Pat Speer Chats with Francois Carlier

[Sandy Larsen]

44 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

But even if Oswald had said he ate lunch before the assassination occurred, that too would have been a lie, of course, because LHO didn't eat lunch at all on 11/22. He was much too busy upstairs on the sixth floor.

 

There is no evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor during the shooting.

There is no evidence that Oswald shot a rifle that day.

I don't know what it is you have against Oswald and why you make these lies up about him.

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't know what it is you have against Oswald and why you make these lies up about him.

Yeah, you're right. Just because every scrap of evidence points directly at this guy named Oswald, why would I even begin to suspect him (of all people) of any wrongdoing?

The new policy endorsed by many conspiracy believers seems to be:

The More Evidence There Is Against Oswald, The More Innocent He Becomes.

A very strange policy indeed.

 

Edited March 26 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Are you aware that James Hosty wrote in his interrogation notes that Oswald said he was outside watching the presidential parade? Do you think Oswald was lying?

[Sandy Larsen]

"O. stated he was present for work at TBD on the morning of 11/22 and at noon went to lunch. He went to 2nd floor to get Coca Cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P.  Parade."

James Hosty

 

The truth's a bitch, ain't  it Dave?

 

[David Von Pein]

Sandy,

Why do you think Hosty's rough notes are more believable (and spot-on accurate) than Kelley's final report? Please explain that to me.

 

Edited March 26 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Sandy,

Why do you think Hosty's rough notes are more believable (and spot-on accurate) than Kelley's final report? Please explain that to me.

 

Because when you want to cover something up, you make the lie nice and clean so there can be no mistake. For example, by using a typewriter.

 

Now think about this: Your side believes that Hosty lied, and my side believes that Kelley lied. I can give you a motive for Kelley to lie, but you CAN'T give me a motive for Hosty to lie.

That's because Kelley did lie -- to patsify Oswald -- but Hosty didn't.

 

[David Von Pein]

Hosty didn't lie. I said that previously. You don't listen very well.

 

[Cory Santos]

David, so your position is:   LHO lied here and other times but told the truth sometimes.  Yes or no. Also, your position is LHO never said he was outside watching the parade when asked where he was.   Thus, Hosty was misinterpreting what Oswald said- in your opinion, lied about- incorrectly?  Yes or no.  
I just want your position to be clear.  

[Greg Doudna]

24 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Sandy,

Why do you think Hosty's rough notes are more believable (and spot-on accurate) than Kelley's final report? Please explain that to me.

David, I'm mostly with you on this exchange you've been having with Sandy, but on this business with Kelley of the Secret Service there may be something to the possibility that Kelley was neither reflecting truthfully what Oswald said, nor misunderstanding something, but knowingly writing falsely in his written report to his superiors re the Oswald interrogation of Sun Nov 24.

There is the direct contradiction between Hosty's note in which Oswald told Hosty he went out to watch the Parade, and Kelley's report in which Oswald told Kelley he did not. Either Oswald gave opposite answers at two different times, or one of the agents' interpretation or reporting of what Oswald said is the opposite of the truth. And it is difficult to imagine misunderstanding a yes or no statement of Oswald on the Parade watching issue as Oswald saying the opposite. Therefore, its either Oswald contradicted himself, or one of the agents (Hosty or Kelley) was fibbing. Between the two: Hosty's handwritten notes seem to have the stronger claim to being unfiltered and truthful. 

Here is the case for Kelley's report (not Hosty's notes) being the false one between those two:

It is that Kelley appears to have falsely reported his interaction with Oswald on Sunday morning in general as a larger general statement. The chief exhibit on this is Kelley wrote in his report that there was no discussion of Mexico City ("It is my recollection that during this interrogation, Oswald was not asked about nor did he speak of a trip that he took to Mexico"; https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/233/233094/images/img_233094_70_300.png). 

That is not what two witnesses said both of whom personally heard Kelley and Oswald talking together that Sunday morning.

Postal Inspector Holmes testified under oath to the Warren Commission, unequivocally and in detail, how he heard Oswald discussing his Mexico City trip with Kelley that morning.

And Dallas Police officer Graves appears to corroborate Holmes on that in his sworn testimony to the Warren Commission ("Well, I couldn't think of Mr. Kelley's name, the last time, but he questioned Oswald along the line of his activity in Mexico and in Russia"; https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41#relPageId=267).

Here again one is forced to choose between polar opposites as to who is telling the truth on a point: Kelley, or Holmes/Graves.

For some reason practically everyone has favored Kelley as truthful, and decided Holmes was a flagrantly dishonest total fabricator under oath (even though Holmes is supported by Graves), here. Maybe its the other way around. 

I imagine Oswald trying to talk to Kelley, and did talk, some things with Kelley "off the record", that is, things that Kelley was not going to put on the record.

(Another item: Kelley was said to turn up in following days in Chicago asking about "John Heard", i.e. the mysterious "John Hurt" of Oswald's Saturday night failed telephone call attempt. Where did Kelley get that name? Perhaps Sunday morning from Oswald? One of the things Kelley did not report in writing?)

There may even have been early consideration to an idea of covering up Oswald's trip to Mexico City altogether if that could be done, though if so it was not carried out because it could not be convincingly totally denied. Certainly Oswald in Mexico City was not helpful at all to the emerging desired Lone Nut interpretive narrative (replacing the Communist conspiracy idea), so there could be motive to deep-six any Oswald talking re his having gone to Mexico City.

Hosty's notes on Oswald saying he went out to watch the Parade are not reflected in Hosty's typed reports. One interpretation is Oswald did say that but that alibi claim of Oswald was viewed as unhelpful and preferred disappeared from the record, and in this case (unlike with the Mexico City trip) it was possible to do so. All it would take would be someone from FBI making a quiet background request to the Secret Service, perhaps in the name of LBJ, and the request honored even though the two agencies otherwise had a rivalry.

The positive evidence Oswald said he went out to watch the Parade is Hosty's handwritten note on that point is not easily explicable as a misunderstanding on Hosty's part, and arguably reflected what Oswald did say. 

It is hard to know for sure, but my hunch is that Kelley's report did not tell everything of his exchanges with Oswald Sunday morning Nov 24, at a time when Leavelle elsewhere claimed he and Fritz had left Fritz's office (where Oswald was) and gone out for coffee, leaving Oswald to talk to Kelley privately. (Except Holmes and Graves were still there and heard some.)

And I doubt Postal Inspector Holmes was the wilful li-ar in his Warren Commission testimony under oath that it is common in some circles to routlnely assume.

It seems to me an easier thing to massage a written report to one's superiors in an agency in ways desired by one's superiors (e.g. Kelley's report of Sunday morning), than to deliberately flagrantly lie under oath in sworn public testimony, which is perjury and a crime (as many have supposed to be the case with Inspector Holmes' Warren Commission testimony), simply in terms of which has the higher threshold or barrier of intimidation factor. Perjury is a serious thing and can land one in prison.

On the eating lunch after getting the coke after the assassination thing which makes no sense, that is a distortion or misunderstanding of what Oswald would have and surely did say. Oswald would have spoken of going up to the second floor to get a coke with his lunch before the assassination, the logical time to go up to get a coke. Then after the assassination he went up to the second floor a second time, this time not to get a coke but to make his way to the rear of the building and down the stairs and out a rear door unobtrusively, but he reversed direction when seeing and encountering Baker. At least that is a possible reconstruction (with credit to Andrej Stancak for the proposal). 

[Steve Thomas]

"I approached Oswald then and, out of the hearing of the others except perhaps one of Captain Fritz's men, said that as a Secret Service agent; … we were therefore very anxious to talk with him to make certain that the correct story was developing as it related to the assassination.”

Oswald said he'd be glad to discuss this once he got an attorney".

Thomas Kelley. Warren Report. Appendix XI. Reports Relating to the Interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald at the Dallas Police Department p. 630

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=654&tab=page

 

Steve Thomas

[Gil Jesus]

8 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

But even if Oswald had said he ate lunch before the assassination occurred, that too would have been a lie, of course, because LHO didn't eat lunch at all on 11/22. He was much too busy upstairs on the sixth floor.

 

There's plenty of evidence to support the fact that Oswald ate his lunch in the first floor "Domino Room" on November 22nd.

He didn't eat his lunch in the second floor lunchroom. Mrs. Robert Reid testified that she was in the second floor lunchroom between Noon and 12:30. ( 3 H 271 ) She never mentioned Oswald being there.

Oswald said he had lunch with a co-worker he knew as "Junior" and another Negro whose name he did not know. James "Junior" Jarman testified that he had his lunch on the first floor and Harold Norman testified that the had his lunch in the first floor Domino Room. ( 3 H 188 )

How did Oswald know the specific whereabouts of these two men if he was on the 6th floor, as you claim ?

Jarman testified that Oswald typically ate his lunch either in the Domino Room or at the coffee table on the first floor. ( 3 H 200 ) Charles Givens testified that Oswald "always" ate lunch in the Domino Room. ( 6 H 354 )

Victoria Adams came down the rear stairway from the fourth floor after the shooting and saw no one on the second floor. ( 6 H 389 ) Not only did she not see Oswald on the second floor, she  testified that she saw neither Off. Baker nor Roy Truly on the stairway. ( ibid., pg. 390 )

Oswald had his lunch on the first floor as he always did and remained on the first floor where he was seen by Carolyn Arnold, "between the front doors and the double doors on the FIRST floor" ( CD 5, pg. 41 ) when she left the building, "at about 12:25 PM".  ( CD 706, pg. 7 )

If Oswald was on the first floor at 12:25, he could NOT have been the shooter on the sixth floor at 12:30.

Because when the FBI tried to assemble the rifle using a dime, it took them SIX minutes to do so. ( 2 H 252 )

In addition, any rifleman will tell you that once a rifle is disassembled, the scope has to be readjusted because you lose "Zero" ( the POI or Point of Impact ). The Commission's own expert on the scope, Sgt. James Zahm, testified that in order to scope the rifle in, Oswald would have had to have fired ten rounds through the weapon.  ( 11 H 308 )

The first was not possible if Oswald was on the first floor at 12:25. The second was not possible once Oswald had the weapon in the building, as you claim. There's no way he could have fired off ten rounds without anyone knowing and scoped that rifle in once he reassembled it.

Now, I've given you chapter and verse on why Oswald was not the shooter on the sixth floor at 12:30.

Name one witness who puts Oswald on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hands at that time.

BTW, you still haven't answered my OTHER question:

Baker testified that he saw Oswald being interrogated while he was writing out his affidavit in a back room in the Homicide Bureau. ( 3 H 257-258 )

Why didn't Baker put in his written affidavit that the man they had in custody ( Oswald ) was the man he encountered in the building ?

 

Edited March 26 by Gil Jesus

[David Von Pein]

11 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

David, I'm mostly with you on this exchange you've been having with Sandy, but on this business with Kelley of the Secret Service there may be something to the possibility that Kelley was neither reflecting truthfully what Oswald said, nor misunderstanding something, but knowingly writing falsely in his written report to his superiors re the Oswald interrogation of Sun Nov 24.

There is the direct contradiction between Hosty's note in which Oswald told Hosty he went out to watch the Parade, and Kelley's report in which Oswald told Kelley he did not. Either Oswald gave opposite answers at two different times, or one of the agents' interpretation or reporting of what Oswald said is the opposite of the truth. And it is difficult to imagine misunderstanding a yes or no statement of Oswald on the Parade watching issue as Oswald saying the opposite. Therefore, its either Oswald contradicted himself, or one of the agents (Hosty or Kelley) was fibbing. Between the two: Hosty's handwritten notes seem to have the stronger claim to being unfiltered and truthful. 

Here is the case for Kelley's report (not Hosty's notes) being the false one between those two:

It is that Kelley appears to have falsely reported his interaction with Oswald on Sunday morning in general as a larger general statement. The chief exhibit on this is Kelley wrote in his report that there was no discussion of Mexico City ("It is my recollection that during this interrogation, Oswald was not asked about nor did he speak of a trip that he took to Mexico"; https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/233/233094/images/img_233094_70_300.png). 

That is not what two witnesses said both of whom personally heard Kelley and Oswald talking together that Sunday morning.

Postal Inspector Holmes testified under oath to the Warren Commission, unequivocally and in detail, how he heard Oswald discussing his Mexico City trip with Kelley that morning.

And Dallas Police officer Graves appears to corroborate Holmes on that in his sworn testimony to the Warren Commission ("Well, I couldn't think of Mr. Kelley's name, the last time, but he questioned Oswald along the line of his activity in Mexico and in Russia"; https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41#relPageId=267).

Here again one is forced to choose between polar opposites as to who is telling the truth on a point: Kelley, or Holmes/Graves.

For some reason practically everyone has favored Kelley as truthful, and decided Holmes was a flagrantly dishonest total fabricator under oath (even though Holmes is supported by Graves), here. Maybe its the other way around. 

I imagine Oswald trying to talk to Kelley, and did talk, some things with Kelley "off the record", that is, things that Kelley was not going to put on the record.

(Another item: Kelley was said to turn up in following days in Chicago asking about "John Heard", i.e. the mysterious "John Hurt" of Oswald's Saturday night failed telephone call attempt. Where did Kelley get that name? Perhaps Sunday morning from Oswald? One of the things Kelley did not report in writing?)

There may even have been early consideration to an idea of covering up Oswald's trip to Mexico City altogether if that could be done, though if so it was not carried out because it could not be convincingly totally denied. Certainly Oswald in Mexico City was not helpful at all to the emerging desired Lone Nut interpretive narrative (replacing the Communist conspiracy idea), so there could be motive to deep-six any Oswald talking re his having gone to Mexico City.

Hosty's notes on Oswald saying he went out to watch the Parade are not reflected in Hosty's typed reports. One interpretation is Oswald did say that but that alibi claim of Oswald was viewed as unhelpful and preferred disappeared from the record, and in this case (unlike with the Mexico City trip) it was possible to do so. All it would take would be someone from FBI making a quiet background request to the Secret Service, perhaps in the name of LBJ, and the request honored even though the two agencies otherwise had a rivalry.

The positive evidence Oswald said he went out to watch the Parade is Hosty's handwritten note on that point is not easily explicable as a misunderstanding on Hosty's part, and arguably reflected what Oswald did say. 

It is hard to know for sure, but my hunch is that Kelley's report did not tell everything of his exchanges with Oswald Sunday morning Nov 24, at a time when Leavelle elsewhere claimed he and Fritz had left Fritz's office (where Oswald was) and gone out for coffee, leaving Oswald to talk to Kelley privately. (Except Holmes and Graves were still there and heard some.)

And I doubt Postal Inspector Holmes was the wilful li-ar in his Warren Commission testimony under oath that it is common in some circles to routlnely assume.

It seems to me an easier thing to massage a written report to one's superiors in an agency in ways desired by one's superiors (e.g. Kelley's report of Sunday morning), than to deliberately flagrantly lie under oath in sworn public testimony, which is perjury and a crime (as many have supposed to be the case with Inspector Holmes' Warren Commission testimony), simply in terms of which has the higher threshold or barrier of intimidation factor. Perjury is a serious thing and can land one in prison.

On the eating lunch after getting the coke after the assassination thing which makes no sense, that is a distortion or misunderstanding of what Oswald would have and surely did say. Oswald would have spoken of going up to the second floor to get a coke with his lunch before the assassination, the logical time to go up to get a coke. Then after the assassination he went up to the second floor a second time, this time not to get a coke but to make his way to the rear of the building and down the stairs and out a rear door unobtrusively, but he reversed direction when seeing and encountering Baker. At least that is a possible reconstruction (with credit to Andrej Stancak for the proposal). 

Thanks for your thoughts, Greg.

[David Von Pein]

12 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

David, so your position is:   LHO lied here and other times but told the truth sometimes.  Yes or no.

Yes.

12 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Also, your position is LHO never said he was outside watching the parade when asked where he was.   Thus, Hosty was misinterpreting what Oswald said- in your opinion, lied about- incorrectly?  Yes or no.  

Yes, Cory, I think that's likely.

Here's what I said about this matter in 2019 in this Education Forum discussion....

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

"Even if the handwritten notes were written by James Hosty (and they probably were; I'm not arguing that they weren't), then IMO it's just another in a long list of lies being uttered by Lee Oswald after he was arrested.

My goodness, are LNers supposed to now fold up their tents and go home whimpering because another lie has been discovered coming from the lips of Lee Harvey Oswald (assuming LHO actually did say those exact words about going outside to watch the "P. Parade")?

LNers didn't fold their tents after seeing that Oswald told Fritz he was on the first floor (and not the sixth) at the time of JFK's murder. So why would LNers now decide that this new revelation discovered by Malcolm Blunt in the National Archives is revealing something TRUTHFUL being spoken by Oswald? That'd be crazy.

So, nothing's changed for Lone Assassin believers. Nothing at all. The hard evidence of Oswald's guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders doesn't suddenly stop being in existence just because of one additional lie being told by the assassin himself. To think otherwise is to be mired in the "Prayer Man" garbage, which is where "Wishful Thinking" and a reference to "P. Parade" will now merge to provide the "PM" disciples with something to make them feel that their fantasy about Oswald being on the TSBD steps has now turned into reality. But, at most, all that's been "discovered" is just one more lie being told by a World Class Liar named Oswald." -- DVP; February 2019

[Later....]

"My best guess is: I think James Hosty's "went outside to watch P. Parade" note was very likely referring to a point in time that was AFTER the assassination, not before (even though Hosty used the words "P[residential] Parade"). That note is likely referring to the "out with Bill Shelley in front" situation (which appears in Captain Fritz' notes).

And that "out with Shelley" chronology, according to James Bookhout's solo FBI report that appears on Page 619 of the Warren Report, is clearly something that occurred after the assassination and after Oswald's encounter with the policeman on the second floor.

With respect to why there are two separate FBI reports regarding some of this same information, well, I think it's quite possible that the two FBI agents involved in the first report (Hosty and Bookhout), after filing that first report (dictated on Nov. 23), realized that a relevant and important piece of information (the 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter) had not been included in that first joint Hosty/Bookhout report. Therefore, the necessity arose for a second report to be written which would include the information about Oswald being stopped by the police on the second floor (which became the "solo Bookhout" report that was dictated a day later, on Nov. 24).

But please keep this in mind....

The Warren Commission didn't HIDE or DESTROY either of those two FBI reports. The Commission didn't conceal their existence from the public. Both of those reports---warts, omissions, and all---are readily available for anyone to view and can easily be found right there in the Warren Commission's final report, just a few pages apart in Appendix XI." -- DVP; February 2019

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

The full 2019 discussion is archived HERE.
 

Edited March 26 by David Von Pein

[Benjamin Cole]

The strange thing is, no one witness ever said, "As shots rang out, I exchanged glances with LHO" or anything to that effect. 

During the shooting, no one recalls seeing LHO. 

During the shooting, LHO is invisible. He also does not show up on any photos of the motorcade, or even in the aftermath of the shooting (in that pre-smartphone era). 

This leads me to believe either LHO was on the TSBD/6, or had been sequestered by ruse. That is, to make LHO the patsy you could not have him on the sidewalk taking pictures of JFK (as one would expect of LHO, since he liked cameras and politics and even liked JFK). 

If you think LHO is totally innocent, then perhaps he was lured inside the TSBD somewhere, along the lines of, "There is phone call for you, important." 

My preferred explanation is LHO was the gunman witnessed by numerous people sticking a rifle out of the window at TSBD/6. He was responsible for the Tague shot, an intentional miss.

If LHO was not the TSBD/6 gunsel, who was it and how did they leave the building w/o being observed? 

 

 

 

[Robert Morrow]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The strange thing is, no one witness ever said, "As shots rang out, I exchanged glances with LHO" or anything to that effect. 

During the shooting, no one recalls seeing LHO. 

During the shooting, LHO is invisible. He also does not show up on any photos of the motorcade, or even in the aftermath of the shooting (in that pre-smartphone era). 

This leads me to believe either LHO was on the TSBD/6, or had been sequestered by ruse. That is, to make LHO the patsy you could not have him on the sidewalk taking pictures of JFK (as one would expect of LHO, since he liked cameras and politics and even liked JFK). 

If you think LHO is totally innocent, then perhaps he was lured inside the TSBD somewhere, along the lines of, "There is phone call for you, important." 

My preferred explanation is LHO was the gunman witnessed by numerous people sticking a rifle out of the window at TSBD/6. He was responsible for the Tague shot, an intentional miss.

If LHO was not the TSBD/6 gunsel, who was it and how did they leave the building w/o being observed? 

 

 

 

For me, an intentional miss is just too much for me. Either Oswald was involved in the plot or he was not. I vote on not involved in plot and being a "pre-selected patsy for the JFK assassination."

FUN FACT: Completely innocent CIA patsy Lee Harvey Oswald considered JFK to be "the best president of his lifetime." Source: Michael Paine: https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/8118362-181/michael-paine-debated-politics-with  

Yes, imho, there were MULTIPLE shooters on the 6th floor TSBD and they took the elevator down and ran out the back of the TSBD and got into a car.