The Killing Floor

[David Von Pein]

1 minute ago, Pat Speer said:

I think you've told us something about yourself. Could  your obsession with the LN position reflect not so much an ideological bias, as an emotional one...as an effort to keep the bread from getting greasy?

You're reaching a little far afield there, aren't you Pat? 🙂

The "greasy bread" thing is just basic common sense.

And the solution to who killed JFK pretty much boils down to basic evidence-based common sense too (IMO).

 

[Mark Knight]

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

You're reaching a little far afield there, aren't you Pat? 🙂

The "greasy bread" thing is just basic common sense.

And the solution to who killed JFK pretty much boils down to basic evidence-based common sense too (IMO).

 

I think we've beaten a dead chicken long enough. 

[But since you've been a KFC franchisee, you probably already know what my son who's worked there tells me: what sells grocery-store deli fried chicken is the "bargain" $1 per piece on-the bone price, as opposed to whatever KFC and Lee's Famous recipe charge today. Also, KFC needs to bring back the seasoned potato wedges, so I don't have to drive to Lee's to get them.]

[David Von Pein]

12 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

KFC needs to bring back the seasoned potato wedges...

Nah. The new KFC fries are much better.

Edited October 20, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Comment on the second-floor lunchroom encounter

I just worked through Bart Kamp's exhaustive study of the second-story lunchroom encounter. The primary research material is all there and it represents a ton of time and research and analysis on the part of Kamp to which I can only stand in awe (http://www.prayer-man.com/the-second-floor-lunch-room-encounter-in-a-nutshell/). But after working through it it seems to me a modified interpretation of a second-story lunchroom encounter is a better explanation of the evidence than a disappearance of it. The modifications would be that Oswald went up before the shots to get a coke to have with his lunch, then after the assassination went up to the second floor a second time for the purpose of leaving the building by the rear stairwell and out the back. But as he was about to exit he saw Baker through the door window and Baker saw him turn back and away, prompting Baker's reaction. 

The main problem with rejecting the existence of the second-floor lunchroom encounter is it requires assumption of wilful coordinated lying, wilful telling of fabrication, on the part of four persons: Truly, Baker, Marvin Johnson, and Mrs. Reid. That is a bridge too far. Better to find other explanations for the anomalies than to go that bridge too far.

Oswald never was on those rear stairs so all of the discussion and debates over who was and when, while interesting if that can be worked out, is in the end irrelevant to Oswald's actual movements. There is a separate case that Oswald was framed not in the sense of advance making him out to be the shooter but in advance acquisition of and then planting and using his rifle on the sixth floor, a rifle Oswald acquired as part of an ATF/Dodd committee related firearms investigation. I have come to realize that Oswald as patsy does not require Oswald to be employed in the TSBD or other inside persons inside the TSBD, rather all it takes is for Oswald to be employed almost anywhere downtown within the vicinity of the parade route and the actual assassination then undertaken around that location logistically, not necessitating Oswald's advance knowledge. As for how the assassin(s) exited the TSBD if not Oswald, the simplest mechanism would be via having gained access to be inside the building the afternoon before, remaining inside overnight, then after the assassination leaving the building normally along with other law enforcement, plain-clothed and with credentials to show if needed, or some sort of other credible alibi for being in the building. TSBD employees should have been asked whether anyone saw anyone unusual enter or in the building the previous day. Notions of a hurried flight down the stairs or surreptitious elevator escape can be dismissed as unnecessary.  

On Baker running past the front steps in the Darnell film, that can be interpreted as he runs past the left side because blocked with people but then cut in on the right side of the steps as the fastest way to cut through the people. Going up the right side of the steps among the people could explain why Frazier did not notice him, if he wasn't looking that way or noticed (in the Darnell film Frazier is looking in the opposite direction perhaps at where the presidential limousine was last visible, after the shots). Similarly with Lewis and Molina, their lack of noticing best understood as missing it in the confusion of the moment rather than that Baker and Truly did not go inside as other testimony and evidence says they did. That the man Baker saw on the "fourth floor" was Oswald is confirmed by Truly (who knew Oswald and could not be mistaken) and by Baker who identified the arrested Oswald later that afternoon as the same man he encountered on the "fourth floor" according to Baker in his Warren Commission testimony. On the claimed anomaly that Baker's written statement does not have his sighting of the arrested Oswald even though another officer's, Marvin Johnson's, first-day report told of Baker making that identification and Baker in his WC testimony saying he made that identification at that time, I see an explanation for that in Baker having written his statement before he saw Oswald brought in, but while he was still there. That is, that Baker's written statement lacks that does not mean Marvin Johnson's and Baker's testimony that Baker saw Oswald after his arrest is not true; their testimony prima facie argues it is true. On Baker's physical description, the weight is certainly off but the "light brown" jacket could be interpreted as Oswald's gray jacket, which is what Oswald certainly did wear that day to work and it was not C162, compare to the C162 Tippit killer's jacket described by Tippit crime scene witnesses, and which can visibly be seen today, as near-white or light tan in color, even though C162 is commonly described in the Warren Report as "gray".

Mrs. Reid was telling her coworkers on the second floor within an hour, of Oswald in the lunchroom meeting the police officer, and I consider it again a non-starter that she was suborned to lie by invisible handlers. That Geneva Hines did not see Oswald after the assassination even though she was on the second floor throughout is explicable in terms of she had left her working area to look for windows in offices along the south wall, or was in the bathroom, and missed Oswald in transit on that floor one of those ways. The 11/23/63 FBI interview report of Martha Reed may support Mrs. Reid having returned to the second floor earlier than her other coworkers which in any case Geneva Hines said was ambiguous in her memory. 

Both Baker and Truly at various times said Oswald had nothing in his hands when Baker confronted him, which is in agreement with the reconstruction that Oswald had been stopped in the process of an attempt to exit, not there to get a coke on this second time he was there during his lunchtime that day. If Oswald did then buy another coke after Baker and Truly left, it would only be to make it appear that was why he had gone there. Returning by retracing his steps back to the southeast second-to-first story stairwell, if Oswald was seen or stopped by another officer or whatever on the first floor that would be in addition to and not replace the Baker second-story encounter.

I just cannot bring myself to even consider that two civilians and two patrol officers doing their job, combined, would be suborned by always-invisible handlers to fabricate an entire untrue story in concert, subjecting themselves individually to serious penalties for perjury, and happily stick to telling that coordinated wholly fabricated story for life. I mean, maybe it is remotely, theoretically possible, but how realistic. In terms of witnesses better to go for explanations involving wide latitude for witness errors and failings and only suppose uncommon, sparing wilful lying and then for their own personally motivated reasons rarely involving subornation of perjury. That's my take on that. 

I think the better question, Greg, is not would they lie, but why would they tell that lie.

It seems a lot of today's researchers don't know their history. For decades the lunchroom encounter (the timing of, and Oswald's cool demeanor) was first and foremost in arguments for Oswald's innocence. IF it was a lie, it only follows, it  should have been a much better lie, a much more useful lie. 

Here, I'll give it a try. Instead of saying they saw Oswald on the second floor, Baker and Truly say they saw him on the fifth, finishing up an order. That puts him closer to the sixth floor--destroying all the timing questions--AND has the added benefit of providing Baker and Truly with a logical reason for not detaining him. (The guy was working for chrissakes!) It also rids the WC of the Vickie Adams problem. (Well, Oswald ambled down and out after Vickie left the stairs, you see.) 

I'm sure you could come up with an even better one.

Lies are told to push a chosen scenario. (Your radar gun must be defective, officer, because I was only going 55) To tell a lie that suggests an undesired scenario (I know you say I was going 80 but I am certain I was only going 77) is counter-productive and S-T-U-P-I-D. 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

I think we've beaten a dead chicken long enough. 

[But since you've been a KFC franchisee, you probably already know what my son who's worked there tells me: what sells grocery-store deli fried chicken is the "bargain" $1 per piece on-the bone price, as opposed to whatever KFC and Lee's Famous recipe charge today. Also, KFC needs to bring back the seasoned potato wedges, so I don't have to drive to Lee's to get them.]

I think Pat has a point there, David has been "hitting the bone" just as bad as he would any conspiracy concept.  That's telling somehow.  Same approach... strange.

One has to be able to at least accept different people can have different ideas (or a different pov, taste,...), without getting offensive or using foul language.  

 

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Paul Jolliffe]

9 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I think the better question, Greg, is not would they lie, but why would they tell that lie.

It seems a lot of today's researchers don't know their history. For decades the lunchroom encounter (the timing of, and Oswald's cool demeanor) was first and foremost in arguments for Oswald's innocence. IF it was a lie, it only follows, it  should have been a much better lie, a much more useful lie. 

Here, I'll give it a try. Instead of saying they saw Oswald on the second floor, Baker and Truly say they saw him on the fifth, finishing up an order. That puts him closer to the sixth floor--destroying all the timing questions--AND has the added benefit of providing Baker and Truly with a logical reason for not detaining him. (The guy was working for chrissakes!) It also rids the WC of the Vickie Adams problem. (Well, Oswald ambled down and out after Vickie left the stairs, you see.) 

I'm sure you could come up with an even better one.

Lies are told to push a chosen scenario. (Your radar gun must be defective, officer, because I was only going 55) To tell a lie that suggests an undesired scenario (I know you say I was going 80 but I am certain I was only going 77) is counter-productive and S-T-U-P-I-D. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pat,

A possible simple answer is that the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter lie was the best they could do under the circumstances.

I agree that placing our "Oswald" up on the 5th or 6th floor would have been much better, but Bart Kamp posited that this story was needed to cover an actual encounter with "Oswald" on the . . . first floor.

"Oswald" seemed to verify during the DPD interrogations that he was confronted by a cop somewhere at some point inside the TSBD. (Whether it was really Baker, in this scenario, is unknown.)

If, as we all suspect (except DVP) "Oswald" was nowhere near the sixth floor during the JFKA, then he probably was on the first floor eating lunch. Was he "Prayerman"? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. 

Did Roy Truly lie his eyes out about the 2nd floor? Very possibly. 

Was Marion Baker unable even as late as September 1964, to keep the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter story straight?

Absolutely. 

Personally, I am inclined to take Sandy's question seriously. I think there really is a good chance it never happened that way.

For what it's worth, the late Harold Weisberg told me in 1992 that he did not believe the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter happened the way the Warren Commission portrayed it. Back then, I was too ignorant and naive to appreciate fully what he meant. 

Now, I am (a little) wiser. 

[Denny Zartman]

So, we all think the evidence points to them confronting Oswald on the first floor instead of the second?

[Ron Bulman]

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

So, we all think the evidence points to them confronting Oswald on the first floor instead of the second?

The first floor or at all?  Remember, Baker didn't mention the second floor encounter in his first day report.  Which he wrote while he could see Oswald in the next office, likely knowing he is a suspect at the time.  Yet he doesn't mention Oswald specifically on the first floor either, while he does mention a couple of unidentified men in passing (literally).  Fishy.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Ron Bulman

[Tony Krome]

10 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

The first floor or at all?  

Curry: As an officer rushed into the building, Oswald rushed out. The policeman permitted him to pass after the building manager told the policeman that Oswald was an employee. He apparently lost himself in the crowd then.

Campbell: Truly and an officer ran into the building. In a storage room on the first floor, the officer, gun drawn, spotted Oswald. "Does this man work here?" the officer reportedly asked Truly. Truly reportedly told the policeman that Oswald was a worker.

Sounds like the same story to me.

 

 

[Mark Knight]

Sounds like a "Who's on first [floor]?"/"What's the name of the guy on second [floor]?" Abbott and Costello routine to me.

Ochus Campbell worked in the TSBD. If he claimed to witness an officer encountering Oswald near/at a storage closet on the first floor, and Roy Truly vouching for Oswald there on the first floor, that should end any speculation. If Campbell was relating what someone else told him, he might be incorrect. But still, he would know the difference in a second-floor lunchroom and a first-floor storage closet. I just don't see how he could confuse the two.

[Bill Fite]

Always found it strange that a positive response to 'Does this man work here?' was the get out of the TSBD free card.

 

[David Von Pein]

6 minutes ago, Bill Fite said:

Always found it strange that a positive response to 'Does this man work here?' was the get out of the TSBD free card.

Yes, it would have been ideal if Officer Baker had detained Oswald instead of letting him go. And I'm guessing that Marrion Baker often had feelings of guilt himself for allowing the assassin to escape the building. If Baker had detained Oswald on the spot in the lunchroom, of course, it would have saved the life of J.D. Tippit.

But, as they say, hindsight is very nearly always 20/20.

 

[Bill Fite]

38 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, it would have been ideal if Officer Baker had detained Oswald instead of letting him go. And I'm guessing that Marrion Baker often had feelings of guilt himself for allowing the assassin to escape the building. If Baker had detained Oswald on the spot in the lunchroom, of course, it would have saved the life of J.D. Tippit.

But, as they say, hindsight is very nearly always 20/20.

 

Not talking about just LHO - everyone in all the buildings around Dealy Plaza and all in the plaza should have been detained, identified and questioned.

[David Von Pein]

4 minutes ago, Bill Fite said:

Not talking about just LHO - everyone in all the buildings around [Dealey] Plaza and all in the plaza should have been detained, identified and questioned.

In a perfect world---with unlimited manpower and resources---yes, I agree with you on this 100%, Bill.

Unfortunately, there is no such world. Never has been.

Edited October 21, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Bill Fite]

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

In a perfect world---with unlimited manpower and resources---yes, I agree with you on this 100%, Bill.

Unfortunately, there is no such world. Never has been.

There were plenty of police officers in Dealey Plaza and just  around the corner.  IN addition to lHO the 2 unidentified men that Davis & Truly ran into on the ground floor should have been detained.

Davis could easily have stayed at the bottom of the stairs sealing off the floors above and detained the 2 men or waited until other officers arrived.

Likewise, the officer that went up the hill first on the Grassy Knoll should have detained every 1 he ran into.