Thursday, August 14, 2014

Matthew Scheufele has another superficial article

Scheufele must not have graduated from High School.  Honestly, this second work from him is something that is just ridiculous.  You know you're dealing with someone who has the depth of knowledge of this case that is about equal to that of Ralph Cinque when they start spouting off about how great Ocam's Razor is, and how other people make things needlessly complex.  I see a punk who's not doing his homework.  And the glory of it is this idiot is going to war with THE IDIOT, Cinque.  So, get the popcorn.

And the over-the-top large font size for his first quote, with an even more obnoxious #1 for his first footnote tells you you're dealing with a schmuck.  I mean, look at this thing.  This is the original size. I didn't enlarge this to exaggerate it. I know you can't read all of it here. See for yourself how big it is right here.  This schmuck has 8 footnotes and 7 of which are the size of this first one.  And when you go to the bottom of this he doesn't even bother to give you the page number the reports are in, nor does he tell you to look in the Report and not the 26 volumes!


Scheufele then boasts of his great accomplishment in taking a "very simplistic approach."  You took a simplistic approach all right.  Scheufele claims he examined the statements of Lee Harvey Oswald during his interrogation of November 22 and November 23.  Did he examine ALL of them? No, is that simple enough for you?

Scheufele then "decided," and that's the word he uses, "decided," that's a clue for you folks.  Scheufele decided that he (meaning Lee Harvey Oswald) was telling the truth during these interrogations.

Scheufele, have you ever been informed about the concept called "the passive voice?"  You should look it up soon, preferably before you burden us with another deliberately dishonest article backed up by your tissue thin knowledge and love of simplicity.

It's a battle royal, the love of simplicity vs. the love of stupidity.  Wait a moment, there's some disturbance before we begin.  Mr. Cinque is refusing to enter the boxing ring saying a ring should be round, he knows a ring when he sees it and that's a square!  And Mr. Scheufele has his hands outstretched, and there seems to be a commotion over there too! Mr. Scheufele doesn't seem to understand that you can't put boxing gloves on over clenched fists.  We'll return to this non-event should anything actually occur.

Scheufele then lists of the names of some (but not all) of the people who wrote up reports on the Oswald interrogations of November 22 and November 23, 1963.

Scheufele lists:

1.) Captain Will Fritz, chief of the Dallas Police Homicide and Robbery Bureau.
2.) FBI Special Agent James Hosty
3.) FBI Special Agent Bookeout. - I don't know who that is.  In other words he misspelled the name.
It's Bookhout, with an "h" in there, no "e."

4.) Secret Service Agent Thomas Kelley

And that's it.  So, did he examine them all? Nope

1.) The Warren Commission Report p. 599 - 611  Fritz's report. Did you notice that this Fritz report is not on any Dallas Police Department stationary of any kind? Did you notice that it is neither signed nor dated? There's no clue who wrote this or even who typed it up. Did that bother you? It bothers me.

2.) The Warren Commission Report p. 612 - 613 Hosty and Bookhout's report. Dated November 23, 1963.  It's on FBI stationary.  So, there's that.  This report details the questioning of Oswald done by Fritz on November 22, 1963.

3.) The Warren Commission Report p. 614 - 618 FBI Special Agent Manning C. Clements wrote a report about Oswald while under interrogation.

But, he mustn't have been special enough for Scheufele.

4.) The Warren Commission Report p. 619 - 620 FBI Special Agent Bookhout writes a separate report all by himself.  And this one is dated November 25, 1963.  Exactly which interrogation of Oswald and on what day are not known because of the deliberately vague language, "Lee Harvey Oswald was interviewed at the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, Dallas Police Department, by Captain J. W. Fritz, in the presence of Special Agent James W. Bookhout, Federal Bureau of Investigation."

Were you and your razor sharp enough to catch that one?

This report gives us the great fictional story of DPD officer Marion Baker, with gun drawn, stopping Oswald, who had a coke in his hand, on the second floor of the TSBD.  Isn't that interesting, because according to page 5 of the Warren Commission Report Oswald was empty-handed when Baker encountered him.

Are we going to fast for you Scheufele? Did you catch these little nuances, or is it all "over-complex?" 

5.) The Warren Commission Report p. 621 - 624 FBI Special Agent Bookhout writes yet another report all by himself.  This concerns another interrogation of Oswald where we don't know exactly when it took place.  But, boy it must have been something because now all kinds of people were there, T. J. Kelly of the Secret Service, David B. Grant of the Secret Service, Robert Nash from the U.S. Marshall's Office, and Dallas Police Detectives Billy L Senkel and Fay M. Turner.

6.) The Warren Commission Report p. 625 FBI Special Agent Bookhout writes a third report, all by himself, 

7.) The Warren Commission Report p. 626 - 632.  Thomas Kelley's report.  But it's not on any Secret Service or United States Treasury Office stationary.

8.) The Warren Commission Report p. 633 - 636 U.S. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes.  Oh now, Scheufele, how could you neglect to mention him?  Again, another report not on any official stationary from the government office the person supposedly works for.  And it's dated Dec 12, 1963.

Now does Scheufele compare and contrast these reports? Nope. He can't be bothered. Why bother to read all of that, and compare and contrast them against each other, and the conclusions of the Report, and the known testimonies of people involved? Why do all that work when you can just "decide" that Oswald was telling the truth? You can just "decide" that Oswald told one story, without changing anything, or adding anything, or deleting anything, nope it was all one honest story nicely recorded by some of the men Scheufele could sort of remember but not enough to spell their names right.

You have to remember that simplicity principle and not read all of those reports.


Matthew Scheufele

What a schmuck.


No comments:

Post a Comment