Oswald in the TSBD just after the shooting

[Martin Weidmann]

So many words.  The point is simply that there is doubt that the person Reid spoke with was Oswald.  When I noted that you would not accept Reid's identification of Oswald as the person with whom she allegedly spoke under the same standard you use for the Tippit witnesses, you responded "rightly so."  The bottom line of your incoherent ramblings here is that you are arguing with the wind.   Then you are attempting to conflate actual doubt in this instance with fake doubt in other instances in this case.  It is truly bizarre to quibble about doubts regarding Reid's identification using reasonable standards while without missing a beat applying an impossible standard of proof in other instances of the case.  My favorite point here though has to be your contention that we can't conclude that Reid spoke with others about the case unless we know who initiated the phone call!  LOL.  So under that line of nutty logic, if Saunders called Reid and Reid told her about the Oswald/Truly lunchroom encounter it would somehow be different than if Reid called Saunders and had the very same conversation.  Wow.

Oh boy, so many words and so little content.

My favorite point here though has to be your contention that we can't conclude that Reid spoke with others about the case unless we know who initiated the phone call!  LOL.  So under that line of nutty logic, if Saunders called Reid and Reid told her about the Oswald/Truly lunchroom encounter it would somehow be different than if Reid called Saunders and had the very same conversation.  Wow.

Even a brianless person would have understood the point I was making, but it went completely over your head.
.

Then you are attempting to conflate actual doubt in this instance with fake doubt in other instances in this case.  It is truly bizarre to quibble about doubts regarding Reid's identification using reasonable standards while without missing a beat applying an impossible standard of proof in other instances of the case.   

Let me guess?. you think you are the one who gets to determine what those reasonable standards are, right? 

The point is simply that there is doubt that the person Reid spoke with was Oswald.

Reasonable and sane people understand and accept there is doubt about nearly everything in this case. You invent doubt using a hearsay FBI report about something somebody may or may not have discussed with others.

If it wasn't Oswald that Reid saw then who was it and where did Oswald go after leaving the 2nd floor lunchroom?

[Richard Smith]

Oh boy, so many words and so little content.

My favorite point here though has to be your contention that we can't conclude that Reid spoke with others about the case unless we know who initiated the phone call!  LOL.  So under that line of nutty logic, if Saunders called Reid and Reid told her about the Oswald/Truly lunchroom encounter it would somehow be different than if Reid called Saunders and had the very same conversation.  Wow.

Even a brianless person would have understood the point I was making, but it went completely over your head. When the very same conversation took place it wouldn?t have mattered at all, but that wasn?t the point. My point was that if Sanders initiated the call and she was the one who brought up the matter to Reid your entire crappy argument blows up in your face.

Then you are attempting to conflate actual doubt in this instance with fake doubt in other instances in this case.  It is truly bizarre to quibble about doubts regarding Reid's identification using reasonable standards while without missing a beat applying an impossible standard of proof in other instances of the case.   

Let me guess?. you think you are the one who gets to determine what those reasonable standards are, right? 

The point is simply that there is doubt that the person Reid spoke with was Oswald.

Reasonable and sane people understand and accept there is doubt about nearly everything in this case. You invent doubt using a hearsay FBI report about something somebody may or may not have discussed with others.

If it wasn't Oswald that Reid saw then who was it and where did Oswald go after leaving the 2nd floor lunchroom?

You are doubling down on the idea that what is discussed on a telephone call is somehow dependent on who initiated the call?  LOL.  That is truly bizarre.  In the course of that call, Sanders indicated that Reid told her about the Oswald/Truly lunchroom encounter.   How would Reid know about this since she was not present in the lunchroom unless she had been told about it (i.e. discussed it or overheard someone with knowledge of the event discussing it)?  Good grief.  The point has gone way over your head.  Regardless of how the topic arose on the call, Reid could not have had knowledge of the Oswald/Truly encounter on her floor unless someone told her.  She was not present in the lunchroom.  She was not psychic.  The ONLY conclusion that can be drawn from her having this knowledge is that it was imparted to her by someone else.  We don't know who told her but that doesn't mean she wasn't told since it the only way she could have known about it.  Once she knows that Oswald was on her floor, her encounter with a person (real or imagined) lends itself in her mind to it being Oswald although she barely knows him and describes him being in a white t-shirt even though we know that is not how he was dressed moments before.  Again, though, you seemingly agree with me on the only point being made in this context.  That there is doubt about whether it was Oswald she saw or not.   Why you so strenuously object to the application of reasonable doubt in this context while embracing outlandish impossible standards of proof in other contexts is particularly ironic and humorous. 

[Walt Cakebread]

However!

The neat point-for-point correspondence between the 'Fritz' notes and the Bookhout reports is only partially there for the all-important First Interrogation.

From the solo Bookhout Interrogation Report dictated 11/24/63:

Oswald stated that he did not own any rifle. He advised that he saw a rifle day before yesterday at the Texas School Book Depository which Mr. truly and two other gentlemen had in their possession and were looking at.

Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home. He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of Bill Shelly, he did not believe that there was going to be anymore work that day due to the confusion in the building.. He stated after arriving at his residence, then he went to a movie where he was subsequently apprehended by the Dallas Police Department.

Oswald stated that his hours of work at the Texas School Book Depository are from 8 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., but that he is not required to punch a time clock. his usual place of work in the building is on the first floor; however, he frequently is required to go to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh floors of the building in order to get books and this was true on November 22, 1963, and he had been on all of the floors in the performance of his duties on November 22, 1963.

The 'Fritz' notes for Interrogation The First:



Nothing about Mr Oswald's claim to have been "on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed the building"-----------which was in the earlier Bookhout-Hosty report but has now been clean forgotten! 

He advised that he saw a rifle day before yesterday at the Texas School Book Depository

NO!!   That is NOT what was recorded by Fritz and Hosty..... 

Hosty wrote:..." (11/20 ) day before yesterday, Mr Truly had rifle and two others , first floor outside offices "
Fritz wrote:....".Doesn't own rifle, saw at building"

To understand what was recorded you must know that Lt. Day had brought the carcano into the homicide office to confront Lee Oswald with the murder weapon.  " Have you ever seen this before, Mr Oswald?".....and Lee said that yes, he's seen it before.  " I saw it and two other rifles in Mr Truly's office the day before yesterday His office is an outside office on the first floor" 

And on page 619 of the WR ... The FBI report says..."Oswald stated that he did not own any rifle. He advised that he saw a rifle day before yesterday at the Texas School Book Depository.which Mr truly and two other gentlemen had in their possession and were looking at it."

[John Iacoletti]

Once she knows that Oswald was on her floor, her encounter with a person (real or imagined) lends itself in her mind to it being Oswald although she barely knows him and describes him being in a white t-shirt even though we know that is not how he was dressed moments before.

We know nothing of the kind.  You're taking two conflicting descriptions and choosing which one you prefer.

[John Iacoletti]

To understand what was recorded you must know that Lt. Day had brought the carcano into the homicide office to confront Lee Oswald with the murder weapon.  " Have you ever seen this before, Mr Oswald?".....and Lee said that yes, he's seen it before.  " I saw it and two other rifles in Mr Truly's office the day before yesterday His office is an outside office on the first floor" 

Why must he know that?  Just because you made it up?

[Walt Cakebread]

Why must he know that?  Just because you made it up?

Hosty wrote:..." (11/20 ) day before yesterday, Mr Truly had rifle and two others , first floor outside offices "
Fritz wrote:....".Doesn't own rifle, saw at building"

What part do you believe I made up?

[Martin Weidmann]

You are doubling down on the idea that what is discussed on a telephone call is somehow dependent on who initiated the call?  LOL.  That is truly bizarre.  In the course of that call, Sanders indicated that Reid told her about the Oswald/Truly lunchroom encounter.   How would Reid know about this since she was not present in the lunchroom unless she had been told about it (i.e. discussed it or overheard someone with knowledge of the event discussing it)?  Good grief.  The point has gone way over your head.  Regardless of how the topic arose on the call, Reid could not have had knowledge of the Oswald/Truly encounter on her floor unless someone told her.  She was not present in the lunchroom.  She was not psychic.  The ONLY conclusion that can be drawn from her having this knowledge is that it was imparted to her by someone else.  We don't know who told her but that doesn't mean she wasn't told since it the only way she could have known about it.  Once she knows that Oswald was on her floor, her encounter with a person (real or imagined) lends itself in her mind to it being Oswald although she barely knows him and describes him being in a white t-shirt even though we know that is not how he was dressed moments before.  Again, though, you seemingly agree with me on the only point being made in this context.  That there is doubt about whether it was Oswald she saw or not.   Why you so strenuously object to the application of reasonable doubt in this context while embracing outlandish impossible standards of proof in other contexts is particularly ironic and humorous.

You are doubling down on the idea that what is discussed on a telephone call is somehow dependent on who initiated the call?

It seems there is indeed no fixing stupid. You either truly don't understand what I said or you are purposely misrepresenting it, in which case you already have lost the argument.

Once she knows that Oswald was on her floor, her encounter with a person (real or imagined) lends itself in her mind to it being Oswald although she barely knows him and describes him being in a white t-shirt even though we know that is not how he was dressed moments before.  Again, though, you seemingly agree with me on the only point being made in this context.  That there is doubt about whether it was Oswald she saw or not. 

You keep on implying that she either made it up or that she saw somebody else and made a mistake. So, I'll ask again, if you doubt it was Oswald, then who was it?

So, just to play devil's advocate here, let's examine what we have; Oswald was seen in the lunchroom with a bottle of coke (yeah I know, Baker later changed his story) and shortly thereafter he is allegedly seen leaving the building through the front door, after showing a reporter where the telephone was. It's a minimal distance between the lunchroom and the front door and Reid said she entered the building directly after the shooting. Add it all up and one must conclude that there couldn't have been anybody else in that office area, carrying a coke and walking away from the lunchroom to the front door, than Oswald. So, if you want to doubt Reid's statement, you are going to have to explain not only who else it could have been that she saw but also where Oswald was and what he did at that exact time. You can't do neither!

You only want to doubt Reid's statement because you can't explain the white T shirt and you're using something that Sanders may have said to an FBI agent to make your flawed argument. Even if somebody told Reid about the lunchroom encounter between Oswald, Baker and Truly, that still doesn't mean Reid imagined her encounter with Oswald!

Why you so strenuously object to the application of reasonable doubt in this context while embracing outlandish impossible standards of proof in other contexts is particularly ironic and humorous.

This coming from the guy who only selectively wants to see doubt, when the entire case is cause for nothing but doubt is particularly ironic and humorous.