Prayer Man

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In his interrogation, Oswald DID say he was outside on the steps with Bill Shelley watching the P. Parade during the shooting.

That was his real alibi. Too uncomfortable for the authorities. So they covered that up and claimed he said he was inside on the first floor.

 

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Uhhh... Where did he say that? The draft discovered by Kamp does not say when he went outside to watch the P. Parade nor where he was during the shooting. It is an assumption that the P. Parade line was his alibi.

 

The following is from one of Oswald's interrogation reports:

Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home.

This is corroborated by Hosty's handwritten note:

O [Oswald] stated he was present for work at TBD on the morning of 11/22 and at noon went to lunch. He went to 2nd floor to get Coca Cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P. [Presidential] Parade.

 

Taking them together, we know that Oswald claimed the following in his interrogation:

1. He went to lunch at noon.
2. Before eating, he went to the second floor to get a Coke to have with lunch.
3. He then went to the first floor, stood around, and had lunch in the employees' lunchroom.
4. He then went outside to watch the presidential parade, where he stood with Bill Shelley for five or ten minutes.
5. [Since Bill Shelley stood on the TSBD steps, that is also where Oswald stood.]

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The draft discovered by Kamp does not say when he went outside to watch the P. Parade...

 

Well obviously Oswald said he went out DURING the P. Parade. Not before. Not after.

And since he said he stood there with Bill Shelley for five or ten minutes, that narrows the timing down quite a bit. Bill Shelley was obviously out there to see the parade himself.

If you can't see this, I think you're in denial.

 

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It is an assumption that the P. Parade line was his alibi. But neither Hosty nor any of the other participants in the interview said that was his alibi.

 

OMG of course that was his alibi! That he went outside to watch the motorcade? As opposed to being inside shooting the president. Jeez Pat, how can that not be considered an alibi?

 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

42 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

OMG of course that was his alibi! That he went outside to watch the motorcade? As opposed to being inside shooting the president. Jeez Pat, how can that not be considered an alibi?

Please explain why Oswald did not shout from the rooftops during the multiple times he was in the proximity of the media on Nov. 22 and 23 that he was outside watching the motorcade and not assassinating President Kennedy?

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Please explain why Oswald did not shout from the rooftops during the multiple times he was in the proximity of the media on Nov. 22 and 23 that he was outside watching the motorcade and not assassinating President Kennedy?

 

What difference would his doing that make? Do you think that would make him sound any less guilty than any other alibi he might use?

Think about it. Had Oswald yelled out, "Hey, I couldn't have shot the president... I was busy outside watching the presidential parade!" Would the reporters in response have exclaimed, "Release that man! He couldn't have killed the president... he was outside watching the presidential parade!"  LOL

The fact is that he didn't yell out ANY alibi. That doesn't mean he didn't have one. And it doesn't mean he was guilty.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What difference would his doing that make? Do you think that would make him sound any less guilty than any other alibi he might use?

Think about it. Had Oswald yelled out, "Hey, I couldn't have shot the president... I was busy outside watching the presidential parade!" Would the reporters in response have exclaimed, "Release that man! He couldn't have killed the president... he was outside watching the presidential parade!"  LOL

Are you seriously asking me what difference it would have made? Gee, how about giving journalists the impetus to question police and other authority figures about Oswald's specific claim in real time, not to mention asking the same question of the numerous Book Depository witnesses who were funneled in and out of Dallas PD headquarters during the assassination weekend.

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Well obviously Oswald said he went out DURING the P. Parade. Not before. Not after.

And since he said he stood there with Bill Shelley for five or ten minutes, that narrows the timing down quite a bit. Bill Shelley was obviously out there to see the parade himself.

If you can't see this, I think you're in denial.

 

 

OMG of course that was his alibi! That he went outside to watch the motorcade? As opposed to being inside shooting the president. Jeez Pat, how can that not be considered an alibi?

 

 

Nope. Let's stick to the facts. Oswald himself never offered his being outside as an alibi. Those who spoke to him said he'd denied being the shooter, and said he was in the Domino Room at the time. If they were gonna lie about his "alibi" does it not make sense that they would claim he'd said something that incriminated him--such as something that could easily be refuted?

Hmmm... IF Hosty really did mean to imply that Oswald claimed he was outside during the shooting, this would have been exactly the kind of lie the powers that be would tell to further implicate Oswald in the crime. He said he was outside. No one saw him outside. Case closed.

Coincidence? I suspect so. Hosty doesn't specify that the line about the P. Parade was Oswald's alibi, and everything he said afterwards indicates that Oswald didn't claim that as his alibi.

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2022 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

PS: No one saw him outside.

Does anyone really think that if PM is Oswald Frazier was going to say that?

With all the things being done to him and his sister to incriminate both him and LHO?

[Pat Speer]

23 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

PS: No one saw him outside.

Does anyone really think that if PM is Oswald Frazier was going to say that?

With all the things being done to him and his sister to incriminate both him and LHO?

Yes, absolutely. Frazier stuck to his guns (or rather lack of a gun) regarding the paper bag. If Oswald was on the front steps, Frazier would almost certainly have said so. He would have figured, moreover, that others had seen Oswald as well, so why lie about it. 

There is no evidence whatsoever supporting that there was some mass cover-up about Oswald's being outside. It is, in the words of our good "friend" Bugliosi, pure moonshine. 

[Tom Gram]

On 8/5/2022 at 3:35 PM, Tom Gram said:

I posted this on ROKC a while back. It's a memo I found in the files of Jim Garrison regarding Frazier's Shaw trial testimony:

Why the hell would Frazier bring up Doorway Man without any prompting and give such a cryptic answer: "I know that was not him"? Sure he probably knew it was Lovelady by why not just say so? It's the kind of bizarre, sketchy response you'd expect from someone who knew that Doorway Man wasn't Oswald because they knew where Oswald was really standing. 

Frazier seemed "very disturbed" about testifying and asked for protection from the press, then became "rather inquisitive" about Garrison's case and spontaneously brought up Doorway Man. Was Frazier worried that Garrison got ahold of a film showing him talking to Oswald on the steps? Who knows, but either way it's a pretty interesting memo IMO. 

Pat, I wouldn’t be so sure about Frazier. This Garrison memo in particular really made me wonder, and like Jim said he was arrested and threatened as a co-conspirator. Also his polygraph test from that night has disappeared. Sticking to his guns about the bag is not enough to assume his complete credibility in every area of the case, IMO. Several aspects of Frazier’s story are at least questionable, and it’s not like the DPD were above intimidating witnesses to change their stories or keep their mouth shut on certain topics. I don’t really have a firm opinion on Frazier either way, but there’s enough in the record to warrant at least a little bit of skepticism, IMO. 

As for PM, I think the only two viable options are Oswald or a non-employee, and the only thing that will resolve the debate is better scans. Even if PM isn’t Oswald though, that doesn’t exclude the possibility of Oswald’s presence near the front entrance of the TSBD, and Frazier spotting him there - like if he was inside the glass doorway or something. I just don’t think it’s such a sure-thing that Frazier would be singing to the rooftops to exonerate his buddy while under threat of prosecution as a co-conspirator by perhaps the most corrupt justice system in America. 

Edited August 13, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Pat, I wouldn’t be so sure about Frazier. This Garrison memo in particular really made me wonder, and like Jim said he was arrested and threatened as a co-conspirator. Also his polygraph test from that night has disappeared. Sticking to his guns about the bag is not enough to assume his complete credibility in every area of the case, IMO. Several aspects of Frazier’s story are at least questionable, and it’s not like the DPD were above intimidating witnesses to change their stories or keep their mouth shut on certain topics. I don’t really have a firm opinion on Frazier either way, but there’s enough in the record to warrant at least a little bit of skepticism, IMO. 

As for PM, I think the only two viable options are Oswald or a non-employee, and the only thing that will resolve the debate is better scans. Even if PM isn’t Oswald though, that doesn’t exclude the possibility of Oswald’s presence near the front entrance of the TSBD, and Frazier spotting him there - like if he was inside the glass doorway or something. I just don’t think it’s such a sure-thing that Frazier would be singing to the rooftops to exonerate his buddy while under threat of prosecution as a co-conspirator by perhaps the most corrupt justice system in America. 

The polygraph disappeared because the DPD was trying to hide Frazier's non-compliance in the days after the shooting. The story was put out that Oswald was seen carrying a bag, and then a story was put out that the bag had Oswald's prints on it. But the story of Frazier and his sister--which indicated the bag was too small to have held the rifle--was suppressed for some time after the shooting. 

As far as Frazier's lack of credibility... Almost every witness' story changed over time. This is not a surprise. This is to be expected. Over time, our memories--which are based on our impressions, which are quite often inaccurate to begin with--change to conform to what we feel to be true. In Frazier's case, almost every change in his story has added to the likelihood of Oswald's innocence. As a result, it makes no freaking sense to assume he is concealing facts that would prove Oswald's innocence. 

As far as PM, I believe I was the first to suggest it could be Sarah Stanton, who Frazier said was standing beside him. I have seen nothing since to suggest it isn't Stanton. The only thing that gives me any doubt that it is Stanton is Frazier's failure to say so. Instead, after being confronted with the PM image time and time again, he says that he doesn't know who that is.

While a lot of researchers focus on the malleability of witnesses when confronted by law enforcement, I think very few realize that these same witnesses are often coerced or pressured into saying stuff contrary to what they believe by people like themselves. I've seen this for myself. I've seen witnesses confronted by people with a clear agenda, where the witnesses end up letting these people think they agree with them, when they do not. Tellingly, I once confronted James Jenkins on this very issue. I pointed out that people were using his statements to suggest there was a gaping hole on the back of Kennedy's head, when he'd been very clear that there was no such gaping hole. He looked at me and said, with a world-weary voice, "People will believe what they want to believe."

 

Edited August 13, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Robbie Robertson]

Remember when Tom O’Neil got the story about Vincent bugilosi and his cover ups, not only did he personally record Vince but he was suing Tom and Tom filed many FOIA requests with assault charges on Vince 

 

and another thing if you look up the supposed daughter and who Tom spoke with at the age of 5 or 6 talks about being picked up by bugilosi taken to a toy store and bought anything she wanted and dropped off in the driveway which the mom called the police on him. She came out after his death and she wasn’t even seeking money or political slander as they mentioned back in his elections in 72 

 

https://atwaatwar.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/the-vince-bugliosi-story-16-3-mb.pdf

Edited August 13, 2022 by Robbie Robertson

[Roger Odisio]

Pat sez:

"Uhhh... Where did he say that? The draft discovered by Kamp does not say when he went outside to watch the P. Parade nor where he was during the shooting. It is an assumption that the P. Parade line was his alibi. But neither Hosty nor any of the other participants in the interview said that was his alibi."

You have already said you're convinced to a "near certainty" (I think was the term you used) that Oswald was not on the 6th floor at the time of the murder.  So what is the importance of your claim that the note does not say *when* Oswald went outside.  Is it your intention to stretch the meaning of "when" to give Oswald time to descend from the 6th floor after shooting Kennedy?  No ? (that would seem to contradict you conviction just stated above)  Then why does it matter for the larger question of who murdered Kennedy whether Oswald went outside before, during, or shortly after the shooting?  Please explain.

There's that it's only an assumption line again.  You don't deny Oswald said it during questioning.  He said he went outside after getting a Coke and eating his lunch.  You don't deny Hosty recorded it.  The focus of that interrogation was certainly "where were you when Kennedy was shot?". Yet it's not clear to you that Oswald's claim is  in response to that question.  It's only an assumption that it is, you say.  It's not clear that its Oswald's alibi. Why?  What else could it be?   Care to enlighten us about that? 

We don't need Hosty or the others to tell us that statement was Oswald's alibi. Plus, you  know as well as anyone that the last thing the authorities wanted to discuss was Oswald's alibi.  They buried it.

I'm left to wonder, Pat, why, if you think Oswald did not do it, you have put such energy into disputing the claim that Prayerman could be Oswald.

[Robbie Robertson]

45 minutes ago, Robbie Robertson said:

 

https://atwaatwar.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/the-vince-bugliosi-story-16-3-mb.pdf

[Tom Gram]

41 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The polygraph disappeared because the DPD was trying to hide Frazier's non-compliance in the days after the shooting. The story was put out that Oswald was seen carrying a bag, and then a story was put out that the bag had Oswald's prints on it. But the story of Frazier and his sister--which indicated the bag was too small to have held the rifle--was suppressed for some time after the shooting. 

As far as Frazier's lack of credibility... Almost every witness' story changed over time. This is not a surprise. This is to be expected. Over time, our memories--which are based on our impressions, which are quite often inaccurate to begin with--change to conform to what we feel to be true. In Frazier's case, almost every change in his story has added to the likelihood of Oswald's innocence. As a result, it makes no freaking sense to assume he is concealing facts that would prove Oswald's innocence. 

As far as PM, I believe I was the first to suggest it could be Sarah Stanton, who Frazier said was standing beside him. I have seen nothing since to suggest it isn't Stanton. The only thing that gives me any doubt that it is Stanton is Frazier's failure to say so. Instead, after being confronted with the PM image time and time again, he says that he doesn't know who that is.

While a lot of researchers focus on the malleability of witnesses when confronted by law enforcement, I think very few realize that these same witnesses are often coerced or pressured into saying stuff contrary to what they believe by people like themselves. I've seen this for myself. I've seen witnesses confronted by people with a clear agenda, where the witnesses end up letting these people think they agree with them, when they do not. Tellingly, I once confronted James Jenkins on this very issue. I pointed out that people were using his statements to suggest there was a gaping hole on the back of Kennedy's head, when he'd been very clear that there was no such gaping hole. He looked at me and said, with a world-weary voice, "People will believe what they want to believe."

 

Is there any evidence backing up the idea that Frazier's polygraph was suppressed for the reasons you suggest? Frazier was making his claims about the paper bag on the day of the assassination and they appeared in an FBI report the following day:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57698#relPageId=142

In this report it is said that despite his observations of the bag being two feet long, Frazier "paid little attention" to the size. Is there any reason to believe Frazier claimed differently in his polygraph?  

Linne Mae supposedly told the FBI the bag was 3 feet 6 inches on the 22nd. The two siblings immediately placed the bag in Oswald's hands; debate about the size of the bag at that point hardly seems like such a controversial issue that it would be the sole reason for the egregiously suspicious disappearance of Frazier's polygraph, IMO. 

As for Frazier changing his story in ways that support Oswald's innocence, could that not also be reflective of Frazier feeling guilty? Read that Garrison memo I posted - does that not seem like someone who knows he can't really tell the full truth and is seriously troubled by his burden? Suggesting Oswald's innocence in various statements may have been a way for Frazier to temporarily relieve some of that burden over the years. I know this is armchair psychology but I don't think it's any less believable than what you proposed. 

As for PM, IMO, the only thing that has been firmly established in the debate is that PM is not Sarah Stanton. There is enough clarity in the films to compare with pictures of Stanton, and it's just not even close. The protruding grey-blond poofy hair alone is enough, IMO, but her facial and body proportions seal the deal. Also, Frazier has been pretty clear in public statements that Stanton was standing to his left. That supposedly first-gen copy of the Darnell film you've mentioned also shows a figure on the east of the steps that matches Stanton's head/hair - and there is a frame grab of that film on Bart Kamp's website. I'm not sure that's a coincidence:

http://www.prayer-man.com/tsbd/sarah-stanton/

I think there's a chance PM is a random non-employee, and there is even a potential candidate IMHO, but I think the evidence placing Oswald on or near the steps is not insubstantial and there is a solid argument that no strangers were present - thus PM as Oswald cannot be ruled out without better scans. If it isn't Oswald, big deal, but that non-zero chance, however small, that the case could be immediately reopened is worth taking - so obtaining better copies of the Darnell and Weigman films should be top top priority for the 60th anniversary IMO. 

[Pat Speer]

50 minutes ago, Robbie Robertson said:

Remember when Tom O’Neil got the story about Vincent bugilosi and his cover ups, not only did he personally record Vince but he was suing Tom and Tom filed many FOIA requests with assault charges on Vince 

 

and another thing if you look up the supposed daughter and who Tom spoke with at the age of 5 or 6 talks about being picked up by bugilosi taken to a toy store and bought anything she wanted and dropped off in the driveway which the mom called the police on him. She came out after his death and she wasn’t even seeking money or political slander as they mentioned back in his elections in 72 

 

https://atwaatwar.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/the-vince-bugliosi-story-16-3-mb.pdf

I hope you didn't take my quoting Bugliosi as a sign I hold him in high regard. My calling him a 'friend" was an inside joke between Jim and me. Jim has done more to discredit Bugliosi re the JFK assassination than anyone. But I am probably a close second. We have a mutual distrust/dislike for Bugliosi's book. If you haven't read it, you might find Chapter 19b on my website ("Vincent Bugliosi is the Real Oliver Stone") of interest.