Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sean Murphy

Was Marrion Baker the True Source of Inspector Sawyer's Suspect Description?

Recommended Posts

At 12:45 Inspector J. H. Sawyer makes the following radio transmission about the suspect in the shooting:

"... (inaudible)... from this building. It’s unknown whether he’s still there or not. It’s unknown whether he was there in the first place."

This raises two questions:

1. How can the italicised words possibly fit with Howard Brennan's being the witness responsible for the suspect description?

2. If it was a witness other than Brennan, then how can that witness possibly have seen the suspect up at the SN window during the time of the actual shooting?

Surely some other scenario must be implied by Sawyer's use of the words--or not known if he was there in the first place.

**

Sawyer described a white male, about 30 years of age, weighing 165 pounds, height 5'10".

Marrion Baker, in his affidavit later that afternoon, will recall encountering "a man walking away from the stairway" on the "third or fourth floor".

Baker's description of that man?

White male. About 30 years of age. Weighing 165 pounds. Height 5'9".

Now here's where this gets interesting.

Baker told the WC that he briefly spoke with Sawyer on the way down from the roof.

This, please note, was just a few minutes before Sawyer broadcast the suspect description.

Was Marrion Baker the true source of the suspect description put out by Sawyer?

It would explain both parts of Sawyer's otherwise inexplicable 12:45 statement:

"... from this building. It’s unknown whether he’s still there or not. It’s unknown whether he was there in the first place."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the evidence and the timings involved, Sean, what you propose is the only thing that makes sense.

Let's face it, Brennan's story is absurd. What he claims to have witnessed and the details he remembered (such as the shooter's height) defy belief.

How on earth certain members of this critical community are still discussing a Baker/Truly interaction in the lunchroom is beyond me. Many online discussions continue to go through the timings and logistics of a second floor encounter when it's likely one didn't take place.

Why isn't more focus placed upon the massive changes between Baker's affidavits and his subsequent testimony concerning the man he says he saw, and more importantly where he says he saw him?

It's obvious to me that Sawyer's description came from Baker. If it came from Brennan then there would have been few doubts that the guy was on the sixth floor. Why? Because that's where Brennan says he saw him. Baker on the other hand would not have known where the guy on the "third or fourth floor" had been. However, I'm slightly perplexed as to what Sawyer meant by it being "...unknown whether he was there in the first place." What does "there" mean?

Luke Mooney won't "find" the sniper's nest for another 27 minutes (at 1:12pm) so if Brennan was the source of Sawyer's 12:45pm description of the suspect then we are asked to swallow that the Dallas Police took Brennan's observations so seriously that they used them for an APB but they ignored where he said he saw the shooter firing from to the point that it took them a further 27 minutes to find the shells.

Baloney.

Thanks, Lee. The way I see it, if the lunchroom incident happened then the timing and other issues make it extremely unlikely that Oswald was the sixth-floor shooter. But, like you, I am very sceptical that it ever did take place. I suspect that it was fabricated to cover up something even more problematical for the authorities in their rush to pin sole blame for the assassination on Oswald.

Regarding Sawyer's statement that it is "unknown whether he was there in the first place", the word "there" seems to refer to "the building".

On the scenario I'm proposing:

Sawyer, not being aware of just how soon after the shooting Baker's encounter with the man took place, cannot say for certain that the man in question had been in the building during the shooting itself. It was possible that the man had entered the building just after it.

"In the first place" = at the time of the shooting.

Edited by Sean Murphy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that Baker and Truly ran into Sawyer descending from the roof, and its possible Baker gave him the description of the man - but if so, was it the man on the fourth floor or of Oswald on the second?

I know that Lee and Greg do not believe Baker and Truly and that some shennagans were going on up and down the stairs, as there seems to be, but if taking what Baker and Truly and the WC say as the "Official Truth," then Oswald is innocent.

JFKCountercoup2: WHY OSWALD IS INNOCENT - The Proof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who was it that Truly identified on the third /fourth floor?.

The answer must be "not Oswald"

Perhaps Baker was not "on song" at first and gave an honest first day report

Leaving the I.D business to Truly ,and as Oswald was sitting in the same room

When Baker gave his report the I.d of 3rd/4th floor man is then on the shoulders of Truly

Who was never asked who this "employee " was.

By the time it's written up the 3rd/4th floor man disappears altogether

So there is no reason to ask Truly to I'D him.

I believe the TSBD had at least 4 maybe 6 facilitators or spotters

Perhaps Baker got there a bit too quickly for them?

Perhaps Dougherty's "FBI" man was the man from the 3rd/4th floor

Who then Walked down the stairs till he heard Baker/Truly walking up

He Has to turn and walk up till Truly catches up.

Truly was in front at some point ,brave guy with a possible gunman

On the loose.

Strange thing is nobody saw 3rd/4th floor man after this encounter

Unless he was known to others but I cannot find his testimony.

Edited by Ian Kingsbury

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean,

I find the "inaudible" on the transmission quite concerning. Things like "inaudible" generally means "something we don't want you to hear."

Totally agree that the lunchroom story was created to hide something very important. One day, one of us will have a brainwave and it will all fall into place.

Lee

Yes, Lee, the fragment we do hear--"... from the building"--is pretty tantalising. What I wouldn't give to hear Sawyer's full sentence...

Re. the lunchroom story: it may be that the key is to be found in the 11/22/63 Interrogation Report written jointly by FBI Agents Bookhout & Hosty. There the distinct impression is given that Oswald spoke about a visit to the second-floor lunchroom before the assassination.

And of course it just so happens that Carolyn Arnold told Earl Golz and Anthony Summers in 1978 of just such a scenario.

Still waiting to hear the details of Groden's interview of Geneva Hine. Looks like Groden is holding out until the 50th anniversary. Grrrr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that Baker and Truly ran into Sawyer descending from the roof, and its possible Baker gave him the description of the man - but if so, was it the man on the fourth floor or of Oswald on the second?

The man on the third/fourth floor, I believe, Bill. A report of a man confronted in a second-floor lunchroom would hardly have piqued Sawyer's suspicions.

Incidentally, Baker was asked by Belin which floor he met Sawyer on. His answer was rather interesting:

It seemed to me like it was on either the third or the fourth floor.

Third or fourth floor: exactly the words used in Baker's 11//22 affidavit to locate the incident with the man walking away from the rear stairway!

Is it possible that Baker, in speaking about the man to Sawyer, identified the floor he and Sawyer were now standing on as the same floor on which this incident had happened? One can imagine Baker pointing to where the man had been walking, etc. Sawyer must have done a double take when he heard that Baker had let the man loose.

I know that Lee and Greg do not believe Baker and Truly and that some shennagans were going on up and down the stairs, as there seems to be, but if taking what Baker and Truly and the WC say as the "Official Truth," then Oswald is innocent.

Seems that way alright. I believe the lunchroom incident was a damage limitation story hastily contrived late on the evening of the assassination. Bottom line: any Oswald encounter had to be located out of view of the stairway because of Vicki Adams's very vocal claims that she and Sandra Styles had hit the rear stairway very quickly. But the lunchroom story was--and is--a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Sean:

I've listened to my Channel 2 recording a number of times now, and although the passage in question is very noisy indeed, I think what Sawyer actually said could be:

"Well, apparently, the shots might have come from this building. It's unknown whether he's stil there or not. It's unknown whether he was there in the first place."

The dispatcher then replies, "10-4. Well, all the information that we have received, 9, indicates that it did come from the about the fith or fourth floor of that building", which would make sense in that context. Hope this is of some help.

Chris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Sean:

I've listened to my Channel 2 recording a number of times now, and although the passage in question is very noisy indeed, I think what Sawyer actually said could be:

"Well, apparently, the shots might have come from this building. It's unknown whether he's stil there or not. It's unknown whether he was there in the first place."

The dispatcher then replies, "10-4. Well, all the information that we have received, 9, indicates that it did come from the about the fith or fourth floor of that building", which would make sense in that context. Hope this is of some help.

Chris.

Superb information, as ever, Chris. Many thanks for that.

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking Chris's transcription of what Sawyer broadcasts at 12:45--"Well, apparently, the shots might have come from this building. It's unknown whether he's still there or not. It's unknown whether he was there in the first place."--we must again ponder its implications.

Sawyer is talking about two things:

1) a definite building (TSBD) from which the shots might have come

2) a definite suspect (just described by race, age, height & weight) who was in the building at some point after the assassination, may be still in the building and may have been in the building at the time of the shooting.

This, it seems to me, is logically incompatible with the notion that Sawyer is basing his description of the suspect on a conversation with Howard Brennan. If Sawyer has any doubts as to Brennan's credibility then the last thing he will be expressing doubts about will be the location of the man--Brennan's man--at the time of the shooting.

If on the other hand Sawyer is basing his assertions on his brief conversation with Marrion Baker in the building, then everything--everything--he says in the broadcast quoted above makes logical sense.

Edited by Sean Murphy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff, Sean- I agree with your thinking here.

I have long been suspcious of the Baker/Truly encounter with Oswald. While it was used as an indication of Oswald's innocence (calm demeanor after supposedly racing down six flights of stairs, etc.), the entire thing made little sense to me. Why did Oswald attract Baker's attention in the first place? He saw "movement" behind a door? Surely he might have seen other people moving in the building.

While virtually all spectators and law enforcement were drawn towards the knoll area in the moments after the shots were fired, Baker alone immediately focused in on the TSBD. Author Jim Marrs would report that Roy Truly had been intimidated by the authorities and was fearful until his death because of that. His wife Mildred supposedly wouldn't even mention the subject of the assassination to friends or family. Again, as we find so often in this case, that goes against basic human nature. What else would a Roy Truly be remembered for? Most average guys like that would make certain to mention frequently how they'd once been the boss of a presidential assassin. Why should his wife be reluctant to mention the huge historical event that made her otherwise nondescript husband a name for researchers to remember?

Anyhow, I look forward to hearing more from this on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean,

Want to read something interesting?

On June 15, 1978, William Ira Trantham from the Dallas County Sheriff's Office was interviewed by Jack Moriarty of the HSCA. The interview as follows:

Name: Ira Trantham

Date: 6/15/78

Time: 1400

Address: 10119 Newcomb Street, Dallas, Texas

INTERVIEW: Watched the motorcade pass Main and Harwood from the press room of Dallas Police Department Headquarters. Then checked out a cruiser and headed in the opposite direction not having an assignment germane to the Presidential visit.

Had not driven more than a few blocks when the police department radio blared the shooting report at Dealey Plaza. Reversing his direction he responded to that area parking in the freight yard near the rear of the TSBD. Observing uniformed men in the rear with shotguns, then seeing Inspector Sawyer at the front door, he reported for instructions. Sawyer advised they were still not certain where the gunfire came from, but the best guess at that time was the TSBD.

By this time they were joined by Jerry Hill and he and Hill went inside. Hill continued upstairs and an officer W. H. Desham (#7140 DPD) approached him with a prisoner. Advised this subject had been observed "acting suspiciously" on the third floor without a reasonable explanation for being there.

N.B. The name Desham above should read Denham.

Good lord, Lee, 'interesting' is not the word for this. I'm kind of in shock tbh.

Where did you find it?

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff, Sean- I agree with your thinking here.

I have long been suspcious of the Baker/Truly encounter with Oswald. While it was used as an indication of Oswald's innocence (calm demeanor after supposedly racing down six flights of stairs, etc.), the entire thing made little sense to me. Why did Oswald attract Baker's attention in the first place? He saw "movement" behind a door? Surely he might have seen other people moving in the building.

While virtually all spectators and law enforcement were drawn towards the knoll area in the moments after the shots were fired, Baker alone immediately focused in on the TSBD. Author Jim Marrs would report that Roy Truly had been intimidated by the authorities and was fearful until his death because of that. His wife Mildred supposedly wouldn't even mention the subject of the assassination to friends or family. Again, as we find so often in this case, that goes against basic human nature. What else would a Roy Truly be remembered for? Most average guys like that would make certain to mention frequently how they'd once been the boss of a presidential assassin. Why should his wife be reluctant to mention the huge historical event that made her otherwise nondescript husband a name for researchers to remember?

Anyhow, I look forward to hearing more from this on you.

Thanks, Don. I am convinced that Marrion Baker recently took a very large secret to the grave with him. Something happened in that building that had to be eliminated from the record. It's agonisingly difficult to put the pieces of the jigsaw back together, but I feel we're getting there. The biggest obstacle is actually the extreme--if understandable--reluctance of the majority of CT researchers to even question the historicity of the second-floor lunchroom incident. They see it as Oswald's alibi (or near-alibi). I see it as a fiction hastily improvised to keep the lid on a truth that would on its own have made a nonsense of the LN theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I echo Sean's sentiments, Lee. You have a knack for digging deep, and unearthing information that has eluded the rest of us over the years. Good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean/Lee/Don:

Here is Denham's statement for Chief Curry, dated July 16, 1964 (Hearings, Vol. 22, p. 599, CE 1358). He makes no mention whatsoever of being inside the TSBD. Now, it is possible that he just left out everything that happened after the shooting took place, but .....

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the thread's title for a second... Sawyer was in the TSBD from about 12:34 till 12:37...

His testimony states he and 2 others went up to the 4th floor "for a look around"... gave it a once over and came back down, running into Baker.

The broadcast with the description was not until 12:44...

If he heard from Baker this description... and was out front by his car and radio by 12:37 or so....

Why wait to broadcast it...

Harkness and Haygood as well as Brewer have taken "witnesses" to the front of the tSBD... this includes Euins and Brennan, and by 12:40 in every case....

I see no reason that while out front with witnesses and other police, Sawyer would not have heard this description from SOMEONE....

If Sawyer does indeed mirrot Baker, then we know for SURE it was not Oswald, as it was not Oswald who Baker describes on the stairs....

I too agree the lunch story was inserted... for some reason... to get Oswald into the lunchroom.... I guess since so many people saw him there at that time.

The 5'11" 165lbs was a standard used to describe Ozzie... yet he was NEVER that tall or that heavy.... but LEE was....

OswaldMarinedischargeheight-weightv3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...