Taking seriously Oswald's front steps alibi claim

[Greg Doudna]

He could behave the way he did if he was unsure if he was being tailed and was trying to shake off a tail that for all he knew was on him that moment. Even if he didn’t know that he might not want to chance it. Not simply leave, but shake any tail on him as he did so. I don’t know. But that could be one way to account for the movements, which would be in continuity with the nature of his movements continuing after he left the building. Somebody was paranoid about being followed. Just a thought. 

[David Von Pein]

2 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

He could behave the way he did if he was unsure if he was being tailed and was trying to shake off a tail that for all he knew was on him that moment. Even if he didn’t know that he might not want to chance it. Not simply leave, but shake any tail on him as he did so. I don’t know. But that could be one way to account for the movements, which would be in continuity with the nature of his movements continuing after he left the building. Somebody was paranoid about being followed. Just a thought. 

So, then, in your view, Oswald didn't care at all about the fact that he might get trapped inside the building when the police sealed it off? Even though it's pretty clear from LHO's actions that day that he definitely DID want to get AWAY from the TSBD Building very shortly after 12:30 PM? Is that correct, Greg?

[Greg Doudna]

David I’ll get to your question but (it’s relevant) what’s your position on the movements and why? Do you have him come down the rear stairs; Baker encounter 2F; then down the front stairs to the front and walk away from the front?

Or do you have him come down to the front then going to the rear and leaving by the rear? 

just two questions if you would briefly on that. It’s OK if you want to pass on the first question but would appreciate your answering at least the second.

Do you have a theory on why Baker saw Oswald in what Baker called a light brown jacket (I say that was Oswald’s old gray work jacket seen in dim light), then only moments later Mrs Reid sees him walk by in only a white T-shirt. Any thoughts on that? (I interpret that as intentional on Oswald’s part, part of pattern of deception. I can’t easily interpret that as Mrs Reid being mistaken. What do you think?)  

Second, do you find it reasonable that Oswald could descend and be there at the front steps with all those TSBD people and walk away at the front and no one, no witness, not one, said they saw him? 

It’s OK if you think yes, but just asking. 

Buell Frazier was out front there. Would he have noticed him if he left by the front?

Edited Saturday at 12:19 AM by Greg Doudna

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Whew Pat. The notes are not necessarily in contradiction to recollections of the writers. They remembered his alibi as lunch first floor which was not untrue. They all accepted he said he was out front, that’s not controversial. (Oswald said he was and told of pointing a crewcut man to a phone, later checked out and confirmed by the Secret Service and the man identified. Of course it got situated in a timeline a couple minutes later but that is secondary interpretation.)

Your point 3 of contradictory witnesses seems to come from left field. There are no contradictory witnesses securely placing Oswald somewhere else at the moment of the shots. I think you just made that one up to get to 3. 

And the photo is not looking “less and less” like Oswald as you handwave. That’s the scoop neckline issue, tempest in a teapot.

The neckline rules out a necktie or a fully buttoned up shirt but agrees well with what Oswald actually was wearing, old gray work jacket worn loosely, sleeves rolled up to the elbows, over white T-shirt. And this isn’t a case on the clothing of this was considered and rejected long ago, because what Oswald was wearing is new original argument and has not previously been considered.

So what if Oswald didn’t discuss lunchrooms and cokes and seeing Shelley or a crewcut man or having a gun pointed at him on the second floor by an officer with his limited minutes on the phone with Robert and Marina that he knew were tapped anyway. Do you by the same logic reject that Oswald claimed to be in a lunchroom or on the first floor? Because he never said that to the media? What’s the difference?

Why so hardline Pat? You’re OK with Oswald having claimed first floor lunchroom and can’t be bothered to want to see his most admired president drive by, but your maginot line in the sand is not out on the front steps to see his admired JFK. I disagree. 

Point three was a reference to the other men in the room with Hosty when Oswald, according to you, said he was outside during the shooting. None of them said he said it. 

You need to take a step back, IMO. 

On one side you have the statements of all the witnesses, which are supported by the statements of Oswald's family, and the photographic record, save one blurry image. 

On the other side you have some people's interpretation of one person's notes and a blurry image. 

Which would carry more weight in a court of law, or in a book of an historical scholar? 

 

Edited Saturday at 12:27 AM by Pat Speer

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Point three was a reference to the other men in the room with Hosty when Oswald, according to you, said he was outside during the shooting. None of them said he said it. 

You need to take a step back, IMO. 

On one side you have the statements of all the witnesses, which are supported by the statements of Oswald's family, and the photographic record, save one blurry image. 

On the other side you have some people's interpretation of one person's notes and a blurry image. 

Which would carry more weight in a court of law, or in a book of an historical scholar? 

Pat I think you’re misunderstanding something here. You say none of the other men in the room said Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting. You say that’s what you meant by all the witnesses said differently.

Totally wrong.

One hundred percent of the witnesses in that room said Oswald said that. 

Hosty: after getting his coke for lunch, out front to watch O Parade. (Hosty handwrote that because Oswald said it)

Fritz: lunch first floor, out front with Shelley (Fritz handwrote that because Oswald said it. The Shelley reference is the time of the shots, plain-sense reading of that.) 

Bookhout in his typed report submitted under his own name:

”Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employee’s lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley.”

Granted, this is placed by Bookhout after the 2nd floor Baker encounter, which is clearly nonsensical. The internal content of this chunk of Oswald’s story situates it to pre-shots, overriding the erroneous relative sequencing Bookhout has it. Also, the time durations are clearly also not to be taken literally. But deconstructing those, it comes through that Bookhout too is relating the same that the other two had in their notes—going out front, time of shots/Shelley there. Most natural reading. All three.

That was the first interrogation of Oswald. Those were the only three present. (Both Fritz’s and Bookhout say it was only the three of them there who heard Oswald give his answers.)

Thats every single one in that room who all heard the same thing confirmed by their own hand Oswald said he was outside P Parade/ Shelley. 

You say Oswald never said it because you claim the witnesses all never heard him say that.

Three out of three heard him say that.

This is the most basic reading of these three primary texts. 

Now how one wants to interpret what Oswald claimed may be a different matter. 

But all, as in unanimous, in the room when Oswald said it, confirmed he said it. 

Edited Saturday at 01:23 AM by Greg Doudna

[Pat Speer]

2 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Pat I think you’re misunderstanding something here. You say none of the other men in the room said Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting. You say that’s what you meant by all the witnesses said differently.

Totally wrong.

One hundred percent of the witnesses in that room said Oswald said that. 

Hosty: after getting his coke for lunch, out front to watch O Parade. (Hosty handwrote that because Oswald said it)

Fritz: lunch first floor, out front with Shelley (Fritz handwrote that because Oswald said it. The Shelley reference is the time of the shots, plain-sense reading of that.) 

Bookhout in his typed report submitted under his own name:

”Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employee’s lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley.”

Granted, this is placed by Bookhout after the 2nd floor Baker encounter, which is clearly nonsensical. The internal content of this chunk of Oswald’s story dates it to pre-shots, overriding the erroneous relative sequencing Bookhout has it. Also, the time durations are clearly also not to be taken literally. But deconstructing those, it comes through that Bookhout too is relating the same that the other two had in their notes—going out front, time of shots/Shelley there. Most natural reading. All three.

That was the first interrogation of Oswald. Those were the only three present. (Both Fritz’s and Bookhout say it was only them three there who heard Oswald give his answers.)

Thats every single one in that room who all heard the same thing confirmed by their own hand Oswald said he was outside P Parade/ Shelley. 

You say Oswald never said it because you claim the witnesses all never heard him say that.

Three out of three heard him say that.

This is the most basic reading of these three primary texts. 

Now how one wants to interpret what Oswald claimed may be a different matter. 

But all, as in unanimous, in the room when Oswald said it, confirmed he said it. 

You're stretching. Really stretching. 

IF there were actual witnesses who placed him there, or photographic evidence he was there, or if he'd actually said he was out there to the media or to his family, then you might have something to build upon. But you don't.

Just a blurry image in some footage most agree is inconclusive, or worse, and your spin on some notes from people who always claimed otherwise. 

[Sandy Larsen]

I agree with Greg that Oswald's alibi was that he was out front (on the steps) with Shelley watching the presidential parade during the shooting. The evidence supports that. The Warren Commission report says otherwise, but there is no reason to believe the report over the evidence. We all know that the WC report cannot be trusted.

Prayer Man's image in the film certainly is consistent with Oswald, as forum member Andrej Stancak has demonstrated.

But I (and numerous others) disagree with much of the rest of what Greg Doudna wrote in his OP.

The evidence --sans the dubious WC testimony of Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady -- indicates the following:

1. Immediately after the shots, Shelley ran across the little road to the concrete island, where he bumped into Gloria Calvary who was on her way back to the TSBD. They both ran back to the steps, with Shelley going inside to call his wife and Calvary stopping on the steps to talk to Lovelady. You can see the latter two face-to-face, probably conversing, in the Darnell film... about 30 seconds after the shooting.
2. Immediately after the shots, Lovelady left the steps, also to cross the little road. But very shortly returned and took his previous position on the steps. There, as I said, he conversed with Calvary.
3. After returning to the steps, both Shelley and Lovelady went back inside the TSBD and stood near the back of the building on the ground floor. They did not go to the railroad yard.
4. Shelley's and Lovelady's stories evolved over time. It wasn't  till the spring of 1964 that they settled on the following "official" (and false) narrative: The two waited on the steps for three minutes (not 30 seconds), at which time Gloria Calvary arrived. At that time the two left the steps, walked down the little road to the railroad yard, and re-entered the TSBD on the west side. Victoria Adams supposedly saw them there upon exiting the stairwell, thus supposedly discrediting her damning story due to a three-minutes vs. thirty-seconds timing issue.
5. Of course, none of this (the prior paragraph) is factual. It is pretty obvious that this fake narrative was contrived by the cover-up artists in order to discredit Victoria Adams' damning testimony.
6. Another part of the cover-up narrative is the supposed encounter between officer Marrion Baker and Lee Harvey Oswald in the second floor lunchroom. The coverup artists needed to have a credible person witness Oswald on his way down from the sixth floor sniper's nest. So they changed Officer Baker's story of encountering a man on the "third or fourth floor" of the TSBD to his encountering Oswald in the second floor lunchroom. Anybody who questions this contention should read Bart Kamp's Anatomy of the Second Floor Lunch Room Encounter. It lays out all the evidence and makes a convincing case against the factuality of the encounter. 
7. The one thing I disagree with Bart on is his contention that we can see Shelley and Lovelady walking to the railroad yard in the Darnell film. We know this is not the case for these reasons: 1) The "Shelley" character in the film is taller than the "Lovelady" character, which is the opposite of reality; 2) One of the films shows the two splitting up, with the Shelley character heading toward the grassy knoll; And 3) Lovelady appears to be on the steps (talking to Gloria Calvary) in the Darnell film. He can't be both there and walking to the railroad yard at the same time.

 

[Greg Doudna]

Pat well we sure don’t agree here. I don’t think that’s stretching on exegesis of what Oswald said in that interrogation. I think it’s pretty plain. Whether that was decided not to be talked about much later I have no idea. But I can read the handwritten notes leaving no doubt Oswald said he went out front about the time of the shots.

The significance of the unidentified fuzzy photo near Shelley on those steps is that it’s there at all. Thats the significance. If Oswald was fabricating the claim one would expect no unidentified figure on the steps, or if there were one, it would be expected something or other would rule out Oswald as the identification—suit and tie; bald, wrong height; heavyset, something… 

You are focusing on the fuzziness. There isn’t even a decent viable conjecture of what other TSBD employee that could be. The striking thing about that fuzzy figure is that he’s there at all, where Oswald told his interrogators he was. 

Edited Saturday at 01:54 AM by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

There is a reasonable explanation for confusion of the interrogators over Oswald’s alibi.

 

Confusion? How could they possibly have been confused about such a thing?

We know for a fact that neither Fritz nor Hosty were confused. Nether of them believed what the interrogation reports would have us believe... that Oswald's alibi was that he was inside on the first floor.

Obviously the cover-up artists altered the interrogation reports.

You do believe there was a cover-up, don't you? Evidence tampering is what happens in cover-ups.

 

Edited Saturday at 01:59 AM by Sandy Larsen

[Benjamin Cole]

Flip the scenario.

Suppose the government's case against LHO was that he in fact was on the TSBD front steps during the JFKA, and from that location helped direct the JFKA, using hand signals. 

But the government had no eyewitnesses LHO was on the front steps, and the one very blurry photo they provide somewhat looks like a heavy-set woman in a dress. 

Would you accept that LHO was on the front steps? 

[Greg Doudna]

As people can see there are disputes over Shelley and Lovelady. I can only say I was baffled too, but recommend Bart Kamp’s Prayer Man site’s page on Lovelady. I think that has it right.

1) Both Shelley and Lovelady left the steps before Darnell

2) Both are seen running in Darnell in agreement with both said they ran. I personally recognize Lovelady positively as one of the two running men; and the other matches the lean frame and head and hair look of Shelley. See Bart Kamp’s Lovelady page on that. 

3) Darnell ends with Baker in uniform running to and just reaching the front TSBD steps. Lovelady testified he looked back from running and saw the time of that arrival.

Those are the key points to me. Obviously some of the time duration estimates are haywire but in my interpretation that is not sinister just what witnesses do, get time durations wrong of events in the past. 

[David Von Pein]

9 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

David I’ll get to your question but (it’s relevant) what’s your position on the movements and why? Do you have him come down the rear stairs; Baker encounter 2F; then down the front stairs to the front and walk away from the front?

Or do you have him come down to the front then going to the rear and leaving by the rear? 

just two questions if you would briefly on that. It’s OK if you want to pass on the first question but would appreciate your answering at least the second.

Do you have a theory on why Baker saw Oswald in what Baker called a light brown jacket (I say that was Oswald’s old gray work jacket seen in dim light), then only moments later Mrs Reid sees him walk by in only a white T-shirt. Any thoughts on that? (I interpret that as intentional on Oswald’s part, part of pattern of deception. I can’t easily interpret that as Mrs Reid being mistaken. What do you think?)  

Second, do you find it reasonable that Oswald could descend and be there at the front steps with all those TSBD people and walk away at the front and no one, no witness, not one, said they saw him? 

It’s OK if you think yes, but just asking. 

Buell Frazier was out front there. Would he have noticed him if he left by the front?

Re: Oswald's movements immediately after the assassination....

I think Oswald came down the back stairs from the sixth floor. He probably heard Baker and Truly coming up the stairs, so he quickly ducked into the lunchroom to avoid detection. Oswald then had his brief encounter with Officer Baker and was cleared as an employee by Mr. Truly.

Lee then purchased a Coke from the Coca-Cola machine [or, just maybe, he obtained his Coke in this manner], and then Oswald walked through the offices there on the second floor and went down the front stairs, which were very near the front entrance to the building.

So at this point in the chronology, I would ask: Why on Earth would Oswald have then decided it was a good idea for him to walk all the way to the back of the building so he could exit via the loading dock rear door? That makes no logical sense to me whatsoever, especially since it's my opinion that Oswald was most certainly in a very big hurry to leave the Depository building as fast as he could at that point in time (i.e., just three minutes or so after he himself, IMO, had just shot the U.S. President from the sixth floor of that building).

Re: Officer Baker, Mrs. Reid, and the "jacket"....

It's my opinion that Oswald very likely shot JFK while wearing only his white T-shirt. He likely placed his brown outer shirt on the floor or on a box during the shooting itself. He then utilized that brown shirt as a fingerprint-wiping rag as he quickly made his way from the Sniper's Nest to the staircase on the other side of the 6th floor.

And yes, I realize that LHO didn't do such a great job of wiping off all of the prints that he put on the rifle that day. But I think my shirt/prints scenario still makes a lot of sense, especially in light of the fact that fibers consistent with Oswald's brown arrest shirt were found wedged in the butt plate of the Carcano rifle. The print-wiping theory makes the most sense, IMO, in an effort to explain how those relatively fresh fibers managed to get themselves wedged into that rifle crevice. YMMV, of course.

After dumping his rifle among the book stacks near the stairs, Oswald then puts on his brown shirt as he darts down the stairs, but he leaves the shirt untucked and unbuttoned. Hence, when he's seen by Officer Baker in the lunchroom just seconds later, the untucked/unbuttoned shirt, in Baker's eyes, has the appearance of a "jacket". And I think it's safe to assume that Baker probably wasn't paying too much detailed attention to Oswald's clothing at that moment in time on 11/22/63. Ergo, Baker simply made a mistake. He incorrectly thought the open shirt was a jacket.

Mrs. Reid, in a contradiction to what Baker observed just seconds earlier, said that Oswald wasn't wearing any shirt or jacket over the T-shirt she said Oswald was wearing. So it would seem as though one of those two witnesses is incorrect on that point--either Baker or Reid.

But the observations of Mary Bledsoe on the bus a short time later (she saw Oswald wearing a brown shirt), plus the fact that Oswald was arrested while wearing a brown shirt, would seem to suggest that it was Mrs. Reid who was the person that was mistaken about whether or not Lee Oswald was wearing something over his T-shirt.

Re: Buell Frazier not noticing Oswald exit the front door....

It might seem unreasonable to some JFK researchers to suggest that so many people near the TSBD front stoop could have missed seeing Lee Oswald exit the building after the assassination, but let me also point out the fact that there weren't many witnesses who said they saw Marrion Baker dash into the Depository that day either. And we know that Baker entered through the front TSBD door within less than a minute of the shots being fired.

Plus: other than Buell Wesley Frazier's very late-in-coming (2002) observation about seeing Oswald walking down Houston Street approx. 5 to 10 minutes after the shooting (which totally contradicts what Frazier said in the last sentence of his 11/22/63 affidavit), there's not one other witness (with the possible exceptions of newsmen Pierce Allman and/or Robert MacNeil) who claimed they saw Oswald leaving the Book Depository on November 22, 1963, whether it be via the front door or the back door. And we all know he really did depart the TSBD and Dealey Plaza within minutes of the assassination. Even most dedicated conspiracy believers don't deny that provable fact.

So the "Nobody Saw Him Leave" excuse that conspiracists often use isn't really a viable excuse at all. Because everybody knows for a fact that Oswald did leave very shortly after 12:30.

More info concerning Buell Frazier and "Prayer Man"....

In early 2021, Frazier posted the following message on his Facebook page:

"To answer the question about Prayer Man: I have been looking at this all day, and I can tell you this: I 100% have no idea who that person is. I can also tell you 100% that is not Lee Harvey Oswald. First, Lee was not out there. I know that to be true. Second, for anyone who thinks Prayer Man is Lee, the individual has a much larger frame than Lee." -- Buell Wesley Frazier; March 28, 2021

Re: Hosty's "P. Parade" note....

"I don't think the words "Presidential Parade" came out of the mouth of Lee Harvey Oswald. Based on all of the official FINAL reports (from Fritz, Bookhout, Hosty, and Kelley), I think the words "P. Parade" that appear in the "new" Hosty note were probably HOSTY'S words and HOSTY'S interpretation of Oswald's "out with Bill Shelley" statement. Otherwise, we'd have a lot more reports (and notes) that had the word "Parade" in them." -- DVP; February 2019

Lots more discussion here:
Where Was Lee Harvey Oswald When JFK Was Shot?
 

Edited Saturday at 09:18 AM by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

New information on Prayer Man. Important. The heretofore-unrecognized back of a dark-clothed woman in front of Prayer Man

Here from Pat Speer's site is a gif based on the newly released 6FM copy. To find this gif go to the link below, then search on that page for the word "Museum's" and that will take you to the gif immediately below that word. (If you prefer to laboriously scroll down Pat's monster-length page its about halfway down.) 

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-8-pieces-of-work

Examine carefully what has heretofore been seen and assumed to be an outstretched left leg of a heavyset Prayer Man. No, that is the back of a woman dressed in dark colors in front of Prayer Man who is facing Prayer Man as she climbs up from a lower step. The supposed left leg of Prayer Man is really the right profile of the upper part of the back of that woman. Nothing of the left leg of Prayer Man is visible at all. Compare two other fully dark-clothed women viewed from the back in the same photo; this is simply one more that has not previously been recognized.

See on the right side of the dark-clothed woman how the woman's clothing contrasts to the background. Look down and see two ankles and feet of another woman, not dark-clothed, who is in front of the dark-clothed woman, about to take a step up.

See the back of the dark-clothed woman's head in about the position of the stomach of Prayer Man, from the viewer's point of view. See the back of the woman's head extend almost up to the position of the hands of Prayer Man.

Observe that what has been seen as the left side of Prayer Man below the left arm, is not a profile of the side of Prayer Man, but the right side of the back of the woman's shawl-covered head. 

Marvel at the realization that most if not all of the basis for longstanding visual perception of Prayer Man as heavyset, or a heavyset woman, is now gone, seen to be illusory.

[David Von Pein]

FYI....

Below is the GIF clip from the Darnell film that Greg was referring to in his last post (which was, btw, stabilized and made available online by Mark Ulrik last month). (Thanks, Mark.)

It looks like a lot of the activity surrounding at least one of the "women" that Greg thinks he sees on the steps might be nothing more than "noise" and artifacts and grain moving around.

 

Edited Saturday at 08:02 AM by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Flip the scenario.

Suppose the government's case against LHO was that he in fact was on the TSBD front steps during the JFKA, and from that location helped direct the JFKA, using hand signals. 

But the government had no eyewitnesses LHO was on the front steps, and the one very blurry photo they provide somewhat looks like a heavy-set woman in a dress. 

Would you accept that LHO was on the front steps? 

Thanks.