JOHN CORBETT SAID:
[Carolyn Arnold's] 1964 FBI report indicated that she thought she saw Oswald about 12:15 and wasn't sure where that was.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'm a little confused why you say that Carolyn Arnold, in her FBI interview, "wasn't sure" where she said she might have seen Oswald. This FBI document (Commission Document 5) makes it quite clear where Arnold said she might have seen Oswald -- "in the hallway between the front door and the double doors".
That CD5 document, however, is actually from a 1963 FBI interview with Arnold, not 1964. Is that the one you're referring to, or is there another Arnold/FBI interview from '64? [John's Reply.]
But even though the above information is, indeed, in the official FBI record concerning the JFK case regarding a possible "Oswald sighting" shortly before the assassination of President Kennedy, that particular November 26, 1963, interview with Mrs. Carolyn Arnold is also providing the virtual proof that Mrs. Arnold was making up a false Oswald "sighting" in 1978 when she said she had seen Lee Oswald sitting in the second-floor lunchroom eating his lunch just a few minutes prior to the assassination.
Because if her 1978 "In The Lunchroom" tale had actually been a fact, then why wouldn't she have mentioned such a sighting to the FBI on 11/26/63, when the events of November 22nd were quite obviously fifteen years fresher in her memory?
Instead, she told the FBI this after telling them she had possibly seen Oswald near the TSBD front entrance a little before 12:15:
"...she could furnish no...other information concerning Oswald..." [Commission Document No. 5; p.41].
So, what the conspiracy theorists now must do is somehow taint the FBI and their 11/26/63 interview with Arnold. That FBI report, in a CTer's mind, must now be turned into one of many "lies" being told by the FBI. And that's because it's a report that—all by itself!—indicates the high probability that Mrs. Carolyn Arnold told a big whopper of a tall tale in 1978 when she said she saw Lee Harvey Oswald sitting in the 2nd-floor lunchroom just a few minutes before JFK was shot.
"S. DRUM" SAID:
The question IS about the sandwich because if it was in the 2nd floor lunch room then that means Oswald ate lunch up there like he told Fritz.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Mr. "Drum":
Can you please cite something in the official record which indicates that Lee Oswald told Captain Fritz that he (Oswald) ate lunch on the SECOND FLOOR of the Depository on 11/22?
In Fritz' written report, Fritz clearly indicates that around the time when JFK was shot, "he [Oswald] said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor" [Warren Report; p.600].
In the very next sentence or two of the same written report, Fritz also says that Oswald said he had been on the SECOND floor "drinking a Coca-Cola when the officer came in".
So within just a couple of sentences of each other, Fritz says in his report that Oswald himself said that he (LHO) had been on both the first floor and the second floor right around the time of the assassination. But I'm wondering if there's a report somewhere that specifically has Oswald saying he "ate lunch up there like he told Fritz" (which is what "Scrum Drum" is saying).
FWIW .... There is a made-for-television movie that depicts Oswald telling Captain Fritz that he ate his lunch on 11/22/63 "on both floors" (the 1st and 2nd floors of the TSBD). The TV movie I'm talking about is called "Ruby And Oswald" (1978), directed by Mel Stuart, who also helmed the best JFK assassination film ever made (IMO), "Four Days In November".
As a general rule, however, it's probably not a good idea to use a Hollywood film as a firm and reliable "source" for much of anything. (And Oliver Stone's 1991 movie "JFK" is a perfect example of why it's not a good idea to do that.) But since "Ruby & Oswald" was directed by the same man who directed David Wolper's "Four Days" film in 1964, which is a documentary film that contains almost no factual errors at all [as discussed in this link], then I think a little more confidence can be placed in the script of Stuart's "Ruby & Oswald" motion picture when it comes to deciding whether or not the things contained in that film are fairly accurate. (YMMV on this particular point.)
"S. DRUM" SAID:
It was already clearly shown in many of my posts. The question must be answered of why FBI chose to omit Sarah Stanton's witnessing of Oswald saying he intended to go back in to the break room... [More of Mr. "Drum's" reply full of anti-FBI B.S. can be found here.]
"S. DRUM" ALSO SAID:
In her March 1964 statement Carolyn Arnold confirmed the 12:25 time.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But Arnold said nothing about seeing Oswald at 12:25 in this 3/18/64 statement.
"S. DRUM" SAID:
That means FBI is proven to be lying because Carolyn Arnold could not be outside and turn around to catch a glimpse of Oswald in the foyer at 12:15 if she didn't leave until 12:25.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Then explain to us why the evil FBI didn't merely lie some more and change Arnold's "12:25" time in her March '64 statement to "12:15" to match her previous 11/26/63 interview?
CTer fantasies about a "lying FBI" aside, the fact is that Carolyn Arnold quite clearly provided both the 12:15 and the 12:25 times to the FBI. She said "a few minutes before 12:15" on November 26; and then in March of '64 she told the FBI she went outside "at about 12:25". No lies required at all. Just a timeline memory belonging to Carolyn Arnold that was slightly different between November and March. Nothing could be more common.
I do think Arnold told a lie in 1978, however, when she suddenly decided she had seen Oswald in the lunchroom. It's difficult for me to accept that that particular "addition" to her story in '78 was merely the product of a bad memory or conflation or some other excuse.
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO ADDED:
Here is what author Vincent Bugliosi had to say about Carolyn Arnold on pages 830-832 of his 2007 mega-tome "Reclaiming History" (click to enlarge):
David Von Pein
August 9-10, 2021
