A Victoria Adams Expert
John McAdams
becoming specialized."
http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/index.html
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Sean Murphy
> Reminds me of the joke, the punch line of which is "my, my aren't we
> becoming specialized."
>
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/index.html
>
> .John
>
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Sandra Styles mentioned to me that this author had contacted her some
years ago. She even knew the name of the book (which I hadn't heard of
myself).
Sandra claimed she told Ernest what she was now telling me: that she and
Victoria Adams did *not* go to the rear stairs anything close to as
quickly as Victoria had claimed.
I find it a little worrying that there is no mention of Sandra's
counter-version in any of the promotional material linked here. Why is the
book not titled 'The GirlS On The Stairs'? It will be interesting to see
how Ernest deals with Sandra's information.
Sean
WhiskyJoe
> A Victoria Adams Expert
> Reminds me of the joke, the punch line of which is
> "my, my aren't we becoming specialized."
This does seem a bit odd of a field to specialize in.
It would make more sense to become an expert on the
models of Victoria Secrets.
WhiskyJoe
> Sandra claimed she told Ernest what she was now
> telling me: that she and Victoria Adams did
> *not* go to the rear stairs anything close to
> as quickly as Victoria had claimed.
> I find it a little worrying that there is no
> mention of Sandra's counter-version in any of
> the promotional material linked here. Why is
> the book not titled 'The GirlS On The Stairs'?
> It will be interesting to see how Ernest deals
> with Sandra's information.
I will be even more interested to know, that if
he thinks Adams and Styles were descending the
stairs at the critical time, let's say T+80
seconds, on the stairs around the second floor,
proving Oswald could not have used the stairs,
how Adams and Styles avoided seeing Baker and
Truly and how Baker and Truly avoided seeing
Adams and Styles.
Anthony Marsh
Sure. If Adams and Styles were between the second floor and the third
floor Baker and Truly would have just missed seeing them when they went
into the lunch room.
WhiskyJoe
In which case they would also have missed seeing Oswald
who would be on the stairs ahead of them when he got to
the lunchroom just ahead of Baker and Truly and even more
ahead of Adams and Styles.
Also it would be strange that Adams and Styles sneaked past
the second floor without seeing Baker or Truly or Baker or Truly
seeing or hearing them.
***************************************************
Oh, I suppose if one carefully constructs a scenario it would
be barely possible.
Adams and Styles came down the stairs exactly when Oswald did,
if he was coming down from the sixth floor. When Adams and Styles,
reached the third floor, they paused, just long enough for Baker and
Truly to enter the second floor, then Adams and Styles sneaked
past the second floor while Baker and Truly confronted Oswald,
and continued down to the first floor. Then Baker and Truly
continued upward without anyone seeing Adams and Styles
and Adams and Styles just missed seeing anyone.
About as contrived a scenario as one can come up with, with split
second timing.
Essentially Adams and Styles needed to meet Baker and Truly
on the stairs to provide any kind of an alibi that Oswald was not
on the stairs.
curtjester1
It is one issue that is so frustrating, especially when their re-
enactments could have been so evidence worthy. Typical of so many things
in the case. Griffith takes it to a big level in his treatise:
http://www.beyondweird.com/conspiracies/cncka003.html
So does Roffman (Howard in ratville) in his, and I think makes it very
clear that an Oswald would have had to been superfast being's that the
door that shut to the lunchroom was an automatic door and would have
closed very slowly, so a Truly and Baker would have had to see that. There
he also explained that there was a corridor without needing that way
through the office and into the vestule right by the lunchroom that Oswald
could have gone if going from the first floor.
The stairs were also wooden and creaky. It's hard to fathom all the time
of cleaning a rifle and discarding (very carefully) under heavy boxes,
looking out the window. moving boxes..etc. etc. that anyone was descending
those stairs for a Baker-Truly meeting, IMO.
CJ
curtjester1
I forgot to mention that in that Griffith article, Lovelady said he
went right back in the TSBD which makes all that Shelley-Adams stuff
all the more controversial.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
and the other is in the lunchroom? Why didn't Baker hear or see Oswald
coming down the stairway according to your theory of superhuman vision
and hearing?
> ***************************************************
>
> Oh, I suppose if one carefully constructs a scenario it would
> be barely possible.
>
Could be what happened. We don't know.
> Adams and Styles came down the stairs exactly when Oswald did,
> if he was coming down from the sixth floor. When Adams and Styles,
> reached the third floor, they paused, just long enough for Baker and
> Truly to enter the second floor, then Adams and Styles sneaked
> past the second floor while Baker and Truly confronted Oswald,
> and continued down to the first floor. Then Baker and Truly
> continued upward without anyone seeing Adams and Styles
> and Adams and Styles just missed seeing anyone.
>
> About as contrived a scenario as one can come up with, with split
> second timing.
>
Sounds like one of those movies where everyone keeps going through doors
and misses each other, like the Marx Brothers.
Sean Murphy
> It is one issue that is so frustrating, especially when their re-
> enactments could have been so evidence worthy. Typical of so many things
> in the case. Griffith takes it to a big level in his treatise:
>
> http://www.beyondweird.com/conspiracies/cncka003.html
>
> So does Roffman (Howard in ratville) in his, and I think makes it very
> clear that an Oswald would have had to been superfast being's that the
> door that shut to the lunchroom was an automatic door and would have
> closed very slowly, so a Truly and Baker would have had to see that.
Hmmm. The SS reconstruction film shows the door closing pretty quickly.
But a man who goes through that door en route to the lunchroom before Roy
Truly has hit the second-floor landing will be completely out of Baker's
line-of-sight by the time Baker comes off the stairs. Indeed the angle
from door to lunchroom is such that he will have all but disappeared even
before the the door has closed. Bye bye Warren Report scenario.
Even Dale Myers and Jean Davison acknowledge this problem, albeit each
then goes on to offer a pitifully contrived and unconvincing solution that
keeps the cherished Oswald-Did-It fairytale intact. But it's all probably
academic: Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit talks about a man walking away from
the rear stairway on the third or fourth floor.
Sean Murphy
> went right back in the TSBD which makes all that Shelley-Adams stuff
> all the more controversial.
>
> CJ
Harold Norman told the HSCA that Lovelady personally witnessed Oswald
being allowed out the front entrance by cops shortly after the
assassination.
Sean Murphy
> Why would they see or hear each other when one couple is on the stairway
> and the other is in the lunchroom?
Baker & Truly's WC testimony puts neither in the lunchroom.
Sean Murphy
>
> About as contrived a scenario as one can come up with, with split
> second timing.
Agreed. It's pretty absurd. Besides, Sandra Styles made it clear that
their descent was significantly later.
>
> Essentially Adams and Styles needed to meet Baker and Truly
> on the stairs to provide any kind of an alibi that Oswald was not
> on the stairs.
Likewise, Jack Dougherty needed to be in Oswald's flight path to
provide an alibi that Oswald did not come down the stairs.
Right?
curtjester1
> On Jan 31, 6:16 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > It is one issue that is so frustrating, especially when their re-
>
> > enactments could have been so evidence worthy. Typical of so many things
> > in the case. Griffith takes it to a big level in his treatise:
>
> >http://www.beyondweird.com/conspiracies/cncka003.html
>
> > So does Roffman (Howard in ratville) in his, and I think makes it very
> > clear that an Oswald would have had to been superfast being's that the
> > door that shut to the lunchroom was an automatic door and would have
> > closed very slowly, so a Truly and Baker would have had to see that.
>
> Hmmm. The SS reconstruction film shows the door closing pretty quickly.
>
Still would have had to be observed unless a suspect was just sitting
there at the door....
> But a man who goes through that door en route to the lunchroom before Roy
> Truly has hit the second-floor landing will be completely out of Baker's
> line-of-sight by the time Baker comes off the stairs. Indeed the angle
> from door to lunchroom is such that he will have all but disappeared even
> before the the door has closed. Bye bye Warren Report scenario.
>
Yep, plus a few more details that Roffman disects very well: 2/3's to
3/4's down
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html
> Even Dale Myers and Jean Davison acknowledge this problem, albeit each
> then goes on to offer a pitifully contrived and unconvincing solution that
> keeps the cherished Oswald-Did-It fairytale intact. But it's all probably
> academic: Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit talks about a man walking away from
> the rear stairway on the third or fourth floor.
Like all LNerisms, it takes it to the probability brink...
CJ
curtjester1
That is extremely interesting. I think it could have huge
implications, and even allow for a doppleganger theory which could
explain the anomolies in dress say between a Mrs. Reid and Truly and
Baker...
CJ
Sean Murphy
> > Harold Norman told the HSCA that Lovelady personally witnessed Oswald
> > being allowed out the front entrance by cops shortly after the
> > assassination.
>
> That is extremely interesting. I think it could have huge
> implications, and even allow for a doppleganger theory which could
> explain the anomolies in dress say between a Mrs. Reid and Truly and
> Baker...
>
> CJ
Again, Baker's 11/22 affidavit may give us the key here: a man walking
away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor. Harry Holmes recalled
that Oswald told Fritz HIS officer incident took place at the front
entrance - a claim corroborated independently by what DPD were telling
press 11/22 and by Norman's HSCA information re. Lovelady.
Incidentally, it's curious that a couple of films show Billy Lovelady
standing smoking a cigarette on the front steps several minutes after the
assassination. How did he get back out of the building?
WhiskyJoe
> Why would they see or hear each other when one
> couple is on the stairway and the other is in
> the lunchroom? Why didn't Baker hear or see
> Oswald coming down the stairway according to
> your theory of superhuman vision and hearing?
Baker and Truly did not encounter Oswald on the
stairs because Oswald left the stairs on the
second floor. Baker and Truly should have
encountered Adams and Styles because they did
not leave the stairs until the first floor.
It is impossible for Baker and Truly to pass Adams
and Styles on the stairs without anyone seeing
either group, even if they only have normal
senses and not superhuman senses.
The only way the two groups could miss each other
is if Adams and Styles sneaked past the second
floor on the stairs while Baker and Truly
confronted Oswald. In which case Adams and
Styles were coming down the stairs too late to
see Oswald, whether he used the stairs or not.
Therefore, Adams and Styles cannot be used as a
alibi for Oswald not being on the stairs.
Therefore, it is a waste of time for that guy
to become an expert of Virginia Adams.
curtjester1
> > Why would they see or hear each other when one
> > couple is on the stairway and the other is in
> > the lunchroom? Why didn't Baker hear or see
> > Oswald coming down the stairway according to
> > your theory of superhuman vision and hearing?
>
> Baker and Truly did not encounter Oswald on the
> stairs because Oswald left the stairs on the
> second floor. Baker and Truly should have
> encountered Adams and Styles because they did
> not leave the stairs until the first floor.
>
going in a set of doors to the second floor lunchroom.
Adams and Styles would not necessarily have to encountered anyone. It
depends on corroborated times and/or paths, which there is none.
> It is impossible for Baker and Truly to pass Adams
> and Styles on the stairs without anyone seeing
> either group, even if they only have normal
> senses and not superhuman senses.
>
Either person (Styles and Adams).
> The only way the two groups could miss each other
> is if Adams and Styles sneaked past the second
> floor on the stairs while Baker and Truly
> confronted Oswald. In which case Adams and
> Styles were coming down the stairs too late to
> see Oswald, whether he used the stairs or not.
>
Or they descended prior to Baker and Truly ascending. Adams said the
time after the shooting and the time she made it to the bottom was 1
minute.
"whether he used the stairs or not" (Oswald). Good. It's provable
that he could have ascended to the second floor, or there could have
been another suspect besides Oswald that could have descended.
> Therefore, Adams and Styles cannot be used as a
> alibi for Oswald not being on the stairs.
> Therefore, it is a waste of time for that guy
> to become an expert of Virginia Adams.
Not unless you can get more precise verifications. Maybe there was
someone in the office where they were at the tme of the shooting to
have a good idea how long it took them to get to the stairwell?
CJ
WhiskyJoe
>> Therefore, Adams and Styles cannot be used as a
>> alibi for Oswald not being on the stairs.
>> Therefore, it is a waste of time for that guy
>> to become an expert of Virginia Adams.
> Not unless you can get more precise verifications.
We have all the data we need to know that Adams
and Styles cannot help us in determining if
Oswald went down the stairs just prior to
meeting Baker and Truly.
First, if one knows that:
* Oswald may have descended the stairs immediately
after the shooting.
* Adams and Styles did descend the stairs, possibly
immediately after the shooting.
it is unlikely that Adams and Styles can help us.
Adams and Styles are heading in the same direction
as Oswald. If they were coming down 10 seconds too
soon or 10 seconds too late, Oswald could have
easily avoided being seen.
If Adams and Styles meet Baker and Truly just after
leaving the stairs on the first floor, that is too
soon. Oswald could be on the stairs approaching the
second floor as Adams and Styles passed by Baker and
Truly.
If Adams and Styles meet Baker and Truly just
after Baker and Truly confront Oswald, that is
too late. Oswald could have entered the second
floor while Adams and Styles were descending at
the fourth floor.
If Adams and Styles passed the second floor while
Baker and Truly confront Oswald, that is too late.
Oswald could have entered the second floor while
Adams and Styles were descending at the third floor.
Only if Adams and Styles pass Baker and Truly
between the first and second floor, would we
have something. As the two pairs pass, Oswald
could not be entering the second floor, because
he would have been walking with or too close to
Adams and Styles.
But as it is, Adams and Styles didn't meet Baker
and Truly on the first, second, third or fourth
floor. Clearly they did not descend the stairs
at the critical time, not at the same time Oswald
allegedly did. They cannot help us determine if
Oswald was coming down the stairs a few seconds
before he was confronted by Baker.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>> Therefore, Adams and Styles cannot be used as a
>>> alibi for Oswald not being on the stairs.
>>> Therefore, it is a waste of time for that guy
>>> to become an expert of Virginia Adams.
>
>> Not unless you can get more precise verifications.
>
> We have all the data we need to know that Adams
> and Styles cannot help us in determining if
> Oswald went down the stairs just prior to
> meeting Baker and Truly.
>
> First, if one knows that:
>
> * Oswald may have descended the stairs immediately
> after the shooting.
>
Immediately as in not stopping to wipe off fingerprints and hide the rifle?
> * Adams and Styles did descend the stairs, possibly
> immediately after the shooting.
>
Are you playing nice by assuming that Adams and Styles were telling the
truth?
> it is unlikely that Adams and Styles can help us.
> Adams and Styles are heading in the same direction
> as Oswald. If they were coming down 10 seconds too
> soon or 10 seconds too late, Oswald could have
> easily avoided being seen.
>
How about adding a scenario where Oswald saw them and had to slow down
to wait for them to not see him? That way you might bump the total time
up to 2 minutes.
> If Adams and Styles meet Baker and Truly just after
> leaving the stairs on the first floor, that is too
> soon. Oswald could be on the stairs approaching the
> second floor as Adams and Styles passed by Baker and
> Truly.
>
> If Adams and Styles meet Baker and Truly just
> after Baker and Truly confront Oswald, that is
> too late. Oswald could have entered the second
> floor while Adams and Styles were descending at
> the fourth floor.
>
> If Adams and Styles passed the second floor while
> Baker and Truly confront Oswald, that is too late.
> Oswald could have entered the second floor while
> Adams and Styles were descending at the third floor.
>
Please, slow down, you're giving me a headache.
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think the key would be why Styles and Adams wouldn't see a Truly and
a Baker. If they were too fast, they would have had to be really
fast, as they should have met at the bottom where Truly/Baker
ascended. If they were slow, how would it be that they missed the
action going on in the lunchroom? If a suspect were ahead of them and
before a Baker/Truly, they could have been most likely in a time
element to see the slow moving door close. Of course this slow moving
door and a Styles/Adams precise grilling along with office workers
would have been ideal in a good investigation, but here was virtually
ignored. As it stands, one has to wonder what the testimony relates
as the only way of linking an Oswald or suspect at all, and that's
with the suspicious Baker scenario, and the suspect of having to be
hiding in the only one possible spot that would make him available to
be seen, at a window right behind the foyer door off that 2nd floor
stairwell. Here's Bakers take and some of the potentials of that:
from Mike Griffiths....2001
Baker said he spotted Oswald from the second-floor landing just after
he (Baker) reached the landing, when he looked through the small
window of the foyer door. Recounted Baker,
. . . I was coming out this one on the second floor, and I don't know,
I was kind of sweeping [visually] this area as I come up, I was
looking from right to left and as I got to this door here I caught a
glimpse of this man, just, you know, a sudden glimpse. . . . (WCR
151)
Baker said Oswald was about 20 feet away when he caught a glimpse of
him, which would have put Oswald right next to the foyer door. Baker,
according to the Warren Commission, then walked through the foyer door
and saw Oswald in the lunchroom (WCR 151). Oswald had continued
walking and thus was still about 20 feet from Baker. [1] Is this how
it happened? There are problems with Baker's account.
With the foyer door shut, the window would have been at a 45-degree
angle to Baker. In all probability, that door, which was an automatic
door, was already closed when Baker looked through its small window.
However, in his WC testimony, Baker suggested that the door "might"
have been moving. There is reason to question his word on this point.
Among other things, this was the first and only time that Baker
suggested the door might have been in motion. Truly said nothing about
the door having been in motion, and his testimony indicates that he
looked at the door when he reached the landing (the door would have
been right in the middle of his field of view; more will be said on
this point further below).
If the door was still moving, it must have been nearly shut, or else
Baker would have had an even harder time seeing anything through the
window. Baker himself said that the door "might have been . . .
closing and almost shut at that time." In other words, even Baker
indicated that if the door was in fact moving it was "almost shut at
that time." Additionally, if Oswald was 20 feet from Baker when Baker
spotted him, then Oswald would have been no more than a foot past the
foyer door, in which case the door--with its slow automatic closing
mechanism--would not have had enough time to close or nearly close if
Oswald had just gone through it.
Another problem with Baker's account is that Baker said he wasn't even
sure if Oswald had gone through the foyer door (3 H 255). Now this is
very odd indeed. If Baker spotted Oswald through the foyer door a
second or two after reaching the top of the stairs, and if the door
was "almost shut" when Baker looked at it, and if Oswald was no more
than a foot beyond the door at the time (as he would have had to be
for Baker to see him), how, then, could Baker have had any doubt about
whether Oswald had walked through that door? (If someone wants to
propose that Baker was referring to the lunchroom door, though he
clearly wasn't, then his uncertainty becomes even more astounding. How
in the world could Baker have had any doubt that Oswald had just gone
through the lunchroom door to reach the lunchroom?)
Perhaps the most serious problem with Baker's account is that if
Oswald was only a foot past the foyer door when he spotted him, then
Roy Truly, who was running ahead of Baker, surely would have seen
Oswald either coming off the stairs, or walking across the landing
toward the door, or opening the door. The Commission itself admitted
that Oswald must have gone through the foyer door only "a second or
two" before being spotted by Baker:
Since the vestibule [foyer] door is only a few feet from the lunchroom
door, the man [Oswald] must have entered the vestibule door only a
second or two before Baker arrived at the top of the stairwell. Yet he
must have entered the vestibule door before Truly reached the top of
the stairwell [leading to the second-floor landing], since Truly did
not see him. (WCR 151)
But the Commission never explained how Oswald could have done this. If
Oswald had gone through the foyer door before Truly reached the top of
the stairs, he would have been several feet beyond the door by the
time Baker reached the landing, and thus would not have been visible
to Baker through the window. And, if Oswald had entered the door "only
a second or two" before Baker reached the top of the stairwell, then
Truly could not have missed seeing him. Nor did the Commission explain
how Baker could have been the least bit unsure about whether or not
Oswald had gone through the foyer door if Baker spotted Oswald right
next to the door and if the door was in any kind of motion at the
time.
Truly told the WC that he had already started up the stairs to the
third floor when he noticed that Baker was no longer running behind
him. Truly also said there was slightly more distance between him and
Baker on the second floor than there was on the first floor. So, it is
reasonable to assume that Truly gained a view of the second-floor
landing a minimum of 2 seconds before Baker did. Truly's account
suggests that Baker was beginning to tire on his way up the stairs.
(This is understandable, given the fact that Baker had been running
very fast virtually every second after he got off his bike.) Baker
himself said that when he arrived to the landing and began to scan it,
Truly "had already started around the bend to come to the next
elevation going up" (3 H 255). Thus, if Oswald had gone through the
foyer door "a second or two" before Baker spotted him, Truly could not
possibly have missed seeing Oswald coming off the stairs, or
approaching the door, or starting to open the door.
Truly told the Commission that he was already in the process of "going
around" to the third-floor stairs at the time Baker would have seen
the alleged movement in the foyer door's window (3 H 226; cf. 3 H
223-224). Interestingly, Truly testified that he knew nothing about
Baker's having supposedly spotted movement through the door's window
until a few days before he testified (3 H 226). Said Truly, "I never
knew until a day or two ago that he said he saw a movement, saw a man
going away from him" (3 H 226). Does it not seem odd that Baker would
not have mentioned this to Truly when he asked Truly if he knew Oswald
when they were standing there in the lunchroom? Does it not seem
somewhat curious that Baker didn't say anything about this to Truly as
the two of them continued up the stairs and to other parts of the
building? One can't be faulted for wondering why Baker, if he had just
seen Oswald right next to and walking away from the foyer door, didn't
ask Truly, when Truly arrived to the lunchroom, something along the
lines of "Hey, I just saw this guy walking away from that door over
there, so are you sure he's OK?" Nor can one be faulted for wondering
why Baker, as he and Truly continued their search of the building,
didn't say to Truly, "About that guy we just saw downstairs in that
lunchroom, you know I saw him right next to that foyer door, and he
was walking away from it. So are you sure he's legit? You're sure he's
OK?"
At this point it should be noted out that in two of his statements
Baker said Oswald was walking away from him when he spotted him. But,
in another statement, Baker said Oswald was standing in the lunchroom
when he saw him there. Moreover, on November 22, Truly said Baker
didn't see Oswald until Baker "stuck his head into the lunchroom
area." After studying a photograph of the view Baker would have had of
the foyer door just after he reached the second-floor landing, I do
not believe Baker spotted Oswald in the manner he described to the WC.
This photo can be seen on page 286 of Gary Savage's book JFK: First
Day Evidence (photo number 140). It is clear from this picture that in
order for Baker to have "spotted" any kind of "movement" by Oswald
near that door, Oswald would have had to be no more than a foot beyond
the door. But, again, the door would not have had time to close or
nearly close by that time, and Truly could not have missed seeing
Oswald coming off the stairs or crossing the landing as he approached
the door. Another telling photograph is CE 741, which is a picture
taken of the foyer door from inside the lunchroom. This photo likewise
makes it clear that Oswald would have had to be no more than a foot
past the foyer door in order for Baker to have seen any "movement" on
his part through the door's window (see Savage 289, photo number 143).
I believe Baker ran over to the door in order to glance through the
window and then saw Oswald in the lunchroom. Nevertheless, I have
assumed for the sake of argument that Baker spotted Oswald just after
he reached the second-floor landing
CJ
Sean Murphy
> I believe Baker ran over to the door in order to glance through the
> window and then saw Oswald in the lunchroom.
I find Griffith's scenario here very hard to credit.
Why on earth would Baker be interested in checking out what's behind
that door? His goal is to get to the roof as quickly as possible. He
needs a damn good reason to have his progress retarded. This scenario
gives him none. (On his way down from the roof, he will make a point
of taking a look around certain floors on the off-chance of finding
something. But not on the way up.)
His 11/22/63 affidavit, on the other hand, gives a simple,
intelligible scenario: a man "walking away from the stairway". A man
doing this is clearly a man behaving suspiciously. He is doing what
one would expect a fleeing assassin to do. Baker's challenging of this
man thus makes perfect sense.
Seems to me that Baker's WC story, involving an indeterminate movement
glimpsed behind the door followed by a confrontation on the threshold
of the lunchroom, is a hopelessly clumsy attempt to merge two stories:
the affidavit incident (a man 'walking away from the stairway') and a
lunchroom encounter (Oswald in the lunchroom).
curtjester1
In all honesty, Sean, i don't see anything clearcut, and having seen
Oswald is just as unclear as a lot of potential stuff. Even IF Oswald
was just hiding behind the door, it wouldn't mean that he went in that
door. He could have been in that lunchroom by going through the
offices and othe vestibule leading to the lunchroom. Being behind the
door is the only plausible way of a Baker being able to see at a
glance. If he just went over there without seeing, it wouldn't seem
plausible unless Baker knew of something in advance and was in on 'a
search' from the beginning. It really is just one opinion weighed vs.
another. I don't really buy going up to the top either. What is up
'there' as opposed to anywhere else? I think Baker also well could
have put in the seeing the door close scenario as it would make it
appear that it was plausible to check the window on the door. He had
a lot of time to contemplate what was riding on him fingering Oswald
by the time he testified. I don't see this lunchroom thing happening
way later. Too many saw Oswald leave at a time that would preclude
anything later.
Just as a sidenote. The person walking through Mrs. Hughes office
doesn't seem to fit the person who was confronted by Baker and Truly.
She saw that person with a white tee shirt, and Baker saw the brown
long sleeved shirt.
I also believe that Oswald would have had to be in on keeping out of
the way, if the controllers of the assassination were to have anyway
of pinning a patsy portrayal on him.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 5, 6:49 pm, curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I believe Baker ran over to the door in order to glance through the
>> window and then saw Oswald in the lunchroom.
>
> I find Griffith's scenario here very hard to credit.
> Why on earth would Baker be interested in checking out what's behind
> that door? His goal is to get to the roof as quickly as possible. He
> needs a damn good reason to have his progress retarded. This scenario
> gives him none. (On his way down from the roof, he will make a point
> of taking a look around certain floors on the off-chance of finding
> something. But not on the way up.)
> His 11/22/63 affidavit, on the other hand, gives a simple,
> intelligible scenario: a man "walking away from the stairway". A man
> doing this is clearly a man behaving suspiciously. He is doing what
Wow, walking away from the stairway is behaving suspiciously??
How about the Coke in his hand? That's highly suspicious when everyone
knew that Dr. Pepper was his favorite drink.
> one would expect a fleeing assassin to do. Baker's challenging of this
> man thus makes perfect sense.
Walking across the floor is fleeing? Baker must have passed several
people on the way who were simply walking across the room. Were they all
suspects? Baker was looking for a stranger. That's why he let Oswald go.
Sean Murphy
> In all honesty, Sean, i don't see anything clearcut, and having seen
> Oswald is just as unclear as a lot of potential stuff. Even IF Oswald
> was just hiding behind the door, it wouldn't mean that he went in that
> door. He could have been in that lunchroom by going through the
> offices and othe vestibule leading to the lunchroom. Being behind the
> door is the only plausible way of a Baker being able to see at a
> glance.
Agreed.
And it's just possible that Robert Groden's claimed interview with a
witness - Geneva Hine, presumably - who said she was with Oswald in the
second-floor office area at the time of the assassination, giving him
change for the coke machine, may bear out Griffith's case that Oswald was
coming from there when he was spotted by Baker. However - and sorry to
labour the point - Baker's 11/22 affidavit speaks of a man "walking away
from the stairway". That phrase is extremely odd if Baker is recalling a
man glimpsed behind a closed door. How on earth is such a man "walking
away from the stairway"? A look at photos of the area makes the problem
painfully clear. And that's without even considering the fact that Baker's
first-day statement puts the incident several floors up rather than just
one. (According to Marvin Johnson, Baker was talking that afternoon of the
fourth floor.) And talks of a man wearing a "light brown jacket". Just how
many elementary 'mistakes' are we prepared to grant a trained officer?
Did Baker encounter someone other than Oswald on a floor other than the
second? I believe so. And did he really encounter Oswald in the lunchroom?
I doubt it.
***
> If he just went over there without seeing, it wouldn't seem
> plausible unless Baker knew of something in advance and was in on 'a
> search' from the beginning.
Yes, and that notion is a complete non-starter in my opinion. Apart from
anything else, an 'in-on-it' Baker would hardly have let Oswald go. Nor
would he have subsequently described Oswald as calm and unruffled.
***
>It really is just one opinion weighed vs.
> another. I don't really buy going up to the top either. What is up
> 'there' as opposed to anywhere else?
Well, Baker thought the shots may have come from the top of the
building. It makes sense that he should race up there.
***
> I think Baker also well could
> have put in the seeing the door close scenario as it would make it
> appear that it was plausible to check the window on the door.
Again, I think the original - and fake - story was that Baker had popped
his head into the lunchroom and happened to see Oswald in there. The
complete discrepancy between this and Baker's affidavit story of seeing a
man walking away from the stairway forced the subsequent introduction of
an element of *movement* into the thing: Oswald walking 'away' into the
lunchroom. But the stories simply don't harmonise. That damn door. Those
damn angles.
***
> He had
> a lot of time to contemplate what was riding on him fingering Oswald
> by the time he testified. I don't see this lunchroom thing happening
> way later. Too many saw Oswald leave at a time that would preclude
> anything later.
It seems Oswald was actually challenged by a cop at the front door - an
incident witnessed by Billy Lovelady. Thanks to Ed Hicks, Harry Holmes and
Harold Norman, the incident wasn't completely scrubbed from the official
record.
***
> Just as a sidenote. The person walking through Mrs. Hughes office
> doesn't seem to fit the person who was confronted by Baker and Truly.
> She saw that person with a white tee shirt, and Baker saw the brown
> long sleeved shirt.
You mean Mrs Reid?
Again Baker's 11/22 affidavit speaks of a "light brown jacket", not a
shirt.
***
> I also believe that Oswald would have had to be in on keeping out of
> the way, if the controllers of the assassination were to have anyway
> of pinning a patsy portrayal on him.
Yes, they would have had to contrive a means of keeping him indoors. A
phone-call has been suggested. (There was a phone for employees' use near
the domino room at the rear of the first floor - which is where Oswald
reportedly told Fritz he was at the time of the shooting and which is
where Baker recalled seeing two *white* men as he and Truly tried to call
the elevator. Who were these white men? The best answer LNers can come up
with is: two black men!)
What the conspirators didn't predict was that a cop would rush into the
building with the heroic speed of Marion Baker. His actions were a
game-changer: they give us the key to Oswald's innocence, and they
establish the presence of a suspicious and unaccounted-for white male,
other than Oswald, coming down the rear stairs just after the shooting.
Sean
Sean Murphy
> On 2/6/2011 10:55 AM, Sean Murphy wrote:
>
> > His 11/22/63 affidavit, on the other hand, gives a simple,
> > intelligible scenario: a man "walking away from the stairway". A man
> > doing this is clearly a man behaving suspiciously. He is doing what
>
> Wow, walking away from the stairway is behaving suspiciously??
On the third or fourth floor? Of course it is.
> How about the Coke in his hand? That's highly suspicious when everyone
> knew that Dr. Pepper was his favorite drink.
Baker's 11/22 affidavit speaks of a man with a Coke in his hand? Gosh,
thanks for the new information.
> > one would expect a fleeing assassin to do. Baker's challenging of this
> > man thus makes perfect sense.
>
> Walking across the floor is fleeing?
Walking away from the rear stairway on the third or fourth floor just
after a shooting that has taken place on a higher floor... no, nothing
suspicious about that at all. Whatever the man is doing, he certainly
isn't trying to make his descent from the scene of the crime.
>Baker must have passed several
> people on the way who were simply walking across the room.
Really? Who?
> Were they all
> suspects? Baker was looking for a stranger. That's why he let Oswald go.
You still haven't explained why Baker challenged Oswald in the first
place. Is this because you can't?
bigdog
Baker spotted Oswald just as Oswald had entered the lunchroom. Had Oswald
been in the lunchroom for any length of time, the inner door would have
closed behind him and Baker couldn't have seen him. Seeing him through the
door is perfectly consistent with a man walking away from the stairway.
There is no inconsistency between the affadavit and the testimony.
curtjester1
> On Feb 6, 8:10 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In all honesty, Sean, i don't see anything clearcut, and having seen
> > Oswald is just as unclear as a lot of potential stuff. Even IF Oswald
> > was just hiding behind the door, it wouldn't mean that he went in that
> > door. He could have been in that lunchroom by going through the
> > offices and othe vestibule leading to the lunchroom. Being behind the
> > door is the only plausible way of a Baker being able to see at a
> > glance.
>
> Agreed.
>
> And it's just possible that Robert Groden's claimed interview with a
> witness - Geneva Hine, presumably - who said she was with Oswald in the
> second-floor office area at the time of the assassination, giving him
> change for the coke machine, may bear out Griffith's case that Oswald was
> coming from there when he was spotted by Baker. However - and sorry to
> labour the point - Baker's 11/22 affidavit speaks of a man "walking away
> from the stairway". That phrase is extremely odd if Baker is recalling a
> man glimpsed behind a closed door. How on earth is such a man "walking
> away from the stairway"? A look at photos of the area makes the problem
> painfully clear. And that's without even considering the fact that Baker's
> first-day statement puts the incident several floors up rather than just
> one. (According to Marvin Johnson, Baker was talking that afternoon of the
> fourth floor.) And talks of a man wearing a "light brown jacket". Just how
> many elementary 'mistakes' are we prepared to grant a trained officer?
>
The walking away is going to be an enigma always. I don't see Oswald
going up there to the 4th unless by instruction. There is no place for a
worker to go that would be a destination that would fit. You just don't
roam offices, and the TSBD had many offices that weren't related to
Oswald's type of work.
> Did Baker encounter someone other than Oswald on a floor other than the
> second? I believe so. And did he really encounter Oswald in the lunchroom?
> I doubt it.
>
> ***
That's a lot of supposing. I just don't think a 4th is plausible at all.
As far as encountering Oswald, I do believe it could have been his
doppleganger, look-alike, which has a lot of support of many witnesses and
incidents prior to and even on the day of the assassination.
>
> > If he just went over there without seeing, it wouldn't seem
> > plausible unless Baker knew of something in advance and was in on 'a
> > search' from the beginning.
>
> Yes, and that notion is a complete non-starter in my opinion. Apart from
> anything else, an 'in-on-it' Baker would hardly have let Oswald go. Nor
> would he have subsequently described Oswald as calm and unruffled.
>
Unless he was instructed to let him go. If Oswald was detained there, he
could have provided an alibi for his whereabout's most likely. I think he
knew of the assassination and was told to lay low, and to go to a theater
where he would be picked up. Or he could have just been an alibi for the
perpetrators and in on it enough to take the heat from what they were
doing for the day.....
> ***
>
> >It really is just one opinion weighed vs.
> > another. I don't really buy going up to the top either. What is up
> > 'there' as opposed to anywhere else?
>
> Well, Baker thought the shots may have come from the top of the
> building. It makes sense that he should race up there.
>
> ***
>
What did his testimony say? I don't know. Did he have a destination?
> > I think Baker also well could
> > have put in the seeing the door close scenario as it would make it
> > appear that it was plausible to check the window on the door.
>
> Again, I think the original - and fake - story was that Baker had popped
> his head into the lunchroom and happened to see Oswald in there. The
> complete discrepancy between this and Baker's affidavit story of seeing a
> man walking away from the stairway forced the subsequent introduction of
> an element of *movement* into the thing: Oswald walking 'away' into the
> lunchroom. But the stories simply don't harmonise. That damn door. Those
> damn angles.
>
> ***
>
They sure don't.
> > He had
> > a lot of time to contemplate what was riding on him fingering Oswald
> > by the time he testified. I don't see this lunchroom thing happening
> > way later. Too many saw Oswald leave at a time that would preclude
> > anything later.
>
> It seems Oswald was actually challenged by a cop at the front door - an
> incident witnessed by Billy Lovelady. Thanks to Ed Hicks, Harry Holmes and
> Harold Norman, the incident wasn't completely scrubbed from the official
> record.
>
> ***
>
It would be of utmost interest to get any detail on that.
> > Just as a sidenote. The person walking through Mrs. Hughes office
> > doesn't seem to fit the person who was confronted by Baker and Truly.
> > She saw that person with a white tee shirt, and Baker saw the brown
> > long sleeved shirt.
>
> You mean Mrs Reid?
> Again Baker's 11/22 affidavit speaks of a "light brown jacket", not a
> shirt.
>
> ***
>
Ooops, yes, Mrs. Reid.
She was emphatic about the wear too. That's a huge discrepancy. On the
other hand, there were Oswald sightings getting into a Rambler that
contradicted the bus/taxi scenario, and I believe white was the color of
choice....as was the sixth floor window sighters.
Mrs. Reid:
Mr. BELIN. Did you know his name on the day you saw him?
Mrs. REID. No; I did not. When I saw his picture I still didn't know
his name until they told us who it was.
Mr. BELIN. How did you know the person you saw was Lee Harvey Oswald
on the second floor?
Mrs. REID. Because it looked just like him.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the picture with the name Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mrs. REID. Oh, yes.
Mr. BELIN. But you had seen him in the building?
Mrs. REID. Other than that day, sure.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what clothes he had on when you saw him?
Mrs. REID. What he was wearing, he had on a white T-shirt and some
kind of wash trousers. What color I couldn't tell you.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission
Exhibit, first 157 and then 158, and I will ask you if either or both
look like they might have been the trousers that you saw him wear or
can you tell?
Mrs. REID. I just couldn't be positive about that. I would rather not
say, because I just cannot.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over
his T-shirt?
Mrs. REID. He did not. He did not have any jacket on.
Mr. BELIN. Have you ever seen anyone working at the book depository
wearing any kind of a shirt or jacket similar to Commission Exhibit
150 or do you know?
Mrs. REID. No; I do not. I have never, so far as I know ever seen that
shirt. I have been asked about that shirt before, I have seen it once
before but not since all this happened.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Mrs. Reid, if a person were in the lunchroom
with a coke on the second floor, and then wanted to get to the front
stairway or front elevator, would there be only one route to get there
or would there be more than one?
Mrs. REID. Yes; he could either go around this hallway, or back here
in this hallway or he could have gotten through our office or--
************************************************************************
Again, this places 'an Oswald' on the second floor. I don't know what
Mrs. Reid might have said about the lunchroom incident with Truly/
Baker/Oswald, either.
> > I also believe that Oswald would have had to be in on keeping out of
> > the way, if the controllers of the assassination were to have anyway
> > of pinning a patsy portrayal on him.
>
> Yes, they would have had to contrive a means of keeping him indoors. A
> phone-call has been suggested. (There was a phone for employees' use near
> the domino room at the rear of the first floor - which is where Oswald
> reportedly told Fritz he was at the time of the shooting and which is
> where Baker recalled seeing two *white* men as he and Truly tried to call
> the elevator. Who were these white men? The best answer LNers can come up
> with is: two black men!)
>
Enquiring minds wanna know, for sure.
> What the conspirators didn't predict was that a cop would rush into the
> building with the heroic speed of Marion Baker. His actions were a
> game-changer: they give us the key to Oswald's innocence, and they
> establish the presence of a suspicious and unaccounted-for white male,
> other than Oswald, coming down the rear stairs just after the shooting.
>
Baker is an enigma, as he certainly waffled too much to be even close
to credible.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Unless that type of door kept swinging back and forth several times like
a pendulum as some doors do. I have never tested that particular door,
but maybe someone has.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 7, 4:50 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/6/2011 10:55 AM, Sean Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> His 11/22/63 affidavit, on the other hand, gives a simple,
>>> intelligible scenario: a man "walking away from the stairway". A man
>>> doing this is clearly a man behaving suspiciously. He is doing what
>>
>> Wow, walking away from the stairway is behaving suspiciously??
>
> On the third or fourth floor? Of course it is.
>
>> How about the Coke in his hand? That's highly suspicious when everyone
>> knew that Dr. Pepper was his favorite drink.
>
> Baker's 11/22 affidavit speaks of a man with a Coke in his hand? Gosh,
> thanks for the new information.
>
>>> one would expect a fleeing assassin to do. Baker's challenging of this
>>> man thus makes perfect sense.
>>
>> Walking across the floor is fleeing?
>
> Walking away from the rear stairway on the third or fourth floor just
> after a shooting that has taken place on a higher floor... no, nothing
> suspicious about that at all. Whatever the man is doing, he certainly
> isn't trying to make his descent from the scene of the crime.
>
Well then, by your criteria the three black employees are suspicious by
being on the fifth floor, or the two women walking down the stairway.
How did they know those women weren't actually walking down from the
sixth floor after shooting the President?
>> Baker must have passed several
>> people on the way who were simply walking across the room.
>
> Really? Who?
>
I said MUST HAVE.
>> Were they all
>> suspects? Baker was looking for a stranger. That's why he let Oswald go.
>
> You still haven't explained why Baker challenged Oswald in the first
> place. Is this because you can't?
>
>
Because he didn't know who the guy was. The guy could have been a
stranger in the building and therefore a suspect.
Anthony Marsh
What about Truly? Why didn't Baker suspect Truly of being the shooter?
> ***
>
>> If he just went over there without seeing, it wouldn't seem
>> plausible unless Baker knew of something in advance and was in on 'a
>> search' from the beginning.
>
> Yes, and that notion is a complete non-starter in my opinion. Apart from
> anything else, an 'in-on-it' Baker would hardly have let Oswald go. Nor
> would he have subsequently described Oswald as calm and unruffled.
>
Someone, can't remember who, had a theory that Baker was supposed to
shoot Oswald, but Truly interrupted his task.
> ***
>
>> It really is just one opinion weighed vs.
>> another. I don't really buy going up to the top either. What is up
>> 'there' as opposed to anywhere else?
>
> Well, Baker thought the shots may have come from the top of the
> building. It makes sense that he should race up there.
>
> ***
>
>> I think Baker also well could
>> have put in the seeing the door close scenario as it would make it
>> appear that it was plausible to check the window on the door.
>
> Again, I think the original - and fake - story was that Baker had popped
> his head into the lunchroom and happened to see Oswald in there. The
> complete discrepancy between this and Baker's affidavit story of seeing a
> man walking away from the stairway forced the subsequent introduction of
> an element of *movement* into the thing: Oswald walking 'away' into the
> lunchroom. But the stories simply don't harmonise. That damn door. Those
> damn angles.
>
Why would Baker decide to go into the lunchroom when his goal was to get
to the top floor?
> ***
>
>> He had
>> a lot of time to contemplate what was riding on him fingering Oswald
>> by the time he testified. I don't see this lunchroom thing happening
>> way later. Too many saw Oswald leave at a time that would preclude
>> anything later.
>
> It seems Oswald was actually challenged by a cop at the front door - an
> incident witnessed by Billy Lovelady. Thanks to Ed Hicks, Harry Holmes and
> Harold Norman, the incident wasn't completely scrubbed from the official
> record.
>
And he was coached on what to say. Which is why Loftus reminds us to
look at the earliest statements.
The WC defenders would ignore a witness who said immediately after the
shooting that "the shots came from the grassy knoll" and instead be
impressed by a witness who said 40 years later that the "shots came from
the TSBD because the WC proved that."
bigdog
>
>
> > > If he just went over there without seeing, it wouldn't seem
> > > plausible unless Baker knew of something in advance and was in on 'a
> > > search' from the beginning.
>
> > Yes, and that notion is a complete non-starter in my opinion. Apart from
> > anything else, an 'in-on-it' Baker would hardly have let Oswald go. Nor
> > would he have subsequently described Oswald as calm and unruffled.
>
> Unless he was instructed to let him go. If Oswald was detained there, he
> could have provided an alibi for his whereabout's most likely. I think he
> knew of the assassination and was told to lay low, and to go to a theater
> where he would be picked up. Or he could have just been an alibi for the
> perpetrators and in on it enough to take the heat from what they were
> doing for the day.....
>
Oswald as he tried to duck out of sight into the lunchroom?
> > ***
>
> > >It really is just one opinion weighed vs.
> > > another. I don't really buy going up to the top either. What is up
> > > 'there' as opposed to anywhere else?
>
> > Well, Baker thought the shots may have come from the top of the
> > building. It makes sense that he should race up there.
>
> > ***
>
> What did his testimony say? I don't know. Did he have a destination?
>
fly off the roof. It was nothing more than an educated guess but it
was all he had to go on.
> > > I think Baker also well could
> > > have put in the seeing the door close scenario as it would make it
> > > appear that it was plausible to check the window on the door.
>
> > Again, I think the original - and fake - story was that Baker had popped
> > his head into the lunchroom and happened to see Oswald in there. The
> > complete discrepancy between this and Baker's affidavit story of seeing a
> > man walking away from the stairway forced the subsequent introduction of
> > an element of *movement* into the thing: Oswald walking 'away' into the
> > lunchroom. But the stories simply don't harmonise. That damn door. Those
> > damn angles.
>
> > ***
>
> They sure don't.
>
There is nothing Baker wrote in his affadavit or said in his WC
testimony that is inconsistent with him spotting Oswald as he ducked
into the lunchroom.
> > > He had
> > > a lot of time to contemplate what was riding on him fingering Oswald
> > > by the time he testified. I don't see this lunchroom thing happening
> > > way later. Too many saw Oswald leave at a time that would preclude
> > > anything later.
>
> > It seems Oswald was actually challenged by a cop at the front door - an
> > incident witnessed by Billy Lovelady. Thanks to Ed Hicks, Harry Holmes and
> > Harold Norman, the incident wasn't completely scrubbed from the official
> > record.
>
> > ***
>
> It would be of utmost interest to get any detail on that.
>
Until then, let's just assume it means something sinister.
Truly places LEE HARVEY Oswald on the second floor.
> > > I also believe that Oswald would have had to be in on keeping out of
> > > the way, if the controllers of the assassination were to have anyway
> > > of pinning a patsy portrayal on him.
>
> > Yes, they would have had to contrive a means of keeping him indoors. A
> > phone-call has been suggested. (There was a phone for employees' use near
> > the domino room at the rear of the first floor - which is where Oswald
> > reportedly told Fritz he was at the time of the shooting and which is
> > where Baker recalled seeing two *white* men as he and Truly tried to call
> > the elevator. Who were these white men? The best answer LNers can come up
> > with is: two black men!)
>
> Enquiring minds wanna know, for sure.
>
Why?
> > What the conspirators didn't predict was that a cop would rush into the
> > building with the heroic speed of Marion Baker.
Right. Who would think that just because you fire a high powered rifle
at the POTUS this would draw cops.
> > His actions were a
> > game-changer: they give us the key to Oswald's innocence,
<snicker>
> > and they
> > establish the presence of a suspicious and unaccounted-for white male,
> > other than Oswald, coming down the rear stairs just after the shooting.
>
Really? Who was unaccounted for?
> Baker is an enigma, as he certainly waffled too much to be even close
> to credible.
>
You mean he told a story consistent with Oswald shooting the POTUS and
then coming down the stairs.
Sean Murphy
> Baker spotted Oswald just as Oswald had entered the lunchroom.
Can you get nothing right? If you're going to defend Baker's WC story,
at least familiarise yourself with its details:
1. Baker sees Oswald before Oswald has entered the lunchroom.
2. Baker runs over and opens the door, by which time Oswald has
entered the lunchroom.
3. Baker calls Oswald to the threshold of the lunchroom.
> Had Oswald
> been in the lunchroom for any length of time, the inner door would have
> closed behind him and Baker couldn't have seen him.
(Eyes to heaven.) Even with an open door, the lunchroom could not be
seen from Baker's vantage point just off the stairs. The line from the
stairway to the lunchroom is a sharp zigzag.
> door is perfectly consistent with a man walking away from the stairway.
> There is no inconsistency between the affadavit and the testimony.
Given that you still don't understand the testimony, perhaps you're
not ready just yet to understand the significance of the affidavit.
Sean Murphy
> The walking away is going to be an enigma always. I don't see Oswald
> going up there to the 4th unless by instruction. There is no place for a
> worker to go that would be a destination that would fit. You just don't
> roam offices, and the TSBD had many offices that weren't related to
> Oswald's type of work.
I'm not suggesting the man on the 4th floor was Oswald. Unless he was Jack
Dougherty, which seems most unlikely, he was a non-employee who happened
to resemble Oswald enough to confuse Baker later. Nor am I suggesting that
this man was roaming around on the 4th floor. The point is that Baker
caught him walking away from the stairway. This suggests - and will have
suggested to Baker - that he had been coming down the stairs only to have
his descent interrupted by the ascending cop.
Sean Murphy
> Unless that type of door kept swinging back and forth several times like
> a pendulum as some doors do. I have never tested that particular door,
> but maybe someone has.
No, the SS reconstruction film shows that it wasn't a swinging door.
It opened out onto the landing and had an automatic closing mechanism.
Sean Murphy
> Well then, by your criteria the three black employees are suspicious by
> being on the fifth floor,
By my criteria? Did I say the three black employees were caught
walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor just after
the shooting?
> or the two women walking down the stairway.
> How did they know those women weren't actually walking down from the
> sixth floor after shooting the President?
Baker didn't meet these women, so what's your point?
> >> Baker must have passed several
> >> people on the way who were simply walking across the room.
>
> > Really? Who?
>
> I said MUST HAVE.
I say: must not have. Because all employees are accounted for, and not
a single one is "simply walking across the room" by the rear stairs on
any floor.
> > You still haven't explained why Baker challenged Oswald in the first
> > place. Is this because you can't?
>
> Because he didn't know who the guy was. The guy could have been a
> stranger in the building and therefore a suspect.
So why didn't he challenge Troy West on the first floor? Or Eddie
Piper?
bigdog
> On Feb 7, 7:53 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Baker spotted Oswald just as Oswald had entered the lunchroom.
>
> Can you get nothing right? If you're going to defend Baker's WC story,
> at least familiarise yourself with its details:
> 1. Baker sees Oswald before Oswald has entered the lunchroom.
> 2. Baker runs over and opens the door, by which time Oswald has
> entered the lunchroom.
> 3. Baker calls Oswald to the threshold of the lunchroom.
>
> > Had Oswald
> > been in the lunchroom for any length of time, the inner door would have
> > closed behind him and Baker couldn't have seen him.
>
> (Eyes to heaven.) Even with an open door, the lunchroom could not be
> seen from Baker's vantage point just off the stairs. The line from the
> stairway to the lunchroom is a sharp zigzag.
>
If Oswald had just entered the vestibule as Baker arrived on the landing,
he could have seen Oswald. If Oswald had just passed through the inner
door and it had not closed behind him, Baker could have seen him. In
either case Oswald would have been walking away from Baker. All Baker
would have needed was glimpse of Oswald to raise his curiousity about him.
> > door is perfectly consistent with a man walking away from the stairway.
> > There is no inconsistency between the affadavit and the testimony.
>
> Given that you still don't understand the testimony, perhaps you're
> not ready just yet to understand the significance of the affidavit.
I understand the testimony and the affidavit and I understand there is no
conflict between the two. In typical CT fashion, you are trying to create
an issue out of thin air.
curtjester1
Not when they looked very much alike, and it was able to fool so many.
You think Truly would have interfaced with Oswald much? Not when he was a
mere building manager and wouldn't have had much to do with him on a daily
basis.
>
>
>
> > > > If he just went over there without seeing, it wouldn't seem
> > > > plausible unless Baker knew of something in advance and was in on 'a
> > > > search' from the beginning.
>
> > > Yes, and that notion is a complete non-starter in my opinion. Apart from
> > > anything else, an 'in-on-it' Baker would hardly have let Oswald go. Nor
> > > would he have subsequently described Oswald as calm and unruffled.
>
> > Unless he was instructed to let him go. If Oswald was detained there, he
> > could have provided an alibi for his whereabout's most likely. I think he
> > knew of the assassination and was told to lay low, and to go to a theater
> > where he would be picked up. Or he could have just been an alibi for the
> > perpetrators and in on it enough to take the heat from what they were
> > doing for the day.....
>
> You really think that is more plausible than Baker just spotting
> Oswald as he tried to duck out of sight into the lunchroom?> > ***
>
There's nothing plausible about Baker sighting an Oswald, as I see you
haven't read the thread, and are just bouncing in as usual and want to get
a blather in. Baker really has nothing to do with Oswalds actions after
the meeting or leaving the TSBD....
> > > >It really is just one opinion weighed vs.
> > > > another. I don't really buy going up to the top either. What is up
> > > > 'there' as opposed to anywhere else?
>
> > > Well, Baker thought the shots may have come from the top of the
> > > building. It makes sense that he should race up there.
>
> > > ***
>
> > What did his testimony say? I don't know. Did he have a destination?
>
> Baker thought the shots came from the roof because he saw the pigeons
> fly off the roof. It was nothing more than an educated guess but it
> was all he had to go on.
>
>
Well it isn't much to me to go to a certain spot. Wouldn't pigeons
fly at the sound of any gunshot in Dealey?
>
>
>
> > > > I think Baker also well could
> > > > have put in the seeing the door close scenario as it would make it
> > > > appear that it was plausible to check the window on the door.
>
> > > Again, I think the original - and fake - story was that Baker had popped
> > > his head into the lunchroom and happened to see Oswald in there. The
> > > complete discrepancy between this and Baker's affidavit story of seeing a
> > > man walking away from the stairway forced the subsequent introduction of
> > > an element of *movement* into the thing: Oswald walking 'away' into the
> > > lunchroom. But the stories simply don't harmonise. That damn door. Those
> > > damn angles.
>
> > > ***
>
> > They sure don't.
>
> There is nothing Baker wrote in his affadavit or said in his WC
> testimony that is inconsistent with him spotting Oswald as he ducked
> into the lunchroom.
>
He couldn't get the coke thing right, and having a clothing description
that matched many of Oswald's shirt descriptions, doesn't bode well for
the description that Mrs. Reid gave which was within a few seconds of that
so-called meeting. His door story doesn't match with the outlay of the
building. The only way he could have spotted anyone is if the suspect
were glued to the window that he would have supposedly went through, or
came to (from the other vesibule), or from the lunchroom itself.
> > > > He had
> > > > a lot of time to contemplate what was riding on him fingering Oswald
> > > > by the time he testified. I don't see this lunchroom thing happening
> > > > way later. Too many saw Oswald leave at a time that would preclude
> > > > anything later.
>
> > > It seems Oswald was actually challenged by a cop at the front door - an
> > > incident witnessed by Billy Lovelady. Thanks to Ed Hicks, Harry Holmes and
> > > Harold Norman, the incident wasn't completely scrubbed from the official
> > > record.
>
> > > ***
>
> > It would be of utmost interest to get any detail on that.
>
> Until then, let's just assume it means something sinister.
>
>
It wouldn't have to, but it could. Timelines are important, and Lovelady
was a key witness since he was in or around the doorway to the TSBD during
the shooting. (His shots heard were from the GK area BTW)
If it Truly was Oswald! hahahahahhaha
> > > > I also believe that Oswald would have had to be in on keeping out of
> > > > the way, if the controllers of the assassination were to have anyway
> > > > of pinning a patsy portrayal on him.
>
> > > Yes, they would have had to contrive a means of keeping him indoors. A
> > > phone-call has been suggested. (There was a phone for employees' use near
> > > the domino room at the rear of the first floor - which is where Oswald
> > > reportedly told Fritz he was at the time of the shooting and which is
> > > where Baker recalled seeing two *white* men as he and Truly tried to call
> > > the elevator. Who were these white men? The best answer LNers can come up
> > > with is: two black men!)
>
> > Enquiring minds wanna know, for sure.
>
> Why?
>
Because it's been quite alluded to that people were looked at, and Oswald
said he was on the first floor. Who do you have besides Troy West?
> > > What the conspirators didn't predict was that a cop would rush into the
> > > building with the heroic speed of Marion Baker.
>
> Right. Who would think that just because you fire a high powered rifle
> at the POTUS this would draw cops.
>
> > > His actions were a
> > > game-changer: they give us the key to Oswald's innocence,
>
> <snicker>
>
> > > and they
> > > establish the presence of a suspicious and unaccounted-for white male,
> > > other than Oswald, coming down the rear stairs just after the shooting.
>
> Really? Who was unaccounted for?
>
> > Baker is an enigma, as he certainly waffled too much to be even close
> > to credible.
>
> You mean he told a story consistent with Oswald shooting the POTUS and
> then coming down the stairs.- Hide quoted text -
>
Not at all. He didn't see anybody coming down the stairs or hear anyone.
Truly was up the stairs leading before Baker could have seen anything like
someone 'just going in'. Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles don't seem to
match Truly and Baker, and Adams said she was down at the bottom within a
minute.
CJ
curtjester1
First you have to believe Baker actually saw someone walking away. I
don't think Dougherty mentioned fourth floor, and I think he was kinda
old anyway. Many think the fourth floor was confused with the second
because of the two zigzag ascents for each floor of stairs to get to a
'one floor'. Like I say it's an enigma. What almost sounds plausible
and since I do believe in a concerted, intricate, doppleganging for
the patsyism of Oswald (arrested in the Texas Theater), that the
doppleganger would have wanted to get noticed and would hang around
that one and only window to help pin some suspicion on Oswald down on
the first floor. (that's why I am so interested in your police
confrontation of a leaving Oswald). The only thing that holds me back
is Baker's description of his clothing, but again too, Baker is so
inconsistent he could have just gone along with a 'get Oswald at any
cost' attitude by WC interrogation time.
CJ
bigdog
You mean like when he hired him. Or assigned tasks to him. Gee, I'll bet
he didn't see him more than 5 or 6 times a day.
> Not when he was a
> mere building manager and wouldn't have had much to do with him on a daily
> basis.
>
It's not as if Truly had hundreds of people working for him in that
building.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > If he just went over there without seeing, it wouldn't seem
> > > > > plausible unless Baker knew of something in advance and was in on 'a
> > > > > search' from the beginning.
>
> > > > Yes, and that notion is a complete non-starter in my opinion. Apart from
> > > > anything else, an 'in-on-it' Baker would hardly have let Oswald go. Nor
> > > > would he have subsequently described Oswald as calm and unruffled.
>
> > > Unless he was instructed to let him go. If Oswald was detained there, he
> > > could have provided an alibi for his whereabout's most likely. I think he
> > > knew of the assassination and was told to lay low, and to go to a theater
> > > where he would be picked up. Or he could have just been an alibi for the
> > > perpetrators and in on it enough to take the heat from what they were
> > > doing for the day.....
>
> > You really think that is more plausible than Baker just spotting
> > Oswald as he tried to duck out of sight into the lunchroom?> > ***
>
> There's nothing plausible about Baker sighting an Oswald, as I see you
> haven't read the thread, and are just bouncing in as usual and want to get
> a blather in. Baker really has nothing to do with Oswalds actions after
> the meeting or leaving the TSBD....
>
Baker would have turned and briefly faced the lunchroom as he hit the
second floor landing and made the U-turn to the next flight of stairs. He
could only have seen Oswald if he was still in the vestibule or passing
through the inner doorway. Had he not seen Oswald, there would have been
no reason for him to detour off the stairway into the lunchroom.
>
>
>
>
> > > > >It really is just one opinion weighed vs.
> > > > > another. I don't really buy going up to the top either. What is up
> > > > > 'there' as opposed to anywhere else?
>
> > > > Well, Baker thought the shots may have come from the top of the
> > > > building. It makes sense that he should race up there.
>
> > > > ***
>
> > > What did his testimony say? I don't know. Did he have a destination?
>
> > Baker thought the shots came from the roof because he saw the pigeons
> > fly off the roof. It was nothing more than an educated guess but it
> > was all he had to go on.
>
> Well it isn't much to me to go to a certain spot. Wouldn't pigeons
> fly at the sound of any gunshot in Dealey?
>
If Baker wasn't heading toward the roof, why do you suppose he was going
up the stairs. Did he need the excercise?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > I think Baker also well could
> > > > > have put in the seeing the door close scenario as it would make it
> > > > > appear that it was plausible to check the window on the door.
>
> > > > Again, I think the original - and fake - story was that Baker had popped
> > > > his head into the lunchroom and happened to see Oswald in there. The
> > > > complete discrepancy between this and Baker's affidavit story of seeing a
> > > > man walking away from the stairway forced the subsequent introduction of
> > > > an element of *movement* into the thing: Oswald walking 'away' into the
> > > > lunchroom. But the stories simply don't harmonise. That damn door. Those
> > > > damn angles.
>
> > > > ***
>
> > > They sure don't.
>
> > There is nothing Baker wrote in his affadavit or said in his WC
> > testimony that is inconsistent with him spotting Oswald as he ducked
> > into the lunchroom.
>
> He couldn't get the coke thing right, and having a clothing description
> that matched many of Oswald's shirt descriptions, doesn't bode well for
> the description that Mrs. Reid gave which was within a few seconds of that
> so-called meeting.
That is more an impeachment of Mrs. Reid's memory than Baker's. Baker's
description is consistent with what Oswald was wearing when spotted by
Mrs. Bledsoe on the bus and what he was wearing when arrested.
> His door story doesn't match with the outlay of the
> building. The only way he could have spotted anyone is if the suspect
> were glued to the window that he would have supposedly went through, or
> came to (from the other vesibule), or from the lunchroom itself.
>
Did you have trouble with geometry in school?
>
>
>
>
> > > > > He had
> > > > > a lot of time to contemplate what was riding on him fingering Oswald
> > > > > by the time he testified. I don't see this lunchroom thing happening
> > > > > way later. Too many saw Oswald leave at a time that would preclude
> > > > > anything later.
>
> > > > It seems Oswald was actually challenged by a cop at the front door - an
> > > > incident witnessed by Billy Lovelady. Thanks to Ed Hicks, Harry Holmes and
> > > > Harold Norman, the incident wasn't completely scrubbed from the official
> > > > record.
>
> > > > ***
>
> > > It would be of utmost interest to get any detail on that.
>
> > Until then, let's just assume it means something sinister.
>
> It wouldn't have to, but it could.
That's all a CT needs.
Sean Murphy
> If Oswald had just entered the vestibule as Baker arrived on the landing,
> he could have seen Oswald.
So... you're quietly dropping your line that 'Baker spotted Oswald
just as Oswald had entered the lunchroom'. Clap clap.
> If Oswald had just passed through the inner
> door and it had not closed behind him, Baker could have seen him.
Don't tell me you're unaware of the fact that this door had a window.
> I understand the testimony
You don't. Your cluelessness on it is frankly embarrassing.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, maybe some day when they release ALL the photos we will have one
showing the exact moment that they flew off the roof.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 7, 10:18 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Well then, by your criteria the three black employees are suspicious by
>> being on the fifth floor,
>
> By my criteria? Did I say the three black employees were caught
> walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor just after
> the shooting?
>
No, I didn't say anything about you saying anything about the three
black employees. My point is that is where your logic, or lack thereof,
would lead. Faulty reasoning.
>> or the two women walking down the stairway.
>> How did they know those women weren't actually walking down from the
>> sixth floor after shooting the President?
>
> Baker didn't meet these women, so what's your point?
>
MY point is that you have a habit of twisting even the most mundane and
innocent event into something sinister only when you want to frame
someone. If a woman is murdered in her own home you will convict her
husband because his fingerprints are found in his own home.
>>>> Baker must have passed several
>>>> people on the way who were simply walking across the room.
>>
>>> Really? Who?
>>
>> I said MUST HAVE.
>
> I say: must not have. Because all employees are accounted for, and not
> a single one is "simply walking across the room" by the rear stairs on
> any floor.
>
All employees are not accounted for.
And I did not specify near the rear stairs. Oswald was not seen near the
rear stairs.
>
>>> You still haven't explained why Baker challenged Oswald in the first
>>> place. Is this because you can't?
>>
>> Because he didn't know who the guy was. The guy could have been a
>> stranger in the building and therefore a suspect.
>
> So why didn't he challenge Troy West on the first floor? Or Eddie
> Piper?
>
Because he was looking for a sniper on the top floor.
>
Anthony Marsh
I have never seen that reconstruction film, but I still question if the
vestibule door closes from one side or swings open to either side.
Anthony Marsh
Not the roof specifically.
Sean Murphy
> No, I didn't say anything about you saying anything about the three
> black employees. My point is that is where your logic, or lack thereof,
> would lead. Faulty reasoning.
The only thing fallacious in this conversation is your insistence on
comparing apples and oranges - someone caught walking away from the
rear stairway on the third or fourth floor just after the shooting vs
someone not even encountered by Baker.
> MY point is that you have a habit of twisting even the most mundane and
> innocent event into something sinister only when you want to frame
> someone. If a woman is murdered in her own home you will convict her
> husband because his fingerprints are found in his own home.
Oswald was framed. And there can be nothing mundane or innocent about
an unaccounted-for white male caught walking away from the rear
stairway several floors up the building. If it's not Oswald and if
it's not Jack Dougherty, then it must be someone involved in the
assassination. All other white male employees are accounted for.
> All employees are not accounted for.
Really? How about you give us the name of just one white male employee
aged approx. 30 whose movements at this time are unaccounted for. You
can't, can you?
> And I did not specify near the rear stairs. Oswald was not seen near the
> rear stairs.
Right. And Baker's 11/22 affidavit speaks of a man caught "walking
away from the stairway". The affidavit does not describe the alleged
lunchroom incident.
> > So why didn't he challenge Troy West on the first floor? Or Eddie
> > Piper?
>
> Because he was looking for a sniper on the top floor.
OK. So why would he challenge Oswald on the second floor? Makes no
sense.
Challenging a man caught walking away from the rear stairway *several
floors* up the building, by contrast, makes plenty sense.
Sean Murphy
> I have never seen that reconstruction film, but I still question if the
> vestibule door closes from one side or swings open to either side.
Go to 7:25 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlZxu39Ymb0&feature=related
Sean Murphy
> First you have to believe Baker actually saw someone walking away. I
> don't think Dougherty mentioned fourth floor, and I think he was kinda
> old anyway.
Exactly, CJ.
Dougherty was 39 years old. His claimed location at the time of the
shooting was the rear of the fifth floor.
> Many think the fourth floor was confused with the second
> because of the two zigzag ascents for each floor of stairs to get to a
> 'one floor'.
Yes, I've heard that argument and I just don't buy it for a second.
Does anyone really believe Baker exited the TSBD that day thinking the
building had 12 floors??
And let's note an explosive fact here:
Baker told the WC that he stopped and spoke with Inspector Sawyer on
the way down from the roof, i.e. several minutes after the 'employee'
encounter on the way up.
What floor did this happen on? "It seemed to me like it was on either
the third or the fourth floor."
Yes, you read that right: the third or fourth floor. The *exact same
location range* that Baker's affidavit will give for his encounter
with the "man walking away from the stairway".
Think about what this means: when Baker stopped to speak with Sawyer,
he must have *recognised* this floor as *the same one on which he had
stopped the 'employee' minutes before*. Why else would we be seeing a
perfect coincidence between the "third or the fourth floor" of the
Sawyer encounter and the "third or fourth floor" of the 'employee'
encounter?
bigdog
> On Feb 7, 7:53 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Baker spotted Oswald just as Oswald had entered the lunchroom.
>
> Can you get nothing right? If you're going to defend Baker's WC story,
> at least familiarise yourself with its details:
> 1. Baker sees Oswald before Oswald has entered the lunchroom.
> 2. Baker runs over and opens the door, by which time Oswald has
> entered the lunchroom.
> 3. Baker calls Oswald to the threshold of the lunchroom.
>
Baker's WC testimony:
"Mr. BAKER - As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead
of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and
I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I happened to see
him through this window in this door. I don't know how come I saw him, but
I had a glimpse of him coming down there."
THROUGH THE WINDOW. Oswald was in the vestibule or passing from it into
the lunchroom. You can see into the vestibule from top of the stairs.
Oswald had entered the vestibule which is why Truly didn't see him but
Baker, as he stated, was scanning the area as he was following Truly which
is why he saw Oswald when Truly didn't.
> > Had Oswald
> > been in the lunchroom for any length of time, the inner door would have
> > closed behind him and Baker couldn't have seen him.
>
> (Eyes to heaven.) Even with an open door, the lunchroom could not be
> seen from Baker's vantage point just off the stairs. The line from the
> stairway to the lunchroom is a sharp zigzag.
>
You assume Baker turned immediately to follow Truly. Baker stated he was
scanning the rooms as he ascended the stairs, and CE1118 indicates Baker
had moved to the outer door and looked through the window when he spotted
Oswald.
> > door is perfectly consistent with a man walking away from the stairway.
> > There is no inconsistency between the affadavit and the testimony.
>
> Given that you still don't understand the testimony, perhaps you're
> not ready just yet to understand the significance of the affidavit.
I think you need to reread Baker's testimony and CE1118.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>On Jan 27, 7:53 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> Reminds me of the joke, the punch line of which is "my, my aren't we
>> becoming specialized."
>>
>> http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/546583/Altoona-na...
>>
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/index.html
>>
>> .John
>>
>> --
>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>Sandra Styles mentioned to me that this author had contacted her some
>years ago. She even knew the name of the book (which I hadn't heard of
>myself).
>
>Sandra claimed she told Ernest what she was now telling me: that she and
>Victoria Adams did *not* go to the rear stairs anything close to as
>quickly as Victoria had claimed.
>
>I find it a little worrying that there is no mention of Sandra's
>counter-version in any of the promotional material linked here. Why is the
>book not titled 'The GirlS On The Stairs'? It will be interesting to see
>how Ernest deals with Sandra's information.
>
>Sean
Hi Sean,
We've been discussing Adams and Styles for a decade on this newsgroup.
You posted some information you had gleaned from Styles when you spoke
to her in 2008. I am reposting that information:
<quote on>
Peter,
I spoke with Sandra Styles last summer ('08). Here is what she told
me:
<Sandra's comments>
I watched the motorcade from a south-facing window on the fourth floor
of the Texas School Book Depository. With me was one of my Scott
Foresman colleagues, Victoria Adams (who sadly passed away last
year). When the shooting took place, we were not even aware at first
that it was a shooting. It sounded like fireworks. President Kennedy
was obscured from our view at the critical moments by tree foliage.
All I could make out in those moments was the pink of Mrs. Kennedy's
suit.
Contrary to what Vickie told the Warren Commission, she and I did NOT
go to the rear stairs within a minute or so of the shooting. First, we
lingered by the window for quite some time, trying to determine what
was going on outside. Things were very confused. Next, we made an
attempt to take the front-of-building elevator downstairs. For some
reason, however, this elevator - which, unlike the rear elevator, went
only as high as the fourth floor - did not come when we called it. It
was only after trying to call the elevator that we thought of going
towards the rear stairs. And even then we did not proceed very quickly
- we were wearing high-heel shoes!
While we were still in the office area, our view of the rear stairs
was blocked by partitions. Anyone could have come down those stairs
without us knowing about it. All this time we had absolutely no idea
that shots might have come from the Depository building. As a result,
I was paying very little attention to what was going on inside the
building in those first few minutes after the assassination.
If the Warren Report estimated that Vickie and I reached the first
floor via the rear stairs some 4 or 5 minutes after the shooting, then
I'd have to say that sounds a little conservative. If anything, it was
probably longer. I have no clear recollection of seeing Bill Shelley
or Billy Lovelady (both of whom I had a passing acquaintance with)
near the rear of the building when we reached the first floor. I have
a vague recollection of seeing them at some point around the front
entrance. But it's perfectly possible we did see them where Vickie
said we did - near the freight elevator. I really wasn't paying much
attention to people IN the building - I thought all the action was
outside.
It always puzzled me how Vickie seemed to exaggerate the speed with
which we went to the rear stairway. Although I was fond of her, I
guess she was what you might call a 'person of drama'. I found the
version of events she told people somewhat sensationalistic and at
odds with my own memory of those minutes. I simply stated what I
recalled, but I didn't contradict her because I felt I couldn't say
what she saw or didn't see; just because I didn't recall it the same
way did not mean she was in error necessarily.
I am not that noble a person that I would not have contradicted her to
the interviewers had it been necessary.
Why was Vickie the only one called to testify before the Warren
Commission? I don't know. My recollection has always been that I WAS
interrogated by a representative from the Warren Commission very
briefly in our office, but there was no follow-up, whereas she was
questioned more than once. I have wondered whether it might have been
that her testimony required more investigation and mine was more
plausible or I was less positive in my recollections than she. It is
true, however, that I have always shied from the limelight, especially
in this particular time in history!
Vickie was a very friendly and gregarious person, while I am more
reserved and less outgoing. She may have exaggerated some points,
while I was cautious about what I said, not wanting to mislead. In
some instances, her version might be more accurate.
[end of Sandra's comments]
Very informative, Sandy.
See:
Scroll up if this links take you to the middle of the old thread.
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Peter Fokes
>On Jan 30, 7:28 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/28/2011 9:39 PM, WhiskyJoe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Sandra claimed she told Ernest what she was now
>> >> telling me: that she and Victoria Adams did
>> >> *not* go to the rear stairs anything close to
>> >> as quickly as Victoria had claimed.
>>
>> >> I find it a little worrying that there is no
>> >> mention of Sandra's counter-version in any of
>> >> the promotional material linked here. Why is
>> >> the book not titled 'The GirlS On The Stairs'?
>> >> It will be interesting to see how Ernest deals
>> >> with Sandra's information.
>>
>> > I will be even more interested to know, that if
>> > he thinks Adams and Styles were descending the
>> > stairs at the critical time, let's say T+80
>> > seconds, on the stairs around the second floor,
>> > proving Oswald could not have used the stairs,
>> > how Adams and Styles avoided seeing Baker and
>> > Truly and how Baker and Truly avoided seeing
>> > Adams and Styles.
>>
>> Sure. If Adams and Styles were between the second floor and the third
>> floor Baker and Truly would have just missed seeing them when they went
>> into the lunch room.
>
>In which case they would also have missed seeing Oswald
>who would be on the stairs ahead of them when he got to
>the lunchroom just ahead of Baker and Truly and even more
>ahead of Adams and Styles.
>
>Also it would be strange that Adams and Styles sneaked past
>the second floor without seeing Baker or Truly or Baker or Truly
>seeing or hearing them.
>
>***************************************************
>
>Oh, I suppose if one carefully constructs a scenario it would
>be barely possible.
>
>Adams and Styles came down the stairs exactly when Oswald did,
>if he was coming down from the sixth floor. When Adams and Styles,
>reached the third floor, they paused, just long enough for Baker and
>Truly to enter the second floor, then Adams and Styles sneaked
>past the second floor while Baker and Truly confronted Oswald,
>and continued down to the first floor. Then Baker and Truly
>continued upward without anyone seeing Adams and Styles
>and Adams and Styles just missed seeing anyone.
>
>About as contrived a scenario as one can come up with, with split
>second timing.
>
>Essentially Adams and Styles needed to meet Baker and Truly
>on the stairs to provide any kind of an alibi that Oswald was not
>on the stairs.
Ah, ha!
You have just proven Styles and Adams were the culprits!
Sneaking around in high heels. Who would suspect that clickity clop
as the sound of assassins on the move!
How they got a a hold of Oswald's rifle is another matter altogether!
PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
Weird.
One would think that ADAMS and STYLES would have heard the shots even
clearer than Miss HINE if the shots came from INSIDE the building.
HINE was on the 2ND FLOOR: ADAMS and STYLES were on the FOURTH FLOOR.
STYLES says "we were not even aware at first that it was a shooting.
It sounded like fireworks."
MISS HINE testified:
Mr. BALL. Did you know they were shots at the time?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; they sounded almost like cannon shots they were
so terrific.
Mmm.
MISS HINE, a couple of floors lower than the STYLES-ADAMS DUO,
thought the shots "vibrated" the building!
Mr. BALL Could you tell where the shots were coming from?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; they came from inside the building.
Mr. BALL. How do you know that?
Miss HINE. Because the building vibrated from the result of the
explosion coming in.
Strange.
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>And it's just possible that Robert Groden's claimed interview with a
>witness - Geneva Hine, presumably - who said she was with Oswald in the
>second-floor office area at the time of the assassination, giving him
>change for the coke machine, may bear out Griffith's case that Oswald was
>coming from there when he was spotted by Baker.
Not possible.
Geneva Hine did not see Oswald till after the shots. Geneva Hine did
not testify she was WITH Oswald at the TIME of the assassination. She
saw Oswald walk through the office AFTER the assassination.
Here is a repost of something I posted about a decade ago:
Lets call it APPENDIX A to this thread (lol)
While others were streaming out of the TSBD to get a glimpse of the
President, Geneva L. Hine stayed behind in her second floor office.
Geneva recounted to the WC how she thought Oswald was a "queer duck".
He never responded to her friendly hellos.
Oswald had the habit of dropping into Miss Hine's office and asking
for change for the*coke* machine. We should not be surprised then that
Oswald was in the lunchroom with a coke in hand on Nov 22, 1963.
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; I saw him on the second floor about noontime
**almost every day**. He would come in and ask for change, for a dime
or quarter.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him use any part of the second floor?
Miss HINE. No.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him spend the dime to buy anything with
it?
Miss HINE. No, sir; the coke machine isn't in our room and I
wouldn't have seen it.
Mr. BALL. Where is the coke machine?
Miss HINE. Out in the little lunchroom back of our office.
So Miss Hine was most likely the closest person to Oswald when he
sauntered in to the lunchroom to get a pop around 12:30 pm on Nov. 22,
1963. One assumes Oswald did not ask Miss Hine for a dime or quarter
on Nov. 22nd. But Mr. Ball doesn't bother asking.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever speak to Oswald ?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever speak to you?
Miss HINE. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. He never replied to you?
Miss HINE. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Would you say he was unfriendly?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; I would.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him smile or laugh?
Miss HINE. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. What kind of an expression did he have on his face most
of the time?
Miss HINE. I describe it as being stoic.
That's our Oswald. Stoic.
Geneva, a friendly sort, thought Oswald a tad weird. As a matter of
fact, she asked Shelley about Lee one time:
"Miss HINE. One day I said to Mr. Shelley, "Who is that queer duck you
have working down here..."
A queer stoic duck who never remembered to bring change and kept
asking for dimes and quarters on a daily basis. I guess Miss Hine
never gave him change because if she had and Oswald did not say "Thank
You" I'm sure she would have mentioned it! Who did he get his change
from anyway?
Miss Hine and Oswald did have one thing in common. They both stayed in
the TSBD while American royalty was about to glide by in shiny limos.
Our diligent and caring Miss Hine had seen JFK before so she was
willing to stay inside and continue answering the phone while the
other girls went out to catch a peek at the Pres.
Mr. BALL. Did they all go out?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; everyone went out.
Mr. BALL. Was there anyone left in the office part of the building
on that second floor office?
Miss HINE. Only Mr. Williams and myself and he stayed with me
because he was working on his desk until he thought that the
motorcade was about there.
Mr. Otis Williams was still inside.
Of course, Troy West was also in the TSBD and seemed to be totally
unaware the President was even in town! But Troy was on the first
floor doing his usual thing and was surprised when all sorts of folks
in uniform, etc., came in about 12:35 pm. He didn't even hear the
shots! Ms. Hine, up one floor, did hear the shots though: 3 of them
and they sounded "terrific" loud. Otis had slipped away about 5
minutes before the motorcade. Otis did not testify as far as I can
tell.
Ms. Hine switched desks to man the telephone lines.
Mr. BALL. Was there a switchboard?
Miss HINE. No, sir; we have a telephone with three incoming lines,
then we have the warehouse line and we have an intercom system.
Mr. BALL. You don't have a switchboard?
Miss HINE. Not now; we did in the other building.
Mr. BALL. Were you alone then at this time?
Miss HINE. Yes.
Now, it's too bad Geneva stayed behind because...well, everyone in the
entire world had the courtesy to refrain from calling the TSBD at
12:30 pm because the motorcade was coming by!
Mr. BALL. Did you stay at your desk?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir: I was alone until the **lights all went out**
and **the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us
and no one was calling** so I got up and thought I could see it from
the east window in our office.
How thoughtful of folks from New York to LA to stop calling so Miss
Hine could look out the window! Of course, this must be a coincidence
because those potential callers would have no way of knowing exactly
when the President's motocade was going to drive by, right? So she
looked out the window and when asked if she saw the motorcade, she
politely replied:
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; going north on Houston Street. I saw it turn left
and I saw the President's car coming and I saw the President and saw
him waving his hand in greeting up in the air and I saw his wife and I
saw him turn the corner and after he turned the corner I looked and I
saw the next car coming. Just at the instant I saw the **next** car
coming up was when I heard the shots.
Mr. BALL. How many did you hear?
Miss HINE. Three.
Mr. BALL Could you tell where the shots were coming from?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; they came from inside the building.
Mr. BALL. How do you know that?
Miss HINE. Because the building vibrated from the result of the
explosion coming in.
The building vibrated. Troy West on the first floor must have been a
little hard of hearing though. He didn't hear a thing. Just one floor
down.
Mr. BALL. Did you know they were shots at the time?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; they sounded almost like cannon shots they
were so terrific.
Ms. Hine wanted to look out another window to see why the folks were
running towards the underpass. So she tried the door of Lyons and
Carnahan. Darn. It was locked. So she moved on to the Southwestern
Publishing Co., and lo and behold another person had not bothered to
go out and watch the President. Indeed this person had locked the door
and could only be seen through a thin curtain.
Miss HINE. And there was a girl in there talking on the telephone and
I could hear her but she didn't answer the door.
Mr. BALL. Was the door locked?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That was which company?
Miss HINE. Southwestern Publishing Co.
Mr. BALL. Did you call to her?
Miss HINE. I called and called and shook the door and she didn't
answer me because she was talking on the telephone; I could hear her.
They have a little curtain up and I could see her form through the
curtains. I could see her talking and I knew that's what she was doing
and then I turned and went through the back hall and came through the
back door.
Well, she could at least see *her form*. But the door was locked.
Funny. Why would the door be locked with someone inside? Maybe this
"form" was talking to her boyfriend -:).
Well, at least we know the phones were not dead anymore. Someone (some
"form") was talking.
A short while later, the employees filed back in, including Mr. Otis
Williams and Mrs. Reid. Although Miss Hine did NOT see Oswald as he
strode though their office, Mrs. Reid did. And in what must be
considered a change of habit (or maybe he just didn't like Miss Hine)
Oswald "mumbled" something in response to words out of Mrs. Reid's
mouth. But he had been known to talk to someone else in that office
anyway ..perhaps unbeknowst to Geneva:
Mrs. Reid: " another time ....he made a remark to one of the girls
back there and she said, "Well, he sure is calm.", And I said, "What
did he say to you?"
And she says, "I have a baby," and he stopped and I said, "Well,
he is pretty calm just having a new baby," and outside of that I never
remember seeing him other than to come in to get change."
On this occassion, Oswald said something again:
Mrs. REID. Well, I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming
in the back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk
several feet and I told him, I said, "Oh, the President has been shot,
but maybe they didn't hit him."
He **mumbled** something to me, I kept walking, he did, too. I
didn't pay any attention to what he said because I had no thoughts of
anything of him having any connection with it at all because he was
**very calm**. He had gotten a *coke* and was holding it in his hands
and I guess the reason it impressed me seeing him in there I thought
it was a little strange that one of -the warehouse boys would be up in
the office at the time, not that he had done anything wrong. The only
time I had seen him in the office was to come and get change [as
Geneva has already told us] and he already had his coke in his hand so
he didn't come for change and I dismissed him. I didn't think anything
else.
Now this happened just 2 minutes after the shooting. Belin and Reid
had used a "stopwatch" to time the events and such activity left them
"huffing and puffing" because they "ran". Oswald must have come
directly from his meeting with Truly and Baker in the lunchroom.
Mr. BELIN. And when in Dallas, we started the stopwatch from the time
that the last shot was fired, is that correct?
Mrs. REID. That is right.
Mr. BELIN. And then you went through your actions, what you saw,
your conversations that you had, and your actions in going back into
the building and up to the point that you saw Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mrs. REID. That is right.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember how long by the stopwatch it took you?
Mrs. REID. Approximately 2 minutes.
Mr. DULLES. I didn't hear you.
Mrs. REID. Two minutes.
Mr. BELIN. From the time of the last shot the time you and Oswald
crossed?
Mrs. REID. Yes; I believe that is the way we timed it.
Mr. BELIN. When you--you saw me start the stopwatch and you saw me
stop it there, right?
Mrs. REID. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. When you met in the lunchroom--
Mrs. REID. I didn't meet him in the lunchroom.
Mr. BELIN. Pardon me, when you met in the office, which direction
were you going, looking toward Exhibit 497, as you look on it, which
direction were you going toward the left or right?
Mrs. REID. You mean as I came in the office? I turned in and
turned to my left.
Mr. BELIN. That would be heading in a westerly direction is that
right?
Mrs. REID. Yes.
One thing is perplexing to me: was the coke in a can or a bottle? Must
have been a bottle, eh?
Mr. BELIN. Was the coke full or empty?
Mrs. REID. It was full.
Mr. BELIN. It was full.
Obviously she couldn't tell if the coke can was full unless she held
it herself (which of course she didn't do). So perhaps the coke was
in a bottle. Maybe that's why he was moving so slowly through her
office: he didn't want to spill his coke!
Mrs. REID. No; because he was moving at a **very slow pace**, I never
did see him moving fast at any time.
Queer stoic slow moving duck with full coke in hand.
Very calm.
On the threshold of infamy.
Peter Fokes
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>> I also believe that Oswald would have had to be in on keeping out of
>> the way, if the controllers of the assassination were to have anyway
>> of pinning a patsy portrayal on him.
>
>Yes, they would have had to contrive a means of keeping him indoors. A
>phone-call has been suggested.
Ms. Hine wanted to look out another window to see why the folks were
running towards the underpass. So she tried the door of Lyons and
Carnahan. Darn. It was locked. So she moved on to the Southwestern
Publishing Co., and lo and behold another person had not bothered to
go out and watch the President. Indeed this person had locked the door
and could only be seen through a thin curtain.
Miss HINE. And there was a girl in there talking on the telephone and
I could hear her but she didn't answer the door.
Mr. BALL. Was the door locked?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That was which company?
Miss HINE. Southwestern Publishing Co.
Mr. BALL. Did you call to her?
Miss HINE. I called and called and shook the door and she didn't
answer me because she was talking on the telephone; I could hear her.
They have a little curtain up and I could see her form through the
curtains. I could see her talking and I knew that's what she was doing
and then I turned and went through the back hall ....
Now if the "girl" was a "guy" .... lol
Hell, the guy could have got off the phone, unlocked the door, got a
Coke, and then passed through the office, encountering REID.
But it was a "girl" behind the locked door.
Someone must know her name. I don't.
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Peter Fokes
>You mean like when he hired him. Or assigned tasks to him. Gee, I'll bet
>he didn't see him more than 5 or 6 times a day.
lol.
He always held the clipboard in front of his face!
PF
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 9, 2:54 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> No, I didn't say anything about you saying anything about the three
>> black employees. My point is that is where your logic, or lack thereof,
>> would lead. Faulty reasoning.
>
> The only thing fallacious in this conversation is your insistence on
> comparing apples and oranges - someone caught walking away from the
> rear stairway on the third or fourth floor just after the shooting vs
> someone not even encountered by Baker.
>
Baker was talking about two different events, two different people.
BELIN: I see. Did you later recognise anyone
as being the man you encountered?
BAKER: No, sir.
BELIN: We have a statement from Marvin
Johnson, the officer who took your
affidavit. Officer Johnson said in that
statement, and I quote: "Officer Baker
later identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the
man he had seen on the fourth floor of the Texas
School Book Depository." Is that true, Officer
Baker? Did you identify Oswald as the man
you had seen?
BAKER: No, sir. Whilst it is true that
Oswald was present at the time I made
that affidavit with Officer Johnson, I
described the person I had encountered as
I remembered him - that was -- he was a
white man, approximately 30 years old, 5'9",
weighed about 165, had dark hair, and was
wearing a light brown jacket. If that
person had been Oswald, I would have
recognised Oswald and made sure I included
that identification of the suspect in my
affidavit.
>> MY point is that you have a habit of twisting even the most mundane and
>> innocent event into something sinister only when you want to frame
>> someone. If a woman is murdered in her own home you will convict her
>> husband because his fingerprints are found in his own home.
>
> Oswald was framed. And there can be nothing mundane or innocent about
> an unaccounted-for white male caught walking away from the rear
> stairway several floors up the building. If it's not Oswald and if
Why is it not innocent for someone who worked in that building to walk
away from the stairway?
How would Baker know so early that he had to frame Oswald?
> it's not Jack Dougherty, then it must be someone involved in the
> assassination. All other white male employees are accounted for.
>
No, not everyone else was accounted for.
>> All employees are not accounted for.
>
> Really? How about you give us the name of just one white male employee
> aged approx. 30 whose movements at this time are unaccounted for. You
> can't, can you?
>
Why does he have to be white and why 30?
Who said he saw a 30 year old man on the third floor? Are you trying to
claim that there were no men on the third or fourth floor?
>> And I did not specify near the rear stairs. Oswald was not seen near the
>> rear stairs.
>
> Right. And Baker's 11/22 affidavit speaks of a man caught "walking
> away from the stairway". The affidavit does not describe the alleged
> lunchroom incident.
>
Two different incidents.
>>> So why didn't he challenge Troy West on the first floor? Or Eddie
>>> Piper?
>>
>> Because he was looking for a sniper on the top floor.
>
> OK. So why would he challenge Oswald on the second floor? Makes no
> sense.
Because the closing door attracted his attention. For all he knew that
door could lead to an exit and the shooter is getting away.
Squinty Magoo
I like how in the reconstruction there is a reflection in the window
of the vestibule door,
making it IMPOSSIBLE to see inside the vestibule. Strike three, yer
out!
Squinty Magoo
Sean Murphy
> Baker's WC testimony:
>
> "Mr. BAKER - As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead
> of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and
> I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I happened to see
> him through this window in this door. I don't know how come I saw him, but
> I had a glimpse of him coming down there."
>
> THROUGH THE WINDOW. Oswald was in the vestibule or passing from it into
> the lunchroom. You can see into the vestibule from top of the stairs.
> Oswald had entered the vestibule which is why Truly didn't see him but
> Baker, as he stated, was scanning the area as he was following Truly which
> is why he saw Oswald when Truly didn't.
So your claim that 'Baker spotted Oswald just as Oswald had entered
the lunchroom' was nonsense. Thanks for confirming.
>
> > > Had Oswald
> > > been in the lunchroom for any length of time, the inner door would have
> > > closed behind him and Baker couldn't have seen him.
>
> > (Eyes to heaven.) Even with an open door, the lunchroom could not be
> > seen from Baker's vantage point just off the stairs. The line from the
> > stairway to the lunchroom is a sharp zigzag.
>
> You assume Baker turned immediately to follow Truly. Baker stated he was
> scanning the rooms as he ascended the stairs, and CE1118 indicates Baker
> had moved to the outer door and looked through the window when he spotted
> Oswald.
So what has the closing of 'the inner door' - by which I presume you
mean the door of the lunchroom - got to do with anything? It was kept
open.
> > > door is perfectly consistent with a man walking away from the stairway.
> > > There is no inconsistency between the affadavit and the testimony.
>
> > Given that you still don't understand the testimony, perhaps you're
> > not ready just yet to understand the significance of the affidavit.
>
> I think you need to reread Baker's testimony and CE1118.
A bit rich, considering I've just had to spend several posts teaching
you its basics. But hey, you're getting there. KUTGW.
Sean Murphy
> On 7 Feb 2011 12:50:15 -0500, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >And it's just possible that Robert Groden's claimed interview with a
> >witness - Geneva Hine, presumably - who said she was with Oswald in the
> >second-floor office area at the time of the assassination, giving him
> >change for the coke machine, may bear out Griffith's case that Oswald was
> >coming from there when he was spotted by Baker.
>
> Not possible.
>
> Geneva Hine did not see Oswald till after the shots. Geneva Hine did
> not testify she was WITH Oswald at the TIME of the assassination.
It's not possible that Hine's WC testimony did not tell the full
story? Why not? Lots of witnesses felt intimidated. Lots of witnesses
gave coached testimony. If - *if* - Groden got the truth out of her
towards the end of her life, then he is to be congratulated.
Sean Murphy
> On 7 Feb 2011 12:50:15 -0500, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> I also believe that Oswald would have had to be in on keeping out of
> >> the way, if the controllers of the assassination were to have anyway
> >> of pinning a patsy portrayal on him.
>
> >Yes, they would have had to contrive a means of keeping him indoors. A
> >phone-call has been suggested.
>
> Ms. Hine wanted to look out another window to see why the folks were
> running towards the underpass.
Hine's initially told the authorities she was in the office area at
the time of the shooting and only went to look out that west window
after hearing the shots. By the time of her WC testimony, however, she
is at the window at the time of the shooting itself. If anything, the
Groden version of events sounds closer to her initial statements.
curtjester1
Huh? He was a building manager over the whole building. He didn't have
anything to do with the companies in the building specifically. In fact,
he would have been under Byrd, which is probably how an Oswald might have
got hired or been patsyied because of knowing Oswald personally or of him
while Oswald was fifteen years old and forming CAP in New Orleans...
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler3.html
> > Not when he was a
> > mere building manager and wouldn't have had much to do with him on a daily
> > basis.
>
> It's not as if Truly had hundreds of people working for him in that
> building.
>
>
Huh? It's exactly the point that there were lots and lots of people
working with different companies that he wouldn't be particularly close
to. You can look already at the testimonies of people running into
Oswald, and it's very superficial at best.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > If he just went over there without seeing, it wouldn't seem
> > > > > > plausible unless Baker knew of something in advance and was in on 'a
> > > > > > search' from the beginning.
>
> > > > > Yes, and that notion is a complete non-starter in my opinion. Apart from
> > > > > anything else, an 'in-on-it' Baker would hardly have let Oswald go. Nor
> > > > > would he have subsequently described Oswald as calm and unruffled.
>
> > > > Unless he was instructed to let him go. If Oswald was detained there, he
> > > > could have provided an alibi for his whereabout's most likely. I think he
> > > > knew of the assassination and was told to lay low, and to go to a theater
> > > > where he would be picked up. Or he could have just been an alibi for the
> > > > perpetrators and in on it enough to take the heat from what they were
> > > > doing for the day.....
>
> > > You really think that is more plausible than Baker just spotting
> > > Oswald as he tried to duck out of sight into the lunchroom?> > ***
>
> > There's nothing plausible about Baker sighting an Oswald, as I see you
> > haven't read the thread, and are just bouncing in as usual and want to get
> > a blather in. Baker really has nothing to do with Oswalds actions after
> > the meeting or leaving the TSBD....
>
> Baker would have turned and briefly faced the lunchroom as he hit the
> second floor landing and made the U-turn to the next flight of stairs. He
> could only have seen Oswald if he was still in the vestibule or passing
> through the inner doorway. Had he not seen Oswald, there would have been
> no reason for him to detour off the stairway into the lunchroom.
>
>
You aren't following. There is no facing the lunchroom or viewing it.
It's at quite an angle. And there is a vestibule leading into the way
into the lunchroom from the adjacent offices. You don't know about
Baker's reason, as it isn't plausible for him to see anything. Curiosity?
A shadow reflection? A suspect hiding right behind the door? Anything is
possible, except a visual sight of a suspect already close to a lunchroom.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > >It really is just one opinion weighed vs.
> > > > > > another. I don't really buy going up to the top either. What is up
> > > > > > 'there' as opposed to anywhere else?
>
> > > > > Well, Baker thought the shots may have come from the top of the
> > > > > building. It makes sense that he should race up there.
>
> > > > > ***
>
> > > > What did his testimony say? I don't know. Did he have a destination?
>
> > > Baker thought the shots came from the roof because he saw the pigeons
> > > fly off the roof. It was nothing more than an educated guess but it
> > > was all he had to go on.
>
> > Well it isn't much to me to go to a certain spot. Wouldn't pigeons
> > fly at the sound of any gunshot in Dealey?
>
> If Baker wasn't heading toward the roof, why do you suppose he was going
> up the stairs. Did he need the excercise?
>
>
That's the point, why go all the way up there, not merely going up the
stairs!! LOL. If he was bent on going up to where he thought the pigeons
were, he wouldn't have looked anywhere else on the way.....
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > I think Baker also well could
> > > > > > have put in the seeing the door close scenario as it would make it
> > > > > > appear that it was plausible to check the window on the door.
>
> > > > > Again, I think the original - and fake - story was that Baker had popped
> > > > > his head into the lunchroom and happened to see Oswald in there. The
> > > > > complete discrepancy between this and Baker's affidavit story of seeing a
> > > > > man walking away from the stairway forced the subsequent introduction of
> > > > > an element of *movement* into the thing: Oswald walking 'away' into the
> > > > > lunchroom. But the stories simply don't harmonise. That damn door. Those
> > > > > damn angles.
>
> > > > > ***
>
> > > > They sure don't.
>
> > > There is nothing Baker wrote in his affadavit or said in his WC
> > > testimony that is inconsistent with him spotting Oswald as he ducked
> > > into the lunchroom.
>
> > He couldn't get the coke thing right, and having a clothing description
> > that matched many of Oswald's shirt descriptions, doesn't bode well for
> > the description that Mrs. Reid gave which was within a few seconds of that
> > so-called meeting.
>
> That is more an impeachment of Mrs. Reid's memory than Baker's. Baker's
> description is consistent with what Oswald was wearing when spotted by
> Mrs. Bledsoe on the bus and what he was wearing when arrested.
>
Why is it an impeachment? She saw a full coke and was emphatic there was
no outer attire over a white tee shirt. So what about Bledsoe? There were
accounts of an Oswald getting in a Rambler with white and no long brown
shirt stuff.
> > His door story doesn't match with the outlay of the
> > building. The only way he could have spotted anyone is if the suspect
> > were glued to the window that he would have supposedly went through, or
> > came to (from the other vesibule), or from the lunchroom itself.
>
> Did you have trouble with geometry in school?
>
>
Did you a problem of missing the bus for school?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > He had
> > > > > > a lot of time to contemplate what was riding on him fingering Oswald
> > > > > > by the time he testified. I don't see this lunchroom thing happening
> > > > > > way later. Too many saw Oswald leave at a time that would preclude
> > > > > > anything later.
>
> > > > > It seems Oswald was actually challenged by a cop at the front door - an
> > > > > incident witnessed by Billy Lovelady. Thanks to Ed Hicks, Harry Holmes and
> > > > > Harold Norman, the incident wasn't completely scrubbed from the official
> > > > > record.
>
> > > > > ***
>
> > > > It would be of utmost interest to get any detail on that.
>
> > > Until then, let's just assume it means something sinister.
>
> > It wouldn't have to, but it could.
>
> That's all a CT needs.- Hide quoted text -
>
and an LNT'er to never to bother to....
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Maybe the question you should ask is why would the WC want her to change
her story.
Do you know what suborning perjury means?
Sean Murphy
> On 2/9/2011 9:18 AM, Sean Murphy wrote:
> > The only thing fallacious in this conversation is your insistence on
> > comparing apples and oranges - someone caught walking away from the
> > rear stairway on the third or fourth floor just after the shooting vs
> > someone not even encountered by Baker.
>
> Baker was talking about two different events, two different people.
No. One real event (as per affidavit). One fictional (as per WC
testimony).
The fictional story has been contrived to absorb the true one.
> BELIN: I see. Did you later recognise anyone
> as being the man you encountered?
>
> BAKER: No, sir.
>
> BELIN: We have a statement from Marvin
> Johnson, the officer who took your
> affidavit. Officer Johnson said in that
> statement, and I quote: "Officer Baker
> later identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the
> man he had seen on the fourth floor of the Texas
> School Book Depository." Is that true, Officer
> Baker? Did you identify Oswald as the man
> you had seen?
>
> BAKER: No, sir. Whilst it is true that
> Oswald was present at the time I made
> that affidavit with Officer Johnson, I
> described the person I had encountered as
> I remembered him - that was -- he was a
> white man, approximately 30 years old, 5'9",
> weighed about 165, had dark hair, and was
> wearing a light brown jacket. If that
> person had been Oswald, I would have
> recognised Oswald and made sure I included
> that identification of the suspect in my
> affidavit.
Yep. It's shameful but predictable that the WC never asked Baker to
explain that 11/22 affidavit.
> Why is it not innocent for someone who worked in that building to walk
> away from the stairway?
Because the person has evidently moved away from the stairway in
response to the sound of Baker & Truly racing up the stairs. Very
suspicious behaviour.
> How about you give us the name of just one white male employee
> > aged approx. 30 whose movements at this time are unaccounted for. You
> > can't, can you?
>
> Why does he have to be white and why 30?
> Who said he saw a 30 year old man on the third floor?
Baker. Third or fourth floor.
> Are you trying to
> claim that there were no men on the third or fourth floor?
Yes. There were no 30-ish-year-old male employees on those floors at
the time of the assassination.
Again: if you disagree, perhaps you offer us a name?
Sean Murphy
Why would the WC want to change the story of a witness who grants
Oswald an alibi?
Hmmm, can I get back to you on this?
Jean Davison
But the quote above is not from Baker's WC testimony. It's an
imaginary conversation somebody posted elsewhere.
Baker's testimony is searchable here for anyone who wants to check
it out:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm
>
> > Why is it not innocent for someone who worked in that building to walk
> > away from the stairway?
>
> Because the person has evidently moved away from the stairway in
> response to the sound of Baker & Truly racing up the stairs. Very
> suspicious behaviour.
Exactly!
Jean
Jean Davison
Tony, you have mistakenly quoted something that is not from
Baker's testimony.
I say "mistakenly," but I hate to think what you might call it if
one of us "WC defenders" accidently posted fictional testimony.
Jean
Sean Murphy
> > Yep. It's shameful but predictable that the WC never asked Baker to
> > explain that 11/22 affidavit.
>
> But the quote above is not from Baker's WC testimony. It's an
> imaginary conversation somebody posted elsewhere.
That was Tony's point, Jean. Which is why I said it's shameful that
the WC never asked Baker any such questions.
Sean
Anthony Marsh
Why should they open up a can or worms? They were trying to wrap things
up. Why did they insist on getting a new statement from Baker after all
the testimonies had been taken and the report was being sent out to the
printers? Why didn't they ask Baker about the Coke which he crossed out?
>> Why is it not innocent for someone who worked in that building to walk
>> away from the stairway?
>
> Because the person has evidently moved away from the stairway in
> response to the sound of Baker& Truly racing up the stairs. Very
> suspicious behaviour.
>
In response? Wild guessing. How about in response to hearing the two
women coming down the stairs?
>
>> How about you give us the name of just one white male employee
>>> aged approx. 30 whose movements at this time are unaccounted for. You
>>> can't, can you?
>>
>> Why does he have to be white and why 30?
>> Who said he saw a 30 year old man on the third floor?
>
> Baker. Third or fourth floor.
>
Nope.
Jean Davison
Excuse me?? It was his point that the quote was imaginary??
Where did he say that, pray tell?
No, he was responding to your statement:
> The only thing fallacious in this conversation is your insistence on
> comparing apples and oranges - someone caught walking away from the
> rear stairway on the third or fourth floor just after the shooting vs
> someone not even encountered by Baker.
>
Tony replied, "Baker was talking about two different events, two
different people," and continued with the imaginary exchange between
Belin and Baker, as though it somehow supported his argument.
He said nothing about questions the WC should've asked. That was
*your* point, not his.
Jean
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>On Feb 10, 4:29 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
Why didn't Oswald mention her as an alibi witness then?
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Sean Murphy
No offence, Jean, but is it Tony's fault that you don't do irony?
Sean
Sean Murphy
> On 2/11/2011 9:51 AM, Sean Murphy wrote:
> > Yep. It's shameful but predictable that the WC never asked Baker to
> > explain that 11/22 affidavit.
>
> Why should they open up a can or worms? They were trying to wrap things
> up.
Exactly.
> > Because the person has evidently moved away from the stairway in
> > response to the sound of Baker& Truly racing up the stairs. Very
> > suspicious behaviour.
>
> In response? Wild guessing. How about in response to hearing the two
> women coming down the stairs?
It's not wild guessing, it's a fair inference. Walking away from the
rear stairway at that precise point in time is about the most
suspicious thing anyone could be doing. (The two women came down
later, so they're irrelevant here.)
But you're still not dealing with the key issue: Baker's 11/22
affidavit talks about a 30-ish-year-old male 'employee' walking away
from the rear stairs on the third or fourth floor. (According to
Marvin Johnson, Baker was inclined towards 'fourth'.) If this is
neither Oswald nor Dougherty, then who is it?
The reason you - or anyone - can't come up with even a single
candidate name from the employee roll is: every employee is accounted
for. This man cannot be an employee.
The guy was caught red-handed. And Baker let him go.
Jean Davison
What a wonderful answer! That's irony. It means "what
nonsense!"
You're reading something into Tony's post that isn't there. If
it's there, please point it out to me.
Jean
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bud
> On Feb 12, 2:34 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2/11/2011 9:51 AM, Sean Murphy wrote:
> > > Yep. It's shameful but predictable that the WC never asked Baker to
> > > explain that 11/22 affidavit.
>
> > Why should they open up a can or worms? They were trying to wrap things
> > up.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > > Because the person has evidently moved away from the stairway in
> > > response to the sound of Baker& Truly racing up the stairs. Very
> > > suspicious behaviour.
>
> > In response? Wild guessing. How about in response to hearing the two
> > women coming down the stairs?
>
> It's not wild guessing, it's a fair inference. Walking away from the
> rear stairway at that precise point in time is about the most
> suspicious thing anyone could be doing. (The two women came down
> later, so they're irrelevant here.)
> But you're still not dealing with the key issue: Baker's 11/22
> affidavit talks about a 30-ish-year-old male 'employee' walking away
> from the rear stairs on the third or fourth floor.
So he got the floor wrong, big deal. You rule this out as being too
incredible, than proceed to replace it with something a hundred times
more incredible.
> (According to
> Marvin Johnson, Baker was inclined towards 'fourth'.) If this is
> neither Oswald nor Dougherty, then who is it?
It`s Oswald, like both men said it was, and Oswald himself admitted
in custody.
> The reason you - or anyone - can't come up with even a single
> candidate name from the employee roll is: every employee is accounted
> for. This man cannot be an employee.
> The guy was caught red-handed. And Baker let him go.
And then Oswald left the building and went on to kill a cop. And
still CTers are stumped.
Sean Murphy
>
> What a wonderful answer! That's irony. It means "what
> nonsense!"
>
> You're reading something into Tony's post that isn't there. If
> it's there, please point it out to me.
> Jean
You need 'it' 'pointed out' to you, Jean? Oh dear. Further proof that
irony is not your forte.
Sean
bigdog
These guys have my head spinning trying to follow where they are going
with this. If I am following what they are trying to say, the guy Baker
confronted was not the same guy who walked past Mrs. Reid a few minutes
later with a Coke in his hand. I'm trying to figure out which one was the
real Oswald and which one was the fake Oswald and why they decided to
switch them at that point. Or maybe there were two fake Oswalds that they
decided to swap. It boggles the mind.
Jean Davison
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4d53...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Tony,
The above exchange between Belin and Baker is from Greg
Parker's site. He posted it in 2009 under the subject title "If Marrion
Baker had stuck to his original statement... His Warren Commission testimony
may have looked more like this...."
It was later reposted on the Education Forum, but there it wasn't
clear that the quote was fictional. Bottom post here:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=465
Maybe that's where you saw it?
Jean
Bud
"Irony" would be you giving Jean a straight answer. The opposite of
what should be expected.
> Sean
Jean Davison
I know a bluff when I see one, Sean. You have no explanation or
you'd put it up here.
Jean
Bud
I went round and round with Sean on this before, so I have garnered
some knowledge of this position. It is enough to give you a headache
trying to follow it.
> If I am following what they are trying to say, the guy Baker
> confronted was not the same guy who walked past Mrs. Reid a few minutes
> later with a Coke in his hand.
Actually, I don`t know (or at least don`t remember offhand) how they
reconcile Reid. I think Sean Murphy has Oswald on the first floor
during the shooting.
> I'm trying to figure out which one was the
> real Oswald and which one was the fake Oswald and why they decided to
> switch them at that point. Or maybe there were two fake Oswalds that they
> decided to swap. It boggles the mind.
It does. The thing they do is take a bit of error and claim that it is
indisputable fact. Then they construct a whole bunch of conjecture off
that error they`ve decide was a fact. Baker put the encounter on the 3-4
floor, they`ve decided Baker couldn`t be wrong about this as this would be
too amazing, then they proceed with one incredible thing after another
based on Baker`s error being an actual occurrence on the third or fourth
floor. If THIS is right (Baker confronting someone on the 3rd/4th floor)
THEN Baker and Truly both lied about encountering Oswald in the lunchroom.
Thinking that Baker could have placed the encounter with Oswald in the
wrong location is "never, no way, too fantastic", but Truly lying to frame
one of his employees is just a matter of heaping one more person on the
pile of people out to get poor Ozzie.
Anthony Marsh
Maybe he did. How do we know exactly what Oswald said when they didn't
record the interviews? Isn't that the real reason why they refused to
record the interviews?
>
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
Peter Fokes
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Report of E.R. Beck, undated.
"She states she did not see him at any time during the day of the
shooting."
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/21/2135-001.gif
"Mr. Beck began his service career with the Dallas Police Dept. on
March 8, 1939. He started as a Motorcycle officer. In 1943, he joined
the Homicide Division, Crimes Against Persons, (CAPs) as a Detective;
(Badge 45).
In Feb. 1948, he was featured in "Front Page Detective" magazine.
He was a member of the "Cracker Jacks". A group of detectives under
the leadership of Capt. Will Fritz. The CAP's division investigated
the Kennedy Assassination and the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack
Ruby.
Mr. Beck honorably retired from The Dallas Police Department on
October 10, 1965.
On October 11, 1965, his service career continued, joining the Dallas
Co. District Attorney's Office as an investigator for District
Attorney Henry Wade.
Mr. Beck retired from Dallas County District Attorney's office, in
1979."
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=13030510
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Sean Murphy
Jean,
You must find The Colbert Report very confusing.
Sean
Anthony Marsh
That could be it. On some forums I can only cut and paste, not download.
Sean Murphy
> These guys have my head spinning trying to follow where they are going
> with this.
That's because you're still coming to grips with the ABC of the second-
floor layout. Take all the time you need.
Sean Murphy
>
> Report of E.R. Beck, undated.
>
> "She states she did not see him at any time during the day of the
> shooting."
>
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/21/2135-001.gif
Thanks for the link, Peter.
"Was in the office alone the day of the shooting heard 3 shots and did
not know what had happened until the Police came in the office and
told the President had been shot".
Two questions arise:
1. Why no mention of the mayhem out on the street? Mrs. Hine's WC
testimony will say she *saw* both the motorcade and the mayhem from
the west window. All we have here is Mrs. Hine *in* the office
*hearing* three shots, and being completely clueless as to what is
going on. This is essentially Groden's version - minus Oswald.
2. Where's Jeraldean Reid? Why on earth does Mrs. Hine have to wait
until the entry of 'the Police' before hearing anything about the
President being shot? Hine's WC testimony, incidentally, will also
contradict Reid's story.
Sean
Jean Davison
Your bluff has already been called, Sean.
Jean
Bud
Find any reason you can to disregard the information that goes against
your theories, Sean. Shave the corners off those square pegs and with
enough force, you can pound them into them into the round holes. Question
the information that contradicts your ideas, but apply no critical
thinking whatsoever to the information that does. Enjoy your hobby of
trying to guide Oswald through the rocky shores of all the indications of
his guilt to the safe harbor of patsyhood. And in the end of the day,
Oswald still shot and killed Kennedy, because there is no way for all the
indications that he did to exist and this not be true.
Bud
Thats "parody", not "irony".
curtjester1
Well, if you want to dance with the bigdogs you have to sniff around. To
many, an Oswald, entering into a Rambler station wagon is just as credible
as a bus or taxi.
http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/griffith/With_Malice.html
I mean didn't the arrested Oswald say, about the Rambler in interrogation,
"now don't get Mrs. Paine involved in this."...??
CJ
Sean Murphy
Jean,
Sorry, but it's still not my problem that you're an irony-free zone. If I
were you, I'd stop advertising the fact.
By the way, you wrote that the imaginary Belin-Baker exchange "was later
reposted on the Education Forum, but there it wasn't clear that the quote
was fictional."
Oh really? The exchange, as posted at
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=465, is
headed with the following words, written in bold: "What if Marrion
Baker had stuck to his original statement?"
Perhaps, in your evident haste to 'point' something 'out', you missed
this?
Sean
Jean Davison
> On Feb 13, 8:07 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 8:32 am, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Jean,
> > > You must find The Colbert Report very confusing.
> > > Sean
>
> > Your bluff has already been called, Sean.
>
> > Jean
>
> Jean,
>
> Sorry, but it's still not my problem that you're an irony-free zone. If I
> were you, I'd stop advertising the fact.
If I were you, I'd stop advertising the fact that you can't
support your bluff with a single quote from Tony's post showing this
mythical "irony." Go ahead, show me what I missed.
>
> By the way, you wrote that the imaginary Belin-Baker exchange "was later
> reposted on the Education Forum, but there it wasn't clear that the quote
> was fictional."
>
> Oh really? The exchange, as posted at
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=465, is
> headed with the following words, written in bold: "What if Marrion
> Baker had stuck to his original statement?"
> Perhaps, in your evident haste to 'point' something 'out', you missed
> this?
No. I debated whether to say "it wasn't clear" or "it wasn't
*as* clear" as it was in the original post, but to me, it wasn't
really clear from that statement alone.
Jean
>
> Sean
Bud
That doesn`t make it clear that what follows is completely made up
dialog, people might think what was being produced was Marion Baker`s
original statement. Saying something like "The following is completely
made up dialog..." would make it clear.
bigdog
transfer from that bus in his pocket when arrested. Where is the
corroboration that he got in a Rambler?
> http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/griffith/With_Malice.html
>
> I mean didn't the arrested Oswald say, about the Rambler in interrogation,
> "now don't get Mrs. Paine involved in this."...??
>
Oh really?
Sean Murphy
> No. I debated whether to say "it wasn't clear" or "it wasn't
> *as* clear" as it was in the original post, but to me, it wasn't
> really clear from that statement alone.
(Grin.)
curtjester1
From witnesses. You wouldn't expect to get a transfer from a Rambler.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.dr04.html
> > I mean didn't the arrested Oswald say, about the Rambler in interrogation,
> > "now don't get Mrs. Paine involved in this."...??
>
> Oh really?
About halfway down in the link I posted above.
Also, not in the link is the testimony of another Pennington(s) about the
Rambler coming into Oakcliff circa 12:50 and dropping Oswald off at the
Tidy Lady Laundromat.
CJ
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17359&st=0&p=219588&#entry219588
WILLIAM KELLY SAID:
[Barry] Ernest and [Victoria] Adams demonstrate quite clearly that neither
Oswald, nor the Sixth Floor Phantom Snipe, whoever he was, were on the
back stairs in the minutes after the assassination, and that the official
story of Oswald descending those stairs in order to meet [Marrion] Baker
and [Roy] Truly in the Second Floor Lunchroom at 12:32 is not the way it
happened.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Nonsense, Bill.
With respect to Vickie Adams, the ONLY thing a person needs to accept in
order to have Oswald on the back stairs within one to two minutes after
the President's assassination is to accept the almost certain fact that
Victoria Adams was simply inaccurate in her time estimate about when she
and Sandra Styles were on the back staircase.
And if she's off by a mere ONE MINUTE, or even less, then her whole story
unravels and it then becomes quite easy to accept the fact that Oswald
used the back stairs just after shooting President Kennedy from the sixth
floor.
The key to pretty much knowing without a doubt that Adams and Styles were
on the stairs only AFTER Lee Oswald used the same stairs is not really
Oswald himself--but Roy Truly and Marrion Baker.
Because if Adams was really on the stairs as early as she said she was,
she would have had virtually no choice but to have seen (or heard) the two
men who we know for a fact WERE on those stairs within about 60 to 75
seconds of the assassination -- Truly and Baker.
Since Adams saw nobody and heard nobody, the very likely solution is that
she was mistaken about her timing (which couldn't be a more common error
with human beings), and she was on the stairs AFTER all three men (Oswald,
Baker, and Truly) had already utilized the same stairs.
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-14.html
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/adams_v.htm
BARRY ERNEST [AUTHOR OF "THE GIRL ON THE STAIRS";
http://Amazon.com/dp/B004GNFU9S] SAID:
Perhaps a reading of the book and, in particular, a look at the June 2,
1964, transmittal letter from Martha Joe Stroud to J. Lee Rankin may help
clarify your point.
DVP SAID:
This post at another forum should be of interest to Mr. Ernest:
[quote on:]
"Sandra Styles mentioned to me that this author [Barry Ernest] had
contacted her some years ago. She even knew the name of the book
(which I hadn't heard of myself). Sandra claimed she told Ernest what
she was now telling me: that she and Victoria Adams did *not* go to
the rear stairs anything close to as quickly as Victoria had claimed.
I find it a little worrying that there is no mention of Sandra's
counter-version in any of the promotional material linked here." --
Sean Murphy; 1/27/11
[quote off]
Source post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fcffcdcdf3ce66ae
And Murphy is an Oswald-Didn't-Do-It conspiracy fantasist, btw.
BARRY ERNEST SAID:
When I interviewed Sandra Styles in 2002, she said absolutely nothing
of the kind to me. What she did say was, she couldn't be sure exactly
how quickly she left the window and went down the stairs, but she
recalled she did so "rather quickly," in her words, and "when Vicki
did," again in her words. Why she would say otherwise now, especially
when she said what she did then and added, "Vicki was the more
observant one," is beyond me. Again, the Martha Joe Stroud letter can
settle the matter.
DVP SAID:
What Commission Document is the Stroud 6/2/64 letter in, Barry? I'll
be able to find it with ease at Mary Ferrell's site if you can give me
the CD number (or CE number, if it's part of a Commission Exhibit).
Thanks.
BARRY ERNEST SAID:
David, the referenced letter was neither a Commission Document nor a
Commission Exhibit. It was therefore not a part of the public record.
It is not in the Mary Ferrell database either, that I am aware of. A
copy of it exists in the Harold Weisberg collection, which is actually
a copy that I gave him shortly after discovering it in the National
Archives.
It was contained within a box of correspondence and other
miscellaneous paperwork sent from the DOJ office in Dallas to the WC.
It is a June 2, 1964, air mail, registered letter sent by Stroud to
Rankin in which she lists several changes Miss Adams requested be made
to her testimony, none of which were actually done by the way. The
final paragraph, and I will quote this verbatim including the spelling
errors, reads:
"Mr. Bellin was questioning Miss Adams about whether or not she
saw anyone as she was running down the stairs. Miss Garner, Miss
Adams' supervisor, stated this morning that after Miss Adams went
downstairs she (Miss Garner) saw Mr. Truly and the policeman come
up."
DVP SAID:
Thank you, Barry. That's interesting indeed.
I'll just add this:
The amount of physical and circumstantial evidence that exists to this
day against Lee Harvey Oswald for the murders of both President
Kennedy and policeman J.D. Tippit is just too massive and
comprehensive to be dismissed or ignored or swept under the rug --
even with the kind of information supplied on June 2, 1964, by Dorothy
Garner.
And remember to keep asking yourself one important question --
If Lee Oswald wasn't the sixth-floor assassin, then how did the "real
killer(s)" manage to remain completely out of the sight of Vickie
Adams and Sandra Styles and Dorothy Garner and Roy Truly and Marrion
Baker following the assassination of the President?
Did the "real killer" somehow manage to make himself invisible to all
of those witnesses right after the shooting? Or did the real killer
(if it wasn't Oswald) decide to remain on the sixth floor for many
minutes after he shot at JFK, running the fearful risk of being
captured on the TSBD floor where Oswald's rifle and the three spent
shells were found?
I think even most hardened conspiracy theorists would find that latter
option a little hard to swallow.
http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com