Jump to content
The Education Forum
William Kelly

Oswald Leaving TSBD?

Recommended Posts

He also refers to a SHOTGUN, not a rifle!

You're "right as five rabbits," Ken.

Mr. Ball does say "shotgun" instead of "rifle."

I noticed that, too, but the point I was trying to make is that Dougherty might have been suggesting that he heard later that the shooter was on the fourth floor, but that he hadn't seen him there.

A shooter on the fourth floor ties in nicely with Baker's statement that he encountered a man in a tan jacket on that floor, if my memory is serving me correctly.

I suppose it could be argued that Dougherty meant that he heard later that Truly had been on the fourth floor when he was trying to find him for "the FBI man," but I don't know how realistic that is, and from the context of Ball's question it seems possible that Dougherty was alluding to hearing about a shooter, not about where Mr.Truly was when Dougherty was looking for him.

Question: Was Truly on the fourth floor for any length of time about the time the rifle was discovered or "discovered" on the sixth floor?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shotgun and shells on the 6th floor??? What on earth is Ball talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duck Dynasty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duck Dynasty?

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent points, Sean.

You seem to be saying that Redlich knew that Dougherty couldn't have taken the west freight elevator to the first floor at that time (right after the shots) because Truly said that, although that elevator wasn't on the fifth floor when he and Baker were climbing the stairs on their way to the roof, he had seen it on the fifth floor again when he and Baker were taking the east elevator down from the roof.

Question: Couldn't Dougherty have been riding down in the west freight elevator from the fifth to the first floor while Truly and Baker were ascending the stairs, and then couldn't somebody else have taken it from the first floor back to the fifth floor in time for Truly and Baker to find it there as they were coming down from the roof?

Am I missing something here?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dougherty's 11/22 affidavit says nothing about the use of an elevator:

48reJbx.jpg

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:

N8gbRNy.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dougherty's 11/22 affidavit says nothing about the use of an elevator:

48reJbx.jpg

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:

N8gbRNy.jpg

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.

Thanks for the concise summary, Sean.

Well-written, sensible, and plausible.

And the Sandra Styles e-mail revelation to you seems to tie it all together, especially if Vicki and Sandra came down the northwest stairway as soon after the shots as they claimed they did. Vicki may have very well heard the fake or real assassin(s) or coming down from the sixth floor in an elevator.

Good work and thanks for sharing that.

I think it's understandable that Sandra Styles didn't notice the sound of the moving elevator cables although Vicki evidently did. It could be due to where exactly Sandra and Vicki were in relation to each other on the stairs, or to the simple possibility that the sounds just didn't "register" with Sandra.

Thanks,

--Tommy :sun

Afterthought observation: Although it seems from Dougherty's testimony that he was in the habit of taking an elevator to go from one floor to another in the TSBD every day, it's obvious that he would have had to run down from the fifth floor after hearing the "backfire" for the simple reason that neither elevator was on the fifth floor at that time!

And I just thought of another question about the fishy Jack Edwin Dougherty testimony:

Why, if Dougherty heard just one what-seemed-to-him "backfire," did he go downstairs from the fifth to the first floor to ask Eddie Piper about said single "backfire?" I mean, didn't he have book orders to fill? LOL

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

i3HB3Rq.jpg

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:

Qd8uQiJ.jpg

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.

svuheYy.jpg

He put it at the front entrance of the building.

And he was telling the truth.

zCUqs7V.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean,

I think it's been pointed out before but... if you were an unarmed civilian would you follow or lead a policeman on the hunt for an assassin? ...and if you were a policeman looking for an assassin would the guy calmly standing in the break room drinking a coke arouse any suspicion? It smells like a case of CYA to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean,

I think it's been pointed out before but... if you were an unarmed civilian would you follow or lead a policeman on the hunt for an assassin? ...and if you were a policeman looking for an assassin would the guy calmly standing in the break room drinking a coke arouse any suspicion? It smells like a case of CYA to me.

Chris,

I agree totally.

I also think instead of rushing into the building with Mr. Truly, it would have made more sense for Baker and a couple other policemen to try to seal off the building as soon as possible, wait for more policemen to arrive, and then do a systematic search, floor by floor.

But maybe I'm wrong.

Thoughts?

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean,

I think it's been pointed out before but... if you were an unarmed civilian would you follow or lead a policeman on the hunt for an assassin? ...and if you were a policeman looking for an assassin would the guy calmly standing in the break room drinking a coke arouse any suspicion? It smells like a case of CYA to me.

Chris,

I agree totally.

I also think instead of rushing into the building with Mr. Truly, it would have made more sense for Baker and a couple other policemen to try to seal off the building as soon as possible, wait for more policemen to arrive, and then do a systematic search, floor by floor.

But maybe I'm wrong.

Thoughts?

--Tommy :sun

I wonder if it ever occurred to Baker that he might have chosen the wrong building. Much of his reasoning in choosing the TSBD stemmed from him seeing a flock of pigeons flushed up from the roof of the TSBD by the sound of a rifle shot. Did you notice he never saw any pigeons flushed off the roof of the Dal-Tex Building?

If a shot was fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD, there is a good chance the pigeons on the roof of the TSBD would never hear it, as there are two storeys of a building between the pigeons and the shooter, plus a parapet. However, a shooter on the roof of the Dal-Tex Building would be looking right at the pigeons and they would most definitely hear that shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,

Agree, but even if it had been the wrong building... Baker was simultaneously exceedingly heroic and incredibly inept. Is there any precedent for hunting a sniper armed with a rifle by charging into a building armed with a .38 (I assume a .38)? I think if he had actually found what he was looking for he would have been the first dead cop that day. I could see two cops moving methodically, covering each other and being very wary of any "glimpse" of someone moving around. What happened to "come out with your hands up" when he glimpsed Oswald through the door?

Here's a shot from the recent Kenya Mall shooting of plainclothes policemen armed with handguns hunting the shooters. I'm not saying their tactics are perfect - just more realistic:

Kenya_mall_tactics.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,

Agree, but even if it had been the wrong building... Baker was simultaneously exceedingly heroic and incredibly inept. Is there any precedent for hunting a sniper armed with a rifle by charging into a building armed with a .38 (I assume a .38)? I think if he had actually found what he was looking for he would have been the first dead cop that day. I could see two cops moving methodically, covering each other and being very wary of any "glimpse" of someone moving around. What happened to "come out with your hands up" when he glimpsed Oswald through the door?

Here's a shot from the recent Kenya Mall shooting of plainclothes policemen armed with handguns hunting the shooters. I'm not saying their tactics are perfect - just more realistic:

Kenya_mall_tactics.jpg

Not only that, I wonder if he thought the man he was looking for was going to have "SNIPER" emblazoned on the back of his jacket in large letters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Baker probably thought that the shooter would be holding a rifle, waiting patiently for the building manager to ID him as an employee on his lunch break.

The Baker/ Truly accounts are very odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Sean Murphy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...