"Prayer Man" on the Education Forum

[ianlloyd]

First topic message reminder :

As I am not a member of the EF, I cannot post there but there is an interesting discussion going on there at the moment regarding a figure in the TSBD doorway generally referred to as "Prayer Man" due to the apparent position of his hands, seemingly clasped in front of his chest as if in prayer.
 
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354
 
I recall this person being discussed somewhere many years ago and was referred to as "Prayer Man" pretty much from the outset but I cannot recall where it originated, maybe on Lancer?
 
Anyway, the reason for this post is that, upon looking closely at the various photographs and movie clips presented as part of the discussion, it struck me that his hands don't seem to move from the "prayer" position for what seems to be quite some time. Was he holding something, I wonder? If so, it seems an odd way to hold whatever it was.

[GuestGuest]

I am sorry I did not spend the time to extract more from Shelley's brother's obit.:
The younger sister in the census listing was born 2 March, 1928, nearly 23 months after William Hoyt.....

https://www.google.com/search?q=james+schuyler+shelley+sister+irving&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapers#q=james+schuyler+shelley+sister+garner+brother&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1
Fort Worth Star-Telegram: OBITUARIES
‎
Fort Worth Star-Telegram - May 6, 1991
Survivors: Parents, John and Paula Meharg of Keller; two sisters, Amber Meharg and ... James Schuyler Shelley Jr., Building contractor MANSFIELD - James ... and Mary Dell Garner of Greenville; brother, William Hoyt Shelley of Irving; and six ..

I found this in the same cemetery as their parents are buried in, along with at least one other, older sibling. Evidently sister Mary is or was alive quite recently.:
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=6526827

At least during WWII, the high school ROTC was an elaborate pre-enlistment/draft, training scheme and a needless home guard, considering the two ocean buffer that the U.S. enjoyed as a natural defense against any invading army.

I left out one page from the 1945 Crozier year book covering ROTC. Consider also that there was a smaller, January, 1945 graduating class and year book.:Hoyt Shelley was a Lt. in "Company B":

[GuestGuest]

Excellent, Tom.  Great work and we can finally put the ID to bed.

Sean nailed this ID months ago even if he couldn't prove it his intuition on this issue was much better than my own.  The reason I couldn't accept that the grizzled looking black suited guy was Shelley was a very simple one but one that severely blindsided me nonetheless.

In the photos and especially the film of Williams and Arce being placed into the patrol car Shelley looks like he is coordinating the detainment of his co-workers.  He's pointing to seats, whipping open doors and is actually acting like he is cop.  

Maybe he was coordinating matters given what we know today.  

Just to weave some of the other threads into this one I am still extremely puzzled over who was detained and why during the course of that afternoon.  If three black men were seen on the third floor then why was it only Bonnie Ray Williams out of the three that was bundled into a patrol car that day and why was Danny Arce taken in alongside him given that this was very shortly after the assassination?  Makes no sense to me.

As the full web of subterfuge and intrigue regarding the TSBD and its spooky employees develops further nothing would surprise me any longer concerning this.  Which is why I believe we have to spend more time on the Jack Dougherty issue because I believe you have opened up a scab when you posted the pictures of Jack Daugherty last week.  Something spooky exists in this part of the story.



It's interesting to me that Walter Potts, Dallas Police Department Detective and partner of Bill Senkel was asked fot his background during his Warren Commission testimony and 
said the following:


Mr. POTTS. I was born at Sherman, Tex., April 28, 1922, and I came to Dallas in 1924 and was raised here in Dallas, attended public schools in Dallas, graduated from this Dallas--it's Crozier Tech now, but it was Dallas Technical High School right here on Bryan Street in 1941, and when I graduated I went to work for Southwest Airmotive at Love Field, and I worked for Taycee Badgett Aviation in 1942 and 1943, in Shreveport, La., and I took an aviation cadet mental and physical down there and came back to Dallas to be inducted into the service, and I worked for Lockheed at Love Field before I went in the service, and I went in the service in July 1945. I was discharged in January 1947. I was in the 796th Military Police Battalion in Vienna, Austria, and also the 505th there. 
I came back and went to work for the Taylor Publishing Co. just before I went to work for the police department. My mother and father, they still live here out on Brookfield and my sister lives here. I am one of the very few native boys in this police department down here--that's raised right here. 

Potts was responsible for interviewing the TSBD crowd after the assassination and it raises suspicions that he had a Crozier Tech background, along with a military background, worked in the aviation industry, lived in Louisiana and to cap it off (no pun intended) he worked for a publishing company before becoming a Dallas Police detective.

Crozier Tech is becoming very interesting.  Is it not?

[ianlloyd]

I wonder if Gary Mack would ask BWF if this is Shelley?

[beowulf]

At least during WWII, the high school ROTC was an elaborate pre-enlistment/draft, training scheme and a needless home guard, considering the two ocean buffer that the U.S. enjoyed as a natural defense against any invading army.

Actually the Home Guard (or State Guard as some states call these units to this day) made sense during WWII.  FDR did something dumb, he federalized the entire National Guard. It would have made sense to leave NG regiments at home with their HQ, training cadre and new recruits and just federalize battalions as needed to deploy with regular Army brigades (which actually is what the Pentagon does now). 

The National Guard serves two masters, the governor when units are on on state duty and the president when he calls up units to federal duty.  FDR left state governors without any reservists to respond to natural disasters (hurricanes in the East, earthquakes in the West, tornadoes and flooding in between), that's why Home Guard units were created, they're state militia units that can't be federalized into the US Army. It really was a waste of resources that states were driven (by FDR's action) to set up junior varsity National Guard systems. Its kind of silly that some states still have them around. 
http://www.tnmilitary.org/stateguard.html

Since the Home Guard/State Guard is so easily confused with the National Guard (they wear the same uniform but only the latter gets federal funding and federal reserve commissions for its officers), it would have been smarter for governors to instead create units of State Police reserve troopers. The State Police is never confused with the National Guard.

[Hasan Yusuf]

That's some terrific work by Tom.

[GuestGuest]

Shelley, as a lieutenant in the ROTC, had demonstrable supervisory and leadership skills. He was head or co-head of 50 or so cadets at Crozier Tech. His likeliest route into intelligence work was through the US Army.

When he told Elzie Glaze that he worked as an intelligence officer during WWII, that sounds rather circumspect- not bragging- given his ROTC training. He could have stated, more pompously, that he worked in Army Intelligence.

Granted, he may have been simply an informant at a defense plant while he was 18 or 19, but his ROTC background leads me to think he was more than your run-of-the-mill informant. That he had managerial duties as well, related to Intel work.

I have no reason to suspect he was BSing Glaze about being CIA. What would Shelley gain- except a lot of trouble- from a flippant remark like that? I'd be more inclined to think his conscience was bothering him. He did refuse permission to have his name used in Glaze's proposed article. Glaze assuredly believed him, because when he wrote the HSCA two years later, he closed with "I must admit that my own fear of getting involved in the investigation has prevented me from writing you earlier. I apologize."

Glaze's information could have been a case -breaker, but the HSCA didn't pursue it. All Blakey ever sent back was a form letter acknowledging receipt.

[StanDane]

Shelleyesque image from a gif by Gerda Dunckel over at Duncan's forum:

[beowulf]

When he told Elzie Glaze that he worked as an intelligence officer during WWII, that sounds rather circumspect- not bragging- given his ROTC training. He could have stated, more pompously, that he worked in Army Intelligence. 

Yet why but why would he say he worked in a defense plant when he was in the Army? That's a fact no one would have any reason to hide.  He very well could have been an FBI or Army Counterintelligence Corps informant in the defense plant, but so what, lots of people are FBI confidential informants (I actually know a couple personally), that doesn't make them FBI agents or "intelligence officers".

[ianlloyd]

Shelleyesque image from a gif by Gerda Dunckel over at Duncan's forum:

Michael Lynagh? Just kidding  (for those of you who are into rugby union)

[Goban_Saor]

At the risk of trying the patience of more knowledgeable members here, I’d like to try to tie up a loose end. It arises from my long post on this thread on 30^th October in which I was arguing that Prayer Man was not Bill Shelley.
 
In support of my argument I quoted the much debated extract from Fritz’s notes, ‘out with Bill Shelley in front’. Some members downplayed the significance of that quote on the basis that it’s uncontextualised and could be a reply to any number of questions.
 
However, when I was trawling the internet preparing the post I had come across a report of somebody in the DPD I think (Fritz or Curry presumably) telling a reporter that Oswald had said during interrogation that he had been down in front with fellow workers (Shelley wasn’t specified) at the time of the assassination. This would seem to place the ‘out with Bill Shelley in front’ note in the context I was referring to.
 
I’ve spent a lot of time trying to find that report again without success. I wonder does anyone know about the report in question. Among other places, I searched a compilation video of TV interviews given by Curry while Oswald was in DPD custody but it’s not there. (OK, the video was compiled by David von Pein but we don’t want to be too paranoid.)
 
The other thing about the ‘out with Bill Shelley in front’ quote that has since struck me is that the full quote is ‘had lunch out with Bill Shelley in front’. The ‘had lunch’ bit might explain the hand movements of Prayer Man and the related light reflections in the Wiegman film. However, as I think this was comprehensively discussed and illustrated by Sean Murphy in the EF there’s no need to belabour it here.

[GuestGuest]

The other thing about the ‘out with Bill Shelley in front’ quote that has since struck me is that the full quote is ‘had lunch out with Bill Shelley in front’. The ‘had lunch’ bit might explain the hand movements of Prayer Man and the related light reflections in the Wiegman film. However, as I think this was comprehensively discussed and illustrated by Sean Murphy in the EF there’s no need to belabour it here.

It's my understanding, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, that Sean Murphy maintains that Fritz copied Bookhout's notes.

Sean then goes on to dismantle Fritz's notes, without having Bookhout's notes for reference. All he has is Bookhout's report and the Bookhout/Hosty joint report.

The break up of Fritz's note structure is speculative. The note structure was as follows:

 claims 2nd floor coke when
 off came in
to 1st floor had lunch
  out with Bill Shelley in
  front

1. Bill Shelley ate half of his lunch in his office and left the rest for later. He didn't eat lunch out on the steps.
2. Bookhout's solo report doesn't reflect the interpretation of Sean's fracturing of Fritz's notes. It reads:" he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police office 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 left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took his Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employee lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley and thereafter went home."

If Fritz copied Bookhout's notes, why do we break Fritz's phrases mid-line, to come up with something that doesn't match Bookhout's report which was based on his notes?

[GuestGuest]

Let's not forget the fact that Forrest Sorrels full interrogation notes have never surfaced yet we know he was present at the first interrogation of Lee Oswald.

When the Warren Commission published Sorrels Exhibit 3A-C in WCH XXI it was supposed to simply be the notes from Sorrels interrogation of Jack Ruby on November 24th.  Yet the published document also contained half a page of Sorrels notes from the Oswald interrogation.



The question is why have Sorrels notes been suppressed and gone down the memory hole?

[Goban_Saor]

Thanks for that perspective Lee. Following your lead I googled the article ‘Lost and Found, Oswald Interrogation Notes’ by Larry Haapanen, which, among other things, discusses Sorrel’s misplaced half page of Oswald interrogation notes.

Bpete ascribes a credibility to Bookhout’s report that’s not warranted. The Bookhout report quoted by Bpete is not a contemporaneous record of the interrogation but something written up afterwards. That’s obvious from the report itself and it’s confirmed in the Haapanen article. 

According to the article (3^rd paragraph) it was standard FBI procedure to destroy contemporaneous interrogation notes. That speaks volumes about the credibility of the FBI.

In the absence of audio or stenographic recordings, contemporaneous interrogation notes are the primary evidence of what happened during interrogations. The FBI probably justified the destruction of this indispensable evidence with some kind of ‘security’ pretext but that’s not credible. If there were security concerns with certain records, those concerns could be met by redacting the records or by keeping them in classified files.

It’s ironic that a purported law enforcement agency would routinely engage in the destruction of primary evidence that renders the forensic testing of its reports impossible. This evidence is, after all, public property. The destruction of this evidence gave FBI agents the licence to say what they liked in their reports. This means we cannot trust James Bookhout’s report.

Regarding Fritz’s notes, Haapanen states (4^th paragraph): ‘The Warren Commission observed that during Oswald’s various interrogations, “Captain Will Fritz of the homicide and robbery bureau did most of the questioning, but he kept no notes and there were no stenographic or tape recordings.”’

So much for the world class ace interrogator that Fritz was made out to be at the time of the assassination. And so much for the high rate of convictions for which he was widely praised.

Haapanen takes a more benign view of these dysfunctional investigative practices than I. In my view, the illegitimate practices of the FBI and Fritz render the normal presumption of legality principle (omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta: all things are presumed to have been done correctly and solemnly) inoperative as far as the FBI and Fritz are concerned.

The illegitimate investigative practices of the FBI, Fritz and others facilitated the fabrication, alteration and exclusion of evidence in order to frame Oswald as the lone nut assassin. That much we know.

Bpete’s criticisism of Sean Murphy and others for being sceptical about official versions of events such as Bookhout’s is therefore untenable. We have to look beyond those official versions to what the evidence actually says.

Which, via a commodious vicus of circumlocution, brings me back to the query: does anyone know about that report I was asking about, the report that someone on the official side informed a reporter on 24^th November 1963 that Oswald had said he was down in front with fellow workers at the time of the assassination? That report would confirm that Fritz’s note ‘(had lunch) out with Bill Shelley in front’ means that Oswald claimed he was in the Depository doorway at the time of the assassination.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Which, via a commodious vicus of circumlocution, brings me back to the query: does anyone know about that report I was asking about, the report that someone on the official side informed a reporter on 24th November 1963 that Oswald had said he was down in front with fellow workers at the time of the assassination? That report would confirm that Fritz’s note ‘(had lunch) out with Bill Shelley in front’ means that Oswald claimed he was in the Depository doorway at the time of the assassination.

You have probably already checked, but the only place I can think of is within the transcripts of all the interviews given that weekend by Curry, Wade, Fritz etc. which are contained in the volumes.

[GuestGuest]

Bpete ascribes a credibility to Bookhout’s report that’s not warranted. The Bookhout report quoted by Bpete is not a contemporaneous record of the interrogation but something written up afterwards. That’s obvious from the report itself and it’s confirmed in the Haapanen article. 


Bpete’s criticisism of Sean Murphy and others for being sceptical about official versions of events such as Bookhout’s is therefore untenable. We have to look beyond those official versions to what the evidence actually says.

I ascribed no credibility to Bookhout's report. I simply stated that the description of Oswald's movements during lunch match between Bookhout's report and Fritz's notes and that Sean's dismantling of Fritz's supposed copying of Bookhout's note, which don't exist, was speculative.

What is untenable is your putting words in people's mouth.

My criticism of Sean Murphy's dismantling of Fritz's notes is based on his own assumption that they were based on Bookhout's notes which don't exist. It had nothing to do with anyone being skeptical of an official version of anything.

Non-existent notes do not constitute evidence.

That being said, save your ego for someone else. I'm not impressed.

Edit: Let me add that I think people should not only be skeptical of the official version of events, but every other version that comes up.
I'm still skeptical of Shelley being in the backseat of a car when the person sitting next to him testifies that Shelley was somewhere else.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

My criticism of Sean Murphy's dismantling of Fritz's notes is based on his own assumption that they were based on Bookhout's notes which don't exist. It had nothing to do with anyone being skeptical of an official version of anything. 


Non-existent notes do not constitute evidence. 

Mr. DULLES. Do you know whether there were any official transcripts made of the various interrogations of Oswald from the time he was captured to the time of his killing? 


Mr. WADE. If there are any, I have never seen them. I have asked for them, but you are dealing with a man who not only doesn't make transcripts, but doesn't even make notes. Captain Fritz is the one who interrogated him most of the time, and if you--if there is any written evidence of what he said it must be from the FBI or the Secret Service or someone who interviewed him. I assume they make a record of what he said to them. 


Mr. DULLES. If any transcript was made we would have had it, would we not? So far as you know? 


Mr. WADE. The only thing I know I never have seen one, and I don't have one of an interview, and I don't know of any--you should have it, but you are dealing with Fritz there who interviewed Ruby, and Melvin Belli went right into the conversation with Ruby, and Belli at 4 o'clock that afternoon made everything admissible, and we couldn't get a thing, couldn't put Fritz on the stand because he couldn't remember anything that was helpful. I mean, he could remember Ruby rambling around the situation, but I don't know of any transcript like that that I have that you don't have. 


-----------------------

Mr. BALL. Did you make notes as of that time? 
Mr. FRITZ. We made this, not at that time, we made this after the tragedy. 
Mr. BALL. How long after? 
Mr. FRITZ. We started on it real soon after, and we have been working on it ever since. 
Mr. BALL. Did somebody assist you in the preparation of that notebook? 
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL. Who was that? 
Mr. FRITZ. I had several officers assist me with this, and some secretaries, of course, that helped us with it. I had my lieutenant, T. L. Baker, help me to put this book together, this larger book, I think you have a copy of it there, and to make some additional books like this. Of course, we worked the whole office ever since it happened so it is hard to say just who helped. 


I think it's obvious - but only since Sean pointed out the bleedin' obvious - that Fritz' interrogation report HAD to be sourced from the notes/reports of others. Whether it was ONLY Bookhout is the only point that should be up for debate.

Non-existent notes do not constitute evidence. 


That being said, save your ego for someone else. I'm not impressed.


Edit: Let me add that I think people should not only be skeptical of the official version of events, but every other version that comes up. 
I'm still skeptical of Shelley being in the backseat of a car when the person sitting next to him testifies that Shelley was somewhere else.

Bookhout did make notes -- and Fritz said he basically started covering his own upsized backside almost straight away, so he may well have got to see them before they were destroyed. Alternatively, Fritz used Boohout's and/or the official reports of others as a guide to writing his own. 

I do agree you never ascribed any credibility to Bookhout's report. I just prefer, in the first instance, to give people benefit of the doubt that such comments are the result of an honest mistake.  Repeat offenders are the real problem, because that starts to speak of ulterior motives.

I think you "ego" comment was uncalled for.  The Irish have a way with words that transcends ego. 

This isn't addressed to you in particular, but you have afforded an opportunity for me to express my gratitude to all the posters here. The constant feedback is that this is one of the few JFK forums where winning the argument isn't the paramount reason for being here; one of the few forums where you don't have to watch your back, or worry where the next sucker punch is coming from.

We all lose our cool occasionally. I'm certainly no exception. But let's not lose it at the drop of a hat - and when and if we do - let's aim it at the right targets.

[Goban_Saor]

Thanks for that intervention, Greg. I was just about to post something but you covered the point I was about to make only better.

Bpete, if I misrepresented anything you said it was not deliberate.

As for the verbosity thing, I suppose Beckett is a better model than Joyce for this medium.

[GuestGuest]

I think it's obvious - but only since Sean pointed out the bleedin' obvious - that Fritz' interrogation report HAD to be sourced from the notes/reports of others. Whether it was ONLY Bookhout is the only point that should be up for debate.

I agree with you that it is pretty obvious that Fritz's notes were based on either discussions with or notes of others. He testified to that effect. I think Fritz relied on his own detectives and not the feds. The FBI wasn't about to share anything with the local yokels...that's exactly what they thought of them...local backwater rednecks. I'm sure Fritz had conversations with Bookhout, Hosty and Kelley in regards to exactly when things were covered in interrogation but by Friday night, the Feds were taking charge. From personal experience of dealing with the Feds in investigations and living a good part of my life in the southern U.S....the Feds don't share anything they don't absolutely have to and anything below the Mason-Dixon line is considered a foreign country. The only problem was the locals had their suspect and it was harder to commandeer Oswald that it was for the SS to commandeer Kennedy's body.

I do agree you never ascribed any credibility to Bookhout's report. I just prefer, in the first instance, to give people benefit of the doubt that such comments are the result of an honest mistake.  Repeat offenders are the real problem, because that starts to speak of ulterior motives.

I agree with you Greg, but this isn't the first instance. When I first offered my opinion on the PM theory by Sean Murphy, I was accused of lecturing, my motives were questioned and it's as if I was attacking Sean Murphy personally. I wasn't. I haven't. I see no benefit of the doubt being offered to me by anyone. It's as if I walked into the Sean Murphy fan club and any statement other than total agreement with Sean is taken as an affront to the membership.

I think you "ego" comment was uncalled for.  The Irish have a way with words that transcends ego.

My "ego" comment is unacceptable but "Wind your damn neck in" perfectly acceptable discourse.

This isn't addressed to you in particular, but you have afforded an opportunity for me to express my gratitude to all the posters here. The constant feedback is that this is one of the few JFK forums where winning the argument isn't the paramount reason for being here; one of the few forums where you don't have to watch your back, or worry where the next sucker punch is coming from.

We all lose our cool occasionally. I'm certainly no exception. But let's not lose it at the drop of a hat - and when and if we do - let's aim it at the right targets.

One of the reasons I joined this forum is because I thought there could be discussion without all of the crap you see on other forums. Maybe I was wrong. I"m not so sure about your next sucker punch comment.

[beowulf]

My "ego" comment is unacceptable but "Wind your damn neck in" perfectly acceptable discourse...
One of the reasons I joined this forum is because I thought there could be discussion without all of the crap you see on other forums. Maybe I was wrong. I"m not so sure about your next sucker punch comment.


His house his rules.  I ended up here because Greg and his sidekicks Richard & Hasan seem to be drilling down and discussing important questions that other forums have ignored. I've disagreed with each of them on different points but they've all also each changed my mind on various points too. The way the interweb works is the website administrators get to enforce any sort of rules (as arbitrary as they may seem to you) they wish and if you find them unpalatable you're free to go start a website to create your own benevolent dictatorship.

Point in fact, if the FBI was running the show, one of their tasks would be to give everyone their talking points so everyone's on the same page. It makes sense (to me at least) that the FBI would share agent notes with Fritz's, but not tell anyone they did that, so it would appear the police and FBI notes were corroborating independent records of the same event.

I remember reading somewhere (perhaps it was ADA Bill Alexander who was present at some of the interrogations) that the FBI practice at that time was to not take notes in the interrogation room, they'd work in teams (in this case Hosty and Bookhout) rotating in and out, one leaving periodically to write down what he just heard while the other one (presumably listening just outside the door) stepped in to take his place. So actually not even the FBI notes were copied down stenographically as Oswald spoke. There were no doubt both unintentional and (per Oswald's lunchroom comment) intentional errors in the notes.


Fritz had no need to take interrogation notes most of the time, the vast majority (upwards of 90%) of American criminal convictions result from a confession and guilty plea, its what the suspect writes downwhich is important. The other 10% or so require officer testimony but in 1960s Texas, accurate interview notes would all too often conflict with what the officer was actually going to say under oath, so why bother?  This was an unusual murder case, which are ordinarily investigated only by local police, because Fritz's interrogations was witnessed by federal agents (to say nothing of the worldwide media scrutiny). Only after the fact did someone (one suspects an FBI agent) tell him he needed to be singing from the federal hymnal. Thus the note copying.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

I agree with you that it is pretty obvious that Fritz's notes were based on either discussions with or notes of others. He testified to that effect.

Sorry, but he didn't testify to that all. He said he had a lot of help putting his investigation report together - which he had with him during his testimony and which he referred to often throughout - no doubt because of his poor memory. It was Wade who, specifically in regard to the interrogation reports, suggested that Fritz MUST have used the notes of the FBI or Secret Service.

From personal experience of dealing with the Feds in investigations and living a good part of my life in the southern U.S....the Feds don't share anything they don't absolutely have to and anything below the Mason-Dixon line is considered a foreign country.

I'm sure there is a lot of truth in that as a general rule of thumb. But Wade was ex FBI which may have earned some Brownie points. It's also true that Fritz allowed both the FBI and SS to join the interrogations well before the FBI was given presidential approval to take over. That may suggest a better working relationship than you've encountered elsewhere in the south. 

I agree with you Greg, but this isn't the first instance. When I first offered my opinion on the PM theory by Sean Murphy, I was accused of lecturing, my motives were questioned and it's as if I was attacking Sean Murphy personally. I wasn't. I haven't. I see no benefit of the doubt being offered to me by anyone. It's as if I walked into the Sean Murphy fan club and any statement other than total agreement with Sean is taken as an affront to the membership. 

I can't possibly read every post here, but I haven't seen any post by you that I considered a personal attack against Sean. The fact is that some of us get a little battle weary - and wary... and to be perfectly frank, those who often end up being the ones with less than desirous motives, often start as you have, in minor disagreements about what has taken a long process and a lot of research to establish... and slowly the minor disagreements grow or become disingenuous in direct proportion to how well and how often each point is knocked down. I think anyone who placed you in that category should have given more benefit of the doubt - just as I suggested you might have given Goban.

My "ego" comment is unacceptable but "Wind your damn neck in" perfectly acceptable discourse. 

Horses for courses. There was give and take in your exchanges with Lee, and it seemed from your Cinque material, you can certainly give it! Lee knows me well enough to know I would not deliberately show any favoritism - and I have confidence that the same would apply with Hasan and Richard who are both admins/troubleshooters here. 

Anyhow - there was no such give and take in the exchanges with Goban, and nor did I think he said anything warranting any personal comments. 

One of the reasons I joined this forum is because I thought there could be discussion without all of the crap you see on other forums. Maybe I was wrong. I"m not so sure about your next sucker punch comment. 

The more members, the harder it is to maintain a perfectly harmonious environment. Not that I am suggesting you leave here and go to another forum, but if you want to be among like-minded people regarding Sean's work, there is Duncan McRae's forum. While you're here, I expect you to be given the same benefit of the doubt that I would like you to extend to others. That's the Golden Rule and it applies until the benefit is no longer tenable from the evidence.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Fritz had no need to take interrogation notes most of the time, the vast majority (upwards of 90%) of American criminal convictions result from a confession and guilty plea, its what the suspect writes downwhich is important. The other 10% or so require officer testimony but in 1960s Texas, accurate interview notes would all too often conflict with what the officer was actually going to say under oath, so why bother?  This was an unusual murder case, which are ordinarily investigated only by local police, because Fritz's interrogations was witnessed by federal agents (to say nothing of the worldwide media scrutiny). Only after the fact did someone (one suspects an FBI agent) tell him he needed to be singing from the federal hymnal. Thus the note copying.

Thanks for that perspective, Mr. B.

And seemingly supported by Wade in regard to the Ruby trial: "...We couldn't get a thing, couldn't put Fritz on the stand because he couldn't remember anything that was helpful. I mean, he could remember Ruby rambling around the situation, but I don't know of any transcript like that that I have that you don't have."  

The DPD was too used to working within a system which required next to no accountability. That led to all sorts of sloppy police work and even sloppier setting up of innocent people. 

But that aside, it appears there was nothing particularly unusual for that time and place, nor sinister, in Fritz not taking interrogation notes - a sore point with so many...

Another "keeper".

[GuestGuest]

I agree with you that it is pretty obvious that Fritz's notes were based on either discussions with or notes of others. He testified to that effect.

Sorry, but he didn't testify to that all. He said he had a lot of help putting his investigation report together - which he had with him during his testimony and which he referred to often throughout - no doubt because of his poor memory. It was Wade who, specifically in regard to the interrogation reports, suggested that Fritz MUST have used the notes of the FBI or Secret Service.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember what you said to Oswald and what he said to you?
Mr. FRITZ. I can remember the thing that I said to him and what he said to me, but I will have trouble telling you which period of questioning those questions were in because I kept no notes at the time, and these notes and things that I have made I would have to make several days later, and the questions may be in the wrong place.

[GuestGuest]

His house his rules.  I ended up here because Greg and his sidekicks Richard & Hasan seem to be drilling down and discussing important questions that other forums have ignored. I've disagreed with each of them on different points but they've all also each changed my mind on various points too. The way the interweb works is the website administrators get to enforce any sort of rules (as arbitrary as they may seem to you) they wish and if you find them unpalatable you're free to go start a website to create your own benevolent dictatorship.

Thank you for that very informative, yet totally unnecessary interjection in a dialog between me and the site administrator. 

If I have questions about the intricacies of the interweb, I will be sure to consult you further.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

I agree with you that it is pretty obvious that Fritz's notes were based on either discussions with or notes of others. He testified to that effect.

Sorry, but he didn't testify to that all. He said he had a lot of help putting his investigation report together - which he had with him during his testimony and which he referred to often throughout - no doubt because of his poor memory. It was Wade who, specifically in regard to the interrogation reports, suggested that Fritz MUST have used the notes of the FBI or Secret Service.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember what you said to Oswald and what he said to you?
Mr. FRITZ. I can remember the thing that I said to him and what he said to me, but I will have trouble telling you which period of questioning those questions were in because I kept no notes at the time, and these notes and things that I have made I would have to make several days later, and the questions may be in the wrong place.

Okay. I see what you mean. I was possibly being too pedantic. Based on that testimony, he could also have been relying strictly on memory.

[GuestGuest]

Okay. I see what you mean. I was possibly being too pedantic. Based on that testimony, he could also have been relying strictly on memory.

I agree with you on that. I get the impression that after Oswald got shot he had to get it all down on paper for the express purpose of covering his butt. I also think he relied more on his own detectives that were present than anyone with any other agency. Agencies are cliquish.

The FBI withheld information from the DPD before 11/22, and from the WC and everyone else after 11/22. I don't see them really caring if Fritz and his bunch were singing from the same sheet music.

[Sponsored content]