A Problem with "Prayer Man"

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Roger Odisio @Jeremy Bojczuk 

Can you expand on whether Oswald stressed during interrogation  that he was out front of the depository building at the time of the shooting?  

 

LS: Can you expand on whether Oswald stressed during interrogation  that he was out front of the depository building at the time of the shooting?  

 

RO:  "Stressed" is a loaded and unnecessary term.  Since there is no transcript, we have no way of knowing context:  what was asked, in what sequence, what was discussed more fully than other things, etc.  What we do know is that Hosty's interrogation notes did show that Oswald said after lunch he "went outside to watch the p. parade".  

 

LS:  Also, if he had insisted that he wasn't inside the building, wouldn't he have provided them with the names of the coworkers who were standing near him outside?  

 

RO:  Understand the situation.  Oswald came outside late compared to others and probably stayed briefly. He stood on the top step on the left in back, Few would have noticed him as the parade approached and the shots rang out.  Fritz's notes also apparently did quote Oswald as saying he was "out with Bill Shelley in front".  I don't find his naming of his boss to be compelling.  To me, the most important point is that he probably surmised that there was no point in naming others.  He could not expect his coworkers to contradict the story of the authorities to help him. The intimidation and repression were rapidly becoming thick.

 

LS:  I recognize the pertinent notes are said to have been destroyed,

 

RO:  No they haven't been.

 

 LS: but wouldn't an innocent Oswald have seized the opportunity with reporters to clearly state, "I was standing outside!"

 

RO: No, he wouldn't have.  Right from the time he was apprehended in the theater, Oswald had been screaming for a lawyer to tell his story to.  He was savvy enough to understand that reporters in the hallway looking to get the story of the century and screaming did you kill the president were no substitute.  He knew, e.g., anything he said to them could be used against him in court. 

 

Shouting I'm just a patsy to the reporters as he was dragged into an elevator, was probably one of the best things he could have done instead. Did you notice how many of those reporters, and the media in general, took that claim seriously and investigated it?  That shows how useless, even probably counterproductive, it would have been to start shouting about his alibi in the hallway to reporters.

 

LS:  Instead he focused on the Soviet Union? This suggests to many of us that he was processing and rapidly realizing he had been maneuvered for weeks if not months and years.

 

RO:  He didn't focus on the SU.  Initially he tried to use his defection as a reason why the cops picked him up.  But it didn't work and was quickly lost in the shuffle.  Yes, the pickle he was in was dawning on him. I don't know how rapidly, or how far he got before he was silenced.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

25 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

LS: Can you expand on whether Oswald stressed during interrogation  that he was out front of the depository building at the time of the shooting?  

 

RO:  "Stressed" is a loaded and unnecessary term.  Since there is no transcript, we have no way of knowing context:  what was asked, in what sequence, what was discussed more fully than other things, etc.  What we do know is that Hosty's interrogation notes did show that Oswald said after lunch he "went outside to watch the p. parade".  

 

LS:  Also, if he had insisted that he wasn't inside the building, wouldn't he have provided them with the names of the coworkers who were standing near him outside?  

 

RO:  Understand the situation.  Oswald came outside late compared to others and probably stayed briefly. He stood on the top step on the left in back, Few would have noticed him as the parade approached and the shots rang out.  Fritz's notes also apparently did quote Oswald as saying he was "out with Bill Shelley in front".  I don't find his naming of his boss to be compelling.  To me, the most important point is that he probably surmised that there was no point in naming others.  He could not expect his coworkers to contradict the story of the authorities to help him. The intimidation and repression were rapidly becoming thick.

 

LS:  I recognize the pertinent notes are said to have been destroyed,

 

RO:  No they haven't been.

 

 LS: but wouldn't an innocent Oswald have seized the opportunity with reporters to clearly state, "I was standing outside!"

 

RO: No, he wouldn't have.  Right from the time he was apprehended in the theater, Oswald had been screaming for a lawyer to tell his story to.  He was savvy enough to understand that reporters in the hallway looking to get the story of the century and screaming did you kill the president were no substitute.  He knew, e.g., anything he said to them could be used against him in court. 

 

Shouting I'm just a patsy to the reporters as he was dragged into an elevator, was probably one of the best things he could have done instead. Did you notice how many of those reporters, and the media in general, took that claim seriously and investigated it?  That shows how useless, even probably counterproductive, it would have been to start shouting about his alibi in the hallway to reporters.

 

LS:  Instead he focused on the Soviet Union? This suggests to many of us that he was processing and rapidly realizing he had been maneuvered for weeks if not months and years.

 

RO:  He didn't focus on the SU.  Initially he tried to use his defection as a reason why the cops picked him up.  But it didn't work and was quickly lost in the shuffle.  Yes, the pickle he was in was dawning on him. I don't know how rapidly, or how far he got before he was silenced.

 

I'm not sure why you take issue with "stressed"; but how about "insisted". Why didn't he insist he was standing outside?  If you were arrested and later realized you were being interrogated for the murder of the president as he passed by your workplace, would you not repeat over and over, and over, "I was outside!  Just ask the guy standing near me!"

I've stood in that "corner", and whoever stood there could see nothing more than a few seconds as the limo rounded onto elm, especially if others were in front, so why did he bother stepping outside?

I've had a similar argument with PM folks about Oswald's wording "out with Bill Shelley in front" so I won't belabor the point in this exchange.

You're projecting when you argue "he probably surmised ... He could not expect " and you contradict your previous acknowledgement that Vicky Adams did indeed provide him an alibi.  Memory serves, Frazier didn't hang him out to dry either, nor did Shelley?  I'm prepared to be corrected on the latter.

I thought you said all of the notes had been destroyed, or did you mean only those kept by Hosty who was directed to destroy his?  I believe Fritz kept scribbled notebook notes, but he didn't file a formal report?

No, he wouldn't have.  That's pure speculation, Roger, as is my suspicion he would have "insisted" he was outside if he had been. We will need to resolve this specific to make any progress

Right from the time he was apprehended in the theater, Oswald had been screaming for a lawyer to tell his story to.  I thought he was mostly "screaming" that he didn't have a gun?  And, what "story" do you think he was going to tell the lawyer?  Aren't you building the case that Oswald was privy to aspects of the plot, and slowly realized he was "the patsy"?

Re. the reporters: Oswald never had any problem or discomfort in dealing with the press, so why then?

I think you argued that the pickle he was in dawned on him at the theatre when he was "screaming for a lawyer to tell his story."  I'm intrigued what story that might have been.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Leslie Sharp writes:

Quote

As I asked in a separate post, why didn't Oswald say immediately on arrest or at least in the early hours at DPD that he was standing outside, and that he could identify his coworkers who were standing nearby.

Oswald does appear to have provided his alibi in his first interview on the afternoon of the assassination.

The official record of Oswald's interviews is disgracefully incomplete. Accounts by some of those who interviewed Oswald can be found in Appendix XI (pp.598-636) of the Warren Report:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=621

Until the discovery of Hosty's notes in 2019, all we had was some vague accounts:

• "I asked him what part of the building he was in at the time the president was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor" (Fritz's written account, made some time later: Warren Reoprt, p.600)
• "He said he was having lunch at about this time on the first floor" (Fritz's Warren Commission testimony: Hearings and Exhibits, vol.4, p.231)
• "OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building" (Hosty and Bookhout's reprt, 23 November: WR, p.613)
• "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 SHELLEY" (Bookhout's report, 23 November: WR, p.619)

We now have Hosty's notes:

Quote

On 11/22 at 3:15 pm LHO was interviewed by Capt. W. Fritz JWB [James Bookhout] + JPH [James Hosty] ...

O 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

We also have accounts by Bookhout and the Secret Service agent Thomas Kelly of a later interview, in which Oswald claimed to have been in the domino room when he saw Jarman and Norman enter the building (WR, pp.622, 626).

Even from this highly incomplete record, we can be sure that Oswald claimed:

1. that he ate his lunch on the first floor in the domino room, where he saw Jarman and Norman enter the building, an event which we know happened at around 12:25;
2. that he then went to the front entrance to watch the motorcade;
3. and finally he spoke to Bill Shelley, who we know was outside, standing on the steps.

The question of exactly where Oswald claimed to have been when the shots were fired is unanswered. He may have claimed to have been in the domino room, or on the steps, or on his way from the domino room to the front entrance. Or he may not have mentioned exactly where he was during those few seconds. Presumably he wouldn't have thought that his exact location was important; what mattered was that he was not in any location that would have allowed him to shoot JFK and Connally.

There's a discussion of Oswald's alibi, and the way in which official accounts of it evolved, here:

http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-alibi

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

It has been mentioned a couple of times that films were confiscated. Although many home movies and photographs passed through the hands of the authorities at some point, there was no concerted attempt to confiscate films, photographs or cameras from Dealey Plaza.

This is a claim that crops up every couple of years or so. I'll reproduce a reply I've used on previous occasions (see https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24498-david-lifton-spots-a-piece-of-scalp-in-the-moorman-photo/?do=findComment&comment=442261, for example):

There was only a half-hearted official request for people, if they would be so kind, and if it isn't too much trouble, to turn in their photos or films. A handful of photographers, such as Abraham Zapruder and Mary Moorman, came to the attention of the authorities immediately, but very little active effort was made to track down the rest of the photographers or to confiscate cameras or films.

In fact, almost all of the photographers and home movie-makers, including Zapruder, left Dealey Plaza without having their cameras or films seized. Here's a partial list I compiled earlier:

• Oscar Bothun didn't have his camera or film seized: "Shortly after the shooting Mr Bothun apparently went back to work. He seems not to have been stopped or questioned as a witness at the scene" (Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain. p.157).
• Hugh Betzner didn't; he went out of his way to make himself and his photographs known to the police.
• Phil Willis didn't: "Remaining around the area for about an hour after witnessing the shooting, none of the family was questioned by law enforcement personnel" (Trask, p.179). Willis made his own way to the Kodak plant to get his film processed, and didn't have his camera seized there either.
• Orville Nix didn't; like Zapruder, he walked out of Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera. He returned later to take some more footage, and again left the scene without having his camera seized.
• Marie Muchmore didn't; she retained her camera and film until she sold the film to UPI three days after the assassination.
• Wilma Bond didn't; she wasn't even contacted by the authorities until February 1964.
• Jim and Tina Towner didn't; they stayed in Dealey Plaza for a while, then went home with their cameras.
• Robert Croft didn't; he left Dealey Plaza and went home to Denver with his camera.
• Mark Bell didn't; he walked across Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera and went back to work. There is no evidence that the authorities even knew of the existence of Bell's film until several years after the assassination.
• Robert Hughes didn't; he too left Dealey Plaza without having his home movie camera seized. The first thing the authorities knew about Hughes's film was when he voluntarily handed it to the FBI two days after the assassination.
• Charles Bronson didn't; he left Dealey Plaza with his still and home movie cameras, and returned the next day to take more footage and still photographs, and again left without having his cameras seized.
• James Altgens didn't; he waited for a short while in Dealey Plaza and then walked a few blocks to the local newspaper office to get his film developed.

As you can see, several of these people didn't come to the attention of the authorities until months or even years later. The authorities clearly weren't too bothered about what the photographs and home movies might show, apart from the obvious 'back and to the left' head snap that was presumably the main reason for keeping the Zapruder film largely away from public view for over a decade.

This implies that whoever was behind the assassination wasn't too bothered either. As long as the assassination happened and their gunmen got away undetected, why should they have cared about what the films and photos contained?

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

It has been mentioned a couple of times that films were confiscated. Although many home movies and photographs passed through the hands of the authorities at some point, there was no concerted attempt to confiscate films, photographs or cameras from Dealey Plaza.

This is a claim that crops up every couple of years or so. I'll reproduce a reply I've used on previous occasions (see https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24498-david-lifton-spots-a-piece-of-scalp-in-the-moorman-photo/?do=findComment&comment=442261, for example):

There was only a half-hearted official request for people, if they would be so kind, and if it isn't too much trouble, to turn in their photos or films. A handful of photographers, such as Abraham Zapruder and Mary Moorman, came to the attention of the authorities immediately, but very little active effort was made to track down the rest of the photographers or to confiscate cameras or films.

In fact, almost all of the photographers and home movie-makers, including Zapruder, left Dealey Plaza without having their cameras or films seized. Here's a partial list I compiled earlier:

• Oscar Bothun didn't have his camera or film seized: "Shortly after the shooting Mr Bothun apparently went back to work. He seems not to have been stopped or questioned as a witness at the scene" (Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain. p.157).
• Hugh Betzner didn't; he went out of his way to make himself and his photographs known to the police.
• Phil Willis didn't: "Remaining around the area for about an hour after witnessing the shooting, none of the family was questioned by law enforcement personnel" (Trask, p.179). Willis made his own way to the Kodak plant to get his film processed, and didn't have his camera seized there either.
• Orville Nix didn't; like Zapruder, he walked out of Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera. He returned later to take some more footage, and again left the scene without having his camera seized.
• Marie Muchmore didn't; she retained her camera and film until she sold the film to UPI three days after the assassination.
• Wilma Bond didn't; she wasn't even contacted by the authorities until February 1964.
• Jim and Tina Towner didn't; they stayed in Dealey Plaza for a while, then went home with their cameras.
• Robert Croft didn't; he left Dealey Plaza and went home to Denver with his camera.
• Mark Bell didn't; he walked across Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera and went back to work. There is no evidence that the authorities even knew of the existence of Bell's film until several years after the assassination.
• Robert Hughes didn't; he too left Dealey Plaza without having his home movie camera seized. The first thing the authorities knew about Hughes's film was when he voluntarily handed it to the FBI two days after the assassination.
• Charles Bronson didn't; he left Dealey Plaza with his still and home movie cameras, and returned the next day to take more footage and still photographs, and again left without having his cameras seized.
• James Altgens didn't; he waited for a short while in Dealey Plaza and then walked a few blocks to the local newspaper office to get his film developed.

As you can see, several of these people didn't come to the attention of the authorities until months or even years later. The authorities clearly weren't too bothered about what the photographs and home movies might show, apart from the obvious 'back and to the left' head snap that was presumably the main reason for keeping the Zapruder film largely away from public view for over a decade.

This implies that whoever was behind the assassination wasn't too bothered either. As long as the assassination happened and their gunmen got away undetected, why should they have cared about what the films and photos contained?

Nice post, Jeremy. I wish you'd had that at the ready a decade or so ago, when certain people were endlessly arguing that the photos were confiscated and faked via a CIA photo alteration lab set up in the parking lot next to the TSBD. 

[Roger Odisio]

11 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I'm not sure why you take issue with "stressed"; but how about "insisted". Why didn't he insist he was standing outside?  If you were arrested and later realized you were being interrogated for the murder of the president as he passed by your workplace, would you not repeat over and over, and over, "I was outside!  Just ask the guy standing near me!"

I've stood in that "corner", and whoever stood there could see nothing more than a few seconds as the limo rounded onto elm, especially if others were in front, so why did he bother stepping outside?
 

LS:  I'm not sure why you take issue with "stressed"; but how about "insisted". Why didn't he insist he was standing outside?  If you were arrested and later realized you were being interrogated for the murder of the president as he passed by your workplace, would you not repeat over and over, and over, "I was outside!  Just ask the guy standing near me!"

 

RO:  I've already explained why he rightly decided not to talk about his alibi in brief snatches with reporters in the hallway before talking to a lawyer, which the authorities made sure he didn't get before they murdered him.

LS:  I've stood in that "corner", and whoever stood there could see nothing more than a few seconds as the limo rounded onto elm, especially if others were in front, so why did he bother stepping outside?

 

RO:  So have I.  To see what was happening.

LS:  You're projecting when you argue "he probably surmised ... He could not expect " and you contradict your previous acknowledgement that Vicky Adams did indeed provide him an alibi.  Memory serves, Frazier didn't hang him out to dry either, nor did Shelley?  I'm prepared to be corrected on the latter.

 

RO:  Vicki Adams, and even more so, her supervisor Dorothy Garner, importantly contradict the WR claim that Oswald came down those steps when it says he did.  They changed Adams' testimony without her knowledge to discredit her, and ignored Garner who could corroborate Adams, and more importantly could have told them she remained behind on the 4th floor, saw Truly and a cop arrive there, without ever seeing Oswald.  

 

Why would you claim I contradicted what I previously said about Adams? 

LS:  I thought you said all of the notes had been destroyed, or did you mean only those kept by Hosty who was directed to destroy his?  I believe Fritz kept scribbled notebook notes, but he didn't file a formal report?

 

RO: Why would you say this?  Hosty's notes *weren't* destroyed and are in NARA files, as I said.

LS:  Right from the time he was apprehended in the theater, Oswald had been screaming for a lawyer to tell his story to.  I thought he was mostly "screaming" that he didn't have a gun?

 

RO; One thing does not preclude the other.

 

 And, what "story" do you think he was going to tell the lawyer?  

 

RO:  His alibi.  Which the lawyer would then investigate.

 

LS:  Aren't you building the case that Oswald was privy to aspects of the plot, and slowly realized he was "the patsy"?

 

RO: I'm obviously not.  I've already said I don't know how much he knew.

 

LS: Re. the reporters: Oswald never had any problem or discomfort in dealing with the press, so why then?

 

RO:  This is really off the wall.  Who said Oswald's not talking about his alibi to the reporters in the hall was due to some discomfort in dealing with the press? I gave what I think his reason was.

LS:  I think you argued that the pickle he was in dawned on him at the theatre when he was "screaming for a lawyer to tell his story."  I'm intrigued what story that might have been.

 

RO  You are mistaken. Initially he was only charged with the cop killing.  I said over time it dawned on him that this was about the JFKA, one reason being that the reporters kept asking him about that.  I don't know when or how fast he figured things out.

 

All of this leads to an overriding question, Leslie.  Why have you worked so hard to try to discredit the possibility that Oswald was Prayer Man?   And gotten so much wrong in the process.  Does it seem to you to be incompatible with the story you are working on in Coup in Dallas?

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Nice post, Jeremy. I wish you'd had that at the ready a decade or so ago, when certain people were endlessly arguing that the photos were confiscated and faked via a CIA photo alteration lab set up in the parking lot next to the TSBD. 

Ask the right question: When is the first comparison of extant assassination film/s correlated to the extant Zfilm presented? What year?

The time would be better spent finding out who the 2nd figure on the steps with a long sleeve red shirt/jacket is. The one I discovered in Bell as the limo is passing in front of the TSBD.

As to acquiring better generations of Darnell/Wiegman, that's never going to happen. When I pointed out that person(Wiegman film) in the shadows back in 2007 to Sean Murphy and later Robin Unger(Darnell film), Sean and others developing the theory that the person was possibly Oswald should have kept quiet about it until after they actually acquired the better quality copies. In other words, they inadvertently tipped off the wrong people. End of story.

 

 

 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

@Roger Odisio (responde in BOLD)
LS:  I'm not sure why you take issue with "stressed"; but how about "insisted". Why didn't he insist he was standing outside?  If you were arrested and later realized you were being interrogated for the murder of the president as he passed by your workplace, would you not repeat over and over, and over, "I was outside!  Just ask the guy standing near me!"

 

RO:  I've already explained why he rightly decided not to talk about his alibi in brief snatches with reporters in the hallway before talking to a lawyer, which the authorities made sure he didn't get before they murdered him.

 LS. The question isn't limited to the incident with the reporters; he had several hours prior that he could have "screamed out" repeatedly that he was outside.  If he was completely innocent it would be the natural, logical reaction. Instead, you say he screamed out for a lawyer.  And on the question of lawyer, you're well aware that he sent Nichols away, indicating he was familiar with Dallas hierarchy. 


LS:  I've stood in that "corner", and whoever stood there could see nothing more than a few seconds as the limo rounded onto elm, especially if others were in front, so why did he bother stepping outside?

 

RO:  So have I.  To see what was happening.

LS: What did you see?

LS:  You're projecting when you argue "he probably surmised ... He could not expect " and you contradict your previous acknowledgement that Vicky Adams did indeed provide him an alibi.  Memory serves, Frazier didn't hang him out to dry either, nor did Shelley?  I'm prepared to be corrected on the latter.

 

RO:  Vicki Adams, and even more so, her supervisor Dorothy Garner, importantly contradict the WR claim that Oswald came down those steps when it says he did.  They changed Adams' testimony without her knowledge to discredit her, and ignored Garner who could corroborate Adams, and more importantly could have told them she remained behind on the 4th floor, saw Truly and a cop arrive there, without ever seeing Oswald.  

 

Why would you claim I contradicted what I previously said about Adams?

LS: Correct me if I'm mistaken: didn't you reference the fact that Oswald would have known he couldn't count on anyone to substantiate his alibi?  yet, your invoking Adams.

LS:  I thought you said all of the notes had been destroyed, or did you mean only those kept by Hosty who was directed to destroy his?  I believe Fritz kept scribbled notebook notes, but he didn't file a formal report?

 

RO: Why would you say this?  Hosty's notes *weren't* destroyed and are in NARA files, as I said.
LS: Hosty was told to tear up notes.  You're saying he made notes later and those ended up in NARA?  After the fact? And you trust them?  Does he mention partner Odum beyond the innocuous reference to his being a sidekick in certain aspects of the investigation?  Why do you avoid a discussion of Odum if you're genuinely interested in determining who DID Kill Kennedy rather than who didn't?

LS:  Right from the time he was apprehended in the theater, Oswald had been screaming for a lawyer to tell his story to.  I thought he was mostly "screaming" that he didn't have a gun?

 

RO; One thing does not preclude the other.

LS: are you saying he did scream, "I was outside", at the time of his arrest, or en route to the station, or while he was in custody at any time other than a mild, "out with Shelley in front".

 

 And, what "story" do you think he was going to tell the lawyer?  

 

RO:  His alibi.  Which the lawyer would then investigate.

LS: fair enough. So, he turns Nichols away, asks for Abt.  Doesn't get Abt. Then what? 

 

LS:  Aren't you building the case that Oswald was privy to aspects of the plot, and slowly realized he was "the patsy"?

 

RO: I'm obviously not.  I've already said I don't know how much he knew.

LS: I respect that you admit you don't. I believe his behavior indicates that he knew a good deal, and I also realize the burden is on us.

 

LS: Re. the reporters: Oswald never had any problem or discomfort in dealing with the press, so why then?

 

RO:  This is really off the wall.  Who said Oswald's not talking about his alibi to the reporters in the hall was due to some discomfort in dealing with the press? I gave what I think his reason was.

LS: and I challenged your reasoning. He said "I'm just a patsy." Why didn't he follow with "I was standing outside!"  Wasn't he aware he was the suspect in the assassination?

LS:  I think you argued that the pickle he was in dawned on him at the theatre when he was "screaming for a lawyer to tell his story."  I'm intrigued what story that might have been.

 

RO  You are mistaken. Initially he was only charged with the cop killing.  I said over time it dawned on him that this was about the JFKA, one reason being that the reporters kept asking him about that.  I don't know when or how fast he figured things out.

LS: Are you in the camp that "I'm just a patsy" was related solely to his time in the Soviet Union, and that it wasn't indicative of him realizing he was the "pigeon" as described by Lafitte - a preferred designation used since the war by LaCagoule assassins.

 

All of this leads to an overriding question, Leslie.  Why have you worked so hard to try to discredit the possibility that Oswald was Prayer Man?   And gotten so much wrong in the process.  Does it seem to you to be incompatible with the story you are working on in Coup in Dallas?

 

LS: I can see that you are now getting testy.  It was my understanding that you are, ultimately, in search of who did kill Kennedy.  You're approaching the investigation from a different angle - via Oswald outside the building - which I respect in spite of having grave doubts he would be an effective patsy caught on film outside the building. For the record, once and for all, I am not attempting to "discredit" the PM movement but to establish positively that Oswald was the patsy as he acknowledged and as indicated in the 1963 Lafitte datebook.  Any weak link in that argument does all of us a disservice  and I'm concerned PM is a seriously weak link.  Others on our team are willing to concede that he could be outside and still serve as a moderately effective patsy given the chaos that ensued.

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Roger Odisio]

59 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Ask the right question: When is the first comparison of extant assassination film/s correlated to the extant Zfilm presented? What year?

The time would be better spent finding out who the 2nd figure on the steps with a long sleeve red shirt/jacket is. The one I discovered in Bell as the limo is passing in front of the TSBD.

As to acquiring better generations of Darnell/Wiegman, that's never going to happen. When I pointed out that person(Wiegman film) in the shadows back in 2007 to Sean Murphy and later Robin Unger(Darnell film), Sean and others developing the theory that the person was possibly Oswald should have kept quiet about it until after they actually acquired the better quality copies. In other words, they inadvertently tipped off the wrong people. End of story.

 

 

 

 

I've argued that NBC/Comcast knows what the films show, or at the very least if the image can be enhanced to more clearly identify the figure him (in which case they would have done the enhancement).  Any lawyer would advise such due diligence before they decide what to do with them.

 

It is on that basis they have rejected all attempts by others to see them.  The fact that Murphy and others figured why they wanted to see them is not why their requests were denied. Rejection was already a corporate decision made in line with NBC's preference for supporting the Warren Report.  Catch 22: Murphy and others were never going to get the original films no matter how long they kept quiet about why they wanted them.

 

The key now is whether Bill and Larry can get the court to order NARA to retrieve the films as JFKA records.

[Leslie Sharp]

@Chris Davidson Sean and others developing the theory that the person was possibly Oswald should have kept quiet about it until after they actually acquired the better quality copies. In other words, they inadvertently tipped off the wrong people. End of story.

Thanks for this historical insight and perspective, Chris. I think @Roger Odisio is arguing that NBC was never going to release the footage, which begs the question: why has the PM movement been successful in persuading a contingency this is Oswald based on the blurry photo? I accept that pursuant to the blurred photo, they went in search of evidence to support, but that suggests a flawed approach to the overall investigation into who killed JFK. I seem to recall at least one PM virtually screaming, (paraphrasing) I don't give a goddamn who killed Kennedy; I'm here to prove Oswald innocent.

Did the PM hypothesis fill a void at a critical juncture? Grasping at straws to advance conspiracy hypothesis, so Oswald outside the building served as a touchstone, a revitalization of the conspiracy argument?

[James DiEugenio]

Nice post Jeremy.

Incredible how that Hosty note was hidden for so long.  Sort of like the Oswald wallet at 10th and Patton.

It makes one wonder about the validity of the notes in the Warren Report.

Bart Kamp's book is coming out in a couple of weeks.

That should be a thorough look at the whole issue of what was said about this during detention.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

@Roger Odisio @Chris Davidson

On that note, I want to repeat what Lafitte writes in his '63 datebook on November 9:

On the wings of murder, the pigeon way for unsuspecting Lee. Clip clip his wings.

This is a phrase used by La Cagoule assassins in reference to a patsy being set up for the crime — and who will then be eliminated.

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

 

LS:  I'm not sure why you take issue with "stressed"; but how about "insisted". Why didn't he insist he was standing outside?  If you were arrested and later realized you were being interrogated for the murder of the president as he passed by your workplace, would you not repeat over and over, and over, "I was outside!  Just ask the guy standing near me!"

 

RO:  I've already explained why he rightly decided not to talk about his alibi in brief snatches with reporters in the hallway before talking to a lawyer, which the authorities made sure he didn't get before they murdered him.

 LS. The question isn't limited to the incident with the reporters; he had several hours prior that he could have "screamed out" repeatedly that he was outside.  If he was completely innocent it would be the natural, logical reaction. Instead, you say he screamed out for a lawyer.  And on the question of lawyer, you're well aware that he sent Nichols away, indicating he was familiar with Dallas hierarchy. 

RO1  Oswald was in custody for about 43 hours until he was murdered. We know almost nothing we can rely on about what he was asked or what he said during that time.  In his first interrogation he did offer an alibi when asked. We have no idea if he said any more about that as you think logic dictates.  If he did, it's a safe bet we wouldn't know about it. They tried to suppress his alibi and killed him so he couldn't defend himself and they were free to create their own story.

 

Any lawyer would have advised him to keep his mouth shut, particularly about his alibi, until he had representation.

 

Oswald did reject Nichol's offer of an attorney, but he also told him if he couldn't get Abt or someone from the ACLU, he would reconsider. He asked Nichols to check back with him in a few days.  Nichols explained this in his news conference after talking to Oswald that Saturday afternoon.  That meant whatever time frame there was for Oswald's murder before, it would have to be done soon.  They weren't going to let him have a lawyer.  Oswald was dead about 17 hours later.

LS:  You're projecting when you argue "he probably surmised ... He could not expect " and you contradict your previous acknowledgement that Vicky Adams did indeed provide him an alibi.  Memory serves, Frazier didn't hang him out to dry either, nor did Shelley?  I'm prepared to be corrected on the latter.

 

RO:  Vicki Adams, and even more so, her supervisor Dorothy Garner, importantly contradict the WR claim that Oswald came down those steps when it says he did.  They changed Adams' testimony without her knowledge to discredit her, and ignored Garner who could corroborate Adams, and more importantly could have told them she remained behind on the 4th floor, saw Truly and a cop arrive there, without ever seeing Oswald.  

 

Why would you claim I contradicted what I previously said about Adams?

LS: Correct me if I'm mistaken: didn't you reference the fact that Oswald would have known he couldn't count on anyone to substantiate his alibi?  yet, your invoking Adams.

RO1:  Two different things.  I meant he understood he couldn't count on his coworkers to contradict the police and verify his alibi. He didn't know Adams.  She told the truth on her own.

LS:  Right from the time he was apprehended in the theater, Oswald had been screaming for a lawyer to tell his story to.  I thought he was mostly "screaming" that he didn't have a gun?

 

RO; One thing does not preclude the other.

LS: are you saying he did scream, "I was outside", at the time of his arrest, or en route to the station, or while he was in custody at any time other than a mild, "out with Shelley in front".

RO1:  Obviously not.  I don't know that and neither does anyone else.

 

All of this leads to an overriding question, Leslie.  Why have you worked so hard to try to discredit the possibility that Oswald was Prayer Man?   And gotten so much wrong in the process.  Does it seem to you to be incompatible with the story you are working on in Coup in Dallas?

 

LS: I can see that you are now getting testy.  It was my understanding that you are, ultimately, in search of who did kill Kennedy.  You're approaching the investigation from a different angle - via Oswald outside the building - which I respect in spite of having grave doubts he would be an effective patsy caught on film outside the building. For the record, once and for all, I am not attempting to "discredit" the PM movement but to establish positively that Oswald was the patsy as he acknowledged and as indicated in the 1963 Lafitte datebook.  Any weak link in that argument does all of us a disservice  and I'm concerned PM is a seriously weak link.  Others on our team are willing to concede that he could be outside and still serve as a moderately effective patsy given the chaos that ensued.

RO1: So if Oswald was PM that would establish that he didn't kill JFK and was a patsy as he claimed. As indicated in the LaFitte datebook.  And it would blow up the WR in the process to provide a basis for determining who actually did the murder.

 

All of your points that I disagreed with and tried to refute, including some I wondered where they came from, was your way of trying to firm up and verify the PM story, not an indication you disagreed with it.  PM is consistent with the Oswald as a patsy story in Coup in Dallas.

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

41 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Chris Davidson

Did the PM hypothesis fill a void at a critical juncture? Grasping at straws to advance conspiracy hypothesis, so Oswald outside the building served as a touchstone, a revitalization of the conspiracy argument?

Sean's original email inquiry to me had nothing to do with the figure we refer to as PrayerPerson. He was looking into the Altgen's photo and the peculiarity of Lovelady within it. He asked for my help and I supplied him with the frame from a 2005 documentary, in 2007. At a later junction(don't know how much later) the hypothesis was formed. This was/is not grasping at straws to advance/revitalize a conspiracy theory as there is a very good argument that it is Oswald. 

But, I wouldn't bet the farm on it either.

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Catch 22: Murphy and others were never going to get the original films no matter how long they kept quiet about why they wanted them.

Think there might have been a better chance approx 12/15 years ago. Just my opinion.

[Leslie Sharp]

24 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Sean's original email inquiry to me had nothing to do with the figure we refer to as PrayerPerson. He was looking into the Altgen's photo and the peculiarity of Lovelady within it. He asked for my help and I supplied him with the frame from a 2005 documentary, in 2007. At a later junction(don't know how much later) the hypothesis was formed. This was/is not grasping at straws to advance/revitalize a conspiracy theory as there is a very good argument that it is Oswald. 

But, I wouldn't bet the farm on it either.

Think there might have been a better chance approx 12/15 years ago. Just my opinion.

@Chris Davidson I wasn't familiar with your key role in the process.

Will you share specifics that cause you concern and prevent you from betting the farm?  Do you see holes in the argument?

FWIW, @Roger Odisio contrary to those who might allege I'm solidly in the camp that scoffs at PM simply because I'm posing questions, I'm on the fence but leaning toward the conclusion Oswald couldn't be effective standing outside.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Leslie Sharp