Thomas Graves

You forget one small detail, Richard. When Truly realized Baker was not behind him on the stairs leading to the 3rd floor, he returned to the 2nd floor landing to see what became of Baker. He described what happened next to the Warren Commission: "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." In other words, if the vestibule door was closed, it was definitely NOT a soundproof door, if Truly could hear Baker and Oswald speaking through it. By his own testimony, Truly only leaned through the vestibule door long enough for Baker to turn back to him and ask "This man work here?" to which Truly replied "Yes". Five little words, all one syllable words, then Truly said they departed for the 3rd floor "immediately". Your estimation of Truly being inside the vestibule for 20-30 seconds is a gross exaggeration, when you consider it only took Baker 20 seconds to race his motorcycle to a point 45 feet from the TSBD steps, park it, dismount and run all the way to the TSBD front entrance, throwing people out of the way, as Baker described it. No, Truly stated he opened the door back and leaned in. He said nothing about going through the door, and why would he? Baker was only a couple of feet from him in the lunch room doorway. How did Truly know Baker was holding a revolver to Oswald's stomach, without going further than the vestibule doorway? It's all in Truly's testimony, Richard. "Mr. TRULY. When I reached there, the officer had his gun pointing at Oswald. The officer turned this way and said, "This man work here?" And I said, "Yes." Mr. BELIN. And then what happened? Mr. TRULY. Then we left Lee Harvey Oswald immediately and continued to run up the stairways until we reached the fifth floor. Mr. BELIN. All right." Roy Truly can be forgiven for putting the cart before the horse, as this was indeed a tense moment, but his description could have been accurate. When Marrion Baker turned to speak with Truly, he most likely turned his whole upper body and exposed the revolver in his right hand. Getting back to the lack of soundproofing in the vestibule door, and the short (much shorter than you think) duration of Truly's foray into the vestibule, we again are faced with a problem. If the vestibule door was closed, as you seem to believe despite a complete lack of evidence to support this notion, Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles would still have heard the exchange between Baker and Truly, through the closed door, as they passed through the 2nd floor landing. As you may be aware, sound will travel through a door equally well in both directions. From the WC testimony of Victoria Adams: "Mr. BELIN - How long do you think it took you. to get from the window to the bottom of the stairs on the first floor? Miss ADAMS - I would say no longer than a minute at the most. Mr. BELIN - So you think that from the time you left the window on the fourth floor until the time you got to the stairs at the bottom of the first floor, was approximately 1 minute? Miss ADAMS - Yes, approximately. Mr. BELIN - As I understand your testimony previously, you saw neither Roy Truly nor any motorcycle police officer at any time? Miss ADAMS - That's correct. Mr. BELIN - You heard no one else running down the stairs? Miss ADAMS - Correct" Dear Robert, 1 ) If you reread Richard's earlier posts, you'll see he never claimed the vestibule door was soundproof. 2 ) How do you know Truly couldn't have seen the gun in Baker's hand, pointing at Oswald's stomach, before Baker turned Truly's way? Truly's testimony actually indicates he could see the gun pointed at Oswald as soon as he reached the vestibule door, and that Baker, realizing that Truly was standing behind him (or at his side) then turned towards Truly to ask him if Oswald worked in that building: Mr. TRULY. When I reached there, the officer had his gun pointing at Oswald. The officer turned this way and said, "This man work here?" And I said, "Yes." http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/truly1.htm 3 ) Rather than there being "a complete lack of evidence" to support Richard's contention the vestibule door was closed behind Baker, Truly, and Oswald, the opposite is actually the case. It was a new, self-closing door! 4 ) Adams and Styles were quickly walking a short distance (from one stairwell to the adjoining stairwell) across a wooden floor in noisy 3" heels, and they were probably talking to each other, as well. No wonder they couldn't hear Baker and Truly talking inside the vestibule, especially if the vestibule door was closed behind them. --Tommy You and Gilbride are living in a fantasy world. It would take no more than 5 seconds for Truly to stick his head through the vestibule door, exchange five short words with Baker, and have them immediately leave for the 3rd floor. Period. Adams and Styles did not have enough time to cross the landing without running into Baker and Truly. Not to mention the astronomical odds against them crossing the landing in the precise five second moment Truly stuck his head into the vestibule. Remember, Victoria Adams testified to seeing no one on her way down the steps. Only an idiot or a paid disinfo agent would maintain the 2nd floor lunch room encounter actually occurred. Dear Robert, Adams and Styles didn't "cross the landing." They walked the short, curving distance from one stairwell to the adjoining stairwell in the same corner of the building. Then they disappeared down that stairwell. All done wearing 3" heels which must have been very noisy on that wooden floor and on those wooden steps. And they had just heard some gunshots and seen the beautiful Jackie Kennedy crawl up on the back part of the Presidential limousine. Do you think they might have been talking about that, or were they walking downstairs without talking, being as quiet as ... church mice? You are right about one thing, though, Bob. I am an idiot. I'm a freaking moron and an idiot to try to "talk sense" to you. --Tommy PS I think it's against the Forum's Code of Conduct for one member to slander or even "cast aspersions" on another member. Your accusing me of being a "disinfo" in the PM you sent me this morning has been brought to the moderators' attention, not via any PM's I might have sent them about it (I haven't), but by my telling everyone about it in this thread.

Richard, It's obvious (to me) that if Oswald (standing in a corner of the entranceway alcove during the shooting) went up to the second floor lunch room (via the front stairs or the passenger elevator), immediately after the assassination, the only plausible reason for his doing so was either to buy a soft drink (or candy) or perhaps to meet with (or find?) someone on the second floor. I can't see a "box" for empty bottles in the lunch room, but it's logical that there was one there. If so, I suppose it's possible he came to the lunchroom just to return his empty bottle (if he had one). Do you think he went up there to buy a soft drink? To return a bottle? To buy some candy? If so, do you think that was a reasonable thing for him to do at that particular time, instead of staying downstairs and watching on the wild goings on taking place outside? Another idea: Do you think it's possible that Oswald (having just come up from downstairs) was passing through the lunch room when Baker spotted him through the vestibule door's window, and was on his way to somewhere else, perhaps even to a higher floor? Thanks, --Tommy

I just now came across the above. It's interesting to me because I believe I've located David Sanchez Morales, in the 8/09/63 Jim Doyle film, monitoring Oswald in New Orleans. Could Garrison have confused Gonzalez's nickname "El Toro" for Morales' moniker "El Indio"? At one point in his WC testimony, Dean Andrews said "The Mexican" who had accompanied Oswald to Andrew's office was about the same height as Oswald. I've read somewhere that Oswald was 5' 9.5" Morales was 5' 10" ... Andrews also said that "The Mexican" weighed 160 - 165 pounds and was "stocky." The problem is, 5' 10" and 160 - 165 pounds is not "stocky." It's pretty darn average. But 220 pounds on a 5' 9" - 5' 10" frame is very "stocky." Morales weighed 220 pounds in 1961, when he was 36 years old ... https://www.maryferr...geId=2&tab=page We know that Andrews gave wildlyvarying descriptions of "Clay Bertrand," so we know he was not averse to lying under oath. In order to protect his own life, I think Andrews lied about "The Mexican's" age ("around 26, hard to say") and weight ("160 to 165 pounds"), but was telling the truth about his height (around 5' 9" - 5' 10"). I seriously doubt that Mellen made up the story about Nitschke's looking at a photo of Morales (which Garrison was apparently showing to him). It would be nice to know what Mellen's source of information was on this. bumped

Dear Robert, You sound worried. --Tommy PS Why did you send me the harassing Personal Message this morning (at 6:54 AM)? -- Subject title: "Caught ya" Message: "You're disinfo and I will [am going to] expose you." You sound desperate and unbalanced, Bob. Were you up all night? Maybe you should get some sleep. Here's my response (sent a few minutes ago): " Sounds like a threat. Don't get too paranoid now. This should be fun. --Tommy " corrected and bumped PS I learned a long time ago that "I will [do something]" suggests that the speaker has just now made a spontaneous decision to do something, whereas "I am going [to do something]" suggests that he or she has been thinking about it for some time and has made plans to do something. So please tell us, Bob, what do you have planned? (After you get some sleep, of course.) Should I call a lawyer yet? Or is this just a clever way for you to get kicked off this forum so you can "save face"? --Tommy corrected in the previous post; edited and bumped for Prudhomme PS Let me guess, Bob. Any intelligent student or researcher who has an excellent command of the English language and disagrees with you on a consistent basis is, by definition, "disinfo," i.e. a "disinformation agent," right? And the phrase "disinformation agent," when used to describe a contributing member of a JFK assassination forum, is generally accepted to mean "a person who is paid to intentionally mislead other students and researchers of the JFK assassination." Correct? Or do you think I do it for free? That's ridiculous, Bob. How do you think I can afford all these Ferraris and Lamborghinis? LOL

Dear Robert, You sound worried. --Tommy PS Why did you send me the harassing Personal Message this morning (at 6:54 AM)? -- "Caught ya" "You're disinfo and I will [am going to] expose you." You sound desperate and unbalanced, Bob. Were you up all night? Maybe you should get some sleep. My response (sent a few minutes ago): "Sounds like a threat. Don't get too paranoid now. This should be fun. --Tommy " corrected and bumped PS I learned a long time ago that "I will [do something]" suggests that the speaker has just now made a spontaneous decision to do something, whereas "I am going [to do something]" suggests that he or she has been thinking about it for some time and has made plans to do something. So please tell us, Bob, what do you have planned? (After you get some sleep, of course.) Should I call a lawyer yet? Or is this just a clever way for you to get kicked off this forum so you can "save face"? --Tommy

Dear Robert, You sound worried. --Tommy PS Why did you send me the harassing Personal Message this morning (at 6:54 AM)? -- "Caught ya" "You're disinfo and I will [am going to] expose you." You sound desperate and unbalanced, Bob. Were you up all night? Maybe you should get some sleep. My response (sent a few minutes ago): "Sounds like a threat. Don't get too paranoid now. This should be fun. --Tommy "

I think you are forgetting that many employees related that the wooden stairs in the TSBD were in quite bad repair, to the point the managers had asked the employees to minimize their use of them. As many treads were loose, it was also reported that the stairs were extremely noisy, and that it was possible to hear someone coming toward you on the stairs a long ways off. I find it hard to believe Truly or Baker would not have heard two women in 3" heels coming toward and past them at high speed. Aside from that, just how long do you think Truly was in the lunch room? Automatic door closers are not that fast, and I think Truly would have ID'ed LHO even before the door had a chance to close, and B & T were gone as soon as Truly okayed LHO. Dear Robert, I think the point is that Adams and Styles may not have been able to hear Baker and Truly coming up. The point is not that bad guy Truly was (probably) able to hear Adams and Styles coming down in their 3" heels. The theory is that innocent. naiive Baker was already inside the lunch room confronting Oswald, and that even if he did hear Adams and Styles, didn't concern himself with them because they were obviously women (wearing those noisy 3" heels) and he was looking for a man. --Tommy Wrong. Read Baker's testimony. He testified that he did not actually go into the lunch room. Rather, he stood in the doorway of the lunch room, still standing in the vestibule, and called LHO back to him from within the lunch room.. Then read Truly's testimony. According to his testimony, he did NOT go through the vestibule door and allow it to close behind him. Rather, he opened the door and leaned in, and was only in this position long enough to exchange five words with Baker before they returned to the stairs. Now, isn't it funny that Victoria Adams never mentioned, in her testimony to the WC, that she went through the 2nd floor landing and saw Roy Truly leaning through an open vestibule doorway, and that there was a big old cop holding a gun on Lee Harvey Oswald just on the other side of him? Dear Robert, From his testimony, it sounds like Baker stood inside the enclosed "vestibule" which was between the second floor itself, and the lunch room proper. The vestibule's outer door could have closed behind him. Even if it hadn't, it would have been difficult for Adams and Styles to see him and Truly unless they happened to look in that direction as they were scurrying towards the next flight of downward-leading stairs which was very close to where they "landed" on the second floor. So close, in fact, that they were probably on the second floor landing for only two or three seconds. They were concentrating on getting down stairs as quickly as possible (not wanting to turn their ankles while walking quickly in their 3" heels, they were most likely just looking at the floor in front of them), and probably didn't even look towards the dimly-lit vestibule door. Even if they did hear Baker's or Truly's voice, they may not have thought there was anything unusual going on in there. And as far as Baker was concerned, his attention would have been totally focused on Oswald, wouldn't it? Floor plan of the second floor: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce497.jpg Photo taken from a point about 10' away from the second floor's stairwells showing the lunchroom's "vestibule" door from the outside. "Warren Commission, Volume XVII: CE 498 - Photograph taken near the stairs of the second floor of the TSBD." Note that the vestibule door is illuminated by a strong flood light for photographic purposes, and that this area would have been much more dimly lit at the time of the assassination and the period of time right after it. : --Tommy

I think you are forgetting that many employees related that the wooden stairs in the TSBD were in quite bad repair, to the point the managers had asked the employees to minimize their use of them. As many treads were loose, it was also reported that the stairs were extremely noisy, and that it was possible to hear someone coming toward you on the stairs a long ways off. I find it hard to believe Truly or Baker would not have heard two women in 3" heels coming toward and past them at high speed. Aside from that, just how long do you think Truly was in the lunch room? Automatic door closers are not that fast, and I think Truly would have ID'ed LHO even before the door had a chance to close, and B & T were gone as soon as Truly okayed LHO. Dear Robert, I think the point is that Adams and Styles may not have been able to hear Baker and Truly coming up. The point is not that bad guy Truly was (probably) able to hear Adams and Styles coming down in their 3" heels. The theory is that innocent. naiive Baker was already inside the lunch room confronting Oswald, and that even if he did hear Adams and Styles, didn't concern himself with them because they were obviously women (wearing those noisy 3" heels) and he was looking for a man. --Tommy Wrong. Read Baker's testimony. He testified that he did not actually go into the lunch room. Rather, he stood in the doorway of the lunch room, still standing in the vestibule, and called LHO back to him from within the lunch room.. Then read Truly's testimony. According to his testimony, he did NOT go through the vestibule door and allow it to close behind him. Rather, he opened the door and leaned in, and was only in this position long enough to exchange five words with Baker before they returned to the stairs. Now, isn't it funny that Victoria Adams never mentioned, in her testimony to the WC, that she went through the 2nd floor landing and saw Roy Truly leaning through an open vestibule doorway, and that there was a big old cop holding a gun on Lee Harvey Oswald just on the other side of him? Dear Robert, From his testimony, it sounds like Baker stood inside the enclosed "vestibule" which was between the second floor itself, and the lunch room proper. The vestibule's outer door could have closed behind him. Even if it hadn't, it would have been difficult for Adams and Styles to see him and Truly unless they happened to look in that direction as they were scurrying towards the next flight of downward-leading stairs which was very close to where they "landed" on the second floor. So close, in fact, that they were probably on the second floor landing for only two or three seconds. They were concentrating on getting down stairs as quickly as possible (not wanting to turn their ankles while walking quickly in their 3' heels, they were most likely just looking at the floor in front of them), and probably didn't even look towards the vestibule / lunch room. Even if they did hear Baker's or Truly's voice, they may not have thought there was anything unusual going on in there. And as far as Baker was concerned, his attention was totally focused upon Oswald. Floor plan of the second floor: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce497.jpg Photo taken from a point about 10' away from the second floor's stairwells showing the lunchroom's "vestibule" door from the outside. "Warren Commission, Volume XVII: CE 498 - Photograph taken near the stairs of the second floor of the TSBD." : --Tommy

Non sequitur, Bobby. Your "logic" amazes me sometimes. --Tommy PS I didn't say that Baker saw Adams and Styles on the second floor. I said he may have heard the distinctive sound of their 3" heels coming down the stairs. Regardless, don't you think most people back in 1963 would have automatically assumed that the sniper was a man? That's why I said Baker was looking for a man. Geez. Thomas You are grasping at straws. Now that it is clear Truly did not go through the vestibule door and allow it to close behind him, there is no way Truly, Styles and Adams could not have seen and heard each other. As I said, Truly, by his own testimony, could not have been leaning through that door for more than 5 seconds. That's you opinion, Bobby. You're entitled to it. --Tommy

Sandy.... Thanks SO MUCH for your serious research and contribution to this thread!! Your private message has been forwarded to JA. Your work is MOST APPRECIATED!!!! --Jim HarveyandLee.net Jim, Nice subtle "plug" for Harvey and Lee (and Henry, Too)! --Tommy

"As everybody knows"? What a joke. Ever heard of the Couch / Darnell GIFs? Who do you think those two guy are, walking down and then across Elm Street Extension? Abbot and Costello? --Tommy At what point do you see them crossing the extension? I've already told you Bob. But you said that that very short GIF I posted for you was "vague." Remember? Maybe you weren't wearing your glasses. Or maybe it's just that I'm able to see things you aren't able to see? Like that possible "Gloria Calvery" by the Thornton Freeway sign in Altgens 6, or Roy Truly off to the right of the steps in Wiegman, not far from Jeraldean Reid? For example? So let's not argue about it ok? Because it's just too darn ... "vague." Isn't it. --Tommy PS But I do have a confession for you, of sorts. In that "vague," very short GIF which I posted for you a few days ago, it looks to me as though Shelley is crossing Elm Street Extension, while maybe, just maybe, Lovelady continues walking towards the railway yard / parking lot. It's too hard to tell, but gosh ... wouldn't that be exciting?! bumped for Prudhomme

Thanks, Richard. --Tommy Wow! And you think my theories are strange.... Yes I do, Bob. Very strange. --Tommy

Non sequitur, Bobby. Your "logic" amazes me sometimes. --Tommy PS I didn't say that Baker saw Adams and Styles on the second floor. I said he may have heard the distinctive sound of their 3" heels coming down the stairs. Regardless, don't you think most people back in 1963 would have automatically assumed that the sniper was a man? That's why I said Baker was looking for a man. Geez.

"As everybody knows"? What a joke. Ever heard of the Couch / Darnell GIFs? Who do you think those two guy are, walking down and then across Elm Street Extension? Abbot and Costello? --Tommy At what point do you see them crossing the extension? I've already told you Bob. But you said that that very short GIF I posted for you was "vague." Remember? Maybe you weren't wearing your glasses. Or maybe it's just that I'm able to see things you aren't able to see? Like that possible "Gloria Calvery" by the Thornton Freeway sign in Altgens 6, or Roy Truly off to the right of the steps in Wiegman, not far from Jeraldean Reid? For example? So let's not argue about it ok? Because it's just too darn ... "vague." Isn't it. --Tommy PS But I do have a confession for you, of sorts. In that "vague," very short GIF which I posted for you a few days ago, it looks to me as though Shelley is crossing Elm Street Extension, while maybe, just maybe, Lovelady continues walking towards the railway yard / parking lot. It's too hard to tell, but gosh ... wouldn't that be exciting?!

Bob, I'm sorry that my "take" doesn't fit in with your grandiose theory. I guess I'm just not paranoid enough to buy into it. --Tommy Hang on a minute here. You're not getting out of this that easily. Here is what I take away from your story so far. The FBI took 73 statements which were signed by the persons giving the statements, then proceeded to make up finished copies of these statements but were just so gosh darn nice, they didn't make anyone hang around to sign the finished copies. And then, heck, why bother keeping the signed copies around, we'll just chuck them all out! Are you quite serious????? Dear Bobby, I said they might even have been routinely destroyed by now, some fifty years after the assassination. I don't know if they have or not , Bobby. Maybe the Dallas FBI still has them, or the National Archives? Why don't you try to find them? I won't, because I'm satisfied in my own mind that they were probably signed. I can see no other reason for the Dallas FBI Special Agent in Charge to send Hoover an airtel a short time later informing Hoover that some minor mistakes had been corrected in five of them, and that the persons who had made those five statements had initialed the corrections (which were made in the originals, of course). The way I see it, if they initialed them later, then they must have signed them originally. I'm not going to argue with you anymore about this, Bobby. You can declare yourself "the winner" if you want to. But at least the other members of the forum have had an opportunity to see my "take" on this signature issue now, and they can decide for themselves. And, as I understand it, Jon G. Tidd is now on record as having said that it's possible that Baker ran right up the steps, as suggested by the Couch / Darnell film. Ciao. --Tommy

"As everybody knows"? What a joke. Ever heard of the Couch / Darnell GIFs? Who do you think those two guy are, walking down and then across Elm Street Extension? Abbot and Costello? --Tommy

Nice diversion, Bob. But the only reason we're talking about Calvery now is because I mentioned (yesterday?, the day before?) that I seem to be able to find things in photos and films that you have a hard time seeing even after you're told where to look. I mentioned this possible "Gloria Calvery" (by the Thornton Freeway sign), whom I had very patiently pointed out to you, and I also mentioned the Roy Truly I found in the Weigman clip, as examples... So, have you found the real Gloria Calvery yet? You know, the TSBD employee (deceased a long time ago) at whose wedding Bill Shelley was best man? --Tommy

I think you are forgetting that many employees related that the wooden stairs in the TSBD were in quite bad repair, to the point the managers had asked the employees to minimize their use of them. As many treads were loose, it was also reported that the stairs were extremely noisy, and that it was possible to hear someone coming toward you on the stairs a long ways off. I find it hard to believe Truly or Baker would not have heard two women in 3" heels coming toward and past them at high speed. Aside from that, just how long do you think Truly was in the lunch room? Automatic door closers are not that fast, and I think Truly would have ID'ed LHO even before the door had a chance to close, and B & T were gone as soon as Truly okayed LHO. Dear Robert, I think the point is that Adams and Styles may not have been able to hear Baker and Truly coming up. The point is not that bad guy Truly was (probably) able to hear Adams and Styles coming down in their 3" heels. The theory is that innocent. naiive Baker was already inside the lunch room confronting Oswald, and that even if he did hear Adams and Styles, didn't concern himself with them because they were obviously women (wearing those noisy 3" heels) and he was looking for a man. --Tommy

Dear Robert, We don't know for a fact that "no one outside of the FBI" has ever seen the originals, do we? Would it really matter if that were the case? I.e., that the originals were signed but nobody outside the FBI had actually seen those signatures ? Why would the Dallas FBI Special Agent in Charge go to the trouble of telling Hoover in that airtel that those five people (Carolyn Arnold, Mrs. R. E. Reid, Pauline Sanders, etc., had initialed the minor corrections that had been made to their statements? Just as an elaboration on the grand ruse? LOL --Tommy Why are statements normally signed, Thomas? Why should all signed statements to the FBI be necessarily made public? Why shouldn't witnessed copies suffice for common slobs like you and I? Is it the FBI's civic duty to "prove" to Joe Blow that the statements were, in fact, signed? The Warren Commission's duty? And even if they did, wouldn't some of us (hint hint) then automatically claim that the signatures had been forged? Why don't you contact Carolyn Arnold, or Mrs. Reid, or Pauline Sanders, or the two other people, and ask them if they signed the originals? (But if you do, I suggest that you not do it while they're entertaining guests during The Holidays. Because if you do, they'll probably just hang up on you.) --Tommy

Dear Robert, We don't know for a fact that "no one outside of the FBI" has ever seen the originals, do we? Would it really matter if that were the case? I.e., that the originals were signed but nobody outside the FBI had actually seen those signatures ? Why would the Dallas FBI Special Agent in Charge go to the trouble of telling Hoover in that airtel that those five people (Carolyn Arnold, Mrs. R. E. Reid, Pauline Sanders, etc., had initialed the minor corrections that had been made to their statements? Just as an elaboration on the grand ruse? LOL --Tommy

You seemed to agree with me at the time, Bob. Have you changed your mind? Shall I bump that particular post from the other thread to freshen your memory? The point is, I pointed out someone to you who was standing "behind" another woman in Altgens 6, and who was therefore practically invisible. You had a very, very hard time "seeing" her until I very patiently explained how to detect part of her face and part of her hair in the photograph. Remember? Have you gone back to thinking that Calvery might be the dark-complected woman standing way down Elm Street by the Stemmons (not Thornton) Freeway sign? Or do you have another candidate for Calvery now? I couldn't care less to tell you the truth. --Tommy

Thanks, Richard. --Tommy

Bob, I'm sorry that my "take" doesn't fit in with your grandiose theory. I guess I'm just not paranoid enough to buy into it. --Tommy

Dear Robert, Of course I haven't seen the (one and only one; signed, corrected and initialed) Dallas FBI original. It's probably "tucked away" somewhere in the National Archives, the Dallas FBI office, the National FBI office, or the Dallas Municipal Archives, etc, As are Barnum's, Arnold's, Reed's, and Stanbery's corrected and initialed original statements. Not to mention all of the 68 other signed (but uncorrected and therefore not later initialed) original FBI statements taken from TSBD employees in March, 1964. Maybe they've even been routinely destroyed by now... --Tommy Considering how rigid the FBI was about most things, why do you think some corrected "statements" were signed, and some were not? Robert, You don't seem to understand. Evidently all of the 73 originals were signed. In Dallas. During the month of March, 1964, when the TSBD employees made their statements to the Dallas FBI. Evidently only the originals were signed, not the copies. But whoever typed up the copies did put "/s/" next to the person's typed name (and the date, and the location) at the bottom of the statement (all 73 of the statements), indicating that the original (from which the copies were made) had been signed by the person making the statement, and "witnessed" by the two FBI agents whom the person had made the statement to. I'm guessing that the copies were probably made after the person making the statement had gone home for the day. Why? Because those copies probably had to be typed up. D'oh. Only five of those 73 original statements had to be corrected, for relatively minor mistakes. Those (5) corrections were made in Dallas, by the Dallas office of the FBI, and were initialed by the persons who had made those original, signed statements. Only the originals were initialed, not the copies. Once again, the copies were probably made after the person had gone home for the day. Why make them wait around to sign some copies when you already have their signature on the original? I don't know where those original (signed, corrected, and intialed) statements are now. I'm sorry. My bad. On the Internet (Mary Ferrell Foundation), all we are able to view are copies of the 73 statements, not the originals. We must assume that they are copies, not originals, because none of them show the initials of Carolyn Arnold, Mrs. R. E. Reid, Pauline Sanders, or the other two TSBD employees whose statements had to be corrected for relatively minor mistakes. I don't know how to put it more simply, Robert. You either "get it" or you don't. For whatever reason. --Tommy Have you or anyone else in the public actually ever seen one or more of the 73 original signed statements, Thomas? You just don't "get it," do you, Bob. Answer: No, I haven't Bob. But based on what I've already tried to explain to you on this thread, I can be reasonably deduced that all of the originals were signed. And that five of them were later initaled, by the persons who gave them, for some minor corrections. Does the fact that I haven't seen them somehow "prove" that they were not signed? I give up. --Tommy