Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )

[Bill Chapman]

If it was the truth he would have kept repeating it and the other employees would have stated it was true. Instead he changes his story to finally being on the upper floors working during the assassination and only coming down to see what was causing the "commotion".  A marine who doesn't know what the sound of gunfire sounds like. His ever changing story places him all over the inside of the building but never in verifiable company of anyone else. The coke on the second floor and the encounter with Baker and Trully is LHO's only constant. An encounter that was the result of him coming down the stairs to see what the commotion was all about.

'An encounter that was the result of him coming down the stairs to see what the commotion was all about'.
>>> An encounter that was the result of him leaving the scene of his crime after the commotion he caused.

There ya go.

[Alan Ford]

It depends on what 'leaving the building' means. Mr Oswald could have been referring to going down the front steps and out into the street. This is exactly what several people on those steps did.

And it would appear that this is exactly what Mr Oswald DID mean. Inspector Kelley's report on the same Sunday morning interrogation has Mr Oswald tell of a young crew-cut man rushing up to him "when he was standing in front of the Textbook building and about to leave it".

How can one be in front of a building without yet having left it? Easy-----------one is in the front entranceway! 

[Walt Cakebread]

Now! Here are two different accounts of a key exchange during the morning 11/23 interrogation session---------

Agent Bookhout, 11/23 interrogation report:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called 'Junior' and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize. He stated that his lunch consisted of a cheese sandwich and an apple..."

Inspector Kelley, 11/23 interrogation report:
"He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He described one of them as 'Junior', a colored boy, and the other was a little short negro boy. He said his lunch consisted of cheese, bread, fruit, and apples..."

According to Mr Nessan's LNer interpretive methodology, the discrepancies between the two accounts are Mr Oswald's fault----------because he must have changed his story mid-session (a fact not noted by anyone present...)!

Excellent rebuttal , Mr Ford....

I asked you a couple of days back if Bookhout had scribbled in his notes that Lee had told them that he was eating his lunch ALONE in the first floor lunchroom, and you replied that you hadn't posted the notes....

Now you post the typed report of Bookhout.....

Agent Bookhout, 11/23 interrogation report:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone,

ALONE   Lee told them that he was ALONE in that lunchroom.....

[Alan Ford]

And it would appear that this is exactly what Mr Oswald DID mean. Inspector Kelley's report on the same Sunday morning interrogation has Mr Oswald tell of a young crew-cut man rushing up to him "when he was standing in front of the Textbook building and about to leave it".

How can one be in front of a building without yet having left it? Easy-----------one is in the front entranceway! 

This of course explains why Mr Oswald, when asked by a reporter "Were you in the building at the time?", just answered yes instead of getting into semantics: he had not left the building at the time but was in its front entrance.

[Alan Ford]

Excellent rebuttal , Mr Ford....

I asked you a couple of days back if Bookhout had scribbled in his notes that Lee had told them that he was eating his lunch ALONE in the first floor lunchroom, and you replied that you hadn't posted the notes....

Now you post the typed report of Bookhout.....

Agent Bookhout, 11/23 interrogation report:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone,

ALONE   Lee told them that he was ALONE in that lunchroom.....

Yes. Then he took the remains of his lunch out front to watch the P. Parade. I believe that the Wiegman film shows him holding his Coke in one hand and some food (either apple or sandwich) in the other-------------



And the original Altgens 6 (taken just before this) showed him holding the Coke-------

[Walt Cakebread]

Agent Bookhout, 11/23 interrogation report:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone,

ALONE   Lee told them that he was ALONE in that lunchroom.....

Yes. Then he took the remains of his lunch out front to watch the P. Parade. I believe that the Wiegman film shows him holding his Coke in one hand and some food (either apple or sandwich) in the other-------------





And the original Altgens 6 (taken just before this) showed him holding the Coke-------

Then he took the remains of his lunch out front to watch the P. Parade. I believe that the Wiegman film shows him holding his Coke in one hand and some food (either apple or sandwich) in the other-------------

No Alan....That's not correct....Lee said that he was ALONE in the lunchroom when he saw Jarman and Norman pass by....They were on the fifth floor at 12:28, so they couldn't have been passing by the Domino room at 12:30, When Altgen's 6 was taken.    Lee couldn't have seen them AFTER  12:27.

[Jack Nessan]

Do you believe, based on a comparison of Agent Hosty's and Agent Bookhout's respective solo reports, that Mr Oswald gave two completely different stories within one and the same interrogation (i.e. the first one @ 3:15pm 11/22)?

None of this 'I believe the authorities' spiel addresses a single point I made. You are just ignoring anything that doesn't fit your chosen story.

I would hope in the same interegation it would be the same. They both wrote down the same words.

On one hand you want to believe LHO but very definitive to what statements, but also claim the detectives had an alterior motive by them keep asking the same questions but getting different answers. That is how the integations work. Same as the WC testimonies, the attorneys would always circle back to conflicting statements. Arnold Rowlands statement is an excellent example of that technique. So is LHO's integations about where he was during the assassination. Turns out he was upstairs and came down to the encounter with Baker and Trully.