Prayer Man More Than A Fuzzy Picture

[Greg Doudna]

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

Plus: Can anyone who believes that Oswald is the "Prayer Man" figure really and truly also believe that Oswald then decided he wanted to immediately go back into the TSBD Building and dash up to the second-floor lunchroom to buy a Coke within seconds of JFK being shot out on Elm Street in front of the building?

That scenario of Oswald being Prayer Man and then immediately having a burning desire to go get a Coca-Cola on the second floor is a very loony scenario, if you ask me. 

I agree that is a loony scenario, but that is not my scenario. You are setting up a straw man, then mocking the straw man. The scenario I am talking about is he did go up to the second floor and met Baker ca. 90 seconds after the shots; he did buy a coke there after that confrontation; but he did not go there for the purpose of buying a coke.

The scenario: he went from the ground floor up the SE stairs to the second floor, walked across the second floor with intent to go out the doors to the NW stairwell and back down the NW stairs again to exit by the rear. He did not succeed in that objective because as he got to the NW door and looked out, Baker coming up the NW stairs saw him. Oswald backed up immediately, but that looked suspicious to Baker who followed him in and drew a gun on him. 

Oswald's purpose in going to the second floor following the shots had nothing to do with wanting to buy a coke, even though that is what he did there after the Baker encounter.

Please don't set up straw men, then lampoon straw men. 

There is nothing unreasonable about Oswald going up to the second floor before the assassination to buy a coke to have with his lunch (as he said he he did)--since that was routine procedure he had done many times before. Other 1st floor domino room employees did the same thing, including at least one other that very day. 

Mr. BALL - What did you do after you went down and washed up; what did you do? 
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I went over and got my lunch and went upstairs and got a coke and come on back down. 
Mr. BALL - Upstairs on what floor? 
Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there.  

Oswald's statements to Fritz and co. concerning going up to get a coke for his lunch during lunch time, before the assassination, are not much different than Lovelady's, and not unreasonable.

And we know Oswald was acting evasively following the shots, as a fact. There is the timing and manner of leaving TSBD itself; the cab (unusual for Oswald); the having the cab let him off blocks south on Beckley from where he lived concealing his address from the cabbie; the hurried complete change of clothing and colors of clothing--pants, shirt, and jacket--at the rooming house; the picking up of the firearm at the rooming house (not characteristic of Oswald to carry). Those are known signs of evasive action to which more specifics could be added.

Why he acted evasively following the assassination--with no money on him, no getaway car, no revolver--can be argued, but not that he acted evasively.

Therefore IF Oswald was on the first floor at the time of the shots (whether or not he was Prayer Man), THEN that method of intended exit from the TSBD I have described--in a manner designed to attract the least notice, less noticeable than walking out the front door or from the front door area through mobs of people and TSBD employees who would see him leaving, would be in keeping with his known behavior--of wanting to exit TSBD and to do so with the least attention drawn to himself.

And in the event, he arguably did exit from the rear--even after his original intent to do so by means of up one floor at SE, over on 2nd, down one floor at NW and out the back, was thwarted by the Baker encounter--the argument for that being there are zero witnesses or photographs having Oswald exit from the front, as opposed to one credible witness having him exit from the rear (Frazier).

Therefore all factors of why Oswald would have been where he was in that Baker encounter, with nothing to do with his actual purpose that time being to get a coke, are supported by known Oswald behavior, in terms of a scenario in which he was on the first floor at the time of the shots (his claimed alibi).

And his purchase of the second coke becomes an opportunistic act following the Baker encounter as his "innocent explanation" of why he was there when confronted by the officer, and becomes sensible (instead of telling the officer pointing a gun at him just after a president has been shot: "excuse me, I was just trying to leave the building in a hurry"). 

I have explained my reasons and argument on this scenario many times, not just earlier in the present thread, including in the paper that you publicly mocked and name-called without reading it or knowing its argument, my paper on the jackets (https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1553), where I set out the argument for this scenario in detail.  

It would help if you addressed others' positions as they are, not red herrings and straw men. Please try to be more careful in the future.

[Ron Bulman]

I hope by now Bart knows I respect and admire his work and his relationship/representation of Uncle Malcom.  But I have to wonder. If fuzzy wuzzy was a Bear, a commie, should we care.  He might have used Nair.

https://youtu.be/uaIoA3-5vaw

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Therefore all factors of why Oswald would have been where he was in that Baker encounter, with nothing to do with his actual purpose that time being to get a coke, are supported by known Oswald behavior, in terms of a scenario in which he was on the first floor at the time of the shots (his claimed alibi).

Greg,

I think your made-up scenario of Oswald going back into the TSBD after the shooting is totally ludicrous. You've got him going up and down stairs and then out the back door for no really good reason (IMO).

Via your scenario, Oswald was ALREADY OUTSIDE THE BUILDING (on the steps, I assume? Or do you have him INSIDE the building, on the 1st floor, at 12:30? You seem to imply that it could have been either). But in either case, why would he possibly want to take a circuitous UP-AND-DOWN route via the two staircases just in order to get outside?! It's incredibly silly.

It's especially ridiculous from the standpoint of Oswald being INVOLVED (in at least SOME peripheral fashion) in a plot to kill JFK, because via such an involvement, Oswald would have no doubt wanted to get away from the scene of the crime as fast as he could....and since he was ALREADY OUTSIDE (if you think he is Prayer Man) or (alternatively) very near the FRONT DOOR on the 1st floor (if you think he took the SE stairs, which are practically right next to the FRONT entrance)....then why the heck wouldn't he just walk out the FRONT DOOR?

Plus, via your scenario, going back INTO the building itself (via the Prayer Man theory) would be mighty risky from LHO's POV too, because he would certainly have to think that the whole building was going to be sealed off very quickly after the shooting by the police (and it was, at about 12:37). So why would he have the slightest desire to go back into the building at all?

And I can't see why he would feel that leaving via the front entrance and being seen by somebody would look any worse (or be any more suspicious) than leaving by the back door. In fact, I can easily argue the opposite---that leaving by the BACK DOOR would look way more "suspicious" to anyone who might catch a glimpse of him than simply walking out the front door and exiting Dealey Plaza.

Sneaking out the back way is always a little more "fishy"-looking to most people, isn't it? In fact, aren't there many CTers who DO believe that one or more of the "real killers" of Kennedy did, indeed, sneak out the back door of the loading dock in order to make their getaway on 11/22?

I'd advise you to try again, Greg. Because your scenario of having Oswald going up and down the various stairs just in order to get out of the building is just laughable.

But, Greg, I do appreciate all the time and effort you have been putting into your very well-written posts in this thread over the last few days. I've enjoyed reading them. But this latest bit about Oswald's totally superfluous post-assassination escapade within the Book Depository is just not the slightest bit believable (IMO) and, frankly, reeks of CTer desperation.

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

I just finished Bart's book.  I wonder how many have actually read it?

He ends the book in an original and pungent manner.

He describes the shooting of Oswald by Ruby.  He says that if Fritz was not going to clear the basement then there should have been what is called a human corridor to the car.  There was not any such thing.

He also says that incredibly Curry was not there.  He says he was on the phone with Cabell.  (I thought it was Crull?)

After the debacle of murder live on TV, everyone was shocked at how something like that could happen.  Dallas had given the world two seismic shocks in about 48 hours.

So Wade decided to go on TV and present his case that, really, it did not matter that Oswald was killed since he was guilty anyway.  Which was pretty easy to do with no defense lawyer.  (Bart does a nice job showing that this was what the police wanted, with the whole Greg Olds episode.)

But he caps this with the irony of a memo that Hoover was writing around the same time about how bad the performance of the DPD was: in not protecting Oswald, depriving him of his civil rights, and not really having a good case without the FBI work.

But the capper is that Hoover then comments on the Dallas Police case by writing:

"Oswald had been saying he wanted John Abt as his lawyer, and Abt with only that kind of evidence could have turned the case around, I'm afraid."

He then says everyone should read this memo by Hoover.  Does anyone have this or know where it is? That is quite an admission.

Edited October 6, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

Below are some highlights from this book review of Bart Kamp's new book. The review was written by former EF Forum member Lance Payette....

Review Title:

"Well-meaning and worthwhile
presentation of patent nonsense"

Review Highlights:

"Bart Kamp is a serious and well-meaning JFK assassination researcher who is a fixture at the Reopen the Kennedy Case forum, where the overarching theme is that LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS COMPLETELY INNOCENT!!!

[...]

There is an initial mental hurdle you must overcome to find this book fascinating and worthwhile. It must make sense to you that Oswald, the designated patsy whose rifle would be found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was nevertheless allowed by the bumbling conspirators to be standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination.

[...]

I can conceive of no possible conspiracy scenario this side of "Reptilian aliens did it!!!" that would have allowed Oswald to be standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination. Nope, sorry, I regard Prayer Man as utter and self-evident nonsense.

That being said, I emphasize again that Mr. Kamp is a serious assassination enthusiast whose Prayer Man website is a veritable goldmine of documents and information even if you regard Prayer Man as nonsense. Ditto for this book. It is chock-full of worthwhile information and links regardless of your perspective on Prayer Man. I give it 4 stars for sheer effort. I am constantly agog at some of the wild and wacky notions that seemingly sane and intelligent conspiracy enthusiasts manage to compartmentalize in their otherwise sane and intelligent minds, and this book also serves as a good illustration of why I am constantly agog." -- Lance B. Payette; August 4, 2023
 

[David Von Pein]

As a follow-up to my last post above....

For the sake of fairness and "Equal Time" with respect to reviews for Bart Kamp's "Prayer Man" book, here's a link to Greg Doudna's Amazon review of that same book:

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Michael Crane]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After the shots rang out & Kennedy was on the Stemmons freeway,Oswald went back inside and took a 5 minute double flusher sh*t.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Mart Hall]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

But the capper is that Hoover then comments on the Dallas Police case by writing:

"Oswald had been saying he wanted John Abt as his lawyer, and Abt with only that kind of evidence could have turned the case around, I'm afraid."

He then says everyone should read this memo by Hoover.  Does anyone have this or know where it is? That is quite an admission.

Jim, see the file called "FBI - J Edgar Hoover - Lee Harvey Oswald Nov 24 1963" (last modified 19 Jun 2021) in the below link to Malcolm's archive on Dealeyplaza UK. 

In that file see page two and the third paragraph.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jGCKcrcAmWFZ67M4g6jx4O3rTAUkFJCP

The two paragraphs previous to the one you refer to are as equally interesting. 

Edit. Apologies, I did think the link would go direct to the document itself. 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Mart Hall
see above.

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Mart.  He also says that because the police were such blabbermouths there would have had to have been a change of venue for Oswald.  And he predicts already that there will have to be one for Ruby, which there ended up being.

Bart is right, that is a pretty interesting memo by Hoover. 

Its the 11th one down on this page.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jGCKcrcAmWFZ67M4g6jx4O3rTAUkFJCP

Edited October 6, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Roger Odisio]

12 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I agree that is a loony scenario, but that is not my scenario. You are setting up a straw man, then mocking the straw man. The scenario I am talking about is he did go up to the second floor and met Baker ca. 90 seconds after the shots; he did buy a coke there after that confrontation; but he did not go there for the purpose of buying a coke.

The scenario: he went from the ground floor up the SE stairs to the second floor, walked across the second floor with intent to go out the doors to the NW stairwell and back down the NW stairs again to exit by the rear. He did not succeed in that objective because as he got to the NW door and looked out, Baker coming up the NW stairs saw him. Oswald backed up immediately, but that looked suspicious to Baker who followed him in and drew a gun on him. 

Oswald's purpose in going to the second floor following the shots had nothing to do with wanting to buy a coke, even though that is what he did there after the Baker encounter.

Please don't set up straw men, then lampoon straw men. 

There is nothing unreasonable about Oswald going up to the second floor before the assassination to buy a coke to have with his lunch (as he said he he did)--since that was routine procedure he had done many times before. Other 1st floor domino room employees did the same thing, including at least one other that very day. 

Mr. BALL - What did you do after you went down and washed up; what did you do? 
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I went over and got my lunch and went upstairs and got a coke and come on back down. 
Mr. BALL - Upstairs on what floor? 
Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there.  

Oswald's statements to Fritz and co. concerning going up to get a coke for his lunch during lunch time, before the assassination, are not much different than Lovelady's, and not unreasonable.

And we know Oswald was acting evasively following the shots, as a fact. There is the timing and manner of leaving TSBD itself; the cab (unusual for Oswald); the having the cab let him off blocks south on Beckley from where he lived concealing his address from the cabbie; the hurried complete change of clothing and colors of clothing--pants, shirt, and jacket--at the rooming house; the picking up of the firearm at the rooming house (not characteristic of Oswald to carry). Those are known signs of evasive action to which more specifics could be added.

Why he acted evasively following the assassination--with no money on him, no getaway car, no revolver--can be argued, but not that he acted evasively.

Therefore IF Oswald was on the first floor at the time of the shots (whether or not he was Prayer Man), THEN that method of intended exit from the TSBD I have described--in a manner designed to attract the least notice, less noticeable than walking out the front door or from the front door area through mobs of people and TSBD employees who would see him leaving, would be in keeping with his known behavior--of wanting to exit TSBD and to do so with the least attention drawn to himself.

And in the event, he arguably did exit from the rear--even after his original intent to do so by means of up one floor at SE, over on 2nd, down one floor at NW and out the back, was thwarted by the Baker encounter--the argument for that being there are zero witnesses or photographs having Oswald exit from the front, as opposed to one credible witness having him exit from the rear (Frazier).

Therefore all factors of why Oswald would have been where he was in that Baker encounter, with nothing to do with his actual purpose that time being to get a coke, are supported by known Oswald behavior, in terms of a scenario in which he was on the first floor at the time of the shots (his claimed alibi).

And his purchase of the second coke becomes an opportunistic act following the Baker encounter as his "innocent explanation" of why he was there when confronted by the officer, and becomes sensible (instead of telling the officer pointing a gun at him just after a president has been shot: "excuse me, I was just trying to leave the building in a hurry"). 

I have explained my reasons and argument on this scenario many times, not just earlier in the present thread, including in the paper that you publicly mocked and name-called without reading it or knowing its argument, my paper on the jackets (https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1553), where I set out the argument for this scenario in detail.  

It would help if you addressed others' positions as they are, not red herrings and straw men. Please try to be more careful in the future.

Thanks for this more complete version of your story of the Baker-Oswald 2nd floor encounter, Greg, than the one in your earlier post. 

 

I said about your previous post that it would have been helpful for you to provide a context for your story to make clear you are *not* endorsing the WR version of Oswald coming *down* the steps after murdering JFK. But rather an entirely different story of Oswald going *up* the steps after the murder.

 

As I recall In your earlier post you merely asserted you were sure Oswald did encounter Baker on the second floor, without making that distinction 

 

Which supports the idea that Oswald did not shoot JFK from the 6th floor, regardless of whether or not he was Prayerman.  IOW, Bart's assertion that the *WR version* never happened is supported by your story.

 

I am left with the question as to why you think it is important to understand or accept your version of the encounter once it is clear Oswald did not shoot anybody from the 6th floor. You have poured a lot of energy into your story.  Do you think it useful because it is a detail that provides another nail in the WR coffin?

[James DiEugenio]

Here is a more direct link to the Hoover document Bart closes the book with.  Its pretty interesting.

 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32263509.pdf

[Larry Hancock]

It certainly is interesting although we have seen a good bit of this before in terms of his complaining about the DPD talking and the fact that they needed to be shut up (which of course would cover their earlier interviews about a possible conspiracy related Oswald being picked up and driven away).

Of course it also classic Hoover scene stealing - take all the evidence away from DPD by midnight before they have a chance to work it and then claim  you solved it all yourself, nice PR touch as usual. 

[Greg Doudna]

6 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Thanks for this more complete version of your story of the Baker-Oswald 2nd floor encounter, Greg, than the one in your earlier post. 

 

I said about your previous post that it would have been helpful for you to provide a context for your story to make clear you are *not* endorsing the WR version of Oswald coming *down* the steps after murdering JFK. But rather an entirely different story of Oswald going *up* the steps after the murder.

 

As I recall In your earlier post you merely asserted you were sure Oswald did encounter Baker on the second floor, without making that distinction 

 

Which supports the idea that Oswald did not shoot JFK from the 6th floor, regardless of whether or not he was Prayerman.  IOW, Bart's assertion that the *WR version* never happened is supported by your story.

 

I am left with the question as to why you think it is important to understand or accept your version of the encounter once it is clear Oswald did not shoot anybody from the 6th floor. You have poured a lot of energy into your story.  Do you think it useful because it is a detail that provides another nail in the WR coffin?

No, not motivated concerning regarding the Baker/Oswald encounter on the 2nd floor as a fact by any reason other than to me it is a fact that it happened as a starting point, because it is a fact.

How to interpret that fact--and how Oswald got there--and why Oswald would be going from inside to outside that door (and not vice versa as in the WR reconstruction) which I regard as a second fact--then needs to be interpreted, and of course interpretations of a fact can be wrong without changing that the fact being interpreted is right. 

The second-floor encounter with Baker is established as fact because of the testimony of three separate credible witnesses: Baker, Truly, and Mrs. Reid--and Mrs. Reid's testimony is highly credible from practically the first hour on that (she was a competent supervisor and professional woman and talked about it to coworkers that same afternoon, not simply the next morning on the phone), and her testimony is not impeached by Geneva Hine who is also credible--neither of those two women were lying and it is simply a matter of reconciling their testimonies which is done by Geneva Hine returning to her working area slightly after Oswald had walked by Mrs. Reid, who returned from the front steps slightly before the rest of her coworker women.

I believe it is a mistake to imagine complex scenarios in which two civilian witnesses and a low-level working police officer were all suborned to perjury in coordination with one another as some grand conspiracy-within-a-conspiracy by unseen never-identified handlers coordinating the thing including three sophisticated subornations to perjury.  All I can say is what I think, which is that isn't plausible to me, not how things worked. 

(I am not sure there is a single verified case of direct subornation to perjury in the classic sense of scripting a civilian witness to say a false story, in the entire WC record, which would be extremely serious with legal jeopardy if that ever were to come out in any proven form. I am not talking about tampering with documents or physical evidence, or indirect forms of manipulation, but classic overt direct subornation of perjury in the form of fabrication of a story to be told by a witness under oath, as must be supposed in not one but three cases in harmony with one another in the notion that the second-floor lunchroom encounter never happened--coordinated and accomplished within the space of hours, with not a word leaking out later from any of the suborned witnesses in the decades after, I don't buy it.)

As a distinct issue from whether the Baker/Oswald second-floor encounter is true, I do not think it is helpful to the argument that Prayer Man might have been Oswald to set up a perceived or claimed linkage of the two things. It is not necessary to the case for Prayer Man as Oswald. And it is counterproductive to the case for Prayer Man as Oswald to link it with something that virtually no professional investigator would find convincing.

It is a theory based on citing some discrepancies, I believe at the outset motivated by a perceived contradiction to the Prayer Man Oswald idea, and so a theory was built up of suborned witnesses and rapid development of a false and fabricated story in place by the second day. But it doesn't make sense on plausibility grounds and the requirement to assume unseen handlers micro-managing multiple created and elaborately scripted suborned perjuries, by three witnesses repeatedly under oath, with no evidence of such subornation coming to light then or since.

I see repeatedly claimed that the encounter does not appear in Baker's initial statement, when he clearly did tell of it--he just mistakenly had it happen on "the third or fourth floor" instead of the second. (There is an overstatement of weight compared to Oswald's by ca. 30 pounds which is a little off, but it is more likely that has some explanation (such as simple mistake) other than that Baker was describing some different person somewhere else in the building.) Based on that easy error of which floor, elaborate theories have been developed of a mysterious fourth-floor suspect other than Oswald, when there never was any fourth-floor Baker encounter at gunpoint with another suspect. That was nothing other than what soon became clear was the encounter with Oswald on the second floor. 

And it is commonly claimed Baker never said anything about seeing Oswald in the same room when he was writing out his statement, but he did according to witnesses (and that he did not write in his statement that Oswald was there in the room is best understood in terms of some mundane explanation). 

And the news reports of Ochus Campbell telling of TSBD people having seen Oswald in a storage room on the first floor, either is an inaccurate hearsay report Campbell passed on of the second-floor encounter, or it could be something else, but it does not mean there was no second-floor encounter told by Baker, Truly, and Mrs. Reid. 

It happens that the first fact, of the second-floor Baker/Oswald encounter, is an argument with some weight toward Oswald's innocence for reasons which have long been noted: Oswald was not out of breath according to Baker and Truly; the timing issues (Barry Ernest's work and others); the lack of anyone seeing or hearing Oswald run down the noisy stairs, and so on. Whether that is or is not decisive, there is a second fact which may be: the pneumatic door and angles of vision of Baker meaning Oswald did not go in the door from the stairway as the WR said, but rather was about to go out but did not go out, seen by Baker who followed Oswald back in and accosted him at gunpoint because it looked suspicious. (For the argument establishing what I regard as the second fact that Oswald was coming out, not in, to the second floor area at that door to the NW stairwell, see pages 66-69 of here: https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/T-Jackets-112.pdf.) 

But that second fact--that Oswald cannot have gone in the door from the NW stairwell--destroys the stairway descent idea of Oswald from the 6th floor. I suppose it does not alone categorically prove Oswald's innocence in that, hypothetically, he might still have gotten down to the second floor from the sixth by one of the freight elevators, but no one has claimed that to my knowledge. Unless some scenario of a freight elevator down to the second floor is invoked and shown plausible in a way that the Warren Commission never considered, Oswald didn't come down from above to the second floor where Baker accosted him at all. He either was already there on the second floor or he came up from below from the first in agreement with his claims under interrogation, and either of those exculpates Oswald as the shooter.

(As also the NAA analysis of the paraffin casts and Oswald's mediocre skill in shooting combined with absolute lack of prior practice shooting, even if the rifle on the sixth floor was the rifle which had been in Oswald's possession until Nov 11.)

(I separately think I have established as another fact that Oswald removed that rifle from the Ruth Paine garage on Nov 11 for the apparent purpose of prepping the rifle for a conveyance, and there is no evidence the rifle was returned to that garage or in Oswald's possession after Nov 11 apart from the curtain rod/bag argument which is insubstantial on that point on other grounds. See my papers on the Furniture Mart and the Irving Sport Shop--the second in particular on the Irving Sport Shop--at https://www.scrollery.com/?page_id=1581.)

Barry Ernest brings out additional indications that the Baker/Oswald second-floor encounter was discussed immediately the afternoon of Nov 22, and not a creation of the next day, at: https://thegirlonthestairs.wordpress.com/2021/03/29/the-lunchroom-encounter/. 

How I look at it anyway, thanks for your comments all along Roger. 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[James DiEugenio]

I don't think that is what he was referring to Larry.

 

I think that he was referring to Chicago and Klein's.

And Bart makes an interesting case about that concerning the whole issue of the Hidell card.  Did it exist on Friday?

[Larry Hancock]

Jim, I was referring to a series of memorandum from over the weekend where he complains about DPD officers talking too much in front of the media including the TV appearance describing Oswald being picked up in a car.  Its all part of the same issue he has with the Dallas Police talking about the case when he wants it under "control".  And of course the FBI had it under control in an evidentiary since given that much of the crime scene material had been hustled out of town around midnight.

Given that the DPD was starting to do things like show the bag found in the TSBD to Frazier - with him denying it was what he had seen Oswald carrying, having DPD carry out its own investigation could indeed have created a lot of problems for what was going to emerge as the official story .