Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 2: Chilly Effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners.
Speaker 1: Liking Yeah now the most ervated noise in our media check.
Speaker 3: Fourth day of February twenty twenty six, allegedly according to
Speaker 3: that thing we call a calendar, and your humble host
Speaker 3: is here despite you know it taking I don't know
Speaker 3: two months to find two broken bones in an exam.
Speaker 3: But I'm not gonna talk about those details tonight. I
Speaker 3: got something better to go over. I've had some emails
Speaker 3: recently about the jfk assassination, and I'm going to cover
Speaker 3: those in a news program soon. So hold on, three
Speaker 3: of you coming at me from three distinct angles about
Speaker 3: a question that I'm not even going to cover tonight. Instead,
Speaker 3: we're gonna go over something very different with Larry Hancock.
Speaker 3: Of course, Larry is the author of many, many books,
Speaker 3: but the most relevant ones for tonight would be the
Speaker 3: Oswald Puzzle primarily, but also someone would have talked, okay, gee,
Speaker 3: what else comes to mind here? Well, there could be
Speaker 3: a few others of Larry Hancock's you know, repertoire of
Speaker 3: books out there that will go along with this jfk assassination.
Speaker 3: If you don't know about Larry's stuff. There will be
Speaker 3: a link there, and I also want you to check
Speaker 3: out his blog obviously, but we're going to focus on
Speaker 3: something specific that I find strange because factually we've learned
Speaker 3: over time quite a bit about Lee Harvey Oswald and
Speaker 3: how he was handled, how he was arrested, how he
Speaker 3: was put into lineups, and I find some of that
Speaker 3: work fascinating when it goes further. But some people have
Speaker 3: been asking me questions where it's like, will you please
Speaker 3: go and read some of the stuff that existed for
Speaker 3: a long time that nobody has taken down, because initially
Speaker 3: there was speculation we didn't have a lot of stuff
Speaker 3: from the Dallas police archives. At first, we had hearsay,
Speaker 3: We had reports given by a few people, and you know,
Speaker 3: the primary person in the room was dead, that being
Speaker 3: leeg Oswald. That was a problem. And then you had
Speaker 3: dishonest agents in there of various types, whether they be
Speaker 3: local or federal in my estimation, So you had these weird,
Speaker 3: scattered reports, and then you had what survived in the
Speaker 3: Warren commissioned volumes, and over time people did develop stronger,
Speaker 3: you know, much better back to evidence to explain what happened.
Speaker 3: When Oswald was being ushered in and out on live
Speaker 3: television while the hallways were filled chaotically with newspeople and
Speaker 3: Jack Ruby along with a whole bunch of other people
Speaker 3: right that were just filing in and out of the
Speaker 3: Dallas Safety Building there. You saw it on live TV,
Speaker 3: but you didn't see the interrogation in the Robbery and
Speaker 3: Homicide division. And Will Fritz with his note cap you know,
Speaker 3: his note taking capabilities that you know, people are still
Speaker 3: arguing over the fragmented, nearly illiterate, you know, notes of
Speaker 3: Will Fritz sometimes and who did take good notes, the
Speaker 3: guy who came from the post office, who by the way,
Speaker 3: was part time FBI guy. You know, the interrogation is interesting,
Speaker 3: but first get the groundwork out of a way, and
Speaker 3: then let's talk about what actually happened, because even the
Speaker 3: people that noted and quoted and everything else didn't seem
Speaker 3: to get all of that straight. And Larry's been writing
Speaker 3: recently about this and about the specifics and really giving
Speaker 3: you a sober look without getting into hyperbole or trying
Speaker 3: to fill out an agenda, to tell you about what
Speaker 3: was going on there. And again, this is only one aspect.
Speaker 3: This doesn't like definitively prove this or prove that, or
Speaker 3: just because Oswald said this, anybody could be lying, misrepresenting
Speaker 3: gaming the city situation, and you have to take all
Speaker 3: of that into account, given the chaos that was inside
Speaker 3: that room and just outside of it. But again, don't
Speaker 3: take it from me. Let's talk to Larry Hancock again.
Speaker 3: You know, if you want to take a look at
Speaker 3: the various works of Larry's on the case, fine, if
Speaker 3: you want to go look at his blog, if you
Speaker 3: want to look at the fact that almost anybody who's
Speaker 3: sane in the JFK community respects anything Larry has to
Speaker 3: say when he analyzes this stuff. What can I tell you?
Speaker 3: But anyway, Larry, there will be a link there and
Speaker 3: a link to your books and probably a link to
Speaker 3: the Oswald puzzle, which the update is coming pretty soon, right.
Speaker 1: Update should be out in April April excellent.
Speaker 3: Which, by the way, we're going to start doing a
Speaker 3: little video aspect to this show in April if I
Speaker 3: get my way, No big pressure. I mean, you know,
Speaker 3: if you want to hold up your books or something
Speaker 3: on camera, I think it'll be helpful though, And we're
Speaker 3: definitely going to go with Rumble as the main platform,
Speaker 3: just because YouTube just has too many rules and I
Speaker 3: want to be able to speak freely. So I may
Speaker 3: be on Rumble with the video thing in April, but
Speaker 3: no big deal. You'll just either decide if you want
Speaker 3: to turn on your camera or not, Larry, and then
Speaker 3: they'll just have to stare at me. Lucky Lucky then
Speaker 3: So anyway, always happy to have you. But but okay,
Speaker 3: so in April we'll see the Oshold Bustle updated.
Speaker 1: Yeah, sorry, go ahead, I'd say, no problem.
Speaker 4: I've done Rumble before seemed to be fine, so I'll
Speaker 4: look forward to it.
Speaker 1: There you go.
Speaker 3: No no big pressure or anything. So all right, where
Speaker 3: should we Let Let's let's again go for the context here. Okay,
Speaker 3: what are we talking about when it comes to interrogation
Speaker 3: and why is this relevant? Just to get us warmed up, Larry,
Speaker 3: I mean, let's let's go at it, you know, like
Speaker 3: as if we're actually studying something properly.
Speaker 4: Go ahead, Yeah, And although I mean, we do have
Speaker 4: several sources now that we can combine that we didn't
Speaker 4: have in the early days. We have Fritz's testimony to
Speaker 4: the Warrant Commission. We have a handwritten copy of his notes,
Speaker 4: which made me feel good about my writing.
Speaker 1: His is worse.
Speaker 4: We have the FBI report of the interrogation. We as
Speaker 4: you said, we have several sources, so we can kind
Speaker 4: of see what was common to all of them.
Speaker 1: But what we I think, what.
Speaker 4: We know, and what we're kind of looking at and
Speaker 4: what I'm looking at now is what did the interrogation
Speaker 4: look like? From Oswall's perspective. We always look at it
Speaker 4: from the other side. But if you step back and
Speaker 4: ask the question, what was he shown in terms of
Speaker 4: evidence against him? How strong a case did they make
Speaker 4: there right in front of him. Why was it with
Speaker 4: all the evidence they had in hand, they didn't.
Speaker 1: Push it on him.
Speaker 4: Why was it Fritz apparently did not push him to
Speaker 4: sign a confession the same way he did Frasier. Why
Speaker 4: was it that they did not read the charges against
Speaker 4: him to him to help force the confession standard procedure.
Speaker 4: A lot of things that you would expect from Fritz,
Speaker 4: which are typically Fritz. Everybody in Dallas said, you know,
Speaker 4: he did hard nosed interrogations, He pushed for confessions.
Speaker 1: He was really strong.
Speaker 4: And the interesting thing is, if you look at it
Speaker 4: from Oswell's perspective, maybe you get a different view as
Speaker 4: to how strong a case he thought.
Speaker 1: He had against him.
Speaker 4: And if you think Oswald didn't didn't do it, and
Speaker 4: was sitting there knowing he didn't do it, what's.
Speaker 1: Going through oswell it?
Speaker 3: Right, So let me interrupt you with just a few
Speaker 3: things that I think I would love to hear you
Speaker 3: touch on, which is, primarily, let's not forget the district's attorney,
Speaker 3: Wade is outside the door talking to the media right
Speaker 3: while this guy's being interrogated. He's certainly got to have
Speaker 3: some sort of influence on it. And as we've studied
Speaker 3: his record posthumously, you know, we find that maybe there
Speaker 3: was a little you know, tipping of the scales with
Speaker 3: a thumb now and then with this guy just saying
Speaker 3: if you take a look at the overturned convictions, et cetera,
Speaker 3: and the fact that he was saying, look, every time
Speaker 3: I go for the death penalty, I get it. And
Speaker 3: he's telling the media this, Okay, you know clearly right
Speaker 3: away that's interesting. What is his influence on the circumstance,
Speaker 3: one would wonder number one. Number two, the conspiracy advocate
Speaker 3: often points to this whole thing with the backyard photographs. Right,
Speaker 3: Oswald was shown this photograph. Well, there's a process by
Speaker 3: which that photograph was created. It had to be retrieved
Speaker 3: from the pain's house. So there's a timing element here
Speaker 3: that I think is completely You know, whether people want
Speaker 3: to argue for or against the backyard photographs, they often
Speaker 3: skip this entire episode or they try to utilize it
Speaker 3: in order to bolster their case one way or another.
Speaker 3: And I do mean that's everything from Boogliosi to you know,
Speaker 3: God help me. I think Judy Baker mentions it in
Speaker 3: her book. I mean, you know, here we go, there's
Speaker 3: something to this that I think a sober look at
Speaker 3: that photograph. Was it presented, how was it presented, When
Speaker 3: was it presented? And lastly, a very common element here,
Speaker 3: regardless who the suspect is, regardless who the police are,
Speaker 3: what about the interrogation technique itself. It's very lengthy. Some
Speaker 3: would say because of the importance of the injured parties. Okay,
Speaker 3: the importance of the murder victims. Therefore his interrogation is lengthy.
Speaker 3: But that lengthy interrogation is a technique in and of itself,
Speaker 3: and I don't often hear a real analyzation of the
Speaker 3: technique used to interrogate Oswalt, which is extremely important for
Speaker 3: his mindset, whether he's guilty or not, whether he thinks
Speaker 3: he's clever, whether he thinks he's an agent on assignment,
Speaker 3: or whether he's you know, the idiot that tried to
Speaker 3: get himself in the history books. As you know, Jero
Speaker 3: Posner likes to say, you know, either way, we have
Speaker 3: to look at this from a psychological perspective, because interrogation
Speaker 3: is a strategic, psychological and very often, you know, quite
Speaker 3: regulated sort of technique of an interaction where the cops
Speaker 3: have a way of doing things. They specifically do things,
Speaker 3: whether it's to put you in a chair with uneven legs,
Speaker 3: or to deny you water, or to make you ask
Speaker 3: for water, or to put pressure on you, or to
Speaker 3: offer you food. Every one of these is meant to
Speaker 3: be a strategic chess piece being moved on a board.
Speaker 3: And I don't often hear anybody talk about that. So
Speaker 3: those three elements, Larry, what do you think, am I
Speaker 3: you know, you know, just grasping a crazy straws here
Speaker 3: or or These are the things that have been lacking
Speaker 3: for quite a long time when people discuss this.
Speaker 1: Well, let's take them one at a time.
Speaker 4: The first Wade, you know, the district attorney talking to
Speaker 4: the press, is totally out of line for one thing,
Speaker 4: but again we are in Dallas, so okay. But I
Speaker 4: think the most interesting thing is the question of what
Speaker 4: evidence Wade would have seen at that point in time.
Speaker 4: Because he is talking so early in the process, that's
Speaker 4: there's no sign that he had talked and gone through
Speaker 4: the crime scene evidence that he had talked with the
Speaker 4: crime scene people. There's just no evidence at all that
Speaker 4: he had any body of materials to put into a charge.
Speaker 4: And that's a really important question because normally, when a
Speaker 4: DA you know, writes a charge, there's a reference to
Speaker 4: a body of information to support it. We actually know
Speaker 4: that the apparent, the original and this was tossed out
Speaker 4: charge against Oswald was simply going to be uh, killed
Speaker 4: the president in conjunction with the conspiracy against the government,
Speaker 4: you know, the conspiracy was going to be right there
Speaker 4: in the charge, and that was thrown out. So for
Speaker 4: one thing, we've got, we've got charges being written with
Speaker 4: no indication that there was a rigorous process, you know,
Speaker 4: a normal legal process of going what do we have
Speaker 4: let's write this into it how firm a case. Now,
Speaker 4: He's just out there talking, and that's Wade, that's what
Speaker 4: he does, right.
Speaker 3: But Wade is not speaking from a one percent fabricated
Speaker 3: imaginary position either. He's describing some evidence which has been
Speaker 3: collected to the press before he's even really had a
Speaker 3: chance to look at it. And on the other hand,
Speaker 3: in my estimation, he's speaking out a turn on the timeline,
Speaker 3: like literally speaking about having proof of him fired a
Speaker 3: weapon before the paraffin test was even performed, it seems
Speaker 3: like to me, or before you know, maybe when it
Speaker 3: was collected, but not when anybody tested anything. And that
Speaker 3: is interesting because he says, obviously he fired a rifle
Speaker 3: that day, which is based on what you know, what
Speaker 3: it's based on now. But the thing is, at the
Speaker 3: time he first makes that statement to the press, he
Speaker 3: couldn't possibly have seen the collected and analyzed evidence. On
Speaker 3: the other hand, he's not like making stuff up out
Speaker 3: of thin air. He's assuming you know, the positive or
Speaker 3: the you know, probative. In other words, he's presuming that
Speaker 3: he's got useful pieces of information out of tests that
Speaker 3: are still in progress, which is amazing to me. According
Speaker 3: to what I see on the timeline. But then again,
Speaker 3: I think at best we could say that Wade is
Speaker 3: not the most reliable measurement of the chronological events here
Speaker 3: when he's giving him to the press and what's actually
Speaker 3: been collected or confirmed behind the scenes. Is that fair?
Speaker 1: That's fair?
Speaker 4: And that's what I was really getting at is he's
Speaker 4: making affirmative statements out of some things that have been
Speaker 4: collected but not tested, and that could have been a
Speaker 4: real problem for him in a trial because the attorney
Speaker 4: could very well challenge, you know, let's look at the
Speaker 4: basis of your charge that you wrote. This man was charged,
Speaker 4: and we have you on tape making all these claims
Speaker 4: that now you can't prove, So let's just toss this out.
Speaker 4: You really didn't have the evidence that you said you
Speaker 4: had to charge him in the first place. Could have
Speaker 4: been a real problem if it had gone to trial.
Speaker 4: With him talking, he's talking about items of evidence that
Speaker 4: aren't provable at that point in time.
Speaker 1: They've just been collected.
Speaker 4: He thinks they're going to be proved, but as we
Speaker 4: now know, there are issues with almost all of them.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I agree, Chuck.
Speaker 4: He's he's way ahead of his time, and it could
Speaker 4: have been a problem in a real trial.
Speaker 3: Now the counter, Now the counter, I'm sorry, Larry, but
Speaker 3: the counter to that is very simple because it was
Speaker 3: proven later on through the Innocence Project that on many
Speaker 3: occasions the people in Wade's office either withheld or manufactured
Speaker 3: or lost, you know, evidence that they should have given
Speaker 3: to the defense because it would have been you know,
Speaker 3: if it undermines your case and you collected it, you
Speaker 3: have to offer it to the defense.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: That's just you know, it's typical. There's a way of
Speaker 3: putting that. I forget how to put that in legal ease,
Speaker 3: but I mean, the fact is this guy manipulated the
Speaker 3: evidence on more than one occasion. That's why there were
Speaker 3: death penalties overturned posthumously, you know, after Weed was out
Speaker 3: of office and his successor was gone. Even so you
Speaker 3: got to say that it may be that he had
Speaker 3: confidence in it because he knew that even if it
Speaker 3: didn't fit, he'd make it fit, you know, which is
Speaker 3: a weird way to look at it, but true.
Speaker 1: Basically just standard practice.
Speaker 4: I mean, basically, I've done this before. This is the
Speaker 4: way we do things here, and we make it work.
Speaker 4: And in truth, you know, speaking if it were just
Speaker 4: a Texas crime, just stay Dallas crime and nothing else,
Speaker 4: there'd been no state level investigation, no federal you know.
Speaker 1: That's that's a good point.
Speaker 4: And maybe he just he wasn't thinking far enough the
Speaker 4: head to say think that he wasn't going to get
Speaker 4: away with his standard practices.
Speaker 2: Right right now.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to point that out. I mean, Larry,
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, but it's relevant because, like I said, after
Speaker 3: the long after the fact, long after the DA has
Speaker 3: his you know, stellar record with his death penalty convictions,
Speaker 3: et cetera. You know, here we go. Now, some people
Speaker 3: have bargained, well, he knew that he would never get
Speaker 3: the trial. I don't think Wade had any idea he
Speaker 3: would never get the trial, you know. But but Wade
Speaker 3: might have thought that he had control of things enough
Speaker 3: that one way or another, I'm going to get enough
Speaker 3: in there to convict this guy. It's a done deal. Now,
Speaker 3: what he was basing that on would be pure speculation
Speaker 3: on anybody's part. But I just point out that he
Speaker 3: is literally making public statements that you can line up
Speaker 3: to the you know what, the events as they're unfolding
Speaker 3: behind the scenes, and it's inconsistent all over the place.
Speaker 3: So you know, don't take Henry Wade's statements to try
Speaker 3: and prove something did or did not happen by the
Speaker 3: time he made that statement, is all I'm trying to
Speaker 3: establish here. Would you agree to that?
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, Wade is just doing what he always does.
Speaker 1: And I think that's an important point to make in
Speaker 1: all of this.
Speaker 4: People, the Dallas Police did what they normally did standard practice.
Speaker 4: They didn't necessarily do what we like for them to
Speaker 4: have done. They didn't necessarily do what we would consider
Speaker 4: acceptable practices today. They just did standard practice for the
Speaker 4: Dallas Police, which and you'll recall you probably recall this,
Speaker 4: Sherry Feist, who's a crime scene specialist and evidence specialist,
Speaker 4: took a look at their protocols and basically reached that
Speaker 4: same conclusion. No, it's not at all what would be
Speaker 4: acceptable to day, but it was standard practice for that
Speaker 4: day in time.
Speaker 3: Fair enough. But again, you got to put it in
Speaker 3: its place. That's when it happened, that's where it happened.
Speaker 3: So we were dealing with those circumstances. And the reason
Speaker 3: why this is relevant to the interrogation, by the way
Speaker 3: directly is because guess what that Robbery Homicide Division had
Speaker 3: behaved this way with that DA, with that regime, with
Speaker 3: that atmosphere in that place in time. So this is
Speaker 3: how they're handling Oswald. I'm just saying, it's a matter
Speaker 3: of posture. It's a matter of patterns of behavior that
Speaker 3: you wind up seeing and saying yourself, well, that doesn't
Speaker 3: quite seem right. You got to know what circumstances was
Speaker 3: occurring in and all of the previous standard operating procedure
Speaker 3: is relevant to this, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 4: And another thing when we're talking about this, we also
Speaker 4: have to remember Oswald was in custody for quite a
Speaker 4: long time. Actually, I mean he was in custody for
Speaker 4: several hours.
Speaker 1: The evening assassination.
Speaker 4: He was in custody and subject interrogation the complete day
Speaker 4: of Saturday.
Speaker 1: And evening of Saturday.
Speaker 4: It was in custody and received further questioning on Sunday morning.
Speaker 4: So there's really plenty of time to bring us much
Speaker 4: pressure on Oswald as you want to. You know, It's
Speaker 4: not like I think sometimes people collapse this and say,
Speaker 4: well he was.
Speaker 1: Killed, well, not quickly.
Speaker 4: There was plenty of time for the interrogation process to
Speaker 4: be to be pursued, and I think put plenty of
Speaker 4: time to wear him down, to feed him evidence bit
Speaker 4: by bit, you know, building the case in front of him,
Speaker 4: which is often the police practice.
Speaker 1: You know, you don't you don't have to do everything
Speaker 1: at once.
Speaker 4: But as you remarked earlier, the one big variable that
Speaker 4: seems to be in play is that Fritz did not
Speaker 4: interrogate Oswald in the same fashion that matched his reputation.
Speaker 4: It was not a hard press. In fact, if you
Speaker 4: looked at at most of his questions, the vast majority
Speaker 4: of his questions, our background questions, there are questions that
Speaker 4: would lean more towards mode.
Speaker 1: Then they would Okay, we know you did this.
Speaker 4: Here's here's the rifle, here's the bag, here's the bullets.
Speaker 4: You know, here's the fingerprints signed the confession, which which
Speaker 4: is the way apparently they handle Frasier did not handle
Speaker 4: Oswell in nearly the same fashion.
Speaker 3: Right, and they had almost twelve hours in between his
Speaker 3: capture and the time that they hauld him before a
Speaker 3: judge to formally charge him. I think with Kennedy right,
Speaker 3: because it's at like one am or something where they
Speaker 3: at local time, I think where they actually had the
Speaker 3: charge read to him, where his response, I think was
Speaker 3: this is ridiculous, and then they haul them away, you
Speaker 3: know when they tell him that, and they had him
Speaker 3: in custody all that time. They're asking him questions like
Speaker 3: whose car is this? Why were you staying at a
Speaker 3: rooming house? You know, what time did you leave work?
Speaker 3: What time did you go into work? I mean, this
Speaker 3: is literally what's going on for these twelve hours, Like
Speaker 3: they're going back over seemingly unconnected questions just to establish
Speaker 3: a whole bunch of facts and see if they can
Speaker 3: trip them up and get them to lie about something
Speaker 3: stupid like you know, how often did you go to
Speaker 3: the painshouse? I mean, is that not a fair characterization?
Speaker 4: Or am I reading a role that is not a
Speaker 4: criminal investigation where you lay the rifle down and say, look,
Speaker 4: here's the picture of you with this rifle.
Speaker 1: Here's the rifle. Your prints are on the rifle.
Speaker 4: We've verified that by the way you carried it to
Speaker 4: work in a bag. Here's the bag. Your prints are
Speaker 4: on the bag. Sign the confession, you know, but you
Speaker 4: know that would be typical Fritz. But if you list
Speaker 4: make a list of what was not shown to Oswald,
Speaker 4: they show a picture of the rifle, him holding a
Speaker 4: rifle in the photo. They don't show on the rifle.
Speaker 4: They don't say, clearly, this is the rifle in the picture. Okay,
Speaker 4: fess up, it's yours. How can you deny it? You know,
Speaker 4: that's the sort of thing they don't do. They don't
Speaker 4: show in the bag. They don't talk to them about
Speaker 4: print matches. They don't talk to them about the paraffin test.
Speaker 4: They don't talk to him, you know, they don't talk
Speaker 4: to them about literally any of the crime scene evidence.
Speaker 1: The only thing that's done.
Speaker 4: That's you know, typical, is they put put him in
Speaker 4: some lineups.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's typical.
Speaker 4: But they don't come back in the room and say,
Speaker 4: all right, you know, four people have identified you in
Speaker 4: that window with a rifle, which might not be true,
Speaker 4: but again would not be out of line for standard
Speaker 4: hard nos. Okay, that's we're going to break him. You know,
Speaker 4: we're going to show them all this. We've got witnesses
Speaker 4: assign the confession.
Speaker 1: You know that. They don't do that.
Speaker 4: And that's and they the materials didn't.
Speaker 1: All leave Dallas that quickly.
Speaker 4: There was plenty of time to do everything I just described.
Speaker 4: That night and to set him down and read him
Speaker 4: the charges and show him how all the charge the
Speaker 4: charges were justified, and again try to break him, which
Speaker 4: was Fritz's classic MO.
Speaker 3: Well, the other part of Fritz's classic MO if you
Speaker 3: even trust you know, part of the discussion about the
Speaker 3: interrogation of Buell Wesley Frasier, would be to exaggerate what
Speaker 3: they have.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 3: Let's just say, for instance, they had Howard Brennan. Okay,
Speaker 3: let's just say they had him, and they were certain
Speaker 3: of his statement already, and he was certainly identified him,
Speaker 3: you know, from six floors down without his glasses on
Speaker 3: across the street. Okay, But either way, let's just say
Speaker 3: they thought they had him and he was a reliable witness.
Speaker 3: Howard Brennan could turn into four witnesses. We got four
Speaker 3: people that saw you in that way. Now, and you know,
Speaker 3: you break down Howard Brennan's story a little bit because
Speaker 3: you trust it, and you say, this guy saw you,
Speaker 3: he saw this. Another guy says, you definitely had the
Speaker 3: gun in your hand and it was poking out the
Speaker 3: window about four inches, you know what I'm saying. Like,
Speaker 3: and they would turn it into four witnesses, which would
Speaker 3: be to you know, look, overwhelmingly, we've already got you,
Speaker 3: and you know what, we're waiting on the lab to
Speaker 3: come back and just tell us the bullet matches. That's
Speaker 3: all we're waiting on. So you might as well get
Speaker 3: this over with. That would have been the way that
Speaker 3: Fritz would handled it, and that's exactly what he did
Speaker 3: to Fraser, literally like, look, we got your rifle. We
Speaker 3: know there was this kind of rifle used, which was
Speaker 3: an endfield. By the way, the endfield that was reported
Speaker 3: by the press is having been taken into custody by
Speaker 3: the police, and it was Fraser's rifle, and they said,
Speaker 3: you got a rifle. We know you were working with
Speaker 3: this guy. You might as well tell us something. Now.
Speaker 3: Fraser didn't give in, but that's the tactic to put
Speaker 3: the pressure on him. And I don't see this with
Speaker 3: Oswald unless I'm missing it.
Speaker 4: No, that's exactly what I was getting at. Is totally inconsistent.
Speaker 4: As you said, this long, lengthy discussion, which is which
Speaker 4: is the night of the assassination, but could have occurred anytime,
Speaker 4: you know, the hard press could have aturred any time.
Speaker 4: It's true that the rifle was taken out to Dallas.
Speaker 4: But that doesn't prevent you from saying, Oh, the FBI
Speaker 4: is doing one war test on the rifle. You know,
Speaker 4: we've got your prints on it. We know what yours.
Speaker 4: Don't lie to me, kid. There's plenty of time to
Speaker 4: do that, and there's no record of any extended effort
Speaker 4: to break him as a matter of fact, which you
Speaker 4: would think that Dallas police would be desperate to do.
Speaker 4: I mean, they've already been embarrassed. Do they really want
Speaker 4: to leave this ay crime for the FBI asol? I
Speaker 4: don't think so. They should have wanted to do this.
Speaker 4: But I think my other big point, Chuck, that I
Speaker 4: don't want to miss is what's Oswald thinking?
Speaker 1: I mean, if you assume Oswald did not.
Speaker 4: Do it, okay, what are they showing him to really
Speaker 4: con him this? Well, we've all speculated for a long
Speaker 4: time that Oswald's remarks over that weekend to his wife,
Speaker 4: to his brother, you know, he's talking about, don't worry
Speaker 4: about it. Don't believe what they say. I didn't do it.
Speaker 4: They have nothing against me. You know, did you get
Speaker 4: shoes for the baby yet?
Speaker 1: And no? You know I made any of a lawyer later.
Speaker 4: I need to look into it all reflect someone who
Speaker 4: sounds like they feel innocent and they don't feel there's
Speaker 4: really a case against them. And I guess, in stepping
Speaker 4: back through the whole process and look at it from
Speaker 4: Oswell's perspective, which we usually don't, I've got to be
Speaker 4: thinking he may well have felt that they didn't have
Speaker 4: a case against them because they really didn't show it
Speaker 4: to him.
Speaker 3: But meanwhile, he's also aware that the press is all
Speaker 3: over this because they're clogging the hallways, you know, and
Speaker 3: they're they're screaming question him, and he gets to make
Speaker 3: his I'm just a patsy and also yelling from inside
Speaker 3: of a room, I committed no acts of violence and
Speaker 3: all this stuff. So he's well aware that he's able
Speaker 3: to communicate with the press and that the press is
Speaker 3: all over it. So this must be a big deal,
Speaker 3: even before again, before he's even charged and then hauled
Speaker 3: into the you know, the famous midnight press conference where
Speaker 3: it's obvious that the media is interested. He knows that
Speaker 3: already too. So you know, I'm just saying, unless you're
Speaker 3: thinking he's a complete idiot and he's just going to
Speaker 3: scream out all kinds of crazy things, and oh, By
Speaker 3: the way, if he was somebody who wanted to take
Speaker 3: credit for this, perfect opportunity would have been that's right.
Speaker 3: I killed him because he was a communist, you know whatever.
Speaker 3: I was right there with the TV camera in his
Speaker 3: face and everything else. So you know, you got to
Speaker 3: look at the mindset here. Is he just nuts? Is he?
Speaker 3: I don't know. He didn't seem too crazy to me.
Speaker 3: And he's answering questions.
Speaker 4: He's got every opportunity to stake his claim if he
Speaker 4: did it for political reason and to go down in history, good, bad,
Speaker 4: or and different. If you want to paint this as
Speaker 4: a him, this guy who wants to go down in history.
Speaker 1: He had every opportunity. He didn't do it. But I
Speaker 1: still go back.
Speaker 4: To his very first assertion, His very first assertion is
Speaker 4: they've just picked me up because I worked in that
Speaker 4: building and I've been in Russia, and that's why they're
Speaker 4: going to blame this on.
Speaker 1: Me, because you know, that's it.
Speaker 4: I think his mindset is just and you've got to
Speaker 4: realize that.
Speaker 1: For the last you know.
Speaker 4: Better part of a year since his return from Russia,
Speaker 4: he's been interviewed by the FBI repeatedly.
Speaker 1: He's had his mail intercepted.
Speaker 4: He's you know, he has been harassed from his perspective,
Speaker 4: and he he has been interviewed many times about being
Speaker 4: a communist, recently in New Oral. It's like everybody is
Speaker 4: against me because of my sans and I've said that's
Speaker 4: all out there in public. The press has heard it,
Speaker 4: and they're just going to take this opportunity to set
Speaker 4: me up. That would be that would be classic Oswald thinking.
Speaker 4: And that seems to me to be consistent with the
Speaker 4: fact that he's pushing back. He pushes back against France
Speaker 4: because I don't think he is again, if you assume
Speaker 4: he's innocent, I don't think they're making a case to
Speaker 4: him that he is anything more than suspicious because he's
Speaker 4: married to a Russian and he's been in Russia, and
Speaker 4: he works in the building.
Speaker 3: Right right, And like I said, they're asking him a
Speaker 3: lot of peripheral questions too, you know, where he gets involved.
Speaker 3: You know, at one point, more than when the author's
Speaker 3: pointed out, he has a little outburst. Why he says,
Speaker 3: I leave missus Payne out of it, you know, because
Speaker 3: they're asking him a lot of questions about her and
Speaker 3: what he's doing at her house when he's got a
Speaker 3: rooming house and he separated from his wife, but he
Speaker 3: goes to see his wife. You know, they're asking him
Speaker 3: a lot of questions like that for hours. This is
Speaker 3: not you know, the first twenty thirty minutes of like,
Speaker 3: let's get some background. This is hours of this. So yeah, okay,
Speaker 3: fair enough, we might have stopped that one into the ground,
Speaker 3: but I want to make that point good.
Speaker 4: Yeah, which also makes you think again from her perspective,
Speaker 4: it's sort of like, if they're going into that sort
Speaker 4: of trivia again, they're setting me up because of my background.
Speaker 4: They're not given crime scene stuff, you know, they're collecting
Speaker 4: all this miscellaneous information because they're trying to build a
Speaker 4: case off what you know. I think that would just
Speaker 4: reinforce the view that you know, I know I wasn't there.
Speaker 4: I know I didn't shoot the rifle. And they're telling
Speaker 4: me nothing to tell to show me that they've got
Speaker 4: a case. They're just asking me all these nonsense, peripheral questions.
Speaker 4: So I think they're just trying to build something against
Speaker 4: me when they don't really have.
Speaker 3: It well right, And the other thing is the pain
Speaker 3: question in Oswald's mind, again, assuming that he is believing
Speaker 3: in his own head he's innocent. Look, he could just
Speaker 3: look at it as you know, what they're trying to
Speaker 3: do there is just prove that this woman speaks Russian
Speaker 3: to me and they're going to try and get you know,
Speaker 3: did you speak in code to her? You know, are
Speaker 3: you speaking in Russian? Maybe she has information? And he
Speaker 3: basically says, don't evolve her, don't even involve her carr
Speaker 3: in the situation. You're right, you know, so, Yeah, it's weird.
Speaker 3: I'm just sure it's a Russian agent.
Speaker 4: Yeah, absolutely, It's more like they seem to be worried
Speaker 4: about this Russia connection more than anything else. Right, missus
Speaker 4: Payne speaks Russian. They trying to bring her into all
Speaker 4: of this. And I would add you talked about outburst.
Speaker 4: I mean we have another outburst when Hosty is the
Speaker 4: Hosty is in the room and he really jumps at
Speaker 4: Hosty for harass seen Marina. Now, I've got to ask
Speaker 4: you if you're sitting there and you know you've been
Speaker 4: through what you just described, chuck dragged in front of reporters, dragged.
Speaker 1: Out, you know you've been beaten around a little bit.
Speaker 4: You do have bruises and contuitions and that sort of stuff,
Speaker 4: and you're sitting in the room and you know, they
Speaker 4: haven't even I'm not even sure at that point in
Speaker 4: time that they've you know, you know, did you you
Speaker 4: killed the president? We know you killed the president. I
Speaker 4: don't even know if they've.
Speaker 1: Gone through that routine.
Speaker 4: And suddenly what he's concerned about is Hosty harassing his wife.
Speaker 4: I mean, if would that be the first thing on
Speaker 4: your mind? To me that that again reflects that he's
Speaker 4: not that concerned. He he knows he didn't do it,
Speaker 4: and that they're really but jumping to Hosty over visiting
Speaker 4: Marina is just very peripheral thing for him to get
Speaker 4: excited about. If they're making the case against them that
Speaker 4: he accepts right.
Speaker 3: The only thing that I would say they might have
Speaker 3: said to him that was serious is, you know, when
Speaker 3: he says, I think I'm being accused of killing a policeman,
Speaker 3: when he says that in public, because I think they
Speaker 3: did lay that pressure on him for a minute, and
Speaker 3: he brushed it off as I didn't kill a cop.
Speaker 3: What are you talking about? And the thing is did
Speaker 3: he or didn't he? I don't know, But I'm just
Speaker 3: saying one way or another. That might be the hardest
Speaker 3: concern is that some cop here. And the funny thing
Speaker 3: is that doesn't even mean they mentioned the cops name
Speaker 3: to him yet or anything, you know what I mean,
Speaker 3: just you killed one of ours, you know, And maybe
Speaker 3: that's the excuse for giving him an extra elbow in
Speaker 3: the car on the way over, you know what I mean,
Speaker 3: this kind of thing, which I guarantee you they took
Speaker 3: extra shots at him when people weren't looking, you know,
Speaker 3: your cop chiller.
Speaker 4: That's a good point too, because how much of that
Speaker 4: interrogation was about Tippett.
Speaker 1: Admitted he had a gun.
Speaker 4: Did they come back immediately say, yeah, we know he
Speaker 4: had a gun son and we've just matched the bullets
Speaker 4: to those that killed the police.
Speaker 1: How much time do they spend on Tibbot right in
Speaker 1: the interrogation.
Speaker 3: Which was primarily which is.
Speaker 4: An iron clad case apparently because they've got his gun
Speaker 4: and they've got bullets. You know, it would be easy
Speaker 4: to push him on that one and say, look, you
Speaker 4: know you're going down for this already.
Speaker 1: But it's almost like they ignore that, which is what you.
Speaker 4: Know, which you just brought up, and I look back
Speaker 4: against going wow, they just seem to have ignored the
Speaker 4: poor police officer entirely, right.
Speaker 3: And I tie it back to my point that it
Speaker 3: takes them twelve hours to charge him with Kennedy because
Speaker 3: initially they're holding him on the Tippet murder. Basically, even
Speaker 3: though the rest of the world is being told we
Speaker 3: think we got the presidential assassin, initially they're holding him
Speaker 3: for Tipot. So that should be the questions he's being asked, right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, those should be the first questions. That should be
Speaker 4: the case they're making, right you know. And and by
Speaker 4: the way, in the reality of the world, if they've
Speaker 4: got a case on Tippett, he's gonna he's gonna he's
Speaker 4: going to be electrocuted. You know, that's a death penalty
Speaker 4: right off. You know, that's the first case they're going
Speaker 4: to pursue. And obviously to the Dallas police minds, you know,
Speaker 4: that's a fellow officer, as you said, so they just
Speaker 4: it's totally inconsistent in terms of the questions they're asking
Speaker 4: in regard to the evidence they apparently have in hand,
Speaker 4: which just seems strange.
Speaker 3: It does, So what else do we we have to
Speaker 3: look at here? You know, like I said, some of
Speaker 3: this information was available early on, and the biggest complaint
Speaker 3: being why didn't anybody absolutely record this interrogation? Well, you know,
Speaker 3: the initial problem is they probably didn't think they needed
Speaker 3: to with the Tippitt charge, but they still we have vague,
Speaker 3: vague documentation on this at best, you know, outside of
Speaker 3: again the notes from the guy who came over from
Speaker 3: the post office, right, I mean he took pretty good notes.
Speaker 3: But other than that, what do we have actually documented?
Speaker 4: Well, and I you know, this is kind of over time,
Speaker 4: it leaves my mind. Where are the Tippet charges? Where's
Speaker 4: the indictment for Tippett? Where's the charge for Tippett? Or
Speaker 4: where's for its interrogation about Tippet?
Speaker 3: Right, which would have to be a separate charge which
Speaker 3: would have to be separately proven in court. So yeah,
Speaker 3: exactly where's the documentation for that, the thing that he
Speaker 3: was really picked up for, You're right, you know it
Speaker 3: was so that that leads me to the question, really,
Speaker 3: was it never documented or was it destroyed? Because that
Speaker 3: would be where I'd go with this. Either we don't
Speaker 3: need this, you know, whatever problems come up in that
Speaker 3: Tippit investigation, trash it because it's no longer necessary, especially
Speaker 3: after he's dead, but before that even well, the presidential
Speaker 3: assassination is going to take priority. Here where does that
Speaker 3: leave us. It's amazing that we don't have a here's
Speaker 3: actually the case for Tippitt. Forget about Kennedy, here's tippit
Speaker 3: because it's a separate issue, it's a separate occurrence, it's
Speaker 3: a separate crime. That again, like you said, he fries
Speaker 3: for in Texas for sure, so you know where is it?
Speaker 4: Yeah, and that leads me to a question I don't
Speaker 4: think really as much been discussed, and that is what
Speaker 4: was the political.
Speaker 1: Pressure on Fritz himself?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 4: You know, we know that Fritz is a city we know,
Speaker 4: and I've had friends in Texas that talk to me
Speaker 4: about basically the entire city council of Dallas, including the mayor,
Speaker 4: went out of town that they kind of left, and
Speaker 4: it's kind of like, you know, this is really embarrassing.
Speaker 4: I don't want to be answering questions about what you know,
Speaker 4: the police did or didn't do, and how this happened
Speaker 4: in my city.
Speaker 1: You know where the focus immediately.
Speaker 4: Was on the killing of the president and the inherent
Speaker 4: guilt of Dallas as a city I.
Speaker 1: Mean that the city fathers would have had that view.
Speaker 4: Don't know if any of them talked to to Fritz.
Speaker 4: What we also don't know is we don't have any
Speaker 4: record of the exchanges between the district attorneys, either the
Speaker 4: DA or the ADA and Fritz. I mean, normally there
Speaker 4: is a paper trail where the police report to the
Speaker 4: DA their investigation, their evidence in hand, and then the
Speaker 4: DA writes the charges.
Speaker 1: Where is that? I mean, legally that's supposed to be there.
Speaker 4: The FRIZ doesn't just lean over and lean outside the
Speaker 4: door and say, you know.
Speaker 1: Mister Wade, go ahead and charge him.
Speaker 4: That's again that that would not have gone down well
Speaker 4: in court as well as procedures.
Speaker 1: So where's that paper trail? What?
Speaker 4: What did they really you know, what was the report
Speaker 4: the exchange between the DA's office and the Dallas police
Speaker 4: as far as the legal process. But the but the
Speaker 4: other question I have to do look at this, that
Speaker 4: I have to think about is the fact that obviously
Speaker 4: so much time was spent talking about Russia and about
Speaker 4: Russian connections and about you know, obviously Communist connections with
Speaker 4: Oswald that I almost wonder if someone was pushing them
Speaker 4: to come up with a conspiracy, a communist inspired conspiracy,
Speaker 4: and that that wasn't. For example, we know that there
Speaker 4: was a lot of dialogue, there was a lot of
Speaker 4: political orientation that wanted to point this at Oswald, but
Speaker 4: not just at Oswell, but at Cuba, at Russia, at
Speaker 4: the communist as Oswell being a communist tool. So I
Speaker 4: have to wonder if there's some dialogue that we don't
Speaker 4: know about to Fritz that says, you know, what you
Speaker 4: really need to do is dig into his Russian connections
Speaker 4: and his Communist connections, because you know, we don't want this.
Speaker 1: To be Dallas.
Speaker 4: We don't want this to be about radicalism in Dallas.
Speaker 4: We don't want this to be a local thing. We
Speaker 4: want this kid to be a commedi tool.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 4: And by the way, we've already readen up some charges
Speaker 4: like this, and we know those charges you most went
Speaker 4: into play until Johnston anum quashed.
Speaker 3: See, now there you go.
Speaker 1: Is there some dialogue? Yeah?
Speaker 3: See, there you go. There's the element that I think
Speaker 3: is missing and why it's missing. Remember this in context,
Speaker 3: Not only are we talking about Lyndon Johnson, who would
Speaker 3: have exerted influence over this, because he's still you know,
Speaker 3: going on Air Force one, according to reliable reports, is
Speaker 3: sitting there wanting to do a duck and cover and
Speaker 3: wondering where the hell the bullets really came from, you know,
Speaker 3: and and all this. But he's going to exert influence.
Speaker 3: And don't forget the governor of Texas is, you know,
Speaker 3: in surgery being saved because he was shot too. Okay,
Speaker 3: So John Connolly's a factor, and so is LBJ. I
Speaker 3: think people forget this, and this is important not to
Speaker 3: point I'm not one of these LBJ did it guys.
Speaker 3: I'm just saying that let's just assume the most benign
Speaker 3: possibility here where it's like, holy crap, somebody killed Kennedy
Speaker 3: and I didn't know about it. Johnson's a little bit
Speaker 3: freaking out, and he was, according to many accounts. And
Speaker 3: you have the governor of Texas nearly murdered in you know,
Speaker 3: in this action too. So you got a local police officer,
Speaker 3: you got the governor of Texas severely wounded. I mean
Speaker 3: his lung collapsed, for Christ's sake, you know, he had
Speaker 3: two of his ribs destroyed. The guy was not in
Speaker 3: great shape, and you have LBJ going, what the hell
Speaker 3: is going on? So benign if you don't want to
Speaker 3: involve anybody in the conspiracy and you just want to
Speaker 3: think completely above boards here, somebody figure out what this
Speaker 3: Russian connected you know, pos is doing here, because if
Speaker 3: this guy's the guy who shot at us, obviously we
Speaker 3: got a Russian problem. That makes Fritz's interrogation make a
Speaker 3: lot more sense, doesn't it.
Speaker 4: I think it does, And I think it's also maybe
Speaker 4: it would be a Oswald may have been right. You know,
Speaker 4: it was the mood of the time that if anything
Speaker 4: dramatic happened, the Communists had to be behind.
Speaker 1: It, right, you know, I was there.
Speaker 4: I remember that when when Robert Kennedy was killed in
Speaker 4: Los Angeles, within twenty four hours the mayor Maryority was
Speaker 4: talking to the press saying, clearly, the Communists did it.
Speaker 1: The Communists killed them.
Speaker 4: This is just a common meme that America is at
Speaker 4: risks from the Communist if something happens, you know, it's
Speaker 4: you need to look for the communists first. And so
Speaker 4: that just may have been another thing that goes along
Speaker 4: with that. Would what would be easier for Fritz and
Speaker 4: the Dallas police to accept the fact that there was
Speaker 4: a smart, well planned Communist enabled conspiracy to kill the
Speaker 4: president in their city, or that this quor kid just
Speaker 4: stumbled in with one rifle and did it, you know,
Speaker 4: all by himself, and you know, all their all their
Speaker 4: security and all their protections. Who's who's a better villain,
Speaker 4: the communist the world communists conspiracy or Leigh Oswell and
Speaker 4: his rifle.
Speaker 1: You know there could have been.
Speaker 4: I'm not saying, but there there's a clear tendency to
Speaker 4: immediately elevate this because it's the president, and because the
Speaker 4: Communists are bad guys, and to start immediately looking for
Speaker 4: ties to a communist conspiracy, a Russian conspiracy that that
Speaker 4: might explain princess probing not not my main concern. We've
Speaker 4: got this guy, There's there's no question about that. We've
Speaker 4: got him, so I don't even need a confession. What
Speaker 4: I need is to find out what was really behind this.
Speaker 3: So in that case we go to was a communist
Speaker 3: inspired or Communist directed which is you know, there's your
Speaker 3: two choices, because those are going to be very effective
Speaker 3: in eliminating sympathy for this guy in court, so that
Speaker 3: we guarantee Fries there's no question, and there you go.
Speaker 3: And that speaks to exactly what by the way, da
Speaker 3: Wade was saying to the press, you know, look, how
Speaker 3: many times have you gone for the death penalty? Twenty six?
Speaker 3: You know, twenty six? How many times you got it
Speaker 3: twenty five? You know what I mean? Like that whole
Speaker 3: thing whatever he said there, I might be misquoting slightly,
Speaker 3: but the point of that discussion to the press was
Speaker 3: to say, we got him dead to rights. And then
Speaker 3: if you throw on top of it, oh, by the way,
Speaker 3: he's a comedy or he's a comedy sympathizer. Oh, hell,
Speaker 3: fry him. I mean, he don't even count. I mean,
Speaker 3: just put him down. Victory for America in fact, right,
Speaker 3: I mean this is literally a tactic. Good.
Speaker 4: Sorry, And it's also consistent with what they kept doing
Speaker 4: for the next twenty four hours.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: They went out and pulled in.
Speaker 4: The financial officer for the school book Depository, who they
Speaker 4: claimed was a communist. Remember, and because he was a
Speaker 4: member of a Spanish speaking veterans group, right, you know,
Speaker 4: they actually brought him in and it sounds like we're
Speaker 4: threatening to charge him with conspiracy as well. You know,
Speaker 4: they were looking for anything that could tie a communist
Speaker 4: conspiracy to Oswald.
Speaker 1: The Dallas police were Washington, d C.
Speaker 4: Not so much, but in Dallas they continued kind of
Speaker 4: on that tangent for the better part of the next day.
Speaker 3: Well, right, because it would have worked, like I said,
Speaker 3: it would have you put, you know, again, a jury
Speaker 3: in front of this guy and you say, oh, by
Speaker 3: the way, we can also prove he's a communist those
Speaker 3: murder charges, and you know, putting him to death is
Speaker 3: going to get a lot easier for that jury. I mean,
Speaker 3: I'm just saying nineteen sixty three, no offense. But that's
Speaker 3: the way it was.
Speaker 1: No, we're done now, okay.
Speaker 3: I mean, no, no need to continue.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the Jets can just send the jury for a deliberation.
Speaker 1: They'll be right back.
Speaker 3: Yeah. We might stay around long enough for lunch, you know,
Speaker 3: but anyhow, just just some free lunch, not because we
Speaker 3: need to talk about anything, but okay, anyhow, It's just
Speaker 3: it's remarkable to think of it this way because I
Speaker 3: don't see anybody breaking it down this way. And obviously
Speaker 3: you made efforts. I mean, tell us a little more
Speaker 3: about this, because I've already kept you here for like forty
Speaker 3: five minutes going over these things. But I think this
Speaker 3: is a little different from what people usually get, which
Speaker 3: is the look the sinister conspiracy against Oswald, you know,
Speaker 3: was that to convict him. But you know, there might
Speaker 3: be more reasonable explanations for some of the strangeness, you know,
Speaker 3: those lineups being as stupid as they were and everything else.
Speaker 3: I mean, if you know that you're going into a
Speaker 3: game with a loaded pair of dice, you know, what
Speaker 3: do you care what happens before or after you show
Speaker 3: up or what it looks like. That's another thing to
Speaker 3: keep in mind here. But my commentary aside, what else
Speaker 3: do we need to look at Larry Well again?
Speaker 4: I think to step back and look and nobody I
Speaker 4: don't think really has done a good job of this recently,
Speaker 4: to look at exactly what Oswald you win about the shooting,
Speaker 4: about the death of the president, about to really timeline
Speaker 4: in detail and respect his behavior, because the only two
Speaker 4: of yous have been that he's absolutely innocent and we
Speaker 4: want to prove that, or he's absolutely guilty and we
Speaker 4: want to prove that. Nobody's really looked at it for
Speaker 4: just the what did Oswald know when and what caused
Speaker 4: him to behave the way he did during those brief
Speaker 4: two and a half days he was in custody. And
Speaker 4: that's that's what I'm stepping back to and looking at
Speaker 4: again and revisiting, and I think it makes a lot
Speaker 4: more sense. His behavior, his remarks, make a lot more
Speaker 4: sense and actually defend the position that he was innocent.
Speaker 4: And I'm talking about totally innocent. I mean, he has
Speaker 4: no clue how far up the river he really is.
Speaker 4: And that's my that's my take on the matter, is
Speaker 4: that only increasingly during the course of the weekend does
Speaker 4: he begin to think that he might actually be at
Speaker 4: risk because he knows he wasn't he didn't do it.
Speaker 4: He didn't you know, he may have sold his right.
Speaker 4: He knows nothing about what's been taken in evidence and
Speaker 4: what's been set up under those conditions. A lot of
Speaker 4: what he does makes perfect sense otherwise. Let's take an example.
Speaker 4: We know that he raises a fuss about the lineup,
Speaker 4: like everybody else's in suits and ties and I'm in
Speaker 4: a T shirt and I'm banged up. Who's gonna yeah,
Speaker 4: who's going to pick me? Everybody hold up your hands.
Speaker 4: But if you had just shot the president and left
Speaker 4: your rifle that you owned and registered and you bought
Speaker 4: laying at the scene, of the crime. How stupid would
Speaker 4: you be to be making this kind of fuss. I mean,
Speaker 4: either you just you need to assert your claim as
Speaker 4: to why you did it and take credit for it,
Speaker 4: or you just need to kind of be talking with
Speaker 4: your wife about you know, worried about your wife and
Speaker 4: family because you're done. But to raise a fuss about
Speaker 4: something like that says to me, he doesn't know. He
Speaker 4: knows that he's innocent and he's being radded, so he's
Speaker 4: concerned that he's being set up in alignemup that does
Speaker 4: not detail with him being guilty. So a lot of
Speaker 4: his behavior begins to make a sense to me, and
Speaker 4: looking at it from his perspective of not knowing that
Speaker 4: he's a patsy or that kind of knowing, there's two
Speaker 4: different pat season play. One it's just because he was
Speaker 4: in Russia. Two it's because he was really set up
Speaker 4: with crime scene evidence and he doesn't know it and
Speaker 4: the police aren't showing it to him. It is utterly
Speaker 4: insane in my view that Fritz would not lay down
Speaker 4: that rifle on a table in front of him, hold
Speaker 4: up the picture and say we took this from the
Speaker 4: school book depository. Mister Oswell now you explain it us
Speaker 4: why you didn't have it.
Speaker 1: They're shooting the president.
Speaker 4: Is there anything that would throw him off base more
Speaker 4: than that?
Speaker 1: Yet that wasn't done fair enough.
Speaker 3: Larry. I think that's a perfect place to conclude, because this,
Speaker 3: to me is extremely important. And you know, over the
Speaker 3: years I've kind of like, you know, not embraced the
Speaker 3: whole is he innocent you know situation, because I think
Speaker 3: we don't have definitive proof one way or the other.
Speaker 3: But on the other hand, when you look at these
Speaker 3: behaviors and you put it through this lens, you know,
Speaker 3: the stuff that they often say, look a look at
Speaker 3: how much of an arrogant? You know, they you know,
Speaker 3: vacillate between calling them an arrogant, you know, cool collected
Speaker 3: customer who is associopath and you know, having him just
Speaker 3: be the crazy, confused kid. And that is amazing to me. Anyway,
Speaker 3: we'll leave it at that for tonight. Check out Larry
Speaker 3: Hancock's work online. Obviously there will be links in the
Speaker 3: show notes. And that's this one for this Wednesday, and
Speaker 3: I'm planning on doing another later night podcast to catch
Speaker 3: you up on the news or as it stands anyway,
Speaker 3: kind of chaos and crazy, but I want to make
Speaker 3: some points, and I'll even have a little JFK thing
Speaker 3: in the news round up coming up, because three of
Speaker 3: you sent me the same information, and uh, you know
Speaker 3: that's the way it is. We're gonna go over that
Speaker 3: in another podcast after.
Speaker 6: So I am merely o'celly.
Speaker 5: Wall dot com, Wall Street, Window dot com dot com.
Speaker 3: Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of the War State, gives.
Speaker 5: You the benefit of his knowledge.
Speaker 3: Wall do dot go there, now, go there, now, go
Speaker 3: there now.
Speaker 2: In Denial Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks by
Speaker 2: Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert
Speaker 2: operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial
Speaker 2: rips the cover off many of them, using new files.
Speaker 2: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
Speaker 2: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 2: really failed and why the United States did not.
Speaker 5: Earn from it. It also shows why other countries today
Speaker 5: are doing secret operations with more success. This is the
Speaker 5: book that puts what some want to deny into the light.
Speaker 5: In Denial, Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks Larryhancock
Speaker 5: For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com.
Speaker 5: Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot
Speaker 5: com in digital or physical nuclear holocaust.
Speaker 3: You know what uranium is right?
Speaker 1: Think called nuclear.
Speaker 5: Weapons and other things like lots of you know what
Speaker 5: uranium is right?
Speaker 3: Bad things. The viuse expressed by caller schools there anyone
Speaker 3: else who happens to get on the air of jelly
Speaker 3: dot com do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Speaker 3: Jelly dot Com or chuell and we are not responsible
Speaker 3: for any stupidity which might exsue.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 7: The Wars State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 7: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 7: the context of the times, and reveals never before published
Speaker 7: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 7: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 7: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 7: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 7: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 7: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 7: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 7: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 7: island aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 7: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 7: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 7: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 7: reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 7: up against. For more information, The Warstate dot Com.
Speaker 2: Will now rhythmic curse, no corns placed by other bolted grasses.
Speaker 3: Chaos rings, no soul can pass.
Speaker 2: Feel the crush, the skies collide, heavy storms and the
Speaker 2: sound defied blues bleed.
Speaker 1: Out grass creams, bous blues and raft eternal shroud swing.
Speaker 2: The axe cruse takes slight of fury, dances in the
Speaker 2: nut hit off roofs swift blue state clash, conal storms.
Speaker 1: Turn post to ash Chili dot Com corns of brass tyetoo.
Speaker 1: The wind chaos leaves no way
Speaker 7: To mend, writes the Chaine ignite, the fier rhythms clash,
Speaker 7: the air destroyed fails