Examining Fritz's Notes Again

[Martin Blank]

here's what i think:

Claims 2nd floor coke when

Off came in

To 1st floor had lunch

Out with Bill Shelley in front

the salient part of fritz's notes mean: Oswald claims he had lunch on the first floor and then was out in front of the TSBD with Bill Shelley (on the steps) . The important part (based on what you'll see next) is the last line.

then add this to it:

Mr. BALL - Who was with you?

Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me...

Mr. BALL - What was that last name?

Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton.

Mr. BALL - What is the first name?

Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley.

Mr. BALL - And Stanton's first name?

Mr. LOVELADY - Miss Sarah Stanton.

Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the steps

Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.

Mr. BALL - Were you there when the President's motorcade went by

Mr. LOVELADY – Right.

​I believe that Lovelady is cut off before he can say the words "Lee Oswald"

​this not only accounts for some of the alterations made to the Altgens photo, it also means that police evidence proves that both Lee Harvey Oswald and Bill Lovelady were at the doorway at the same time when Kennedy was shot, because they both identified Bill Shelley, who was standing in the doorway with them.

at least that's the way i see it. its' also interesting to see how punning on the words first name and last name could cause some confusion

[Ron Ecker]

Mr. BALL - Who was with you?

Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me...

Mr. BALL - What was that last name?

Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton.

Mr. BALL - What is the first name?

Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley.

Mr. BALL - And Stanton's first name?

Mr. LOVELADY - Miss Sarah Stanton.

Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the steps

Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.

Mr. BALL - Were you there when the President's motorcade went by

Mr. LOVELADY – Right.

​I believe that Lovelady is cut off before he can say the words "Lee Oswald"

Not according to this:

Mr. BALL - Did you see anything or hear anything of Oswald on the way down?

Mr. LOVELADY - Yes; he was on the opposite side of the elevator I was on. I heard him holier to one of the boys to stop, he wanted the elevator. They said, "No; we're going down to lunch," and closed the gate I was on and come down and got ready to watch the President come by or got ready to go to lunch, and that's the last I heard of him.

Mr. BALL - You were on the west elevator?

Mr. LOVELADY - Right.

Mr. BALL - Oswald was standing in front of the east elevator?

Mr. LOVELADY - East, on back, the elevator back.

Mr. BALL - Did you see him?

Mr. LOVELADY - No; I didn't; I just heard his voice because---where those slats are in back of the elevator.

Mr. BALL - Did you ever see him again that day?

Mr. LOVELADY - No.

[Martin Blank]

Mr. BALL - Who was with you?

Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me...

Mr. BALL - What was that last name?

Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton.

Mr. BALL - What is the first name?

Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley.

Mr. BALL - And Stanton's first name?

Mr. LOVELADY - Miss Sarah Stanton.

Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the steps

Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.

Mr. BALL - Were you there when the President's motorcade went by

Mr. LOVELADY – Right.

​I believe that Lovelady is cut off before he can say the words "Lee Oswald"

Not according to this:

Mr. BALL - Did you see anything or hear anything of Oswald on the way down?

Mr. LOVELADY - Yes; he was on the opposite side of the elevator I was on. I heard him holier to one of the boys to stop, he wanted the elevator. They said, "No; we're going down to lunch," and closed the gate I was on and come down and got ready to watch the President come by or got ready to go to lunch, and that's the last I heard of him.

Mr. BALL - You were on the west elevator?

Mr. LOVELADY - Right.

Mr. BALL - Oswald was standing in front of the east elevator?

Mr. LOVELADY - East, on back, the elevator back.

Mr. BALL - Did you see him?

Mr. LOVELADY - No; I didn't; I just heard his voice because---where those slats are in back of the elevator.

Mr. BALL - Did you ever see him again that day?

Mr. LOVELADY - No.

Ron –

A couple of things to consider in response:

Ball never asks him to go back and name the person he was going to name before he was cut off. It's as if he doesn't care or doesn't want to know

All of this is prior to assassination and not during the shooting. There is no danger/risk in having Lovelady say what he asserts about the elevators, etc.

The photo of him in the police station when Oswald is brought in on that day belies Lovelady’s assertion that he never saw Oswald again that day.

I understand it may be that Lovelady is talking about not seeing him again at work that day but we don’t know that.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Martin Blank

[Thomas Graves]

Do you think it was deliberately ambiguous.?

Not necessarily, Jim. I think we have been trying so hard to deep six the second floor encounter, it might have made us blind to any other scenarios.

Imagine this. During questioning, Oswald is asked about officer Baker, and tells his interrogators he was on the second floor getting a Coke when Baker came in, having just left the front entrance, and knowing he must have left before Baker came into the building. If the next question was "Where were you just before that?", Oswald would answer he was having lunch out in front with Bill Shelley.

Oswald likely would have gone up to the 2nd floor by the front staircase. If he was taking his time, he could have been seen through the 2nd floor lunch room door by Baker as Oswald traversed the small hallway just outside the lunch room, passing from right to left, from Baker's perspective.

All of this means that Baker did not enter the TSBD as soon as he arrived at the steps, although not a great deal of time probably elapsed before he did; perhaps a minute or two. This would give Molina and Frazier time to re-enter the building, and would explain why neither of them saw Baker enter. If Pauline Sanders lingered a bit longer than these two, she would have seen Baker enter, as her FBI affidavit states.

This would also give Shelley and Lovelady time to cross the street, listen to Gloria Calvery for a few seconds, and be 25 steps down the Elm St. extension before looking back to see Baker and Truly ascending the steps.

The only stretching of the truth required is to have Baker tell the WC that he entered the TSBD immediately after arriving at the steps, instead of lingering out front until Oswald, Molina and Frazier had gone inside. If Baker was convinced of Oswald's guilt anyways, he might not even think hewas doing anything wrong by slightly embellishing the times.

Seriously, it may all have happened almost the way everyone said it did. (emphasis on the word "almost")

In addition to getting a coke, another plausible reason for Oswald's going up to the second floor, after the shots, would be to go to a window up there and get a better view of what was going on. Just sayin'. Otherwise, he must have been the only person on the front steps to stop watching the goings on because he was ... thirsty.

Why would any ex-Marine and "defector" to the U.S.S.R. want to go inside the building after the shots, and risk being confused with the assassin?

--Tommy

There seems to have been a number of TSBD employees, including Molina and Frazier, who did not waste any time going back into the TSBD. You can see a number of them going up the steps in the Darnell/Couch film. And Frazier was not only thirsty, he went down into the basement and ate his lunch.

Who said Frazier was thirsty?

--Tommy

[Vanessa Loney]

That certainly would be reasonable, I mean how many people eat their lunch dry and then go for something to drink. Stopping for a coke coming from upstairs, getting your lunch, starting on the sandwich and then going out

front with the soda would make sense....then back upstairs to put the empty in the bottle rack by the machine (that's how it worked in the olden days). And if Fritz did not make notes about Oswald describing an encoungter

with one of his officers it would be pretty weak.

No idea how to prove it all but its indeed a very interesting interpretation.

I agree with that order of events Larry. But I think we can get to it by this interpretation:

Oswald claims he went down to the 2nd floor to get a coke. When the officer came into the 1st floor (ie ground floor) he was having lunch out front with Shelley.

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."

Fritz is asked where Oswald was at the time of the assassination. That's confirmed by Fritz saying he was eating lunch with some of the employees when "this happened" (ie the assassination) and that he "saw all the excitement".

Fritz then says "I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then..etc ." So Fritz is talking about 2 lots of 'excitement'. The first lot of excitement at the time of the assassination that Oswald "saw". The second lot of excitement is after the assassination when Oswald left work.

How else can you interpret Fritz's testimony?

And please consider this. Fritz is saying what Oswald told him. Fritz himself says that Oswald was lying because they later found out he was actually in the 2nd floor lunchroom.

As far as Fritz is concerned it's no big deal where Oswald said he was at the time of the assassination because obviously as the assassin he was lying.

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.

And most interesting of all, it's pretty clear that Baker told them 'they' met Oswald on the "stairway" but according to Fritz "our investigation shows he actually saw him in a lunchroom".

So Baker says he met Oswald on the stairway and the investigation moves that elsewhere.

[Greg Parker]

That certainly would be reasonable, I mean how many people eat their lunch dry and then go for something to drink. Stopping for a coke coming from upstairs, getting your lunch, starting on the sandwich and then going out

front with the soda would make sense....then back upstairs to put the empty in the bottle rack by the machine (that's how it worked in the olden days). And if Fritz did not make notes about Oswald describing an encoungter

with one of his officers it would be pretty weak.

No idea how to prove it all but its indeed a very interesting interpretation.

I agree with that order of events Larry. But I think we can get to it by this interpretation:

Oswald claims he went down to the 2nd floor to get a coke. When the officer came into the 1st floor (ie ground floor) he was having lunch out front with Shelley.

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."

Fritz is asked where Oswald was at the time of the assassination. That's confirmed by Fritz saying he was eating lunch with some of the employees when "this happened" (ie the assassination) and that he "saw all the excitement".

Fritz then says "I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then..etc ." So Fritz is talking about 2 lots of 'excitement'. The first lot of excitement at the time of the assassination that Oswald "saw". The second lot of excitement is after the assassination when Oswald left work.

How else can you interpret Fritz's testimony?

And please consider this. Fritz is saying what Oswald told him. Fritz himself says that Oswald was lying because they later found out he was actually in the 2nd floor lunchroom.

As far as Fritz is concerned it's no big deal where Oswald said he was at the time of the assassination because obviously as the assassin he was lying.

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.

And most interesting of all, it's pretty clear that Baker told them 'they' met Oswald on the "stairway" but according to Fritz "our investigation shows he actually saw him in a lunchroom".

So Baker says he met Oswald on the stairway and the investigation moves that elsewhere.

Ripper Rita.

That's what I'm talking about.

Pure class and the best expressed interpretation yet.

[Vanessa Loney]

That certainly would be reasonable, I mean how many people eat their lunch dry and then go for something to drink. Stopping for a coke coming from upstairs, getting your lunch, starting on the sandwich and then going out

front with the soda would make sense....then back upstairs to put the empty in the bottle rack by the machine (that's how it worked in the olden days). And if Fritz did not make notes about Oswald describing an encoungter

with one of his officers it would be pretty weak.

No idea how to prove it all but its indeed a very interesting interpretation.

I agree with that order of events Larry. But I think we can get to it by this interpretation:

Oswald claims he went down to the 2nd floor to get a coke. When the officer came into the 1st floor (ie ground floor) he was having lunch out front with Shelley.

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."

Fritz is asked where Oswald was at the time of the assassination. That's confirmed by Fritz saying he was eating lunch with some of the employees when "this happened" (ie the assassination) and that he "saw all the excitement".

Fritz then says "I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then..etc ." So Fritz is talking about 2 lots of 'excitement'. The first lot of excitement at the time of the assassination that Oswald "saw". The second lot of excitement is after the assassination when Oswald left work.

How else can you interpret Fritz's testimony?

And please consider this. Fritz is saying what Oswald told him. Fritz himself says that Oswald was lying because they later found out he was actually in the 2nd floor lunchroom.

As far as Fritz is concerned it's no big deal where Oswald said he was at the time of the assassination because obviously as the assassin he was lying.

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.

And most interesting of all, it's pretty clear that Baker told them 'they' met Oswald on the "stairway" but according to Fritz "our investigation shows he actually saw him in a lunchroom".

So Baker says he met Oswald on the stairway and the investigation moves that elsewhere.

Ripper Rita.

That's what I'm talking about.

Pure class and the best expressed interpretation yet.

Thanks Parker - the donation's back at the office.

Actually of all Fritz's interesting testimony perhaps this bit is the most significant.

Sorry, if I'm repeating it but I think it bears repeating.

"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.

Truly and/or Baker told Fritz that 'they' met Oswald on the stairway but the 'investigation' showed Baker was 'wrong'.

That is Sean Murphy's PM case in a nutshell. And Fritz is confirming that it's the truth.

[Greg Parker]

That certainly would be reasonable, I mean how many people eat their lunch dry and then go for something to drink. Stopping for a coke coming from upstairs, getting your lunch, starting on the sandwich and then going out

front with the soda would make sense....then back upstairs to put the empty in the bottle rack by the machine (that's how it worked in the olden days). And if Fritz did not make notes about Oswald describing an encoungter

with one of his officers it would be pretty weak.

No idea how to prove it all but its indeed a very interesting interpretation.

I agree with that order of events Larry. But I think we can get to it by this interpretation:

Oswald claims he went down to the 2nd floor to get a coke. When the officer came into the 1st floor (ie ground floor) he was having lunch out front with Shelley.

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."

Fritz is asked where Oswald was at the time of the assassination. That's confirmed by Fritz saying he was eating lunch with some of the employees when "this happened" (ie the assassination) and that he "saw all the excitement".

Fritz then says "I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then..etc ." So Fritz is talking about 2 lots of 'excitement'. The first lot of excitement at the time of the assassination that Oswald "saw". The second lot of excitement is after the assassination when Oswald left work.

How else can you interpret Fritz's testimony?

And please consider this. Fritz is saying what Oswald told him. Fritz himself says that Oswald was lying because they later found out he was actually in the 2nd floor lunchroom.

As far as Fritz is concerned it's no big deal where Oswald said he was at the time of the assassination because obviously as the assassin he was lying.

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.

And most interesting of all, it's pretty clear that Baker told them 'they' met Oswald on the "stairway" but according to Fritz "our investigation shows he actually saw him in a lunchroom".

So Baker says he met Oswald on the stairway and the investigation moves that elsewhere.

Ripper Rita.

That's what I'm talking about.

Pure class and the best expressed interpretation yet.

Thanks Parker - the donation's back at the office.

Actually of all Fritz's interesting testimony perhaps this bit is the most significant.

Sorry, if I'm repeating it but I think it bears repeating.

"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.

Truly and/or Baker told Fritz that 'they' met Oswald on the stairway but the 'investigation' showed Baker was 'wrong'.

That is Sean Murphy's PM case in a nutshell. And Fritz is confirming that it's the truth.

Interesting too, is the way he stumbles through it. Only happens in that one spot of testimony. If he had been hooked to a lie detector at that time, it would have been going off the Richter scale.

If it was Truly saying it, then what was said was something along the lines of seeing him on the front steps or inside near the stairs and a small storage room.

[Larry Hancock]

I'm trying to figure out how an "investigation" would change Baker's personal testimony. If Baker could not even be relied on to state where he encountered Oswald what does that say for the rest of Baker's statement? Sort of makes you wonder how many other witnesses observations had to be straightened out by the "investigation". It reminds me of at least one shooting witnesses who stated that he had heard five or six shots and was told that simply could not be true since there were only three.

[Evan Marshall]

I served two separate tours in Detroit Homicide in the 1980s. We used handwritten statements written by the homicide investigator and read and signed by the suspect. I used to make several on purpose spelling mistakes and draw a line thru the word and both I and the suspect would initial such mistakes.

Suspects were fond on stating they had signed it without reading it, but when their initials appeared 8 or 9 times in the body of each page it was awfully hard to say they had signed it but had not read it.

We did not use tape recorders as tapes could be edited. Fitz's efforts did not impress me but perhaps he had an inkling there was more to this than first appeared. The practice of having so many in attendance in the interview room is extremely bad practice.

I was assigned to Detroit CSI in 1971 and though primitive we would have never let so many unauthorized folks inside a crime scene. As a homicide investigator I often took many times more witnesses for the murder of a drug dealer than Dallas did for the murder of a president.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Whatever the importance of Fritz's notes for JFK students, the notes are insignificant for legal purposes.

Not having been made contemporaneously with Fritz's interview(s) of Oswald, and not being part of an established practice by Fritz, they would be excluded from evidence as hearsay in a trial of Marina's husband for JFK's murder. Fritz himself could testify at such a trial; and his notes could be used by defense counsel to impeach his testimony.

I understand why many here pooh-pooh the Rules of Evidence imposed by courts. The Rules, however, have been designed by hundreds of years of experience to ensure in general that only the best, the most tested, information is presented to the jury. That standard is not necessarily the one a historian should use. But because so much of the historical case against Marina's husband is cloaked in law by lawyers (such as Arlen Specter), it's important and worthwhile to know something about the Rules of Evidence in considering the JFK assassination.

[Greg Parker]

trial of Marina's husband for JFK's murder.

Jon,

talking about legalities... you cannot try an unknown entity, or refer to the accused simply as someone's husband. You need the person's real identity. In this case, his real name was Lee Harvey Oswald. Your insistence that it was not Lee Harvey Oswald is based on a bunch of erroneous assumptions and doppelganger theories propped up with a bunch of hand picked witnesses and a complete twisting of the written record.

You can of course believe whatever hare-brained crap you want to believe - but you still have to put a name to "Marina's husband" if you're going to try him. You can't do it. Not without admitting the only name you can put to him is Lee Harvey Oswald.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

I'm trying to figure out how an "investigation" would change Baker's personal testimony. If Baker could not even be relied on to state where he encountered Oswald what does that say for the rest of Baker's statement? Sort of makes you wonder how many other witnesses observations had to be straightened out by the "investigation". It reminds me of at least one shooting witnesses who stated that he had heard five or six shots and was told that simply could not be true since there were only three.

Their was no investigation, Larry. There was a change to the basic story. "Investigation" is being used to hide that.

While every other cop was grabbing a piece of the media spotlight, Baker was being kept under wraps until the story was straightened out.

The real story went one of two ways. He asked Oswald how to get to the upper floors and either ( a ) took the elevator per Sean Murphy and had no other encounters with anyone... or ( b ) took the stairs and had a much more suspicious encounter with someone vouched for by Truly on the 3rd or 4th floor per his first day affidavit.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Jon G. Tidd]

Greg Parker @#27,

You are correct. About the name of the defendant on a complaint in a U.S. trial court.

Marina's husband was charged with Tippit's and JFK's murders.

I use "Marina's husband" here because I believe that individual was impersonated.

[Thomas Graves]

Greg Parker @#27,

You are correct. About the name of the defendant on a complaint in a U.S. trial court.

Marina's husband was charged with Tippit's and JFK's murders.

I use "Marina's husband" here because I believe that individual was impersonated.

Jon,

What do you think was the full legal name of the person Marina married in the U.S.S.R.?

Thanks,

--Tommy