Oswald's lies proves his guilt.

[John Mytton]

Sorry, I can’t. My source for this info is:

http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf

“A 36-inch Italian "carbine" was advertised in Field and Stream from January, 1962, through November, 1963.”

But that can’t be right, because the 40” Klein’s ad that Holmes tried to pass off as being the one that C2766 was ordered from was supposedly the November, 1963 Field and Stream. I will continue to investigate.

I'm pretty sure that in some sporting/gun magazine Kleins was advertising a 36 inch Carcano after April 1963 but it doesn't matter because the stock that Kleins were selling can be traced back to Crescent firearms and C2766 was part of the shipment that Kleins received in February 1963.



JohnM

[Tom Scully]

Thanks for the kind welcome, Tom.
Congratulations on posting multiple times on this forum before and apologies if I have a different opinion to you.
As you could probably tell, my post was reply to a previous comment which took a swipe at people who saw Oswald as a hero, hence my use of the tag "Oswald worshippers". What I said was nothing new and something that had been said multiple times on this thread already, the point I was trying to make is that despite all the lazy claims of everything just being lies, nobody has come up with a reasonable answer for the aforementioned question, but you have now put an end to that.
I appreciate your patronising tone and your highly insightful reply and as a result I am now truly enlightened and see the errors of my way. Oswald was clearly innocent and was framed all along. Excuse me while I rush to grab my Mark Lane & Jim Garrison books from bin.

Not expecting you to post any more reasonable or less condescending comments as time progresses. Carry on!

I must give the impression I am unreasonable? Reasonable enough to serve as moderator of comments on the forum at this link, and a sample of my well supported criticism of Garrison, his investigation, and of the authors who later wrote about them.
https://jfkfacts.org/provocative-prolific-joan-mellen/#comment-869223

I'm a tweener, trapped by the facts into not fitting in well in either LN or CT camp. I've been accused of being in either camp, depending on the camp of my accuser. One camp seems more bent on exonerating Oswald than in pursuing the entirety of the facts. That distraction was always there, but took flame since mid-2013, one poster on one forum convincing a good portion of the camp that it was reasonable to assert all witnesses from Bill to Buell lied in WC testimony related to the last time they saw Oswald before his arrest.

I apologize for not abbreviating my welcome, to...

Welcome! Only one opportunity to make a first impression.

[Vincent Baxter]

The representatives of each did not collaborate with each other before submitting timely reports. The DPD chief and the FBI were openly hostile to each other. The DPD and SS were most defensive while Postal Inspector Harry Holmes seemed to have little exposure to the accusation of failing to protect the President during his visit to Dallas.

And yet their accounts of interrogating Oswald still come out fairly similar with reports of him denying owning the rifle, failing to authenticate the backyard photo, etc, etc.
This would suggest to me one of the following three occurrences happened then:

a) All the representatives collaborated with each other before submitting their reports (which you claim they did not)
b) They each decided to tell lies about what Oswald said and by sheer pot luck, coincidentally told the same lies as the other investigative departments
c) It is actually what Oswald said

My personal opinion is that it's more likely to be C.

Obviously this does not prove or disprove Oswald's guilt and I'm not addressing whether the President's body was illegally taken at gunpoint, whether it differed from McKinely's assassination or even whether Woody Harrelson's old man was disguised as a tramp on the grassy knoll and shot JFK himself. Once again, the question I was merely asking to all those people who lazily state that because there are no recordings of these interviews that everything stated in the reports are obviously all lies, was why would they lie about it and why chose to lie and say he denied everything if they could have just said that he admitted to everything once he was dead?

[Tom Scully]

And yet their accounts of interrogating Oswald still come out fairly similar with reports of him denying owning the rifle, failing to authenticate the backyard photo, etc, etc.
This would suggest to me one of the following three occurrences happened then:

a) All the representatives collaborated with each other before submitting their reports (which you claim they did not)
b) They each decided to tell lies about what Oswald said and by sheer pot luck, coincidentally told the same lies as the other investigative departments
c) It is actually what Oswald said

My personal opinion is that it's more likely to be C.

Obviously this does not prove or disprove Oswald's guilt and I'm not addressing whether the President's body was illegally taken at gunpoint, whether it differed from McKinely's assassination or even whether Woody Harrelson's old man was disguised as a tramp on the grassy knoll and shot JFK himself. Once again, the question I was merely asking to all those people who lazily state that because there are no recordings of these interviews that everything stated in the reports are obviously all lies, was why would they lie about it and why chose to lie and say he denied everything if they could have just said that he admitted to everything once he was dead?

The C (3rd of 3) choice seems the most reasonable but I object to inclusion of anything "unique" from "Fritz's notes," donated, submitted anonymously to the ARRB in the 1990's. Fritz testified to writing down non-contemporaneous notes, only.
Harry Holmes claimed Fritz and he had been "old school" trained not to take interrogation notes so as to offer no basis for a defense attorney to twist their written contemporaneous notes to attempt to cast doubt in favorable of the accused
FBI's Hosty testified to destroying his notes, only to publish images of them in his book, more than 20 years later.

[Martin Weidmann]

The C (3rd of 3) choice seems the most reasonable but I object to inclusion of anything "unique" from "Fritz's notes," donated, submitted anonymously to the ARRB in the 1990's. Fritz testified to writing down non-contemporaneous notes, only.
Harry Holmes claimed Fritz and he had been "old school" trained not to take interrogation notes so as to offer no basis for a defense attorney to twist their written contemporaneous notes to attempt to cast doubt in favorable of the accused
FBI's Hosty testified to destroying his notes, only to publish images of them in his book, more than 20 years later.

Were at least some of the reports not written days after the fact and based on the handwritten notes of Fritz?

[Tom Scully]

Were at least some of the reports not written days after the fact and based on the handwritten notes of Fritz?

Two men say their Jesus. one of them must be wrong, but what if one man is saying as much (about his perfect memory)?

Martin, Fritz's notes are in agreement with many points in others' notes documented and filed at the time.
My objection is to anything new supported mainly by Fritz's notes, or say.... something of Fritz's notes clearing up long disputed details, either for or against a poorly supported claim. I haven't looked that closely because I don't know where those notes actually came from. The ARRB could have certified them as authentic, I haven't found where the ARRB disclosed much beyond obtained from anonymous donor.

Did Holmes's memory improve with age, 1953 vs '63? He didn't work at place that sold bananas, but at one that sold stamps.





 

[John Iacoletti]

I'm pretty sure that in some sporting/gun magazine Kleins was advertising a 36 inch Carcano after April 1963 but it doesn't matter because the stock that Kleins were selling can be traced back to Crescent firearms and C2766 was part of the shipment that Kleins received in February 1963.

Or June 1962.

[Colin Crow]

EXACTLY! if it is so blatantly obvious to all these Oswald worshippers that the Dallas police and FBI lied about everything Oswald (allegedly) said, why would they state that Oswald refused to admit he owned the rifle? Why inform the public that Oswald said the backyard photos were fake? Why report that Oswald denied putting the long brown paper package in the back of Frazier's car? Or that he didn't shoot the President or Tippit?
If it was such a stitch up and they all cohered to lie about everything in order to frame him, why not just say that he admitted to all these things or at least that he refused to comment. With no recordings they could have claimed anything so why "make up" or lie about stuff that casts doubts or could avert liability from him?

I know this point has been made by several other people on this forum but so far I have yet to see anyone come up with a suitable reply

I am aware there were no contemporaneous recordings but is there a single reliable source of exactly who were present at each official interrogation, (not the unofficial "discussions" with various officers in between.) Also what times they commenced and concluded. You know, there bare minimum information that most official meetings record.