Jump to content
The Education Forum

Oswald Leaving TSBD?


Recommended Posts

Very quick recap:

Once it became clear that the police urgently needed to stop talking about the Oswald-Officer-Truly encounter at the front entrance, the encounter was moved deep into the building, at or near the rear stairs.

The 3rd/4th floor rear stairway story was quickly superseded by the lunchroom story.

Which became: the lunchroom stories.

**

The initial plan was simply to transplant Oswald up to the lunchroom, stretch the timeline and worry about the details later.

Oswald was still alive and had every prospect of going to trial, so his damaging ability to describe an officer and Mr. Truly coming in to the first floor needed to be preempted by a story involving the officer and Mr. Truly's coming into the lunchroom.

Truly's inflated time estimate in his first on-the-record account of the lunchroom incident (11/22 FBI interview) tells us how the thing was going to be played:

6iqJeBY.jpg

Two or three minutes? Yeah, right. The WC would struggle badly, even with the help of numerous time-trial shenanigans, to stretch the time to 90 seconds.

But as of the night of 11/22, the gambit was to inflate the time enough to give Oswald a chance to descend from the sixth floor but not enough to delay overmuch his exit from the building.

Then all the Oswald accusers had to do was drive home the incongruity of a man alone and palely loitering in a lunchroom while everyone else was either outside or looking outside.

TutKDZ6.jpg

**

But what was Oswald actually doing in the lunchroom when Baker spotted him?

At first the question was fudged: Truly in a suite of statements simply has him "in" the lunchroom, specific location and activity left vague.

Then, very quickly, the incongruity of Oswald's behaviour gets sharpened up by the detail of his sitting at one of the tables.

Within about a week, Oswald is brought suddenly to his feet:

Truly describes him, first, as leaning against the counter and, then, as standing right over at the coke machine.

**

Why the coke machine?

Because Oswald had talked about purchasing a coke before the assassination--having him over by the coke machine turned this into a cool post-assassination act.

But there was a second reason.

In February 64 French researcher Leo Sauvage contacted Roy Truly and grilled him about the lunchroom incident.

Truly revealed the game plan as he and Baker headed in to March 64 and their rendezvous with the WC at the TSBD:

the officer (name still unknown to Truly!) evidently had heard a noise coming from the lunchroom.

The noise, evidently, of a coke machine delivering up its product to the man who had just shot the President.

**

This was a crucial addition, for it gave Baker a reason for checking out the lunchroom--a reason he badly needed, as the lunchroom was nowhere near being in his line of sight as he came off the landing.

Just look how far he would have had to swing over to the right to get a line into the lunchroom:

5zKFhNl.jpg

The door of the lunchroom being open, the noise of the coke machine would have been heard by Baker.

Except... it wouldn't.

For there was another door between Baker and the coke machine, and--disastrously--it was an automatically self-closing door.

The new story as told in the Washington Post Dec 1--

dynf6n0.jpg

--seemed beautifully clean and convincing.

However its lack of acoustic plausibility meant that a further refinement would be in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Then all the Oswald accusers had to do was drive home the incongruity of a man alone and palely loitering in a lunchroom while everyone else was either outside or looking outside.

O WHAT can ail thee, patsy-without-arms,

Alone and palely loitering?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if Truly has been identified out in front of TSBD, but here are my suggestions in a frame from Wiegman and a frame from Darnell. In the Darnell film, 'Truly' is seen spinning around after Baker has run past him.

attachicon.gifPDVD_671_TrulyCampbell_ed.jpg

attachicon.gifDarnellBakerTrulyl.jpg

Bjørn Gjerde

Bjørn,

Not sure if anyone else has picked out these three together in Weigman, but your ID looks solid to me.

Here are snippets of Campbell's testimony with my Boldface added:

" ... Mr . Truly and I decided to view the motorcade

and took up a position next to the curb on Elm street

adjacent to the street signal light . I recall that. at the

time of the assassination of President John F . Kennedy, Texas

School Book Depository employees, Firs . Bonnie Richey, Mrs .

Carolyn Arnold and Mrs . Jeraldean Reid were standing at nay

elbow and likewise witnessed the assassination ."

Also Campbell's description as given to James Leavelle on 2/17/1964:

"I had forgotten about the parade. I startd to lunch with Mr. Truly.

When we got downstairs Mr. Truly asked if I wanted to wait and see the parade. We waited on the front steps until the parade turned off Main Street on to Houston Street. We then walked across Elm Street and stood on the curb near the parade as it turned from Houston Street down under the underpass. ..."

So you have solid corroboration from Campbell.

Jeraldean Reid told Mr. Belin she was wearing a jacket and scarf, and that she stood next to Truly and Campbell. That also corroborates your ID.

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page274.php

Do you see any woman in Darnell that matches Reid in your Wiegman frame?

Richard,

There is a similar-looking woman as Mrs. Reid nearly at the same spot in 3 Darnell frames:

Wiegman

post-6369-0-98822800-1380114922_thumb.jpg

Darnell

post-6369-0-11387900-1380114974_thumb.jpg

Bjørn Gjerde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if Truly has been identified out in front of TSBD, but here are my suggestions in a frame from Wiegman and a frame from Darnell. In the Darnell film, 'Truly' is seen spinning around after Baker has run past him.

attachicon.gifPDVD_671_TrulyCampbell_ed.jpg

attachicon.gifDarnellBakerTrulyl.jpg

Bjørn Gjerde

Bjørn,

Not sure if anyone else has picked out these three together in Weigman, but your ID looks solid to me.

Here are snippets of Campbell's testimony with my Boldface added:

" ... Mr . Truly and I decided to view the motorcade

and took up a position next to the curb on Elm street

adjacent to the street signal light . I recall that. at the

time of the assassination of President John F . Kennedy, Texas

School Book Depository employees, Firs . Bonnie Richey, Mrs .

Carolyn Arnold and Mrs . Jeraldean Reid were standing at nay

elbow and likewise witnessed the assassination ."

Also Campbell's description as given to James Leavelle on 2/17/1964:

"I had forgotten about the parade. I startd to lunch with Mr. Truly.

When we got downstairs Mr. Truly asked if I wanted to wait and see the parade. We waited on the front steps until the parade turned off Main Street on to Houston Street. We then walked across Elm Street and stood on the curb near the parade as it turned from Houston Street down under the underpass. ..."

So you have solid corroboration from Campbell.

Jeraldean Reid told Mr. Belin she was wearing a jacket and scarf, and that she stood next to Truly and Campbell. That also corroborates your ID.

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page274.php

Do you see any woman in Darnell that matches Reid in your Wiegman frame?

Richard,

There is a similar-looking woman as Mrs. Reid nearly at the same spot in 3 Darnell frames:

Wiegman

attachicon.gifWiegman_PDVD_668_Reid.jpg

Darnell

attachicon.gifDarnell_Image1~3_Reid.jpg

Bjørn Gjerde

Bjørn,

It all fits nicely and matches the testimony.

Truly and Campbell have moved back towards the steps with Truly in the lead and Campbell a few steps behind.

Truly has his encounter with Baker.

Mrs. Reid lingers at her position on the curb for a few moments, looking West toward the Underpass, then heads back to the Entrance and up to the 2nd floor.

Well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the kings horses and all the kings men

Humpty dumpty sat on a wall

Could not put Humty together again

Humpty dumpty had a great fall

In the correct order is a rhyme

Otherwise they are just STATEMENTS

Personally i think he was pushed

How many people did Truly vouch for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if Truly has been identified out in front of TSBD, but here are my suggestions in a frame from Wiegman and a frame from Darnell. In the Darnell film, 'Truly' is seen spinning around after Baker has run past him.

attachicon.gifPDVD_671_TrulyCampbell_ed.jpg

attachicon.gifDarnellBakerTrulyl.jpg

Bjørn Gjerde

Bjorn/ Richard,

The person directly behind 'Truly' looks like woman.

I think this may be Campbell in the back:

wHXEvxp.jpg

lkONCrq.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sean,

Yes, I think you are right. Campbell is probably one of the encircled persons in the background this Wiegman frame.

Bjørn Gjerde

attachicon.gifWeigmanLarge4c.jpg

If that is Campbell in the Red Circle, his description of "next to the curb on Elm street

adjacent to the street signal light" still works.

It may also help ID some of the other individuals. There is a group of 5 women on that side of Truly and Reid.

Campbell identifies Bonnie Richey, Carolyn Arnold and Jeraldean Reid as "standing at my elbow".

Bonnie Richey remembers Campbell, Carolyn Arnold, Virgie Baker, Betty Dragoo, and Judy Johnson in the group by the Curb.

Virgie Baker includes Bonnie Richey, Carolyn Arnold, Betty Dragoo, and Judy Johnson.

Combining all their recollections and the photos, it seems like there was a cluster of eight TSBD staff: Truly, Campbell and Reid were adjacent to or mingling with Virgie Baker, Bonnie Richey, Carolyn Arnold, Betty Dragoo and Judy Johnson.

I would like to see one other view of Campbell for comparison purposes, but I am not aware of any.

Edited by Richard Hocking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truly and the others near him may have stepped back a little bit from the curb in these Wiegman frames since seconds before the Presidential limousine had nearly hit them:

Mr. TRULY. That is right. And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn.
Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb?
Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left. If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here.

Bjørn Gjerde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have seen Roy Truly's lunchroom story evolving over the first ten days or so through the following stages:

The officer saw Oswald in the lunchroom...

...The officer saw Oswald sitting at one of the tables in the lunchroom...

...No: The officer saw Oswald leaning against a counter in the lunchroom...

...No: The officer saw Oswald standing at the coke machine sipping a coca cola.

Yet Truly's WC testimony will make it clear that he himself can have seen none of these things.

All he himself actually saw was the officer standing at the lunchroom door with his gun up against Oswald, who was standing just inside the lunchroom door.

**

Those who still cling to the veracity of Baker and Truly's WC story can brush away these discrepant stories with a simple explanation:

Truly made a number of erroneous but innocent inferences.

He just filled in the gaps by making a series of guesses.

Perhaps this line of argument might be developed:

At first Truly just assumed Oswald had been sitting at a table when the officer first burst in and then rose to his feet and came towards the door.

Maybe a reporter or two just misattributed certain statements to Truly.

Maybe the whole thing is just a case of Truly's guesswork meeting journalistic Chinese whispers.

And maybe Truly refined his guesswork towards the end of November on the basis of information passed on to him by investigators that the officer back at DPD HQ was saying that Oswald had been over at the coke machine by the time he had taken his first sighting of the inside of the lunchroom.

Maybe Truly just assumed Oswald had already bought the coke.

Or maybe Truly said nothing about a coke--we have no direct quote from him mentioning a coke--but a reporter or reporters had embellished on the basis of picking up word of Mrs. Reid's sighting of Oswald with a coke in his hand just after that.

Thankfully (so the lunchroom believer will conclude) all of this was cleared up when Truly and Baker finally met up in March 64 and Truly was able to learn first-hand from Baker the true circumstances of his first glimpse of Oswald behind the closed door.

**

Sounds plausible, no?

Well, there are two very large problems with this explanation.

First:

It must ignore the fact that we have absolutely nothing on-the-record from Baker himself between end-November 63 and March 64.

Are we seriously to believe that not a single investigator thought to ask Baker for his version of events?

That no attempt was made by DPD, FBI or Secret Service in the pre-WC phase to nail down the basic facts of this exquisitely important first post-shooting sighting of the alleged assassin?

Second:

It must ignore this (click to enlarge):

xjHcuH7.png

Baker and Truly have been brought in, on the eve of the Warren Commission's findings being presented formally to President Johnson, to clarify once and for all that Oswald was on his own in the lunchroom at the time of the incident.

Yet, even as Baker dutifully clarifies this important point, he does something that is quite inexplicable on the lunchroom believer argument outlined above:

He offers a version of events that chimes perfectly with the 'erroneous' 'guesswork' version of events everyone had been told at the end of November 63:

xMB7iE7.jpg

There is no wiggle room here.

No Truly to distort the story.

No reporter to distort Truly's distortion of the story.

Just Marrion Baker himself, talking about Oswald "standing in the lunchroom drinking a coke".

The coke 'error' is pointed out to him, or he has second thoughts about it himself, and it is crossed out.

But it is still there, a glaring anomaly in the statement.

The other glaring anomaly--Oswald "standing" in the lunchroom--is allowed to, well, stand.

It is as though Baker has brought the wrong, outdated memo with him to DPD HQ and has very foolishly worked off it for his final statement on the lunchroom incident.

His WC appearance being months in the past, he has forgotten to forget the details of this earlier version he had at one point been asked to support.

What a gaffe!

Edited by Sean Murphy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Baker actually doesn't say a word about Oswald in this statement! He just saw 'a man' standing in the lunchroom. And Truly was apparently not in the vicinity either ('I saw noone else in the vicinity of the lunch room at the time'). It may suggest that Baker is uncomfortable with the whole story and is deliberately vague.

Bjørn Gjerde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Baker actually doesn't say a word about Oswald in this statement! He just saw 'a man' standing in the lunchroom. And Truly was apparently not in the vicinity either ('I saw noone else in the vicinity of the lunch room at the time'). It may suggest that Baker is uncomfortable with the whole story and is deliberately vague.

Bjørn Gjerde

Yes, just "a man".

Well spotted, Bjorn.

The main body of Baker's 23 Sep 64 statement--

ZdPREO4.jpg

--reads to me like a very early text, as though it has been lifted straight out of a late-November 63 statement drafted for or by Baker.

No mention of Oswald's name.

No mention of Truly's.

The hesitancy between second and third floor, as though this statement is being delicately harmonised with Baker's disastrous 11/22 affidavit statement ("third or fourth floor").

And, of course, "drinking a coke".

No wonder certain bits had to be crossed out in September 64 before the thing got filed for typing.

Edited by Sean Murphy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Sean is still trying to be convince us that the Second Floor lunchroom encounter never occurred and was the result of Baker and Truly being told what to say by the nameless screenwriter of the epic JFK assassination coverup, I call your attention to three facts - that the date on the handwritten statement that Sean refers to, with the crossed out "drinking a coke" is dated September 24, 1964, after the Warren Report was written and the day before it was publicly released. What the puck?

Why are they still concerned about this? Because they know its significance, and the fact that if it is reviewed in detail, as the SS did, it exonerates Oswald as being the Sixth Floor Assassin because if Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed lunchroom door, and Truly, ahead of Baker didn't see him go through that door, he didn't enter the lunchroom through that door but through the other door that leads to the offices which he left by.

Truly testified that he didn't know Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door until sometime later, and heard it through the grapevine, just as Baker later heard that Oswald bought the now famous coke and Mrs. Reid saw him with it in his hand.

The clincher however, is when they called Truly back to the Post Office Annex to get him to answer one question under oath - does the lunchroom door with the window through which Baker saw Oswald - does that door have an automatic door closing mechanism - and the answer is yes - it does, securing the fact that the door was tightly closed when Baker saw Oswald on the other side of it - and Truly didn't see Baker go through it.

So Sean would have us believe that the master coverup artists - the author of the fictional second floor encounter - made all this up in order to hide an even more telling truth - that the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter occurred at the front door.

Now its possible that Oswald is "Prayer Man" and he was like an invisible fly on the wall on the top steps of the front door - and maybe "Prayer Man" even held the door open for Baker, but if that's the case, then when Baker and Truly went to the rear of the building, Oswald - whether Prayer Man or not, he went up the front steps and entered the vestibule of the lunchroom from the south door - so Baker saw him through the window of the closed door - and while Truly continued up the steps to the third floor, Baker investigated - and confronted the man - Oswald.

Now if this story was concocted by anyone, why wouldn't they tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker? Why would they tell Baker that he saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - and why would they create a scenario that exonerates Oswald?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

The clincher however, is when they called Truly back to the Post Office Annex to get him to answer one question under oath - does the lunchroom door with the window through which Baker saw Oswald - does that door have an automatic door closing mechanism - and the answer is yes - it does, securing the fact that the door was tightly closed when Baker saw Oswald on the other side of it - and Truly didn't see Baker go through it.

[...]

Now if this story was concocted by anyone, why wouldn't they tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker? Why would they tell Baker that he saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - and why would they create a scenario that exonerates Oswald?

Bill,

I'm just speculating here.

To answer your question(s), my guess is that the bad guys didn't tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker because they realized that it would be plausible that Oswald had sneaked through that windowed door (and that the door had closed itself) just before Truly (yes, running up the stairs ahead of Baker) had an opportunity to see or hear that happen. And perhaps they did tell Baker that he had to see Oswald through the window of that door for the simple reason that it would be more plausible to have Baker catch a glimpse of the "sneaky, lurking" Oswald through the door's window (which Truly, in his haste, had missed) than to have Baker, who was in a rush to get to the upper floors, make, on a whim, a silly detour on the lowly second floor to the lunchroom, and just happen to "discover" Oswald there.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...