PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

[Bill Miller]

2 hours ago, Ed LeDoux said:

Now we need a better or another photo?

Like Wiegman AND Darnell are just not enough.

Prayer Man's shirt just isn't clear enough to examine the tag and see if its 100 percent cotton...

Thanks Bill, if we need your help, say to use that coin for the upcoming super bowl toss, we'll let you know.

When it comes to securing a better frame, again hold your quarter, we got it covered as serious researchers.

Still waiting that Sasquatch documentation, (pictures?) you said you would have by now.
And while you've been a squatchin we found Lee, documented his alibi, and how that was used against him.  
Please try and catch up. Perhaps by reading Prayer Man: Out Of the Shadows and Into the Light by Stan Dane.
Then you'll be speaking from an informed opinion and we won't have to answer already answered questions like you ask about Lee's attire.

Cheers, Ed

PS I hear Bill Kelly has an unused copy of the PM book and he has no idea where Lee was during the shooting either. (See a pattern?)

Not seeing much that I have not already known about for years. The clothing description i did not recall.

Oswald tells Fritz that Baker came to him in the lunchroom to which Truly called Baker off by saying that Lee was an employee. Lee goes on to eat his lunch. Its only later that Lee says he was with Shelly outside as Shelley and Lovelady said they came back to the TSBD through the west side of the building. At some point then Oswald would had to of met up with Shelley to ask if he could go on home.

But thanks for letting me know how informed you are.

[Mark Knight]

I still marvel at how, here as 1963 is drawing to a close, the DPD can't come up with a tape recorder to capture the interrogation of the suspect in the crime of the century. With all the radio and TV news reporters in town, plus the FBI and the Secret Service, and not a single tape recorder they could borrow. As if NBC, CBS, ABC, UPI, AP, or any of the other networks wouldn't loan a tape recorder in order to get the recording of the century.

https://www.amazon.com/1963-Norelco-Portable-Recorder-Print/dp/B00GIMNGPU

Instead, we only have Captain Fritz's handwritten notes and must trust that he didn't add anything or leave anything out.

So what Oswald told Fritz might or might NOT be accurately reflected in Fritz's notes.  NEVER lose sight of that fact. Fritz's notes are a secondhand account at best.

[Steve Logan]

3 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

I still marvel at how, here as 1963 is drawing to a close, the DPD can't come up with a tape recorder to capture the interrogation of the suspect in the crime of the century. With all the radio and TV news reporters in town, plus the FBI and the Secret Service, and not a single tape recorder they could borrow. As if NBC, CBS, ABC, UPI, AP, or any of the other networks wouldn't loan a tape recorder in order to get the recording of the century.

https://www.amazon.com/1963-Norelco-Portable-Recorder-Print/dp/B00GIMNGPU

Instead, we only have Captain Fritz's handwritten notes and must trust that he didn't add anything or leave anything out.

So what Oswald told Fritz might or might NOT be accurately reflected in Fritz's notes.  NEVER lose sight of that fact. Fritz's notes are a secondhand account at best.

Custodial Interrogation Recording Compendium By State

https://www.nacdl.org/usmap/crim/30262/48121/d/#

 

[Mark Knight]

So as of NOW Dallas PD and the Dallas County Sheriff DO record.  No, they are not REQUIRED to do so.

But the Texas statutes cited at the link provided only refer to a CONFESSION made by a defendant, as I read this. A signed CONFESSION is admissible in court...as it likely should be.  BUT introducing interview notes as evidence doesn't appear to be addressed in these citations.

Thanks for posting that.

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

 

23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Bill,

Suppose for argument's sake that it was Oswald standing in that corner, and was the one we call Prayer Man. Suppose further that most people on the stairs didn't pay much attention to who was standing there. And suppose that Wesley Frazier DID notice that it was Oswald standing there. And that he reported this to the DPD.

Do you believe that the DPD, FBI, and U.S. government officials would have allowed that information to go public? Or would they have at least tried to put a lid on it.

I believe that there were some things that those various institutions and officials could not do and they were well aware of it. For instance - there were far too many people to account for so to insure keeping a lid on certain information from getting out. .... [etc., etc.]

Thanks for your response Bill. But you didn't answer my question... you just gave some generalities.

In a nutshell, I asked what you thought the authorities would have done had Oswald indeed been standing on the TSBD landing -- back in the northwest corner -- and only Wesley Frazier noticed his being there. Would the authorities have tried to cover that fact up or not?

Please answer my specific question.

 

Edited December 29, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Bill Miller]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thanks for your response Bill. But you didn't answer my question... you just gave some generalities.

In a nutshell, I asked what you thought the authorities would have done had Oswald indeed been standing on the TSBD landing -- back in the northwest corner -- and only Wesley Frazier noticed his being there. Would the authorities have tried to cover that fact up or not?

Please answer my specific question.

 

I think that had any witnesses had said that Oswald was outside with them watching the parade pass by, then history would have to of been recorded differently. Anyone found attempting to frame an innocent person might as well have pulled the trigger that shot JFK for then they would have to answer as to why they would want to protect the guilty by framing the innocent. There could be no other motive for doing it other than being involved in the killing of the President. With no one being certain that a photo or film might surface months, if not years, later showing Oswald out in front of that building during the assassination - the retribution would have been far too much to risk in my opinion.

[Sandy Larsen]

36 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

 

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

....In a nutshell, I asked what you thought the authorities would have done had Oswald indeed been standing on the TSBD landing -- back in the northwest corner -- and only Wesley Frazier noticed his being there. Would the authorities have tried to cover that fact up or not?

Please answer my specific question.

I think that had any witnesses had said that Oswald was outside with them watching the parade pass by, then history would have to of been recorded differently. Anyone found attempting to frame an innocent person might as well have pulled the trigger that shot JFK for then they would have to answer as to why they would want to protect the guilty by framing the innocent. There could be no other motive for doing it other than being involved in the killing of the President. With no one being certain that a photo or film might surface months, if not years, later showing Oswald out in front of that building during the assassination - the retribution would have been far too much to risk in my opinion.

Thanks for your answer.

So you believe that if anybody saw Oswald on the front steps during the shooting, the authorities would not have pursued Oswald as the shooter. Because they'd be afraid that a photo might later show up proving that Oswald was innocent.

But then, even if Oswald wasn't spotted on the front steps, isn't it true that the authorities would still be afraid of a photo or some other strong testimony showing up later proving Oswalds' innocence? I mean, after all, there was a good deal of evidence popping up indicating Oswald was set up. Like a Mouser rifle being found before the Carcano was. Like no fingerprints on the Carcano.Like the fact that there was no evidence Oswald shot a rifle that day. Two Oswald wallets being retrieved. Multiple witnesses, INCLUDING BAKER, describing the wrong suspect. The gaping hole in the back of Kennedy's head indicating a shot from the front. And the list goes on.

Or do you believe that the authorities were convinced of Oswald's guilt in spite of the evidence indicating otherwise?

 

 

[Bill Miller]

52 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thanks for your answer.

So you believe that if anybody saw Oswald on the front steps during the shooting, the authorities would not have pursued Oswald as the shooter. Because they'd be afraid that a photo might later show up proving that Oswald was innocent.

I do not believe that every law enforcement agent was a conspirator, so if someone was standing with Oswald and watching the parade and said so, then Lee would have been exonerated as the 6th floor shooter. Case and point is the notes of Fritz for had he wanted to frame Oswald, then he would not have mentioned Lee claiming to have been out front with other witnesses. That would not mean that he was not one of the conspirators. Trying to find anyone that saw Lee during the shooting was one of the Commissions main goals. You seem to not appreciate the problems that would arise for any agent of the law or government agency that would have been caught dead to rights creating false evidence in the murder of  U.S. President.

But then, even if Oswald wasn't spotted on the front steps, isn't it true that the authorities would still be afraid of a photo or some other strong testimony showing up later proving Oswalds' innocence?

You are not getting it .... there is a big difference in asserting that the evidence shows that Oswald was their main suspect in the shooting of President Kennedy only to later have a photo show him outdoors and in the company of other, thus eliminating Lee as a gunman Vs deliberately destroying or hiding evidence that would exonerate Lee as a shooter.

I mean, after all, there was a good deal of evidence popping up indicating Oswald was set up. Like a Mouser rifle being found before the Carcano was. Like no fingerprints on the Carcano.Like the fact that there was no evidence Oswald shot a rifle that day. Two Oswald wallets being retrieved. Multiple witnesses, INCLUDING BAKER, describing the wrong suspect. The gaping hole in the back of Kennedy's head indicating a shot from the front. And the list goes on.

True ... there certainly was circumstantial evidence that would leave doubt that Oswald was in fact the shooter, but that has little to do with witnesses seeing or not seeing Lee elsewhere at the time of the shooting as previously mentioned. I have also heard you mention Baker describing the wrong suspect - how so and would that not have been helpful to Oswald ... please explain?

Or do you believe that the authorities were convinced of Oswald's guilt in spite of the evidence indicating otherwise?

Within hours of he assassination there was only bits and pieces of evidence known about the shooting and most of it didn't say with any certainty that Oswald was the sole assassin of the President. And none of this has anything to do with any attempts to conceal or destroy evidence concerning witnesses to blame Oswald for a murder.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Bill Miller said:

You seem to not appreciate the problems that would arise for any agent of the law or government agency that would have been caught dead to rights creating false evidence in the murder of  U.S. President.

You don't believe that the FBI altered a great deal of evidence in its quest to blame Oswald and Oswald alone for the assassination of JFK?

[Claude Barnabe]

about the Weigman & Darnell films:

Visited the UNT research library which houses the NBC5/KXAS(WBAP) films. The site has a disclaimer, " The collection does not contain footage related to John F. Kennedy's assassination on November 22, 1963. If you are interested in licensing this footage, you need to contact NBC Universal" .

Next I visited the NBCUniversal archives site. I did a search of the Weigman/Darnell footage, got no results. If it exists on the NBC site, the footage may be embedded in one of the extant motorcade films at the archive. Some footage has previews but most do not. Films without previews contain a descriptive text. I searched and found something that I thought may be of interest. I followed the procedures and submitted my request. I received a return email stating that the archive no longer licenses to individuals, only business-to-business. Search goes on.

[Bill Miller]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You don't believe that the FBI altered a great deal of evidence in its quest to blame Oswald and Oswald alone for the assassination of JFK?

I believe there was evidence that some agents within the FBI purposely misstated a witness. Julia Ann Mercer saying she recognized the man driving the truck below the knoll as being Jack Ruby would be one such example. I do not however believe that every time someone doesn't like a statement attributed to a witness that it means the FBI must have altered it, and once again it has nothing to do with Prayer Man being Oswald.or not. You earlier mentioned the large hole in the back of the President's head and how there was an attempt to cover it up within the autopsy photos. So I agree there appears to have been an attempt to downplay the rear head wound, but it was limited to the photos that the Feds had control of. Each time a Dallas Doctor mentioned the avulsion in the rear of the President's head ... the Commission Lawyer simply directed the follow-up questions in another direction. They didn't just remove it from the hearing testimony for to do so and have that act discovered later on would have been committing a crime at the highest level. The same about the Zapruder film being altered to hide something that happened as the car turning onto Elm Street from Houston. No consideration given to Zapruder using a hand-wound camera that had a running time of around 60 seconds.  That risking running down the wind and having the camera stop when the President is at his closest to Mr. Z's location doesn't seem to factor in to the equation before claiming film alteration. Not taking the time to see that Tina Towner filmed the President and the First Lady during that non-eventful period slips some peoples minds. The independent testimony of witnesses as to when the first shot was fired gets ignored before going to a mass conspiracy to hide the limos turn onto Elm Street.     

Edited December 29, 2016 by Bill Miller

[Claude Barnabe]

Anyone on this forum have email access or contact info for BWF?

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Bill Miller said:

 

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

You don't believe that the FBI altered a great deal of evidence in its quest to blame Oswald and Oswald alone for the assassination of JFK?

I believe there was evidence that some agents within the FBI misstated a witness. Julia Ann Mercer being one such example. I do not believe that every time someone doesn't like a statement attributed to a witness that it means the FBI must have altered it, and once again it has nothing to do with Prayer Man being Oswald.or not.

You don't believe the FBI intentionally hid and altered evidence that threatened the official "Oswald alone did it" story?

[Bill Miller]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You don't believe the FBI intentionally hid and altered evidence that threatened the official "Oswald alone did it" story?

Read my responses again as I am now thinking  that you are purposely not wanting to understand the differences between what could be done that if discovered would be suspicious behavior compared to what would be considered blatant criminal behavior when it comes to the evidence.

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Bill Miller said:

Read my responses again as I am now thinking  that you are purposely not wanting to understand the differences between what could be done that if discovered would be suspicious behavior compared to what would be considered blatant criminal behavior when it comes to the evidence.

Why would I ask all these questions only to purposely not want to understand? Makes no sense to me. If anything, you didn't make yourself clear the first time. But that's neither here nor there.

I now see that you believe the Feds had some kind of line they wouldn't cross in altering or hiding evidence. You believe they wouldn't engage in criminal activity when altering or hiding evidence.

So you do believe the Feds intentionally hid and altered evidence that threatened the official "Oswald alone did it" story? Just not in a criminal way?