Oswald WAS Stopped At The TSBD Front Entrance
Sean Murphy
fabled 2nd-floor lunchroom incident involving Oswald, Baker & Truly
never happened.
We have had several reasons for this belief, not least Officer Baker's
11/22/63 affidavit statement that the light-brown-jacketed 'employee'
he challenged just after the assassination was "walking away from the
stairway" on "the 3rd or 4th floor". We believe that this was a man
other than Oswald.
***
The second-floor lunchroom story appears to have only taken shape late
on 11/22 when Truly gave a statement to the FBI. Truly himself had
been telling people about a first-floor sighting of Oswald. The DPD
had been telling the press in no uncertain terms about an Oswald-
Officer encounter that took place at the front entrance of the TSBD.
Oswald was allegedly on his way outside when he was stopped by police.
When his boss vouched for him, he was allowed to walk down the front
steps.
Months later, Harry Holmes offered corroboration of this initial story
from a startling source: Oswald himself. Holmes told the WC that he
heard Oswald in custody tell Fritz about a first-floor encounter: on
his way out the front entrance of the building he was stopped by a
police officer; his "superintendent" vouched for him; whereupon he was
allowed to walk out and down the front steps.
***
I have long argued that Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley lied about
their immediate post-assassination actions in order to hide a simple
fact: they were standing at the TSBD front entrance when Oswald walked
out of the building. They witnessed the true Oswald-Officer encounter.
Well, thanks to the sterling archival efforts of Richard Gilbride,
compelling corroboration of this theory has just come to light.
***
On September 25 1977 James Jarman was interviewed for the HSCA. He
told the interviewers that he, Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman
had run downstairs after the assassination and attempted to leave the
building by the front entrance:
"... as we was running out of the building the police stopped us, he
told us to come back inside the building, so we proceeded back inside
the building. And, after we was inside the building after that, I
heard that Oswald had come down through the office and came down the
front stairs and he was stopped by the officer that had stopped us and
sent us back in the building and Mr. Truly told them that that was
alright, that he worked there, so then, he proceeded own (sic) out the
building and we wondered why he stopped us."
The source for Jarman's information about the incident?
"Well, there was a billy love lady standing out there, he was on the
steps, see... And, Oswald was coming out the door and he (Lovelady,
S.M.) said the police had stopped Oswald and sent him back in the
building, billy love lady said that Mr. Trudy (sic) told the policeman
that Oswald was alright, that he worked there, so Oswald walked on
down the stairs."
***
The transcript of the Jarman interview is up in full on Greg Parker's
excellent website: http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/richard-gilbride-hsca-collection.html
Sean
David Von Pein
Jarman is obviously combining some things there. It's a real mish-mash of
statements. He's telling the story from several people's POV. And the last
portion re Lovelady makes no sense, because if Oswald was already on the
first floor and about to exit the building, then why would he then need
"walk on down the stairs"?
There's nothing there that confirms any kind of "OSWALD WAS STOPPED ON THE
FIRST FLOOR" scenario.
Sean Smiley
>
> Sean
Sean -- I'd been meaning to order a copy of this interview for years. I'm
glad (a) to see that someone had the same idea & actually acted on it, &
(b) posted a transcript. Bravo! So, Oswald was actually coming "out the
door" & had to be "sent... back in the building". Tallies with Baker's
later take on the story, in which the subject of a lunchroom does not come
up.... My own look into the affair suggests that Shelley left the area,
too. Are you trying to stir up a hornet's nest...?
dcw
Sean Smiley
>
> Sean
Sean -- Too late to read the whole transcript. But in the first few
pages I see that Jarman is back to the original "debris" story. In
their first FBI interviews, both Jarman & Norman, resp., said that the
debris was heading towards Norman, NOT Williams, as it was in the
later version of the story. So, alpha & omega--Norman.
dcw
claviger
So Oswald got past two police officers that day because no one could
imagine a TSBD employee would do such a horrible thing. Naivete on the
part of TSBD management and inexperience on the part of the DPD. So what?
Sean Smiley
Oh, but it's getting *close* to confirmation. Maybe the closest, tho,
was Marrion Baker's contribution to "JFK First Day Evidence", wherein
*he* puts the encounter on the first floor!
dcw
Sean Smiley
Not the point. If Baker & Truly ran into Oswald going the other way
out the front door, then Oswald could not have been shooting from the
6th floor....
dcw
Sean Murphy
> Jarman is obviously combining some things there. It's a real mish-mash of
> statements. He's telling the story from several people's POV.
No, Jarman is obviously giving his clear recollection of what Lovelady
told him. And why did Jarman remember the details so well? Because he
was puzzled at the time - and offended? - by Oswald's being let out of
the building when he and two other black employees were not.
Jarman's version is identical to what DPD were telling the press on
11/22 as well as what Harry Holmes recalled Oswald himself having told
Fritz. You think that's a fluke?
***
> And the last
> portion re Lovelady makes no sense, because if Oswald was already on the
> first floor and about to exit the building, then why would he then need
> "walk on down the stairs"?
He's obviously talking about the steps leading out onto the street.
***
> There's nothing there that confirms any kind of "OSWALD WAS STOPPED ON THE
> FIRST FLOOR" scenario.
There's plenty to confirm it. And, as predicted long before Jarman's
HSCA testimony came to light, Lovelady was there to see the incident.
Sean Murphy
More to the point, Don, it tallies with what the DPD were telling the
press 11/22 as well as what Harry Holmes heard Oswald tell Fritz in
custody.
> My own look into the affair suggests that Shelley left the area,
> too. Are you trying to stir up a hornet's nest...?
Jarman's testimony confirms what I have long claimed: Lovelady was at
the front entrance when Oswald was leaving the building. If Lovelady
was there, then he and Shelley lied. Hence the anomalies in their
(ever-evolving) story of their immediate post-assassination movements:
they needed to get themselves away from that front entrance.
Sean Smiley
> Jarman is obviously combining some things there. It's a real mish-mash of
> statements. He's telling the story from several people's POV. And the last
> portion re Lovelady makes no sense, because if Oswald was already on the
> first floor and about to exit the building, then why would he then need
> "walk on down the stairs"?
I think the exact words are "came down the front stairs" (p2). What
makes me think that he's referring to the front *steps* is Jarman's
later (p3) "Oswald was coming out the door & he [Lovelady] said the
police had stopped Oswald & sent him back in the building". So, the
story here is that Oswald was actually *outside* the depository
briefly....
dcw
Sean Murphy
Why was the first-floor front-entrance incident suppressed in favour
of the second-floor lunchroom incident?
tomnln
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:de4a666e-85db-4c8b...@14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Bud
> For several years now I have argued, along with Greg Parker, that the
> fabled 2nd-floor lunchroom incident involving Oswald, Baker & Truly
> never happened.
>
> We have had several reasons for this belief, not least Officer Baker's
> 11/22/63 affidavit statement that the light-brown-jacketed 'employee'
> he challenged just after the assassination was "walking away from the
> stairway" on "the 3rd or 4th floor". We believe that this was a man
> other than Oswald.
Some people don`t believe we landed on the moon. Who cares?
> ***
>
> The second-floor lunchroom story appears to have only taken shape late
> on 11/22 when Truly gave a statement to the FBI. Truly himself had
> been telling people about a first-floor sighting of Oswald. The DPD
> had been telling the press in no uncertain terms about an Oswald-
> Officer encounter that took place at the front entrance of the TSBD.
> Oswald was allegedly on his way outside when he was stopped by police.
> When his boss vouched for him, he was allowed to walk down the front
> steps.
This is why it`s best to get the information straight from Truly
instead of the garbled version.
> Months later, Harry Holmes offered corroboration of this initial story
> from a startling source: Oswald himself. Holmes told the WC that he
> heard Oswald in custody tell Fritz about a first-floor encounter: on
> his way out the front entrance of the building he was stopped by a
> police officer; his "superintendent" vouched for him; whereupon he was
> allowed to walk out and down the front steps.
Holmes also said that Oswald said he came downstairs after the
shooting.
> ***
>
> I have long argued that Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley lied about
> their immediate post-assassination actions in order to hide a simple
> fact: they were standing at the TSBD front entrance when Oswald walked
> out of the building. They witnessed the true Oswald-Officer encounter.
Unfortunately your arguments are weak, with little support.
> Well, thanks to the sterling archival efforts of Richard Gilbride,
> compelling corroboration of this theory has just come to light.
>
> ***
>
> On September 25 1977 James Jarman was interviewed for the HSCA. He
> told the interviewers that he, Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman
> had run downstairs after the assassination and attempted to leave the
> building by the front entrance:
>
> "... as we was running out of the building the police stopped us, he
> told us to come back inside the building, so we proceeded back inside
> the building. And, after we was inside the building after that, I
> heard that Oswald had come down through the office and came down the
> front stairs and he was stopped by the officer that had stopped us and
> sent us back in the building and Mr. Truly told them that that was
> alright, that he worked there, so then, he proceeded own (sic) out the
> building and we wondered why he stopped us."
If the cops were sending employees back in the building, why would
Oswald be allowed to leave?
> The source for Jarman's information about the incident?
>
> "Well, there was a billy love lady standing out there, he was on the
> steps, see... And, Oswald was coming out the door and he (Lovelady,
> S.M.) said the police had stopped Oswald and sent him back in the
> building, billy love lady said that Mr. Trudy (sic) told the policeman
> that Oswald was alright, that he worked there, so Oswald walked on
> down the stairs."
So where in that does Jarman identify the source of the encounters
he wasn`t present for?
> ***
>
> The transcript of the Jarman interview is up in full on Greg Parker's
> excellent website:http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/richard-gilbride-hsca-collection....
>
> Sean
Conspiracy hobbyists are still working the case, trying to get
Oswald off. He`ll be glad to hear this.
Sean Murphy
> ... Marrion Baker's contribution to "JFK First Day Evidence", wherein
> *he* puts the encounter on the first floor!
Don,
Baker cannot have been the police officer referred to by Jarman. We're
talking two totally different timeframes here.
Oswald *may* however have been one of the two white men noticed by Baker
near the rear of the first floor when he and Truly were trying to call the
elevator. If Oswald had been hanging around the domino room area in the
northeast corner of the first floor, as he allegedly told Fritz he was, it
might explain those first press reports of his having been spotted in a
ground-floor storage room. There was a small storage room right beside the
domino room.
Sean
bigdog
Baker was unfamiliar with the building and wasn't sure which floor the
encounter took place on. He knew it was in the lunchroom. He saw LHO
through the window of the vestibule door.
claviger
the public phones were on the first floor. It is logical that Oswald
calmly walked to the first floor and slipped out of the building. It
is not surprising he was stopped by a policeman who had surrounded the
building. It is disappointing he was let out, which is another mistake
by the DPD that day. Maybe the meeting in the lunchroom doesn't sound
as bad, or maybe they both happened and the DPD didn't want the public
to know they had him twice and let him slip away both timesr. The DPD
did almost nothing right that day. They were simply not trained on how
to cope with a situation like this.
Sean Smiley
> On Aug 9, 1:38 am, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ... Marrion Baker's contribution to "JFK First Day Evidence", wherein
> > *he* puts the encounter on the first floor!
>
> Don,
>
> Baker cannot have been the police officer referred to by Jarman. We're
> talking two totally different timeframes here.
How could it be any officer but Baker? He was with Truly. Oswald
was on his way out the front door. How many suspects did Baker &
Truly run into?
dcw
>
> Oswald *may* however have been one of the two white men noticed by Baker
> near the rear of the first floor when he and Truly were trying to call the
> elevator. If Oswald had been hanging around the domino room area in the
> northeast corner of the first floor, as he allegedly told Fritz he was, it
> might explain those first press reports of his having been spotted in a
> ground-floor storage room.
Yes, this is our (CTers) problem. Oswald was stopped on the ground
floor, but Baker, the depository VEEP, & Lovelady seem to have him
stopped at different points on the first floor. I don't think this
means that there were 3 different suspects, just slight variations on
a (first floor) theme. And the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th floor scenarios were
all concocted to counter reports of first-floor sightings & that pesky
Victoria A, whether or not she was telling the truth. They couldn't
take a chance--they moved the encounter off-stairway....
dcw
Sean Smiley
The building hadn't been *sealed* yet. Baker was the only cop there
that early.
dcw
Sean Murphy
> On Aug 8, 7:42 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 8, 8:46 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Sean,
>
> > > So Oswald got past two police officers that day because no one could
> > > imagine a TSBD employee would do such a horrible thing. Naivete on the
> > > part of TSBD management and inexperience on the part of the DPD. So what?
>
> > Why was the first-floor front-entrance incident suppressed in favour
> > of the second-floor lunchroom incident?
>
> Don't know, but there is a story about Oswald showing a reporter where
> the public phones were on the first floor.
Indeed. And Harry Holmes' clear recollection of this detail in the
context of Oswald's being stopped on his way out of the building has
always lent added credibility to his version of what Oswald actually
told Fritz.
Jarman's HSCA testimony now pretty much cinches the case for a front-
entrance incident IMO.
> It is logical that Oswald
> calmly walked to the first floor and slipped out of the building. It
> is not surprising he was stopped by a policeman who had surrounded the
> building.
True, but the time it took Oswald to leave the building is now
significantly greater than that posited by the official story.
For Truly to be at the front entrance vouching for Oswald as an
employee, he and Baker have to have returned from the top of the
building.
This means that Oswald lingered in the TSBD for several minutes, he
did not make the quick getaway of lore.
> It is disappointing he was let out, which is another mistake
> by the DPD that day. Maybe the meeting in the lunchroom doesn't sound
> as bad,
If the first-floor incident was transplanted to the lunchroom for PR
reasons alone, then we still have to account for Baker's 11/22
affidavit which speaks of a white male caught walking away from the
rear stairway several floors up th building.
We also have to account for the two white men noticed by Baker near
the rear of the first floor as he and Truly tried to call the
elevator.
> or maybe they both happened and the DPD didn't want the public
> to know they had him twice and let him slip away both timesr.
But surely the lunchroom encounter, coming as it supposedly did
immediately after the shooting, would have been the more embarrassing
of the two?
There is incidentally a third possibility: Baker stuck his head into
the second-floor lunchroom on his way *down* the building, *after* he
and Truly had checked out the roof. We know that he was doing quick
checks of individual floors on the way down. This scenario might
explain Curry's 11/23 statements to the press that Oswald was not the
only person in the lunchroom. It would not, however, explain the rear
stairway encounter recalled in Baker's 11/22 affidavit, which clearly
took place on the way up.
> The DPD
> did almost nothing right that day. They were simply not trained on how
> to cope with a situation like this.
Fair point. But if we're willing to accept that they colluded in
covering up the front-entrance incident, then it's no great leap to
question the veracity of the late-developing lunchroom story.
Again I suggest that Baker's 11/22 affidavit may hold the key.
Cheers,
Sean
bigdog
Oswald obviously escaped from the TSBD before the decision was made to
seal it off. That is not surprising because it would have taken awhile
for those in command to get the information about where the shots were
believed to have been fired from and coordinate with the officers on
the ground to get the building sealed off. Every indication is that
Oswald left within minutes of the shooting before this could be done.
The only verification of a cop stopping Oswald was Baker's lunchroom
encounter. At that time, Baker was acting on his own with no orders to
detain anyone or stop them from leaving the building. His main concern
was getting to the roof where he believed the shots came from in hopes
of catching the shooter there. He was curious when he spotted Oswald
but made the judgement call to let him go when Truly vouched for him.
There is no hard evidence that any cop stopped Oswald between Baker
and Tippit.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 8, 7:42 pm, Sean Murphy<seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 8, 8:46 pm, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sean,
>>
>>> So Oswald got past two police officers that day because no one could
>>> imagine a TSBD employee would do such a horrible thing. Naivete on the
>>> part of TSBD management and inexperience on the part of the DPD. So what?
>>
>> Why was the first-floor front-entrance incident suppressed in favour
>> of the second-floor lunchroom incident?
> Don't know, but there is a story about Oswald showing a reporter where
> the public phones were on the first floor. It is logical that Oswald
> calmly walked to the first floor and slipped out of the building. It
> is not surprising he was stopped by a policeman who had surrounded the
> building. It is disappointing he was let out, which is another mistake
Once again you reveal the fact that you haven't even read the WCR. Baker
is not surround the building. He RAN INTO the building immediately and
accidentally ran into Oswald while going up the stairs in the BACK of
the building. That hardly qualifies as Oswald was stopped at the TSBD
front entrance.
> by the DPD that day. Maybe the meeting in the lunchroom doesn't sound
> as bad, or maybe they both happened and the DPD didn't want the public
> to know they had him twice and let him slip away both timesr. The DPD
Was Truly also lying about the incident?
claviger
> Once again you reveal the fact that you haven't even read the WCR. Baker
> is not surround the building. He RAN INTO the building immediately and
> accidentally ran into Oswald while going up the stairs in the BACK of
> the building. That hardly qualifies as Oswald was stopped at the TSBD
> front entrance.
Have you read the WCR? Baker was not the only policeman who ran toward
the building. He was the first to enter the building and unwisely ran
upstairs to search the roof. While he was wasting time doing that
other policemen surrounded the building. It could be LHO was
confronted by two different policemen and the stories got confused.
Wouldn't surprise me a bit considering a number of police officers
were converging on the TSBD and the GK.
> Was Truly also lying about the incident?
Well, if he's in on The Conspiracy I would say yes. Isn't that his job
as a member in good standing of 'Conspiracies Are Us'?
Sean Smiley
Baker & Truly were running in the front way within 30 seconds. Are
you saying Oswald, on the first floor, could not have been running
*out* within the first 30 seconds???
dcw
Bud
He went right inside to search the building, he wasn`t guarding the
door.
And Baker ran to the building right after the shots, intent on
reaching the roof, where he thought the shots were fired from. Why
would he stop anyone in the entryway?
Bud
> On Aug 9, 1:38 am, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ... Marrion Baker's contribution to "JFK First Day Evidence", wherein
> > *he* puts the encounter on the first floor!
>
> Don,
>
> Baker cannot have been the police officer referred to by Jarman. We're
> talking two totally different timeframes here.
>
> Oswald *may* however have been one of the two white men noticed by Baker
> near the rear of the first floor when he and Truly were trying to call the
> elevator.
Even though we know two black men were in the room at the time, one
of which saw Truly and Baker come through.
> If Oswald had been hanging around the domino room area in the
> northeast corner of the first floor, as he allegedly told Fritz he was, it
> might explain those first press reports of his having been spotted in a
> ground-floor storage room. There was a small storage room right beside the
> domino room.
And one right in front of the second floor lunchroom.
> Sean
bigdog
> On Aug 9, 4:20 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 8, 7:42 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 8, 8:46 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Sean,
>
> > > > So Oswald got past two police officers that day because no one could
> > > > imagine a TSBD employee would do such a horrible thing. Naivete on the
> > > > part of TSBD management and inexperience on the part of the DPD. So what?
>
> > > Why was the first-floor front-entrance incident suppressed in favour
> > > of the second-floor lunchroom incident?
>
> > Don't know, but there is a story about Oswald showing a reporter where
> > the public phones were on the first floor.
>
> Indeed. And Harry Holmes' clear recollection of this detail in the
> context of Oswald's being stopped on his way out of the building has
> always lent added credibility to his version of what Oswald actually
> told Fritz.
> Jarman's HSCA testimony now pretty much cinches the case for a front-
> entrance incident IMO.
>
> > It is logical that Oswald
> > calmly walked to the first floor and slipped out of the building. It
> > is not surprising he was stopped by a policeman who had surrounded the
> > building.
>
> True, but the time it took Oswald to leave the building is now
> significantly greater than that posited by the official story.
You conveniently ignore Oswald's boarding of Cecil McWatters' bus 7
blocks from the TSBD. McWatters had passed a checkpoint a few blocks
earlier at 12:36. It was estimated the bus took about 3 to 4 minutes
to reach the point he picked up Oswald which would mean Oswald boarded
the bus no later than 12:40. Subtract the time it would have taken
Oswald to walk 7 blocks to the pick up point and we have the latest
time Oswald could have left the TSBD and boarded the bus at 12:40.
I'll let you do the math. What is the latest you can have Oswald
leaving the TSBD and still catch McWatters' bus.
> For Truly to be at the front entrance vouching for Oswald as an
> employee, he and Baker have to have returned from the top of the
> building.
> This means that Oswald lingered in the TSBD for several minutes, he
> did not make the quick getaway of lore.
>
You're trying to shove 10 lbs. of shit into a 5 lbs. bag. There was no
time for Truly and Baker to go to the top of the building, come back
down, and encounter Oswald and still allow Oswald enough time to catch
McWatters' bus.
> > It is disappointing he was let out, which is another mistake
> > by the DPD that day. Maybe the meeting in the lunchroom doesn't sound
> > as bad,
>
> If the first-floor incident was transplanted to the lunchroom for PR
> reasons alone, then we still have to account for Baker's 11/22
> affidavit which speaks of a white male caught walking away from the
> rear stairway several floors up th building.
That's easy. It happened at the entrance to the second floor
lunchroom.
> We also have to account for the two white men noticed by Baker near
> the rear of the first floor as he and Truly tried to call the
> elevator.
>
Why do we have to account for them?
> > or maybe they both happened and the DPD didn't want the public
> > to know they had him twice and let him slip away both timesr.
>
> But surely the lunchroom encounter, coming as it supposedly did
> immediately after the shooting, would have been the more embarrassing
> of the two?
> There is incidentally a third possibility: Baker stuck his head into
> the second-floor lunchroom on his way *down* the building, *after* he
> and Truly had checked out the roof. We know that he was doing quick
> checks of individual floors on the way down. This scenario might
> explain Curry's 11/23 statements to the press that Oswald was not the
> only person in the lunchroom. It would not, however, explain the rear
> stairway encounter recalled in Baker's 11/22 affidavit, which clearly
> took place on the way up.
>
Eventually, CTs are face with the problem of explaining why everyone
involved in the case lied to support the WC findings.
tomnln
Baker tripped over his own tongue
"Sean Smiley" <seansmil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b59ffd3-17d7-4348...@o7g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 7, 11:32 pm, Sean Murphy<seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> For several years now I have argued, along with Greg Parker, that the
Who said that cops were sending employees back in the building? They
sealed it off, so no one was sent back inside. Oswald had enough time as
did others to leave before the cops sealed the building.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 8, 12:31 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Jarman is obviously combining some things there. It's a real mish-mash of
>> statements. He's telling the story from several people's POV. And the last
>> portion re Lovelady makes no sense, because if Oswald was already on the
>> first floor and about to exit the building, then why would he then need
>> "walk on down the stairs"?
>
> I think the exact words are "came down the front stairs" (p2). What
> makes me think that he's referring to the front *steps* is Jarman's
> police had stopped Oswald& sent him back in the building". So, the
> story here is that Oswald was actually *outside* the depository
> briefly....
> dcw
Story? No. Hearsay.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 8, 8:31 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Jarman is obviously combining some things there. It's a real mish-mash of
>> statements. He's telling the story from several people's POV.
>
> No, Jarman is obviously giving his clear recollection of what Lovelady
Clear recollection? Hearsay? Why should annoy rely on Jarman?
Sean Murphy
>
> Baker & Truly were running in the front way within 30 seconds. Are
> you saying Oswald, on the first floor, could not have been running
> *out* within the first 30 seconds???
> dcw
Jarman makes it clear that the officer who stopped Oswald was the same
officer who stopped Jarman, Norman & Williams - i.e. minutes after the
shooting.
And what about Mrs Reid's post-assassination sighting of Oswald coming
through the second-floor office area?
Bud
If you read what I responded to you would know.
Sean Murphy
> On 8/8/2010 8:39 PM, Sean Murphy wrote:
>
> > No, Jarman is obviously giving his clear recollection of what Lovelady
>
> Clear recollection? Hearsay? Why should annoy rely on Jarman?
No need to rely on him. His clear recollection of what Lovelady told him
merely confirms what DPD were telling the press 11/22 and what Harry
Holmes heard Oswald tell Fritz. You think Oswald got lucky? Naive.
Anthony Marsh
All you have is hearsay.
Sean Murphy
> You conveniently ignore Oswald's boarding of Cecil McWatters' bus 7
> blocks from the TSBD. McWatters had passed a checkpoint a few blocks
> earlier at 12:36. It was estimated the bus took about 3 to 4 minutes
> to reach the point he picked up Oswald which would mean Oswald boarded
> the bus no later than 12:40.
You conveniently ignore that 12:40 was no more than McWatters' "rough
estimation".
Going from that to "no later than 12:40" is nonsense.
***
> > If the first-floor incident was transplanted to the lunchroom for PR
> > reasons alone, then we still have to account for Baker's 11/22
> > affidavit which speaks of a white male caught walking away from the
> > rear stairway several floors up th building.
>
> That's easy. It happened at the entrance to the second floor
> lunchroom.
Come back when you have studied the layout of the second floor.
***
> > We also have to account for the two white men noticed by Baker near
> > the rear of the first floor as he and Truly tried to call the
> > elevator.
>
> Why do we have to account for them?
(Grin.)
Sean Murphy
So you do think Oswald got lucky. Thanks for confirming.
greg
Sean,
thank you for taking up this matter again. I could not hope for a
stronger advocate for letting the chips fall where whey will.
And that, as you suggested earlier in the thread, is really at the
heart of this.
Just some quick observations of the HSCA material as I have not had a
chance to go through it in depth - and there is still more to get up.
1. It was NOT Baker who stopped Oswald at the front entrance.
2. There is more support found in Jarman's interview than brought out
so far.
From Holmes WC testimony:
But he went downstairs, and as he went out the front, it seems as
though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine,
or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke
involved. He mentioned something about a coke. But a police officer
asked him who he was, and just as he started to identify himself, his
superintendent came up and said, "He is one of our men." And the
policeman said, "Well, you step aside for a little bit." Then another
man rushed in past him as he started out the door, in this vestibule
part of it, and flashed some kind of credential and he said, "Where is
your telephone, where is your telephone, and said I am so and so,
where is your telephone."
From Jarman's HSCA interview:
"...I heard that Oswald had come down through the office and came down
the front stairs and he was stopped by the officer that stopped us and
sent back in the building and Mr Truly told them that he was alright,
that he worked here, so then he proceeded on out the building, and we
wondered why he stopped us."
3. Marion Baker's HSCA interview reveals that he was TOLD by Marvin
Johnson that his encounter had been with Oswald. Johnson also took
Truly's statement. This flies in the face of Johnson's own affidavit
in which he claimed Baker had recognised Oswald as they sat in the
same room while Baker gave his statement (even though this vital
information was not incorporated in the statement), and also Baker's
WC testimony in which he backed up Johnson's assertion by making the
same claim. Baker it seems, had a habit of forgetting the original
cover story and letting bits and pieces of the truth mix in with it
over the years. Baker was given the cover story by Johnson, and his
own affidavit which actually gave the facts, would never be mentioned
again.
There is more from the interviews that needs to be discussed, but that
is all that is relevant to this topic, except to say that the HSCA
interviewers evidently were not familiar with the people and evidence
under discussion - an appalling situation.
greg
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum.htm
http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com
claviger
Meaning what? The DPD acted as doorman for LHO to take a stroll down the
street? "Nice shooting Mr. Oswald! Enjoy your walk through downtown.
Toodle loo, and have a nice day!"
bigdog
> On Aug 9, 9:33 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You conveniently ignore Oswald's boarding of Cecil McWatters' bus 7
> > blocks from the TSBD. McWatters had passed a checkpoint a few blocks
> > earlier at 12:36. It was estimated the bus took about 3 to 4 minutes
> > to reach the point he picked up Oswald which would mean Oswald boarded
> > the bus no later than 12:40.
>
> You conveniently ignore that 12:40 was no more than McWatters' "rough
> estimation".
> Going from that to "no later than 12:40" is nonsense.
>
McWatters had passed a checkpoint several blocks before picking up Oswald
and the recorded time was 12:36. It was only 3 blocks from the checkpoint
at St. Paul and Elm to Field and Elm. Just how long do you think that
would have taken?
> ***
>
> > > If the first-floor incident was transplanted to the lunchroom for PR
> > > reasons alone, then we still have to account for Baker's 11/22
> > > affidavit which speaks of a white male caught walking away from the
> > > rear stairway several floors up th building.
>
> > That's easy. It happened at the entrance to the second floor
> > lunchroom.
>
> Come back when you have studied the layout of the second floor.
>
You don't believe there was a lunchroom on the second floor?
> ***
>
> > > We also have to account for the two white men noticed by Baker near
> > > the rear of the first floor as he and Truly tried to call the
> > > elevator.
>
> > Why do we have to account for them?
>
> (Grin.)
No answer then.
Anthony Marsh
> you saying Oswald, on the first floor, could not have been running
> *out* within the first 30 seconds???
> dcw
Not if he was stopping to talk to a secretary and drink his coke. It is
hard to run and drink a Coke at the same time.
Sean Smiley
Exactly!
dcw
Sean Smiley
> On Aug 9, 9:30 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Baker & Truly were running in the front way within 30 seconds. Are
> > you saying Oswald, on the first floor, could not have been running
> > *out* within the first 30 seconds???
> > dcw
>
> Jarman makes it clear that the officer who stopped Oswald was the same
> officer who stopped Jarman, Norman & Williams - i.e. minutes after the
> shooting.
First, how would Jarman know that Lovelady was talking about the same
cop? Secondly, Williams was not with Norman & Jarman. Thirdly,
clearly, and most importantly, Oswald was stopped before the building
was *sealed*, & therefore was allowed to go on out. If Norman &
Jarman were stopped & sent back in, then they were stopped later,
after the building was sealed, & Baker was not on the sealing detail.
(Nor was Truly.)
And of what use is a suggestion that Oswald was hanging around the
building longer? The important thing re this whole Oswald-on-first-
floor is that he could not, then, have been a shooter, less than half
a minute before, on the 6th floor. The important thing about Jarman's
interview is that he cites Lovelady, & altho it's secondhand info,
it's another voice heard re Oswald being stopped on the first
floor.... We have Fritz/Bookhout re Norman & Jarman & Oswald, Biffle
re Truly, the NY Herald Trib re Campbell, Holmes re Oswald, Baker
himself (in JFK First Day Ev), and now Jarman re Lovelady: Oswald on
the first floor before & just after the shooting cannot be a
shooter....
dcw
>
> And what about Mrs Reid's post-assassination sighting of Oswald coming
> through the second-floor office area?
That was supposed to be a follow-up to Baker's sighting of him in the
2nd-floor luncheonette. Didn't work, partly because Baker said O was
wearing sleeves; Mrs R immediately afterward sees him in T-shirt. End
of Mrs R....
Sean Smiley
He would if O was the only one running *out* while everyone else was
running *in* with him....
dcw
Sean Murphy
> Sean,
>
> thank you for taking up this matter again. I could not hope for a
> stronger advocate for letting the chips fall where whey will.
>
> And that, as you suggested earlier in the thread, is really at the
> heart of this.
>
> Just some quick observations of the HSCA material as I have not had a
> chance to go through it in depth - and there is still more to get up.
Appreciate the kind words, Greg.
A couple of very quick points:
1. Thanks for giving us Harry Holmes' own words.
He (and by extension Oswald), Ed Hicks and James Jarman all tell
exactly the same story - independently of one another.
This front-entrance incident happened.
2. You mention that Marvin Johnson took a statement from Truly on
11/22. My understanding is that Truly didn't give a statement to DPD
until the next day?
Sean
Sean Murphy
Not what I meant.
Lucky enough for Harry Holmes to get the wrong end of the stick in
precisely the same way as Ed Hicks/DPD and Billy Lovelady/James
Jarman.
Or perhaps Oswald had a sit-down with these individuals the morning of
11/22 and said, 'Look guys, something big is gonna go down at
lunchtime. Here's what I need you to do...'
Sean Murphy
> On Aug 9, 10:29 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 9:33 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > You conveniently ignore Oswald's boarding of Cecil McWatters' bus 7
> > > blocks from the TSBD. McWatters had passed a checkpoint a few blocks
> > > earlier at 12:36. It was estimated the bus took about 3 to 4 minutes
> > > to reach the point he picked up Oswald which would mean Oswald boarded
> > > the bus no later than 12:40.
>
> > You conveniently ignore that 12:40 was no more than McWatters' "rough
> > estimation".
> > Going from that to "no later than 12:40" is nonsense.
>
> McWatters had passed a checkpoint several blocks before picking up Oswald
> and the recorded time was 12:36.
McWatters explicitly said there was no record of the time.
***
> It was only 3 blocks from the checkpoint
> at St. Paul and Elm to Field and Elm. Just how long do you think that
> would have taken?
On the day of a Presidential visit? Hard to say.
We do know that the bus was at a standstill due to very heavy traffic
when Oswald allegedly banged on the door.
Quit pretending you have a digital timestamp for this event.
***
>
> > ***
>
> > > > If the first-floor incident was transplanted to the lunchroom for PR
> > > > reasons alone, then we still have to account for Baker's 11/22
> > > > affidavit which speaks of a white male caught walking away from the
> > > > rear stairway several floors up th building.
>
> > > That's easy. It happened at the entrance to the second floor
> > > lunchroom.
>
> > Come back when you have studied the layout of the second floor.
>
> You don't believe there was a lunchroom on the second floor?
You think it's possible for someone coming off the stairway to see
someone "walking away from the stairway" towards the lunchroom?
Come back when you have studied the layout of the second floor.
***
>
> > ***
>
> > > > We also have to account for the two white men noticed by Baker near
> > > > the rear of the first floor as he and Truly tried to call the
> > > > elevator.
>
> > > Why do we have to account for them?
>
> > (Grin.)
>
> No answer then.
(Grin.) You really are clueless, aren't you?
Read slowly: all white male TSBD workers are accounted for at this
time.
There aren't supposed to be any white males near the rear of the first
floor.
Sean Murphy
> how would Jarman know that Lovelady was talking about the same
> cop?
Lovelady told him so. He had been standing on those steps watching the
comings and goings.
***
Secondly, Williams was not with Norman & Jarman. Thirdly,
> clearly, and most importantly, Oswald was stopped before the building
> was *sealed*,
If the building hasn't been 'sealed' yet, who would be interested in
stopping him?
Jarman tells us that Lovelady was standing on the steps when the
incident happened. Lovelady's presence on the steps minutes after the
assassination is confirmed by the Martin & Hughes films.
***
> & therefore was allowed to go on out. If Norman &
> Jarman were stopped & sent back in, then they were stopped later,
> after the building was sealed, & Baker was not on the sealing detail.
> (Nor was Truly.)
Baker was not on the sealing detail. He cannot have been the cop who
stopped Oswald.
***
>
> And of what use is a suggestion that Oswald was hanging around the
> building longer?
Of what *use*?? We're not here to evaluate evidence on its
'usefulness'. That's for LNers to do.
***
>
> > And what about Mrs Reid's post-assassination sighting of Oswald coming
> > through the second-floor office area?
>
> That was supposed to be a follow-up to Baker's sighting of him in the
> 2nd-floor luncheonette. Didn't work, partly because Baker said O was
> wearing sleeves; Mrs R immediately afterward sees him in T-shirt. End
> of Mrs R....
Baker met a light-brown-jacketed man. Mrs. Reid met Oswald.
Sean Smiley
> On Aug 10, 4:08 am, greg <greg.par...@dockearth.com> wrote:
>
> > Sean,
>
> > thank you for taking up this matter again. I could not hope for a
> > stronger advocate for letting the chips fall where whey will.
>
> > And that, as you suggested earlier in the thread, is really at the
> > heart of this.
>
> > Just some quick observations of the HSCA material as I have not had a
> > chance to go through it in depth - and there is still more to get up.
>
> Appreciate the kind words, Greg.
>
> A couple of very quick points:
>
> 1. Thanks for giving us Harry Holmes' own words.
> He (and by extension Oswald), Ed Hicks
How does he figure into all this??
dcw
Sean Smiley
> On Aug 10, 12:10 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > how would Jarman know that Lovelady was talking about the same
> > cop?
>
> Lovelady told him so. He had been standing on those steps watching the
> comings and goings.
>
later, inside the building.
dcw
> ***
>
> Secondly, Williams was not with Norman & Jarman. Thirdly,
>
> > clearly, and most importantly, Oswald was stopped before the building
> > was *sealed*,
>
> If the building hasn't been 'sealed' yet, who would be interested in
> stopping him?
Someone, like Baker, who sees him running *out* when everyone else is
running *in*....
> Jarman tells us that Lovelady was standing on the steps when the
> incident happened. Lovelady's presence on the steps minutes after the
> assassination is confirmed by the Martin & Hughes films.
>
> ***
>
> > & therefore was allowed to go on out. If Norman &
> > Jarman were stopped & sent back in, then they were stopped later,
> > after the building was sealed, & Baker was not on the sealing detail.
> > (Nor was Truly.)
>
> Baker was not on the sealing detail. He cannot have been the cop who
> stopped Oswald.
>
If, as I suspect, Oswald's instructions were to distract any cop coming in
early, he did something to attract Baker's attention, whether running out
or pretending to evade him or.... Yes, he might have just been told to
stay on the first floor, no other instructions, but I doubt it. He
certainly wasn't told to go up to the 2nd floor afterwards....
>
>
>
> > And of what use is a suggestion that Oswald was hanging around the
> > building longer?
>
> Of what *use*?? We're not here to evaluate evidence on its
> 'usefulness'. That's for LNers to do.
>
I thought you suggested that if he was lingering longer, or longering
linger, that meant he was innocent.
> ***
>
>
>
> > > And what about Mrs Reid's post-assassination sighting of Oswald coming
> > > through the second-floor office area?
>
> > That was supposed to be a follow-up to Baker's sighting of him in the
> > 2nd-floor luncheonette. Didn't work, partly because Baker said O was
> > wearing sleeves; Mrs R immediately afterward sees him in T-shirt. End
> > of Mrs R....
>
> Baker met a light-brown-jacketed man. Mrs. Reid met Oswald.
You're going to have to do a scorecard of what cop saw what suspect, on
floors 1 thru 4 (at least). Baker never said he stopped more than one
man, tho his tale of this encounter varied. So Mrs Reid saw Oswald on the
2nd floor after going up from the 1st floor???
greg
Sean,
didn't mean to give that impression. Baker simply stated he got the
information from the officer who took both his and Truly's statements. He
obviously was not given the story until some time AFTER Truly's statement
was taken on 12/23.
greg
Bud
Why? He couldn`t be Baker`s rooftop shooter.
Bud
> Sean,
>
> thank you for taking up this matter again. I could not hope for a
> stronger advocate for letting the chips fall where whey will.
>
> And that, as you suggested earlier in the thread, is really at the
> heart of this.
>
> Just some quick observations of the HSCA material as I have not had a
> chance to go through it in depth - and there is still more to get up.
>
> 1. It was NOT Baker who stopped Oswald at the front entrance.
Correct. Nobody did.
> 2. There is more support found in Jarman's interview than brought out
> so far.
>
> From Holmes WC testimony:
> But he went downstairs,
From where?
>and as he went out the front, it seems as
> though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine,
> or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke
> involved. He mentioned something about a coke. But a police officer
> asked him who he was,
Why would Baker be questioning people on the first floor when he
thought the shooter was on the roof?
<snicker> Does anyone remember when CTers used to claim Baker got to
the second floor too fast for Oswald to have made down to the
lunchroom? Now they are trying for a hustling Baker, intent on getting
to the roof and passing employee after employee only to stop Oswald on
the first floor.
> and just as he started to identify himself, his
> superintendent came up and said, "He is one of our men." And the
> policeman said, "Well, you step aside for a little bit." Then another
> man rushed in past him as he started out the door, in this vestibule
> part of it, and flashed some kind of credential and he said, "Where is
> your telephone, where is your telephone, and said I am so and so,
> where is your telephone."
>
> From Jarman's HSCA interview:
> "...I heard that Oswald had come down through the office and came down
> the front stairs and he was stopped by the officer that stopped us and
> sent back in the building and Mr Truly told them that he was alright,
> that he worked here, so then he proceeded on out the building, and we
> wondered why he stopped us."
I wonder why he would stop Oswald on the first floor.
> 3. Marion Baker's HSCA interview reveals that he was TOLD by Marvin
> Johnson that his encounter had been with Oswald. Johnson also took
> Truly's statement. This flies in the face of Johnson's own affidavit
> in which he claimed Baker had recognised Oswald as they sat in the
> same room while Baker gave his statement (even though this vital
> information was not incorporated in the statement),
They weren`t in the same room.
>and also Baker's
> WC testimony in which he backed up Johnson's assertion by making the
> same claim. Baker it seems, had a habit of forgetting the original
> cover story and letting bits and pieces of the truth mix in with it
> over the years. Baker was given the cover story by Johnson, and his
> own affidavit which actually gave the facts, would never be mentioned
> again.
>
> There is more from the interviews that needs to be discussed, but that
> is all that is relevant to this topic, except to say that the HSCA
> interviewers evidently were not familiar with the people and evidence
> under discussion - an appalling situation.
You mean they weren`t engaging in the meaningless hobby of trying
to construct an alibi or Oswald out of the weakest bits of information
available.
> greghttp://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum.htmhttp://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com
greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry -- meant 11/23...
greg
Bud
Correct. Brennan accounted for Oswald`s whereabout at the time of
the shooting.
> There aren't supposed to be any white males near the rear of the first
> floor.
Yah, we know there are two black men in that room, one who saw Truly and
Baker come through. So the blacks aren`t seeing the whites in the room,
and the one white coming through the room isn`t seeing the blacks (Piper
and the other one whos names escapes me, the wrapper), but the one black
is seeing the whites (Baker/Truly) come through. Or Baker was mistaken
about the races of the men in the room, having no reason to take note of
all the people he is passing on route to the roof to confront the sniper..
Bud
> On Aug 10, 12:10 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > how would Jarman know that Lovelady was talking about the same
> > cop?
>
> Lovelady told him so. He had been standing on those steps watching the
> comings and goings.
>
> ***
>
> Secondly, Williams was not with Norman & Jarman. Thirdly,
>
> > clearly, and most importantly, Oswald was stopped before the building
> > was *sealed*,
>
> If the building hasn't been 'sealed' yet, who would be interested in
> stopping him?
> Jarman tells us that Lovelady was standing on the steps when the
> incident happened. Lovelady's presence on the steps minutes after the
> assassination is confirmed by the Martin & Hughes films.
>
> ***
>
> > & therefore was allowed to go on out. If Norman &
> > Jarman were stopped & sent back in, then they were stopped later,
> > after the building was sealed, & Baker was not on the sealing detail.
> > (Nor was Truly.)
>
> Baker was not on the sealing detail. He cannot have been the cop who
> stopped Oswald.
He did stop Oswald, just not on the first floor.
> ***
>
>
>
> > And of what use is a suggestion that Oswald was hanging around the
> > building longer?
>
> Of what *use*?? We're not here to evaluate evidence on its
> 'usefulness'. That's for LNers to do.
<snicker> Building bizarre concoctions with useless information is
for CTers to do.
> ***
>
>
>
> > > And what about Mrs Reid's post-assassination sighting of Oswald coming
> > > through the second-floor office area?
>
> > That was supposed to be a follow-up to Baker's sighting of him in the
> > 2nd-floor luncheonette. Didn't work, partly because Baker said O was
> > wearing sleeves; Mrs R immediately afterward sees him in T-shirt. End
> > of Mrs R....
>
> Baker met a light-brown-jacketed man. Mrs. Reid met Oswald.
They both met Oswald. On the same floor.
greg
> On Aug 9, 11:08 pm, greg <greg.par...@dockearth.com> wrote:
>
> > Sean,
>
> > thank you for taking up this matter again. I could not hope for a
> > stronger advocate for letting the chips fall where whey will.
>
> > And that, as you suggested earlier in the thread, is really at the
> > heart of this.
>
> > Just some quick observations of the HSCA material as I have not had a
> > chance to go through it in depth - and there is still more to get up.
>
> > 1. It was NOT Baker who stopped Oswald at the front entrance.
>
> Correct. Nobody did.
The evidence says otherwise.
> > 2. There is more support found in Jarman's interview than brought out
> > so far.
>
> > From Holmes WC testimony:
> > But he went downstairs,
>
> From where?
Holmes did not pursue the question. He assumed it had been covered in
previous sessions. But there is no doubt he had just bought that
coke...
> >and as he went out the front, it seems as
> > though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine,
> > or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke
> > involved. He mentioned something about a coke. But a police officer
> > asked him who he was,
>
> Why would Baker be questioning people on the first floor when he
> thought the shooter was on the roof?
Who said it was Baker? Since you have been following this thread, you
know damn well that Baker is not the cop, so your purpose in asking a
question you know to be baseless comes across as a little bit of
disingenuousness.
> <snicker> Does anyone remember when CTers used to claim Baker got to
> the second floor too fast for Oswald to have made down to the
> lunchroom?
So? Neither myself nor Sean represent the entire "community". Your
reply is just so predictable, I could have written it for you.
> Now they are trying for a hustling Baker, intent on getting
No. Not "they" as in the whole "community".
> to the roof and passing employee after employee only to stop Oswald on
> the first floor.
Again, par for the course. Can't argue with the facts presented. Make
some up to poke fun at.
> > and just as he started to identify himself, his
> > superintendent came up and said, "He is one of our men." And the
> > policeman said, "Well, you step aside for a little bit." Then another
> > man rushed in past him as he started out the door, in this vestibule
> > part of it, and flashed some kind of credential and he said, "Where is
> > your telephone, where is your telephone, and said I am so and so,
> > where is your telephone."
>
> > From Jarman's HSCA interview:
> > "...I heard that Oswald had come down through the office and came down
> > the front stairs and he was stopped by the officer that stopped us and
> > sent back in the building and Mr Truly told them that he was alright,
> > that he worked here, so then he proceeded on out the building, and we
> > wondered why he stopped us."
>
> I wonder why he would stop Oswald on the first floor.
The officer who was sealing the front exit stopped Oswald, just as he
did others. It was the whole reason he was there.
> > 3. Marion Baker's HSCA interview reveals that he was TOLD by Marvin
> > Johnson that his encounter had been with Oswald. Johnson also took
> > Truly's statement. This flies in the face of Johnson's own affidavit
> > in which he claimed Baker had recognised Oswald as they sat in the
> > same room while Baker gave his statement (even though this vital
> > information was not incorporated in the statement),
>
> They weren`t in the same room.
Baker and Oswald were indeed in the same room. If you are referring to
Johnson, you are right. He took Baker's statement over the phone.
> >and also Baker's
> > WC testimony in which he backed up Johnson's assertion by making the
> > same claim. Baker it seems, had a habit of forgetting the original
> > cover story and letting bits and pieces of the truth mix in with it
> > over the years. Baker was given the cover story by Johnson, and his
> > own affidavit which actually gave the facts, would never be mentioned
> > again.
>
> > There is more from the interviews that needs to be discussed, but that
> > is all that is relevant to this topic, except to say that the HSCA
> > interviewers evidently were not familiar with the people and evidence
> > under discussion - an appalling situation.
>
> You mean they weren`t engaging in the meaningless hobby of trying
> to construct an alibi or Oswald out of the weakest bits of information
> available.
No. I mean they were unfamiliar with the names of witnesses and the
evidence they were supposed to be going over.
> > greghttp://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum.htmhttp://reopenkennedy...- Hide quoted text -
Sean Smiley
floor, before he & Truly reached the elevators/stairs at the back,
found in an appendix of "JFK First Day Evidence". All Baker says here
is, "I confronted Oswald" (p365). Guess he thought that was
enough.... Maybe Baker thought Oswald might be an accomplice, which I
think he actually was....
Sean Smiley
And here's where Oswald the Quick-Change Artist's peculiar talents
came into play. Baker saw him in a jacket, or long-sleeved shirt in
the luncheonette; a few seconds later, Mrs R saw him without sleeves,
in a T shirt, in her office! Great witnesses! Or O really was a
quick-changer....
dcw
Bud
Suddenly you have such a limited imagination. What about one or the
other being mistaken. If witnesses must be correct, the multiple witnesses
who saw Oswald killing people confirm his guilt.
And isn`t it silly to take the position that if a person gives a
description with multiple details, if one detail causes a difficulty, that
it can`t be Oswald they saw? If you start and proceed from faulty
positions, why would you think you are going in the right direction?
> dcw
Bud
What exactly did Baker say?
> All Baker says here
> is, "I confronted Oswald" (p365). Guess he thought that was
> enough.... Maybe Baker thought Oswald might be an accomplice, which I
> think he actually was....
No, that doesn`t work at all, Baker passed a lot of people on his
way to the elevators.
Bud
> On Aug 11, 2:37 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 11:08 pm, greg <greg.par...@dockearth.com> wrote:
>
> > > Sean,
>
> > > thank you for taking up this matter again. I could not hope for a
> > > stronger advocate for letting the chips fall where whey will.
>
> > > And that, as you suggested earlier in the thread, is really at the
> > > heart of this.
>
> > > Just some quick observations of the HSCA material as I have not had a
> > > chance to go through it in depth - and there is still more to get up.
>
> > > 1. It was NOT Baker who stopped Oswald at the front entrance.
>
> > Correct. Nobody did.
>
> The evidence says otherwise.
Your reading of the evidence might, but your reading of the evidence
is faulty. You are using weak hearsay and garbled versions of the
event to trump first hand accounts.
> > > 2. There is more support found in Jarman's interview than brought out
> > > so far.
>
> > > From Holmes WC testimony:
> > > But he went downstairs,
>
> > From where?
>
> Holmes did not pursue the question. He assumed it had been covered in
> previous sessions. But there is no doubt he had just bought that
> coke...
So, Oswald upstairs getting himself a coke during the shooting, goes
downstairs and heads out, bumps into Baker, who is heading for the roof
where he thought the shots came from, passes multiple people on his way
but pulls his gun on Oswald, Truly vouches for him in the vestibule, and
Oswald goes home. All you need for this convoluted mess is the
extraordinary idea that a dozen people decided to railroad Oswald, and
even with that unsupportable idea a given it STILL doesn`t make any sense.
> > >and as he went out the front, it seems as
> > > though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine,
> > > or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke
> > > involved. He mentioned something about a coke. But a police officer
> > > asked him who he was,
>
> > Why would Baker be questioning people on the first floor when he
> > thought the shooter was on the roof?
>
> Who said it was Baker?
Jarman indicated it was both the same cop. So, unknown cop stops
Oswald on first floor and Truly vouches for Oswald. Is there also two
Trulys, one on the first floor and one with Baker?
> Since you have been following this thread, you
> know damn well that Baker is not the cop, so your purpose in asking a
> question you know to be baseless comes across as a little bit of
> disingenuousness.
I have been following the discussion. Some conspiracy mongers are taking
one position (that it was Baker), some are taking the other. I admit to
being lax on following who is taking which position (I think it`s dw who
is taking the position it was Baker), but I`m not trying to confuse the
ideas you present, I want them as clear as possible so they can be seen
for the terrible ideas they really are.
> > <snicker> Does anyone remember when CTers used to claim Baker got to
> > the second floor too fast for Oswald to have made down to the
> > lunchroom?
>
> So? Neither myself nor Sean represent the entire "community". Your
> reply is just so predictable, I could have written it for you.
That would have saved me the trouble of pointing it out.
> > Now they are trying for a hustling Baker, intent on getting
>
> No. Not "they" as in the whole "community".
It`s possible that if the other members of the "community" (when they
see you are constructing what they can pretend is a viable alibi for
Oswald) will gleefully jump on the bandwagon. Anything to not accept
Oswald`s obvious guilt.
> > to the roof and passing employee after employee only to stop Oswald on
> > the first floor.
>
> Again, par for the course. Can't argue with the facts presented. Make
> some up to poke fun at.
It was just a general observation. I`ll try to stick to poking fun
at your specific ideas in the future.
> > > and just as he started to identify himself, his
> > > superintendent came up and said, "He is one of our men." And the
> > > policeman said, "Well, you step aside for a little bit." Then another
> > > man rushed in past him as he started out the door, in this vestibule
> > > part of it, and flashed some kind of credential and he said, "Where is
> > > your telephone, where is your telephone, and said I am so and so,
> > > where is your telephone."
>
> > > From Jarman's HSCA interview:
> > > "...I heard that Oswald had come down through the office and came down
> > > the front stairs and he was stopped by the officer that stopped us and
> > > sent back in the building and Mr Truly told them that he was alright,
> > > that he worked here, so then he proceeded on out the building, and we
> > > wondered why he stopped us."
>
> > I wonder why he would stop Oswald on the first floor.
>
> The officer who was sealing the front exit stopped Oswald, just as he
> did others. It was the whole reason he was there.
To let people pass?
> > > 3. Marion Baker's HSCA interview reveals that he was TOLD by Marvin
> > > Johnson that his encounter had been with Oswald. Johnson also took
> > > Truly's statement. This flies in the face of Johnson's own affidavit
> > > in which he claimed Baker had recognised Oswald as they sat in the
> > > same room while Baker gave his statement (even though this vital
> > > information was not incorporated in the statement),
>
> > They weren`t in the same room.
>
> Baker and Oswald were indeed in the same room.
I don`t believe so, Baker misspoke. He meant that the SS was
interrogating Oswald in one of the small rooms back where he was.
> If you are referring to
> Johnson, you are right. He took Baker's statement over the phone.
Then Johnson couldn`t see who was in the room with Baker.
> > >and also Baker's
> > > WC testimony in which he backed up Johnson's assertion by making the
> > > same claim. Baker it seems, had a habit of forgetting the original
> > > cover story and letting bits and pieces of the truth mix in with it
> > > over the years. Baker was given the cover story by Johnson, and his
> > > own affidavit which actually gave the facts, would never be mentioned
> > > again.
>
> > > There is more from the interviews that needs to be discussed, but that
> > > is all that is relevant to this topic, except to say that the HSCA
> > > interviewers evidently were not familiar with the people and evidence
> > > under discussion - an appalling situation.
>
> > You mean they weren`t engaging in the meaningless hobby of trying
> > to construct an alibi or Oswald out of the weakest bits of information
> > available.
>
> No. I mean they were unfamiliar with the names of witnesses and the
> evidence they were supposed to be going over.
Your ideas require numerous people from diverse backgrounds working
together to frame Oswald. Why do you think the HSCA investigators
would ever engage in such a silly pursuit? Why would anybody?
> > > greghttp://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum.htmhttp://reopenkennedy...Hide quoted text -
Sean Smiley
And, again, Baker, in his contribution to "JFK First Day Evidence", says
that, yes, he *was* the cop who stopped Oswald on the first floor, as he &
Truly ran in, seconds after the shooting. "I confronted Oswald", he
states. Then, he & Truly leave Oswald there & proceed to the
elevators/stairs. There were no other cops inside at the same time as
Baker. (Of course, if you're arguing a confrontation a few minutes
*later*, there might have been more cops, tho the next to arrive at the
TSBD seemed to be Sgt Harkness, but that wasn't till about 12:35.)
dcw
Sean Murphy
> On Aug 10, 9:34 am, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 10, 12:10 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > how would Jarman know that Lovelady was talking about the same
> > > cop?
>
> > Lovelady told him so. He had been standing on those steps watching the
> > comings and goings.
>
> We don't know how long he was there. He may have talked to Jarman
> later, inside the building.
> dcw
Jarman's HSCA statement states that Lovelady explicitly identified the
cop as the same fellow who stopped Jarman & co.
***
> > Baker was not on the sealing detail. He cannot have been the cop who
> > stopped Oswald.
>
> If, as I suspect, Oswald's instructions were to distract any cop coming in
> early, he did something to attract Baker's attention, whether running out
> or pretending to evade him or....
Interesting theory, but doesn't the encounter with the credentials-
flashing reporter at the front entrance further timestamp the incident
to several minutes after the assassination?
***
> > > And of what use is a suggestion that Oswald was hanging around the
> > > building longer?
>
> > Of what *use*?? We're not here to evaluate evidence on its
> > 'usefulness'. That's for LNers to do.
>
> I thought you suggested that if he was lingering longer, or longering
> linger, that meant he was innocent.
I believe that Oswald was innocent, at least of being the sixth-floor
shooter.
My point was simply that Jarman's corroboration of the front entrance
incident points to coverup, conspiracy and a later timeline for Oswald's
exit from the building.
***
> > Baker met a light-brown-jacketed man. Mrs. Reid met Oswald.
>
> You're going to have to do a scorecard of what cop saw what suspect, on
> floors 1 thru 4 (at least).
Glad to.
1. Baker: runs into building with Truly; no major incident until he
encounters brown-jacketed 'employee' by the rear stairway several
floors up the building; comes back down from the roof; gives a 100%
honest account of this in his affidavit that afternoon.
2. Cop 2: stands at the TSBD front door several minutes after the
shooting and checks people coming in and out; amongst the employees he
talks with is Oswald who is exiting the building.
So far so uncomplicated. The question then becomes Oswald's
whereabouts at the time of the shooting. I believe he was either near
the rear of the first floor or up on the second floor getting change
for a coke. It's *possible* that Baker popped his head into the second-
floor lunchroom on his way back *down* the building and asked Truly if
Oswald was ok. This incident then being merged with the earlier rear
stairway incident in order to explain the latter away.
***
> Baker never said he stopped more than one
> man, tho his tale of this encounter varied.
Only one man merited inclusion in Baker's 11/22 affidavit: the man
caught walking away from the rear stairway on the "third or fourth
floor". I certainly don't believe Baker invented this incident in
order to frame Oswald. He would have made a point of identifying the
'man' with 'the suspect now in custody'. He must have been pretty
perplexed when told later that this had 'actually' happened just one
floor up and in a small room.
***
> So Mrs Reid saw Oswald on the
> 2nd floor after going up from the 1st floor???
Possibly. In which case Oswald's reaction to the commotion seems
pretty strange (though arguably no less strange than Wesley Frazier's
decision to have lunch on his own down in the basement.). Unless
Oswald thought the officer rushing in was doing a security sweep of
the building just ahead of the motorcade's arrival in Dealey Plaza?
Just a thought.
Sean Smiley
You're forgetting that it doesn't have to work. Baker says he confronted
Oswald on the first floor as he & Truly ran in. Baker doesn't have to
give a reason for stopping him because... he stopped him!
dcw
Sean Smiley
Actually, I wasn't positing that it wasn't Oswald they saw. Mrs R simply
saw him at a different time, probably earlier, when, yes, if he was
working, he'd be in T shirt, as Jarman described his clothing habits.
dcw
Sean Smiley
> On Aug 10, 8:42 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 10, 9:34 am, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 10, 12:10 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > how would Jarman know that Lovelady was talking about the same
> > > > cop?
>
> > > Lovelady told him so. He had been standing on those steps watching the
> > > comings and goings.
>
> > We don't know how long he was there. He may have talked to Jarman
> > later, inside the building.
> > dcw
>
> Jarman's HSCA statement states that Lovelady explicitly identified the
> cop as the same fellow who stopped Jarman & co.
>
> ***
>
> > > Baker was not on the sealing detail. He cannot have been the cop who
> > > stopped Oswald.
>
> > If, as I suspect, Oswald's instructions were to distract any cop coming in
> > early, he did something to attract Baker's attention, whether running out
> > or pretending to evade him or....
>
> Interesting theory, but doesn't the encounter with the credentials-
> flashing reporter at the front entrance further timestamp the incident
> to several minutes after the assassination?
>
I thought MacNeil or Lehrer said it didn't happen when told of this
alleged incident.
> ***
>
> > > > And of what use is a suggestion that Oswald was hanging around the
> > > > building longer?
>
> > > Of what *use*?? We're not here to evaluate evidence on its
> > > 'usefulness'. That's for LNers to do.
>
> > I thought you suggested that if he was lingering longer, or longering
> > linger, that meant he was innocent.
>
> I believe that Oswald was innocent, at least of being the sixth-floor
> shooter.
>
We're on the same page here at least!
> My point was simply that Jarman's corroboration of the front entrance
> incident points to coverup, conspiracy and a later timeline for Oswald's
> exit from the building.
>
And why would they want to cover this up?
> > > Baker met a light-brown-jacketed man. Mrs. Reid met Oswald.
>
> > You're going to have to do a scorecard of what cop saw what suspect, on
> > floors 1 thru 4 (at least).
>
> Glad to.
>
> 1. Baker: runs into building with Truly; no major incident
Stop right there. I believe his "JFK First Day Evidence" recap, where he
& Truly run into Oswald just as they enter the building. "I confronted
Oswald," he wrote, no explanation, but he doesn't need one if he
confronted him. May have happened so fast that Baker wasn't exactly sure
why he stopped him. Maybe one ran into the other going in opposite
directions. Doesn't matter. "I confronted Oswald"... Of course, the
second-most important point about this version is that Baker says not one
word about the lunchroom! After pages of WC testimony re a lunchroom!
Upshot, I believe: He forgot what had been strictly concocted, remembered
only where the incident actually happened. (The 3rd or 4th floor stairway
was most probably a nervous higher-up-official reaction to this
first-floor encounter, described in Biffle's same-weekend account re Truly
& Baker, & confirmed by Baker's "JFK" account.)
dcw
Bud
Uh, yah, it does.
> Baker says he confronted
> Oswald on the first floor as he & Truly ran in.
He said he confronted him in the second floor lunchroom.
> Baker doesn't have to
> give a reason for stopping him because... he stopped him!
Your ideas don`t have to make sense because... they`re your ideas!
> dcw
Bud
Mrs Reid said she saw Oswald soon after the shooting. But don`t let
the corners of that square peg interfere with you hammering it into
that round hole.
> dcw
Bud
Where?
Sean Smiley
clothing accounts of the suspect within a minute. One of them's got
to be wrong, at least!
dcw
Sean Smiley
Dead wrong, Bud. We're talking above about Baker's "JFK First Day
Evidence" contribution, wherein he says that he confronted Oswald before
he (Baker) & Truly got to the stairs/elevators. Baker did not mention the
lunchroom, at all, in that account. The story he was handed, years
earlier, seemed to fade completely from his mind, as if the lunchroom
episode were uh... made up....
dcw
Sean Murphy
> > My point was simply that Jarman's corroboration of the front entrance
> > incident points to coverup, conspiracy and a later timeline for Oswald's
> > exit from the building.
>
> And why would they want to cover this up?
To help cover something much bigger up.
Baker had gone on the record about a white male he had stopped by the
rear stairway several floors up the building.
Truly had vouched for this 'employee'.
Big problem.
Solution? Explain this 'man' away by saying he was Oswald.
***
> > 1. Baker: runs into building with Truly; no major incident
>
> Stop right there. I believe his "JFK First Day Evidence" recap, where he
> & Truly run into Oswald just as they enter the building. "I confronted
> Oswald," he wrote, no explanation, but he doesn't need one if he
> confronted him. May have happened so fast that Baker wasn't exactly sure
> why he stopped him. Maybe one ran into the other going in opposite
> directions. Doesn't matter. "I confronted Oswald"... Of course, the
> second-most important point about this version is that Baker says not one
> word about the lunchroom! After pages of WC testimony re a lunchroom!
> Upshot, I believe: He forgot what had been strictly concocted, remembered
> only where the incident actually happened.
Don, I fear you're reading way too much into that First Day Evidence
account.
Here it is:
"The man who said he was the building superintendent was outside and
met me at the door and went in with me. Shortly after I entered the
building I confronted Oswald. The man who identified himself as the
superintendent said that Oswald was all right, that he was employed
there. We left Oswald there, and the supervisor showed me the way
upstairs. We couldn't get anyone to send the freight elevator down."
Unlike with Baker's 11/22 affidavit, there are no details here that
contradict the second-floor lunchroom story.
"Shortly after I entered the building" could easily mean second floor.
True, Baker's mention of going upstairs *after* the Oswald incident is
a little odd. But so too, by the same logic, is his mention of an
attempt to get the freight elevator *after* the ascent upstairs.
***
(The 3rd or 4th floor stairway
> was most probably a nervous higher-up-official reaction to this
> first-floor encounter, described in Biffle's same-weekend account re Truly
> & Baker, & confirmed by Baker's "JFK" account.)
Why then does Baker's affidavit make no connection between 'man' and
'suspect now in custody'?
Surely that would have been the point of the exercise.
And why anomalies like 'light brown jacket'?
If this was a frame up, surely they would have gotten the description
'right'?
No, I am convinced Baker told the full truth 11/22.
We hear very, very little from him between that day and his Warren
Commission appearance.
There's a reason for that.
Sean Smiley
> For several years now I have argued, along with Greg Parker, that the
> fabled 2nd-floor lunchroom incident involving Oswald, Baker & Truly
> never happened.
>
> We have had several reasons for this belief, not least Officer Baker's
> 11/22/63 affidavit statement that the light-brown-jacketed 'employee'
> he challenged just after the assassination was "walking away from the
> stairway" on "the 3rd or 4th floor". We believe that this was a man
> other than Oswald.
>
>
> The second-floor lunchroom story appears to have only taken shape late
> on 11/22 when Truly gave a statement to the FBI. Truly himself had
> been telling people about a first-floor sighting of Oswald. The DPD
> had been telling the press in no uncertain terms about an Oswald-
> Officer encounter that took place at the front entrance of the TSBD.
> Oswald was allegedly on his way outside when he was stopped by police.
> When his boss vouched for him, he was allowed to walk down the front
> steps.
>
> from a startling source: Oswald himself. Holmes told the WC that he
> heard Oswald in custody tell Fritz about a first-floor encounter: on
> his way out the front entrance of the building he was stopped by a
> police officer; his "superintendent" vouched for him; whereupon he was
> allowed to walk out and down the front steps.
>
>
> I have long argued that Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley lied about
> their immediate post-assassination actions in order to hide a simple
> fact: they were standing at the TSBD front entrance when Oswald walked
> out of the building. They witnessed the true Oswald-Officer encounter.
>
> compelling corroboration of this theory has just come to light.
>
> ***
>
> On September 25 1977 James Jarman was interviewed for the HSCA. He
> told the interviewers that he, Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman
> had run downstairs after the assassination and attempted to leave the
> building by the front entrance:
>
mention Williams going out with them....
dcw
Bud
The one that places waiting for the elevator after they take the
stairs? Obviously the chronology is a little out of sorts. You treat
error like it`s carved in stone. And Baker said he pulled his gun as
he ascended the steps. So how is the gun out to point at Oswald on the
first floor?
> Baker did not mention the
> lunchroom, at all, in that account.
It`s only your assumption that he must.
> The story he was handed, years
> earlier, seemed to fade completely from his mind, as if the lunchroom
> episode were uh... made up....
Thats the amazing idea you really can`t begin to support.
> dcw
Bud
I don`t take the position that clothing descriptions given by
witnesses must be accurate. It was Oswald they both saw because they
both said they saw Oswald.
You play the silly game that if some information is in conflict,
that opens the door for you to move it around until it pleases you.
> One of them's got
> to be wrong, at least!
Probably.
> dcw
Sean Smiley
"JFK First Day Evidence", p365, appendix Chapter 6: Reflections Baker
& Truly "confronted Oswald", then: "We left Oswald there, & the
supervisor showed me the way upstairs. We couldn't get anyone to send
the freight elevator down...." Then: not a word re the lunchroom....
dcw
Sean Smiley
> On Aug 11, 9:47 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > My point was simply that Jarman's corroboration of the front entrance
> > > incident points to coverup, conspiracy and a later timeline for Oswald's
> > > exit from the building.
>
> > And why would they want to cover this up?
>
> To help cover something much bigger up.
> Baker had gone on the record about a white male he had stopped by the
> rear stairway several floors up the building.
> Truly had vouched for this 'employee'.
> Big problem.
> Solution? Explain this 'man' away by saying he was Oswald.
>
transferring the incident to the lunchroom? Why not have volumes of
testimony from B&T re the encounter in the thirdfloor stairwell?
I'd say that "We left Oswald there" means before the two crossed the
floor & went upstairs. Why would Baker have himself following Truly
upstairs to the 2nd floor, confronting Oswald, *then* saying "the supe
showed me the way upstairs"? Does not compute. The back stairs began
on the first floor. By level two, Baker would already have been
pretty clear that the stairs which had led to the 2nd floor would then
lead to the 3rd, then.... By the 2nd floor, he in fact would not have
needed Truly at all, since, I believe, the stairs continued almost to
the roof....
dcw
But so too, by the same logic, is his mention of an
> attempt to get the freight elevator *after* the ascent upstairs.
I think a "because" is implied here: used the stairs *because* they
couldn't get the freight elevator. No "after".
> ***
>
> (The 3rd or 4th floor stairway
>
> > was most probably a nervous higher-up-official reaction to this
> > first-floor encounter, described in Biffle's same-weekend account re Truly
> > & Baker, & confirmed by Baker's "JFK" account.)
Biffle has Truly & an officer confronting Oswald in a storage room on
the first floor--are you saying that it was Truly & another officer?
There's film of Baker running towards the building just after the
shooting. Even if it was another officer, that puts Oswald on the
first floor less than half a minute after the shooting.... But there
was no other officer there in the minute after the shooting....
>
> Why then does Baker's affidavit make no connection between 'man' and
> 'suspect now in custody'?
He saw Oswald for a few seconds, then forgot about him, as Truly had
dismissed him. And he had no doubt been prepped as exactly what to
say, & those nervous nellies would not have expected the two would be
in the same area when he was making out his affidavit. He could have
lighted out on his own, affidavitly speaking, but the key here was
"third or 4th floor"--anything to get Oswald away from the 1st floor.
I think Baker's leash was pretty short. Certainly, every word for his
testimony re the lunchroom was checked & double checked....
> Surely that would have been the point of the exercise.
> And why anomalies like 'light brown jacket'?
> If this was a frame up, surely they would have gotten the description
> 'right'?
No one apparently cared about clothing. Jacket (Baker), T shirt
(Reid)--apparently inconsequential.... As Walt C is fond of pointing
out, Brennan's description of the suspect's clothing, in Brennan's
affidavit or statement, does not match what Oswald was apparently
wearing. But no one cared enuf to correct Brennan....
mark drenning
reporter Robert mcneal, who aked Owald where he could find a phone.
Sean Murphy
> On Aug 11, 9:39 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 11, 9:47 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > My point was simply that Jarman's corroboration of the front entrance
> > > > incident points to coverup, conspiracy and a later timeline for Oswald's
> > > > exit from the building.
>
> > > And why would they want to cover this up?
>
> > To help cover something much bigger up.
> > Baker had gone on the record about a white male he had stopped by the
> > rear stairway several floors up the building.
> > Truly had vouched for this 'employee'.
> > Big problem.
> > Solution? Explain this 'man' away by saying he was Oswald.
>
> But then why didn't they stick with this story, instead of
> transferring the incident to the lunchroom? Why not have volumes of
> testimony from B&T re the encounter in the thirdfloor stairwell?
I suspect Truly knew - from Jeraldean Reid and possibly also Geneva Hine -
that Oswald visited that lunchroom shortly after the assassination. A
lunchroom story was the best he could do.
***
> I'd say that "We left Oswald there" means before the two crossed the
> floor & went upstairs. Why would Baker have himself following Truly
> upstairs to the 2nd floor, confronting Oswald, *then* saying "the supe
> showed me the way upstairs"? Does not compute. The back stairs began
> on the first floor. By level two, Baker would already have been
> pretty clear that the stairs which had led to the 2nd floor would then
> lead to the 3rd, then.... By the 2nd floor, he in fact would not have
> needed Truly at all, since, I believe, the stairs continued almost to
> the roof....
> dcw
"Showed me the way upstairs", not "showed me where the stairs were".
***
> But so too, by the same logic, is his mention of an
>
> > attempt to get the freight elevator *after* the ascent upstairs.
>
> I think a "because" is implied here: used the stairs *because* they
> couldn't get the freight elevator. No "after".
Right: implied. Just as the lunchroom is implied.
Again, Baker's 11/22 affidavit is different: it tells a *different*
story.
***
> > (The 3rd or 4th floor stairway
>
> > > was most probably a nervous higher-up-official reaction to this
> > > first-floor encounter, described in Biffle's same-weekend account re Truly
> > > & Baker, & confirmed by Baker's "JFK" account.)
>
> Biffle has Truly & an officer confronting Oswald in a storage room on
> the first floor--are you saying that it was Truly & another officer?
Truly & Baker may have noticed Oswald lurking near the rear of the
first floor without it being a confrontation.
***
> There's film of Baker running towards the building just after the
> shooting. Even if it was another officer, that puts Oswald on the
> first floor less than half a minute after the shooting.... But there
> was no other officer there in the minute after the shooting....
Exactly. That was several minutes later.
***
> > Why then does Baker's affidavit make no connection between 'man' and
> > 'suspect now in custody'?
>
> He saw Oswald for a few seconds, then forgot about him, as Truly had
> dismissed him. And he had no doubt been prepped as exactly what to
> say, & those nervous nellies would not have expected the two would be
> in the same area when he was making out his affidavit. He could have
> lighted out on his own, affidavitly speaking, but the key here was
> "third or 4th floor"--anything to get Oswald away from the 1st floor.
> I think Baker's leash was pretty short. Certainly, every word for his
> testimony re the lunchroom was checked & double checked....
>
> > Surely that would have been the point of the exercise.
> > And why anomalies like 'light brown jacket'?
> > If this was a frame up, surely they would have gotten the description
> > 'right'?
>
> No one apparently cared about clothing. Jacket (Baker), T shirt
> (Reid)--apparently inconsequential.... As Walt C is fond of pointing
> out, Brennan's description of the suspect's clothing, in Brennan's
> affidavit or statement, does not match what Oswald was apparently
> wearing. But no one cared enuf to correct Brennan....
Brennan described 11/22 the man he saw. It wasn't Oswald.
Baker described 11/22 the man he confronted. It wasn't Oswald.
>
>
>
> > No, I am convinced Baker told the full truth 11/22.
> > We hear very, very little from him between that day and his Warren
> > Commission appearance.
> > There's a reason for that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Sean Smiley
No, the one that says that they took the stairs ("BECAUSE" implied) no
one would send down the freight elevator.
dcw
Obviously the chronology is a little out of sorts.
Hardly. Use some common sense
You treat
> error like it`s carved in stone. And Baker said he pulled his gun as
> he ascended the steps. So how is the gun out to point at Oswald on the
> first floor?
He did not say it was or it wasn't.
>
> > Baker did not mention the
> > lunchroom, at all, in that account.
>
> It`s only your assumption that he must.
>
Uh, according to his WC testimony, it took place there. Thousands of
words on it. But, in both his original affidavit, & in his "JFK FDE"
recap, not a word. Explain that.
> > The story he was handed, years
> > earlier, seemed to fade completely from his mind, as if the lunchroom
> > episode were uh... made up....
>
> Thats the amazing idea you really can`t begin to support.
Give me a better idea
> > dcw
Bud
He didn`t use the word "lunchroom" in those accounts. But the place
the encounter occurred at was the same in all three accounts.
> > > The story he was handed, years
> > > earlier, seemed to fade completely from his mind, as if the lunchroom
> > > episode were uh... made up....
>
> > Thats the amazing idea you really can`t begin to support.
>
> Give me a better idea
Perhaps you should just stay out of this "idea" business altogether.
> > > dcw
Sean Smiley
> On Aug 12, 1:44 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 9:39 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 11, 9:47 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > My point was simply that Jarman's corroboration of the front entrance
> > > > > incident points to coverup, conspiracy and a later timeline for Oswald's
> > > > > exit from the building.
>
> > > > And why would they want to cover this up?
>
> > > To help cover something much bigger up.
> > > Baker had gone on the record about a white male he had stopped by the
> > > rear stairway several floors up the building.
> > > Truly had vouched for this 'employee'.
> > > Big problem.
> > > Solution? Explain this 'man' away by saying he was Oswald.
>
> > But then why didn't they stick with this story, instead of
> > transferring the incident to the lunchroom? Why not have volumes of
> > testimony from B&T re the encounter in the thirdfloor stairwell?
>
> I suspect Truly knew - from Jeraldean Reid and possibly also Geneva Hine -
> that Oswald visited that lunchroom shortly after the assassination. A
> lunchroom story was the best he could do.
>
didn't see Oswald at all afterward? And it's hardly verified that
Oswald went upstairs *after* the assassination.
dcw
>
> > I'd say that "We left Oswald there" means before the two crossed the
> > floor & went upstairs. Why would Baker have himself following Truly
> > upstairs to the 2nd floor, confronting Oswald, *then* saying "the supe
> > showed me the way upstairs"? Does not compute. The back stairs began
> > on the first floor. By level two, Baker would already have been
> > pretty clear that the stairs which had led to the 2nd floor would then
> > lead to the 3rd, then.... By the 2nd floor, he in fact would not have
> > needed Truly at all, since, I believe, the stairs continued almost to
> > the roof....
> > dcw
>
> "Showed me the way upstairs", not "showed me where the stairs were".
>
>
> > But so too, by the same logic, is his mention of an
>
> > > attempt to get the freight elevator *after* the ascent upstairs.
>
> > I think a "because" is implied here: used the stairs *because* they
> > couldn't get the freight elevator. No "after".
>
> Right: implied. Just as the lunchroom is implied.
It's very easy to see the "because" there; lunchroom is nowhere in
sight! 'Just as"!!
> Again, Baker's 11/22 affidavit is different: it tells a *different*
> story.
>
> ***
>
> > > (The 3rd or 4th floor stairway
>
> > > > was most probably a nervous higher-up-official reaction to this
> > > > first-floor encounter, described in Biffle's same-weekend account re Truly
> > > > & Baker, & confirmed by Baker's "JFK" account.)
>
> > Biffle has Truly & an officer confronting Oswald in a storage room on
> > the first floor--are you saying that it was Truly & another officer?
>
> Truly & Baker may have noticed Oswald lurking near the rear of the
> first floor without it being a confrontation.
>
Configure it any way you want to--Truly & whoever saw Oswald on the
first floor within half a minute of the shooting, which fact
eliminates O as shooter....
>
> > There's film of Baker running towards the building just after the
> > shooting. Even if it was another officer, that puts Oswald on the
> > first floor less than half a minute after the shooting.... But there
> > was no other officer there in the minute after the shooting....
>
> Exactly. That was several minutes later.
>
Any idea who this officer was? To my knowledge, no DPD officer has
ever stepped up to say he stopped Norman & Jarman. And only one sez
he stopped Oswald....
mark drenning
entrance of the TSBD and asked where he could find a phone. but could
not later swear it was Oswald. because was in a hurry and paid little
attention. Oswald himself told police as he left the building a man he
thought was a secret service agent asked for a phone.
Sean Murphy
> On Aug 12, 11:49 am, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 1:44 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 11, 9:39 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 11, 9:47 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > My point was simply that Jarman's corroboration of the front entrance
> > > > > > incident points to coverup, conspiracy and a later timeline for Oswald's
> > > > > > exit from the building.
>
> > > > > And why would they want to cover this up?
>
> > > > To help cover something much bigger up.
> > > > Baker had gone on the record about a white male he had stopped by the
> > > > rear stairway several floors up the building.
> > > > Truly had vouched for this 'employee'.
> > > > Big problem.
> > > > Solution? Explain this 'man' away by saying he was Oswald.
>
> > > But then why didn't they stick with this story, instead of
> > > transferring the incident to the lunchroom? Why not have volumes of
> > > testimony from B&T re the encounter in the thirdfloor stairwell?
>
> > I suspect Truly knew - from Jeraldean Reid and possibly also Geneva Hine -
> > that Oswald visited that lunchroom shortly after the assassination. A
> > lunchroom story was the best he could do.
>
> *Truly* is writing the script??!!
Truly vouched for Mr. Third/Fourth Floor.
He's the one who has to explain it away - with or without connivance
from the authorities.
I suspect that explaining it away was the priority, not framing
Oswald.
If the point of the lunchroom story was to frame Oswald, Truly could
have easily concocted some damning detail about Oswald sweating or
looking flustered or etc in the lunchroom. He didn't. That signifies
IMO.
> And didn't Hine testify that she
> didn't see Oswald at all afterward?
Robert Groden claims he interviewed a (now deceased) female employee
who said she was giving change to Oswald in the second-floor office
area at the time of the shooting.
It can surely only be Geneva Hine.
Frustratingly, we have to await publication of Groden's new book to
see the details and make a careful assessment of this witness's
claims.
If true, then it would explain a number of hitherto puzzling things in
this affair.
> And it's hardly verified that
> Oswald went upstairs *after* the assassination.
> dcw
It's hardly verified that Mrs. Reid was a liar.
It appears that Oswald up on the second floor at some point after the
assassination. Whether he was there or on the first floor or somewhere
else at assassination-time is still unclear.
>
> > > I'd say that "We left Oswald there" means before the two crossed the
> > > floor & went upstairs. Why would Baker have himself following Truly
> > > upstairs to the 2nd floor, confronting Oswald, *then* saying "the supe
> > > showed me the way upstairs"? Does not compute. The back stairs began
> > > on the first floor. By level two, Baker would already have been
> > > pretty clear that the stairs which had led to the 2nd floor would then
> > > lead to the 3rd, then.... By the 2nd floor, he in fact would not have
> > > needed Truly at all, since, I believe, the stairs continued almost to
> > > the roof....
> > > dcw
>
> > "Showed me the way upstairs", not "showed me where the stairs were".
>
> He'd already been shown!
>
>
>
> > > But so too, by the same logic, is his mention of an
>
> > > > attempt to get the freight elevator *after* the ascent upstairs.
>
> > > I think a "because" is implied here: used the stairs *because* they
> > > couldn't get the freight elevator. No "after".
>
> > Right: implied. Just as the lunchroom is implied.
>
> It's very easy to see the "because" there; lunchroom is nowhere in
> sight! 'Just as"!!
Baker's so-called First Day Evidence account appears to be later than
his HSCA interview.
The story Baker told the HSCA = The story he told the London Trial =
The story he told Nigel Turner.
How likely is it that he somehow completely 'forget' the story this
one and only time?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Again, Baker's 11/22 affidavit is different: it tells a *different*
> > story.
>
> > ***
>
> > > > (The 3rd or 4th floor stairway
>
> > > > > was most probably a nervous higher-up-official reaction to this
> > > > > first-floor encounter, described in Biffle's same-weekend account re Truly
> > > > > & Baker, & confirmed by Baker's "JFK" account.)
>
> > > Biffle has Truly & an officer confronting Oswald in a storage room on
> > > the first floor--are you saying that it was Truly & another officer?
>
> > Truly & Baker may have noticed Oswald lurking near the rear of the
> > first floor without it being a confrontation.
>
> Configure it any way you want to--Truly & whoever saw Oswald on the
> first floor within half a minute of the shooting, which fact
> eliminates O as shooter....
Oswald being seen on the first floor is only one possibility.
But again, Don, I'm not trying to 'configure' this in a way that gets
Oswald off the hook.
I'm trying to establish what happened.
Harry Holmes has Oswald coming downstairs from somewhere before his
front-entrance cop encounter.
Mrs. Reid has Oswald coming through the second-floor office area
shortly after the assassination.
Jarman/Lovelady have Oswald being stopped by a cop several minutes
after the assassination.
>
>
>
> > > There's film of Baker running towards the building just after the
> > > shooting. Even if it was another officer, that puts Oswald on the
> > > first floor less than half a minute after the shooting.... But there
> > > was no other officer there in the minute after the shooting....
>
> > Exactly. That was several minutes later.
>
> Any idea who this officer was? To my knowledge, no DPD officer has
> ever stepped up to say he stopped Norman & Jarman. And only one sez
> he stopped Oswald....
No. As of 11/22, Baker was only talking about a man he stopped by the
rear stairway on the third or fourth floor.
Absolutely no identification of this man as Oswald.
As for no DPD officer stepping up - well, it's clear that someone told
DPD that Oswald had been stopped at the front entrance by a cop.
Because that's what DPD were telling the press 11/22. The fix wasn't
in yet.
Besides, what cop wants to put his hands up and accept primary
responsibility for 'letting Oswald go'?
Sean Smiley
I don't see that in the police interviews. Are you sure it wasn't
something reporters asked him in the hallways?
dcw
Sean Smiley
Explaining away/framing/covering-up--where does one end & the other
begin?
dcw
> > And didn't Hine testify that she
> > didn't see Oswald at all afterward?
>
> Robert Groden claims he interviewed a (now deceased) female employee
> who said she was giving change to Oswald in the second-floor office
> area at the time of the shooting.
> It can surely only be Geneva Hine.
Until then, we have only her testimony, which does not mention such an
incident....
> Frustratingly, we have to await publication of Groden's new book to
> see the details and make a careful assessment of this witness's
> claims.
> If true, then it would explain a number of hitherto puzzling things in
> this affair.
>
> > And it's hardly verified that
> > Oswald went upstairs *after* the assassination.
> > dcw
>
> It's hardly verified that Mrs. Reid was a liar.
Funny, I thought her testimony was aimed at showing that Oswald was
coming *downstairs*.... And Hine testified that *she*, Hine, was the
first back to the office. Reid came up later. Hine saw no Oswald
before Reid came up, or after. One of them is at least confused....
> It appears that Oswald up on the second floor at some point after the
> assassination.
Again, unverified....
JFK FDE/Baker tallies with the 11/22 affidavit: no lunchroom. I
haven't seen Baker's HSCA....
>
>
>
> > > Again, Baker's 11/22 affidavit is different: it tells a *different*
> > > story.
>
Not according to LNers, you know--they say "lunchroom" is implied. I
don't believe it there either....
> > > ***
>
> > > > > (The 3rd or 4th floor stairway
>
> > > > > > was most probably a nervous higher-up-official reaction to this
> > > > > > first-floor encounter, described in Biffle's same-weekend account re Truly
> > > > > > & Baker, & confirmed by Baker's "JFK" account.)
>
> > > > Biffle has Truly & an officer confronting Oswald in a storage room on
> > > > the first floor--are you saying that it was Truly & another officer?
>
> > > Truly & Baker may have noticed Oswald lurking near the rear of the
> > > first floor without it being a confrontation.
>
> > Configure it any way you want to--Truly & whoever saw Oswald on the
> > first floor within half a minute of the shooting, which fact
> > eliminates O as shooter....
>
> Oswald being seen on the first floor is only one possibility.
> But again, Don, I'm not trying to 'configure' this in a way that gets
> Oswald off the hook.
> I'm trying to establish what happened.
> Harry Holmes has Oswald coming downstairs from somewhere before his
> front-entrance cop encounter.
> Mrs. Reid has Oswald coming through the second-floor office area
> shortly after the assassination.
Just after--as Baker testified--*he* saw him. Do you believe *that*?
And Hine seems to contradict Reid....
> Jarman/Lovelady have Oswald being stopped by a cop several minutes
> after the assassination.
>
This is secondhand. I am fascinated by this account, but take it with
a grain of salt. Lovelady doesn't corroborate; no cop corroborates--
it's all Jarman, who wasn't one of those involved.... But, yes, I
can't see why he'd bring up the subject unless there was a grain of
truth there. So many grains, so little wheat....
dcw
>
> > > > There's film of Baker running towards the building just after the
> > > > shooting. Even if it was another officer, that puts Oswald on the
> > > > first floor less than half a minute after the shooting.... But there
> > > > was no other officer there in the minute after the shooting....
>
> > > Exactly. That was several minutes later.
>
> > Any idea who this officer was? To my knowledge, no DPD officer has
> > ever stepped up to say he stopped Norman & Jarman. And only one sez
> > he stopped Oswald....
>
> No. As of 11/22, Baker was only talking about a man he stopped by the
> rear stairway on the third or fourth floor.
> Absolutely no identification of this man as Oswald.
> As for no DPD officer stepping up - well, it's clear that someone told
> DPD that Oswald had been stopped at the front entrance by a cop.
> Because that's what DPD were telling the press 11/22. The fix wasn't
> in yet.
> Besides, what cop wants to put his hands up and accept primary
> responsibility for 'letting Oswald go'?
>
Baker did. And, oddly, as I said, no officer claimed to have stopped
Norman & Jarman.
bigdog
The scenario presented by the WC is completely consistent with all the
sworn testimony of the various witnesses and establishes a path and a
timeline of Oswald's movements following the shooting. Dubious "evidence"
has been presented that he may have also been briefly stopped by a cop on
the front stairs as he exited the TSBD but before the building had been
sealed off. Weak as the evidence is, even if that actually did happen, it
is hardly a game changer. That could have happened and would not have
precluded Oswald being in any of the places where the WC placed him at the
times they placed him. I would like anyone to take all of that evidence
and construct a plausible alternative scenario for what happened in the
minutes following the shooting. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to
happen.
Sean Smiley
Wait a minute. So Truly got *Baker* to agree to go with *Oswald* and
*2nd-floor lunchroom*??? I can't see just the two of them
colluding.... Sounds more like a third party getting the two to go
along with the new story....
dcw
Sean Murphy
> On Aug 13, 8:51 am, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If the point of the lunchroom story was to frame Oswald, Truly could
> > have easily concocted some damning detail about Oswald sweating or
> > looking flustered or etc in the lunchroom. He didn't. That signifies
> > IMO.
>
> That signifies only that they didn't want him to be too obvious.
A damning detail or two could have been subtly inserted.
What also signifies is Truly's early willingness to emphasise just how
soon after the shooting Oswald was seen in the lunchroom. As in 30
seconds!
***
> > Robert Groden claims he interviewed a (now deceased) female employee
> > who said she was giving change to Oswald in the second-floor office
> > area at the time of the shooting.
> > It can surely only be Geneva Hine.
>
> Until then, we have only her testimony, which does not mention such an
> incident....
No, we have the discrepancy between her initial on-the-record
statement to authorities and her WC testimony.
Groden's account would explain the discrepancy.
***
> > It's hardly verified that Mrs. Reid was a liar.
>
> Funny, I thought her testimony was aimed at showing that Oswald was
> coming *downstairs*....
Perhaps her testimony was aimed at showing what she really saw?
***
> JFK FDE/Baker tallies with the 11/22 affidavit: no lunchroom.
Absolutely not. Baker's 11/22 affidavit speaks of an encounter by the
rear stairway several floors up the building.
***
> I haven't seen Baker's HSCA....
It's up in full on Greg's site.
http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/richard-gilbride-hsca-collection.html
***
> > > > Again, Baker's 11/22 affidavit is different: it tells a *different*
> > > > story.
>
> Not according to LNers, you know--they say "lunchroom" is implied.
I could care less what they say.
***
> > > > Truly & Baker may have noticed Oswald lurking near the rear of the
> > > > first floor without it being a confrontation.
>
> > > Configure it any way you want to--Truly & whoever saw Oswald on the
> > > first floor within half a minute of the shooting, which fact
> > > eliminates O as shooter....
>
> > Oswald being seen on the first floor is only one possibility.
> > But again, Don, I'm not trying to 'configure' this in a way that gets
> > Oswald off the hook.
> > I'm trying to establish what happened.
> > Harry Holmes has Oswald coming downstairs from somewhere before his
> > front-entrance cop encounter.
> > Mrs. Reid has Oswald coming through the second-floor office area
> > shortly after the assassination.
>
> Just after--as Baker testified--*he* saw him. Do you believe *that*?
No. Baker's WC testimony contradicts his first-day statement.
***
> > Jarman/Lovelady have Oswald being stopped by a cop several minutes
> > after the assassination.
>
> This is secondhand. I am fascinated by this account, but take it with
> a grain of salt. Lovelady doesn't corroborate; no cop corroborates--
> it's all Jarman, who wasn't one of those involved....
By that token you'll have to throw out Biffle/Campbell re. "storage
room" as secondhand & uncorroborated.
Otherwise it's like Anthony Marsh dismissing Jarman's account as
'hearsay' while routinely citing Tip O'Neill's 'hearsay' as reliable.
***
> And, oddly, as I said, no officer claimed to have stopped
> Norman & Jarman.
Why would the officer in question even remember? Even if he did, why
would he see it as worthy of mention?
Sean
Sean Murphy
> The scenario presented by the WC is completely consistent with all the
> sworn testimony of the various witnesses and establishes a path and a
> timeline of Oswald's movements following the shooting. Dubious "evidence"
> has been presented that he may have also been briefly stopped by a cop on
> the front stairs as he exited the TSBD but before the building had been
> sealed off.
Before the building had been sealed off? More cluelessness.
> Weak as the evidence is, even if that actually did happen, it
> is hardly a game changer. That could have happened and would not have
> precluded Oswald being in any of the places where the WC placed him at the
> times they placed him. I would like anyone to take all of that evidence
> and construct a plausible alternative scenario for what happened in the
> minutes following the shooting. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to
> happen.
Your continued failure to grasp such basics as the layout of the second
floor disqualifies you as a serious commentator on any alternative
scenario under discussion. Come back when you've done your homework.
Sean Murphy
> On Aug 13, 8:51 am, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Truly vouched for Mr. Third/Fourth Floor.
> > He's the one who has to explain it away - with or without connivance
> > from the authorities.
>
> Wait a minute. So Truly got *Baker* to agree to go with *Oswald* and
> *2nd-floor lunchroom*??? I can't see just the two of them
> colluding.... Sounds more like a third party getting the two to go
> along with the new story....
While Truly must have played a key role (along with your friend Bookhout)
in devising the lunchroom fiction on the evening of 11/22, the job of
getting Baker to 'clarify' his story over the coming weeks and months
would have been left to others (DPD and/or FBI). If Baker genuinely became
convinced that Mr. Third/Fourth Floor had been Oswald - an understandable
error - then he may have been only too happy to have the incident brought
down to the second-floor lunchroom. Far less embarrassing.
Bud
Yah, the plot is getting a little weak, better punch it up with some
more ninjas.
Bud
Oswald told Fritz "claims second floor coke when off [officer] came
in". Thats all three of the people involved in this encounter placing
it on the second floor.
> dcw
bigdog
> On Aug 13, 9:18 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The scenario presented by the WC is completely consistent with all the
> > sworn testimony of the various witnesses and establishes a path and a
> > timeline of Oswald's movements following the shooting. Dubious "evidence"
> > has been presented that he may have also been briefly stopped by a cop on
> > the front stairs as he exited the TSBD but before the building had been
> > sealed off.
>
> Before the building had been sealed off? More cluelessness.
We've already established that Oswald boarded a bus 7 blocks from the
TSBD no later than 12:40. Obviously the TSBD was not sealed off until
after he left.
>
> > Weak as the evidence is, even if that actually did happen, it
> > is hardly a game changer. That could have happened and would not have
> > precluded Oswald being in any of the places where the WC placed him at the
> > times they placed him. I would like anyone to take all of that evidence
> > and construct a plausible alternative scenario for what happened in the
> > minutes following the shooting. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to
> > happen.
>
> Your continued failure to grasp such basics as the layout of the second
> floor disqualifies you as a serious commentator on any alternative
> scenario under discussion. Come back when you've done your homework.
When you are able to come up with an alternative scenario, then talk
to me about your qualifications to comment on it.
bigdog
Are you making this shit up as you go?
Sean Murphy
> On Aug 13, 9:33 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 13, 9:18 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The scenario presented by the WC is completely consistent with all the
> > > sworn testimony of the various witnesses and establishes a path and a
> > > timeline of Oswald's movements following the shooting. Dubious "evidence"
> > > has been presented that he may have also been briefly stopped by a cop on
> > > the front stairs as he exited the TSBD but before the building had been
> > > sealed off.
>
> > Before the building had been sealed off? More cluelessness.
>
> We've already established that Oswald boarded a bus 7 blocks from the
> TSBD no later than 12:40.
No we haven't. You arbitrarily decided that McWatters' "rough
estimation" was in fact a "no later than" digital timestamp - and then
ran away from further discussion of the matter.
> Obviously the TSBD was not sealed off until
> after he left.
>
>
>
> > > Weak as the evidence is, even if that actually did happen, it
> > > is hardly a game changer. That could have happened and would not have
> > > precluded Oswald being in any of the places where the WC placed him at the
> > > times they placed him. I would like anyone to take all of that evidence
> > > and construct a plausible alternative scenario for what happened in the
> > > minutes following the shooting. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to
> > > happen.
>
> > Your continued failure to grasp such basics as the layout of the second
> > floor disqualifies you as a serious commentator on any alternative
> > scenario under discussion. Come back when you've done your homework.
>
> When you are able to come up with an alternative scenario,
Already done:
A man other than Oswald was stopped by the rear stairway several
floors up.
Oswald was stopped at the front door.
mark drenning
thought he told captain Fritz that the next day. but i could be wrong
ill have to look it up again. i do remember Jim Lavealle, not sure if
that is spelled correctly . he said Oswald seemed to be truthful until
it came to ownership of the rifle then he denied everything.
Sean Murphy
No, that's what the authorities had to do late 11/22.
I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what really happened.
But as I say, come back when you've done your homework. You'll feel
less need to resort to expletives then.
greg
> On Aug 11, 3:24 am, greg <greg.par...@dockearth.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 2:37 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 9, 11:08 pm, greg <greg.par...@dockearth.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Sean,
>
> > > > thank you for taking up this matter again. I could not hope for a
> > > > stronger advocate for letting the chips fall where whey will.
>
> > > > And that, as you suggested earlier in the thread, is really at the
> > > > heart of this.
>
> > > > Just some quick observations of the HSCA material as I have not had a
> > > > chance to go through it in depth - and there is still more to get up.
>
> > > > 1. It was NOT Baker who stopped Oswald at the front entrance.
>
> > > Correct. Nobody did.
>
> > The evidence says otherwise.
>
> > > > 2. There is more support found in Jarman's interview than brought out
> > > > so far.
>
> > > > From Holmes WC testimony:
> > > > But he went downstairs,
>
> > > From where?
>
> > Holmes did not pursue the question. He assumed it had been covered in
> > previous sessions. But there is no doubt he had just bought that
> > coke...
>
> > > >and as he went out the front, it seems as
> > > > though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine,
> > > > or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke
> > > > involved. He mentioned something about a coke. But a police officer
> > > > asked him who he was,
>
> > > Why would Baker be questioning people on the first floor when he
> > > thought the shooter was on the roof?
>
> > Who said it was Baker? Since you have been following this thread, you
> > know damn well that Baker is not the cop
>
> And, again, Baker, in his contribution to "JFK First Day Evidence", says
> that, yes, he *was* the cop who stopped Oswald on the first floor, as he &
> Truly ran in, seconds after the shooting. "I confronted Oswald", he
> states. Then, he & Truly leave Oswald there & proceed to the
> elevators/stairs. There were no other cops inside at the same time as
> Baker. (Of course, if you're arguing a confrontation a few minutes
> *later*, there might have been more cops, tho the next to arrive at the
> TSBD seemed to be Sgt Harkness, but that wasn't till about 12:35.)
>
> dcw- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This really isn't as complicated as others here are trying to make
out.
I never said Baker did not spot Oswald on the first floor. But it was
NOT Baker who baled Oswald up at the front door.
Oswald had two "encounters" with cops.
Baker had two "encounters" with possible suspects in the broader sense
of shooters OR accomplices.
Oswald was spotted by Baker on the first floor and cleared by Truly.
Oswald stopped at entrance by unknown cop and cleared by ?
Baker had the 1st floor Oswald sighting and his far more enticing 4th
floor encounter.
It is all explained here http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/oswald-s-two-cop-encounters-t42.htm
and at the risk of sounding arrogant, I believe it is a substantially
correct account, and I have a real problem understanding how anyone
can dispute it, except perhaps at the periphery.
Flowing from that evidence, we have:
Oswald not a shooter
Truly with a lot of explaining to do
Fritz fully aware that Oswald could not have been a shooter from no
later than the time of his initial discussion with Truly
Probable coersion used to get stories changed
Baker falling into line after intially telling the truth
Anthony Marsh
Oswald had good reason to lie. Even if he was not involved in Kennedy's
assassination, his rifle was used. And they could still charge him for
shooting at General Walker.