Greg Doudna

Thanks Joe for this feedback. Actually I have 11 seconds (5 + 6) from the GK fence to the front steps of the TSBD. There was no return to the Newmans, he went from the Newmans to the GK fence, then from the GK fence dead run to the front steps. Its hard for me to tell for sure but in looking at photos including aerial of Dealey Plaza it might be, this is just a guess, maybe a 140 feet run from GK fence to the front steps TSBD, and it seems to me 11 seconds would be ballpark about right for a man running that distance. Allman says he ran full speed from there to the front steps.

Bookhout does not exactly say Oswald claimed to have a conversation with Shelley. It says Oswald heard Shelley say something. The photos show Oswald was off to one side standing perhaps 15-20 feet away from Shelley at the time of the shots. After the shots the people on the steps saw Gloria Calvery screaming on Elm that the President had been shot. Shelley on the steps could have reacted to hearing that. If Shelley said something to Frazier or Lovelady standing next to him to his right, his words would have carried in the direction of Oswald who could have heard everything Shelley said, before Shelley and Lovelady went down the steps. That could be the reference of Oswald to having heard Shelley, even though he did not talk with him and even though Shelley may not have been aware Oswald was there due to the difference between Shelley looking into the sunlight and not noticing Oswald to the side in shadow. Fritz heard Oswald say he went out front with Shelley. Hosty heard Oswald say he went out to see the presidential parade. Bookhout heard Oswald say he heard Shelley say something. The photos show Oswald in a position to have heard Shelley say the comments Bookhout reported Oswald said he heard Shelley say.

I only had a gif up, Ulriks from the 6FM copy, you got that still from that? I apologize B.

.

.

Understanding Roger to have meant “securely place” by “place”, Roger is right, for this reason: apart from analysis of the particulars of the 6th floor shooter witnesses stories, a more fundamental issue in eg the Brennan positive identification he later claimed of Oswald at the sixth floor, is that it was from over 50 feet away in distance. Studies cited by the Innocence Project have shown witnesses are not reliable in positive identifications of persons’ faces at over 50 feet, where the person was not previously known to the witness. This does not mean such witnesses might not be right still, only that there is high incidence of error at that far away. Same problem with Roger Craig’s positive identification of Oswald running into a Rambler—that too was from well over 50 feet away. Also I’m not aware that there is much more substantial in terms of witness testimonies claiming positive identification of Oswald as the 6th floor shooter other than the questionable (because of distance) Brennan, and the extremely questionable Givens’ changed story. Of course there has always been an argument not from witnesses, eg the rifle and Oswald fingerprints. However as Chief Curry said they never could put Oswald in the window as the shooter, meant in the same sense Roger I take to have meant, “securely”. In any case Oswald claimed he was elsewhere than the 6th floor at the time of the shooting and a photo backs that up. Would that photo get Oswald acquitted in court by a jury (from the specific charge of being the shooter at the 6th floor)? Barring the prosecution able to securely identify it as someone else or show impossibility to have been Oswald—not very likely on either count—the answer is: of course it would. More than that, if the prosecutors knew what is known now of that photo and Oswald’s alibi claims in the interrogators earliest notes, they would not go into court on such a charge in the first place because the case would essentially be unwinnable. They might file other charges on him, perhaps of conspiracy or aiding and abetting, focus on the rifle, etc… press him hard to flip and name confederates… but what if he never did that despite pressure. How would that have gone? Who knows.

Roger describes the difference well. The reason I have a second floor Baker encounter is the obvious: witnesses Baker, Truly, Reid, and Oswald in interrogation told of it, and there is no good reason not to believe them, or counterevidence that Oswald was not where those witnesses had him. I don’t buy that confusions or mistakes, eg of Holmes, impeach the firsthand witness testimonies, and I see no evidence or indication of the existence of a conspiracy to suborn perjury in the form of entire false narratives from those witnesses, which is necessary if one is going to deny their testimony. I don’t buy notions of witnesses (so to speak) like marionettes on strings being fed rehearsed lines to falsely tell by hypothesized but never named or identified unseen handlers, since there’s never been evidence or proof shown that that was how things were done, which I believe is best explained by that was not how things were done. No offense intended to anyone, but that’s how I see it.

.

On the timing of Pierce Allman. Reporter Pierce Allman was at the southwest corner of Elm and Houston at the moment of the last shot. He has told his story many times. He has said he started instantly running wanting to get to a phone. He ran across Elm and spoke to the Newmans on the ground covering their children at the GK, asked if they were OK, Bill Newman says yes. Allman then says he ran to a fence on the GK and said he wasn’t sure why he did so. Getting there he saw nothing and then resumed his urgency to get to a phone again and went at a dead run top speed east on Elm to the front steps of the TSBD. There his partner reporter (who had crossed over directly from across the street) followed him rushing up the steps and into the vestibule, where he asked a man on the left where he could get to a phone and the man pointed him to a phone inside. That man was Oswald. Unable to physically retrace and time the movements of Allman’s running, I have tried to estimate mentally. Here are my proposed estimates, from time of the last shot: 8 seconds run across Elm and get to Bill Newman 4 seconds to learn Bill Newman is OK 5 seconds to run to GK fence 5 seconds run from GK fence back toward Elm 6 seconds running, may be the other man running same direction as officer Baker in Darnell? Arrives to front steps just behind Baker. _____ ca 28 seconds + ca 6 seconds to climb steps, into vestibule, to encounter with Oswald = ca 35-40 seconds total. I would welcome second opinions on estimates of time for running Allman’s path. The only times compatible with Oswald are his photographically confirmed presence there at ca 30-40 seconds, and the possible but unconfirmed return to the same location reconstructed at 3 minutes by the Secret Service and David v Pein. Timings between ca 40 secs and ca 3 minutes are excluded (Oswald on second floor). Allman says his estimate was 3 minutes but witnesses’ time duration memories are often unreliable, and it is also likely he was told that had to be the time by the Secret Service according to their theory of Oswald’s movements and timing. Allman also said it was when the building was beginning to be sealed off, which may or may not refer to seeing Baker run in just before him, or be anachronistic. Certainly the sealing happened early in his time on the phone. From start to reaching the TSBD front steps Allman says he needed to get to a phone fast and was running at every stage. (Once he got to a phone inside the TSBD he held on to it and did not give it up for 25 minutes, filing report after report to his news channel, and angering others wanting to use the phone who had not been as quick to arrive as Allman.) No one has questioned the 3 minutes before because Oswald’s presence at the front steps before he was on the second floor was never considered. It seems to me if he was running those stages as he says he was, ca 30-40 seconds is more realistic than 3 minutes to arrive to Oswald. But I would like opinions of others on the timing estimations.

Well many TSBD employees were asked where they were and what they heard and saw when the president passed by, however he might have realized it was an alibi issue even if they were asking everyone the “where were you?” question. One possibility is when he told them he was on the first floor and had (of course!) gone out to see the parade, they immediately want names of who was there or might have seen him, whether or not they told him why. They intended to check that out. Then he gave them names, Shelley, Frazier, Lovelady. Those were standing the nearest to him when he was out there. Those would be the ones he would likely name, I can’t think of any other obvious names he might have mentioned, possibly Molina if he noticed him at the other end of the steps but unlikely Molina would have seen him. Possibly Williams if he saw him at the back. I doubt if Oswald knew Sarah Stanton to Frazier’s left. But the problem is in an alibi issue it’s not good enough for him to say he was there, he needs someone who saw him there. They would ask him, did you speak to anyone out front? No. Did any of these three names standing near you see you? (e.g. Shelley, Frazier, or Lovelady) Answer: Well I don’t know, I’m not sure if they did. (Interrogators thinking to themselves, convinced he’s lying from the getgo, well that’s convenient.) But they check out every name Oswald gave them, probably asking in such way that the real question of interest, the steps, is not realized by the three questioned. Just did you see Oswald that morning, when did you last see him, were you out front watching the parade, who was near you, OK, OK, thanks. Now imagine they get back to Oswald about that. Mr. Oswald, we checked those three names you gave and none of them say they saw you there. Oswald now gives them another possible person who could vouch for him if they could find him, the man who asked him to direct him to a phone. Was Oswald telling that as an attempt to come up with someone who could verify he was there when he said he was? (We haven’t realized it because it was interpreted as safely 3 minutes later?) If so that one did check out, the Secret Service found Pierce Allman. But it did Oswald no good. First, by then Oswald was dead, there would be no trial. Second, Allman said he couldn’t say who it was, he didn’t remember (even though it really was Oswald). And third, the Secret Service decided from the timeline of their theory of the case it had to be 3 minutes (when actually it was at ca 40 seconds), and Allman got that from the Secret Service. So although that possible alibi claim of a witness of Oswald was found and did check out, by re-timing it its force was lost. Maybe.

Thank you Paul.

Exactly! Off to the side in shadow, late arrival and short duration of ca 35 seconds, and not speaking to anyone. Very believable no one on the steps, blinded by looking into sunlight, would have known he had been there. Only a minority of TSBD employees even knew Oswald to recognize him, and Oswald was so unremarkable appearing that one witness who met Oswald just after he went back in behind the glass doors and was in that vestibule, reporter Pierce Allman—he didn’t remember meeting anyone matching a photograph of Oswald and he met him there! I am convinced from reconstruction of Allman’s movements that Allman arrived before Oswald left the front steps to go up to the second floor, not after, and I believe Allman running toward the front steps may be visible in the Darnell and Couch film clips at ca 25-30 seconds after the final shot just before Allman arrived. Allman asked a man standing there to Allman’s left in the vestibule as Allman rushed in, Allman said, to direct him to a phone and Oswald pointed to a phone inside, apparently without speaking (sounds like Oswald). The identification of that man as Oswald is based on Oswald in his final interrogation telling of an incident of a man with a crewcut at the front steps asking him to direct him to a phone, and Pierce Allman, whose encounter asking a man for a phone was witnessed by his reporter partner as well as himself, had a crewcut. The Secret Service put those two stories together (Oswald’s, and Allman’s) and concluded it was a match, that the man who pointed Allman to a phone had been Oswald.

How could Buell Frazier possibly not have noticed when Oswald quietly slipped in through the glass door behind and came out to the west of Frazier and stood quietly in shadow against the west wall, was there for about 35 seconds at the height of adrenalin stress and focus of eyes and attention of those on the steps over hearing shots and a woman out front running and screaming "they shot him!", before quietly slipping back into the building again, not a word spoken to anyone? Mr. BALL - In the picture that would show you about there, would it? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; you can see, just see, the top, about the top rail there, was standing right in there. Mr. BALL - Right in there? Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I say, shadow from the roof there knocked the sun from out our eyes, you wouldn't have any glare in the eyes standing there.

BUELL FRAZIER ON WHAT OSWALD WAS WEARING THAT DAY Mr. BALL - On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket? Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning. (...) Mr. BALL - Did he have a jacket or coat on him? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - What kind of a jacket or coat did he have? Mr. FRAZIER - That, you know, like I say gray jacket. Mr. BALL - That same gray jacket? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Now, I can be frank with you, I had seen him wear that jacket several times, because it is cool type like when you keep a jacket on all day, if you are working on outside or something like that, you wouldn't go outside with just a plain shirt on. (...) Mr. FRAZIER - Some boys hang their jackets up in there in that little domino room where they were going to play dominoes. But here lately, I have been wondering, you know, most of us wear our jackets, what we have on, because if you are going out there on a dock in the cold air we usually keep them on. (Earlier) Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket [CE 163, blue]? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have. Mr. BALL. Commission Exhibit No. 162 [off-white light tan], which can be described for the record as a gray jacket with zipper, have you seen Lee Oswald wear this jacket? Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I haven't. OTHER TSBD FELLOW EMPLOYEES OF OSWALD Givens: "He never changed clothes the whole time he worked there, and he would wear a grey looking jacket." (WC testimony) Williams: "[T]o the best of his recollection, Lee Harvey Oswald was wearing a grey corduroy pair of pants and a greyish looking sport shirt with long sleeves on November 22, 1963." (FBI, 12/5/63)

Apart from a disputable interpretation of the scoop-neckline-appearing neckline as the neckline of a dress instead of as an old gray wool-like or flannel-like jacket worn loosely over a white T-shirt with sleeves rolled up there is no other positive argument it is a woman, and the receding hairline at the temple says it is a man. And the main reason everyone has supposed the “fat” idea was an optical illusion all along, after realization of the head of the dark-clothed woman in front of the figure up to about mid-chest level. But ideas once established persist even when underlying reasons which gave rise to them are known and acknowledged by persons to have been in error. Many studies on this phenomenon. It’s called “persistence of belief”. Google that term and there is a rich literature of studies on that phenomenon in human psychology. In this case, persistence of belief the figure is fat even (for some) following conscious acknowledgement of removal of the reason that was supposed in the first place. All the other TSBD women’s locations are known at other locations than the figure’s. The argument for possibility comes down to either Pauline Sanders, at the far east end of the steps, having moved over to the other end to the west end of the steps, or Sarah Stanton, immediately to Frazier’s left (viewer’s right), having moved over to Frazier’s right. But it wasn’t Sarah Stanton. Buell Frazier said the extremely heavyset Sarah was to his left and talked with her; she is visible to Frazier’s left as the very broad, extremely wide figure to the left of Frazier in Darnell where Frazier and others said she was; and Frazier who is living today says he does not know who Prayer Man was and does not identify the figure as Sarah Stanton which he would be expected to do so if it were her (that argument does not apply equally to Oswald however unless it is certain Frazier was aware at the time of Oswald’s presence on the steps which he says he was not and it is believable that he was not). As for could be a non-TSBD unidentified person, hypothetically possible but no one else there was, and why then all the other agreements with Oswald by coincidence. Frazier has repeatedly said in recent years he doesn’t know who Prayer Man was, even though the figure is seen in the photo in the shadow to Frazier’s right, consistent with Frazier literally did not notice. Frazier said it is not Oswald, but according to his explanation he did not say that negative rejection of an Oswald identification was on grounds of he would have noticed, but on grounds of the person looked to him too fat in the photo to be Oswald, ie a photo interpretation conclusion. From the optical illusion. The critical and significant point about Frazier’s comments expressing absolute lack of personal memory or knowledge of who that was that day near him, is that even he cannot identify that figure as someone other than Oswald.

Off-topic of thread? 😊

Maybe. If so it might suggest he walked into the building to look at the offices. Do you think Delphine Jr. who used another office there, telling of having observed a man in an office she thought was Oswald, was a mistaken identification of another tenant?

When you combine his use of that address with his letters to the FPCC official referring to anticipation of having use of an office, and then a later letter saying he had use of one for a few days but it ended, doesn't that reasonably suggested he had some use of 544 Camp Street, even if minimally only belief it would be possible to receive and obtain mail from there? Then Banister finds out, hits the roof, complains to management and that is over real quick?

There is enough to make the identification. Prayer Man was Oswald, beyond reasonable doubt. Not beyond conceivable doubt. But beyond reasonable doubt. To review the key points which tip the Oswald identification beyond reasonable doubt Height match to Oswald's 5'9" Hairline match to Oswald's, early stage male pattern baldness. possible match to Oswald birthmark on throat near Shelley two persons away match to what Oswald told interrogators no speaking or interaction with others, by himself, correspondence to Oswald behavior at work near glass doors in rear suggestive of late, unnoticed entry consistent with Oswald claim of being on first floor, and not with anyone the logic of overwhelming expectation that an Oswald on first floor would go a few feet to step out the glass doors as the most convenient way to see the president he admired and respected pass by the explicit confirmation in long-suppressed, authentic, handwritten, earliest-information interrogators' notes that he told them he went outside to see the parade, in agreement with expectation that he would have in any case agreement in clothing with what Oswald was wearing at work that morning coke in hand in agreement with Oswald told interrogators he bought a coke to have with his lunch before he went out front to see the parade perhaps the most likely figure on the steps to have been unnoticed by others on the steps due to position on the steps, late arrival, in shadow, no conversation, and nondescriptness Pierce Allman encounter with Oswald at location timed at 40 seconds not 3 minutes confirms Oswald at the same location as Prayer Man, at the same time as Prayer Man. the figure was a Book Depository employee at high confidence due to every single other person on the steps, without exception, being TSBD employees, and the likelihood from the figure's position that the figure came out through the glass doors All other Book Depository employees' whereabouts are known and accounted for, except Oswald, who said he was where the figure is Oswald is not confirmed or known present anywhere else at the time no other named identification of the figure is known or has been established Its sufficient. I say it was Oswald. Sufficient to take to the bank. His connection to the rifle remains to be explained (I accept that it was his). His other movements need to be explained. His involvement or lack thereof with other aspects of the assassination remain questions to be separately resolved. But the identification of the figure on the steps as Oswald, photographed on the steps where Oswald said he was, establishes that Oswald was not the sixth floor shooter.

Nonsense. Fritz, Bookhout, and Hosty did not do Oswald any favor by failing to disclose his alibi claim. Oswald debatably missed an opportunity. Lots of wouldas and shouldas sometimes. Oswald showed no sign of making his defense or trying his case to reporters on either Tippit or JFK (JFK which he seems not to have been aware he was even being accused of until near midnight Friday), apart from strenuously claiming he was not guilty, claiming he was a patsy, and claiming he was not being told what was going on. It has been argued, and there is an argument, that Oswald could have been slipped word to hang tight, intervention would be happening to get him out of the trouble he was in (in light of previous history of a covert nature with US agencies). That is one way of accounting for Oswald's telling Marina "don't worry, everything's gonna be OK, now tell me about Junie's shoes...". Another point: was Oswald aware that going out to see the parade was an alibi claim? Or was it just answering a question among many others not recognized as of significance until--until when would that change, exactly? US Postal Inspector Holmes: "As the questioning gradually led up to Kennedy, he just acted like he couldn't imagine anybody thinking that he might have shot Kennedy. He never worried about going to jail or being put to death. He just denied that he ever shot the President and acted like it never entered his head that it was possible that you could charge him with shooting the President." (in Sneed, No More Silence, 361)

I don't think so. If it had been put out that Oswald had claimed to be on the front steps, the Prayer Man figure would have been the center of attention to the investigations and to the public. With the FBI and Warren Commission unable to show Prayer Man was not Oswald (not an easy ting to do since that is who it was)--reasonable doubt that Oswald was the sixth floor shooter would be near universal. How could there not be reasonable doubt on Oswald as the shooter if a photograph that looks like him where he said he was is not otherwise identified or explained? By not disclosing Oswald's alibi, that photographed image looking like Oswald never got noticed or studied until decades later, even though it had always been there. The Warren Commission did its massive investigation. HSCA did its. Bugliosi did his 2600 pages. None with even knowledge of the existence of Oswald's alibi claim, or study of the photographed figure which appears to corroborate it. How bizarre is that in a criminal case? Pat's argument is just haywire on that one in my opinion, just rhetoric--the odd claim that disclosure of Oswald's alibi claim would have harmed Oswald's case.

Unless you rule out Oswald’s claim to have been on the first floor at the time of the assassination, it can be just assumed that he would be out there. Just assumed. Where else would he be but out there? Only if you have some reason to know he wasn’t, such as if you have him shooting on the 6th floor, or you have him established somewhere else, is there any rational reason to expect him anywhere else than out front. If he was innocent of being the shooter, he would have been out front. It’s just about that simple. That’s the case that he was there and basis for expecting photo confirmation, irrespective that there is such.

I don't agree with the logic on this. First, the Baker 2nd floor encounter happened, I know you have battled those who say that was faked. I know it was not faked and agree on that so just leave that issue out as concerns anything relevant to what I am discussing. On the out front business. I am conjecturing here, but when Oswald said he was on the first floor he would have been asked, if he did not volunteer, well did he go out to see the parade. Any "no" answer would have seemed very, very, very odd and he would have been pressed to explain why. Notice in the reporting of that first interrogation by Fritz, Hosty and Bookhout no explanation of Oswald is given for why he never went out, the simplest reason for that being that Oswald gave no explanation for why he didn't go out because he never denied going out. A moment's thought--think about it--it is just nuts that Oswald would be on that first floor, and not go out to see JFK and Jackie go by. Why on earth, why the hell wouldn't he? Everybody else except for maybe the odd bird Dougherty was going somewhere to see, right out the front door too. And Oswald would just remain alone in a domino room preferring to sip his coke and eat his apple? Makes no sense. So the lack of explanation in the interrogation reports for Oswald giving some reason why he did NOT go out to see the parade is a dog that is not barking in those interrogation reports. Obvious question: did you go out front? Expected answer: yes. Expected followup: who was out there with you? Expected answer: (names--Shelley. Lovelady. Frazier.) I do not believe they would have, or immediately could have, known whether that could be true or not. I believe it would be expected that they would ask Oswald for names that potentially could verify; that the three names just mentioned would be the likeliest Oswald would give on the assumption that he did go out to watch the P Parade from the Prayer Person position; and that those three were each questioned, in addition to study of the Altgens6 photograph. And by the end of the day the answer was: we don't really know for sure. Frazier--taken in, denies awareness of Oswald on the steps. Shelley--told a reporter later that he had been "arrested" that day, certainly not true literally but why did the hearsay think Shelley told it that way? Shelley asked did you see Oswald? Shelley: almost at noon when he came down to lunch. Lovelady--not sure. He could have been behind me, there was somebody behind me, I wasn't paying attention, I don't know who it was. Altgens6 doesn't show any Oswald in that photo, but at the same time it doesn't show probably 60% of the people on the front steps, so doesn't exclude Oswald there either. Now on the basis of this information, they THINK he was the 6th floor shooter so they THINK he's lying. But they want to verify that he was lying, and the information they had by the end of the day would be: it just wasn't clear for certain either way. They didn't come up with any confirmation for Oswald there, they don't think he was there, but ... the uncertainty, WHAT IF some witness were to come forward and say they DID see him there? I believe in this context a rational decision could be made not to publicize in any way that could be avoided, any question or consideration, and certainly not a claim made by Oswald if so, that he was out on the front steps. For fear of the unknown--what if a family photo, what if a movie footage, what if a witness among the dozens outside, were to come forward and say they saw Oswald there? (In fact that happened, of sorts, Carolyn Arnold, early FBI interview report, though Carolyn told the FBI agent she saw him behind glass doors at some unclear exact moment before the parade did come by. I have no doubt in my mind that Carolyn told the FBI agent that, no matter her later having forgotten years later that she did. I also do not regard her years later telling a reporter of seeing Oswald on the 2nd floor as being relevant or the same incident that she early told that FBI interviewer.) In this context of the "fear of the unknown"--from the investigators'/prosecutors' point of view building up the case against Oswald to put on the record--I believe a decision to say nothing at all about it, to call no attention to it as an issue to the extent it could be avoided--in this light makes complete sense rationally, from their point of view. I do not assume they were covering up that they knew it was true he was out there. I don't think they knew that or believed that he was. But it is the rule of prosecutors not asking witnesses questions where they don't know in advance what the answer will be, that principle. You cite no witnesses supporting Oswald, and "and no photographic evidence to support this", as if the FBI investigators could have known that in advance at the time those interrogation reports (or their handwritten notes) were written. Are you sure no photographic evidence supports that? That the Prayer Person figure is someone other than Oswald? Do you know that? What do you think of David v P's finding lack of any witness to be any problem to Oswald walking out and down those front steps through gazillions of TSBD people including Buell Frazier there at the front, and nobody saw him? Isn't that the same issue? I don't know if you think Oswald left by the front yourself. I don't think Oswald left by the front, but just citing the perception of weight given to the "no witnesses" objection as of interest. Or how about this that I am pretty sure you will agree on (me too on this one): that Pierce Allman asked Oswald to point him to a phone there at the front steps/Prayer Person area. Nobody saw Oswald there either, including Pierce Allman said he never saw Oswald. But the man who pointed him to a phone was Oswald. Bottom line: you are citing a "why would they cover up a claim by Oswald to be out on the front steps when they could embarrass him by publicizing it and showing it not to be true", as an argument. The argument is invalid because (a) although they did not believe it was true, they did not actually know that. And (b) fear of unwanted surprise photo or testimony coming in that could hypothetically support that claim of Oswald, if it were publicized. Solution: decision not to publicize it even as a question. But I have the feeling you're stuck as mud on this, no matter any individual argument. It sounds to me that in the end it comes down to that you have looked at the photo and decided it is doubtful it can be Oswald. Would you care to comment on what you make of what I have set forth as the dark-clothed woman blocking the viewer's view of the lower left side and left leg of the Prayer Person figure? Does that alter your earlier assessment that the figure is too heavyset to be Oswald?

David, you answered the questions concerning your reconstruction, thanks. On Mrs. Reid, that is a case of what I regard as a very strong witness--she was a professional in management and was talking about that encounter to coworkers starting that afternoon--and the content of that witness's report seeming not to make sense (Oswald wearing only a white T-shirt). I can understand your solution that she was mistaken. It is the strength of that witness that tips it to me as she was not mistaken, but I realize it is a subjective judgment. Enough on that. On Oswald leaving by the front, agree that he did leave and you reason it was from the front. I believe neither the WR, Posner, nor Bugliosi take a position on whether Oswald left front or back (only that it was one of those two without claiming which), so this may be an innovation by you from previous WCR-supportive major arguments. The matter of interest from my point of view is your argument for plausibility that “so many people near the TSBD front stoop could have missed seeing Lee Oswald exit the building after the assassination"--as in, no one saw him ... and the objection raised against the possibility of a Prayer Person Oswald identification that no one saw him. (No one reported seeing him, in both cases, understood.) It seems the cases are roughly parallel, maybe ca. 40 seconds in the one case and maybe ca. 10-15 seconds in the second, but roughly parallel. I just find it of interest how the identical objection is perceived by some as a deal-killer for the one, but not a problem in the case of the other. As for the question of which exit, all the major points to me say it was the rear not the front. There is no positive evidence for a front exit, whereas I do give weight to the testimony of Buell Frazier who says to the present day that he saw Oswald leaving from the rear (walking on Houston and crossing to go east on Elm). I do not know why he did not volunteer that sooner, but I think it more likely than not that he is truthful in later volunteering it, than either knowingly fabricating or invention of memory. I think Frazier is a truthful witness of sound mind, as a general statement. And no direct evidence of any kind contravenes or contradicts Frazier's witness of a rear exit by Oswald. Second, in the theory of the case in which Oswald was on the first floor/front steps at the time of the assassination, his encounter with Baker prompted by Baker seeing him was an interruption of attempt to go out to the rear stairwell (Roffman's discussion of that being the strong argument that Baker noticed Oswald back away from almost exiting that door to the stairwell, which looked suspicious, rather than Oswald had just gone through that door from the stairs). If he actually was there to get a coke--which would be a second coke that day since as the interrogators' note and simple logic, and analogy with Lovelady, tell, Oswald said he got a coke pre-assassination, i.e. to eat with his lunch--then he would not be attempting to walk out to the rear stairwell and would not have been seen by Baker if so. Also, there is no evidence from either of the two witnesses, Baker and Truly, that Oswald even had a coke in hand at the time of the Baker encounter, though he had a coke in hand passing back by Mrs. Reid a few moments later, on the strength of the credibility of the same witness who said he was wearing only a white T-shirt. And an attempt to go out the door to the rear stairwell can only be to go up or down in the stairwell, and since Oswald did leave the building, it must be he intended to go back down to the first floor from which then to exit the building, the rear being the nearest exit from that point. The Baker encounter thwarted that, but it is not known that he went down the front and I argue that there is indirect indication he did go by way of the s and w hallways out to the back stairwell again in fulfillment of his original intention to go down by the rear to exit, namely: that he had to return to the rear area of the second floor to retrieve the old gray jacket I believe he was wearing which he had taken off before walking by Mrs. Reid (since he was witnessed in that jacket by both Whaley, and I believe, by all three on the bus before Whaley, and since no old gray jacket known by his fellow employees to have been his was reported found left behind at the TSBD). So although Oswald could have gone out either way, all I can see makes it more likely he went out the rear, and this is analyzed prior to the question of why, which goes into conjecture. I have conjectured the reason for that instead of simply walking away from the front steps was because Oswald believed he was in personal danger and wanted to escape without being tailed. That Oswald believed he was in danger for his personal safety seems supported by his picking up the handgun at his rooming house and arming himself. I would not assume it was the police or law enforcement which was the source of his concern for his personal safety. I also would not rule out he may have decided to include a restroom stop inside the building before he made his exit, since he may not have known when he would next have the opportunity, though of course that is unknown. If he had a recent restroom stop say in the domino room before the time of the assassination, that may not have been a factor, unknown.

It looks to me like there was—had to be—some decision to conceal and/or not disclose and/or downplay the sensitive issue of Oswald telling the three in that initial interrogation that he was out front on the steps. The fact of such coverup—the handwrittens of Hosty and Fritz, both never intended or anticipated ever to come to light, handwritten notes of which both of those men, Hosty and Fritz, lied through their teeth in denying under oath existed. Hosty’s devastating words of Oswald in his handwritten—went to watch P Parade—only first came to light in 2019 when Bart Kamp published it. Fifty-six years without knowledge of that primary data. Pat cites that Hosty and the other two never told of that publicly, as argument they did not believe privately, that which was in their private notes never intended to see the light of day. Pat, have you considered another possible explanation for the difference between concealed private and stated in public: that they were lying. Control of the investigation and management of its scope and disclosure and reporting… the FBI. That’s two of the three in that room. The FBI was centrally controlled from hq, field offices such as Dallas and agents thereof essentially micromanaged from hq in DC. Fritz legendary for never giving an interview about the JFKA for the rest of his life. No book. No bylined article. No interview. No invited speech or lecture. Not even at Dallas events commemorating the assassination. He just never talked publicly about it, rest of his life. Think how odd that is. Why? Mechanism of the coverup (conjectural here): A. FBI hq advises how to handle the issue, namely don’t report it in the reports which would be forwarded or disseminated to the Warren Commission. Don’t put the issue on the record. B. Ask Fritz to do the same. Fritz did.