Sean Murphy's research deserves more

[Bob Prudhomme]

"But I think we do. After all I have already shown you that the same Dallas cops whom the record shows did the dirty work of the mafia, CIA, FBI, and others in the assassination, were the same people who confronted Frazier that evening. The record shows they threatened to charge Frazier as an accomplice. Once you realize that Frazier could have been cracked it is perfectly reasonable to suggest he may have kept quiet about all witnessings, including Baker. Remember Bob, these are the same Dallas cops who told numerous people to keep their mouths shut. Let's look at what you're proposing here. You're proposing a man who was recorded as having serious pressure put on him equal to charges of accomplice in a presidential assassination is your source against my statistically-impossible record that is backed by not only common sense but every other case of witnessing. Hmm. I can understand why you might want to avoid the exposure issue like you did in your last answer. It's pretty reasonable that Oswald would have to had mingled with the crowd developing in the doorway at that point and that it would be impossible for him to not be sighted by numerous people. That's not how you do evidence Bob. If you have dozens of people then you have to examine each and every case. You are talking Lee Harvey Oswald walking amongst the crowd in the portal, in the glass entry, and amongst the people inside observing who was entering the Depository. I hope you can see why you can't limit this to just Frazier.[/"


Okay, Albert, let's not limit ourselves to what Frazier saw or did not see. Among the other witnesses on the steps of the TSBD, can you find a statement or testimony by any of these people that mentions Prayer Man? Can you find any one of these people that ID him?

"Golz seems pretty credible to me. Are you saying he was lying? This fits the pattern of other cases of FBI being caught committing some serious lies and corruption of evidence. So the score is I don't know any cases of Golz trying to fabricate such serious evidence. As far as the record, FBI, on the other hand, practically uses falsification and intentional deception as a regular method. So which horse are you backing there Bob? I hear friends of Golz calling him a gentleman. I might be inclined to take his word."


I'm happy for you, Albert. Still, Mr. Golz has absolutely nothing to back up his story. A pity, actually.


"Again, if I'm not mistaken, the terms here are taking FBI, an institution with an established motive and record for covering up a coup d'etat, at their word or taking either Carolyn Arnold or Golz at their word. It is possible by day 4 FBI decided to conflate the Oswald in the doorway sighting with Carolyn Arnold so they could dispense with her credibility at the same time as the Oswald in the doorway claim. The reason they would do that is because they needed to discredit her real 12:25 2nd floor lunchroom claim because it was dangerous."

You are seriously confused about this issue. The first FBI report had her OUTSIDE at 12:15 when she looked back and saw Oswald on the 1st floor. It was in her second FBI interview, in March 1964, that she claimed she did not leave the building until 12:25. If the FBI was so good at lying, why not just say, in the second report, she did not leave the building until 12:14? Why confuse the issue by repeating her claim of 12:25, and give Oswald even less time to make it to the SN?