Gil Jesus

THE BAD BOYS OF OAK CLIFF By Gil Jesus ( 2021 ) Most major American cities have areas that are considered the "bad section of town". In such areas, the crime rate is higher and police endeavor to make their presence known in order to deter crime. Having spent some time as a police officer myself, I understand how it all works. I find nothing suspicious or sinister about the Dallas Police dispatching J.D. Tippit to Oak Cliff. They just wanted coverage in a high crime area while the officer assigned to that area was at lunch. One of the problems with such high crime areas is that the residents tend to not want to get involved as witnesses. Many of them fear retribution from perpetrators or their allies. The Oak Cliff section of Dallas was not without its share of young criminals and troublemakers. Several of these come to the forefront as we examine the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit. How bad of an area of the city was Oak Cliff ? The two teenagers who were used as "fillers" in the 4th police lineup with Oswald were residents of Oak Cliff. ( 7 H 201 ) Two other such Oak Cliff criminals just happened to be "witnesses" to the Tippit murder: William Arthur Smith and Jimmy Earl Burt. Although they were supposed to have been together, their stories differ greatly. And the evidence does not support either of their versions of what happened. They were also two young men with troubled pasts, Smith was on probation for auto theft and Burt was AWOL from the Army. Smith lived on the next street from murder witness Helen Markham and was a friend of her son James, who was out on parole from prison for a burglary at the time of the murder. If any of these guys were caught by police with a firearm in their possession, it would have been a violation of their parole or probation and meant jail time. For Burt, it would have meant at least a year in the brig. These guys ran together and were real "sh*t-bums". Having been at the murder scene, they should have been treated as "persons of interest" instead of witnesses. Under normal circumstances, with their police records, they would have been. As I researched this, I wondered if any of them could have been the real killer of J.D. Tippit. If these guys were as bad as the record shows, they had to be known to police. Especially the Robbery and Homicide Divison. There had to be mugshots on these guys. But were they known to Tippit ? Could the prospect of prison be the motive that cost Officer Tippit his life ? Could this have been the reason why Mrs. Markham's story had changed every time she told it ? Was she protecting someone she knew ? Was she fearful the killer was from the neighborhood and knew who she was and would kill her ? Was her contradictory descriptions of the killer a mixture of TWO men ? I believe that the threats and assaults that the witnesses received AFTER Oswald was arrested are evidence that the killer was from the neighborhood and still at large. Many other witnesses came forward who saw a "man with a gun" after the shooting had occurred, but never saw the actual murder. Only one witness saw the actual killer in the act: Helen Markham. HELEN MARKHAM The Commission's star witness to the Tippit murder was Helen Louise Markham, a 47 year old mother of five who was on her way to catch the 1:15 bus to to her waitress job. Her bus stop was a block away from the murder scene and she had stopped at the corner of Patton Ave. and 10th St. to allow traffic to pass before she crossed. Mrs. Markham witnessed that the police cruiser had stopped alongside a young man who had been walking and that the man walked over to the passenger door of the cruiser and seemed to have a conversation with the officer. According to her testimony, the man then backed away from the cruiser and the officer got out of the car slowly. When the officer got to about the front wheel of the cruiser, the man pulled a gun and shot him three times. The fact that this occurred unexpectedly in front of her very eyes caused Mrs. Markham to go into a state of shock, by her own admission, she could not move or speak. In the hours after the murder, Mrs. Markham's state of mind can only be described as "hysterical". Was this because she saw a policeman murdered and the killer was someone she knew and threatened to kill her ? Mrs. Markham was taken to police headquarters to view a lineup before she could fully regain her composure. That lineup consisted of three police employees and Oswald. She chose Oswald even though she testified under oath that she had never seen him before in her life. ( 3 H 310 ) Mrs. Markham also failed to identify the jacket and shirt in evidence as the same jacket and shirt worn by the killer. ( 3 H 312 ) In fact, her sworn affidavit taken on November 22nd gave NO description of the killer to the Dallas Police other than that he was a "young white man". In her statement to the FBI on the same day, Mrs. Markham described Tippit's killer as an "18yo" with a red complexion and wearing dark trousers. But in a video interview on my Youtube Channel, she says the killer had a ruddy complexion and wore a light shirt, a brown jacket and light grey trousers. Mrs. Markham's description of the killer changed drastically from interview to interview. Granted, she saw something she didn't want to see, that is the murder of a policeman. But you have to question, what exactly DID she see ? Perhaps her memory became clouded because the killer threatened to kill her. Officer Joe M. Poe's supplemental report dated 11-22-63 indicated just that. If Mrs. Markham recognized the killer as someone from the neighborhood and the killer recognized her and threatened to kill her, her terror and subsequent hysteria can certainly be understood. Likewise, her ever changing story. WILLIAM SCOGGINS One of the witnesses who didn't actually see the shooting but heard the shots and saw smoke was William Scoggins, a cab driver who was parked on the corner of Patton Ave. and 10th St. taking his lunch break. Scoggins was parked around the corner from the murder scene and in the path of the killer as he fled. In his testimony, Scoggins may have left a clue that Tippit's murderer was from the neighborhood. He said that he didn't pay much attention to the man, that he was "just used to see him every day" ( 3 H 325 ). How could Oswald be the killer and in this neighborhood every day when after October 14th he was working everyday at the Texas School Book Depository and the housekeeper at his rooming house said he never went out ? Of course, the Commission never asked Scoggins what he meant by this. They didn't want to know. WARREN REYNOLDS Further evidence that Tippit's killer was someone from the neighborhood and still at large comes from the attempted murder of witness Warren Reynolds. Reynolds worked at his brother's dealership, Reynolds Motor Company located at 500 E. Jefferson. On November 22, 1963, Reynolds saw a man with a gun running south on Patton Ave. He then allegedly followed the man on the opposite side of the street as the man went west on West Jefferson Blvd. He said he lost the man behind a gas station on Crawford St. On 23rd January, 1964, Reynolds was himself the victim of a violent attack. As he went into the basement of the dealership to shut off the lights for the night, he was shot in the head by someone with a .22 caliber rifle who was lying in wait for him. No charges were ever brought against anyone in this attack. A suspect was picked up but he had an alibi and passed a polygraph exam so the police released him. Reynolds survived the attack and made a full recovery. In March, 1964, Reynolds had a meeting with General Edwin Walker who read his story in the paper and was interested in talking with him. During this meeting, he admitted to Walker that contrary to the newspaper article "he did not finger Oswald." (CE 2587, pg. 2 ) Later that month, a man tried to get Reynolds' 9 year old daughter Terri into his car by offering her money. She ran away and reported the incident to her parents. (ibid., pg.3) Understandably, this made Reynolds "apprehensive" to stick to his original story. If the attempted murder of him wasn't enough, the attempted kidnapping of his daughter was the straw that broke the camel's back. He changed his mind and identified Oswald as the man he had seen running from the scene of the crime. He then testified such to the Warren Commission. ACQUILLA CLEMONS On my Youtube Channel, there is a 1966 interview by attorney Mark Lane of witness Acquilla Clemons. Mrs. Clemons heard the shots and ran out into the street and saw two men on opposite sides of the street. She said the man she saw with the gun was "short and kind of chunky" and the other was tall, thin and had a white shirt on and light colored khakis. She claimed that she never told anyone what she saw. In spite of this, two days after the shooting, she was told by a plain clothes "man with a gun" to "keep quiet" or she might get hurt. Were the authorities warning her that the killer lived in the neighborhood and was still at large ? Coming in Part II: ALIAS SMITH AND BURT

I'd like to give you my slant on this subject THE TIMING EVIDENCE The time of J.D. Tippit's shooting is crucial in proving or disproving that Oswald was the murderer. The housekeeper at Oswald's rooming house, Mrs. Earlene Roberts, said that Oswald entered the rooming house "around 1 o'clock or maybe a little after" and was in his room for "3 or 4 minutes." ( 7 H 440) So he left the roominghouse AFTER 1:00 pm. Then he went out to the bus stop and waited for a bus. Cecil McWatters testified that the bus transfer he gave Oswald was only good till 1pm. If McWatters did give Oswald a transfer and it was only good till 1pm, maybe this is why he was in so much of a hurry at his rooming house: He was trying to get the bus before the transfer expired. She said she last saw Oswald waiting at the corner bus stop "on the same side of the street" as the rooming house. Since the rooming house was on the east side of North Beckley St., he would have been waiting for a northbound bus. The Tippit murder was SOUTH of the rooming house. The Commission claimed that its re-enactments showed that it was possible to reach the Tippit murder scene on foot in 14-15 minutes from where Oswald was last seen. The Commission's version of the murder of J. D. Tippit alleged that he was murdered at 1:15 pm near the intersection of Tenth and Patton Streets while confronting a man who was on foot that he had stopped. They based this on a radio transmission made by a citizen over Tippit's radio at 1:16 pm. It never occurred to the Commission that it may have taken several minutes for one of those witnesses, terrified and in shock, to be sure that the gunman was gone and gain their wits about them and respond to help the stricken officer. The Commission's star witness, Helen Markham, had been walking along Patton on her way to "catch the 1:15 bus" to work at the corner of Patton and East Jefferson, one block from the shooting. She told the Commission that she had left her house a little "after 1:00", walked one block to Tenth and Patton, and placed the time of the shooting at 1:06 - 1:07 pm. Mr. BALL. You think it was a little after 1? Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1. Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you? Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15. Mr. BALL. So it was before 1:15? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, it was. ( 3 H 306 ) Markham's sworn affidavit put the time of the murder at "approximately" 1:06 pm. In support of Markham's estimated time of the murder, witness T. F. Bowley swore in his affidavit that he arrived at the scene of the Tippit shooting AFTER it had occurred and that he looked at his watch when he arrived and his watch said 1:10 PM. Commission Exhibit 705 is the transcript of the Dallas Police log on the day of the assassination. At 1:08 pm, Tippit ( car 78 ) calls dispatch TWICE and dispatch does not respond. This is the last that is heard from Tippit. Normal police procedure would be if he had encountered someone, he'd call dispatch either to run a records check on the individual or to notify them of what he had and/or to request backup. The fact that he called dispatch TWICE and was never heard from again tells me he had encountered something. While we're on the topic of the transcript of the radio communication that day, more proof that the shooting occurred before 1:15 comes from the Dallas Police's own transcript. Two pages after the two calls from Tippit that were never acknowledged comes evidence that the citizen ( Bowley ) using the cruiser's radio for help did so at 1:10 pm. Dallas Police Officers Davenport and Bardin escorted the ambulance with Tippit's body to Methodist Hospital. Their report indicates that Tippit was pronounced dead at 1:15 pm. Much like Kennedy, Tippit was D.O.A. but they still tried to resuscitate him. The term D.O.A. means that the victim was "dead on arrival" or "dead on admission" to the hospital. A pronunciation of death results after all avenues of resuscitation are exhausted and the victim shows no signs of life. In the case of a D.O.A., doctors at the hospital have no way of knowing when a victim actually lost his life, so the time of pronunciation of death is listed as the time of arrival at the hospital. The official time of death is usually determined by a coroner during an autopsy, but even a coroner can only give an ESTIMATED time of death. They usually can't narrow it down to the exact minute or second. Tippit couldn't have been shot at 1:15 as the Commission contended if his body was arriving D.O.A. at the hospital at 1:15. In addition, If you look closely at the time, the original time was listed as 1:00 pm and typed over to read 1:15. And if Oswald did get the bus outside his roominghouse it may explain the next location he was seen at. The Texas Theater. Perhaps the most damaging evidence to an Oswald-killed-Tippit scenario comes from the man who ran the concession stand at the Texas Theater, Warren ( Butch ) Burroughs, who said he saw Oswald enter the Texas Theater between 1:00 and 1:07 pm. The evidence is strong that Tippit was killed before 1:15. Tippit's last broadcast was at 1:08 pm. He called dispatch twice and got no response. Mrs. Markham was enroute to catch a 1:15 bus and hadn't gotten to her bus stop yet when she witnessed the murder. T.F. Bowley came upon Tippit lying in the street, looked at his watch and it said 1:10. Tippit was pronounced dead at 1:15 pm at Methodist Hospital after doctors failed to resuscitate him. Oswald was seen in the Texas Theater prior to the time of the murder and that fact alone makes it impossible for Oswald to have been Tippit's killer. https://gil-jesus.com/?page_id=865

Were the clothes Oswald was wearing when he was arrested the same clothes he left the Paine House with on the morning of the 22nd ? If you read this, that's all I need to know. Thank You.

They can say that Sgt. Hill made a mistake identifying the shells, but there were a lot of other "mistakes" from other people that supported his. Like Callaway's description of the man he saw with an automatic pistol raised in the air. That description was broadcast on the police radio almost immediately. Callaway couldn't tell the difference from across the street between an automatic and a revolver ? What are talking here, 30 or 40 feet ? Then there's the witness who claimed that the shots were fired in rapid succession, like from an automatic. And those witnesses who said the man was "reloading", could it have been that the gun was an automatic that jammed and he was trying to free it up ? And why would you reload if you still had unfired rounds in the gun ? When he unloaded, why didn't the unfired rounds fall on the ground like the empty shells ? A lot of doubt that the murder weapon was a revolver......stay tuned.

And the way he phrased it, "the shells at the scene indicate.....", meaning he looked at the shells. There's no way he could have made that error because automatic shells are marked "38 auto" and revolver 38 shells are marked "38 cal". He wants us to believe that he only read the "38" and assumed they were auto. Why would you assume the shells were automatics when the more common 38 ammo was revolver ?

BINGO on both counts.

Thanks Ben. I'm going to do a narrative on the shells separately. I'm working on it right now.

FIREARMS INDENTIFICATION The Firearms discipline examines and compares bullets, cartridge cases, and shotgun shells to determine if they were fired from a particular firearm. This work is part of the forensic discipline known as Firearms Identification. In addition, scientists examined firearms to determine if the weapon functions properly and obliterated serial numbers can be restored. Firearms Identification is not ballistics, which is the study of projectiles such as bullets in motion. What Firearms Examiners Look For To match a bullet to a particular firearm the examiner looks for two criteria using comparison microscopy: class characteristics and individual characteristics. Class characteristics are the rifling specifications of the barrel from which the bullet was fired. These include caliber, number of lands and grooves, direction of twist of the lands and grooves, and widths of the lands and grooves. If an evidence bullet and test bullets fired from a suspect firearm have the same class characteristics, the firearm examiner can conclude that the evidence bullet could have been fired from the suspect firearm. Individual characteristics are marks unique to that particular firearm barrel. In a barrel, the individual characteristics are produced by the random imperfections and irregularities of the tool or tools used to produce the lands and grooves, and by use, corrosion, or damage. If an evidence bullet has the same class characteristics and matching individual characteristics as test bullets fired from a suspect firearm, the firearm examiner can conclude that the bullet was fired from the suspect firearm. https://ncdoj.gov/crime-lab/firearms-and-tool-mark/ When the FBI examined the alleged murder weapon, CE 143, they found that the handgun had been rechambered to fire .38 special bullets. But the weapon had not been rebarreled, so the smaller .38 special rounds would in effect "wobble" as they exited the barrel. This caused an erratic marking of individual characteristics that made it impossible to say if the bullet came from that gun to the exclusion of all others. The FBI's expert on firearms, Cortlandt Cunningham, was asked repeatedly if the bullets came from that gun. Each time he stood steadfast in his opinion. Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets have been fired in this weapon? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not. ( 3 H 473 ) Mr. RHYNE. And with respect to the bullets that were found in the body of Officer Tippit, you testified that you could not be positive that they were fired by this weapon, Exhibit 143. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I could not identify those bullets as having been fired from that gun. ( 3 H 482 ) Mr. RHYNE. Based on your experience in your study of these bullets, do you have an opinion as to whether or not they were fired by this gun? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I cannot determine that. Mr. RHYNE. You have no opinion at all? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The only thing I can testify to, is they COULD have, on the basis of the rifling characteristics--they could have been. However, NO CONCLUSION COULD BE REACHED FROM AN ACTUAL COMPARISON OF THESE BULLETS WITH TEST BULLETS OBTAINED FROM THAT GUN. Mr. RHYNE. Even though there are a lot of similar markings. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There are not; no, sir. There are not a lot of similar markings. They are similar. The rifling characteristics, are the same, or similar. But, in the individual characteristic marks, there are not a lot of similarities. THERE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT SIMILARITIES TO EFFECT AN IDENTIFICATION. Representative BOGGS. Stating Mr. Rhyne's question negatively, THESE BULLETS COULD HAVE BEEN FIRED BY ANOTHER WEAPON ? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. THAT IS CORRECT. Either this weapon or ANOTHER WEAPON THAT HAS THE SAME RIFLING CHARACTERISTICS. ( 3 H 483 ) THE COMMISSION GETS A SECOND OPINION Not satisfied with the answer they got from the FBI and hellbent to prove Oswald guilty, the Commission reached out to one of its hacks, Joseph Nicol, the Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois. Nichol examined the four bullets removed from Tippit's body and concluded that although he could not identify three of the bullets as having come from that handgun, the fourth, Commision Exhibit 603, he matched as having come from the "Oswald" handgun to the exclusion of all others. This, of course, contradicted what the FBI found. Commission Exhibit 625 is the comparison of the two bullets Nicol based his conclusions on. CE 603 on the left with a test bullet fired from the handgun on the right. When one examines it with the naked eye, one can tell that there is one gaping mark that matches, but not much more than that. It seems to support the FBI expert Cunningham's opinion that "there are not a lot of similarities." HSCA EXAMINATION CONFIRMS FBI FINDINGS In 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations revisited the Firearms Identification issue with the Tippit bullets. Their expert was a member of their firearms panel, Monty C. Lutz. Lutz was a member of the Wisconsin Regional Crime Laboratory and examined the Tippit bullets, including CE 603, with bullets test fired from the handgun. Mr. EDGAR. Regarding CE-143, Oswald's revolver, do your test-fired bullets match, microscopically, with CE-602, 603, 604, and 605? Mr. LUTZ. Are these the bullets that were recovered from Officer Tippit? Mr. EDGAR. These were the bullets that were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit. Mr. LUTZ. Our microscopic examination and comparison of these bullets FAILED TO POSITIVELY IDENTIFY THIS REVOLVER AS THE ONE THAT FIRED THOSE BULLETS. ( 1 HSCA 486 ) "As for the evidence in the Tippit shooting, THE BULLETS REMOVED FROM THE OFFICER'S BODY COULD NOT BE LINKED TO OSWALD'S REVOLVER". ( 1 HSCA 443 ) " Regarding the evidence from the Tippit shooting, THE BULLETS REMOVED FROM THE OFFICER'S BODY COULD NOT BE POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED WITH OSWALD'S REVOLVER." ( 7 HSCA 357 ) "....The panel was unable to conclude that the Tippit bullets were fired from the CE 143 revolver." ( 7 HSCA 381 ) The HSCA's conclusion not only fully supported the FBI's original finding that the bullets could NOT be matched to the "Oswald" handgun ( CE 143 ), it completely blows away the phony finding of Joseph Nicol. And it is vindication for Cortlandt Cunningham who correctly stood his ground.

From 1967. How many of these arguments have we heard from people like McAdams over the years ? Makes you wonder if he was a CIA disinformation asset. 1. Our Concern.From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved.Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's Report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse, results.2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience, and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation.Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active, however, addressees are requested:DISPATCH SYMBOL AND NUMBER DATE9 attachments h/w 4/1/671 - classified secret CLASSIFICATION HQS FILE NUMBER8 - Unclassified TOP SECRET DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDEDCONTINUATION OF CLASSIFICATION DISPATCH SYMBOL AND NUMBERDISPATCH TOP SECRETa. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.b. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher Knebel article and Spectator piece for background.(Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing than Epstein's and comes off badly where contested by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attacks on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, A.J.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Van der Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual eyewitnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent -- and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistic, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.CLASSIFICATION PAGE NO. FORM TOP SECRET TWO8-64 53a USE PREVIOUS EDITION. X CONTINUEDCONTINUATION OF CLASSIFICATION DISPATCH SYMBOL AND NUMBERDISPATCH TOP SECRETe. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co- conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticism.g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some more natural way: e.g., the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conducting 25,000 interviews and re-interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.for FOIA Review on SEP 1976

Thanks Greg. I posted this on my website as well. Would you mind if I add the link to your matrix to the article on my website ?

I'm beginning to look at this as a conspiracy involving the CIA's Cubans and I'm willing to bet that some of them were double-agents. If not directly involved, the Secret Service, the Dallas FBI and the Dallas Police played a role in this murder at the very least as enablers. They left him out in the open so somebody COULD kill him. The parade route change, the slowing of the limo almost to a stop when the shooting started. Good God, how can anybody believe that this WASN'T an ambush. Look at the video of the full motorcade and watch how far back Herschel Jacks keeps Johnson's convertible away from the SS follow up car. They knew something was going to happen. That's plain. At the very least somebody should have been fired for negligence and at the most charged with murder.

THE MEN IN THE WINDOWARNOLD ROWLAND described an elderly negro male with a plaid shirt and thin hair lean out of the "Oswald" window. He also said that he had observed a Caucasian or light Latin male with a rifle at the other end of the 6th floor.He testified to the Warren Commission but they discounted it.AMOS EUINS described a "colored" man with a rifle lean out of the sixth floor window. Euins said that he saw the man shoot twice. Thought the rifle was an automatic. Following threats, he recanted his story to the Warren Commission.JOHN POWELL was a prisoner in the county jail who claimed to see two men adjusting the scope of a rifle. One was dark-skinned and appeared to be Latin, wearing brownish or duller clothes like work clothes.He was never called to testify to the WC.Apparently convicts have bad eyesight.ROBERT E. EDWARDS and RONALD B. FISCHER said that they had seen a man in a white t-shirt or light-colored sport shirt in the 6th floor window. The man was staring transfixed down Elm St. toward the Triple Overpass.RUBY HENDERSON said that she had seen two men in the upper floor of the Texas School Book Depository. She thought that one was either Mexican or Negro, because his skin was dark. He was wearing a white shirt. The other man had a dark shirt.She reported this to the FBI in 1963, but was never called to testify to theWarren Commission.CAROLYN WALTHER saw two men on the 4th or 5th floor of the TSBD. One was holding a rifle, which he pointed down at the street. He was wearing a white shirt and had blond or light brown hair. The second man had a brown suit coat on.When she reported it to the FBI in 1963, the FBI told her that she saw "boxes".She was never called to testify to the Warren Commission.The FBI never explained what type of "box" wore a white shirt and was capable of holding a rifle.RICHARD RANDOLPH CARR said that he saw a heavy-set man wearing a hat, horn-rimmed glasses and a tan sport coat on the sixth floor "Oswald" window. After the shooting, he saw the man walking on Commerce St. He followed him, and observed him get into a Nash Rambler that was parked facing north on Houston St. He described the driver of the Rambler as dark-skinned, possibly Spanish or Cuban. When he reported what he saw, Carr was intimidated by the FBI and told to "keep his mouth shut".He was never called to testify to the Warren Commission.SHERIFF's DEPUTY ROGER CRAIG may have seen the same man driving the same Rambler. He stated that he saw the Dallas Police stop a man at the intersection of Elm and Houston shortly after the shooting. The man spoke only in Spanish, so the police let him go. Shortly after, Craig saw the same man drive by behind the wheel of a Rambler wagon. The vehicle, he said, drove down Elm St toward the overpass, when a man ran down the grassy knoll and got into it. That man, Craig said, was Lee Harvey Oswald.Four of the witnesses' described a dark skinned man in a white shirt.Perhaps they all got together and made the whole thing up, or perhaps that'sexactly what they saw.

Baker gave an affidavit of the "encounter" on the day of the assassination. He made no mention of Oswald, no mention of the second floor, no mention of a vestibule, no mention of a lunchroom: "As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." Oswald was seen on the second floor by Mrs. Reid wearing a white T-shirt.

Jim, didn't I read someplace where Westbrook took a job with the CIA after leaving the Dallas Police ?

After I posted this, I found another document that may support the story that Baker confronted Oswald on the second floor, but NOT in the lunchroom. As I stated, Baker's line of sight was limited, but I believe that he saw Oswald IN THE VESTIBULE as he was LEAVING the lunchroom, not in the lunchroom itself. The document is the statement of Mrs. Robert Reid, who was walking into the second floor office area two minutes after the shooting and saw Oswald coming into the same office area through the back door. That back door is connected to the same vestibule that leads to the lunchroom. Mrs. Reid said she passed Oswald in the corridor and he had a full bottle of Coke in his hand. Keep in mind this would have been only 30 seconds after Oswald was spotted by Baker as he was climbing the rear stairs. Baker opened the vestibule door, called to Oswald and Oswald returned toward him. Meanwhile Truly had continued up the stairs until he realized that Baker was no longer following him and went back down to find him. Then Truly allegedly vouches for Oswald being an employee and they start back up the stairs. I seems perfectly rational to me that all of this could have taken a total of 30 seconds, leaving Oswald no time to return to the lunchroom and buy that Coke, then leave the lunchroom and be seen by Mrs. Reid. The point here is that when Baker saw Oswald, he had already purchased the Coke and was on his way back downstairs via the office area. I believe that the evidence shows that when Baker first wrote his "encounter" out, he included that Oswald was drinking a Coke, then crossed it out. Why would he write that if it wasn't true ? I believe they changed the whole encounter scenario to fit their predetermined narrative. They had Oswald just getting to the lunchroom seconds before Baker and buying the Coke AFTER the encounter, when in fact Oswald had already purchased the Coke and was leaving the lunchroom when Baker caught a glimpse of him through the window in the vestibule door. I believe Oswald had come up the front stairs from the first floor through the office area, into the vestibule and was returning the same way. The point of all of this is that the timing doesn't support Oswald coming down the rear stairs from the sixth floor, but rather coming UP from the first floor, where he was seen by multiple witnesses. That's why he wasn't winded. That's why he was calm. The guy didn't kill anybody.

Evidence Oswald was on the 1st floor before and after the shooting Oswald’s whereabouts between 11:45am and 12:25pm is documented by 5 different witnesses who claimed to have seen him on the first floor. According to Dallas Homicide Captain Will Fritz, Oswald told him that he was on the first floor in the “Domino Room” at the time of the assassination having his lunch. Fritz testified: “I asked him what part of the building at the time the President was shot. He said he was having lunch at about this time on the first floor.” But it was not until 1997 that Fritz’s notes of his interview of Oswald were released in which Oswald said that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front”. JFK’s motorcade was scheduled to be at Dealey Plaza at 12:25pm but was 5 minutes late. Oswald was seen on the first floor of the TSBD at 12:25pm by an employee as she was exiting the building. That employee was not interviewed by the Warren Commission. The “Domino Room” was a recreation room on the first floor where the employees would take their breaks. The lunchroom was on the second floor, but many of the warehouse employees used the first floor “Domino Room” to eat lunch and play dominoes. TSBD witness testimony was unanimous: Oswald ALWAYS ate his lunch in the Domino room-which was on the same floor as the entrance to the TSBD. 11:50 - 12:00 : Oswald on the first floor At least five witnesses claimed they saw Oswald on the first floor either before or after the shooting. WITNESS # 1. Charles Givens told the FBI that he saw Oswald reading a newspaper in the Domino room at 11:50 am. Givens testified that when he saw Oswald reading, it was usually “right at lunch time” and Oswald always ate lunch in the Domino Room. WITNESS # 2. William Shelley gave testimony supporting Oswald being in the first floor Domino Room at 11:50. WITNESS # 3. Janitor Eddie Piper also saw Oswald on the first floor at about noon. These sightings of Oswald on the first floor between 11:45 and 12:00 give credibility to Givens’ original account of seeing Oswald reading the newspaper in the Domino Room at 11:50 am. They also imply that Givens, under tremendous pressure, changed his story to not seeing Oswald at all that day. During questioning by FBI agent James W. Bookhout, Oswald claimed that he saw two “Negro employees” in the Domino Room. One he recognized as “Junior”; the other was a shorter man whose name he did not recall. The “Junior” he referred to was James “Junior” Jarman; the other man was Harold Norman. In his WC testimony, Jarman admitted being in the Domino Room at the time Oswald said he was, but denied seeing Oswald. He said that after descending from the sixth floor he went to the first floor to wash up. He then picked up his lunch in the Domino Room and went upstairs to the second floor to buy a soda from the machine. He returned to the “Domino Room” where he ate a part of his sandwich while standing, then walked around on the first floor eating his sandwich and drinking his soda. Harold Norman also ate his lunch in the Domino Room. Although he admitted that there was someone else there with him, he “could not remember who ate in the domino room with me”. Norman’s lack of memory of who had lunch with him on the day the President of the United States was assassinated is strange. He remembered that after eating his lunch, he stood on the sidewalk with Danny Arce. He recalled seeing Roy Truly and TSBD Vice President O.V. Campbell and Billy Lovelady outside as well. He said that he returned to the building with James Jarman. He remembered coming out of the building after the shooting and seeing Howard Brennan. He remembered being interviewed by an FBI agent named Kreutzer on November 26th. Harold Norman could remember all of these details, but not who he had lunch with in the “Domino Room”. Could the other person in the Domino Room have been Oswald ? If Oswald had been on the sixth floor prior to 12:15, as the Commission believed, it was a remarkable coincidence that out of all of the employees of the TSBD, Oswald was able to pick out two who were together as he claimed, on the same floor as he claimed, in the same room as he claimed and at the same time as he claimed. How could he have known that from the sixth floor ? 12:25 : Oswald seen on the first floor. WITNESS # 4. Carolyn Arnold told the FBI that as she was leaving the TSBD, she caught a glimpse of someone she thought was Oswald on the first floor. FBI notes indicated that she claimed to have seen Oswald “a few minutes before 12:15". But in her original statement she indicated that she left the building at 12:25, a fact that she repeated in a March 1964 affidavit. ( CD 706, pg. 7 ) If Arnold left the building at 12:25 pm to watch the parade and saw Lee Harvey Oswald on the first floor “standing between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse”, he could not have been the killer of President Kennedy. She could not have mistaken Billy Lovelady for him because Lovelady was outside the building. It also means that the FBI lied in its report on the time that she claimed to have seen him. They needed Oswald in the sixth floor window at 12:25, so they changed the time to a few minutes before 12:15, rather than a few minutes after 12:25, in order to give Oswald time to get to the 6th floor. Not surprisingly, Arnold was never called as a witness by the Warren Commission. Oswald on the first floor AFTER the shooting Ochus Campbell, Vice-President of the TSBD, informed the NY Herald Tribune on 11/23/63 that shortly following the assassination, Oswald was seen on the ground (first) floor near the storage room. WITNESS # 5. Verifying what Ochus Campbell said, Roy Truly told Will Fritz on the day of the assassination that he saw Oswald near the storage room on the first floor as he went inside with officer Marion Baker. If true, then the whole "lunchroom encounter" was a lie.

They can't be protecting the sources, because they're all dead. They must be protecting the METHODS and that to me is disturbing.

I added a memorial to him on the home page. He was a great friend.

Thanks Jim. I'm planning on copying those videos onto the website as well.

I just wanted to let everyone know that I'm starting a new website dealing with the evidence. I couldn't get the old domain name because GoDaddy sold it to somebody in Indonesia and they're using it for online gambling. So I tried to get something close and hope people searching for the old site will find it. I just want people to be able to see the documents in full size when I present the evidence so for me a website seemed like they way to go. I'm just building it now so it probably won't be completed for a few weeks. You folks can check in from time to time. Thanks It's www.gil-jesus.com

Joe, you hit the nail on the head so many times in this post you could have built a house. Your point about how this was the beginning of how Americans distrusted their government was spot on. America grew up that day. Racism, fake wars and all kinds of other crap opened people's eyes to the fact that they weren't being represented, they were being governed. And your point about Ruby is well taken. I've been asked," how did Ruby know when Oswald was going to be brought down" ? The point is he didn't have to. The Dallas cops stalled until they knew Ruby was in the basement and then they brought Oswald down unprotected. The "all clear" didn't mean it was all clear. The car wasn't even in position when they brought him down. The "all clear" meant Ruby was down there. Great post.

That's real interesting, Steve. It seems that they did a lot of lying under oath and I can't for the life of me understand WHY they would do that if the case against Oswald was as solid as they said. They were going to have to go to court and prove he was guilty, or were they ? Does anyone find it strange that Oswald was killed as the Police were turning custody of him over to the Sheriff's Department ? The Chief of Police couldn't get his lips off Johnson's butt long enough to take charge and lead the search for a Presidential assassin. He could have cared less. I'm not saying they pulled the trigger, but they certainly ensured SOMETHING was going to happen with their lackluster security.

Who led the President into an ambush ? Who led Oswald into an ambush two days later ? Who refused to work security for the motorcade ? Who denied Oswald legal counsel ? Who kept Oswald isolated from his family ? Who told the press not to ask Oswald questions ? Who controlled the lineups ? Who controlled the evidence ? You think the cops weren't complicit in this crime ? You think they loved Kennedy ? You think their security of Kennedy and then Oswald was sufficient ? Do you have any idea how justice was served in the South in the 1960s ? This is nonsense ? OK then, make your case. Prove me wrong. Maybe you can change my mind.

THE LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER by Gil Jesus ( 2012 ) "Baker's movements were timed with a stopwatch. On the first test, the elapsed time between the simulated FIRST shot and Baker's arrival on the landing was 1 minute and 30 seconds. The second test run required 1 minute and 15 seconds." ( Report, Chap. 4, pg. 152 ) The execution of the reconstruction was in disregard of the known actions of the participants, stretching the time consumed for Baker to reach the second floor and shrinking the time of descent of a sixth floor gunman.A False Start The Commission timed Baker from the FIRST shot ( 3 H 252 ) while Baker testified that he didn't respond until after the LAST SHOT. For the timing of the reconstruction to be valid, it had to start AFTER the last shot. The Commission claimed in its Report that the span of shots was anywhere from 4.8 to a excess of 7 seconds. ( Report, Chap. 3, pg. 117 )Baker was flanking the last camera car, whose occupants included Malcolm Couch ( 6 H 156 ), Bob Jackson ( 2 H 158 ), Tom Dillard and James Underwood ( 6 H 169 ). The men in the car recalled being in proximity to the intersection of Houston and Elm at the time of the shooting. (2 H 158, 2 H 159 )Had the reconstruction properly started after the last shot, Baker would have reached the TSBD in 8-10 seconds, rather than the 15 seconds (Report, Chapter 4, pg. 152 ) the Commission claimed it took. This conclusion is supported by witness Pauline Sanders, who was standing outside the Texas School Book Depository and witnessed Baker run into the building "in a matter of ten seconds a uniform police officer in a white helmet ran into the building". Commission Exhibit 1434 is her statement.Roy Truly told the Secret Service that Baker made his way to the front entrance "almost immediately". ( CD 87, pg. 778 ) And Truly told CBS News that Baker's arrival "was just a matter of seconds after the last shot." The occupants of the last camera car ( Camera Car 3 ) related how their car came to a stop or hesitated in the middle of the turn on Elm St. It stopped to let some photographers out. ( 2 H 162, 6 H 165, 169 ) Couch's film begins slightly BEFORE the stop, just as the car was making the turn onto Elm.From the testimony of those in the car and the scenes depicted in the film, it can be determined that Couch began filming NO MORE THAN FIVE SECONDS AFTER THE LAST SHOT.Camera Car 3 occupant Jackson told the Commission that after the last shot, as his car hesitated through the turn onto Elm, he said he saw a policeman run up the Depository steps toward the front door. ( 2 H 164 ) Since the evidence shows that Baker reached the TSBD main entrance within 10 seconds, the reconstruction time is off by +5 seconds before Baker even gets into the building.Stretching of Baker's Time The two reconstruction times reflect times taken when Baker "walked" or "kind of run". ( 3 H 253 ) As we can see from the Couch film, he neither walked or "kind of run', ---he ran. And the witnesses said he ran. Baker admitted he ran ( 3 H 248-249 ). Truly gave a good description of this mad dash. ( 3 H 221 ) So why did the Commission time Baker "walking" and "trotting" through his actions ?Like I said, to stretch his response time. The Commission claimed that Baker's time would have been even LONGER because it didn't account for " jostling with the crowd of onlookers on the steps" (Report, pg. 152-153) The Couch film eliminates the possibility that that slowed Baker down.Eddie Piper saw Baker and Truly RUN into the building, not walking or trotting, yell up for an elevator and then climb the stairsTruly and Baker reached the second floor in under 85 seconds and the Couch film introduces the possibility that it may have been as little as 70 seconds since Baker parked his motorcycle within 10 seconds of the last shot.Shrinking the Gunman's Descent The second part of the reconstruction, that of the actions of the sixth floor gunman, took 1:18 and 1:14 according to the Commission.This reconstruction also suffered from serious omissions.After the last shot, a minimum of 2.3 seconds must be added to the reconstructed time because the gunman operated the bolt of the rifle ejecting the last fired shell and chambering a fourth cartridge. In addition, witnesses claimed that the gunman had been in no hurry to leave the window. ( 2 H 159, 3 H 144 )The "sniper's nest" was constructed in such a way as to inhibit movement in and out of it. Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney had to squeeze between two stacks of boxes, " I had to turn myself sideways to get in there" ( 3 H 285 ). To simulate the hiding of the rifle, the SS man ( Howlett ) "leaned over as if he were putting a rifle there" ( 3 H 253 ). But Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman reported that the rifle was "covered with boxes. It was well protected as far as the naked eye". ( 7 H 107 ) Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone testified that the rifle was "stuffed down between two rows of boxes with another box or or so pulled over the top of it." ( 3 H 293 ) Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig said that the the ends of the rows between which the rifle had been pushed were closed off by boxes, so that one could not see through them. ( 6 H 269 )Photographs of the area where the rifle was found support these two men's claims. CE 719 shows that the rifle was found amid a cluster of boxes that did not permit easy access and CE 517 shows that the rifle was upright between two rows of boxes that had partially overlapped on top, thus eliminating the possibility that the rifle had been merely dropped down between the stacks.Concealment of the rifle required much maneuvering. In addition to squeezing between boxes to exit the sniper's nest, the gunman had to navigate through rows filled with books. The rifle itself had been very carefully placed in its position. The gunman had not left the window in any hurry and chambered one last round.To the government's minimum time of 1:14 for the gunman to reach the second floor, add 6 or 7 seconds for the re-chambering and squeezing out of the sniper's nest. Next add another 15 or 20 seconds for the gunman to get to the area where the rifle was placed and cover it with boxes of books on top and on the ends so that it was not easily found. That's anywhere from 1:35 to 1:41 total time for a sixth floor gunman to have reached the second floor. Had Oswald been the assassin, he would have reached the second floor AT LEAST 5 to 11 seconds AFTER Baker, and thus the reason why the re-enactment response had him WALKING ( 1:30 ), which we know he didn't.Therefore, if Oswald was in the lunchroom BEFORE Baker got there, we know he couldn't possibly have descended from the sixth floor.Oswald in the Vestibule Another piece of evidence proving that Oswald did not descend from the sixth floor is the Commission's conclusion that Baker "caught a glimpse of someone" from the staircase in the vestibule through the window in the vestibule door and then rushed to the door . "When they reached the second-floor landing on their way up to the top of the building, Patrolman Baker thought he caught a glimpse of someone through the window in the door separating the hall area near the stairs from the small vestibule leading into the lunchroom. Gun in hand, he rushed to the door ". ( Report, pg. 5 ) As they ran up the stairs, Truly was in front of Baker. Truly's testimony that he did not see anyone entering the vestibule seems to suggest that Oswald entered it from a different direction. Mr. BELIN. Now when you say you ran on to your left, did you look straight ahead to see whether there was anyone in that area, or were you intent on going upstairs? Mr. TRULY. If there had been anybody in that area, I would have seen him on the outside. ( 3 H 223 ) In this picture taken from Commission Exhibit 1118, the blue line represents Oswald's path had he descended the rear stairs from the sixth floor. The pink striped area is the maximum area in the vestibule visible to Baker from the position ( red "X" ) he "glanced" someone in the lunchroom. https://icedrive.net/0/0cTq1JABKHNotice how the blue line does not intersect Baker's line of sight inside the vestibule. Baker could not have seen ANYONE in the lunchroom or if they had entered it through the vestibule door if the door was closed.Notice also the two red lines represent paths into the vestibule from both an adjoining hallway and the adjacent office area. Anyone entering the vestibule from either of those areas WAS in Baker's line of sight. For Baker to have caught a "glimpse" of Oswald in the vestibule from the bottom of the stairs, as the Commission claims he did, Oswald would have had to come up the front stairway from the first floor and enter it from either the office area or the hallway. Which means he didn't come down from the sixth floor. The fact that Baker had to open ( 3 H 251 ) the mechanically closing door to the vestibule confirms that the door was closed and he could not have seen anyone in the vestibule through that door. Baker told the Commission that "I can't say whether he had gone on through that door or not." ( 3 H 255 )Regardless, the Commission found that Oswald descended four flights on the rear stairs before Truly and Baker ascended one flight. But the evidence is entirely consistent with Oswald ascending from the FRONT stairwell and from the first floor. Oswald and the Coke When they reached the second-floor landing on their way up to the top of the building, Patrolman Baker thought he caught a glimpse of someone in the lunchroom through the window in the door separating the hall area near the stairs from the small vestibule leading into the lunchroom. Gun in hand, he rushed to the door, opened it, and saw a man 20 feet away walking toward the other end of the lunchroom. The man was empty handed. ( Report, Pg. 6 ) The issue of whether or not Oswald had already made a purchase from the soda machine when the officer confronted him in the lunchroom is critical in the timing of his alleged flight from the sixth floor. It creates a timing sequence where Oswald would have arrived at the lunchroom SOONER than Baker and makes it impossible for Baker to have seen him through the window of the vestibule door. According to the Commission, Dallas Homicide Captain Fritz asked Oswald to account for himself at the time the President was shot. He said that he ate lunch in the first-floor lunchroom and then went to the second floor for a Coke which he brought downstairs. Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom? Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a Coca-Cola. Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola? Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola. ( 4 H 213 ) Baker was never asked under oath if he had seen a Coke in Oswald's hands. Roy Truly, Oswald's supervisor who accompanied Baker up the stairs to the sixth floor by way of the lunchroom, was asked twice if Oswald had a Coke. Initially, Truly expressed some doubt as to whether there was anything in Oswald's hands. Mr. BELIN. Could you see whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald had anything in either hand? Mr. TRULY. I noticed nothing in either hand. Mr. BELIN. Did you see both of his hands? Mr. TRULY. I am sure I did. I could be wrong, but I am almost sure. I did. ( 3 H 225 ) But later in his testimony, Mr. Truly has NO DOUBT about what he didn't see: Mr. DULLES. Did he have a coke? Mr. TRULY. No, sir. Mr. DULLES. No drink? Mr. TRULY. No drink at all. Just standing there. ( 3 H 239 ) Probably because Commission counsel failed to ask him during his testimony if he had noticed anything in Oswald's hands, Baker gave the FBI an affidavit regarding his encounter with Oswald in the lunchroom. In the handwritten statement, which is Commission Exhibit 3076, Baker makes no mention of seeing someone moving through the glass in the doorway and states that he "saw a man standing in the lunchroom drinking a coke". The phrase "drinking a coke" is crossed out and initialed by Baker, but that deleted phrase, by its spontaneous mention, corroborates Oswald's statement that he had already purchased a coke when stopped by Baker and makes a xxxx out of Roy Truly. I'll be posting a follow-up to this post that provides further evidence that Oswald was on the first floor before and after the shots were fired.

And this is the key to Oswald's innocence: if Oswald was guilty, why would they have to go to such extremes to try to prove him guilty ? Like lineups where he was the only choice. Really ? A lineup with a Mexican ? Which one of the Tippit witnesses described his killer as a Mexican ? Which one described his killer as a teenager ? Which one described him as wearing a vest ? Or having blond hair ? How can anybody buy these BS lineups ? It's amazing how gullible some people are.