Sean Murphy

I continue to admire Gary Mack for the range and depth of knowledge he brings to this case. Again and again he has gone beyond any conceivable call of duty in sharing his expertise with researchers who need help sourcing information and or clarifying various archival matters.

Gary's refusal to align himself with any specific CT claim is pretty understandable. He does have to be careful given his position as Sixth Floor Museum curator. And one can only imagine how badly burned he felt by the Roscoe White fiasco back in the 90s. 'Won't get fooled again' is not in the last analysis a bad motto to bring to this infernal case.

It is important also to acknowledge that Gary continues to reaffirm--at least when pressed--his personal suspicion that there was more to this whole thing than Oswald.

But therein lies the problem. Gary takes Oswald's guilt as the sixth-floor shooter as 100% read. You would have to go back quite a few years to find any evidence that Gary has the least flicker of doubt that Oswald was at that window firing with that gun. Not so much as a hint that there might be anything problematical about any aspect of the official evidence or any element of the witness stories. Not so much as a gesture towards the possibility that any claim contained in the Warren Report's account of what happened in the TSBD in those minutes is even questionable. Instead we get one insufferably smug restatement after another of the irrational assumption that Oswald's guilt is 'History' backed by 'hard evidence'. When was the last time you saw Gary injecting the merest note of caution when devious black-and-white statements are made by LN advocacy fanatics like David von Pein or John McAdams? No wonder those goons think the world of him. He has become all but indistinguishable from them.

Gary, in short, has gone from a somewhat gullible CT researcher to a very gullible Oswald-did-it spokesman.

It's all very unfortunate.

Who was Maddow's consultant on this? Gary Mack?

Gary Mack has emailed to answer my question:

Sean,

Yet another wrong assumption on your part. I don't watch or advise Maddow, so she must be listening to her lefty pals who've found the CT viewpoint is lacking evidence?

Gary

The mistake of course is Gary's. I never assumed he was Maddow's adviser, I simply asked the question. It would of course be very unfair to assume that anytime WR-supporting simplifications are being blithely spouted by a prominent figure that Gary must necessarily be to blame.

Who was Maddow's consultant on this? Gary Mack?

In the best copy of the Nix film that has been released, Jackie's arm extends almost to the end of the trunk of the limo as she retrieves part of JFK's skull. In the best copy of the Zappy film that has been released, she doesn't reach that far back. One explanation for this would be that something has been cut from the Zappy film.

I see no Nix-Zapruder discrepancy whatsoever in the frames that Robin has just posted.

The use of an old media image of Rachel suggests it's not really her. Clever marketing move though

Photographer Who Snapped Infamous Oswald Photo Said "No Blood At Crime Scene."

Bob Jackson, former photographer for the Dallas Tiimes Herald who captured on film Ruby shooting Oswald, reveals for the first time on American radio he didn't see a speck of blood on the body or at the crime scene. 20 Oct 2006

By Greg Szymanski

...

"I looked up after the shots and saw a rifle being pulled in from the window but I couldn't make out who it was," said Jackson . "I also remember seeing two police officers run right into the book depository and remember thinking who ever fired the shots never had a chance of getting out of the building without being caught or killed."

Huh?

I don't believe that's edited at all, other than that it might be a slightly shorter version than the original (WFAA?) tape, which I recall having had a bit more "blank" space up-front and maybe some sort of "storyboard" at the front identifying the interviewee, but maybe not. It's been a while since I've looked at what The Sixth Floor (or Gary Mack) has, but I do recall that it was a rather unsatisfying interview.

I spent quite a bit of time on this subject some years ago, with "Part 1" printed in Walt Brown's "Deep Politics Quarterly," and possibly reproduced here. The conclusion of Part 1, after studying bus schedules and interviewing retired Dallas Transit drivers, etc., is that it was possible for Worrell ("Dicky" to family and friends) to have gotten from Love Field to Dealey Plaza in the requisite time, but if so, it was only just barely, and thus not likely.

Part 3, had I ever completed it, would have shown that Dicky Worrell was not in any images taken of the TSBD facade immediately prior to the shots as he was very specific in saying he was. Nobody took off running as he said he did, and much about the timings that he described were unlikely although (if he'd been crawling instead of running) not impossible: that is, they were ridiculously slow.

His claim to have been "out of breath" after running across Houston and less than a block north because he was a smoker strain credulity (he was only 20 years old).

Part 2 would have included the impressions of his family, including a cousin and his sister. I'd interviewed his mother fairly extensively, but came away with the distinct impression of a mother whose dead son could have done no wrong and certainly not lied, either to attempt to cover for the fact that he'd skipped school that day and/or for a feeling of great importance. At 20, he was still in high school; draw from that what you will.

I didn't pursue that angle, although I'd met his cousin and discussed Dicky briefly. In that, I can only say that I got a distinct impression of skepticism about the person (Dicky) as well as about his story, but that is by no means definitive.

Part 1 remains the only part ever published, and the conclusion - as much for "political" reasons as any other - is only that he could have gotten to DP to see what he claims he saw. I don't really believe that he did.

Excellent information, Duke, thank you.

Sean

I will go have a look ,have you edited this?.

Ian

I haven't edited it Ian, no. It was uploaded by Helmer Reenberg.

Sean

Can he be identified in any Dealey Plaza images?

Good stuff, Sean- I agree with your thinking here.

I have long been suspcious of the Baker/Truly encounter with Oswald. While it was used as an indication of Oswald's innocence (calm demeanor after supposedly racing down six flights of stairs, etc.), the entire thing made little sense to me. Why did Oswald attract Baker's attention in the first place? He saw "movement" behind a door? Surely he might have seen other people moving in the building.

While virtually all spectators and law enforcement were drawn towards the knoll area in the moments after the shots were fired, Baker alone immediately focused in on the TSBD. Author Jim Marrs would report that Roy Truly had been intimidated by the authorities and was fearful until his death because of that. His wife Mildred supposedly wouldn't even mention the subject of the assassination to friends or family. Again, as we find so often in this case, that goes against basic human nature. What else would a Roy Truly be remembered for? Most average guys like that would make certain to mention frequently how they'd once been the boss of a presidential assassin. Why should his wife be reluctant to mention the huge historical event that made her otherwise nondescript husband a name for researchers to remember?

Anyhow, I look forward to hearing more from this on you.

Thanks, Don. I am convinced that Marrion Baker recently took a very large secret to the grave with him. Something happened in that building that had to be eliminated from the record. It's agonisingly difficult to put the pieces of the jigsaw back together, but I feel we're getting there. The biggest obstacle is actually the extreme--if understandable--reluctance of the majority of CT researchers to even question the historicity of the second-floor lunchroom incident. They see it as Oswald's alibi (or near-alibi). I see it as a fiction hastily improvised to keep the lid on a truth that would on its own have made a nonsense of the LN theory.

Sean,

Want to read something interesting?

On June 15, 1978, William Ira Trantham from the Dallas County Sheriff's Office was interviewed by Jack Moriarty of the HSCA. The interview as follows:

Name: Ira Trantham

Date: 6/15/78

Time: 1400

Address: 10119 Newcomb Street, Dallas, Texas

INTERVIEW: Watched the motorcade pass Main and Harwood from the press room of Dallas Police Department Headquarters. Then checked out a cruiser and headed in the opposite direction not having an assignment germane to the Presidential visit.

Had not driven more than a few blocks when the police department radio blared the shooting report at Dealey Plaza. Reversing his direction he responded to that area parking in the freight yard near the rear of the TSBD. Observing uniformed men in the rear with shotguns, then seeing Inspector Sawyer at the front door, he reported for instructions. Sawyer advised they were still not certain where the gunfire came from, but the best guess at that time was the TSBD.

By this time they were joined by Jerry Hill and he and Hill went inside. Hill continued upstairs and an officer W. H. Desham (#7140 DPD) approached him with a prisoner. Advised this subject had been observed "acting suspiciously" on the third floor without a reasonable explanation for being there.

N.B. The name Desham above should read Denham.

Good lord, Lee, 'interesting' is not the word for this. I'm kind of in shock tbh.

Where did you find it?

Sean

Taking Chris's transcription of what Sawyer broadcasts at 12:45--"Well, apparently, the shots might have come from this building. It's unknown whether he's still there or not. It's unknown whether he was there in the first place."--we must again ponder its implications.

Sawyer is talking about two things:

1) a definite building (TSBD) from which the shots might have come

2) a definite suspect (just described by race, age, height & weight) who was in the building at some point after the assassination, may be still in the building and may have been in the building at the time of the shooting.

This, it seems to me, is logically incompatible with the notion that Sawyer is basing his description of the suspect on a conversation with Howard Brennan. If Sawyer has any doubts as to Brennan's credibility then the last thing he will be expressing doubts about will be the location of the man--Brennan's man--at the time of the shooting.

If on the other hand Sawyer is basing his assertions on his brief conversation with Marrion Baker in the building, then everything--everything--he says in the broadcast quoted above makes logical sense.

Hi, Sean:

I've listened to my Channel 2 recording a number of times now, and although the passage in question is very noisy indeed, I think what Sawyer actually said could be:

"Well, apparently, the shots might have come from this building. It's unknown whether he's stil there or not. It's unknown whether he was there in the first place."

The dispatcher then replies, "10-4. Well, all the information that we have received, 9, indicates that it did come from the about the fith or fourth floor of that building", which would make sense in that context. Hope this is of some help.

Chris.

Superb information, as ever, Chris. Many thanks for that.

Sean

It's interesting that Baker and Truly ran into Sawyer descending from the roof, and its possible Baker gave him the description of the man - but if so, was it the man on the fourth floor or of Oswald on the second?

The man on the third/fourth floor, I believe, Bill. A report of a man confronted in a second-floor lunchroom would hardly have piqued Sawyer's suspicions.

Incidentally, Baker was asked by Belin which floor he met Sawyer on. His answer was rather interesting:

It seemed to me like it was on either the third or the fourth floor.

Third or fourth floor: exactly the words used in Baker's 11//22 affidavit to locate the incident with the man walking away from the rear stairway!

Is it possible that Baker, in speaking about the man to Sawyer, identified the floor he and Sawyer were now standing on as the same floor on which this incident had happened? One can imagine Baker pointing to where the man had been walking, etc. Sawyer must have done a double take when he heard that Baker had let the man loose.

I know that Lee and Greg do not believe Baker and Truly and that some shennagans were going on up and down the stairs, as there seems to be, but if taking what Baker and Truly and the WC say as the "Official Truth," then Oswald is innocent.

Seems that way alright. I believe the lunchroom incident was a damage limitation story hastily contrived late on the evening of the assassination. Bottom line: any Oswald encounter had to be located out of view of the stairway because of Vicki Adams's very vocal claims that she and Sandra Styles had hit the rear stairway very quickly. But the lunchroom story was--and is--a mess.

Sean,

I find the "inaudible" on the transmission quite concerning. Things like "inaudible" generally means "something we don't want you to hear."

Totally agree that the lunchroom story was created to hide something very important. One day, one of us will have a brainwave and it will all fall into place.

Lee

Yes, Lee, the fragment we do hear--"... from the building"--is pretty tantalising. What I wouldn't give to hear Sawyer's full sentence...

Re. the lunchroom story: it may be that the key is to be found in the 11/22/63 Interrogation Report written jointly by FBI Agents Bookhout & Hosty. There the distinct impression is given that Oswald spoke about a visit to the second-floor lunchroom before the assassination.

And of course it just so happens that Carolyn Arnold told Earl Golz and Anthony Summers in 1978 of just such a scenario.

Still waiting to hear the details of Groden's interview of Geneva Hine. Looks like Groden is holding out until the 50th anniversary. Grrrr.

Given the evidence and the timings involved, Sean, what you propose is the only thing that makes sense.

Let's face it, Brennan's story is absurd. What he claims to have witnessed and the details he remembered (such as the shooter's height) defy belief.

How on earth certain members of this critical community are still discussing a Baker/Truly interaction in the lunchroom is beyond me. Many online discussions continue to go through the timings and logistics of a second floor encounter when it's likely one didn't take place.

Why isn't more focus placed upon the massive changes between Baker's affidavits and his subsequent testimony concerning the man he says he saw, and more importantly where he says he saw him?

It's obvious to me that Sawyer's description came from Baker. If it came from Brennan then there would have been few doubts that the guy was on the sixth floor. Why? Because that's where Brennan says he saw him. Baker on the other hand would not have known where the guy on the "third or fourth floor" had been. However, I'm slightly perplexed as to what Sawyer meant by it being "...unknown whether he was there in the first place." What does "there" mean?

Luke Mooney won't "find" the sniper's nest for another 27 minutes (at 1:12pm) so if Brennan was the source of Sawyer's 12:45pm description of the suspect then we are asked to swallow that the Dallas Police took Brennan's observations so seriously that they used them for an APB but they ignored where he said he saw the shooter firing from to the point that it took them a further 27 minutes to find the shells.

Baloney.

Thanks, Lee. The way I see it, if the lunchroom incident happened then the timing and other issues make it extremely unlikely that Oswald was the sixth-floor shooter. But, like you, I am very sceptical that it ever did take place. I suspect that it was fabricated to cover up something even more problematical for the authorities in their rush to pin sole blame for the assassination on Oswald.

Regarding Sawyer's statement that it is "unknown whether he was there in the first place", the word "there" seems to refer to "the building".

On the scenario I'm proposing:

Sawyer, not being aware of just how soon after the shooting Baker's encounter with the man took place, cannot say for certain that the man in question had been in the building during the shooting itself. It was possible that the man had entered the building just after it.

"In the first place" = at the time of the shooting.

At 12:45 Inspector J. H. Sawyer makes the following radio transmission about the suspect in the shooting:

"... (inaudible)... from this building. It’s unknown whether he’s still there or not. It’s unknown whether he was there in the first place."

This raises two questions:

1. How can the italicised words possibly fit with Howard Brennan's being the witness responsible for the suspect description?

2. If it was a witness other than Brennan, then how can that witness possibly have seen the suspect up at the SN window during the time of the actual shooting?

Surely some other scenario must be implied by Sawyer's use of the words--or not known if he was there in the first place.

**

Sawyer described a white male, about 30 years of age, weighing 165 pounds, height 5'10".

Marrion Baker, in his affidavit later that afternoon, will recall encountering "a man walking away from the stairway" on the "third or fourth floor".

Baker's description of that man?

White male. About 30 years of age. Weighing 165 pounds. Height 5'9".

Now here's where this gets interesting.

Baker told the WC that he briefly spoke with Sawyer on the way down from the roof.

This, please note, was just a few minutes before Sawyer broadcast the suspect description.

Was Marrion Baker the true source of the suspect description put out by Sawyer?

It would explain both parts of Sawyer's otherwise inexplicable 12:45 statement:

"... from this building. It’s unknown whether he’s still there or not. It’s unknown whether he was there in the first place."

I agree, Norman looks very odd in this image.

EXHIBIT A:

Joint report by FBI agents Bookhout & Hosty of 11/22 Oswald interrogation, dictated 11/23:

Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building.

EXHIBIT B:

Solo report by FBI agent Bookhout of 11/22 Oswald interrogation, dicated 11/24:

Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room.

I believe the earlier report, co-written while Oswald is still alive, may be more trustworthy than Bookhout's solo supplement.

The former makes reference to a visit by Oswald to the second-floor lunchroom but not to any incident there involving an officer and Mr. Truly.

The latter has the now deceased Oswald confirming the story which Roy Truly has been putting on the record since the evening of the assassination: Oswald was challenged in the second-floor lunchroom by an officer.

Now the earlier report has Oswald make an extremely significant claim:

He was "on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building".

Put the case that Oswald really did say this and that he was telling the truth on this score.

A simple question is raised:

What made an innocent Oswald think he knew when exactly the President had passed the building?

In an attempt to answer this question, I would like to add to the hypothetical alternative timeline sketched in an earlier post:

• Oswald is having lunch in the domino room.
  
• He notices Jarman & Norman re-enter the building via the Houston St. back entrance and, not knowing that they are en route up to the fifth floor to watch the parade, assumes that the President must have just passed the building.
  
• At some point after this Oswald goes up to the second-floor lunchroom to buy a coke.
  
• He gets change for the machine from Geneva Hine (as per Robert Groden's recent indications).
  
• Buys second-floor lunchroom coke.
  
• Through second-floor office area (seen by Jeraldean Reid).
  
• Down to first floor by stairs or passenger elevator.
  
• Encounter with Sawyer by stairs or elevator just off first-floor front lobby.
  
• Encounter with credential-showing, phone-seeking man in front lobby.
  
• Exit from building.
  

​On this scenario, Oswald's line of self-defence in custody will have been severely hampered by the fact that his own timestamp of the actual assassination was off by several minutes.

He had an alibi but didn't realise it.

Thanks, Don.

Re. the Rambler issue: not sure the coke plays much either way, given that Craig timestamps that incident to 12:40.

Hi Sean

Miles posted this on Duncan's forum.

Re; Elevator

click on image to read full size:

Thanks, Robin. My understanding though is that Shelley is referring here to the freight elevator at the rear of the building rather than the front-of-house passenger elevator.

Thanks, David.

Let's list the 'TSBD-suspect-cop-encounter' stories that circulated:

1. Oswald seen in a "storage room" (or "small storage room") on the first floor just after assassination (source: Ochus Campbell, 11/22/63);

2. Oswald stopped at front entrance or in/near front lobby on way out of building to see the 'excitement'/'commotion' (sources: Oswald in custody, as reported by Harry Holmes; earliest DPD statements to press, e.g. Detective Ed Hicks; Billy Lovelady to Harold Norman, as recalled by the latter in his HSCA interview);

3. Man wearing light-brown jacket seen walking away from the rear stairway by Officer Baker (source: Baker's 11/22 affidavit);

4. Oswald challenged by Baker in second-floor lunchroom (source: Truly's late 11/22 FBI interview; Truly & Baker's WC testimony).

Now the tempting thing to do with to these competing narratives, and the thing that most researchers understandably have done, is to assume that #1, #2 and #3 are merely misreportings of #4.

There may however be another way of looking at this: that #4 is a fictionalisation of elements contained in #1, #2 and #3.

Thus for instance one might single out #3 for special consideration and construct an alternative hypothesis around it:

a. Baker and Truly charge into building

b. They encounter no-one--neither Oswald nor some other suspect--en route to the roof

c. Oswald, meanwhile, has been in the second floor office area getting change for a coke from Geneva Hine (as per Robert Groden's recent indications)

d. Oswald buys coke in second-floor lunchroom, goes back through office area where he is seen by Jeraldean Reid, goes downstairs and is stopped by Sawyer (or one of the officers with him) before exiting the building

e. Back at DPD HQ the story of Baker's dash plus the story of Oswald's having been stopped on his way out of the building is causing anxiety. In order to secure Oswald's guilt, Baker is pressurised into inserting a false 3rd/4th-floor "man walking away from the stairway" story into his affidavit. Never having actually met Oswald, Baker dutifully relays an approximation of the generic police broadcast description (5-foot-10, 165 pounds) and for extra verisimilitude is told to add a key detail that has already reached police ears from Tippit witnesses: the suspect was wearing a tan jacket

f. This bogus 3rd-4th floor story unravels that afternoon however as word gets around that a female employee is claiming loudly to have gone straight to the rear stairway immediately after the shooting

g. The Baker-suspect encounter must be transplanted to a less visible place. Fifth floor is out, as Jack Dougherty is telling people he was there. It is however known that Oswald bought a coke in the second-floor lunchroom just after the assassination. Cue damage-limatation exercise: a hastily improvised revision of the 3rd-4th-floor rear stairway story in the form of a second-floor lunchroom story. This apocryphal story will become the canonical story from this point forward.

h. But first a wrinkle in that story needs to be ironed out. At first the story is given extra solidity by having Oswald being seen drinking a coke when he is spotted by Baker. Due to timing issues, the problem of Baker's non-line-of-sight from the second-floor landing to the lunchroom as well as the need to incorporate some sort of 'walking away' element into the phoney story, the coke is soon disclaimed and Oswald is hereafter said to have been glimpsed moving behind the glass door leading to the connecting corridor.

Hi Evan,

A confirmed CTer in terms of the JFK case!

Sean

This small storage room was located right beside the domino room in the northeast corner of the first floor:

Worth bearing in mind also that a large open area containing stock (such as the sixth floor) was routinely referred to as "storage room".

How about the possibility of including (between "5" and "6", the Dallas Morning News (or was it Times-Herald) report quoting Ochus Campbell stating that Oswald was observed (briefly) in the (or "a") storage room. That quote belongs here, if you're going to lay out the possibility that perhaps Oswald was deliberately "held" inside the building, until the station wagon appeared, out in front. Just a thought.

DSL

Here's what Kent Biffle picked up about an Oswald-cop encounter (column 4):

It's generally assumed that Ochus Campbell must have misunderstood Truly's reference to the second-floor lunchroom. I'm not so sure.

Incidentally there was a small storage room right by the stairway just off the front lobby.