Author Topic: The Empty Window  (Read 15228 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Tom Sorensen

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1706
Re: The Empty Window
« Reply #56 on: January 11, 2017, 08:38:22 PM »
Jarman and Norman usually had lunch together in the domino room.  It wouldn't take a crystal ball to place them together in the domino room at lunchtime.

Actually it would have been dangerous speculation as not every day the President passes by and has nearly all the staff outside to watch him.

As it turns out though, they did not eat lunch together that day. 

So, what happened to the crystal ball?

If Jarman and Norman weren't there they would not corroborate. If they were but Oswald wasn't there they would not corroborate. I doubt Oswald would make suck a bad move -- doomed to fail.

Quote
If there was any actual evidence of Oswald saying that he saw them walk by outside the windows, then I would be impressed.

I am beginning to doubt that.

Along the line of witnesses can't tell the time.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8801
Re: The Empty Window
« Reply #57 on: January 11, 2017, 08:41:10 PM »
Again, what Fitz and Bookhout wrote does not necessarily have to be 100% correct. In fact both reports contradict eachother to some extend so it is quite possible that what Bookhout wrote about "walking through/coming in" the room could easily have been a simple misunderstanding on his part. Not every person says everything correctly and completely understandable for others the first time around. Perhaps Oswald did in fact say he saw them coming in and walking through the main (shipping and wrapping) room and Bookhout misunderstood it to mean the lunchroom.

Sure, but is it rational to conclude something that no witness actually said is what happened by assuming that they all misunderstood what was actually said?


Quote
No you couldn't because we know from testimony that Oswald was still on the 6th floor at noon.

We do?  Whose?

Quote
But please tell me what have I cherry-picked and/or ignored from the two accounts of the interrogation?

You're assuming that Fritz was correct about the time of the encounter and Hosty was wrong.  You're assuming that Fritz and Kelley were both mistaken about Oswald having lunch with Norman/Jarman.  You're assuming that Bookhout mistook "walked past the outside windows" for "walked through the room".  Nobody in fact reported Oswald saying that they walked past the room.

Quote
That's the conclusion (the only one I have been able to find so far that is supported by and fits with all the known information) I have reached, yes. If you want to call it an assumption, that's fine by me.

It's an assumption not supported by the evidence.

Quote
You said you can invent all kinds of different narratives by choosing different pieces of the different accounts, so I'll ask you again to please do so any provide me with only one such narrative.

I already did.  I could selectively analyze the statements of the people at the interrogation and come to the conclusion that Oswald said he had lunch with Norman and Jarman at noon and that Fritz misunderstood the time that this happened.  That's no more or less valid than assuming that Bookhout misunderstood "outside the windows" to mean "inside the lunchroom".

Online Walt Cakebread

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10554
Re: The Empty Window
« Reply #58 on: January 11, 2017, 09:06:41 PM »
Sure, but is it rational to conclude something that no witness actually said is what happened by assuming that they all misunderstood what was actually said?


We do?  Whose?

You're assuming that Fritz was correct about the time of the encounter and Hosty was wrong.  You're assuming that Fritz and Kelley were both mistaken about Oswald having lunch with Norman/Jarman.  You're assuming that Bookhout mistook "walked past the outside windows" for "walked through the room".  Nobody in fact reported Oswald saying that they walked past the room.

It's an assumption not supported by the evidence.

I already did.  I could selectively analyze the statements of the people at the interrogation and come to the conclusion that Oswald said he had lunch with Norman and Jarman at noon and that Fritz misunderstood the time that this happened.  That's no more or less valid than assuming that Bookhout misunderstood "outside the windows" to mean "inside the lunchroom".

Martin.....Have you ever tried to nail jello to a wall??

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5564
Re: The Empty Window
« Reply #59 on: January 11, 2017, 09:35:46 PM »
Sure, but is it rational to conclude something that no witness actually said is what happened by assuming that they all misunderstood what was actually said?

We do?  Whose?

You're assuming that Fritz was correct about the time of the encounter and Hosty was wrong.  You're assuming that Fritz and Kelley were both mistaken about Oswald having lunch with Norman/Jarman.  You're assuming that Bookhout mistook "walked past the outside windows" for "walked through the room".  Nobody in fact reported Oswald saying that they walked past the room.

It's an assumption not supported by the evidence.

I already did.  I could selectively analyze the statements of the people at the interrogation and come to the conclusion that Oswald said he had lunch with Norman and Jarman at noon and that Fritz misunderstood the time that this happened.  That's no more or less valid than assuming that Bookhout misunderstood "outside the windows" to mean "inside the lunchroom".

Sure, but is it rational to conclude something that no witness actually said is what happened by assuming that they all misunderstood what was actually said?

First of all, there is no verbatim record of what Oswald actually said, so you can also not conclude and rule out that he did not say it.

Secondly, ....they all?... John we are talking about one line on a piece of paper written by Fritz, later repeated in his report and testimony, a report by Kelley and a report by Bookhout and even those do not agree with eachother. Fritz and Kelley have Oswald eating lunch with the two men and Bookhout has Oswald eating alone and the two men possibly coming in/walking through the room. Those are two completely different things. As Bookhout's report about Oswald eating alone and Fritz/Kelley saying his was eating with the two men can not be reconciled do you at least agree that somebody must have misunderstood something?

Also, I never concluded anything. I merely left the door open for the possibility that Oswald's comments were indeed misunderstood by all three men and have admitted it was speculation. You seem to want to rule out the possibility that Oswald's comments were misunderstood based upon sources who contradict eachother. What is rational about that?


We do?  Whose?

I can not recall names as I write this from memory. I think it was Jarman who testified that Oswald was still on the 6th floor at 5 to 12 and Givens who said he saw him there after 12. When I have more time I'll gladly look it up for you to make sure, but for now I can only recall that TSBD employees testified that when they went for lunch at 12 (or a few minutes before 12) Oswald was still on the 6th floor.

You're assuming that Fritz was correct about the time of the encounter and Hosty was wrong.

I am not assuming that Fritz was correct about the time. I can't even recall that Fritz gave an exact time. In his report he only talks about "the time the President was killed", whatever that means. Nor can I recall Hosty giving a time at all. As far as I remember he wasn't even present when Oswald told Fritz about the lunch encounter. All I did was use the available undisputed information to conclude that the encounter could only have taken place between 12.00 and 12.30 and that one of the two lunchrooms of the TSBD was involved.

Do you deny that Jarman and Norman were in the shipping room on the first floor (where the Domino room is situated) between 12.00 and 12.30?

You're assuming that Fritz and Kelley were both mistaken about Oswald having lunch with Norman/Jarman.

No.. Again, I am merely pointing out that Bookhout contradicts that. You seem to be assuming that they were not mistaken despite Bookhout clearly writing that Oswald said he was eating his lunch alone.

You're assuming that Bookhout mistook "walked past the outside windows" for "walked through the room".

Again... I am leaving open the possibility that he misunderstood what Oswald said.

But before we go any further with this, since you want to rely so much on those reports, can you please tell me what information do you consider to be correct; Bookhout writing that Oswald said he was eating alone or Fritz and Kelley writing that he claimed to have eaten with the two men? It has to be one or the other, right?

Nobody in fact reported Oswald saying that they walked past the room.

How is nobody reporting on something evidence that it didn't happen? Fritz/Kelley say nothing about those men walking through the room. They say Oswald was eating with them, Bookhout denies that and claims Oswald said those men walked through the room. So what did actually happen? Did Oswald eat with the two men or did those two men just walk through the lunchroom?


It's an assumption not supported by the evidence.

Oh boy... You can not get around the information that the encounter must have taken place between 12.00 and 12.30 on 11/22/63 and that it involved one of the two lunchrooms in the TSBD. That's what the evidence says, whether you like it or not, The evidence also says that Jarman and Norman were indeed in the shipping room around 12.25 on their way to the elevator. You place way too much value on third party reports that contradict eachother and ignore the enormous coincidence of Oswald being right in describing (out of all TSBD employees) exactly those two men who happened to be there.

I already did.  I could selectively analyze the statements of the people at the interrogation and come to the conclusion that Oswald said he had lunch with Norman and Jarman at noon and that Fritz misunderstood the time that this happened.

And how would you reconcile that conclusion with Bookhout's "coming in/walking through" report? I mean.. if you want to attach that much significance to third party reports.....

That's no more or less valid than assuming that Bookhout misunderstood "outside the windows" to mean "inside the lunchroom".

I never assumed that nor have I offered it as a fact. I have merely stated that it was a possibility given the fact that Bookhout's account differs from Fritz/Kelley. In my opinion, those reports are hardly worth the paper they were written on as they were written after the fact, from memory and with the certainty that Oswald was dead and regarded as the lone assassin.

« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 11:02:29 PM
by Martin Weidmann
»

Online Colin Crow

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6358
Re: The Empty Window
« Reply #60 on: January 11, 2017, 10:05:52 PM »
The evidence indicates Oswald was on the 5th floor at the time of the elevator race. In any event both Shelley and Piper claimed they saw Oswald on the first floor. It would seem Oswald did return to the first floor just before noon. As for Givens, his ”cigarette trip" story is as genuine as a 3 dollar note.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8801
Re: The Empty Window
« Reply #61 on: January 11, 2017, 10:13:18 PM »
First of all, there is no verbatim record of what Oswald actually said, so you can also not conclude and rule out that he did not say it.

The only thing I conclude is that the evidence we have is not sufficient to establish an alibi for Oswald.  If you think it is, then you need to demonstrate why you think so.  If you're just saying it's possible then we have no argument.  Lots of things are possible.

Quote
You seem to want to rule out the possibility that Oswald's comments were misunderstood based upon sources who contradict each other. What is rational about that?

I don't rule it out.  Once I realized that it was not a sufficient alibi then it became just another unanswered question that doesn't help one way or the other.

Quote
How is nobody reporting on something evidence that that it didn't happen?

I'm looking for evidence that it did happen.  There is in fact no evidence whatsoever that Oswald mentioned seeing Norman and Jarman walk past the lunchroom.  None.

Quote
Oh boy... You can not get around the information that the encounter must have taken place between 12.00 and 12.30 on 11/22/63 and that it involved one of the two lunchrooms in the TSBD.

That's where you're wrong, my friend.  There may not have been an encounter at all.  You can be relatively certain that Norman and Jarman were indeed in the shipping room around 12:25.  You cannot be relatively certain that Oswald actually saw Norman and Jarman in the shipping room around 12:25.  There's no good reason to believe that.  None of the testimony says that Oswald even claimed that.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8801
Re: The Empty Window
« Reply #62 on: January 11, 2017, 10:14:09 PM »
The evidence indicates Oswald was on the 5th floor at the time of the elevator race. In any event both Shelley and Piper claimed they saw Oswald on the first floor.

Givens too (on the day of the assassination).