Post by John Duncan on Dec 30, 2022 18:20:26 GMT -5
Oswald Never Said He Was “Drinking A Coca Cola” In The Lunchroom
By Donald Willis 8/21
In his report on the first interview of Lee Harvey Oswald, DPD Homicide Capt. Fritz stated that "Mr. [Roy] Truly had told me that one of the police officers had stopped [Oswald] immediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway...." (WR, p. 600)
Meanwhile, Truly himself told the Warren Commission--in answer to Representative Gerald Ford's "In your description of Oswald to Captain Fritz, did you describe the kind of clothes that Oswald had on that day?"--"No, sir. I just told him his name and where he lived and his telephone number and his age, as 23, and I said 5 feet, 9, about 150 pounds, light brown hair". Earlier in his testimony, Truly stated, "I told [Fritz] about this boy missing and gave him his address and telephone number and general description. And he says, 'Thank you, Mr. Truly. We will take care of it.' And I went back downstairs in a few minutes."
In neither passage, does Truly mention anything about telling Fritz about the Baker-Oswald confrontation. Similarly, in his 11/23/63 affidavit, Truly says he told Capt. Fritz (“on the sixth floor”) only about Lee being missing and where he lived. For his part, Fritz testified, "Mr. Truly came and told me that one of his employees had left the building, and I asked his name, and he gave me his name, Lee Harvey Oswald, and I asked him his address, and he gave me the Irving address." (p. 206)
Only when counsel asks Fritz a direct question about the Baker-Oswald confrontation does Fritz attempt to explain how Truly ("or someone") at the book depository first informed him about it: "They told me about that down at the bookstore. I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him, I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met [Oswald] on the stairway. But our investigation shows that [Baker] actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating." (V4, p. 213)
Apparently, Fritz was not quite prepared for the question. A far cry from his original report's straightforward "Mr. Truly had told me....": "They told me about that... I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it... told me they had met him... I think he told me... person who told me about... I believe told me...." "they"/"Mr. Truly"/"someone"/"person".... The advantage of live questioning over prepared statements. Clearly, the flustered Fritz did not quite remember who, if anyone, at "the bookstore", had told him about the confrontation. Why is he now so unsure?
Part of the answer lies in his Dec. 23, 1963, report to Police Chief Jesse Curry: "Mr. Roy S. Truly... reported to us that one of his men was missing, a Lee Harvey Oswald, whose address was 2515 W. 5th St., Irving, Texas. We also found that [Oswald] had been stopped by Officer M.L. Baker while coming down the stairs. Mr. Baker says that he stopped this man on the third or fourth floor on the stairway...." (p. 2)
This clarifies the confusion of his testimony, divvies up the information which Fritz received between the two parties, Truly and Baker. As Truly testified, Fritz, here, states that he talked to Truly--"while we were still searching the building"—but only about Oswald's name, description, and address. Nothing about the confrontation. It's from Baker, apparently, that Fritz first learned of the encounter between Baker and Oswald.
And if Oswald is telling Fritz on 11/22/63 that-- (as is stated in Fritz's report on the interviews) "he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in", that phrase "second floor" confirmed that same day by Truly, in an FBI interview, wherein he speaks of a “snack bar”--why is Fritz, on 12/23/63, still referring back to Baker's original "third or fourth floor stairway”?
Even more damaging (to Fritz, that is), Baker himself told the FBI, on Nov. 29th, that he “observed Oswald on the second floor of the building….” Fritz seems to have been out of the loop, the FBI loop at least. Its investigation proceeded ahead, while his was stuck on the “third or fourth floor stairway”, until, at least, Dec. 23rd.
Of course Fritz is going to go with what an officer tells him over what a suspect tells him. But, supposedly, according to Fritz , he first heard of the encounter—presumably, “while we were still searching the building”—from Truly. Hence his “Mr. Truly had told me”, in his undated report. But Truly does not verify this, and Fritz himself drops the ball when questioned by Commission counsel. In fact, the ball seems to have turned into a live grenade right in his hands. Fritz proves to be his own lie detector here. But why would he apparently lie re who first informed him of the confrontation?
First, we can put a loose date on his undated “Mr. Truly had told me” report, or at least that section of it. Clearly, on 12/23/63, all that he is going on is Baker’s 11/22/63 affidavit (“third or fourth floor”), or on his word, or both. So that section, at least, of the undated report had to have been added some time after his 12/23 report, when somehow, he finally got “better” information.
Even as late as the date of his testimony, Fritz cannot provide a viable alternative source for “Mr. Truly”, in that original report. “someone” or “person” or “they” won’t fly. In point of fact, there seems to have been no name with which Fritz thought that he could replace “Truly” in “Mr. Truly had told me”—as Fritz himself, most uncomfortably, discovered when questioned by Joseph Ball. The main cause of his discomfort may have been that he remembered that the subject of the Baker-Oswald confrontation actually did not come up in his chat with Truly.
The section, then, in Fritz’s original report, re the lunchroom encounter is negated by Fritz himself, in his 12/23 report. It’s effectively unsourced, or de-sourced. The continuation of the “Mr. Truly” sentence—“so I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in”—is predicated on what some unknown person--whom Fritz cannot, for the life of him name--told him. Consequently, the corresponding section of FBI agent James Bookhout’s solo report on the same “second floor” encounter (WR, p. 619), is also negated. The subject did not come up during the interview.
Oswald, then, said nothing to Fritz about the second-floor encounter, let alone about “drinking a coca cola”—a cleverly invented “lie” for Oswald, it seems.
Bookhout himself negated the solo report in its entirety in his Commission testimony. When counsel asked him, “So you have no notes respecting this whole matter?”, Bookhout responded, “No, other than the reported interviewing report”—i.e., a joint Bookhout-James Hosty report. (V7, pp. 312, 313)
Further proof that the subject of the encounter did not come up in the first interview: In a joint, signed FBI report, by the same Bookhout and by Hosty, on the same interview, they said: “Oswald…claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch.” (WR, p. 613) That’s it. That’s all. No policeman, no Truly. No wonder Fritz couldn’t come up with a source. Whatever actually happened, Oswald said nothing in that first interview re a cop on the second floor. The lunchroom passages in Bookhout’s solo report and in Fritz’s undated report and his notes were based on a question which was never asked or answered.
Truly. The FBI. The former provided the latter with the very first known reference to the lunchroom encounter. But perhaps it was the reverse, actually the FBI which provided the reference for Truly. That is, perhaps it was the FBI which injected Baker into the otherwise innocuous lunchroom story. This would explain Fritz’s otherwise inexplicable citing of Truly as the one who told him about the encounter: In this narrative, some over-zealous person at the FBI, that is, would have had Fritz insert the new, improved lunchroom story into his undated recap, and into his notes for same. What’s good for the goose (Truly) is good for the gander (Fritz).
Whatever actually happened…. We don’t know what, actually. However—thanks to the sore-thumb “Mr. Truly” in Fritz’s report, and his floundering about when questioned on the subject of who had told him about the cop, and, finally, his designation of Baker—not Truly—in his 12/23 report, as his source for the Oswald-Baker encounter, “on the third or fourth floor on the stairway”—thanks to all this, we know some of the truth about what happened, and didn’t happen (e.g., Oswald’s “drinking a coca cola”), in the Oswald interviews. But, between the dueling agendas of Oswald and the authorities, much of the truth of what actually happened that day is irretrievably lost, including exactly why those authorities deemed it necessary, in the first place, to have Oswald on board with the “snack bar” story, beyond the scripted-for-him “drinking a coca cola”.
A final question: How many more of Oswald’s words were ghostwritten by someone else?
A final caveat: It is just possible that Oswald did not lie about his experience on the second floor, as described in the Hosty-Bookhout report, though he may have *omitted* something, like his run-in with Baker. If so, however, it’s still the authorities who were lying about his saying that he was “drinking a coca cola”. Countering his lying by omission here with their own lying by commission. Trust no one.
A final note: Oswald apparently did, finally, reference his encounter with Baker, in the Sunday interview. According to Postal Inspector H.D. Holmes, “when [Oswald] went down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification….” (WR, p. 636) Holmes didn’t say who asked him about the incident, but he testified to the Commission that Oswald said that Baker stopped him “at the front entrance to the first floor”. (V7, p. 306) Again, the participants may have had their agendas. Curiously, neither Fritz not Secret Service Inspector Thomas Kelley made mention of the exchange in their respective reports on the interview. (WR, pp. 609-610, 629)
dcw
By Donald Willis 8/21
In his report on the first interview of Lee Harvey Oswald, DPD Homicide Capt. Fritz stated that "Mr. [Roy] Truly had told me that one of the police officers had stopped [Oswald] immediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway...." (WR, p. 600)
Meanwhile, Truly himself told the Warren Commission--in answer to Representative Gerald Ford's "In your description of Oswald to Captain Fritz, did you describe the kind of clothes that Oswald had on that day?"--"No, sir. I just told him his name and where he lived and his telephone number and his age, as 23, and I said 5 feet, 9, about 150 pounds, light brown hair". Earlier in his testimony, Truly stated, "I told [Fritz] about this boy missing and gave him his address and telephone number and general description. And he says, 'Thank you, Mr. Truly. We will take care of it.' And I went back downstairs in a few minutes."
In neither passage, does Truly mention anything about telling Fritz about the Baker-Oswald confrontation. Similarly, in his 11/23/63 affidavit, Truly says he told Capt. Fritz (“on the sixth floor”) only about Lee being missing and where he lived. For his part, Fritz testified, "Mr. Truly came and told me that one of his employees had left the building, and I asked his name, and he gave me his name, Lee Harvey Oswald, and I asked him his address, and he gave me the Irving address." (p. 206)
Only when counsel asks Fritz a direct question about the Baker-Oswald confrontation does Fritz attempt to explain how Truly ("or someone") at the book depository first informed him about it: "They told me about that down at the bookstore. I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him, I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met [Oswald] on the stairway. But our investigation shows that [Baker] actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating." (V4, p. 213)
Apparently, Fritz was not quite prepared for the question. A far cry from his original report's straightforward "Mr. Truly had told me....": "They told me about that... I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it... told me they had met him... I think he told me... person who told me about... I believe told me...." "they"/"Mr. Truly"/"someone"/"person".... The advantage of live questioning over prepared statements. Clearly, the flustered Fritz did not quite remember who, if anyone, at "the bookstore", had told him about the confrontation. Why is he now so unsure?
Part of the answer lies in his Dec. 23, 1963, report to Police Chief Jesse Curry: "Mr. Roy S. Truly... reported to us that one of his men was missing, a Lee Harvey Oswald, whose address was 2515 W. 5th St., Irving, Texas. We also found that [Oswald] had been stopped by Officer M.L. Baker while coming down the stairs. Mr. Baker says that he stopped this man on the third or fourth floor on the stairway...." (p. 2)
This clarifies the confusion of his testimony, divvies up the information which Fritz received between the two parties, Truly and Baker. As Truly testified, Fritz, here, states that he talked to Truly--"while we were still searching the building"—but only about Oswald's name, description, and address. Nothing about the confrontation. It's from Baker, apparently, that Fritz first learned of the encounter between Baker and Oswald.
And if Oswald is telling Fritz on 11/22/63 that-- (as is stated in Fritz's report on the interviews) "he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in", that phrase "second floor" confirmed that same day by Truly, in an FBI interview, wherein he speaks of a “snack bar”--why is Fritz, on 12/23/63, still referring back to Baker's original "third or fourth floor stairway”?
Even more damaging (to Fritz, that is), Baker himself told the FBI, on Nov. 29th, that he “observed Oswald on the second floor of the building….” Fritz seems to have been out of the loop, the FBI loop at least. Its investigation proceeded ahead, while his was stuck on the “third or fourth floor stairway”, until, at least, Dec. 23rd.
Of course Fritz is going to go with what an officer tells him over what a suspect tells him. But, supposedly, according to Fritz , he first heard of the encounter—presumably, “while we were still searching the building”—from Truly. Hence his “Mr. Truly had told me”, in his undated report. But Truly does not verify this, and Fritz himself drops the ball when questioned by Commission counsel. In fact, the ball seems to have turned into a live grenade right in his hands. Fritz proves to be his own lie detector here. But why would he apparently lie re who first informed him of the confrontation?
First, we can put a loose date on his undated “Mr. Truly had told me” report, or at least that section of it. Clearly, on 12/23/63, all that he is going on is Baker’s 11/22/63 affidavit (“third or fourth floor”), or on his word, or both. So that section, at least, of the undated report had to have been added some time after his 12/23 report, when somehow, he finally got “better” information.
Even as late as the date of his testimony, Fritz cannot provide a viable alternative source for “Mr. Truly”, in that original report. “someone” or “person” or “they” won’t fly. In point of fact, there seems to have been no name with which Fritz thought that he could replace “Truly” in “Mr. Truly had told me”—as Fritz himself, most uncomfortably, discovered when questioned by Joseph Ball. The main cause of his discomfort may have been that he remembered that the subject of the Baker-Oswald confrontation actually did not come up in his chat with Truly.
The section, then, in Fritz’s original report, re the lunchroom encounter is negated by Fritz himself, in his 12/23 report. It’s effectively unsourced, or de-sourced. The continuation of the “Mr. Truly” sentence—“so I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in”—is predicated on what some unknown person--whom Fritz cannot, for the life of him name--told him. Consequently, the corresponding section of FBI agent James Bookhout’s solo report on the same “second floor” encounter (WR, p. 619), is also negated. The subject did not come up during the interview.
Oswald, then, said nothing to Fritz about the second-floor encounter, let alone about “drinking a coca cola”—a cleverly invented “lie” for Oswald, it seems.
Bookhout himself negated the solo report in its entirety in his Commission testimony. When counsel asked him, “So you have no notes respecting this whole matter?”, Bookhout responded, “No, other than the reported interviewing report”—i.e., a joint Bookhout-James Hosty report. (V7, pp. 312, 313)
Further proof that the subject of the encounter did not come up in the first interview: In a joint, signed FBI report, by the same Bookhout and by Hosty, on the same interview, they said: “Oswald…claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch.” (WR, p. 613) That’s it. That’s all. No policeman, no Truly. No wonder Fritz couldn’t come up with a source. Whatever actually happened, Oswald said nothing in that first interview re a cop on the second floor. The lunchroom passages in Bookhout’s solo report and in Fritz’s undated report and his notes were based on a question which was never asked or answered.
Truly. The FBI. The former provided the latter with the very first known reference to the lunchroom encounter. But perhaps it was the reverse, actually the FBI which provided the reference for Truly. That is, perhaps it was the FBI which injected Baker into the otherwise innocuous lunchroom story. This would explain Fritz’s otherwise inexplicable citing of Truly as the one who told him about the encounter: In this narrative, some over-zealous person at the FBI, that is, would have had Fritz insert the new, improved lunchroom story into his undated recap, and into his notes for same. What’s good for the goose (Truly) is good for the gander (Fritz).
Whatever actually happened…. We don’t know what, actually. However—thanks to the sore-thumb “Mr. Truly” in Fritz’s report, and his floundering about when questioned on the subject of who had told him about the cop, and, finally, his designation of Baker—not Truly—in his 12/23 report, as his source for the Oswald-Baker encounter, “on the third or fourth floor on the stairway”—thanks to all this, we know some of the truth about what happened, and didn’t happen (e.g., Oswald’s “drinking a coca cola”), in the Oswald interviews. But, between the dueling agendas of Oswald and the authorities, much of the truth of what actually happened that day is irretrievably lost, including exactly why those authorities deemed it necessary, in the first place, to have Oswald on board with the “snack bar” story, beyond the scripted-for-him “drinking a coca cola”.
A final question: How many more of Oswald’s words were ghostwritten by someone else?
A final caveat: It is just possible that Oswald did not lie about his experience on the second floor, as described in the Hosty-Bookhout report, though he may have *omitted* something, like his run-in with Baker. If so, however, it’s still the authorities who were lying about his saying that he was “drinking a coca cola”. Countering his lying by omission here with their own lying by commission. Trust no one.
A final note: Oswald apparently did, finally, reference his encounter with Baker, in the Sunday interview. According to Postal Inspector H.D. Holmes, “when [Oswald] went down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification….” (WR, p. 636) Holmes didn’t say who asked him about the incident, but he testified to the Commission that Oswald said that Baker stopped him “at the front entrance to the first floor”. (V7, p. 306) Again, the participants may have had their agendas. Curiously, neither Fritz not Secret Service Inspector Thomas Kelley made mention of the exchange in their respective reports on the interview. (WR, pp. 609-610, 629)
dcw