JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
A CTer SAID:
>>> "Roger Craig testified that LHO mentioned the station wagon (they said car) belonged to Ruth Paine..." <<<
You'd better go back to school and read Roger Craig's Warren
Commission testimony, wherein he told the Commission on April 1st,
1964, that it was CAPTAIN FRITZ (not Oswald) who FIRST MENTIONED THE
WORDS "STATION WAGON". This contradicts the story Craig would be
telling later, such as in the "Two Men In Dallas" video program. .....
DAVID BELIN -- "What did Captain Fritz say and what did you say and
what did the suspect [Lee Oswald] say?"
ROGER D. CRAIG -- "Captain Fritz then asked him about the---uh---he
said, "What about this station wagon?" And the suspect interrupted him
and said, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine"---I believe is
what he said. "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do
with it." And--uh--Captain Fritz then told him, as close as I can
remember, that, "All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and
this man saw you leave from the scene." And the suspect again
interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you people I did." And--
uh--yeah--then, he said--then he continued and he said, "Everybody
will know who I am now."
I will admit that the above section of Roger Craig's 1964 WC testimony
is virtually identical (in most respects) to Craig's later accounts of
what allegedly took place in Captain Fritz' office on 11/22/63....all
EXCEPT the "station wagon" remarks. Craig told the WC that it was,
indeed, Fritz who FIRST brought up the subject of the station wagon,
and not Oswald.
And if Deputy Craig's Warren Commission testimony is accurate (and it
was testimony being given just a little over four months after the
assassination itself), Fritz allegedly (per Craig) used the words
"station wagon" and not merely "car" during the interrogation session
with Oswald. That's not what Craig would be saying years later however.
BTW, here's a portion of the June 1964 affidavit that was filled out
by Will Fritz (wherein he mentions the fact that he doesn't "remember
anything about Lee Harvey Oswald jumping up or making any remarks or
gestures to this man [Craig] or to me at this time, and had I brought
this officer into my inner office I feel sure that I would remember
"I don't remember the name Roger Craig, but I do remember a man
coming into my outer office and I remember one of my officers calling
me outside the door of my private office. I talked to this man for a
minute or two, and he started telling me a story about seeing Oswald
leaving the building.
"I don't remember all the things that this man said, but I
turned him over to Lt. Baker who talked to him. Lee Harvey Oswald was
in my office at this time. I don't remember anything about Lee Harvey
Oswald jumping up or making any remarks or gestures to this man or to
me at this time, and had I brought this officer into my inner office I
feel sure that I would remember it.
"There were other officers in [my] inner office at the time, and
I have found no one who knows about the remarks that you have asked
about." -- Signed, J.W. Fritz (June 9, 1964)
A related note about Craig and Oswald:
I find this statement attributed to Oswald by Craig to be completely
out of character with what Oswald was saying to the press and to the
live television audience on the VERY SAME DAY (per Roger Craig) ---
"Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."
That's a very interesting "admission", of sorts, by Lee Oswald. (If
we're to believe that LHO ever said it in the first place, that is.)
It's an "admission" in the sense that Oswald certainly seemed to know,
via that alleged comment, why he was sitting in Captain Fritz' office,
which is totally at odds with ALL of Oswald's first-day (November 22)
comments that he made in front of the TV cameras.
All the way up through the Midnight Press Conference on Friday
night, the calm and cool Oswald continued to say "I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THIS SITUATION IS ALL ABOUT."
And yet, per Roger Craig, Oswald (at some point PRIOR to that midnight
press gathering) certainly seems to know what the situation is all
about, via the words "this" and "it" in these two sentences ---
"Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."
I can't prove that the above words were never spoken by Lee Oswald.
And I'll admit I can't prove that Roger Craig was never in Fritz'
office. (I've admitted in previous posts, in fact, that Craig might
very well have been in that office with Oswald.)
But one thing is a rock-solid certainty (with or without Oswald's
statements allegedly made in Fritz' office in the alleged presence of
Roger Craig) --- Lee H. Oswald was a liar and a double-murderer. And
no conspiracy theorist alive can ever change those two basic facts.
>>> "Come on Dave, there is no evidence that points to LHO, other than the stuff that was obviously "manufactured" to make him look guilty." <<<
Which would encompass, of course, EVERY LAST PIECE OF PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE IN THE CASE....e.g., all the bullets, all the bullet shells,
all the guns (the MC rifle and the S&W revolver), the empty paper bag
with Oswald's prints on it, the other prints of LHO's that indicate he
handled both the Carcano AND the boxes that were used to construct the
Sniper's Nest, the fibers in the paper bag, and the fibers stuck in
the Carcano's butt plate.
Every bit of that stuff was "manufactured", eh?
If you believe that all of that evidence is fake, I've got a "K" word
that's just itching to be re-typed on my keyboard.
>>> "The death certificate, autopsy report and the WC said he [JFK] died "from high velocity bullets" and we all know the M-C is a low velocity carbine." <<<
Technically-speaking, the "low-velocity" statement is true. And the
FBI's Robert Frazier even acknowledged that very fact in his Warren
Commission testimony. But he also acknowledged something else,
which is just as important (if not more important):
"This [Carcano] has a low velocity, but has very adequate
killing power with reference to humans, because it is an established
military weapon." -- Robert A. Frazier; FBI Firearms Expert
>>> "There is a poor chain of custody. .... The defense team would have ripped all of this [LHO-Did-It evidence] to shreds. .... Look at all the "evidence" they had on LHO and all of it could be shown to be planted with very good certainty for the jury." <<<
This is complete bullshit.
Only in the "courtroom" of your own conspiracy-infested mind could
such a thing happen, or even be suggested as having actually happened.
Because a jury that includes some people with a few brains in their
heads (the O.J. jury is excluded because of this prerequisite) knows
that it takes a LITTLE more than just some nutcase defense lawyer (or
a conspiracy-loving kook typing continuous strands of unsupportable
bullshit into his computer) to "prove" that evidence in a murder case
has been mishandled.
Moreover, it's going to take a whole lot more than what CTers have
offered up to date as proof of evidence-planting to convince a
reasonable jury that evidence WAS, in fact, planted at the various
MULTIPLE crime scenes associated with John F. Kennedy's murder.
Such extraordinary allegations suggesting such highly unlikely covert
activity require equally EXTRAORDINARY PROOF to support the notion
that such planting actually did occur in the JFK case.
A kook who has a feeling or an inkling that something's not quite
right with a huge amount of evidence in a particular case is not going
to get very far with a good and reasonable jury.
At some point in time, the kook who is spouting "It's all planted and
fake!" is going to have to (as Vince Bugliosi likes to say) pay the
piper. At some point, the kook is going to have to step up to the
plate and PROVE THAT ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE AGAINST LEE HARVEY
OSWALD IS FAKED AND/OR PLANTED.
And, thus far, the CTers in the "Everything Was Planted" club haven't
PROVED that a single piece of evidence in the JFK case was planted.
The kooks only have their suspicions and inklings.
Is an inkling equal to proof? Last time I checked, those two words
are not even close to being synonymous. But to certain CTers, the two
words are apparently identical in meaning.
And, btw, "mishandling" evidence is a long, long way from "planting"
it. Perhaps certain conspiracy theorists in the "Everything Was
Planted" club should learn the significant difference between those
two words as well.
David Von Pein
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 13, 2007)
Posted By: David Von Pein