Great New Movie Spells out the Case for Oswald as Prayer Man

[Robert Prudhomme]

It is small wonder the American legal system is such a mess, when many of the population cannot distinguish hearsay from testimony.

[Ed LeDoux]

Thank you James,

Bob,

Pauline's FBI interview is unsigned, as with a trove of others, see CE 3154 and the list of FBI interviews.

Hester, Lawrence, Neuman, etc. doesn't detract from what was placed in that document.

It was not a statement that would be signed, but a report on an interview.

Thanks though.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Thank you James,

Bob,

Pauline's FBI interview is unsigned, as with a trove of others, see CE 3154 and the list of FBI interviews.

Hester, Lawrence, Neuman, etc. doesn't detract from what was placed in that document.

It was not a statement that would be signed, but a report on an interview.

Thanks though.

And you don't find this report somewhat suspect, considering how many other FBI reports contained false information, and the fact she is the only person out of all the people on the steps to see Baker?

P.S.

Please elaborate on your reference to Hester, Lawrence, Neuman, etc.

[Thomas Graves]

It is small wonder the American legal system is such a mess, when many of the population cannot distinguish hearsay from testimony.

Howdy Bob!

I just now stumbled upon this FBI document regarding Pauline Sanders:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62319&relPageId=115&search=statement

This document from the Special Agent in Charge of the Dallas FBI office points out to J. Edgar Hoover that Pauline Sanders had said (or someone had mistakenly written) "November 22, 1964" instead of "November 22, 1963" -- an obvious mistake -- in her original FBI statement.

The important thing for us is that this 4/01/64 document, a letter / memo from Dallas FBI to Hoover, says, "Mrs. Sanders has initialed such correction" and that the "Bureau [is] requested to correct its copies..."

My question to you, Robert, is: Why don't we see Pauline Sanders' initials (see above) on the 11/22/63 document that is available for us to view on the Internet?

Answer: Because what we are looking at on the Internet is a copy, not the original. Which would explain why it (the copy) wasn't signed or initialed by Sanders.

She signed, and later initialed (see above), only the Dallas FBI original.

--Tommy

Edited October 27, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Prudhomme]

Have you seen the initialled copy that Ms. Sanders initialled, Thomas? I should think it, if it is the original report you think she might have signed, should still be on record somewhere, considering how valuable this signed piece of evidence would be.

The normal procedure would be, assuming signatures were required on FBI reports, to re-write the report, and have Ms. Sanders sign the corrected report. Without seeing the initialled report, we are still left with nothing. If you look at the page previous to the one you linked to on the Mary Ferrell site, you'll see this is precisely what the FBI did with Virginia Barnum's statement.

Just wishing something to be true does not make it so.

[Thomas Graves]

Have you seen the initialled copy that Ms. Sanders initialled, Thomas? I should think it, if it is the original report you think she might have signed, should still be on record somewhere, considering how valuable this signed piece of evidence would be.

The normal procedure would be, assuming signatures were required on FBI reports, to re-write the report, and have Ms. Sanders sign the corrected report. Without seeing the initialled report, we are still left with nothing. If you look at the page previous to the one you linked to on the Mary Ferrell site, you'll see this is precisely what the FBI did with Virginia Barnum's statement.

Just wishing something to be true does not make it so.

Dear Robert,

Of course I haven't seen the Dallas FBI original. It's probably "tucked away" somewhere in the National Archives, the Dallas FBI office, the National FBI office, or the Dallas Municipal Archives, etc,

As are Barnum's, Arnold's, Reed's, and Stanbery's corrected and initialed original statements.

Not to mention all of the 68 other signed (but uncorrected and therefore not later initialed) original FBI statements taken from TSBD employees in March, 1964.

Maybe they've even been routinely destroyed by now...

--Tommy

Edited December 8, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

Mrs. SANDERS advised that this morning she called GERALDINE REID, another employee, telephone number FE 1-6617, who told her that the police officer who had first entered the building ran into the lunch room where Mr. TRULY, the warehouse manager, and OSWALD were evidently lunching. The police officer put his gun into OSWALD's stomach but TRULY advised the police officer that OSWALD worked for him. Police officer turned turned away and evidently left the area. She said according to REID, OSWALD then went to the main office and REID, although she [Mrs Reid] had not observed the initial incident with the police officer, told OSWALD that the President had been shot. According to SANDERS, Mrs. REID claimed that OSWALD just mumbled something and left the office. She said Reid did not mention how OSWALD left the office or for that matter if she knew how he might have left the building.

If I am reading this right, not only is Mrs. Sanders' testimony of the lunchroom incident hearsay, it is hearsay of hearsay. Right?

Now, why don't we make this discussion complete and take a look at the other two witnesses who "saw" Baker (and Truly) ascending the steps of the TSBD?

Well, I for one would be interested in hearing about the other two witnesses. I've always found it odd that Officer Baker pulled his gun on Oswald for no apparent reason. Also, some time ago I read that Baker made a comment to Truly shortly afterward that Oswald was a dangerous man. What could have triggered that? (I've seen that statement mentioned just that one time, so maybe it was just some commenter's imagination running wild.)

[Robert Prudhomme]

The other two "witnesses" who testified to seeing Baker and Truly run up the steps of the TSBD, 15-22 seconds after the last shot, are Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady. As everyone knows, they were standing on the upper landing of the front steps of the TSBD.

Despite being on the top steps at the time of the last shot, these two testified to being 25 steps down the Elm St. extension when they looked back to see Truly and Baker ascending the steps. Here is how Bill Shelley described things to the WC:

"Mr. BALL - Did you see Truly, Mr. Truly and an officer go into the building?

Mr. SHELLEY - Yeah, we saw them right at the front of the building while we were on the island.
Mr. BALL - While you were out there before you walked to the railroad yards?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Do you have any idea how long it was from the time you heard those three sounds or three noises until you saw Truly and Baker going into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - It would have to be 3 or 4 minutes I would say because this girl that ran back up there was down near where the car was when the President was hit.
Mr. BALL - She ran back up to the door and you had still remained standing there?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Going to watch the rest of the parade were you?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes."

Notice that Bill Shelley said he was on the concrete island, directly across from the steps, when he saw Truly and Baker go into the TSBD, and that this occurred BEFORE he and Lovelady began walking to the rail yard. This deals a rather sharp blow to those who believe Lovelady and Shelley can be seen walking down the extension in the Darnell film. However, it echoes precisely what he said in his first day statement, in which he claimed to have gone out to the concrete island, where he ran into Gloria Calvery and received the news of the shooting. The difference was that, in his WC testimony, he was still on the steps when Calvery returned with the news, and crossed over to the island after speaking to her.

Most damning, though, is that Shelley testified to remaining on the steps of the TSBD for 3-4 minutes following the last shot, and did not leave the steps until Calvery returned to the steps with the news. In his first day statement, he claimed to cross the extension and meet Calvery at the concrete island, where she relayed the news.

Either way, there are timing problems when you try to match what Shelley stated and testified to the miraculous 15-22 second run of Baker's. If we try to believe Shelley's WC testimony, Baker could not have entered the TSBD for over 4 minutes, at which time Shelley could have been walking down the extension. If we try to believe Shellwey's first day statement, we have another timing problem. Gloria Calvery had to make her way up Elm St. from her position on the north curb (she claimed in her statement JFK was directly in front of her at the time of the first shot) to the concrete island across from the steps, where she and Shelley stopped to talk briefly. Could she have done all this in 15-22 seconds?

Here is another excerpt from Shelley's testimony:

"Mr. BALL - Did you see the motorcade pass?

Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - What did you hear?
Mr. SHELLEY - Well, I heard something sounded like it was a firecracker and a slight pause and then two more a little bit closer together.
Mr. BALL - And then?
Mr. SHELLEY - I didn't think anything about it.
Mr. BALL - What did it sound like to you?
Mr. SHELLEY - Sounded like a miniature cannon or baby giant firecracker, wasn't real loud.
Mr. BALL - What happened; what did you do then?
Mr. SHELLEY - I didn't do anything for a minute.
Mr. BALL - What seemed to be the direction or source of the sound:?
Mr. SHELLEY - Sounded like it came from the west.
Mr. BALL - It sounded like it came from the west?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Then what happened?
Mr. SHELLEY - Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said "The President has been shot" and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute."

Note the last line. "...we stopped there for a minute."

Edited December 7, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Richard Gilbride]

Just my 2 cents on Baker's actions after he had virtually reached the first step as filmed by Couch:

WCH VII reads: On March 20, 1964, counsel from the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy timed a re-enactment of my actions after hearing the shots on November 22, 1963. During this re-enactment, I reached the recessed door of the Texas School Book Depository Building fifteen seconds after the time of the simulated shot. Signed this 11th day of August 1964 at Dallas, Tex.

(s) Marrion L. Baker, MARRION L. BAKER

I can't see any reason why Baker would be diverted from sprinting straight up the seven steps. Especially with a re-enactment that brought him straight to the top of the landing. I don't see a need for having a single witness to confirm that this is what happened.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Have you seen the initialled copy that Ms. Sanders initialled, Thomas? I should think it, if it is the original report you think she might have signed, should still be on record somewhere, considering how valuable this signed piece of evidence would be.

The normal procedure would be, assuming signatures were required on FBI reports, to re-write the report, and have Ms. Sanders sign the corrected report. Without seeing the initialled report, we are still left with nothing. If you look at the page previous to the one you linked to on the Mary Ferrell site, you'll see this is precisely what the FBI did with Virginia Barnum's statement.

Just wishing something to be true does not make it so.

Dear Robert,

Of course I haven't seen the (one and only one; signed, corrected and initialed) Dallas FBI original. It's probably "tucked away" somewhere in the National Archives, the Dallas FBI office, the National FBI office, or the Dallas Municipal Archives, etc,

As are Barnum's, Arnold's, Reed's, and Stanbery's corrected and initialed original statements. Not to mention all of the 68 other signed (but uncorrected and therefore not later initialed) original FBI statements taken from TSBD employees in March, 1964.

Maybe they've even been routinely destroyed by now...

--Tommy

Considering how rigid the FBI was about most things, why do you think some corrected "statements" were signed, and some were not?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Vanessa,

I don't see how one can make a certain ID of anyone standing on the front steps from either Altgens 6 or the Darnell film. There are plenty of arguments as to ID, which is fine. I object to the certainty of ID.

Furthermore, FWIW, I think the elements comprising the front steps persons in Altgens 6 make no sense.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Just my 2 cents on Baker's actions after he had virtually reached the first step as filmed by Couch:

WCH VII reads: On March 20, 1964, counsel from the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy timed a re-enactment of my actions after hearing the shots on November 22, 1963. During this re-enactment, I reached the recessed door of the Texas School Book Depository Building fifteen seconds after the time of the simulated shot. Signed this 11th day of August 1964 at Dallas, Tex.

(s) Marrion L. Baker, MARRION L. BAKER

I can't see any reason why Baker would be diverted from sprinting straight up the seven steps. Especially with a re-enactment that brought him straight to the top of the landing. I don't see a need for having a single witness to confirm that this is what happened.

I'm happy for you, in that you don't need witnesses to corroborate Baker's entry into the TSBD. I'll bet you believe Shelley's and Lovelady's WC testimony, too.

Seriously, though, don't you find it a bit odd that neither Frazier nor Molina saw Baker enter the TSBD? He probably ran right over them on the way in.

P.S.

So, what you're saying is, if someone can re-enact something he claimed to do, and manage to do it in a timespan that coincides with someone's educated guess, that means it is true and had to have happened that way?

As I said, small wonder the American court system is such a mess.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Jon G. Tidd]

Robert Prudhomme,

I've followed with interest your argument that there's nothing to prove Marion Baker entered the TSBD. I think it's an interesting argument given that Baker changed his story over time; Baker and Truly likely knew how to play ball; and although TSBD employees (I think more than one) said they saw a police officer in the TSBD shortly after the last shot was fired, none of these employees identified the police officer as Baker.

As the movie maintains, I don't believe the second-floor lunchroom encounter occurred.

Nonetheless, I'm loath to leap to the conclusion that Baker didn't enter the TSBD. That certainly could be his purpose judging from the Darnell film.

I agree with you completely that FBI reports are not "testimony" in the legal sense. In the law, testimony is given by a duly sworn witness, in court, before a judge, and is subject to cross-examination. FBI reports, as you maintain, fall far short of testimony in the legal sense. Furthermore, as you maintain, there are good reasons to believe at least some of the FBI's JFK reports were misrepresentations by the FBI. Very good reasons.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Jon G. Tidd]

Someone here refers to hearsay.

Here's the definition of hearsay. It's a highly technical definition studied in the law school course in Evidence. It bedevils law students and bar exam takers.

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement, offered in court to prove the truth of what is stated.

Example 1: Marion Baker tells James Hosty he saw LHO on the second floor of the TSBD. Hosty records Baker's statement in writing. Later, at LHO's trial, Hosty's written record of what Baker told him is offered into evidence to prove Baker encountered Oswald on the second floor.

The trial judge correctly excludes Hosty's written record. The record made by Hosty is of an out-of-court statement that is offered in-court for the truth of what it asserts. It is hearsay.

Example 2: Marion Baker tells James Hosty he saw LHO on the second floor of the TSBD. Hosty records Baker's statement in writing. Later, at LHO's trial, Hosty's written record of what Baker told him is offered into evidence to prove Baker was alive on 11-22-63.

The trial judge admits Hosty's written record, only to prove Baker was alive on 11-22-63.

If you hate this stuff, welcome to the hearsay rule.

You may hate the hearsay rule, but don't pooh-pooh it.

[Richard Gilbride]

Tommy Graves: if Baker & Truly were on the 2nd-floor landing while Adams & Styles were somewhere on the 3rd-floor landing, was there enough time for Truly to get inside the lunchroom before he could be seen by Adams & Styles, given that Truly had apparently continued straight ahead and started walking up the stairs to the 3rd floor, and then, realizing that Baker was no longer behind him, gone back down and entered the lunchroom itself?

Truly testified he "was up two or three steps before I realized the officer wasn't following me." He absolutely had time to get into the vestibule, and then mosey up to the lunchroom doorframe (with the vestibule door automatically closing a few seconds after he proceeded through the vestibule doorframe), before the young ladies arrived on the 2nd-floor landing.

I don't think that it matters much whether Truly ever realized the young ladies were just up ahead of him. I strongly suspect he was laying a trap for Baker- that he knew Oswald was at the vestibule door, and that Baker would most likely find that suspicious, being that deep in the building, far from the parade.

Truly's plan for a quickly-arriving cop was to get him in the lunchroom while the west elevator descended, and it worked to perfection. But Baker was so fast in his response, 15 seconds faster than anticipated, that Truly was forced into hyperdrive. This "perfection" may seem like circular logic, but more closely resembles a well-designed football play. Their mad dash to the freight elevators & 2nd-floor landing was over and done by as little as 50 seconds after the head shots.