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

[Dan O'meara]

And you know that . . . how?

How do I know Reid gave a statement to the FBI on 11/26/63?

Otto's point is that Reid's CE 1381 statement makes no reference to the coke and the encounter, and he is absolutely right.

I would imagine Otto can speak for himself John.
Time to move on...

[John Iacoletti]

How do I know Reid gave a statement to the FBI on 11/26/63?

No.  How do you know that "information previously furnished to the F. B. I."  is a reference to Reid's FBI statement given on 11/26/63?

I would imagine Otto can speak for himself John.

I imagine he did.  You just didn't understand it.

[Dan O'meara]

No.  How do you know that "information previously furnished to the F. B. I."  is a reference to Reid's FBI statement given on 11/26/63?

Because her statement to the FBI on 11/26/63 is 'previous' to her WC testimony and it is information given (or 'furnished') to the FBI, hence the phrase "information previously furnished to the F.B.I."
Just to expand on that - the statement given to the FBI on 11/26/63 contained information relating to her "activities and impressions" on 11/22/63 as she states in her CE 1381

[Dan O'meara]

Further from the Weisberg collection:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/E%20Disk/Ellis%20Starvis%20Major/Item%2001.pdf

Specifically the last paragraph is rather interesting....

Interesting to say the least. Now I'm going to be spending my evening trying to track down water coolers in the TSBD

[John Iacoletti]

Because her statement to the FBI on 11/26/63 is 'previous' to her WC testimony

yes, 11/26/63 is certainly "previous" to 3/18/64.  That's your basis? 

and it is information given (or 'furnished') to the FBI, hence the phrase "information previously furnished to the F.B.I."
Just to expand on that - the statement given to the FBI on 11/26/63 contained information relating to her "activities and impressions" on 11/22/63 as she states in her CE 1381

So I guess somebody needs a lesson in "necessary" vs. "sufficient".

Either way, CE 1381 does not make any reference to Reid encountering Oswald or a Coke.

[John Iacoletti]

Interesting to say the least. Now I'm going to be spending my evening trying to track down water coolers in the TSBD

[Dan O'meara]

yes, 11/26/63 is certainly "previous" to 3/18/64.  That's your basis? 

So I guess somebody needs a lesson in "necessary" vs. "sufficient".

Either way, CE 1381 does not make any reference to Reid encountering Oswald or a Coke.

Still crying about being schooled John. You're the only one getting any lessons round here.