The 2nd-Floor Baker/Oswald Encounter Has Been Debunked

[Tom Gram]

On 11/4/2022 at 11:34 AM, Jonathan Cohen said:

Ron, neither Marina nor Ruth ever mentioned anything about a planned shopping trip with Lee.. so I don't see how this theory holds any water. Lee left his wedding ring and all the money he had in the world on the dresser at Ruth's house before he left for the TSBD on 11/22/1963. Are these the actions of someone who expected to return to his family as normal later that day?

Ruth did mention a planned shoe shopping trip with Marina that afternoon, but Marina told a totally different story, which is kind of interesting. 

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2643-shoe-shopping#40734

[Jonathan Cohen]

24 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Ruth did mention a planned shoe shopping trip with Marina that afternoon, but Marina told a totally different story, which is kind of interesting. 

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2643-shoe-shopping#40734

The operative word here being “with Marina.” There’s no evidence this trip was meant to include Lee.

[Tom Gram]

21 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

The operative word here being “with Marina.” There’s no evidence this trip was meant to include Lee.

That is true, but Marina didn’t mention the planned shopping trip and told a totally different story than Ruth - so it’s possible that we aren’t getting the full story. To quote Greg Parker: 

So even a simple thing like the proposed purchase of some shoes becomes a convoluted, contradictory mess in this case.

Were the complete incoming and outgoing phone records for Ruth’s house checked for 11/22? 

[Ron Ege]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Ruth did mention a planned shoe shopping trip with Marina that afternoon, but Marina told a totally different story, which is kind of interesting. 

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2643-shoe-shopping#40734

Tom, thanks.  I knew I read it somewhere.

 

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

The operative word here being “with Marina.” There’s no evidence this trip was meant to include Lee.

Jonathan, thanks.  

Agree, at least as far as I know.  I don't know a lot of guys who look forward to a shopping trip with their wife and her friend.  LOL.

So, where does that leave us, given Greg Parker's WAS THERE A WEDDING RING" on the K & K website (thanks, Jim D. for the link)?  Oswald ever owning/wearing a wedding ring, seems much in question by the author.  And the wallet being "left" on the dresser is also addressed.

If Oswald did not really, purposely leave both at Ruth's that morning because he thought he'd not be returning to his family, do you think that gives any credence to his somewhat suspicious (unusual) actions, almost immediately subsequent to the assassination?

IOW, is there room for discussion about him doing what he did because he did in fact realize that he had been duped badly and would be implicated, and therefore, as has been theorized, went to the TT to meet a contact? 

 

 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Ron Ege said:

So, where does that leave us, given Greg Parker's WAS THERE A WEDDING RING" on the K & K website (thanks, Jim D. for the link)?  Oswald ever owning/wearing a wedding ring, seems much in question by the author.  And the wallet being "left" on the dresser is also addressed.

If Oswald did not really, purposely leave both at Ruth's that morning because he thought he'd not be returning to his family, do you think that gives any credence to his somewhat suspicious (unusual) actions, almost immediately subsequent to the assassination?

IOW, is there room for discussion about him doing what he did because he did in fact realize that he had been duped badly and would be implicated, and therefore, as has been theorized, went to the TT to meet a contact? 

Ron, the answer is that we simply don't know, and probably never will. There is zero hard evidence of Oswald meeting with any confederates in Dallas in the days/weeks prior to the assassination, so who would this "contact" have been? By what means would it have been established that this is where they were to meet? Oswald could barely rub two nickels together for most of his post-Minsk life. The idea that he'd leave all the money he had in the world behind with his wife for some mundane reason doesn't ring true for me.

[Gene Kelly]

On 11/5/2022 at 12:43 PM, Paul Cummings said:

People have said he went into the theatre to avoid detection by not paying. What I'm saying once he's inside his actions are anything but to avoid being noticed.

Point well taken, Paul.

There is so much that we will likely never know ... maybe it was Lee (not Harvey) since Burroughs spoke of him "sneaking up the stairs".  Maybe he was wandering through the theatre and sitting next to people (e.g., a pregnant woman) because he knew Tippit had been murdered (or would be sacrificed) and didn't want to be shot himself. 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Ron Ege writes:

Quote

Could you please expand on your line of thought - re your last paragraph?

Ron, all I was doing was claiming that we should start from the default position (namely that Oswald should be considered innocent of any involvement at all until proven guilty) rather than from the position that every piece of evidence cited by lone-nut supporters needs to be explained as part of a conspiracy.

Look at the items of evidence that lone-nut supporters have put forward to indicate Oswald's consciousness of guilt: the money and wedding ring he left at Ruth Paine's house; his alleged early exit from the book depository; his alleged journey by bus and taxi to the boarding house on North Beckley Street; his visit to the Texas Theater; and his apparent behaviour outside Johnny Brewer's shoe shop.

None of them are conclusive either of guilt or foreknowledge of the assassination. They can all be explained as the actions of someone who had no idea beforehand that JFK was going to be shot, and no idea until his arrest that he himself would be suspected of involvement.

We shouldn't jump to the conclusion that each of these talking points must have a conspiratorial explanation. If we do, two problems arise. Firstly, it plays into the lone-nut supporters' hands, by agreeing with them that all of these talking points are significant.

Secondly, it leads people to construct implausibly elaborate theories of the assassination. The more lone-nut talking points you consider to be significant, the more elaborate your theory becomes. Before you know it, everything that was pinned on Oswald by the lone-nut camp ends up as part of a huge pre-planned conspiracy: the purchase of the rifle and pistol, the shooting at General Walker, the murder of Officer Tippit, the murder of President Kennedy, and Oswald's exit from the scene of the crime.

Compared with a theory that tries to explain all of those things as elements of a conspiracy, the lone-nut explanation doesn't seem quite so bad. Well, says the average member of the public, there certainly are holes in the lone-gunman argument, but just look at the alternative! If the general public can be persuaded to see the assassination question as a choice of lone-nut versus implausibly elaborate conspiracy, there will never be enough public interest to get the case reopened.

Oswald could just have been a guy who was told he wasn't needed at work that afternoon and thought he might as well go and watch a film before meeting his wife at a shoe shop.

Quote

I don't know a lot of guys who look forward to a shopping trip with their wife and her friend.  LOL.

In the ROKC thread that Tom mentioned, Greg Parker suggests a plausible reason for Oswald's sudden interest in shoe shopping:

Quote

As for a comment at the EF about what guy would want to go shoe shopping with his wife and her friend? The answer is - one who was trying desperately to reunite with his wife and family

(https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2643-shoe-shopping#40737)

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Denny Zartman writes:

Quote

It seems clear that someone believed Oswald had to be silenced, so it appears reasonable to infer that he had some information that couldn't get out or that he could incriminate others.

Unless Jack Ruby genuinely was so overcome by grief that he impulsively felt that he had to kill Oswald, the first part is true: someone wanted Oswald silenced.

But this doesn't necessarily imply that Oswald possessed any inside information about the shooting. If he had had no involvement in the assassination, and no prior knowledge that it would happen, there was still a good reason to silence him: to prevent him testifying at a trial.

Oswald appears to have told the FBI and the police that he was on the first floor during the shooting, either in the domino room or outside on the steps. As I pointed out in an earlier comment, there is corroboration for parts of Oswald's alibi.

In a high-profile trial, with sufficient press coverage to ensure a degree of fairness (at least by the standards of the Henry Wade era), evidence might have been presented that would disprove the lone-gunman hypothesis. Any individual or institution that feared an honest investigation would have had the motivation to have Oswald eliminated before he went to trial.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Michael Griffiths writes:

Quote

I wonder how Red Bird Airport figures into all of this.

It's an intriguing story. I read a book years ago in which this incident was made out to be significant, but I didn't find the account convincing. In the absence of strong corroboration, I'd file it away with the other recollections of vaguely suspicious activity involving vaguely young white men who looked vaguely like that guy on the TV.

Would the idea have been to fly Oswald to Cuba, or maybe onto the Soviet Union, in order to blame those dastardly commies for the assassination? This would have been a lot of effort for not much benefit, since the Cuban and Soviet connection had been made by the discovery of the rifle that could be linked to Oswald.

Or was the idea to fly Oswald to somewhere remote, where he would end up in a hole in the desert? A car would have been a much more unobtrusive form of transport for that purpose (an objection that also applies to Robert Vinson's story about Oswald being whisked away from Dallas in a plane).

[Michael Griffith]

As others have noted, there is also Truly's 11/22/63 statement, which mentions the lunchroom encounter. That statement was not helpful to the lone-gunman position, even omitting the reference to the lunchroom encounter, so I think it's an untenable reach to suggest that Truly was lying, especially on the day of the shooting.

This is pure speculation, but some of the people managing the cover-up in Dallas may have realized the severe problems that the lunchroom encounter posed for putting Oswald on the sixth floor during the shooting, and they may have tried to make it go away but were unable to do so because there were too many early mentions of it in interviews and because the press publicized the encounter.

Some of us are inferring far too much from the few early statements that got the floors confused. Such confusion was understandable and was corrected fairly quickly.

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

 

Some of us are inferring far too much from the few early statements that got the floors confused. Such confusion was understandable and was corrected fairly quickly.

I take the point about confusing the floors, Michael. But Baker's first day affidavit states: "The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." That's a fair amount of detail, and none of it matches Oswald.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Mike Kiely said:

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Some of us are inferring far too much from the few early statements that got the floors confused. Such confusion was understandable and was corrected fairly quickly.

1 hour ago, Mike Kiely said:

I take the point about confusing the floors, Michael. But Baker's first day affidavit states: "The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." That's a fair amount of detail, and none of it matches Oswald.

 

I agree Mike K.

Michael G. doesn't seem to be aware that the 2nd-Floor Baker/Oswald encounter has been debunked:

 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael G. doesn't seem to be aware that the 2nd-Floor Baker/Oswald encounter has been debunked:

 

The 2nd-floor encounter was created by the FBI/WC to put Oswald on a more believable location (for their narrative) than at Oswald's alibi, which was the first floor and even going outside during the motorcade.

The Victoria Adams difficulties came later, and were dealt with via another FBI/WC fabrication... which was her seeing Bill Shelley and Shelley Lovelady on the bottom floor as she exited the stairway. This supposed encounter occurred several minutes after the shooting, and is what discredited Adams since she said that she immediately ran down the stairs.

 

[Ron Ege]

13 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Ron Ege writes:

Ron, all I was doing was claiming that we should start from the default position (namely that Oswald should be considered innocent of any involvement at all until proven guilty) rather than from the position that every piece of evidence cited by lone-nut supporters needs to be explained as part of a conspiracy.

Look at the items of evidence that lone-nut supporters have put forward to indicate Oswald's consciousness of guilt: the money and wedding ring he left at Ruth Paine's house; his alleged early exit from the book depository; his alleged journey by bus and taxi to the boarding house on North Beckley Street; his visit to the Texas Theater; and his apparent behaviour outside Johnny Brewer's shoe shop.

None of them are conclusive either of guilt or foreknowledge of the assassination. They can all be explained as the actions of someone who had no idea beforehand that JFK was going to be shot, and no idea until his arrest that he himself would be suspected of involvement.

We shouldn't jump to the conclusion that each of these talking points must have a conspiratorial explanation. If we do, two problems arise. Firstly, it plays into the lone-nut supporters' hands, by agreeing with them that all of these talking points are significant.

Secondly, it leads people to construct implausibly elaborate theories of the assassination. The more lone-nut talking points you consider to be significant, the more elaborate your theory becomes. Before you know it, everything that was pinned on Oswald by the lone-nut camp ends up as part of a huge pre-planned conspiracy: the purchase of the rifle and pistol, the shooting at General Walker, the murder of Officer Tippit, the murder of President Kennedy, and Oswald's exit from the scene of the crime.

Compared with a theory that tries to explain all of those things as elements of a conspiracy, the lone-nut explanation doesn't seem quite so bad. Well, says the average member of the public, there certainly are holes in the lone-gunman argument, but just look at the alternative! If the general public can be persuaded to see the assassination question as a choice of lone-nut versus implausibly elaborate conspiracy, there will never be enough public interest to get the case reopened.

Oswald could just have been a guy who was told he wasn't needed at work that afternoon and thought he might as well go and watch a film before meeting his wife at a shoe shop.

In the ROKC thread that Tom mentioned, Greg Parker suggests a plausible reason for Oswald's sudden interest in shoe shopping:

 

Jeremy, thanks.

What you've written is certainly legitimate.  

I would buy Oswald biding time in the TT until a shoe shopping/reuniting with his family rendezvous - but only if, as some have theorized, that the gun "taken" from him by the police in the TT was not his and was, in fact, a police plant. 

On the other hand, if the gun was really Oswald's and unless he was always in the habit of after work each day - going home and picking up HIS pistol before going out in public, that day in particular to the picture show, then not quite so much.

IOW, assuming the gun did belong to Oswald and if not "carrying" was Oswald's typical M. O., what was so different about that day that he believed he needed to?

Others may not find it a bit puzzling; I know!

[Benjamin Cole]

14 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Denny Zartman writes:

Unless Jack Ruby genuinely was so overcome by grief that he impulsively felt that he had to kill Oswald, the first part is true: someone wanted Oswald silenced.

But this doesn't necessarily imply that Oswald possessed any inside information about the shooting. If he had had no involvement in the assassination, and no prior knowledge that it would happen, there was still a good reason to silence him: to prevent him testifying at a trial.

Oswald appears to have told the FBI and the police that he was on the first floor during the shooting, either in the domino room or outside on the steps. As I pointed out in an earlier comment, there is corroboration for parts of Oswald's alibi.

In a high-profile trial, with sufficient press coverage to ensure a degree of fairness (at least by the standards of the Henry Wade era), evidence might have been presented that would disprove the lone-gunman hypothesis. Any individual or institution that feared an honest investigation would have had the motivation to have Oswald eliminated before he went to trial.

But this doesn't necessarily imply that Oswald possessed any inside information about the shooting. If he had had no involvement in the assassination, and no prior knowledge that it would happen, there was still a good reason to silence him: to prevent him testifying at a trial.--JB

Possible...but more plausible is the need to silence LHO. 

Frankly, I suspect Wade, in Dallas would have gotten a conviction--unless LHO began to talk. Remember, Wade bragged it took skill to convict an innocent man. 

What we see today as possibly exculpatory evidence was not seen in that light in 1963, if it was known at all.

No one saw LHO outside the TSBD, nor anywhere, at the time gunshots rang out. That fact remains true to this day. If LHO insisted he had been outside on the steps, that would have been taken as proof he was mendacious, had something to hide. 

Today we open to the idea the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle had possibly been planted. Back then, no. Back then that would seem like the most-transparent dissembling.

"Sure, the real assassins picked LHO (a onetime commie defector) out of the blue to frame." 

LHO being arrested toting a revolver was another very strong clue. 

IMHO, the fear was that LHO would spill that he had been a CIA asset (bad enough). Possibly, that he had been in a false flag op gone awry (terrible). 

There is, of course, the ugly possibility that LHO was part of a CIA conspiracy to assassinate the President and participated as a good soldier, and then flubbed his escape. Possibly he somehow dodged getting murdered himself. 

The only thing I am sure of beyond reasonable doubt is that there were at least two gunsels that day in Dallas. Probably a smoke-and-bang show at the GK, indicating a third participant.