Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Ron Bulman

When did the second floor lunchroom encounter first come to light?

Recommended Posts

In light of related discussion on Jim DiEugenio's recent coke thread and a old one on Roy Truly I bumped...

NOT on 11/22/63.  It is not mentioned in Officer Marion Bakers affidavit on 11/22/63.  Given it's import there is no reasonable explanation for it being left out.  Especially considering the detail he does mention about a 30 year old, 5'9" 160 pound dark haired man in a brown jacket.  Obviously not Oswald.  Walking away from him on the 3rd or 4th floor, I.E. in a open warehouse area of the building.  Hard to confuse with a lunchroom he would have had to enter deliberately.

http://www.prayer-man.com/dpd/marrion-l-baker/#lightbox[group]/2/

The first mention of the second floor lunchroom is a day later in Truly's affidavit on 11/23/63.  "the officer stuck his head in there".  Truly, without going around Baker and his head looked past him and ID'd Oswald as an employee.  Why,why,why would Baker fail to mention this first encounter of a possible suspect in his first day affidavit which no one had a chance to influence his remembrance of events on.  No One was aware of Bakers rush into the TSBD or up the stairs.  He didn't tell any other officers of his rush up the stairs or search of the roof during his own quick exit after doing so.  He didn't radio it in when he got back to his motorcycle (Why?).

Truly on the other hand had plenty of time to have discussed his actions with the DPD, FBI, Secret Service or even say somebody from the CIA.  The DPD took statements from many witnesses on 11/22/63.  Why not Truly.  He was the building manager.  He did the roll call of employees 15 minutes after the assassination.  He singled out Oswald as the only one missing which hew was not.  He called his personnel office and got Oswald's personal information and gave it to officer Lumpkin who rushed it up to the just arrived Captain Fritz who then had the description broadcast so Oswald could be captured.  No need for a statement or affidavit from him that day.  He never mentioned a 30 year old 5' 9" 160 pound man in a brown jacked on the 3rd or 4th floor, a day later.  Truly's story evolved over several months, changing.  It took Baker months to get on board with the lunchroom story, then it changed.  More than once.

Note.  First link comes from this excellent article.

 http://www.prayer-man.com/dpd/marrion-l-baker/

 

 0487-001.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bart:

So there was no mention of the second floor lunchroom encounter on the 22nd in the press?

Then what was there?  Was there anything at all about Truly, Baker and Oswald meeting in the press on the 22nd? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

In light of related discussion on Jim DiEugenio's recent coke thread and a old one on Roy Truly I bumped...

NOT on 11/22/63.   Why,why,why would Baker fail to mention this first encounter of a possible suspect in his first day affidavit which no one had a chance to influence his remembrance of events on.

And why didn't Truly, when telling Lumpkin and Fritz that Oswald was missing, also tell them about having encountered Oswald in the second floor lunchroom only moments after the shooting?

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Certainly the chaotic events immediately after the assassination, including the timing of Baker's entry into the TSBD, are a mishmash of confusion.  If we take everything that everyone said at face value and build a timeline around it, we end up with events that simply don't mesh.  We then focus on those that fit our pet theory, such as Prayer Man or Lone Nut or whatever.

The fact is that Baker's affidavit does mention an encounter, albeit not in the second floor lunchroom.  I'm not sure why Ron thinks "a 30 year old, 5'9" 160 pound dark haired man in a brown jacket" is obviously not a description of LHO.  Given the duration and circumstances of the encounter, it seems to me like a pretty good description.  (I am 6 feet, 1/2 inch.  When I was a very serious runner, I weighed 140.  Simply because of my height, no one - even family members - ever guessed I weighed much less than 170.)  The affidavit also reflects confusion as to precisely what floor the encounter occurred on, although clearly Baker is not talking about the second-floor lunchroom.

From the Lone Nut perspective, which is my current working hypothesis, the second floor lunchroom encounter is problematical.  For it to go away, and LHO to have exited the TSBD more directly, would make for a tidier Lone Nut theory.  Am I obligated to accept LHO's statement that he was on the first floor at the time of the assassination?  Hardly - LHO lived and breathed bald-faced lies.  Am I obligated to accept all of the other TBSD employees' recollections of when and where they saw LHO?  I don't think so, not in the chaos of that event.

Am I obligated to wonder why Baker and Truly would have concocted a second floor lunchroom encounter if one never occurred?  Yes, I think so.  Do Baker and Truly seem to me sophisticated enough characters for the mastermind of a conspiracy to rely on for a Big Lie?  Not really.  Is it possible they shifted to this version after more careful reflection on what had actually occurred?  Yes, that's possible.  Did they somehow think the lunchroom encounter version would make LHO a more plausible Lone Nut or at least provide a better explanation for why Baker allowed him to leave the building?  Possibly, although it's not clear to me why.  Why invent an LHO who is almost supernaturally calm seconds after assassinating the President?  Did they create this story because they knew LHO was actually standing on the TSBD steps, or at least on the first floor, at the time of the assassination?  Possibly - but then why would Baker have mentioned any encounter in his affidavit and why would they have added the "supernaturally calm" angle?

My point is simply that the second floor lunchroom encounter seems to me problematical from almost any angle.  If it is actually what occurred, so be it - about the only theory that this would eliminate is something like Prayer Man.  If it is false but simply a mistake, what actually occurred might be consistent with anything from a deep dark conspiracy to the Lone Nut theory.  Even if it is a knowing falsehood, and the encounter was actually on the 3rd or 4th floor, I don't see this as inevitably suggesting the individual was not LHO; as I say, even as one leaning toward the Lone Nut theory, I like it better than the lunchroom encounter.  Alas, the lunchroom encounter with a supernaturally calm LHO is so counterintuitive that I suspect it is true.

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

And why didn't Truly, when telling Lumpkin and Fritz that Oswald was missing, also tell them about having encountered Oswald in the second floor lunchroom only moments after the shooting?

 

Steve Thomas

cause it never happened...  

but the Lumpkin/.Fritz meeting is also very revealing...  BALL here does his very best to knock down TRULY's timing...  If I remember correctly an ATF man Ellsworth claims the rifle was found on the 4th/5th floor, earlier, and moved to the 6th... 

(There is not a single report authored by Lumpkin in the Dallas Archives Index...   ???)

Mr. BALL. Now, if the gun was found after I o'clock, when was it that you discovered that Lee Oswald wasn't there? 
Mr. TRULY. I thought it was about 20 minutes after the shooting--the assassination, but it could have been longer. 
Mr. BALL. In other words, you thought originally it might have been 10 minutes of 2 or so that you learned that? 
Mr. TRULY. Ten minutes to 1. 
Mr. BALL. Ten minutes to 1? 
Mr. TRULY. It was around 1 o'clock--that period of time after I came down from the sixth floor to the first floor was rather hazy in my memory. 
Mr. BALL. You think it might have been after 1 when you first noticed he wasn't there? 
Mr. TRULY. I don't think so---I don't feel like at was. It could have possibly been so. 
Mr. BALL. Well, if the gun was not found before 1:10, if it wasn't found before that, can you give me any estimate? 
Mr. TRULY. That seems to be a longer time after the assassination. 
Mr. BALL. You didn't wait 20 minutes from the time you learned Lee Oswald's address until the time you told Captain Fritz, did you? 
Mr. TRULY. No, sir; I did stand there on the first floor waiting until Chief Lumpkin got through talking for a few minutes. 
Mr. BALL. Tell me about how many minutes you think it was from the time you obtained the address of Lee Oswald until you told Captain Fritz the name and address? 
Mr. TRULY. I think it was immediately. 

Mr. BALL. Immediately? 

Truly then states that Fritz was in the area where the rifle WAS found - yet there is no rifle

Mr. BALL. Where was Captain Fritz when you saw him? 
Mr. TRULY. He was on the sixth floor in the area where they found the rifle. 
Mr. BALL. And was the rifle there at the time? 
Mr. TRULY. No, I never saw the rifle. 
Mr. BALL. Was this after or before the rifle had been taken from the building? 
Mr. TRULY. It was before the rifle had been taken from the building. 
Mr. BALL. And do you know whether it was before or after the rifle was found? 
Mr. TRULY. Apparently the rifle had been found before I got to the sixth floor, but just how early, I don't know. 
Mr. BALL. But you had heard that the rifle was found, had you, by your talk with Fritz? 
Mr. TRULY. That's--I don't know--I learned it was found while I was on the sixth floor. 
Mr. BALL. While you were on the sixth floor? 
Mr. TRULY. While I was on the sixth floor. 

(Fritz does not arrive at the TSBD until 12:58)

Mr. BALL. Now, about what time of day would you say is your best estimate that you told Captain Fritz of the name "Lee Oswald" and his address? 
Mr. TRULY. My best estimate would be a little before 1 o'clock--10 minutes. 
Mr. BALL. The gun wasn't found until after 1 o'clock? 
Mr. TRULY. It wasn't found until after 1 o'clock? 
Mr. BALL. No, it wasn't found until after 1 o'clock. I won't tell you exactly the time the gun was found, but I will say that the gun was not found until after 1 o'clock. 
Mr. TRULY. Well, I may be mistaken about where I learned they had found the gun. I thought it was on the sixth floor--it could have been some other place. 

 

Disproved by the simple properties of physics...  the door has its own closing mechanism...  we are supposed to accept that in the time Truly turns to go a couple steps up the 3rd flight of stairs, Baker has seen Oswald THRU the window, opened the door

Mr. BAKER - As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don't know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.
Mr. DULLES - Where was he coming from, do you know?

Mr. BELIN. All right. Number 23, the arrow points to the door that has the glass in it.
Now, as you raced around, how far did you start up the stairs towards the third floor there? 
Mr. TRULY. I suppose I was up two or three steps before I realized the officer wasn't following me. 
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do? 
Mr. TRULY. I came back to the second floor landing. 


Mr. BELIN. What did you do then? 
Mr. TRULY. I ran over and looked in this door No. 23. 
Mr. BELIN. Through the glass, or was the door open? 
Mr. TRULY. I don't know. I think I opened the door. I feel like I did. I don't remember. 
Mr. BELIN. It could have been open or it could have been closed, you do not remember? 
Mr. TRULY. The chances are it was closed. 
Mr. BELIN. You thought you opened it? 
Mr. TRULY. I think I opened it. I opened the door back and leaned in this way.

 

(not my work)

5a4d021c511aa_2ndfloorBakerencounter.thumb.jpg.8af6364890e25f166835d27a0ced6636.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

cause it never happened...  

but the Lumpkin/.Fritz meeting is also very revealing...  BALL here does his very best to knock down TRULY's timing...  If I remember correctly an ATF man Ellsworth claims the rifle was found on the 4th/5th floor, earlier, and moved to the 6th... 

Doesn't Truly come across as precisely as confused as we would expect someone of his education, intellect and position to be if he suddenly found himself thrust into the center of one of the most momentous events in U.S. history?  He was a 56-year-old high school graduate who had worked for the company since 1934, beginning as an order-filler and rising to the exalted status of the superintendent of the TSBD (the operation, not the building) in late 1944.

It always seems to me that conspiracy theorists are long on suspicions and inferences but short on logic and reasoning.  Why would Baker have inserted the encounter in his original affidavit?  Why would the encounter have quickly been changed to the second-floor lunchroom?  Why would LHO's supernatural calmness have been inserted into the story?  Do Truly and Baker really seem to be likely sorts to have become enmeshed in a cover-up conspiracy and to stick with their fabricated stories ever after?  Why would LHO's claim to have been on the first floor ever have been allowed to see the light of day?  What sense does this conspiracy make?  What conspiracy is more convincing than that (1) Oswald was simply lying, as he always did, and (2) Baker and Truly were simply confused?

Take three people you actually know who have educations, intellects and jobs comparable to those of Truly, Baker, Tippit and others supposedly involved in the wilder conspiracy theories.  Picture those people involved in and doing the things Truly, Baker, Tippit and the others were supposedly involved in and did.  Pretty quickly, it starts to seem comical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance...

Most of us here have learned to stop asking the go nowhere "WHY" question....

From a logic standpoint Lance, the man coming down the stairs between the 3rd and 4th floor (BAKER's affidavit) is much closer to the 6th floor window than a man in the lunchroom already drinking a coke...

Why in the world would they substitute Oswald on the 2nd floor with Oswald on the stairs?

Ever hear of Mrs Reid?

Mrs. REID. Well, I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming in the back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk several feet and I told him, I said, "Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe they didn't hit him." 
He mumbled something to me, I kept walking, he did, too. I didn't pay any attention to what he said because I had no thoughts of anything of him having any connection with it at all because he was very calm. He had gotten a coke and was holding it in his hands and I guess the reason it impressed me seeing him in there I thought it was a little strange that one of -the warehouse boys would be up in the office at the time, not that he had done anything wrong. The only time I had seen him in the office was to come and get change and he already had his coke in his hand so he didn't come for change and I dismissed him. I didn't think anything else. 

So when is it that BAKER "rewrites" the statement to address the COKE comment?  September 23 1964... within a week of the WCR delivery.  One MUST wonder how it comes to be that the "corrected and official" statement related to the assassin's activities just after the shooting is not written until the end of Sept - given BAKER's affidavit from Nov 22.  An affidavit the WC avoids like the plague.

Why is Baker's 11/22 affidavit not a legal document which contradicts the official conclusions?

5a4d29105cea6_BakershadwrittennoteaboutOswaldinLunchroom-comparedtoSept231964writtenstatement-nocoke.jpg.6f3fb4ceec11ea642fa8b58c91a84b45.jpg

 

IT WAS NOT OSWALD WHO TRULY AND BAKER RUN INTO, COMING DOWN THE STAIRS.

So who was it that Baker claims Truly said "I know that man he works here...."?  if Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunchroom at the time?

5a4d281f31889_Bakerpage3affidavit3rd4thflooranddescription.thumb.jpg.74a01d063199df59030beb0a11f9c229.jpg

 

23 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

What sense does this conspiracy make?

Vincent Salandria:

            "I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly.  "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early.  I see that now.  We spent too much time and effort micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy.  Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way?  They chose not to.  Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner.  The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny.  The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear:  'We are in control and no one -- not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.'  It was a message to the people that their government was powerless.  And the people eventually got the message.  Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination.  People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

            "The tyranny of power is here.  Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by* promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad.  And that will lead not to revolution but to repression.  I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities.  No doubt we  are dealing now with an international conspiracy.  We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence.  That's exactly what they want us to do.  They have kept us busy for so long.  And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you.  They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

(There is not a single report authored by Lumpkin in the Dallas Archives Index...   ???)

 

David,

 

The best that I've been able to come up with is a combined Report filed by the Assistant Chief, Charles Batchelor and Deputy Chiefs, M.W. Stevenson and Charles Lumpkin in Box 14, Folder# 4, Item# 10 here:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box14.htm

 

It's kind of sad, really. So much history was lost by not getting them to fill out their own individual reports.

 

Steve Thomas

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bart:

So there was no mention of the second floor lunchroom encounter on the 22nd in the press?

Then what was there?  Was there anything at all about Truly, Baker and Oswald meeting in the press on the 22nd? 

None whatsoever on the 22nd.

The only encounter mentioned on the 22nd and published in the late evening and next day editions are about an encounter and sightings of Oswald on the 1st floor.

HERE pages 90-99

In the next update there will be more about this.

 

Edited by Bart Kamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

David,

 

The best that I've been able to come up with is a combined Report filed by the Assistant Chief, Charles Batchelor and Deputy Chiefs, M.W. Stevenson and Charles Lumpkin in Box 14, Folder# 4, Item# 10 here:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box14.htm

 

It's kind of sad, really. So much history was lost by not getting them to fill out their own individual reports.

 

Steve Thomas

 

Pierce Allman.... 

  http://www.whiterocklakeweekly.com/14619/151139/a/young-dallasites-world-changed-in-20-seconds
A 20-something Pierce Allman’s work took him to the street on Nov. 22, 1963, and in a short order his life was on a different trajectory. As the country’s youngest radio program director, a job he held since 1958, Allman left his WFAA Radio office to catch the JFK motorcade firsthand from the corner of Elm and Houston Streets.

"Channel 8 photographer" ???

There is also no mention of Tommy Alyea ??

Says too that he instructed REVILL to organize a search and start in the basement...  the next page says they were done with the searching by 2:45pm...  and then we have the infamous HOSTY telling REVILL that the FBI was aware of the subject in the basement of the DPD at 2:50pm.

Gonna need to print these all out....  thanks Steve

 

3297-023.gif

3297-024.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Lance...

Most of us here have learned to stop asking the go nowhere "WHY" question....

From a logic standpoint Lance, the man coming down the stairs between the 3rd and 4th floor (BAKER's affidavit) is much closer to the 6th floor window than a man in the lunchroom already drinking a coke...

Why in the world would they substitute Oswald on the 2nd floor with Oswald on the stairs?

Ever hear of Mrs Reid?

So when is it that BAKER "rewrites" the statement to address the COKE comment?  September 23 1964... within a week of the WCR delivery.  One MUST wonder how it comes to be that the "corrected and official" statement related to the assassin's activities just after the shooting is not written until the end of Sept - given BAKER's affidavit from Nov 22.  An affidavit the WC avoids like the plague.

Why is Baker's 11/22 affidavit not a legal document which contradicts the official conclusions?

IT WAS NOT OSWALD WHO TRULY AND BAKER RUN INTO, COMING DOWN THE STAIRS.

So who was it that Baker claims Truly said "I know that man he works here...."?  if Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunchroom at the time?

Vincent Salandria:

            "I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly.  "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early.  I see that now.  We spent too much time and effort micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy.  Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way?  They chose not to.  Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner.  The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. 

Certainly, Baker's affidavit is a legal document that contradicts the official (second floor) version.  Particularly because it is an affidavit and is the same in both the handwritten and typed versions, it would carry weight at a trial and would indeed call into question any conflicting story.  On the stand, Baker would be impeached with the affidavit and the prosecutor would attempt to rehabilitate his testimony by eliciting a reasonable explanation.  But there's no question, the affidavit would be a problem.  And the failure of the Warren Commission even to note the discrepancy is odd and perhaps suspicious.  (Of course, supposed super defense lawyer Gerry Spence didn't ask about it at the mock trial, either!)

Yes, I am aware of Mrs. Reid and her version.  I'm not suggesting that there are no inconsistencies in the various accounts - there are serious inconsistencies.  My questions are along the lines of:  Given what we know happened (e.g., LHO for some reason left the TSBD immediately after the shooting and went home to get his .38), are the inconsistencies more likely attributable to the extreme chaos and confusion surrounding the events or to some nefarious conspiracy?  If there was a conspiracy regarding the second floor lunchroom encounter, what was the point - what sense did it make, what purpose did it serve?

I have seen the Salandria quote before and have seen others on this forum say similar things:  Of course, the assassination was a ludicrous mess with all sorts of clues and red flags - that was the brazen in-your-face intent!!!  There is simply no arguing with this sort of "logic."  It reminds me of when Budd Hopkins offered his explanation as to why no one ever sees the tens of thousands of alien abductions supposedly taking place around the world:  The aliens have mastered the technique of invisibility!  Well, of course! At which point, I said "Bye-bye, Budd."

I personally have a difficult time understanding the sense and purpose of a fictional second floor lunchroom encounter that (1) was inconsistent with Baker's known affidavit, and (2) included the puzzling detail of the supposed assassin not being winded or flustered and indeed being almost supernaturally calm and collected.  To me, Baker's affidavit is describing essentially the same event as the second-floor lunchroom encounter and is not really troubling at all.  But maybe that's just me viewing the evidence through Lone Nut-colored glasses.

 

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You can say that last statement again.

And after that look at Bart's evidence that the incident was not mentioned in the press that day, but they did refer to  a different  incident.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Given what we know happened (e.g., LHO for some reason left the TSBD immediately after the shooting and went home to get his .38), are the inconsistencies more likely attributable to the extreme chaos and confusion surrounding the events or to some nefarious conspiracy?

From what I understand Lance, one of the purposes of a "plan" is to foster and use that confusion...  The two sets of Tramps is a great example...  but that's another story.

Bottom line Lance.... if at this point in history we do not understand that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy which did not...DID NOT involve the man Ruby shot... then there is truly very little point in continuing a conversation....

14 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I personally have a difficult time understanding the sense and purpose of a fictional second floor lunchroom encounter that (1) was inconsistent with Baker's known affidavit, and (2) included the puzzling detail of the supposed assassin not being winded or flustered and indeed being almost supernaturally calm and collected.  To me, Baker's affidavit is describing essentially the same event as the second-floor lunchroom encounter and is not really troubling at all.  But maybe that's just me viewing the evidence through Lone Nut-colored glasses.

{sigh} didn't think we had any more LNers left...  kinda like earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese - these things have been proven wrong just like the LNer theories.

We can speculate about why...  I see it firmly avoiding who that person coming down was... given how quickly after the shooting Baker claims to be there... this person would be suspect #1

no?.

 

You're a lawyer, What questions would YOU ask? 

Someone should have asked:   "Officer Baker / Mr. Truly:  the Baker Affidavit 11/22 states you both encountered a man coming down the stairs between the 3rd and 4th floors who worked at the TSBD - who was that?"

The Baker affidavit most certainly does not jive with the testimony...  he was calm, cool and collected since he had been in that room a while....  Mrs Reid again almost says as much when asked...  she is fairly well spoken for most of the interview except when they ask about her leaving anyone in the lunchroom:

Mr. BELIN. All right. When you left the lunchroom, did you leave with the other girls? 
Mrs. REID. No; I didn't. The younger girls had gone and I left alone. 
Mr. BELIN. Were you the last person in the lunchroom? 
Mrs. REID. No; I could not say that because I don't remember that part of it because I was going out of the building by myself, I wasn't even, you know, connected with anyone at all. 
Mr. BELIN. Were there any men in the lunchroom when you left there? 
Mrs. REID. I can't, I don't, remember that. 
Mr. BELIN. All right. 
Mrs. REID. I can't remember the time they left. 

If you read the affidavit from 11/22 (not the 9/24/64 statement I posted) then how can they ask him about leaving the 2nd floor lunchroom... that FACT was never established but by Truly conflicting with the first day affidavit.  Truly testified right before Baker and after Brennan on March 24... well before the 9/24 statement was written.

Mr. TRULY. I suppose I was up two or three steps before I realized the officer wasn't following me. 
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do? 
Mr. TRULY. I came back to the second floor landing. 
Mr. BELIN. What did you see? 
Mr. TRULY. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24. 

 

Mr. BAKER - As I was in the homicide office there writing this, giving this affidavit, I got hung in one of those little small offices back there, while the Secret Service took Mr. Oswald in there and questioned him and I couldn't get out by him while they were questioning him, and I did get to see him at that time.
Mr. DULLES - You saw him for a moment at that time?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Officer Baker, you then left the second floor lunchroom with Mr. Truly, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER - That is right, sir.

{sigh}

Are the LN glasses simply for the purpose of analysis - or is that where you've landed? 

How do you start out stating the affidavit would indeed be a problem... then conclude that the affidavit and testimony are not in conflict?  It takes a man FARTHER from the sniper's window and puts him closer and on the stairs coming down...  how much more incriminating does it have to be...  yet we have no idea who that person was....

Don't you think that's a little important?

Additionally, men were encountered coming down from the upper floors a number of times...  Mooney WAS a sheriff yet he doesn't know or wont say who was coming down...  Sawyer was all over the place as well...  we never return to who this man in the elevator between 12:34 and 12:37, was.   In reality the TSBD was not sealed with people coming and going for at least 20 minutes.  SAWYER is one to look at very carefully.

Mr. MOONEY - It was a push button affair the best I can remember. got hold of the controls and it worked. We started up and got to the second. I was going to let them off and go on up. And when we got there, the power undoubtedly cut off, because we had no more power on the elevator. So I looked around their office there, just a short second or two, and then I went up the staircase myself. And I met some other officers coming down, plainclothes, and I believe they were deputy sheriffs. They were coming down the staircase. But I kept going up. And how come I get off the sixth floor, I don't know yet. But, anyway, I stopped on six, and didn't even know what floor I was on.

Mr. BELIN. Now you took an elevator up, is that correct? 
Mr. SAWYER. That's right. 
Mr. BELIN. The route that you took to the elevator, you went to the front door? 
Mr. SAWYER. Right. 
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do? 
Mr. SAWYER. We got into the elevator. We run into this man. 
Mr. BELIN. Well, when you say you got into the elevator, where was the elevator as you walked in the front door? 
Mr. SAWYER. It was to the right. 
Mr. BELIN. To the right? 
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BELIN. Was it a freight elevator or a passenger elevator? 
Mr. SAWYER. The best of my recollection, it was a passenger elevator. 
Mr. BELIN. Did you push for the top button in that elevator? 
Mr. SAWYER. Well, I don't know who pushed it, but we went up to the top floor. 
Mr. BELIN. You went up to the top floor that the elevator would go to? 
Mr. SAWYER. That's right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At 10:42, of this 11-29-63 phone conversation,  Hoover states that LHO was confronted by police and cleared by LHO's boss at the front door of the TSBD.

 

 

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

×