Sean Murphy

Sean, was any reason given for blocking the discussion? I am curious now if there are other topics that have been blocked. Richard, No, it's as if the topic doesn't exist. On the (very) rare occasions Prayer Man does get a passing mention, it is strictly in the context of a Cinque-focused discussion. The policy is clear: force an association of Prayer Man with Cinque's nonsense. The editors of Pravda ca. 1975 would have been proud of McAdams's performance.

After several weeks of canvassing hardline Lone Nut Theory believers over on Duncan's forum for credible alternatives to Oswald as Prayer Man, the results are as follows: They've got nothing. They've thrown the world and his brother at that doorway, and not a single suggestion has come close to holding up under close inspection. It started with Steve Barber taking one look at Prayer Man and identifying him confidently as Billy Lovelady. And that about set the standard intellectually for the WC defenders' subsequent suggestions. ** Meanwhile over on alt.assassination.jfk, Lone Nut propagandist John McAdams has blocked discussion of the topic--while happily facilitating endless discussion of Ralph Cinque's barmy Altgens-Doorman claims. Prayer Man is evidently too toxic for Professor Factoid. ** As of this, the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination, there remains only one viable candidate for Prayer Man:

David, the most significant words in Truly's 11/22 statement are: "... and he accompanied the officer into the front of the building. They saw no one there..." Why is Truly even telling us this? Because the 'no one' he and the officer saw there, in the front of the building, is in custody. And he's talking.

The story told by Baker is clear and maximally damning of the 'man': He and Truly were coming up the stairs together, Baker leading. As they were reaching the third or fourth floor (i.e. both of them just reaching the landing--not Truly way ahead already halfway up to the next floor), Baker (being in front) was the first to spot a man walking away from the stairway up which Baker and Truly were running. The man had clearly been on his way down when he had heard Baker & Truly running up, so he had turned tail and started walking away from the stairway. But not quickly enough--Baker saw him walking away. Baker immediately called out to him (i.e. without running 20 feet over to a door, opening the door and hollering). The man came back to Baker's location at the top of the stairway. The man, we have been given to understand in no uncertain terms, was escaping down the building by the rear stairway. And that's how Fritz will describe the incident to Curry on 23 Dec: "Baker says that he stopped this man on the third or fourth floor on the stairway" (my emphasis). Fritz, fully a month after the assassination, knows nothing about the second-floor lunchroom incident. This despite the 'fact' that, as he will tell the WC months later, Oswald had personally confirmed the details of said lunchroom incident in custody! Oswald never confirmed the lunchroom incident. Nor did he confirm a rear stairway incident. Instead he talked about an incident at the front entrance. And he was telling the truth.

David, Truly first told the basic second-floor lunchroom story late 11/22. It was, as you note, markedly different to the story told in Marrion Baker's affidavit given several hours earlier. And also markedly different to the first-floor Oswald-officer encounter everyone else had been talking about that day. Sean - can you please cite the source for that... WHO did he tell this too and HOW was it recorded... Here it is, David.

Tommy, The too-good-to-be-true coincidence of Baker's and Brennan's 11/22 descriptions is indeed troubling. I believe Baker went back to City Hall that afternoon and told his superiors the truth: he and the building manager went upstairs and saw and found nothing and nobody. This caused consternation, so Baker was given the 'Oswald' description (as well as the detail as to 'tan jacket', which had come in either from Tippit witnesses or from someone at the Depository imperfectly recalling Oswald's tan shirt [CE151]) and instructed to go on the record with a phoney story about intercepting an employee who was obviously coming down the stairs. Just as Baker was giving this affidavit, Oswald was brought in. Baker was shocked when he recognised the suspect in custody as the man he had met at the front entrance. Up to this point, he had assumed the affidavit was simply a white lie designed to nail a truly guilty man--and a cop-killer to boot. How did Baker react to this sudden revelation that he was being enlisted to frame an innocent man? He refused to make a positive ID of Oswald. And he clammed up for several months.

David, Truly first told the basic second-floor lunchroom story late 11/22. It was, as you note, markedly different to the story told in Marrion Baker's affidavit given several hours earlier. And also markedly different to the first-floor Oswald-officer encounter everyone else had been talking about that day.

Yes, and I think Truly had genuine grounds for reporting Oswald to the police. He had seen this man apparently on his way out of the building before the smoke from the shots had even cleared. And when he came back downstairs from the roof with Baker, he noticed that he was indeed gone. Very suspicious haste on this employee's part to leave the building. So Truly reported Oswald's name to Lumpkin & Fritz as someone who might be involved somehow. But Oswald as the actual sixth-floor triggerman? The very furthest thing from Truly's mind. When it became clear to Truly later that evening just what Fritz was proposing to charge Oswald with, he must have experienced profound shock and disbelief. And when they asked him to put his name to a ridiculous story about the second-floor lunchroom, well... one can only imagine his state of mind.

Chris, the guy in Altgens is Billy Lovelady. Oswald cannot be seen in Altgens, for he is standing slightly behind and to the right of Lovelady--as shown in the Wiegman film. The Altgens Doorman issue has been one big decades-long distraction. It did however throw the FBI into a panic on the evening of the assassination. Oswald in custody was putting himself "out front" at the time of the shooting, and the presence of an Oswald-resembling man on the steps in Altgens seemed to be bearing him out. So they made a beeline to Billy Lovelady's home and, in Lovelady's own words, gave a sigh of relief when he told them it was him.

Either Prayer Man is Lee Oswald or he is a non-TSBD person. The first option makes sense: Oswald, being a TSBD man, emerges from the vestibule to the front steps just as the President is passing the building. At this time everyone else's attention is riveted on the motorcade, so the presence back in the shadows over on the west side of nondescript grunt Oswald goes unremarked. The second option does not make sense: A stranger to the building cannot emerge from the first floor vestibule. They must walk up the front steps in full view of everyone already there and, instead of sticking out like a sore thumb like they might be expected to do, have their presence go completely unnoticed and unremembered. Now why would a total stranger go up the front steps all by their lonesome amidst all these TSBD people? To get a better view than is obtainable from down on the street? Well, if that's the reason then isn't it just a teeny weeny bit odd that Prayer Man, as evidenced in Wiegman and Darnell, makes absolutely no effort to keep the Presidential limousine in view as it proceeds down Elm Street? That Prayer Man is conspicuous precisely by the fact that he has by far the poorest line of sight down Elm Street of anyone in the doorway? Way to secure yourself a better view, non-Oswaldian Prayer Man! ** I'm sorry, but the smart money is still on Prayer Man's being Oswald:

Sean, as part of this scenario (last line bold-faced above), there is an issue which needs to be addressed. The back walls of each elevator were 3/4 walls, with a wire mesh on the remaining 1/4 to the roof. Both elevators were in a single, open air shaft. There was no barrier between them. This means occupants in one elevator could look into the shaft and see the other elevator. Truly certainly would have observed the descending East elevator passing them as the West elevator was ascending. In fact, it would also be difficult for Baker not to have noticed. I am not saying this could not have happened, but rather that the narrative needs to be expanded to encompass this information. It would also imply that Truly and Baker omitted a rather important detail from their testimony. FWIW, there are similar issues to be addressed concerning the elevators movements in the WC version which has the two men going up the stairs. It's a fair point, Richard. The short answer is, they may very well have noticed the east elevator moving but did nothing about it. Just as the story they told the WC has them noticing the west elevator gone by the time they reach the fifth floor--and doing nothing about that. Had Baker and Truly not been leaned on to rewrite their experience on 11/22 and subsequently, the moving east elevator might very well have featured in their statements. All the more so if there had been a way of putting Oswald on that elevator.

Marvin Johnson's account of what Baker told him as he gave his affidavit within hours of the assassination is suggestive of a more physical--and realistic--confrontation I'm lost again, Sean. Who is Marvin Johnson again? Robert, he's the DPD detective who took Baker's affidavit at City Hall that day.

Marvin Johnson's account of what Baker told him as he gave his affidavit within hours of the assassination is suggestive of a more physical--and realistic--confrontation

French Le Figaro correspondent Leo Sauvage was puzzled by press references to Oswald's sipping a coke when the officer saw him. So he asked Roy Truly about it in January 1964. Here's what Truly told him: “From where I stood, I couldn’t see if Oswald held something in his hand” (The Oswald Affair, 1966, p.30). As we know, Truly will change his tune for the WC appearance a couple of months later: Mr. BELIN. All right. Could you see whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald had anything in either hand? Mr. TRULY. I noticed nothing in either hand. Mr. BELIN. Did you see both of his hands? Mr. TRULY. I am sure I did. I could be wrong, but I am almost sure. I did. Why the change? Because it has become painfully clear to the WC investigators that an Oswald with a coke already in his hand is an Oswald with even less time to descend from the sixth floor. ** Now it is this aspect of the coke--the timing aspect--that has tended to exercise most researchers over the years. This is unfortunate, as the significance of the coke's finding its way into the interrogation reports, the newspapers and Marrion Baker's Sep 64 statement goes way beyond a question of mere timing. No, it goes to the heart of the very credibility of the lunchroom story itself. ** Here's why: If Oswald already has a coke when Baker comes into the lunchroom, then Baker's WC story is dead. Because that story depends upon Oswald's being on his way into the lunchroom. If Oswald is already in the lunchroom, then Baker has absolutely no reason to be diverted from his route up the rear stairway. Remember: Baker has nothing close to a line of sight into the lunchroom from his position on the second-floor landing. So there is a whole lot more at stake in Oswald's reported claim (per Bookhout and Fritz) to have already bought (and even started drinking) the coke before the officer came in. ** The options facing those who still believe in the lunchroom story are deeply unattractive. A. If Oswald is telling the truth about the coke, then the following happened: 1. Oswald went into the second-floor lunchroom and bought a coke from the machine 2. Oswald then left the second-floor lunchroom 3. Oswald was then seen by Baker through the door window 4. Oswald went back into the lunchroom to--the coke machine. Utterly absurd. B. If Oswald is lying about the coke, then the following happened: The exact contents of Oswald's lie would be replicated, quite independently, in newspaper reports and in a statement by Marrion Baker. An incredible coincidence. C. If Bookhout and Fritz are misreporting or misremembering what Oswald said in custody, then the following happened: The exact contents of something Oswald never actually said but was falsely said to have said would be replicated, quite independently, in newspaper reports and in a statement by Marrion Baker. Another incredible coincidence. ** Again, I believe a front entrance encounter between Oswald and Baker was transplanted wholesale up to the second-floor lunchroom. At first it included the true-but-transplanted detail about Oswald's sipping a coke when seen by Baker. Oswald's true claim in custody about the coke did not make it into Bookhout and Hosty's joint interrogation report. It did however make it into Bookhout's solo interrogation report, written after the lunchroom switcheroo had been decided upon. In the end, the "sipping coke" detail was eliminated as toxic to the fairy tale. Leaving behind just the interrogation report references, the newspaper references and the Sep 64 Baker statement. But those references are an invaluable resource for us as, fifty years later, we try to reconstruct what really happened.

According to James Bookhout's solo interrogation report, written just after Oswald's demise, Oswald told Fritz "he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there". Fritz himself, in his Interrogation Report for the WC, will back Bookhout's recollection: "I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in." Both Bookhout and Fritz are clear: Oswald claimed he had already bought the coke by the time the officer came into the room. ** It is not generally appreciated just how deeply problematical Oswald's reported words are for the second-floor lunchroom story. ** First, they harmonise quite uncannily with a story that will appear in The Washington Post on 1 Dec 1963: If this is nothing more than unverified hearsay or a reporter's error, then how exactly did Oswald manage to anticipate its content so uncannily in custody? Argued contrarily: if Oswald never said this in custody, but has had the words put in his mouth by design or accident by Bookhout and Fritz, then how exactly have the words put in Oswald's mouth managed to anticipate so uncannily the Washington Post version of events? ** Secondly we have this, Marrion Baker's September 64 statement: Same problem. "I saw a man standing in the lunch room drinking a coke": How exactly is one to explain the very weird match between these words and the claim reportedly made by Oswald in custody? ** No matter how one spins all this, it's a mess for the lunchroom story. SPIN #1: Oswald really did make this claim in custody, but he was lying. PROBLEM: How then is it that Oswald's lie will manage to reappear with uncanny accuracy in a ) a story written by a national news reporter several days later and b ) Marrion Baker's Sep 64 statement? SPIN #2: Oswald really did make this claim in custody, and he was telling the truth. PROBLEM: If Oswald's claim is true, then Marrion Baker's entire WC account of how he caught his first glimpse of Oswald is untrue. SPIN #3: Oswald never made this claim in custody. PROBLEM: How will a claim that Oswald never made in the first place manage to find its way not just into two interrogation reports but also into a story written by a national news reporter and a statement given by Marrion Baker months later? ** I believe Oswald did indeed tell Fritz that he was standing drinking a coke when the officer came in and asked him if he worked there. But Harry Holmes was right: Oswald didn't put the encounter up in the second-floor lunchroom. He put it at the front entrance of the building. And he was telling the truth.

Dougherty's 11/22 affidavit says nothing about the use of an elevator: On Dec 18 Dougherty does mention his use of an elevator, but only in relation to his return to the sixth floor after the shooting: Seems to me Dougherty, prior to his April 8 WC testimony, has been telling authorities he came down from the fifth floor using the stairs. Hence Redlich's implicit dismissal in his March 25 memo of Dougherty as the person who brought the west elevator off the fifth floor. And hence, one suspects, the disastrously incoherent (because coached) nature of the 'admission' Dougherty is to give before the WC on April 8: I took the west elevator down from the fifth floor. ** I submit that Jack ran down the rear stairs immediately after the shooting the assassin(s) took the east elevator down from the sixth floor Baker and Truly took the west elevator up from the first floor Jack took the east elevator, which had just been brought down by the assassin(s), back up to the sixth floor ** Worth mentioning in the light of the above that Sandra Styles told me in an email that she recalled Vicki Adams's telling co-workers that she had heard the sound of elevator cables moving while she and Sandra were running down the stairs.

Tommy, the point is rather that Truly has only the day before handed the WC a simple solution to the west elevator problem: Jack Dougherty. Yet Redlich seems to be taking it as read that Truly's solution is a non-starter. Why? Question: when did Jack Dougherty first identify himself as the person who took the west elevator off the fifth floor just after the shots? Did he do so at any point prior to his own April 8th appearance before the WC?

Why is Redlich's memo is so revealing? 1. Redlich writes that "it is possible... that a worker moved the west elevator either up or down from the fifth floor" while Baker and Truly were ascending by the stairway. 2. Redlich then notes that "we don't know the name of any such worker" and that "none of the investigations appears to have turned up anyone who admits to being on the west elevator at this time". 3. Yet Roy Truly, just the day before (March 24), has offered the name of just such an employee: Jack Dougherty. 4. Perhaps Redlich is unaware of or has forgotten Truly's mention of Dougherty? No, for Redlich himself writes: "Truly thinks that Dougherty was working there at this time. I know that Messrs. Ball and Belin plan to question Dougherty, who would have to explain why he was up there working so soon after the shots were fired". 5. So why is Redlich ignoring Truly's solution? Why is he still treating the movement of the west elevator as a total riddle? Why isn't he simply recommending that Dougherty, as a matter of priority, be asked to confirm that it was indeed he who used the west elevator? 6. We are surely compelled to conclude that Redlich has knowledge that Dougherty has already ruled himself out as the person who took the west elevator off the fifth floor.

Yet another important archival discovery from Richard Gilbride over at Reopen Kennedy Case http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t516-the-mystery-of-the-west-elevator#5134 This text bears very close reading. (My emphases in underlined red below.) March 25, 1964 MEMORANDUM TO: Messrs. Ball, Belin, Craig FROM: Norman Redlich SUBJECT: The Mystery of the West Elevator This memorandum results from a discussion between Mr. Belin and myself on March 24, following Roy Truly's testimony. Roy Truly has testified that when he and Patrolman Baker ran to the rear of the first floor, neither elevator was there. Truly pressed the button for the west elevator and shouted up the shaft asking that the elevator be released. It was necessary to do this since the elevator would not work if the gate was open. Once the gate was closed the elevator would come if the button was pressed. Truly did not try to get the east elevator, because this operates only by hand and can be run only by a person who is in it. Truly claims that he looked up the shaft and saw that both elevators were together on the same floor. As part of this picture we should also remember that approximately 15 minutes before the assassination Jarman and Norman took the west elevator up to the fifth floor. Truly and Baker started climbing the stairs no more than two or three minutes after the assassination. (Mr. Belin timed it at less than two minutes.) At each landing Truly and Baker looked to see whether an elevator was present and they did not see one. They certainly would have noticed the west elevator because this was most directly in line with their vision at each landing. It was only when they reached the fifth floor that they saw an elevator, but, surprisingly enough, it was the east elevator which they saw. The west elevator was not present on the fifth floor where Truly thought he had seen it from below, and where it could have been expected to be found since Jarman and Norman had taken it there to have their lunch. -2- Truly testified further that he and Baker took the east elevator to the seventh floor. The west elevator was not on the seventh floor when they reached that floor. He cannot say that the west elevator was not on the sixth floor at this time. Truly and Baker then looked around the roof and took the east elevator back down from the seventh floor. On the way down he noticed that the west elevator was on the fifth floor again. There are several alternative explanations for the movements of the west elevator. First, let us assume that Truly was correct in his first observation that the east and west elevators were both on the fifth floors of approximately two minutes after the assassination. This means that by the time Truly and Baker reached the fifth floor, it was gone. We know that someone would have had to close the gate during this period, because Truly was unable to get the elevator by pressing the button when he was on the first floor. This person then might have taken the elevator up the sixth floor while Truly and Baker were running up the stairs. At this moment, however, we have Jarman, Williams and Norman who say that they didn't hear any elevator. Moreover, they have never admitted that anyone else was on the floor. It is also possible that someone got on the elevator on the fifth floor at this time and headed down while Truly and Baker were running up the stairs. Here again, Jarman, Norman, and Williams didn't hear anyone and it is quite unlikely that Truly and Baker would not have noticed the elevator moving as they reached each landing. While it is possible, therefore, that a worker moved the west elevator either up or down from the fifth floor during this period, we don't know the name of such a worker and we have the problem of Jarman, Williams and Norman who have to be questioned again as to whether they heard anyone on the floor and whether they heard the elevator move. The second possible assumption is that the elevator was not on the fifth floor at all, but was on the sixth floor with the gate open at the time that Truly rang for it on the first floor. This would mean that someone on the sixth floor would have had to close the gate and take the -3- elevator down-- either directly to the fifth floor where Truly saw it after he was on the roof, or to some lower floor and then back up to the fifth floor. In either case, it would mean that someone got on the west elevator on the sixth floor just a very short time after Oswald left the floor via the stairway. Significantly, none of the investigations appears to have turned up anyone who admits to being on the west elevator at this time. Truly thinks that Dougherty was working there at this time. I know that Messrs. Ball and Belin plan to question Dougherty, who would have to explain why he was up there working so soon after the shots were fired. A previous memorandum on Dougherty, written by Mr. Eisenberg, raises questions about Dougherty which should be looked into on the next trip to Dallas. If Oswald was not acting alone, it is very likely that an employee of the TSBD building was his accomplice. It is also possible that an employee of the TSBD might have information and for some reason be afraid to come forward. Through persistent questioning on such matters as the elevator locations we might be able to locate the person or persons who may know more than they are telling. I have discussed this matter with Mr. Belin and he shares my feeling that this matter will be the subject of questioning when Messrs. Ball and Belin travel to Dallas again. ** I believe this document confirms that Jack Dougherty took the rear stairs down from the fifth floor, not the west elevator. How was the massive problem of the west elevator's movements, as flagged in this memorandum, solved by the WC? By getting Dougherty to testify--quite falsely--that he was the person responsible for the movements of the west elevator. The reality, as I have already argued, is that the west elevator was used by Truly and Baker to ascend from the first floor to the fifth floor. They never went up the rear stairway. They never set foot on the east elevator on the fifth floor. While they were ascending the building in the west elevator, the assassin(s) came down in the east elevator.

Watch fourth-floor employee Sandra Styles talk to camera about her experiences that day. http://www.travelchannel.com/video/jfk-assassination-witness Sandra, in stating that she neither saw nor heard anyone else coming down the stairs, says it's possible that Oswald came down before her and Vicki Adams or after them: "He could have been behind us, he could have been ahead of us, I have no idea". He could have been behind us... That's a very interesting comment for Sandra to make, for it backs up the Vicki Adams claim that the two ladies went to the stairs very soon after the shots.

Sean, You're right of course. I just listened to it again (before I read your reply, actually, because of this very issue), and the reporter asked Oswald, "Were you in the building?," not "Were you inside the building?". Then I hurried back to my post to correct it, but darn it you'd already caught my mistake! My bad. Regardless, is it fair for us to conclude that, although Oswald was not technically 'inside" the building, he was still somehow "in" it (or he thought he was somehow "in" it) because he was, after all, standing just outside the front door and underneath part of the building? --Tommy No problem, Tommy. Yes, I think it is reasonable to allow for Oswald's having considered that front entrance area as part of the building. It's not as if the front door gave out immediately on to the street: there were steps, and those steps were roofed as well as enclosed on both sides. Very much part of the building. Only when one had stepped down off the last step on to the street pavement could one be said to have properly left the building. Two further things to bear in mind here. First, Oswald doesn't say "I was in the building" in response to the question, "Where were you at the time of the shooting?". He is instead asked a very different question: "Were you in the building at the time?". And delivers a sharp rebuttal to the reporter's clear insinuation that his being there was somehow suspicious in itself: "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir." Second, intonation is important. The reporter doesn't ask, "Were you IN the building at the time?". He asks, "Were you in the BUILDING at the TIME?" Oswald, who is having questions shouted at him left, right and centre, understands the question to relate to his basic LOCATION at the TIME of the shooting. And he confirms that, yes, the TSBD was his location at the time. He wasn't on the sidewalk on Houston St. He wasn't on the overpass. He wasn't in his rooming house. He wasn't at the movies. He was at his place of work. Hence the exasperated emphases: "NATURALLY, if I WORK in that BUILDING, YES, sir."

Good ears, Richard: it does sound like the last words are indeed "or out". However I'm not sure about "inside". Can't for the life of me work out what it is, but it sounds like "In the st[???] or out". Or possibly: "Either st[???] or out". Since we'll never know for sure anything / everything Oswald told his interrogators, it's a shame he didn't yell out to the reporters in the hallway "I was right outside the front door!" when asked, "Were you inside the building at the time?" --Tommy It's a shame Oswald wasn't asked, "Were you inside the building at the time?".

Three interesting 11/23 exchanges between Jesse Curry and reporters in the hall: 1. A reporter asks Curry if Oswald has "admitted that he was in the building at the time the shots were fired". Curry says "Yes" but then, as though thinking twice about this answer, follows up with a more qualified response: "Well, we know he couldn't deny that, we have witnesses." REPORTER: "But he did deny it, didn't he?" CURRY: "He denies everything." ** 2. Q: Did you say, Chief, that a policeman had seen him in the building? CURRY: Yes Q: After the shot was fired? CURRY: Yes Q: Why didn’t he arrest him then? CURRY: Because the manager of the place told us that he was an employee, that he’s alright, he’s an employee. Q: Did he look suspicious to the policeman at this point? CURRY: I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building. ** 3. Q. Does he say he was anywhere else at the time this was happening? Again Curry seems hesitant to commit to a straight answer: CURRY: I don’t know. He says he was at the building, he says he was there because he worked there. ** Seems to me that Curry's answers are pointing to a front-of-house encounter between Oswald and Baker: a liminal place that is technically 'in the building', certainly 'at the building'--but not really inside the building. Curry cannot quite say that Oswald is 'admitting' to being 'in the building'. Nor however can he quite say that Oswald is denying being 'in the building'. If Curry is aware that Oswald has been naming a place like the domino room or the second-floor office area, then Curry's markedly ambiguous answers do not make sense. If however Curry is aware that Oswald has been naming the front steps or front entrance or vestibule/lobby area, then Curry's ambiguous answers do make sense. Especially as his words about the policeman "checking everyone he saw as he went into the building" seal the deal: Front-of-house.

Good ears, Richard: it does sound like the last words are indeed "or out". However I'm not sure about "inside". Can't for the life of me work out what it is, but it sounds like "In the st[???] or out". Or possibly: "Either st[???] or out".

A startling discovery. Well done, Sean. Bearing in mind that one of the tasks assigned to the HSCA photo panel was to examine the Altgen's photo and develop convincing evidence to identify the man in the doorway who bore a strong resemblance to Lee Oswald, it seems likely they would have studied all available film and photos of the entrance for the time frame just before and just after Altgens snapped his shot. That means the panel should have looked at the Couch film, Weigman, Darnell, Towner, in addition to Martin. And they would have been looking at originals, or very good copies. (Perhaps someone with more knowledge in this area could pitch in). The questions posed to Lovelady hint strongly that, at the very least, one or more of the panel members were aware of the figure in the upper NW corner of the entrance. It had to be more than idle speculation. Going back to the question posed to Billy Lovelady: HSCA: Okay, alright. If it showed two figures in that doorway at the same time, and you could positively identify one as yourself, would that have any bearing on your identification of that other figure? LOVELADY: No, that’s still me at the left [of the] doorway. Unfortunately, Billy did not answer the question posed concerning the implications of identifying "that other figure". And puzzling that the logical followup question was not asked. I can only guess the mission was carefully defined to ID Lovelady (and not open up any larger issues). Listening to the recordings, there was another exchange on the first tape that also caught my attention. After establishing Lovelady's position on the entrance steps, some key elements of the following exchange are shown below: HSCA: Did you see Lee Oswald on the steps? Lovelady: No HSCA: "Would it have been possible from where you were sitting .. that he could have been there ...? Lovelady: "He Could have ..." Lovelady had the chance, but declined to rule out the possibility that Oswald could have been there at the entrance. This exchange is around 25:25 in the first tape. There are a few indistinct words designated by the ... if someone has better ears than mine. Thanks, Richard. Yes, it is interesting that Lovelady is categorical that he didn't see Oswald "at any time" on the front steps but refuses to rule out the possibility that he may have been there at some point. I've listened over and over to his indistinct words following "Could have" but just can't make them out. Frustrating. Interesting also that the HSCA interviewer asks Lovelady if he was holding his lunch bag at the actual time of the shooting. Again, one has to wonder is the question prompted by the interviewer's being aware of the Prayer Man figure who is clearly holding something in his hand or hands. What really makes the interviewer's hypothetical about "two figures in that doorway at the same time" remarkable is that he locates these two figures precisely as per the configuration seen in Wiegman: 1. Lovelady-resembling male standing way over on the left/west side of the entrance area 2. Lovealdy-resembling male standing more towards the centre of the entrance area. What are the odds against this being a lucky guess? Robert Groden was in the room but was he in the loop on the Prayer Man question? ** Worth noting that Lovelady himself evidently believes--mistakenly--that Altgens is showing him right over on the left/west side of the entrance area. It's an understandable mistake, given not just the tricky perspective of Altgensbut also the fact that, just seconds before Altgens took his photo, Hughes's film caught Lovelady significantly more to the left/west. Lovelady moved a little east to keep the President's car in view as it passed west down Elm Street.