Plagiarism and the Kennedy assassination

[Ed LeDoux]

I'm pretty sure many folks have taken the research of others. Some have built on them. Some have given the works of others credit where due; many have not. Unfortunately, that HAS become the nature of JFK assassination research. Some folks expect to make money from what the publish; others simply seek the truth.

And we all already know what I just posted.

In truth, most of us have no idea who FIRST put forth any of the revelations that have come out since November 22, 1963. I know that I'm not "Google" enough to know who was first with every discovery. MOST of us aren't. I can't dispute Greg Parker's claims because I simply don't have the information to do so. Neither do 99.9% of the people who visit this site.

Then again, I have no grounds [ulterior or otherwise] to dispute his claims, either.

I can't dispute Greg Parker's claims depends on which 'claims'. If he's referring to the 'first time anyone ever questioned Baker's story was 13 or 15 years ago. Then I'd say 'not likely'. It's obvious from the records that there was clearly a discrepancy no later than 11/24/63. It's hard to believe that 'no one' questioned that for 35 years.

Kenneth,

I'm not for a minute disputing no one ever questioned Baker's story. You guys keep repeating the same refrain and I keep agreeing with you. This is a mountain of proof for such questioning. But you all keep avoiding the actual issue I'm raising - that is that no one ever specifically put forward that the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter was false in its entirety.

As for the discrepancies between Baker and Truly's first day statements - no one questioned that. Why? Because Baker's statement got buried and he was kept away from the media. In all of the subsequent years when he was interviewed or questioned - including by the WC and BBC trial - no one - NO ONE ever produced Baker's first days statement, waved it front of him and grilled him about it.

So your whole premise that it seems impossible to you that no one ever questioned it in all that time, is based on a false assumption that everyone was aware of what he originally said. They were not. It was deep-sixed.

is based on a false assumption that everyone was aware of what he originally said. I'm sure I heard the story back at the time that Baker said he had encountered LHO in his search of the building. Hundreds of stories were run on all the channels back then and they put everyone that wanted to be on tv on to tell their stories. I know I heard of the encounter. I did not write a book saying that I didn't believe the story,, I just took it for what it was. I do know just from what I see now that on day one, Truly said the encounter was in the lunchroom. As far as I know, the stories were told independently on 11/23 with Baker saying 3rd or 4th floor and Truly saying 2nd floor lunchroom. Were they both supposed to say the same thing. Is it possible that was part of the conspiracy. Sure.

Baker was kept away from the media until he got on board the 2nd floor lunchroom story. There was no lunchroom on the 3rd or 4th floors - no door with window to look through. Baker's man was 30 years old, 165 pounds and wearing a brown jacket. It was not Oswald. It was not on the 2nd floor.

I did not come to this via any one else's work. I came to it by having the time and discipline to force myself back in 2001 to read through every single DPD file.

Next these jokers will try and take away Sean Murphy finding PM is Oswald, even tough some looked at the image but never questioned it could have been LHO before Sean did. Sean and Greg and many others whom broke ground deserve to be credited for such.

A good researcher will go back and see where and if a similar idea was presented, what became of the research and why it never made the leap.

Just as Greg is showing here.

[Pat Speer]

IF I understand correctly....Captain Will Fritz took NO notes DURING the questioning of Oswald Instead, Fritz "reconstructed" some notes a few days later. Holmes also took NO notes During the questioning of Oswald. Holmes claims that Oswald said he met the officer at or near the front door. Fritz says Oswald said the encounter was at or in the second-floor lunchroom Baker says it was the third or 4th floor, near the steps. Truly says it was at or in the second-floor lunchroom.

DVP claims nobody was lying. [Apparently only Jim DiEugenio and I use that term. How odd.]

So why so many different stories? If 1) the story told by i) Fritz, OR ii) Holmes, OR iii) Baker is the truth, then 2) at least two of the stories are not true.

And what do we call someone who testifies to something that is not true? [A sworn affidavit is a legal document, as we know.]

And it's not as if the details weren't important. Until Ruby shot Oswald, Oswald's life hung in the balance, depending upon which story was true. If Holmes was telling the truth, then that means someone else was not. So the details WERE and ARE important. DVP's standard "what does it matter?" response is invalid in this matter.

Greg, good "catch" of the Holmes statement.

Outside of his area of expertise--post office stuff--Holmes' statements regarding the interview of Oswald which he attended are next to worthless, IMO. He was not a homicide detective. He was not involved in the earlier interviews. He had no idea if Oswald was contradicting himself, because he had no idea what was said previously. It seems clear, then, that Holmes would not have a proper grasp of the details of the shooting, or a proper understanding of the context of Oswald's statements. And that, as a result, his recollections of Oswald's statements would be fuzzy, at best.

As noted, moreover, he made no notes. His report, even worse, was written weeks later, after Oswald had been killed and pronounced a lone nut. There's just no there there. Anyone trying to build a case that Oswald was upstairs at the time of the shots based on Holmes' subsequent report claiming he'd said as much is just desperate, and wrong, IMO.

We shouldn't rely on Holmes for anything regarding the shooting. We can mention them, for completeness' sake. But anyone assuming a postal inspector present at an interview of a homicide suspect and jotting down a report a few weeks later is gonna have a better memory than the homicide detectives, FBI, and Secret Service agents present at the interview, is really reaching.

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, no one can own a theory about history; they can only own a particular set of words placed in a particular order.

There are exceptions, however. As I recall, the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin got herself in trouble because she relied almost exclusively on another book for some chapters on a book she wrote about the Kennedy family, without giving the proper credit.

I do find this thread a little weird, however, in light of what's happening on youtube.

When I posted my first video on youtube, I was trying to add something new: a video on the Kennedy assassination presenting new research, with previously unseen footage. Well, it was only a matter of time before someone took the footage from my video, and placed his own narration on it, saying pretty much what I'd said. He then linked to his video on the aaj site. Well, I caught it, and told him he should ask the director of my video, who'd spent many hours animating the comparisons around which this guy had built his video, for permission. The guy said he wouldn't do that, and instead took the video down. He then claimed I was impeding progress or some such thing.

Well, since then, it's gotten a hundred times worse. Dozens if not hundreds of researchers/film makers have made their own videos, in which they present their own theories on the assassination, while adding nothing new, whatsoever. They just cull together the Zapruder film with the interviews in Rush to Judgment with some of the news footage from DVP's site, and then sprinkle in a little bit of The Men Who Killed Kennedy, or even Beyond the Magic Bullet, and then act like this is their video, their property. It's a disgrace, IMO, particularly in that most of these videos are just awful, repeating the worst nonsense from both the CT side and the LN side.

And yes, there's some sour grapes here. This onslaught of plagiarized nonsense has cut into the viability of REAL videos making any impact. I mean, should one want to torture oneself, one should compare the number of daily hits for a pieced-together video showing the Zapruder film and autopsy photos, with the number of hits for the Veciana interview at the AARC conference, or any of the AARC conference videos. It's like a hundred to one.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

I should add, Pat's video was pretty much an original production.

And the director did a nice job in many of the techniques he used.

[Greg Parker]

IF I understand correctly....Captain Will Fritz took NO notes DURING the questioning of Oswald Instead, Fritz "reconstructed" some notes a few days later. Holmes also took NO notes During the questioning of Oswald. Holmes claims that Oswald said he met the officer at or near the front door. Fritz says Oswald said the encounter was at or in the second-floor lunchroom Baker says it was the third or 4th floor, near the steps. Truly says it was at or in the second-floor lunchroom.

DVP claims nobody was lying. [Apparently only Jim DiEugenio and I use that term. How odd.]

So why so many different stories? If 1) the story told by i) Fritz, OR ii) Holmes, OR iii) Baker is the truth, then 2) at least two of the stories are not true.

And what do we call someone who testifies to something that is not true? [A sworn affidavit is a legal document, as we know.]

And it's not as if the details weren't important. Until Ruby shot Oswald, Oswald's life hung in the balance, depending upon which story was true. If Holmes was telling the truth, then that means someone else was not. So the details WERE and ARE important. DVP's standard "what does it matter?" response is invalid in this matter.

Greg, good "catch" of the Holmes statement.

Outside of his area of expertise--post office stuff--Holmes' statements regarding the interview of Oswald which he attended are next to worthless, IMO. He was not a homicide detective. He was not involved in the earlier interviews. He had no idea if Oswald was contradicting himself, because he had no idea what was said previously. It seems clear, then, that Holmes would not have a proper grasp of the details of the shooting, or a proper understanding of the context of Oswald's statements. And that, as a result, his recollections of Oswald's statements would be fuzzy, at best.

As noted, moreover, he made no notes. His report, even worse, was written weeks later, after Oswald had been killed and pronounced a lone nut. There's just no there there. Anyone trying to build a case that Oswald was upstairs at the time of the shots based on Holmes' subsequent report claiming he'd said as much is just desperate, and wrong, IMO.

We shouldn't rely on Holmes for anything regarding the shooting. We can mention them, for completeness' sake. But anyone assuming a postal inspector present at an interview of a homicide suspect and jotting down a report a few weeks later is gonna have a better memory than the homicide detectives, FBI, and Secret Service agents present at the interview, is really reaching.

Imo, your opinion on this is worthless. The guy was an investigator. Your take on it just brims with wanting him shut down because he wrecks your own theories. Not everyone was at every session. So maybe we should toss them all out? Fritz - when it came to Oswald's alibi during his WC testimonies starts stammering and stuttering like a geek asking a cheerleader for a date. That says it all about his obfuscation. But you're a Fritz man, aren't you, Pat?

[Greg Parker]

FWIW, no one can own a theory about history; they can only own a particular set of words placed in a particular order.

There are exceptions, however. As I recall, the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin got herself in trouble because she relied almost exclusively on another book for some chapters on a book she wrote about the Kennedy family, without giving the proper credit.

I do find this thread a little weird, however, in light of what's happening on youtube.

When I posted my first video on youtube, I was trying to add something new: a video on the Kennedy assassination presenting new research, with previously unseen footage. Well, it was only a matter of time before someone took the footage from my video, and placed his own narration on it, saying pretty much what I'd said. He then linked to his video on the aaj site. Well, I caught it, and told him he should ask the director of my video, who'd spent many hours animating the comparisons around which this guy had built his video, for permission. The guy said he wouldn't do that, and instead took the video down. He then claimed I was impeding progress or some such thing.

Well, since then, it's gotten a hundred times worse. Dozens if not hundreds of researchers/film makers have made their own videos, in which they present their own theories on the assassination, while adding nothing new, whatsoever. They just cull together the Zapruder film with the interviews in Rush to Judgment with some of the news footage from DVP's site, and then sprinkle in a little bit of The Men Who Killed Kennedy, or even Beyond the Magic Bullet, and then act like this is their video, their property. It's a disgrace, IMO, particularly in that most of these videos are just awful, repeating the worst nonsense from both the CT side and the LN side.

And yes, there's some sour grapes here. This onslaught of plagiarized nonsense has cut into the viability of REAL videos making any impact. I mean, should one want to torture oneself, one should compare the number of daily hits for a pieced-together video showing the Zapruder film and autopsy photos, with the number of hits for the Veciana interview at the AARC conference, or any of the AARC conference videos. It's like a hundred to one.

Where did I say anyone could own a theory? This thread is about plagiarism. It is about proper attribution so, as someone else said, people can properly assess sources.

[Pat Speer]

IF I understand correctly....Captain Will Fritz took NO notes DURING the questioning of Oswald Instead, Fritz "reconstructed" some notes a few days later. Holmes also took NO notes During the questioning of Oswald. Holmes claims that Oswald said he met the officer at or near the front door. Fritz says Oswald said the encounter was at or in the second-floor lunchroom Baker says it was the third or 4th floor, near the steps. Truly says it was at or in the second-floor lunchroom.

DVP claims nobody was lying. [Apparently only Jim DiEugenio and I use that term. How odd.]

So why so many different stories? If 1) the story told by i) Fritz, OR ii) Holmes, OR iii) Baker is the truth, then 2) at least two of the stories are not true.

And what do we call someone who testifies to something that is not true? [A sworn affidavit is a legal document, as we know.]

And it's not as if the details weren't important. Until Ruby shot Oswald, Oswald's life hung in the balance, depending upon which story was true. If Holmes was telling the truth, then that means someone else was not. So the details WERE and ARE important. DVP's standard "what does it matter?" response is invalid in this matter.

Greg, good "catch" of the Holmes statement.

Outside of his area of expertise--post office stuff--Holmes' statements regarding the interview of Oswald which he attended are next to worthless, IMO. He was not a homicide detective. He was not involved in the earlier interviews. He had no idea if Oswald was contradicting himself, because he had no idea what was said previously. It seems clear, then, that Holmes would not have a proper grasp of the details of the shooting, or a proper understanding of the context of Oswald's statements. And that, as a result, his recollections of Oswald's statements would be fuzzy, at best.

As noted, moreover, he made no notes. His report, even worse, was written weeks later, after Oswald had been killed and pronounced a lone nut. There's just no there there. Anyone trying to build a case that Oswald was upstairs at the time of the shots based on Holmes' subsequent report claiming he'd said as much is just desperate, and wrong, IMO.

We shouldn't rely on Holmes for anything regarding the shooting. We can mention them, for completeness' sake. But anyone assuming a postal inspector present at an interview of a homicide suspect and jotting down a report a few weeks later is gonna have a better memory than the homicide detectives, FBI, and Secret Service agents present at the interview, is really reaching.

Imo, your opinion on this is worthless. The guy was an investigator. Your take on it just brims with wanting him shut down because he wrecks your own theories. Not everyone was at every session. So maybe we should toss them all out? Fritz - when it came to Oswald's alibi during his WC testimonies starts stammering and stuttering like a geek asking a cheerleader for a date. That says it all about his obfuscation. But you're a Fritz man, aren't you, Pat?

No, I'm not a "Fritz man." Heck, I suspect he knowingly led Oswald to his death.

But neither am I willing to put the hazy recollections of a postal inspector about an interview of a murder suspect on the same level as those who were investigating the murder. That's just silly, IMO. And no, Holmes doesn't "wreck" any of my theories. Neither you or I or anyone else on this forum, outside perhaps DVP, believes Oswald told Holmes he was upstairs when the shots were fired .

[Greg Parker]

The man Pat prefers to believe becomes a stammering wreck at the mention of the Baker-Oswald encounter:

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think--I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done that afternoon and we don't punch a clock and they don't keep very close time on our work and I just left."

Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?

Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.

Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?

Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a Coca-Cola.

Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?

Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola.

[Pat Speer]

The man Pat prefers to believe becomes a stammering wreck at the mention of the Baker-Oswald encounter:

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think--I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done that afternoon and we don't punch a clock and they don't keep very close time on our work and I just left."

Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?

Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.

Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?

Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a Coca-Cola.

Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?

Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola.

There is nothing odd about that passage at all, and your claim there is something odd is what is odd.

[Kenneth Drew]

9:30 - 11:15 A.M., SUNDAY MORNING, NOV. 24,1963 Interrogation in Capt. Will Fritz's Office

"After the assassination, a policeman or some man came rushing into the School Book Depository Building and said, `Where is your telephone?' He showed me some kind of credential and identified himself, so he might not have been a police officer. . . . `Right there,' I answered, pointing to the phone. . . . `Yes, I can eat lunch with you,' I told my co-worker, `but I can't go right now. You go and take the elevator, but send the elevator back up.' [The elevator in the building was broken.] . . . After all this commotion started, I just went downstairs and started to see what it was all about. A police officer and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told officers that I am one of the employees in the building. . . . If you ask me about the shooting of Tippit, I don't know what you are talking about. . . .

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

?

By the way, this was copyrighted in 1978

It's also bollocks, Ken - useful as a very rough guide only. It is a compilation of quotes from various sources (some more reliable than others) and should not be seen as necessarily accurate, or even what is generally "known" or supported. It is one of the rare instances where Holmes' testimony has been used, but you'll find few who know it's Holmes, and fewer still who care. The section you quote is certainly not in any sort of chronological order. From memory, the rest is pretty much the same.

And is it even possible to copyright a series of quotes with no input from yourself, except the randomness of the order you put them in?

It's also bollocks, Ken - useful as a very rough guide only. It is a compilation of quotes from various sources (some more reliable than others) and should not be seen as necessarily accurate, It is clearly labeled as you describe it, so there is no 'attempt' to fool anyone that these are official exact quotes. But it does clearly show that the discrepancy in whether LHO encountered a cop (Baker) or not, was being discussed at least in 1978. It seems as if his statement implies that someone asked him where a phone was and he thought it might have been a policeman (would that indicate he was in a suit instead of a uniform) but then he did talk with a cop that was accompanied by his supervisor. Isn't that 'likely' the encounter with Baker and Truly? Since all of them mention that and no one mentions that it might have been a different cop and different supervisor. That was the only point. I do not claim that as proof of anything except that it was copyrighted in 1978.

And is it even possible to copyright a series of quotes with no input from yourself, except the randomness of the order you put them in?

It must be possible, it's copyrighted.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Greg Parker]

They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.

Someone told me about it, told me.... I think he told me... person who told me...I believe told me...

He is stumbling worse than a sailor at midnight on his first port of call in a year. And this is the only place it happens in his entire testimony.

Btw, what did "our investigation" consist of Pat?

[Mark Knight]

Pat, if you will review Holmes' testimony, you'll find he stated that Oswald said he was on the FIRST floor when he encountered the officer.

"Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."'

The phrase, "just before I got to the front door" would seem to imply the encounter happened on the first floor. So if this is, indeed, what Holmes was saying...he was actually shooting the second-floor lunchroom encounter down in flames.

IF this is an accurate representation of what Oswald actually said.

[David Josephs]

Well done Mark...

The encounter that Fritz says "our investigation shows" he was in the lunchroom and not on the stairs (as was written in Baker's affidavit) is complete crap - the lunchroom encounter never happened that way and the WC testimony of Baker and the backflips done to stay away from that affidavit is classic.

One needs to examine why putting Oswald 2 flights up, coming down the stairs at the time of the encounter is WORSE than putting him farther away in the lunchroom.

"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket" - is not the same as a 130lb 24 year old drinking a coke in the lunchroom. The transition from one story to the other is one of the greatest Evidence IS the Conspiracy examples we have...

Who could this have been that Truly and Baker could NOT state it was Oswald while pushing his location farther from the 6th floor window?

With regards to the opinion of "Holmes the inspector" being reliable for anything but the lies he created/corroborated to incriminate Oswald, it is obvious the opinion remains in line with the belief that the FBI was honest and the SS truthful in all their JFK dealings and reports... It's sad when we see researchers believing the word of men like Holmes... some simply can't see the forest for the trees.

Pat, you are 100% correct. We cannot rely on Holmes for anything but to illuminate the conspiracy. It was under his watch that the Postal Money order was "created" to associate the rifle with Oswald and then he tells a whopper of a story as to how it really happened.

Problem being that his name does not come up in ANY SS or FBI reports describing what went down.. Which in themselves are contradictory.

Here is every mention of his affidavit which directly contradicts his testimony

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. I had occasion to see him in the homicide office later that evening after we got through with Parkland Hospital and then Love Field and we went back to the City Hall and I went up there and made this affidavit.
Representative BOGGS -After he had been arrested?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.

Mr. BAKER - I never did have a chance to see him in the lineup. I saw him when I went to give the affidavit, the statement that I saw him down there, of the actions of myself and Mr. Truly as we went into the building and on up what we are discussing now.
(At this point Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)
Mr. BELIN - Officer Baker
Mr. DULLES - I didn't get clearly in mind, I am trying to check up, as to whether you saw Oswald maybe in the same costume later in the day. Did you see Oswald later in the day of November 22d?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. DULLES - Under what circumstances? Don't go into detail, I just want to tie up these two situations.
Mr. BAKER - As I was in the homicide office there writing this, giving this affidavit, I got hung in one of those little small offices back there, while the Secret Service took Mr. Oswald in there and questioned him and I couldn't get out by him while they were questioning him, and I did get to see him at that time.
Mr. DULLES - You saw him for a moment at that time?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Officer Baker, you then left the second floor lunchroom with Mr. Truly, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER - That is right, sir.
Mr. BELIN - How long did you stay in the lunchroom after Truly identified this person as being an employee?
Mr. BAKER - Just momentarily. As he said, "Yes, he works here," I turned and went on up the stairs.

[Mark Knight]

Notice that Baker doesn't answer the question of whether Oswald was "in the same costume" as when he first encountered whoever he actually encountered.

So Oswald's claim that he went to the rooming house to change his shirt [or pants, or whatever...since Fritz took no contemporaneous notes] may be true, it may be false, or it may have been made up by his questioners, for whatever reason. Baker MIGHT have answered the question but didn't.

That seemed to leap out at me from the excerpt quoted above.

[Greg Parker]

Pat, you are 100% correct. We cannot rely on Holmes for anything but to illuminate the conspiracy. It was under his watch that the Postal Money order was "created" to associate the rifle with Oswald and then he tells a whopper of a story as to how it really happened.

As I have already stated, Holmes was brought in because of his efforts in the frame regarding the PO boxes and the weapons orders. They forgot to clue him on the part of the frame regarding Oswald's alibi and the manipulation of what he said, so that they could defuse it. The end result was Holmes accurately portraying what Oswald said.

That some here think that Fritz told the truth on this issue is laughable. The DPD was a law unto itself. It was part of their arsenal against crime to frame those they believed guilty - or just plain WANTED to be guilty and they did with impunity. Holmes was the only honest actor there - at least on this issue that was not part of his own little compartmentalized area,