to shoot him on April 10, 1963.  Walker got his revenge on both JFK and LHO on 11/22/1963.

That is the big picture.  The smaller picture involves picking apart the WC testimony of Will Fritz, Harry Holmes, James Hosty, Robert Alan Surrey, General Walker and their co-conspirators.  The past 50 years of CT's makes this an uphill climb.  I'm glad that you at least have an open mind about it.

What do think about Harry Holmes' testimony as shared above by Michael and me?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 3, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Alistair Briggs]

3 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

What do think about Harry Holmes' testimony as shared above by Michael and me?

Paul, you posted there just as I was about to post a comment in furtherance of my earlier comment, I'm about ready to submit it, but should give you something of a fair warning - you probably won't like what it says. lol Keep in mind though I am just being your opponent and not your enemy, for want of a better expression, I will say that I am kind of playing 'Devil's Advocate'. I hope that when you read it you will give it as much credence to it as how much thought I put in to it, and hopefully it will be clear enough so that you know I mean it in a good positive way- although it may not at first appear so, it is something of an 'olive branch'. It's quite a long piece to be honest, and it's more as an FYI rather than something that needs 'debunked'. I hope you pick up on what I hint towards in it, and as a hint to that, it's relevant to the question of Harry Holmes testimony.

Regards

P.S. I'm pretty soon going to have to head off soon (Friday night is football night. ) but I will be back on later to pick up our discussion. The Harry Holmes thing is a good point of interest by the way, and at some point in the not too distant future I am hoping to discuss further with you General Walker.

 

[Alistair Briggs]

 

14 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

You offer a choice: EITHER they were lying too fast; OR they had weeks to coordinate their lies.  WHICH?  My answer is BOTH.  I will stand by that.

I didn't offer up a choice, you did Paul, it's your words, your theory. I question it not because I have a different theory, but because it needs questioned. And why does it need questioned? Because 'lying too fast' and 'weeks to co-ordinate their lies' are not good bedfellows. You have answered that you will stand by BOTH. That's fine.However unless you can explain away the difference between 'lying too fast' and 'weeks to coordinate their lies' then a 'neutral' will still question it.

14 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

You repeatedly claim that if Fritz is lying he should be trying to incriminate LHO.  I was being courteous when I said that was superfluous.  It is more direct to simply say it is false.  There are other, more reasonable options.

The last time you said that I was repeatedly claiming that, I pointed out how wrong that was, perhaps you missed it or chose to ignore it, so I will repeat it again here;

" 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. "

The thing is Paul, it's your theory and you are the one that needs to make the case.

So a simple question for you is for what reason does Fritz have to make up what Oswald says? From reading your posts the logical answer is that Fritz has to make up what Oswald says to show that Oswald was guilty of a crime he wasn't guilty of. So by definition then, if Fritz is lying he should be trying to incriminate Oswald (I have put in the caveat of 'more than it appears he is' but you either missed that or chose to ignore it - doing so doesn't help your case btw )

From what you have said above, no matter how it's dressed up, you have just said that it is FALSE to say that Fritz is trying to incriminate Oswald.

So the question then is, what other, more reasonable options are there? If it is FALSE to say that Fritz is trying to incriminate Oswald, then what reason for Fritz lying is there? You need to re-evaluate it - and I say that as a bit of 'helpful advice', because your ultimate conclusion may well be correct but if your reasoning on reaching the conclusion is faulty then it is hard to 'sell' your conclusion (even if your conclusion is correct). Think about it, if it's FALSE to say that Fritz lying is to incriminate Oswald, then what is the 'truth'? Is the truth that Fritz was making things up to show that Oswald was a xxxx? Fritz wouldn't need to make anything up to show that Oswald was a xxxx if Oswald was lying anyway. From what I've read of your theory (and please correct me if I'm wrong - privately if you wish. ) part of it is that Oswald took the rilfe in and passed it off to someone else, and that Oswald was not the shooter. Think it through! If part of your theory is that Oswald did take the rifle in, then also having as part of your theory that Fritz lied about what Oswald said about it is actually harmful to your theory - it might not seem like it to you, but it does. Fritz doesn't need to make up a story about Oswald not taking in the rifle because Oswald wouldn't say he took the rifle in anyway Fritz can paint Oswald as a xxxx without having to make things up. lol

14 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

The "lunch" mythology was invented by Fritz-Holmes & Co.   It is totally bogus, and it is strong evidence of fabrication.
 

I will presume by the 'lunch mythology' you mean the 'Oswald taking in a lunch on the ride with Frazier'. - As has been noted, Frazier denies Oswald did that, and Frazier, on that point, seems believable. If we say that Frazier is correct then, and only then, can we say that 'Oswald taking in a lunch on the ride with Frazier' is totally bogus (your words!) - it is made up.

Seen as the 'Oswald taking a lunch on the ride with Frazier' came from Fritz interrogating Oswald, then the question becomes was it Fritz that made it up or was it Oswald that made it up - that's what a 'neutral' would ask! But before even attempting an answer at that..

It is important to show what else Frazier said: Not only did he state that Oswald did not take in a lunch, he also stated that Oswald told him the package that was placed on the back seat contained curtain rods.

It is also important to show what else came from Fritz interrogating Oswald: Not only (it is claimed) did Oswald state that he took a lunch in, he also stated that it was on his lap in the front seat and that he did not place a package on the back seat and that he made no mention of curtain rods to Frazier.

So, if Frazier is correct on those points then, and only then, can we say that 'Oswald taking in a lunch' is made up, that 'Oswald did not place a package on the back seat' is made up and that 'Oswald did not tell Frazier it was curtain rods' is made up.

So who is making it up? Fritz or Oswald?

Fritz could be making it up to show that Oswald is a xxxx.

Or

Oswald could be making it up because it's the opposite of the truth!

What it fundamentally comes down to then is whether Oswald said it or not in the first place. If Oswald did say it then Fritz doesn't need to make anything up to show that Oswald is a xxxx (because it contradicts Frazier's truth). If Oswald did not say it then what Oswald actually did say must have been something entirely different (that would still have to contradict Frazier's truth) which implicates him in the crime anyway and Fritz has no need to make anything up.

It stands to reason then that, on the part of the 'lunch mythology' Fritz has no reason to make it up.

Note: it has to be said that Oswald could have been telling the truth all along and that it was Frazier who was wrong.

Regards

P.S. Paul, geuninely I don't have a different theory that goes against your theory. I don't have a different theory period. I'm very much open to all and any theories-always have been. The thing is though if part of a theory doesn't make sense then people tend to switch off from it, that doesn't mean that the whole theory is wrong, or that the ultimate conclusion is also wrong, it just means that that part of the theory needs re-evaluated and considered. If one part of anyone's theory can be easily debunked, or at least called in to question, then it calls in to question the rest of it, even though the rest of it is sound and the conlusion sound - that's something you have to consider as it is your theory. If parts of your theory are constantly called in to question then either that part of your theory is erroneous or you need to explain it better - not for my benefit, or anyone else in this forum by the way, but for the benefit of those outwith (the proverbial 'jury' that are there to be convinced ) Finding something that doesn't fit in to a theory isn't a problem. Not everything needs to fit a theory, not everything needs to be explained away - only takes one black swan to prove that not all swans are white. If you are certain that Fritz (or whoever else) fabricated parts of what Oswald said then that is fine, but why not stick to a part that is on 'more solid ground' (hint: the Mexico trip ) rather than go after other bits that could, and I repeat could, end up being harmful (in the eyes of the 'jury') to your overall theory. It would be an exercise in futility to try to prove that everything Fritz claims that Oswald said was made up by Fritz, as you have said previously the best lies have there foundations in truth, and there is a few bits that it is claimed that Oswald said are probably things Oswald certainly said (the part about the BYP for example). Narrow the scope and find the things that are reasonably likely to not have been said by Oswald (hint: again, the Mexico trip), rather than go after other parts that could go either way.

I like your theory, Paul, honestly I do, it's just that sometimes I feel you try to over-explain things to fit as much as possible in to your theory that aren't necessarily needed for your theory and don't necessarily need explained away anyway.

 

Edited February 3, 2017 by Alistair Briggs
fixing 'with' to 'without' in the line "Fritz can paint Oswald as a xxxx without having to make things up"

[Bill Miller]

2 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

So, if Frazier is correct on those points then, and only then, can we say that 'Oswald taking in a lunch' is made up, that 'Oswald did not place a package on the back seat' is made up and that 'Oswald did not tell Frazier it was curtain rods' is made up.

So who is making it up? Fritz or Oswald?

Seems to me that Frtiz would be aware that is notes would be a matter of record, so any contradictions would be Oswald's. I for one believe Lee was evasive with the police because in his mind he was working for an institution higher than the DPD. That the people Lee was working for would come and straighten everything out off the record perhaps. The problem for Lee was that he may have found himself hung out to dry.

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

Seems to me that Fritz would be aware that is notes would be a matter of record, so any contradictions would be Oswald's. I for one believe Lee was evasive with the police because in his mind he was working for an institution higher than the DPD. That the people Lee was working for would come and straighten everything out off the record perhaps. The problem for Lee was that he may have found himself hung out to dry.

Bill,

It seems to me that Will Fritz & Co. could have claimed that Oswald said anything, and the WC would have no choice but to accept it.  Fritz was smart enough to make his invented LHO dialog seem realistic.   No contradictions were Oswald's -- we have no clue in the world what Oswald really said to Will Fritz.  It is barely possible that some of the things Oswald told Will Fritz were included in the so-called "notes" of Will Fritz (written long after the JFK-LHO murder weekend), but those were unnecessary. 

I want to link these remarks with the current thread.  Will Fritz claimed that LHO said that he was on the steps of the TSBD when the JFK shooting occurred.  That is what some people rely upon in their fascination with Prayer Man.  The point I raise here is that Will Fritz invented this LHO dialog.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 3, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

5 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

<snip>

So a simple question for you is for what reason does Fritz have to make up what Oswald says? From reading your posts the logical answer is that Fritz has to make up what Oswald says to show that Oswald was guilty of a crime he wasn't guilty of. So by definition then, if Fritz is lying he should be trying to incriminate Oswald (I have put in the caveat of 'more than it appears he is' but you either missed that or chose to ignore it - doing so doesn't help your case btw )

From what you have said above, no matter how it's dressed up, you have just said that it is FALSE to say that Fritz is trying to incriminate Oswald.

So the question then is, what other, more reasonable options are there? If it is FALSE to say that Fritz is trying to incriminate Oswald, then what reason for Fritz lying is there? You need to re-evaluate it - and I say that as a bit of 'helpful advice', because your ultimate conclusion may well be correct but if your reasoning on reaching the conclusion is faulty then it is hard to 'sell' your conclusion (even if your conclusion is correct). Think about it, if it's FALSE to say that Fritz lying is to incriminate Oswald, then what is the 'truth'? Is the truth that Fritz was making things up to show that Oswald was a xxxx? Fritz wouldn't need to make anything up to show that Oswald was a xxxx if Oswald was lying anyway. From what I've read of your theory (and please correct me if I'm wrong - privately if you wish. ) part of it is that Oswald took the rilfe in and passed it off to someone else, and that Oswald was not the shooter. Think it through! If part of your theory is that Oswald did take the rifle in, then also having as part of your theory that Fritz lied about what Oswald said about it is actually harmful to your theory - it might not seem like it to you, but it does. Fritz doesn't need to make up a story about Oswald not taking in the rifle because Oswald wouldn't say he took the rifle in anyway Fritz can paint Oswald as a xxxx without having to make things up. lol

<snip>

Regards

Alistair,

Why does Fritz have to make up what LHO said?  The main reason: because any actual dialog between Fritz and LHO would have incriminated Will Fritz & Co. 

Therefore, Fritz had to insert an invented LHO dialog in the blank.  He had to make it sound realistic and vanilla.  He had the help of James Hosty, James Bookhout, Forrest Sorrels and Harry Holmes in this invention.   Jesse Curry could help by bringing the team some DPD Affidavits from that day, so they could piece together a realistic sounding line of baloney for the Warren Commission (which none of them ultimately respected.  As Carl Oglesby called it, the "Yankee and Cowboy Wars").

You keep saying, "by definition, if Fritz is lying he should be trying to incriminate Oswald."  This is simply false.  It is only safe to say that if Fritz is lying then he should be trying to keep himself from incrimination.   The DPD knew that the authorities already had LHO's rifle on the 6th floor, with bullets from the JFK limo that were reasonable matches to that rifle.  Case closed, as far as the Dallas DA was concerned.  Will Fritz knew he didn't have to add incriminating statements to his bogus, invented, LHO dialog.

So -- yes -- we agree -- it is FALSE to say that Fritz is trying to incriminate LHO.   Fritz is merely trying to distract attention away from himself and his co-conspirators.

The likely thing that LHO said in custody was only this: "I will not speak with any of you until I see my lawyer, Mr. John Abt.  Period."  IMHO, it is unlikely that LHO would have said anything else at all.   What LHO blurted out to the world press showed he was clearly under pressure, but clearly trying earnestly to keep his cool.  

Everything else was made up by Fritz & Co.  They tried hard to make the fake LHO dialog sound realistic -- and they were very good at it.  But their lying did not always work -- the "lunch bag" lie stuck out like a sore thumb.  Also, the Mexico City attribution sticks way out.  There is much more. 

Again -- if (and only if) Will Fritz & Co. are lying, then it is useless to keep referring to "what LHO said" when he was in custody.   We really don't know.   If that really is Prayer Man, we need extra evidence, because we just lost LHO himself as a witness.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 3, 2017 by Paul Trejo