Oswald Leaving TSBD?

[Alistair Briggs]

45 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

... Will Fritz claimed that LHO said that he was on the steps of the TSBD when the JFK shooting occurred.  ...

Paul can you please point to where that comes from? As far as I am aware, Fritz never claimed that Oswald said that.

 

[Michael Clark]

Alistair asked:

"Paul can you please point to where that comes from? As far as I am aware, Fritz never claimed that Oswald said that."

 

Frits says that the "investigation shows that he (Baker) actually saw him in the lunchroom". It is Mr. Ball who insinuates that it is the second floor by slipping in the words "up there".

 

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think--I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done that afternoon and we don't punch a clock and they don't keep very close time on our work and I just left."

Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.

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.
Mr. BALL. That same time you also asked him about the rifle.

 

Edited February 3, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

And how much excitement would LHO notice from the second floor room with the coke machine?

"Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement"

[Alistair Briggs]

Michael, yep, that's what Fritz's WC testimony says. Can you find where Fritz says that Oswald said he was on the steps at the time of the shooting?

[Michael Clark]

10 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Michael, yep, that's what Fritz's WC testimony says. Can you find where Fritz says that Oswald said he was on the steps at the time of the shooting?

When I search Fritz's testimony for the words "entrance",'"front" and "steps" I come up with nothing to indicate that.

[Alistair Briggs]

5 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

When I search Fritz's testimony for the words "entrance",'"front" and "steps" I come up with nothing to indicate that.

Me neither. Strange that isn't it, neither you or I can find where Fritz says Oswald said that he was on the steps of the TSBD when the JFK shooting occurred. Hopefully Paul will be able to show where it is...

[Alistair Briggs]

38 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

You keep saying, "by definition, if Fritz is lying he should be trying to incriminate Oswald." 

First of all, I don't keep saying that. This is not the first time I have had to say that to you, and really I have to question why you keep saying that I keep saying that when I have pointed out to you more than once that I don't keep saying that - so, not for the first time I will repeat again what I said the first time...

" And for clarity, it is not my repeated claim that if Fritz is lying, then Fritz should be trying to incriminate LHO. I merely put forth that "if Fritz is lying, then Fritz should be trying to incriminate LHO more than it appears he is" - that's a very important qualifier btw. "

Anyway,

43 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

 What LHO blurted out to the world press showed he was clearly under pressure, but clearly trying earnestly to keep his cool. 

An interesting way to look at it.

45 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

The likely thing that LHO said in custody was only this: "I will not speak with any of you until I see my lawyer, Mr. John Abt.  Period."  IMHO, it is unlikely that LHO would have said anything else at all.  

Ok, I will for the moment partake in a 'suspension of disbelief' and assume that you are correct with that and that Oswald said absolutly nothing apart from the line about Abt... so, let me just get that straight in my head - apart from that one line about Abt, Oswald said nothing!

With that in mind, when you say...

53 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

The DPD knew that the authorities already had LHO's rifle on the 6th floor, with bullets from the JFK limo that were reasonable matches to that rifle.  Case closed, as far as the Dallas DA was concerned.

So far so good, Oswald said nothing and the case was already closed...

With that in mind, when you say,

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Why does Fritz have to make up what LHO said?  The main reason: because any actual dialog between Fritz and LHO would have incriminated Will Fritz & Co.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that and presume you didn't mean to write it the way you have written it, because I'm pretty sure you don't mean that the reason for Fritz making it up is to incriminate himself. Ah right, wait a second, sorry my bad, eh, you have mentioned 'actual dialogue' there - it's just you have also said that (it was unlikely) that Oswald said anything (other than the bit about Abt). I wonder which it is then. lol

With that in mind, when you say,

57 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Will Fritz knew he didn't have to add incriminating statements to his bogus, invented, LHO dialog.

Ah now wait, if Oswald said nothing, there is no need to invent dialogue, especially when you have already said the case was closed anyway without Oswald saying anything. Not only would fritz not have to add 'incriminating statements' he would not have to invent any dialogue at all. (Unless, of course, Oswald did say things)

With that in mind, when you say...

50 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Therefore, Fritz had to insert an invented LHO dialog in the blank.  He had to make it sound realistic and vanilla. 

Wait, if the case was closed becuase of the 'physical' evidence against Oswald, and Oswald didn't say anything. Fritz doesn't have to invent any dialogue at all he could just tell the truth and say that Oswald said nothing.

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Fritz is merely trying to distract attention away from himself and his co-conspirators.

If Oswald said nothing, then the best way for Fritz to distract attention away from himself would be to say that Oswald said nothing. Oh, that's a good point actually, no matter what Oswald said or didn't say Fritz could have just said that Oswald said nothing and problem solved eh? Think about it! What better way to get away with things and avoid the necessity of covering anything up by inventing dialogue than to just state Oswald said nothing.

End of 'suspension of disbelief'...

... snap back to reality.

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Again -- if (and only if) Will Fritz & Co. are lying, then it is useless to keep referring to "what LHO said" when he was in custody.   We really don't know.   If that really is Prayer Man, we need extra evidence, because we just lost LHO himself as a witness.

I'm glad to hear you qualify that by saying 'if (and only if) Will Fritz & Co are lying... but even still it isn't useless to keep referring to what Oswald said in custody (or what it is claimed he said - an important qualifier ;)) . Why is it still not useless? Well, I will repeat what I said to you earlier;

" ... because there is no recording of any of the interrogations, and because the notes were 'finalised' 'weeks' after the fact we can't take any of it as a verbatim account, that is axiomatic. But it is what it is, and it's all we have to go on at this moment, so we have to consider whether it is a 'fair' representation or not."

It can't just be dismissed out of hand, that's not how it works. You might want to say that we have lost Oswald as a witness (and technically that is correct), but that doesn't make it useless to keep referring to what (it is claimed that) Oswald said.

In regards to Prayer Man (who was on the steps at the time of the shooting?) well, consider, what Oswald said on camera (which can't be dismissed) about where he was at the time of the shooting (he said he was inside the building) - that alone is a major pointer away from Prayer Man being Oswald.

Regards

P.S. Just to throw this out there, and I have said this before, one of the most major bits of 'evidence' that points to Oswald being set up has it's roots in what it is claimed that Oswald said in the interrogation - that the Backyard Photos were faked. Just saying.

[Paul Trejo]

Alistair,

You're too literal.  Look at the gist of what I'm saying.  LHO didn't say what Will Fritz, Harry Holmes and James Hosty said he said.

What LHO told them was utterly minimal.  Fritz has a longish dialog.  Holmes includes the whole Mexico City trip.  It's all a collective fabrication by Fritz & Company.  That's the point.

By the way, I'm still waiting on your comments about Harry Holme's knowledge of the Lopez Report summary of LHO's Mexico City trip a full 40 years before the Lopez Report was actually released.  There is simply no benign explanation for this fabrication about LHO's interrogation.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

6 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Me neither. Strange that isn't it, neither you or I can find where Fritz says Oswald said that he was on the steps of the TSBD when the JFK shooting occurred. Hopefully Paul will be able to show where it is...

Alistair,

Sorry, I meant that Will Fritz and his TEAM said that, thinking specifically of Harry Holmes.  Holmes was part of Will Fritz' team -- though they stepped on each other's WC testimony several times.  Here's what Will Fritz actually said:

------------------------------------------------ Start --------------------------------

Mr. BALL.  With reference to where he was at the time the President was shot, did Oswald tell you what floor of the building he was on? 

Mr. FRITZ.  I feel sure that he told me he was on the second floor...Yes, sir; second floor; yes, sir.  He said he usually worked on the first floor.  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.  

------------------------------------------------- End --------------------------------------

Aside from the fact that Fritz contradicted himself in this very short reply, let's move forward to compare his answer with Harry Holmes' answer.  Here is what Holmes said about the same scenario:  

--------------------------------------------------- Start ------------------------------------------

Mr. BELIN. Now, Mr. Holmes, I wonder if you could try and think if there is anything else that you remember Oswald saying about where he was during the period prior or shortly prior to, and then at the time of the assassination? ... 

Mr. HOLMES. He said when lunchtime came he was working in one of the upper floors with a Negro. The Negro said, "Come on and let's eat lunch together." Apparently both of them having a sack lunch. And he said, "You go ahead, send the elevator back up to me and I will come down just as soon as I am finished."  And he didn't say what he was doing. There was a commotion outside, which he later rushed downstairs to go out to see what was going on. He didn't say whether he took the stairs down. He didn't say whether he took the elevator down. But he went downstairs, and as he went out the front, it seems as though he did have a Coke with him, or he stopped at the Coke machine, or somebody else was trying to get a Coke, but there was a Coke involved. He mentioned something about a Coke. But a police officer asked him who he was, and just as he started to identify himself, his superintendent came up and said, "He is one of our men." And the policeman said, "Well, you step aside for a little bit."  Then another man rushed in past him as he started out the door, in this vestibule part of it, and flashed some kind of credential and he said, "Where is your telephone, where is your telephone, and said I am so and so, where is your telephone."  And he said, "I didn't look at the credential. I don't know who he said he was, and I just pointed to the phone and said, 'there it is,' and went on out the door."

------------------------------------------------- End --------------------------------------

Can anybody believe a word that Harry Holmes says?   I can't.  IMHO Holmes is piecing together bits and pieces of sworn evidence from official DPD affidavits -- but he doesn't know how to lie as smoothly as the others. He doesn't care about a consistent sequence of events, either -- he just makes a mess of the actual evidence and calls it a story and sticks to it...

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 4, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Alistair asked:

"Paul can you please point to where that comes from? As far as I am aware, Fritz never claimed that Oswald said that."

 

Frits says that the "investigation shows that he (Baker) actually saw him in the lunchroom". It is Mr. Ball who insinuates that it is the second floor by slipping in the words "up there".

 

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think--I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done that afternoon and we don't punch a clock and they don't keep very close time on our work and I just left."

Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.

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.
Mr. BALL. That same time you also asked him about the rifle.

 

 

Thanks for that quote, Michael. It is very useful to me in my anti- Baker/Oswald 2nd Floor encounter campaign.

[Alistair Briggs]

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sorry, I meant that Will Fritz and his TEAM said that, thinking specifically of Harry Holmes.  

At no time whatsoever did Fritz, or Holmes, or any of the 'team' claim that Oswald claimed to be out front at the time of the shots.

4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Holmes was part of Will Fritz' team --

That's not exactly a fair representaion though is it? Holmes was only part of one interrogation!

4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Here's what Will Fritz actually said: ...

That is in reference to the first interrogation of Oswald, and Holmes was not at that interrogation (Holmes was at the last interrogation!)

4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

... let's move forward to compare his answer with Harry Holmes' answer.  Here is what Holmes said about the same scenario:  

 

One can not draw a direct comparison here because the only interrogation that Holmes was at was the last interrogation and that is what he is refering to, whereas Fritz is referring to the first interrogation (that Holmes wasn't present at).

* Paul, keep in mind that there were different interrogations and different people there at each one. Holmes wasn't at the first interrogation, he was at the last interrogation. That is important to note, because it is important to understand that the part you quoted from Fritz's WC testimony is in reference to the first interrogation of Oswald, and the part you quoted from Holme's WC testimony is in reference to the last interrogation of Oswald.

I have said it before a few times, it is claimed, and I repeat, it is claimed that Oswald at the first interrogation said at the time of the shots he was on the first floor having lunch (and it is claimed he then went up to get a Coke, had the encounter with Baker/Truly, and then went back down and left the building) and it is claimed that Oswald at the last interrogation said that at the time of the shots he was on a higher floor (and it is claimed that he then went down to get a Coke, had the encounter with Baker/Truly, and then went down again and left the building).

(NB: I am saying (it is claimed) quite a lot because I know that there is doubt about the 2nd floor encounter)

The thing is, and this is the important part, no where, and I do mean no where is it claimed that at the time of the shots Oswald claimed to be out front (with Shelley). It is and oft-repeated claim that Oswald did say that, but it is a myth, or, well, at best, a conflation...

The time that Oswald (it is claimed) said he was out front (with Shelley) was after the shots and after the encounter with Baker/Truly (wherever that actually was )

Here is a link that may be of interest on the subject...

https://toseekanewrworld.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/you-are-correct-he-was-outside-just-before-he-went-home/

Also, you ask...

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Can anybody believe a word that Harry Holmes says?  

To test the 'veracity' of what Holmes is saying it can be cross referenced with what others are saying.

So as one example, Holmes mentions that Oswald when leaving the building someone asked where the telephone was. (Note: Holmes on that point is merely relating what he 'overheard' and doesn't mention any additional details of who the person was - Holmes, on that point, is a 'passive' listener). We can look elsewhere to test the veracity of that. For example we can look at Agent Thomas Kelley's report HERE and see (on page 4) that he claims that Oswald asks him if he was an FBI agent and when Kelley corrects that and says he is a Secret Service agent Oswald then mentions that as he was leaving a man asked him where the telephone was (Oswald claimed that he though it was a SS agent). (Note: Kelley is a first hand witness on that point - he is relating a direct conversation between him and Oswald - Kelley is an 'active' part of it)...

We can further test if for 'veracity' by looking in to who it was that asked Oswald where the telephone was. And we come across the story of Pierce Allman. It is very important to realise that at the time of the interrogation neither Fritz, Holmes or Kelley or anyone else for that knew about Allman's story. Allman is an 'independent' source and he relates that he when he entered the TSBD for reasons of finding a phone he asked someone where the phone was and they pointed it out.

So can we believe a word that Holmes says? Well on the point of his claim that Oswald when leaving the building someone asked where the telephone was, it is corroborated by the 'first person' account of Thomas Kelley and is further corroborated by the 'independent' 'witness' Pierce Allman. So yes, it is more than reasonable to 'believe' what Holmes says because it is corroborated from both within and without ;)...

I realise the contradiction between what it is claimed Oswald said in the first interrogation (on first floor at the time of the shots) and what it is claimed Oswald said in the last interrogation (on higher floor at the time at the time of the shots) but it is very important to note that it is two different interrogations and that Holmes was only at one of those....

When you say this...

4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

He doesn't care about a consistent sequence of events, either -- he just makes a mess of the actual evidence and calls it a story and sticks to it...

I will keep my own counsel just now on what I was going to say here...

Anyroads,

regarding your other previous comment;

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

You're too literal.  Look at the gist of what I'm saying.  LHO didn't say what Will Fritz, Harry Holmes and James Hosty said he said.

What LHO told them was utterly minimal.  Fritz has a longish dialog.  Holmes includes the whole Mexico City trip.  It's all a collective fabrication by Fritz & Company.  That's the point.

Oh, where to start...

Nope I'm not being too literal and I have looked at the gist of what you're saying and given it a lot of thought!

Not only have you not offered up any real evidence to show that Oswald didn't say what it is claimed that he said in interrogation (it is not evidential to just say so) and that Fritz et al made it up, you then slightly moved the goalposts by having Oswald tell them the 'utterly minimal' (earlier you stated that he said nothing apart from the line about Abt) and you offer up no evidence to it (other than stating that Fritz et al made it up), but you haven't even addressed why, if Oswald said the 'utter minimal', Fritz et al would have to make anything up when they could just say that Oswald said nothing and the whole problem as you see it (their need to cover their own asses) disappears straight away.

It doesn't add up!

You keep saying that it is a 'collective fabrication' on the parts of Fritz & Company - I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why they would fabricate Oswald saying the Backyard Photos were faked?

I will be honest with you Paul, I don't think you are considering everything that it is claimed that Oswald said under interrogation, in fact I reckon you aren't aware of everything that it is claimed Oswald said in all the interrogations. I could be wrong of course, but that's how it feels when reading your posts. There are many things throughout what it is claimed Oswald said under interrogation that would make no sense for Fritz to invent so it must be what Oswald said - the part about the BYP is just one example -  it leads to the conclusion that it is reasonable to presume that Oswald did say it (with the caveat (that I have mentioned countless times before) that as there is no recording of any of the interrogations, and because the notes were 'finalised' weeks after the fact we can't take any of it as a verbatim account. That is aximoatic. So we have to consider whether it is a 'fair' representation or not.) And giving it consideration (and looking at everything that it is claimed Oswald said) whilst it may not be 'verbatim' it is reasonable to say that it is, in all likliehood, a fair representation.

And if it is a fair representation then the 'contradictions' therein are Oswald's. That could be because Oswald was the 6th floor shooter and is trying to cover his ass but tripping up on his story OR it could be because of what Bill said in this earlier comment. That's two opposing thoughts and yet both can have the contradictions as being Oswald's contradictions.

I think the biggest stumbling block you are having is the 'Mexico City' thing - and I did previously say that on that point alone you may be on to something. (That is to say that with regards to your claim that Holmes claims that Oswald spilled the lot about his trip to Mexico you may be able to show that is a fabrication, it's just with most of the other things you don't seem to be able to show that it is a fabrication, merely stating it isn't good enough, and if you can't show that the rest of it is a fabrication then it could hurt your theory if you can prove the Mexico City part alone was a fabrication. )

Anyway, let me just now have a look at the 'Mexico City' thing... first I will have to refresh my memory,

In this comment you said: " Harry Holmes unraveled the whole thing by his claim that LHO spilled the beans about Mexico City trip"
In this comment I asked:  Can you link to the whole 'spilled the beans about Mexico City trip' please.
In this comment Michael Clark helpfully linked to it and in this comment you helpfully linked to the rest.

Those links will make it easier to follow the relevant parts. Ok, I will now go and have a look at it. What am I looking for again? Oh yeah, I've to look for Oswald 'spilling the beans' about his Mexico City trip - my expectation then is that it will be quite a detailed explanation of what Oswald did in Mexico City and not just a quick mention of it. I will go and have a look right now, and get back to you.

 

 

 

[Alistair Briggs]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Thanks for that quote, Michael. It is very useful to me in my anti- Baker/Oswald 2nd Floor encounter campaign.

Here's another bit, from Holmes testimony, that might be useful to you.

Quote

And he didn't say what he was doing. There was a commotion outside, which he later rushed downstairs to go out to see what was going on. He didn't say whether he took the stairs down. He didn't say whether he took the elevator down.
But he went downstairs, and as he went out the front, it seems as though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine, or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke involved.
He mentioned something about a coke. But a police officer asked him who he was, and just as he started to identify himself, his superintendent came up and said, "He is one of our men." And the policeman said, "Well, you step aside for a little bit."

Seems Holmes is putting the encounter on the first floor.

(Just to highlight though for consideration, Holmes also has Oswald rushing downstairs after the commotion)

Regards

[Michael Clark]

Holmes:

"And he didn't say what he was doing. There was a commotion outside, which he later rushed downstairs to go out to see what was going on. He didn't say whether he took the stairs down. He didn't say whether he took the elevator down.
But he went downstairs, and as he went out the front, it seems as though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine, or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke involved. He mentioned something about a coke. But a police officer asked him who he was, and just as he started to identify himself, his superintendent came up and said, "He is one of our men." And the policeman said, "Well, you step aside for a little bit."

--------------------------

I'm going to pick this apart a bit.... and then I'll rebuild it, taking some latitude.

---------------------------

And he didn't say what he was doing. testifying to nothing, so I'll delete

There was a commotion outside, which he later rushed downstairs to go out to see what was going on.

He didn't say whether he took the stairs down. testifying to nothing, so I'll delete

He didn't say whether he took the elevator down. testifying to nothing, so I'll delete

But he went downstairs, and as he went out the front, it seems as though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine, or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke involved.
He mentioned something about a coke. he had a coke, by all accounts

But a police officer asked him who he was, and just as he started to identify himself, his superintendent came up and said, "He is one of our men." And the policeman said, "Well, you step aside for a little bit."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upon reconstruction... with some commentary .....

"There was a commotion outside, which he later rushed downstairs to go out to see what was going on. The commotion is that the motorcade is arriving. The word "later"' looks to be an insertion, interpolation or forced assertion.

He had a coke with him.

"But a police officer asked him who he was, and just as he started to identify himself, his supervisor came up and said, "He is one of our men." "Just as he started to identify himself" looks awkward, forced. We can't have LHO identify himself to a cop this early in the game. "He is one of our men" sounds like cop talk. I would expect to hear "he works here", or "he works for me".

The policeman said, "Well, you step aside for a little bit." and Prayer Man is born.

--------------------------------------

And now for the reconstruction and interpolation.

LHO was in the first floor lunchroom, the motorcade was late. He went up to get a coke. He could hear that the motorcade was coming, due to the commotion. He came back downstairs, and went out front, with the Coke. The assassination took place. Chaos ensues. Truly and an officer head up the steps, asking some quick questions. LHO identifies himself and steps aside, for a little bit.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Alistair Briggs]

9 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

LHO was in the first floor lunchroom, the motorcade was late. He went up to get a coke. He could hear that the motorcade was coming, due to the commotion. He came back downstairs, and went out front, with the Coke. The assassination took place. Chaos ensues. Truly and and officer head up the steps, asking some quick quick questions. LHO identifies himself and steps aside, for a little bit.

I like what you have done there Michael, kudos.

Quick question, are you meaning that the Baker/Truly encounter with Oswald (as Prayer Man) happened on the stairs?

 

[Michael Clark]

2 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

I like what you have done there Michael, kudos.

Quick question, are you meaning that the Baker/Truly encounter with Oswald (as Prayer Man) happened on the stairs?

 

I am saying this happened on the front steps. Holmes doesn't identify an officer, so who knows which one it is. Baker could be around the side or back of the building.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Michael Clark