This is specifically looking at the section of the notes dealing with Oswald's alibi. It is the part that causes most confusion and it boils down to a tendency to overthink such pieces of the evidenciary puzzle.

The section of interest is not, as assumed, a free-flowing word salad where the absent punctuation can be inserted wherever it gives the meaning that best fits any preconception or bias.

What it actually consitutes are three dot points on an alibi timeline. Each line is a separate entry on that timeline.

This then, is what we are looking at:

• Claims (getting a) 2nd floor coke when off[icer] came in, THEN
• (Went) to 1st floor (and) had lunch, THEN
• (Went) out (and stood) with Bill Shelley in front 

These notes were not made during the interrogation, but sometime after Oswald was murdered.

Compare to Hosty's notes as they pertain to the same alibi timeline. 

"O[swald] stated he was present for work T[exas] B[ook] D[epository]  on the morning of 11/22 and at noon, went to lunch. He went to 2nd floor to get coca cola to eat [sic] with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch, then went outside to watch P[resident's] parade."

It should be immediately obvious that both contain the exact same elements, in the same order. Oswald goes to the 2nd floor to get a coke, then goes to the first floor to have lunch and then goes outside to watch.  The one difference - Fritz has  Officer Baker  encountering Oswald when Oswald is on the 2nd floor to get his coke. This is a  crucial difference and makes them chalk and cheese because one is exculpatory, the other supports the prosecution - despite the claims of some,  This is because the timing issue they cite as exculpatory in getting from the 6th to the 2nd floor  was made a non-isuue after  investigators accomplishing the feat in reconstructions.  

The insertion of Baker by Fritz means

Either

• Baker raced into the building BEFORE the assassination, OR
• Oswald decided to grab a coke and have lunch AFTER the assassination and then go out to watch a parade that was now over, while standing near a person who by that person's account, was no longer there, OR
• Fritz was "verballing"* Oswald with the intent of both obscuring Oswald's real alibi, and having him agree with a scenario that would have, according to reconstructions, allowed him to get down from the 6th to the 2nd floor within the timeframe set by the authorities.

* Not sure if the term "verballing" is universally used, but it is the term used here in Australia to describe the police practice of putting words into the mouths of suspects to be used in the case against them.  This may be done to help obtain a conviction against a guilty party, or an innocent party, but either way, it is an illegal practice with a long history - and one still being used today, as shown in the following recent example.

The bare facts of the story are that a young constable took a phone call in a Sydney police station from a person engaged in a long-running campaign against police strip searches - which was again, the basis of the call. After the call, the constable made a statement claiming that the caller had made threats against a detective in the rural town of Goulburn. On the basis of that statement, the caller was picked up, charged and spent 3 weeks in jail before the Department of Prosecutions threw the case out. Why did they throw it out? Because the caller had recorded his phone call with the constable and it proved no such threats had been made. The Sydney police station involved, then conducted an internal investigation resulting in a slap on the wrist to the officer making the false claims. It should come as no surprise that this young officer is the son  of a prominent poitician.

Full details here

The above represents a classic case of "verballing", which could have sent an innocent man away for a, potentially, long time - had he not had the foresight to record the call.

Oswald was "verballed" in every single interrogation report, as well as in Fritz's notes - all written after Oswald was murdered and could not dispute the "verballing".

These are the things that need to be the focus of this case - not chasing shadows and ghosts in a never-ending witch-hunt against our  enemies/black hats of choice. Cold cases are broken by examination of alibis, and police methods in conducting their investigations and following leads generated from the crime scene and the backgrounds of those at the core of the case - not 6 six degrees separated and a gazillion miles away.  Until people stop trying to inject Bondlike sexiness into the case and take the traditional route for cracking cases, we will be forever just spinning wheels. Which unfortunately seems to suit the majority.

As an important side issue, the encounter between Baker, Truly and Oswald was entirely fictional, aimed at muddying his alibi and covering up a real encounter between Oswald, Truly and Lt. Kaminski a bit more than 10 munites after the alleged 2nd flloor incident. 

• You need to login to have access to uploads.