Who was Mrs Robert Reid?

[Steve Thomas]

1 hour ago, Denis Morissette said:

This is the lady who some say is Mrs. Reid with Leavelle. This is on November 24. I only know of her visit on November 23. I've just done a screen capture of the film showing the lady.

 

Denis,

 

If that is Leavelle sitting with her (and I think it is), and they are going over her affidavit, he took her affidavit on Saturday, November 23rd

See CD 81 p. 548

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10483#relPageId=548&tab=page

 

That's interesting. Those two pages (pp 218 and 219 of the Police Case book are missing from the chronological order of the DPD Archives in Box 5, Folder# 5, Item#'s 30-32. They could be somewhere else in the Archives, but they're missing from that chronological order in Box 5)

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box5.htm

 

Her affidavit is in Box 5, Folder# 2, Item# 51

Patsy Collins, the Notary Public, dates it as November 23rd.

 

Steve Thomas

[Denis Morissette]

2 hours ago, John Iacoletti said:

Why would anybody think that this woman is Mrs Reid?

Because she looks somewhat like her. But she also looks like one of Ruby’s sister.

[Denis Morissette]

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Denis,

 

If that is Leavelle sitting with her (and I think it is), and they are going over her affidavit, he took her affidavit on Saturday, November 23rd

See CD 81 p. 548

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10483#relPageId=548&tab=page

 

That's interesting. Those two pages (pp 218 and 219 of the Police Case book are missing from the chronological order of the DPD Archives in Box 5, Folder# 5, Item#'s 30-32. They could be somewhere else in the Archives, but they're missing from that chronological order in Box 5)

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box5.htm

 

Her affidavit is in Box 5, Folder# 2, Item# 51

Patsy Collins, the Notary Public, dates it as November 23rd.

 

Steve Thomas

You may be right about Reid. 

[Denis Morissette]

2 hours ago, John Iacoletti said:

Why would anybody think that this woman is Mrs Reid?

Someone who wants to prove that the lady with glasses in Wiegman film is really Reid. I’m not convinced that the lady in the color photo published by “you know who but can’t say who”, the one in the Wiegman film and the one with Leavelle are the same. But I’ve been wrong before although extremely rarely as you know.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Maybe they knew that that man was a big problem and chose not to say anything. Seeing no one standing to his left and right as Otis Williams said gave them a break.  

Or perhaps this was just some citizen seeking a bit of shade who had no connection with the TSBD at all and meant nothing to any of them.  I forget who it was now, but one of the employees allowed an older man who was having some sort of difficulty to go into the building to get a drink or use the restroom.  That would be my educated guess - that this individual was not mentioned because he or she was of no significance to anyone, which seems far more plausible than the sinister speculation.

2 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

All those features which are seen in Prayer Man cannot be found also in Lee Oswald by chance.

I am quite familiar with the work.  It's Badge Man Revisited.  Lovelady had so many "Oswald features" that some people still insist the obvious photo of Lovelady is Oswald.  Oswald was such a completely ordinary-looking guy that "Oswalds" were reported all over the place.  Little old me must have said to my wife 25 times about some guy in Walmart or on TV or in a movie "Wow, doesn't he look like Oswald?"  You haven't?

2 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

It was not that important for the conspirators where Lee Oswald was during the shooting provided they controlled the whole crime scene, all pieces of evidence, information going out, and even could allow silencing Oswald.

This is the Conspiracy Game to the hilt.  Take the Harvey & Lee route and postulate two "main" Oswalds with possible additional imposters all over the place and all bets are off.  You can make the evidence say anything you want.  Ditto for what you are suggesting - this fumbling, bumbling conspiracy that left 4,832 clues for future conspiracy theorists to drool over was, on the other hand, such a tightly controlled operation that they didn't even care if their patsy was eating a cheese sandwich in the domino room and standing out on the front steps.  Does that actually make sense to you???  Why would they run all of these unnecessary, pretty-much-insane risks with the idea "We can mop up the convoluted mess later" when it would have been far simpler to just to do things right (from a conspiracy standpoint) from the get-go?

I'm not trying to demean your efforts.  Go for it, if you have the time and interest.  I just say the effort makes no sense at all to me.  Prayer Man will never be anything more than Badge Man Revisited unless and until you have a clear photo that shows it actually is Oswald - at which point I will immediately become a gee-whiz conspiracy theorist, ready to believe almost anything.

[Denis Morissette]

This lady is either Reid or Eileen Ruby, Jack's sister. Some time before or after, Jim Underwood is sitting next to Eileen's sister Eva. The glasses are different, but maybe Eileen had 2 pair of glasses. How common would that be in 1963, though?
https://postimg.cc/F1XC4cL5

Edited September 12, 2019 by Denis Morissette

[Andrej Stancak]

On 9/12/2019 at 8:24 PM, Lance Payette said:

Prayer Man will never be anything more than Badge Man Revisited unless and until you have a clear photo that shows it actually is Oswald - at which point I will immediately become a gee-whiz conspiracy theorist, ready to believe almost anything.

The high-resolution digital copy of Darnell is with the Sixth Floor Museum. Unfortunately, they are not able give it to researchers other than viewing it at their premises on their equipment. I hope that when all the data regarding Prayer Man are presented to the public, this high-resolution version will be made accessible to researchers. However, the type of analyses I am doing would be necessary (and not different) even with the better-quality copy, so I do not thing that this work is lost.

As far as your explanation is concerned that someone unknown got to the doorway and posed as Prayer Man because he wished to find a spot in the shadow, this is not something I could endorse. First, none of the doorway occupants said that there was a stranger in the doorway. However, more importantly, this person is not there at his spot in Hughes film when the limousine was on Houston and was about to pass the front entrance of the Depository building. The idea that someone decides to search a shelter when the much expected moment came and the President is in direct view, or seconds later when shots were ringing out is just not likely. 

Of course, the possibility that the man there was a stranger and he was one of about 400 bystanders who at that moment were at the Plaza needs to be considered and checked against the probability that this random person would share all of Oswald's features:

1. That stranger would be 5' 2 5/8, which is Oswald's body height (5'9'') plus less than an inch for shoe heel.

2. Would be a white Caucasian.

3. Would be a male.

4. Would have the same type of hairline as Oswald, both on the left and right temple. That type is known as Type II pattern of male baldness.

5. Would wear a worker type of clothes.

6. Whereby the grey color of his pants would match the grey of CE157 (Oswald's pants).

7. Whereby the grey of his shirt adjusted for the difference in shadow level for being in the shadow rather than in direct sunlight would match the colour of CE151, Oswald's shirt.

8. Whereby the dark spots on his shirt would match the distribution of dark spots on CE151.

9. The stranger would stand by placing the weight of his body on his right foot and have his left leg slightly forward and bent in knee joint. Such posture can be seen in a number of Lee Oswald's photographs. Interestingly, Lee's own brother Robert stood in the same fashion during Lee's funeral. 

A stranger from outside the building even if making an unlikely decision to walk up the stairs when things were the most exciting would need to have all these features. The odds of this happening would be roughly 1:600,000 (and the posture and the dark spots on CE151 are not included in the estimate). The whole city of Dallas counted about 650,000 inhabitants in 1963. So, this is how likely it would be for a stranger to be Prayer Man. There are some funny data out there on what are the probabilities of unlikely events. The odds for events such as 1:600,000 would be about the odds that a person dies from being hit by a meteoroid.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2019 by Andrej Stancak

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Denis Morissette said:

This lady is either Reid or Eileen Ruby, Jack's sister. Some time before or after, Jim Underwood is sitting next to Eileen's sister Eva. The glasses are different, but maybe Eileen had 2 pair of glasses. How common would that be in 1963, though?
https://postimg.cc/F1XC4cL5

The significance of this discussion is lost on me (no surprise), but this site says that the woman sitting with Leavelle is "Geraldine [sic] Reid" - https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/2015/09/15/witnesses-and-suspects-in-dealey-plaza/

This "Jeraldean Reid" certainly looks like the same woman - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22100-where-was-roy-truly-right-after-the-last-shot-was-fired/page/9/

3 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Of course, the possibility that the man there was a stranger was one of about 400 bystanders who at that moment were at the Plaza needs to be considered and checked against the probability that this random person would share all of Oswald's features:

Your "probability analysis" would also have to take into account that, at this point, your nine "Oswald features" are little more than a Rorschach test.  It would also have to take into account the other "small" problems I mentioned - not one person said Oswald was standing there, and Oswald standing there makes utterly no sense except according to a "we don't have to worry about anything" conspiracy theory that likewise makes no sense (at least to me).

8 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

First, none of the doorway occupants said that there was a stranger in the doorway.

Do you really not see what you are doing???  A stranger in the doorway isn't plausible because no one said there was a stranger in the doorway.  (Was anyone asked a question that would have elicited such an answer?)  However, the fact that no one mentioned Oswald in the doorway virtually proves this was Oswald because all those who didn't mention him were controlled and intimidated by the all-powerful forces of conspiracy.

My humble belief is that you have devoted so much time and effort to Prayer Person that you have become the functional equivalent of a Harvey & Lee cultist or Lifton cultist.  For you the photo simply has to be Oswald.  But please, carry on with my blessings.  I will await and even encourage the release of the high-resolution digital Darnell - which, if it shows a fortyish woman with a handbag, will immediately be declared a fake, an altered copy, or perhaps Oswald in a clever disguise.  And so it goes.

[Cliff Varnell]

6 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

 From my experience as a lawyer, this is the sort of explanation people resort to when they are truly (or maybe Truly) desperate.

From your ""experience" the physical evidence found with the body is irrelevant. Consensus witness testimony, contemporaneous notes of multiple witnesses in positions of authority, three properly prepared pieces of medical documentation -- all irrelevant to "Lawyer" Lance.

Lance, you cannot objectively claim to know that Oswald wasn't outside watching the "P. parade."

The confirmation bias really helps with the cognitive dissonance, eh?

 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Lance, you cannot objectively claim to know that Oswald wasn't outside watching the "P. parade."

The confirmation bias really helps with the cognitive dissonance, eh?

In Cliff's corner of conspiracy world, EVIDENCE + REASONABLE INFERENCES + LOGIC + COMMON SENSE = CONFIRMATION BIAS.  It's an odd equation, but Cliff likes this sort of thing.  Cliff also likes to toss around impressive-sounding phrases like "cognitive dissonance" and "intellectual dishonesty" even when they make no sense in the context in which is using them.  He calls it "weaponizing."  Others call it B-O-R-I-N-G.  (Actually, I like Cliff.  He's a hoot, whether he knows it or not.  I suspect he doesn't.)

However, Cliff raises a serious epistemological issue here:  Can I claim to "objectively" know that Oswald wasn't outside watching the P. parade?  Typically, a proposition ("Oswald was not outside watching the P. parade") is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject (that would be moi).  I can assess the best evidence, make reasonable inferences, assess probabilities and do all the other things sane people do in attempting to reach a reasonable conclusion, as I have attempted to do in my above posts.

Do my posts suggest an overwhelming bias, a deep need to believe that Oswald was not outside watching the P. parade?  Perhaps you think they do - be my guest.  I think precisely the opposite:  The Domino Room Alibi, which actually improves upon anything Oswald said, shows a pretty deep need to interpret any and all evidence in a conspiracy-promoting manner at the expense of logic, common sense and the other tools by which sane people reach reasonable conclusions.

Do I know Oswald wasn't outside watching the P. parade to a level of ontological certainty?  Of course not.  I can't know to a level of ontological certainty that he wasn't having his way with a nubile young secretary in the basement or eating a banana on the roof either.  But, yeah, I think I can objectively claim that the conclusion Oswald was upstairs shooting the President is approximately 500,000 times more likely than the conclusion he was outside watching the P. parade.

[Andrej Stancak]

48 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Your "probability analysis" would also have to take into account that, at this point, your nine "Oswald features" are little more than a Rorschach test.  It would also have to take into account the other "small" problems I mentioned - not one person said Oswald was standing there, and Oswald standing there makes utterly no sense except according to a "we don't have to worry about anything" conspiracy theory that likewise makes no sense (at least to me).

No, Lance, the features I listed are not ambiguous features. They are such in your mind. Take the first one, the body height. The doorway was a well defined physical object with known dimensions and Prayer Man's head reaches to a certain height. There is nothing ambiguous in providing estimate of Prayer Man's body height. It is true that the task is beyond the capacities  and skills of many researchers and those than try to make everything fuzzy and ambiguous. 

I do not care what makes sense to you and what superstition you feel about researchers thinking that a conspiracy was behind the murder of President Kennedy. 

48 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Do you really not see what you are doing???  A stranger in the doorway isn't plausible because no one said there was a stranger in the doorway.  (Was anyone asked a question that would have elicited such an answer?)  However, the fact that no one mentioned Oswald in the doorway virtually proves this was Oswald because all those who didn't mention him were controlled and intimidated by the all-powerful forces of conspiracy.

Lance, please try to follow at least my responses. I took seriously your view that a stranger was posing as a Prayer Man. Please have a look on the FBI reports of Mrs. Stanton. In those she claimed that she did not see Oswald on that day. However, she then told her family the same story over the years that she actually saw him as he was going up to buy a Coke. She did not want to talk with any newsmen or researchers. In my view, she was explained by the FBI that it is to her advantage to say no to seeing Oswald. We cannot know who did or did not see Oswald if cases such as these perspired after many years. 

However, Lee Oswald if he was out, he was out only for several tens of seconds. Prayer Man is not there in Hughes but he is there in Wiegman and Darnell (about 30 seconds after the last shot). The next mention of Oswald is by Ochus Campbell  who saw him in the small storage room in the main vestibule about 2 minutes after the shooting. The people in the doorway were transfixed on the Tripple Underpass  and may not have seen a person who came late and left early. 

48 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

My humble belief is that you have devoted so much time and effort to Prayer Person that you have become the functional equivalent of a Harvey & Lee cultist or Lifton cultist.  For you the photo simply has to be Oswald.  But please, carry on with my blessings.  I will await and even encourage the release of the high-resolution digital Darnell - which, if it shows a fortyish woman with a handbag, will immediately be declared a fake, an altered copy, or perhaps Oswald in a clever disguise.  And so it goes.

I devoted a lot of time to this project and I think I am objective unless mere thinking that Prayer Man could be Lee Oswald is not a proof of the lack of my objectivity. It is a possibility which is supported by several clues and it needs to be explored to the bottom. I am not a cultist of any kind and would appreciate if you refrain from hanging  such labels on me. The photo does not need to be Oswald and I am more than willing to study any alternative candidate. Actually I did that by testing if Mrs. Stanton or Jack Dougherty could be Oswald. Neither of them could.

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Andrej Stancak

[Cliff Varnell]

17 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

In Cliff's corner of conspiracy world, EVIDENCE + REASONABLE INFERENCES + LOGIC + COMMON SENSE = CONFIRMATION BIAS. 

Lance goes all cap nuts, again.

Quote

It's an odd equation, but Cliff likes this sort of thing. 

Lance likes to make stuff up and attribute it to others.

Quote

Cliff also likes to toss around impressive-sounding phrases like "cognitive dissonance" and "intellectual dishonesty" even when they make no sense in the context in which is using them

Lance, that you suffer severe cases of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance is obvious in your inability to muster a fact-based argument.  You can mischaracterize the arguments of others, but unlike a real lawyer you can't address the evidence.

 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, David Josephs said:

What are the odds two black men in Texas tell the DPD what they need to hear?

Pat, can you address the following please as it relates to your claims...  I see nothing in what they say to support what you conclude.???

JARMAN does not say he ate lunch in the Domino room Pat....:

Mr. BALL - What did you do there?
Mr. JARMAN - I was eating part of my sandwich there, and then I came back out and as I was walking across the floor I ate the rest of it going toward the domino room.
Mr. BILL. You say you ate the rest of it when?
Mr. JARMAN - Walking around on the first floor there.

Mr. BALL - Were you with anybody when you were walking around finishing your sandwich?
Mr. JARMAN - No; I wasn't, I was trying to get through so I could get out on the street.
Mr. BALL - Did you see Lee Oswald?
Mr. JARMAN - No; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - After his arrest, he stated to a police officer that he had had lunch with you. Did you have lunch with him?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir; I didn't.

How much more clear does this need to be Pat?  No lunch in the Domino Room, no sitting with Norman in the Domino room (And there's the Dr. Pepper Machine next to the fridge, the case for the empties is leaning against the wall by the stairs

 

Mr. BALL - When you finished your sandwich and your bottle of pop, what did you do?
Mr. JARMAN - I throwed the paper that I had the sandwich in in the box over close to the telephone and I took the pop bottle and put it in the case over by the Dr. Pepper machine.
Mr. BALL - And then what did you do?
Mr. JARMAN - Then I went out in front of the building.

Mr. JARMAN - We went around to the back of the building up to the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL - You say you went around. You mean you went around the building?
Mr. JARMAN - Right.
Mr. BALL - You didn't go through and cross the first floor?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir; there was too many people standing on the stairway so we decided to go around.

Now why do you supposed BALL wanted them to go THRU the first floor inside the building?  Maybe to support the falsehood that they say Oswald in the Domino room at lunch... but they didn't.  Both men tell us they did not see OSWALD in the Domino Room during lunch....

Now, What does NORMAN say?

Mr. BALL. Did you remember seeing him at any time that morning?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; around about 10 or 10:15, somewhere in the neighborhood of that.

Mr. McCLOY. You testified that you had not seen Oswald except this one occasion in the morning. Did you hear any of your friends or coworkers say whether they had seen Oswald on that morning?
Mr. NORMAN. Not until after
Mr. McCLOY. After the assassination?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir; that is the only time.

So Larry, I'd wait a second on setting this in stone, at least until this testimony is accounted for....

Mr. BALL - You went in the back door?
Mr. JARMAN - Right.
Mr. BALL - That would be the north entrance to the building, wouldn't it?
Mr. JARMAN - Right.
Mr. BALL - Did you take an elevator or the stairs?
Mr. JARMAN - We took the elevator.
Mr. BALL - Which elevator?
Mr. JARMAN - The west side elevator

There are 3 entrances on the NORTH of the TSBD... one right next to the WEST ELEVATOR in fact...  NORMAN makes your argument even worse by claiming to have gone out the front with Jarman....   who, while going out the front door with NORMAN also goes out the back door with JARMAN   

Mr. BALL. After you ate your lunch, what did you do?
Mr. NORMAN. I got with James Jarman, he and I got together on the first floor.
Mr. BALL. Where was James Jarman when you got together with him?
Mr. NORMAN. He was somewhere in the vicinity of the telephone, I believe. I am not for sure.
Mr. BALL. Out near the bins?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What do you call James Jarman?
Mr. NORMAN. Junior.
Mr. BALL. And you and Junior did what?
Mr. NORMAN. We went outside.
Mr. BALL. You went out the front door, did you?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes.
Mr. BALL. That is the Elm Street?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Where did you stand?
Mr. NORMAN. We stood on the Elm Street sidewalk.

Furthermore, even if they came in the small door, neither of the men say they saw Oswald during lunch... infact NORMAN says the room had "someone" in it - but no one with which to play dominoes...

Mr. BALL. Where were you when you ate your lunch?
Mr. NORMAN. In the domino room, as I recall.
Mr. BALL. Who was with you at that time?
Mr. NORMAN. I can't remember who ate in the lunchroom, I mean the domino room, with me.
Mr. BALL. Did some other employees eat there?
Mr. NORMAN. I think there was someone else in there because we usually played dominoes in there but that particular day we didn't play that morning.
Mr. BALL. Why didn't you play that morning?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, didn't nobody show up there to play like the guys usually come in to play.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I never said Jarman and Norman said they ate lunch with Oswald. They admitted walking by the door around the time Oswald indicated he saw them. It is extremely unlikely that Oswald could have been correct about this, should he have just pulled this from thin air. 

As far as what Oswald actually said about them--we'll never know. The police failed to take detailed notes, with exact quotes. As a result, it may very well have gone down like this...

FRITZ: So you say you ate lunch in the domino room, huh? Was there anyone else in there at the time? Is there anyone who can vouch for you?

OSWALD: Uh, I saw Junior and Shorty walk by while I was in there. They may have noticed me. I don't know. 

Fritz then makes a mental note that Oswald said Junior and Shorty might have seen him during lunch and conflates it into Oswald's saying he had lunch with them. This kinda thing happens all the time. All day long. 

It's why the tape recorder was invented. 

 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

There is nothing ambiguous in providing estimate of Prayer Man's body height.

This is becoming a PP thread, and I'm not going to be sucked into that black hole.  But an "estimate" derived from an amorphous blob standing in a position that cannot be precisely determined is inherently ambiguous.  You're pretending to have a level of scientific certainty that you simply can't have from the available evidence.

20 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Please have a look on the FBI reports of Mrs. Stanton. In those she claimed that she did not see Oswald on that day. However, she then told her family the same story over the years that she actually saw him as he was going up to buy a Coke. She did not want to talk with any newsmen or researchers. In my view, she was explained by the FBI that it is to her advantage to say no to seeing Oswald. We cannot know who did or did not see Oswald if cases such as these perspired after many years.

As I indicate in one of my posts above, this is precisely what many eyewitnesses to traumatic events do.  Their "memories" evolve over time to the point that they bear no relation to their recollections at the time.  Why this happens - or why some people knowingly embellish and even insert themselves into events they weren't part of - is one of the mysteries of human nature.  But they do it all the time.  And many of them believe their new "memories" even when they are demonstrably false.  What any witness has to say years after an event is irrelevant to me; it's simply too unreliable to take seriously.

37 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I am not a cultist of any kind and would appreciate if you refrain from hanging such labels on me.

OK, you're a well-meaning, truth-seeking PP enthusiast.

30 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Lance, that you suffer severe cases of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance is obvious in your inability to muster a fact-based argument.  You can mischaracterize the arguments of others, but unlike a real lawyer you can't address the evidence.

Read my first two posts on this thread and then get back to me about "not addressing the evidence."  Do you actually read anything on these threads, or do you simply see my name and go directly into Cliff Mode?

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

OK, at least you’ve reduced the odds of Oswald’s inclusion of Jarman and Norman in the Domino Room Alibi to a mere 2 of 10, as opposed to the usual 2 of 75 (i.e., all the TSBD employees).  Jarman had engaged Oswald in two short conversations earlier that morning (the one by the first-floor window being an unlikely detail to insert into cooked-up WC testimony – yes?).  Jarman said he always kept his lunch in the domino room, ate there regularly, and had seen Oswald there on at least a few occasions.  Thus, he was hardly an unlikely person for Oswald to insert into the Domino Room Alibi.

Norman saw Oswald at the first-floor window earlier in the morning and had been on the sixth floor “shooting the breeze” with the floor repair crew.  He likewise kept his lunch in the domino room and actually ate there that day (as did Arce and Dougherty).  He then got together with Jarman, went outside with Jarman, and went up to the fifth floor with Jarman – indicative of at least some friendly relationship.  Thus, it would not have been unlikely for Oswald to insert Norman as well into the Domino Room Alibi.

Eddie Piper?  In his affidavit, he reported Oswald as saying he was going “up” to eat his lunch – consistent with Oswald going up to the sixth floor (where I believe the sniper’s nest had been prepared earlier that morning).  When Piper testified to the WC, however, he wasn’t sure whether Oswald had said “up” or “out.”  Does it seem plausible that the nefarious WC attorneys, who had supposedly coached, badgered and threatened witnesses, would have allowed a barely-educated 56-year-old Black janitor like Piper to make the Domino Room Alibi screamingly more plausible, as opposed to warning him “You said ‘up’ in your affidavit and that’s all we want to hear now, pal”?  They fiendishly inserted Shelley/Lovelady three separate places in Vickie Adams’ transcript, but they dropped the ball that badly with Piper?

The elephant in the room that advocates of the Domino Room Alibi ignore is that Oswald supposedly saying he saw Jarman and Norman come through the door to the loading dock is a complete invention unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.  With three of the sources, two have Oswald saying he ate with Jarman and Norman.  One says they came into the room.  The Domino Room Alibi pretends these sources don’t exist or are fabrications and interprets the bland “came in” in Fritz’s note as meaning “came in through the loading dock door while I was eating in the domino room.”  This interpretation has utterly no foundation and is flatly inconsistent with the other sources.  For some reason you are choosing to make Oswald’s alibi better than anything he actually said (or at least than we have any reason to believe he said).  This is the real elephant in the room.

If Oswald had actually said "I saw Jarman and Norman enter through the loading dock door while I was eating in the domino room," I would agree that this was a game-changer.  But he didn't.  He simply inserted two very likely characters into the Domino Room Alibi for added believability.  Just as with "No, I never owned a rifle" and "My mother is dead and I have no brothers," the Domino Room Alibi was not going to survive even the mildest scrutiny - but that was Oswald.

In my first post I should have emphasized the significance of the second-floor lunchroom encounter.  If it occurred, as I believe it surely did, then Truly and Baker handed Oswald an alibi on a golden platter.  Perhaps Oswald ducked into the lunchroom because he heard Truly and Baker coming up or Adams and Styles coming down or perhaps something else spooked him.  But when it was over, he would have realized “My God, I just encountered Truly and a police officer and survived!  The two best alibi witnesses I could imagine have seen me in the second-floor lunchroom!  Bingo!!!”  Now he buys a coke, strolls out of the TSBD like any other employee, and finds himself out on the street to his utter astonishment.  I frankly don’t think Oswald had any expectation of surviving or any escape plan (hence his note to Marina before the Walker shooting: “If I am alive and taken prisoner …”), but the second-floor lunchroom encounter pretty much wrote the script of the Domino Room Alibi for him.

While we’re on the subject of elephants and unlikely odds, let’s consider Prayer Person – a natural adjunct to the Domino Room Alibi that is predictably alluded to above:

1.  Numerous TSBD employees were on the front steps at the time of the assassination or in the immediate vicinity.  Not everyone recalled everyone else, but their recollections were quite good and paint a solid picture.  Not one person recalled Oswald standing in full view where Prayer Person is standing.  Does it seem plausible that not one person said “Gee, I seem to recall the guy you folks think is the assassin standing right there on the steps with us.  Maybe you should look into that, huh?”  But wait, there’s more …

2.  Of all the photos and films taken that day – or that might have been taken that day – Prayer Person appears in precisely one.  It is pure happenstance that there aren’t 15 photos in which Prayer Person is clearly identifiable.  And in that one photo Prayer Person conveniently appears as such an amorphous blob in the deep shadows that debate continues as to whether said blob is a man or a woman.  Prayer Person could be literally anyone – but, voila, it’s Oswald!  But wait, there’s more …

3.  What conceivable assassination conspiracy would have allowed the patsy who was supposed to be on the sixth floor shooting the President to be standing in full view on the front steps?

Nevertheless, to Prayer Person advocates, items 1-3 are no hindrance at all (precisely because Conspiracy Logic is essentially anti-logic).  But the notion of Oswald inserting Jarman and Norman into his Domino Room Alibi?  Oh, please, that’s completely off the scale of plausibility!  The only plausible explanation - put it in stone - is that Oswald was eating lunch in the domino room.

Of all the aspects of conspiracy theorizing that I regard as laughable, the notion that the TSBD was teeming with conspirators and accessories from Roy Truly to Eddie Piper and everyone in between, while innocent young Oswald was placidly eating a cheese sandwich in the domino room, is one I regard as so self-evidently absurd that I can’t believe intelligent people are even discussing it.  From my experience as a lawyer, this is the sort of explanation people resort to when they are truly (or maybe Truly) desperate.

You must have me confused with someone else. I was present at the creation of the prayerman theory, and have never found it convincing, in large part because I don't think prayerperson looks the least bit like Oswald. 

As far as Eddie Piper...you do realize he said he saw Oswald...in the domino room...right?

From patspeer.com, chapter 4:

 

Step 3: The 4-8-64 Testimony of Eddie Piper

There are questionable conclusions, and there are conclusions so questionable they are suspicious. And the conclusion Oswald never came down for lunch was (and is) the latter. 

We've already shown how Eddie Piper, within hours of the shooting, swore he talked to Oswald on the first floor around noon. And we showed how he repeated this claim.

So it should come as no surprise then that on 4-8-64, Piper testified before the Warren Commission and once again claimed he saw Oswald on the first floor around noon. 

But that's not all Piper said. Here, in testimony taken 4 1/2 months after the killing of President Kennedy, Piper finally said where on the first floor he saw Oswald. Now, it's not as if anyone asked Piper this incredibly important detail. And it's not as if Piper volunteered it when they didn't. It just kinda...came out. Here, see for yourself.

Mr. BALL. What time did you go to work that day?
Mr. PIPER. 10 o'clock.
Mr. BALL. That was your usual time to go to work? 
Mr. PIPER. Yes.                                                                                                                                                                                     Mr. BALL. And, did you see Oswald that morning?
Mr. PIPER. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. PIPER. Down on the first floor filling orders. 
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him again that day?
Mr. PIPER You mean all day---the rest of the day?
Mr. BALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. PIPER. No.
Mr. BALL. Was that the last time you saw him?
Mr. PIPER. Just at 12 o'clock.
Mr. BALL. Where were you at 12 o'clock?
Mr. PIPER. Down on the first floor. 
Mr. BALL. What was he doing?
Mr. PIPER. Well, I said to him---"It's about lunch time. I believe I'll go have lunch." So, he says, "Yeah"---he mumbled something---I don't know whether he said he was going up or going out, so I got my sandwich off of the radiator and went on back to the first window of the first floor.           

(4-8-64 Testimony of Eddie Piper, 10:20 AM, 6H382-386)

Piper saw Oswald by a radiator.

Now, let's stop right here and point out that Piper is not sure Oswald said he was "going up," as originally reported, and that he now says Oswald could have said "going out." Now, some will claim it makes no difference because no one saw Oswald go up or out. But this is short-sighted. As we've seen, no one saw Oswald between 12:00, when Piper saw him, and a few minutes before 12:15, when Carolyn Arnold thought she saw him on the first floor, near the front door. Well, this suggests the possibility that, after talking to Piper, Oswald went out the back of the building to take a walk. And that he returned 15 minutes later. And that he even considered going out front with his co-workers upon his return, but saw the crowded steps outside, and thought better of it. 

And no, this isn't pure conjecture. In his 11-22-63 affidavit to the Dallas County Sheriff's Department, William Shelley, Oswald's boss, opted to add a little detail about Oswald that has been largely over-looked. He revealed: "This man stayed by himself most of the time, and would go for a walk at noon time. Lee would bring his lunch and usually eat with us in the lounge and read the paper." (CD87, p273)

So, there you have it. Oswald's going "out" at noon, and then returning to sit by himself in the domino room, while sipping on a drink and reading the paper, would not have been a deviation from his usual routine. It WAS his routine. 

We now return to Ball's questioning of Piper...

Mr. BALL. The first window on the first floor?                                                                                                                                           Mr. PIPER. No, not the first window---but on the first floor about the second window on the first floor. I was intending to sit there so I could see the parade because the street was so crowded with people---I didn't see anything.

It's curious, to say the least, that Ball failed to follow-up on Piper's claim he saw Oswald at 12 by a radiator by asking him the precise location of this radiator, and that he oped instead to change the subject from the relevant issue of Piper's discussion with Oswald to the barely relevant issue of which window Piper chose to sit behind while watching the motorcade.

But if Ball was trying to lure Piper to sleep so he could circle back and undermine Piper's testimony he saw Oswald on the first floor around 12:00, he was in for a surprise. 

Mr. BALL. What time was it that you spoke to Oswald and said you thought you would have your lunch?
Mr. PIPER. Just about 12 o'clock.
Mr. BALL. And do you remember exactly what he said? 
Mr. PIPER. No, sir; I don't remember exactly. All I remember him was muttering out something---I didn't know whether he said he was going up or going out.
Mr. BALL. He said something like that?
Mr. PIPER. Yes--something like that.

Now, apparently, this ticked Ball off. If he gets Piper to say Oswald said he was going "up", the Commission can conclude Oswald did just that--went back "up"...to the sixth floor. 

Piper's refusal to specify "up" as opposed to "out", then, could only have been seen as a set-back for Ball. Now, look how he responds.

Mr. BALL. Now, that day, you went over to the sheriff's office and made a statement, didn't you?
Mr. PIPER. Yes, sir---no, sir; not that day. 
Mr. BALL. Did you the next day?                                                                                                                                                             Mr. PIPER. Saturday.
Mr. BALL. Did you go to the sheriff's department?
Mr. PIPER. I went to the county---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And did you tell them at any time that you saw Lee about 12 o'clock?
Mr. PIPER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And that Lee said, "I'm going up to eat?"
Mr. PIPER. He said either "up" or "out"---that's the way I reported it.
Mr. BALL. That's what you told them?                                                                                                                                                     Mr. PIPER. Yes, sir.  

(4-8-64 10:20 AM, 6H382-386)

Now, this is important in light of subsequent developments... When Piper didn't testify in the manner most damaging to Oswald, and most supportive of what we can only assume was Ball's presumption Oswald acted alone, Ball reminded Piper of his previous statements, and undermined Piper's credibility to the Commissioners tasked with studying Piper's testimony. 

And he did this, moreover, at the expense of asking the far more relevant question of where it was on the first floor Piper saw Oswald.

It wasn't until 2017, for that matter, that I realized Piper's claim he got his "sandwich off of the radiator"(after briefly talking to Oswald) had actually answered the question Ball had failed to ask. 

Here's an FBI photograph of the domino room, entered into evidence as Kaiser Exhibit B. (20H334) The radiator is on the left. Note that Oswald's jacket was later discovered by this radiator.

And here's another FBI photo of the radiator. Note that the window sill is used to store found items and lunch bags. Presumably, Piper brought a hot sandwich for lunch and placed it on the radiator to keep warm. 

Note also that this version of the photo was marked with an X by depository employee Frankie Kaiser, to show where he found Oswald's jacket weeks after the shooting. This version of the photo was entered into evidence as Kaiser Exhibit C (20H335). 
 

While some might prefer to believe Ball had no idea what Piper was telling him when he said he picked his sandwich off the radiator and went back to the front window after talking to Oswald, and that it was just an oversight on Ball's part that he failed to put on the record that Piper was thereby confirming Oswald's claim he came down for lunch and went to the domino room... there's no good reason for us to do so. Kaiser Exhibits B and C, photos of the domino room in which the radiator is obvious, were entered into evidence on 4-8-64, roughly 4 hours after Piper testified. Kaiser's testimony, as Piper's, was taken by Joe Ball. Ball personally handled Kaiser Exhibits B and C. As a consequence one can only assume these photos were in Ball's briefcase when he took Piper's testimony. 

So, yeah, you can bet you bippy Ball knew full well that the radiator discussed by Piper was the radiator in the domino room. 

And that it was no coincidence Ball failed to put this on the record.

Suspicious Omission #5                                                                                                                                                             4-8-64. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball fails to ask Eddie Piper where on the first floor he saw Oswald at 12:00, and thereby conceals from the Commission and public that Piper felt certain he saw Oswald just where Oswald said he was during the lunch period--in the domino room.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Pat Speer