Taking seriously Oswald's front steps alibi claim

[Greg Doudna]

In the Mark Ulrik gif, below Prayer Man are two figures dressed in light-colored clothing. Look to the viewer’s right of the left one’s right shoulder, and to the viewer’s left of the right one’s head.

The moving dark there, in between those two light-colored dressed persons, is from a person, the viewer’s left side of the dark-clothed woman climbing the steps whose head is below Prayer Man’s hands’ position.

Edited Saturday at 03:46 PM by Greg Doudna

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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.

GD-

Good ideas...not sure they hold water. 

1. We can see Prayer Woman from elbow-to-elbow. Whether a function of a camera panning sideways, or accurate, she appears heavyset. 

2. Your black shawl lady...very blurry of course.  There appears to be another black shawl lady to the left and just below your black shawl lady. And then, just below the black shawl lady, a third lady in a white shawl. And possibly even a fourth black shawl lady, looking left, and standing stationary, below the second black shawl lady. 

3. My conclusion is we are not seeing shawls (Dallas not a Muslim city), but rather women with black hair and clothes, or a blonde in a white clothes. The image is so blurry we see shawls...but really, were shawls a thing back then? 

 

[Greg Doudna]

On one level, it doesn’t even matter whether there is record Oswald claimed to go out on the front steps to see the President and First Lady. 

If you’re certain that Oswald was the sixth floor shooter, then any figure in a photo of the steps short of an unequivocal Oswald identification is not going to be of interest. 

If, however, you consider Oswald may have been on the first floor at the time of the shots, then, never mind anything else, a figure on the steps which could be, even if it’s not clear or unambiguous, but could—be Oswald is going to be of intense interest, for one simple reason. 

That reason is an Oswald on the first floor could easily have gone out to the front steps, since he was on the first floor, and it practically defies belief that he would not have done so.

Then the issue becomes the identification of the figure itself. Everyone else of the TSBD employees than Oswald is arguably accounted for elsewhere. It is a true stretch to suppose someone toward the top of those steps near the glass doors is not a TSBD employee—conceivable but not what one would expect there. And the lack of not simply a positive identification, but of even a credible generally accepted conjectural identification of the figure as some other named identification, is the central fact here.

it does not matter whether “went out to see P Parade” in handwritten notes of an interrogator of Oswald whose existence was covered up for decades, means Oswald said that.

He was on the first floor at the time, he said. That is not contested. It would be so odd in the extreme if he did NOT walk a few feet to the front doors and have a look at JFK and Jackie go by, if he’s there on the first floor at the time as he said he was.

That is why that figure in the photo of the front steps is of such interest, unless or until it is or can become a positive exclusion of an Oswald identification.

Saying it might not be Oswald is way, way, not good enough. 

From reading Pats site I believe where Pat is coming from is not actually about an issue of what the notes mean. And it is not an issue of he doesn’t think Oswald was or might not have been on the first floor. I perceive it is because he thinks the figure in the photo is not Oswald. Not might not be, but he thinks it’s just not very likely that it’s Oswald from looking at the photo. 

From his website he has cited that Prayer Man (or Prayer Person) looks too short and too heavyset to be Oswald.

True enough, if Prayer Person can be excluded from standing on the first step down where his height would appear to be in excellent agreement with Oswald’s height of 5’9”, then it can’t be Oswald. But is that excluded?

Does the scoop neckline appearance indicate a dress? Does the dark appearing hair exclude Sarah Stanton’s gray hair which could appear lighter (on the possibility that the heavily overweight Sarah moved from the left of Frazier where Frazier said she was, across or behind Frazier to his right)?

Is the white of a man’s T shirt visible at the neckline? Does the unexplained—but multiply reported observed—apparent darker toned somewhat vertical area on the throat compared to surrounding relatively lighter skin tone represent something worn around the neck? Or a distinctive birthmark darker colored area on Oswald’s throat (if a camera was capable of picking that up)?

Is my independent, separately developed argument correct on the basic issue of what Oswald was wearing that morning, which differs from traditional belief? (The old gray work jacket described by Frazier in his WC testimony, worn over white T-shirt.) If so, does that change perception of interpretation of the neckline of the figure? 

A photo of an unidentified person where a celebrated criminal defendant would be expected to have gone if he were on the floor of the building he said he was, is very much of interest until or unless it is ruled out.

Edited Saturday at 03:05 PM by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

GD-

Good ideas...not sure they hold water. 

1. We can see Prayer Woman from elbow-to-elbow. Whether a function of a camera panning sideways, or accurate, she appears heavyset. 

2. Your black shawl lady...very blurry of course.  There appears to be another black shawl lady to the left and just below your black shawl lady. And then, just below the black shawl lady, a third lady in a white shawl. And possibly even a fourth black shawl lady, looking left, and standing stationary, below the second black shawl lady. 

3. My conclusion is we are not seeing shawls (Dallas not a Muslim city), but rather women with black hair and clothes, or a blonde in a white clothes. The image is so blurry we see shawls...but really, were shawls a thing back then? 

On the last point Benjamin maybe headscarf would be a better word than shawl. I have noticed from crowd photos of Dealey Plaza that day how common women’s head scarves were, worn over the head and hair and tied under the chin. In the back they might go down as far as the start of a coat or dress. That is what I had in mind, not Muslim head coverings for women. 🙂 And you are right the back of a woman with long black or dark hair flowing down, without scarf, would look about the same in the photos. 

Edited Saturday at 03:37 PM by Greg Doudna

[Roger Odisio]

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh my. At quick glance, I see problem after problem.  

1. The notes were almost certainly not written during the interview, but appear instead to be notes for a draft of a report written within a day or so of the interrogation. These notes appear to be at odds with the report filed by Hosty and Bookhout. So it could be that Hosty thought Oswald said he was outside, while Bookhout did not, and that this was then excluded from the report they filed jointly. Or...Hosty's notes about going outside to see the parade may have been a reference to what Oswald said when asked why he left the building. We don't know. 

2. The "out with Bill Shelley" is vague. People desperately want to believe this was Oswald's answer to a question about where he was at the time for the shooting, but he never said any such thing to the press or to his family, and everyone present at the interrogation including Fritz claimed Oswald mentioned Shelley as someone who saw him exit the building, not with whom he was standing during the shooting. 

3. Bill Shelley claimed he was asked to guard an elevator by Truly, and that a cop came into the building, and wanted to look around. And that he then took this cop upstairs in the elevator. This matches up perfectly with what Sawyer claimed...that a man standing by an elevator took him upstairs. Importantly, moreover, this was the front elevator, that only went up to the fourth floor. When discussing Vickie Adams, furthermore, Shelley said he couldn't remember whether he saw her downstairs or on the fourth floor. This proves he was the man who took Sawyer up in the elevator. And this proves he was standing at the front of the building when Oswald is presumed to have left the building. 

SO...did Oswald run into Shelley by the front door on his way out of the building. Well, if so, why would Shelley claim this didn't happen? 

Uhh...to me it's obvious. Most everyone was under the impression, true or not, that Oswald had killed a cop after leaving the building. IF Shelley had admitted he watched Oswald leave the building after being told to guard the elevator and make sure no one exited, his life would have been forever tarnished, and he would have been forever known as the man whose failure to act led to the death of a cop, in a city where such things are not forgiven. 

4. The filmed footage of Prayer Man does not look like Oswald, and, IMO, never did. In recent months a slightly clearer version of the footage became available, and some of the most strident believers in Prayer Man could see this for themselves, and quickly claimed this clearer footage was a fake rushed out to shut down their arguments. Only... It turned out that this footage was not actually new but footage that had been in possession of the Sixth Floor Museum for decades, long before whispers of Prayer Man exploded from this forum. 

NOTE: Edited to correct a presumably incorrect statement, which was based upon an unsupported claim in the Warren Report. 

So many unsupported assertions. You and I have been round and round about Hosty's note, Pat.

You say Hosty "almost certainly" did not write the note of Oswald's alibi during that first interrogation, but apparently a day or so later for a report he was preparing with Bookout.   You used to claim you knew that because taking notes at the time would require abbreviations, not full sentences. Apparently you looked at it again and noticed the note *is* abbreviated--P for presidential, no subject, etc.  Thankfully you have dropped that one.

Apparently that correction in your mind didn't cause you to adjust your claim.  You're back again asking us to believe your unsupported assumption--that Hosty didn't jot down what Oswald said as he was hearing it, but recreated it some days later from memory. 

That claim is belied by the fact that Oswald's alibi was at the heart of the first interrogation.  The cops wanted to hear it so they could set about trying to destroy parts of it, while planning to silence him. As they did. 

Hosty would have recognized the importance of Oswald's alibi.  He would have jotted it down when he heard it.

As a way to discredit the existence of the alibi, you said Oswald never told his family about it.  Unsupported again. You don't know what he told them.  He knew they couldn't help except to try to find a lawyer, which they were doing before he was killed.  It's likely Oswald told his alibi to them as he was asking for help.

Similarly you say Oswald never told his alibi to the media. Are you referring to the times he was being pushed through the hallway while reporters were yelling did you kill the president.  Oswald denied the charge "emphatically".  He knew he needed to tell his story to a lawyer.  He kept asking for one.  They murdered him first.  Oswald knew there was no point in blurting out his alibi in the hallway.  In fact, doing so would have been counterproductive and I think he understood that.

PM in Darnell doesn't look like Oswald, you say, while at the same highlighting how blurry the image is, implying it is unlikely ever to reveal who that person is.  Which is it?

I've said before how much I admire the work you did explaining what happened on AF1 as it awaited takeoff after the murder.  The coverup was already underway and that was a crucial element of it.  That was good Pat.  This is bad Pat.

[Greg Doudna]

It looks to me like there was—had to be—some decision to conceal and/or not disclose and/or downplay the sensitive issue of Oswald telling the three in that initial interrogation that he was out front on the steps. 

The fact of such coverup—the handwrittens of Hosty and Fritz, both never intended or anticipated ever to come to light, handwritten notes of which both of those men, Hosty and Fritz, lied through their teeth in denying under oath existed.

Hosty’s devastating words of Oswald in his handwritten—went to watch P Parade—only first came to light in 2019 when Bart Kamp published it. Fifty-six years without knowledge of that primary data. 

Pat cites that Hosty and the other two never told of that publicly, as argument they did not believe privately, that which was in their private notes never intended to see the light of day.

Pat, have you considered another possible explanation for the difference between concealed private and stated in public: that they were lying.

Control of the investigation and management of its scope and disclosure and reporting… the FBI. That’s two of the three in that room. The FBI was centrally controlled from hq, field offices such as Dallas and agents thereof essentially micromanaged from hq in DC.

Fritz legendary for never giving an interview about the JFKA for the rest of his life. No book. No bylined article. No interview. No invited speech or lecture. Not even at Dallas events commemorating the assassination. He just never talked publicly about it, rest of his life. Think how odd that is. Why? 

Mechanism of the coverup (conjectural here): 

A. FBI hq advises how to handle the issue, namely don’t report it in the reports which would be forwarded or disseminated to the Warren Commission. Don’t put the issue on the record. 

B. Ask Fritz to do the same. Fritz did. 

Edited Saturday at 05:47 PM by Greg Doudna

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

It looks to me like there was—had to be—some decision to conceal and/or not disclose and/or downplay the sensitive issue of Oswald telling the three in that initial interrogation that he was out front on the steps. 

The fact of such coverup—the handwrittens of Hosty and Fritz, both never intended or anticipated ever to come to light, handwritten notes of which both of those men, Hosty and Fritz, lied through their teeth in denying under oath existed.

Hosty’s devastating words of Oswald in his handwritten—went to watch P Parade—only first came to light in 2019 when Bart Kamp published it. Fifty-six years without knowledge of that primary data. 

Pat cites that Hosty and the other two never told of that publicly, as argument they did not believe privately, that which was in their private notes never intended to see the light of day.

Pat, have you considered another possible explanation for the difference between concealed private and stated in public: that they were lying.

Control of the investigation and management of its scope and disclosure and reporting… the FBI. That’s two of the three in that room. The FBI was centrally controlled from hq, field offices such as Dallas and agents thereof essentially micromanaged from hq in DC.

Fritz legendary for never giving an interview about the JFKA for the rest of his life. No book. No bylined article. No interview. No invited speech or lecture. Not even at Dallas events commemorating the assassination. He just never talked publicly about it, rest of his life. Think how odd that is. Why? 

Mechanism of the coverup (conjectural here): 

A. FBI hq advises how to handle the issue, namely don’t report it in the reports which would be forwarded or disseminated to the Warren Commission. Don’t put the issue on the record. 

B. Ask Fritz to do the same. Fritz did. 

I think you're missing a big something. IF Oswald did yessiree tell these men he'd been outside at the moment of the shooting, and they failed to acknowledge this publicly for the rest of their lives...they did him a HUGE FAVOR. 

If the media had gotten wind that Oswald claimed he'd been outside, when there were no witnesses to support this, and no photographic evidence to support this, it would have been a major mark against him--that this man was an obvious liar. Instead the story came out that he'd been sighted in the second floor lunch room looking cool as a cucumber, and millions upon millions of people thought--huh, what are the odds--to the extent that Belin felt the WC should do a re-enactment to see if Oswald could get there in time--a re-enactment that many found unconvincing. 

So--geez--if we assume these men lied we are simultaneously assuming they knowingly led the American public down a rabbit hole--and essentially divided the country in half. When all they would have to have done was say "Whoah there, peoples, this guy was such a liar he told us he was outside when we know that wasn't true. He was guilty as heck." To which Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg would have said "What a monster! That loser did it! What else can I do with the next several decades of my life!" and people like us would have said "We all know we need a stronger Federal Government--because we have to have a mechanism to control losers like Oswald!" 

So..if you really believe these men lied...I think it's only fair you add Fritz, Hosty, and Bookhout to our list of CT heroes... I mean, give credit where credit is due. 

Edited Saturday at 07:13 PM by Pat Speer

[Greg Doudna]

17 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

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.
 

David, you answered the questions concerning your reconstruction, thanks. On Mrs. Reid, that is a case of what I regard as a very strong witness--she was a professional in management and was talking about that encounter to coworkers starting that afternoon--and the content of that witness's report seeming not to make sense (Oswald wearing only a white T-shirt). I can understand your solution that she was mistaken. It is the strength of that witness that tips it to me as she was not mistaken, but I realize it is a subjective judgment. Enough on that.

On Oswald leaving by the front, agree that he did leave and you reason it was from the front. I believe neither the WR, Posner, nor Bugliosi take a position on whether Oswald left front or back (only that it was one of those two without claiming which), so this may be an innovation by you from previous WCR-supportive major arguments.

The matter of interest from my point of view is your argument for plausibility that “so many people near the TSBD front stoop could have missed seeing Lee Oswald exit the building after the assassination"--as in, no one saw him ... and the objection raised against the possibility of a Prayer Person Oswald identification that no one saw him. (No one reported seeing him, in both cases, understood.)

It seems the cases are roughly parallel, maybe ca. 40 seconds in the one case and maybe ca. 10-15 seconds in the second, but roughly parallel. I just find it of interest how the identical objection is perceived by some as a deal-killer for the one, but not a problem in the case of the other.

As for the question of which exit, all the major points to me say it was the rear not the front. There is no positive evidence for a front exit, whereas I do give weight to the testimony of Buell Frazier who says to the present day that he saw Oswald leaving from the rear (walking on Houston and crossing to go east on Elm). I do not know why he did not volunteer that sooner, but I think it more likely than not that he is truthful in later volunteering it, than either knowingly fabricating or invention of memory. I think Frazier is a truthful witness of sound mind, as a general statement. And no direct evidence of any kind contravenes or contradicts Frazier's witness of a rear exit by Oswald.

Second, in the theory of the case in which Oswald was on the first floor/front steps at the time of the assassination, his encounter with Baker prompted by Baker seeing him was an interruption of attempt to go out to the rear stairwell (Roffman's discussion of that being the strong argument that Baker noticed Oswald back away from almost exiting that door to the stairwell, which looked suspicious, rather than Oswald had just gone through that door from the stairs).

If he actually was there to get a coke--which would be a second coke that day since as the interrogators' note and simple logic, and analogy with Lovelady, tell, Oswald said he got a coke pre-assassination, i.e. to eat with his lunch--then he would not be attempting to walk out to the rear stairwell and would not have been seen by Baker if so. Also, there is no evidence from either of the two witnesses, Baker and Truly, that Oswald even had a coke in hand at the time of the Baker encounter, though he had a coke in hand passing back by Mrs. Reid a few moments later, on the strength of the credibility of the same witness who said he was wearing only a white T-shirt. 

And an attempt to go out the door to the rear stairwell can only be to go up or down in the stairwell, and since Oswald did leave the building, it must be he intended to go back down to the first floor from which then to exit the building, the rear being the nearest exit from that point. The Baker encounter thwarted that, but it is not known that he went down the front and I argue that there is indirect indication he did go by way of the s and w hallways out to the back stairwell again in fulfillment of his original intention to go down by the rear to exit, namely: that he had to return to the rear area of the second floor to retrieve the old gray jacket I believe he was wearing which he had taken off before walking by Mrs. Reid (since he was witnessed in that jacket by both Whaley, and I believe, by all three on the bus before Whaley, and since no old gray jacket known by his fellow employees to have been his was reported found left behind at the TSBD).

So although Oswald could have gone out either way, all I can see makes it more likely he went out the rear, and this is analyzed prior to the question of why, which goes into conjecture. I have conjectured the reason for that instead of simply walking away from the front steps was because Oswald believed he was in personal danger and wanted to escape without being tailed. That Oswald believed he was in danger for his personal safety seems supported by his picking up the handgun at his rooming house and arming himself. I would not assume it was the police or law enforcement which was the source of his concern for his personal safety.

I also would not rule out he may have decided to include a restroom stop inside the building before he made his exit, since he may not have known when he would next have the opportunity, though of course that is unknown. If he had a recent restroom stop say in the domino room before the time of the assassination, that may not have been a factor, unknown.

Edited Saturday at 09:08 PM by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

 

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I think you're missing a big something. IF Oswald did yessiree tell these men he'd been outside at the moment of the shooting, and they failed to acknowledge this publicly for the rest of their lives...they did him a HUGE FAVOR. 

If the media had gotten wind that Oswald claimed he'd been outside, when there were no witnesses to support this, and no photographic evidence to support this, it would have been a major mark against him--that this man was an obvious liar. Instead the story came out that he'd been sighted in the second floor lunch room looking cool as a cucumber, and millions upon millions of people thought--huh, what are the odds--to the extent that Belin felt the WC should do a re-enactment to see if Oswald could get there in time--a re-enactment that many found unconvincing. 

So--geez--if we assume these men lied we are simultaneously assuming they knowingly led the American public down a rabbit hole--and essentially divided the country in half. When all they would have to have done was say "Whoah there, peoples, this guy was such a liar he told us he was outside when we know that wasn't true. He was guilty as heck." To which Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg would have said "What a monster! That loser did it! What else can I do with the next several decades of my life!" and people like us would have said "We all know we need a stronger Federal Government--because we have to have a mechanism to control losers like Oswald!" 

So..if you really believe these men lied...I think it's only fair you add Fritz, Hosty, and Bookhout to our list of CT heroes... I mean, give credit where credit is due. 

I don't agree with the logic on this. First, the Baker 2nd floor encounter happened, I know you have battled those who say that was faked. I know it was not faked and agree on that so just leave that issue out as concerns anything relevant to what I am discussing.

On the out front business. I am conjecturing here, but when Oswald said he was on the first floor he would have been asked, if he did not volunteer, well did he go out to see the parade. Any "no" answer would have seemed very, very, very odd and he would have been pressed to explain why. Notice in the reporting of that first interrogation by Fritz, Hosty and Bookhout no explanation of Oswald is given for why he never went out, the simplest reason for that being that Oswald gave no explanation for why he didn't go out because he never denied going out. 

A moment's thought--think about it--it is just nuts that Oswald would be on that first floor, and not go out to see JFK and Jackie go by. Why on earth, why the hell wouldn't he? Everybody else except for maybe the odd bird Dougherty was going somewhere to see, right out the front door too. And Oswald would just remain alone in a domino room preferring to sip his coke and eat his apple? Makes no sense. So the lack of explanation in the interrogation reports for Oswald giving some reason why he did NOT go out to see the parade is a dog that is not barking in those interrogation reports. 

Obvious question: did you go out front? Expected answer: yes. Expected followup: who was out there with you? Expected answer: (names--Shelley. Lovelady. Frazier.)

I do not believe they would have, or immediately could have, known whether that could be true or not. I believe it would be expected that they would ask Oswald for names that potentially could verify; that the three names just mentioned would be the likeliest Oswald would give on the assumption that he did go out to watch the P Parade from the Prayer Person position; and that those three were each questioned, in addition to study of the Altgens6 photograph. And by the end of the day the answer was: we don't really know for sure.

Frazier--taken in, denies awareness of Oswald on the steps.

Shelley--told a reporter later that he had been "arrested" that day, certainly not true literally but why did the hearsay think Shelley told it that way? Shelley asked did you see Oswald? Shelley: almost at noon when he came down to lunch.

Lovelady--not sure. He could have been behind me, there was somebody behind me, I wasn't paying attention, I don't know who it was.

Altgens6 doesn't show any Oswald in that photo, but at the same time it doesn't show probably 60% of the people on the front steps, so doesn't exclude Oswald there either.

Now on the basis of this information, they THINK he was the 6th floor shooter so they THINK he's lying. But they want to verify that he was lying, and the information they had by the end of the day would be: it just wasn't clear for certain either way. They didn't come up with any confirmation for Oswald there, they don't think he was there, but ... the uncertainty, WHAT IF some witness were to come forward and say they DID see him there?

I believe in this context a rational decision could be made not to publicize in any way that could be avoided, any question or consideration, and certainly not a claim made by Oswald if so, that he was out on the front steps. 

For fear of the unknown--what if a family photo, what if a movie footage, what if a witness among the dozens outside, were to come forward and say they saw Oswald there?

(In fact that happened, of sorts, Carolyn Arnold, early FBI interview report, though Carolyn told the FBI agent she saw him behind glass doors at some unclear exact moment before the parade did come by. I have no doubt in my mind that Carolyn told the FBI agent that, no matter her later having forgotten years later that she did. I also do not regard her years later telling a reporter of seeing Oswald on the 2nd floor as being relevant or the same incident that she early told that FBI interviewer.)

In this context of the "fear of the unknown"--from the investigators'/prosecutors' point of view building up the case against Oswald to put on the record--I believe a decision to say nothing at all about it, to call no attention to it as an issue to the extent it could be avoided--in this light makes complete sense rationally, from their point of view.

I do not assume they were covering up that they knew it was true he was out there. I don't think they knew that or believed that he was. But it is the rule of prosecutors not asking witnesses questions where they don't know in advance what the answer will be, that principle.

You cite no witnesses supporting Oswald, and "and no photographic evidence to support this", as if the FBI investigators could have known that in advance at the time those interrogation reports (or their handwritten notes) were written. 

Are you sure no photographic evidence supports that? That the Prayer Person figure is someone other than Oswald? Do you know that?

What do you think of David v P's finding lack of any witness to be any problem to Oswald walking out and down those front steps through gazillions of TSBD people including Buell Frazier there at the front, and nobody saw him? Isn't that the same issue? I don't know if you think Oswald left by the front yourself. I don't think Oswald left by the front, but just citing the perception of weight given to the "no witnesses" objection as of interest.

Or how about this that I am pretty sure you will agree on (me too on this one): that Pierce Allman asked Oswald to point him to a phone there at the front steps/Prayer Person area. Nobody saw Oswald there either, including Pierce Allman said he never saw Oswald. But the man who pointed him to a phone was Oswald.

Bottom line: you are citing a "why would they cover up a claim by Oswald to be out on the front steps when they could embarrass him by publicizing it and showing it not to be true", as an argument.

The argument is invalid because (a) although they did not believe it was true, they did not actually know that. And (b) fear of unwanted surprise photo or testimony coming in that could hypothetically support that claim of Oswald, if it were publicized. Solution: decision not to publicize it even as a question.

But I have the feeling you're stuck as mud on this, no matter any individual argument. It sounds to me that in the end it comes down to that you have looked at the photo and decided it is doubtful it can be Oswald. Would you care to comment on what you make of what I have set forth as the dark-clothed woman blocking the viewer's view of the lower left side and left leg of the Prayer Person figure? Does that alter your earlier assessment that the figure is too heavyset to be Oswald? 

Edited Saturday at 09:14 PM by Greg Doudna

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

I don't agree with the logic on this. First, the Baker 2nd floor encounter happened, I know you have battled those who say that was faked. I know it was not faked and agree on that so just leave that issue out as concerns anything relevant to what I am discussing.

On the out front business. I am conjecturing here, but when Oswald said he was on the first floor he would have been asked, if he did not volunteer, well did he go out to see the parade. Any "no" answer would have seemed very, very, very odd and he would have been pressed to explain why. Notice in the reporting of that first interrogation by Fritz, Hosty and Bookhout no explanation of Oswald is given for why he never went out, the simplest reason for that being that Oswald gave no explanation for why he didn't go out because he never denied going out. 

A moment's thought--think about it--it is just nuts that Oswald would be on that first floor, and not go out to see JFK and Jackie go by. Why on earth, why the hell wouldn't he? Everybody else except for maybe the odd bird Dougherty was going somewhere to see, right out the front door too. And Oswald would just remain alone in a domino room preferring to sip his coke and eat his apple? Makes no sense. So the lack of explanation in the interrogation reports for Oswald giving some reason why he did NOT go out to see the parade is a dog that is not barking in those interrogation reports. 

Obvious question: did you go out front? Expected answer: yes. Expected followup: who was out there with you? Expected answer: (names--Shelley. Lovelady. Frazier.)

I do not believe they would have, or immediately could have, known whether that could be true or not. I believe it would be expected that they would ask Oswald for names that potentially could verify; that the three names just mentioned would be the likeliest Oswald would give on the assumption that he did go out to watch the P Parade from the Prayer Person position; and that those three were each questioned, in addition to study of the Altgens6 photograph. And by the end of the day the answer was: we don't really know for sure.

Frazier--taken in, denies awareness of Oswald on the steps.

Shelley--told a reporter later that he had been "arrested" that day, certainly not true literally but why did the hearsay think Shelley told it that way? Shelley asked did you see Oswald? Shelley: almost at noon when he came down to lunch.

Lovelady--not sure. He could have been behind me, there was somebody behind me, I wasn't paying attention, I don't know who it was.

Altgens6 doesn't show any Oswald in that photo, but at the same time it doesn't show probably 60% of the people on the front steps, so doesn't exclude Oswald there either.

Now on the basis of this information, they THINK he was the 6th floor shooter so they THINK he's lying. But they want to verify that he was lying, and the information they had by the end of the day would be: it just wasn't clear for certain either way. They didn't come up with any confirmation for Oswald there, they don't think he was there, but ... the uncertainty, WHAT IF some witness were to come forward and say they DID see him there?

I believe in this context a rational decision could be made not to publicize in any way that could be avoided, any question or consideration, and certainly not a claim made by Oswald if so, that he was out on the front steps. 

For fear of the unknown--what if a family photo, what if a movie footage, what if a witness among the dozens outside, were to come forward and say they saw Oswald there?

(In fact that happened, of sorts, Carolyn Arnold, early FBI interview report, though Carolyn told the FBI agent she saw him behind glass doors at some unclear exact moment before the parade did come by. I have no doubt in my mind that Carolyn told the FBI agent that, no matter her later having forgotten years later that she did. I also do not regard her years later telling a reporter of seeing Oswald on the 2nd floor as being relevant or the same incident that she early told that FBI interviewer.)

In this context of the "fear of the unknown"--from the investigators'/prosecutors' point of view building up the case against Oswald to put on the record--I believe a decision to say nothing at all about it, to call no attention to it as an issue to the extent it could be avoided--in this light makes complete sense rationally, from their point of view.

I do not assume they were covering up that they knew it was true he was out there. I don't think they knew that or believed that he was. But it is the rule of prosecutors not asking witnesses questions where they don't know in advance what the answer will be, that principle.

You cite no witnesses supporting Oswald, and "and no photographic evidence to support this", as if the FBI investigators could have known that in advance at the time those interrogation reports (or their handwritten notes) were written. 

Are you sure no photographic evidence supports that? That the Prayer Person figure is someone other than Oswald? Do you know that?

What do you think of David v P's finding lack of any witness to be any problem to Oswald walking out and down those front steps through gazillions of TSBD people including Buell Frazier there at the front, and nobody saw him? Isn't that the same issue? I don't know if you think Oswald left by the front yourself. I don't think Oswald left by the front, but just citing the perception of weight given to the "no witnesses" objection as of interest.

Or how about this that I am pretty sure you will agree on (me too on this one): that Pierce Allman asked Oswald to point him to a phone there at the front steps/Prayer Person area. Nobody saw Oswald there either, including Pierce Allman said he never saw Oswald. But the man who pointed him to a phone was Oswald.

Bottom line: you are citing a "why would they cover up a claim by Oswald to be out on the front steps when they could embarrass him by publicizing it and showing it not to be true", as an argument.

The argument is invalid because (a) although they did not believe it was true, they did not actually know that. And (b) fear of unwanted surprise photo or testimony coming in that could hypothetically support that claim of Oswald, if it were publicized. Solution: decision not to publicize it even as a question.

But I have the feeling you're stuck as mud on this, no matter any individual argument. It sounds to me that in the end it comes down to that you have looked at the photo and decided it is doubtful it can be Oswald. Would you care to comment on what you make of what I have set forth as the dark-clothed woman blocking the viewer's view of the lower left side and left leg of the Prayer Person figure? Does that alter your earlier assessment that the figure is too heavyset to be Oswald? 

A blurry inconclusive image can not support the possibility of what otherwise has no support. That's like saying the blurry image of a stick is evidence for the Loch Ness monster, and a blurry image of a paper plate thrown in the air is evidence for UFOs.

Now, a blurry image CAN BE evidence if the person who took the photo says that he was taking a photo of what people think maybe it portrays. 

But in this case we have a blurry image supposedly of Oswald that no one behind the camera or in the image said was Oswald, that people only started claiming was Oswald after it became clear that the claims Oswald was outside in another photo were batshit.

It's desperate. And wrong. And counter-productive. 

[Greg Doudna]

 

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

A blurry inconclusive image can not support the possibility of what otherwise has no support. That's like saying the blurry image of a stick is evidence for the Loch Ness monster, and a blurry image of a paper plate thrown in the air is evidence for UFOs.

Now, a blurry image CAN BE evidence if the person who took the photo says that he was taking a photo of what people think maybe it portrays. 

But in this case we have a blurry image supposedly of Oswald that no one behind the camera or in the image said was Oswald, that people only started claiming was Oswald after it became clear that the claims Oswald was outside in another photo were batshit.

It's desperate. And wrong. And counter-productive. 

Unless you rule out Oswald’s claim to have been on the first floor at the time of the assassination, it can be just assumed that he would be out there. Just assumed. Where else would he be but out there?

Only if you have some reason to know he wasn’t, such as if you have him shooting on the 6th floor, or you have him established somewhere else, is there any rational reason to expect him anywhere else than out front. If he was innocent of being the shooter, he would have been out front.

It’s just about that simple.

That’s the case that he was there and basis for expecting photo confirmation, irrespective that there is such. 

Edited yesterday at 12:16 AM by Greg Doudna

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I think you're missing a big something. IF Oswald did yessiree tell these men he'd been outside at the moment of the shooting, and they failed to acknowledge this publicly for the rest of their lives...they did him a HUGE FAVOR. 

If the media had gotten wind that Oswald claimed he'd been outside, when there were no witnesses to support this, and no photographic evidence to support this, it would have been a major mark against him--that this man was an obvious liar. Instead the story came out that he'd been sighted in the second floor lunch room looking cool as a cucumber, and millions upon millions of people thought--huh, what are the odds--to the extent that Belin felt the WC should do a re-enactment to see if Oswald could get there in time--a re-enactment that many found unconvincing. 

So--geez--if we assume these men lied we are simultaneously assuming they knowingly led the American public down a rabbit hole--and essentially divided the country in half. When all they would have to have done was say "Whoah there, peoples, this guy was such a liar he told us he was outside when we know that wasn't true. He was guilty as heck." To which Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg would have said "What a monster! That loser did it! What else can I do with the next several decades of my life!" and people like us would have said "We all know we need a stronger Federal Government--because we have to have a mechanism to control losers like Oswald!" 

So..if you really believe these men lied...I think it's only fair you add Fritz, Hosty, and Bookhout to our list of CT heroes... I mean, give credit where credit is due. 

PS--

 

Good points. 

[Benjamin Cole]

"Then the issue becomes the identification of the figure itself. Everyone else of the TSBD employees than Oswald is arguably accounted for elsewhere. It is a true stretch to suppose someone toward the top of those steps near the glass doors is not a TSBD employee—conceivable but not what one would expect there---GD

1. There were also two or three floors (I forget which) of the TSBD occupied by publishing houses. For some reason, those employees always get a pass. Obviously, those employees could also go outside and see the parade.

2. Why is it a stretch to consider that the Fat Prayer Woman is a not  a TSBD employee? Any passerby, wanting to view the parade, could have chosen that vantage point, which seems like a natural place to seek. Thousands of people were attracted to the parade route. 

Side lecture: For some reason, there are members of the JFKA/RFK1A research community who have a need to not only present skeptical reviews of official narratives---entirely valid undertakings---but then, in zeal, try to totally exonerate LHO or Sirhan. 

Dudes, both guys were involved, up to their eyeballs, in those assassinations. 

LHO may have been an unwitting participant, but he sure figured out quickly he had been made the patsy. You can't be a patsy if you are not in on the action. 

Sirhan may have been manipulated, but he wanted RFK dead. 

 

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:36 AM by Benjamin Cole

[Greg Doudna]

23 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

PS--

Good points. 

I don't think so.

If it had been put out that Oswald had claimed to be on the front steps, the Prayer Man figure would have been the center of attention to the investigations and to the public. With the FBI and Warren Commission unable to show Prayer Man was not Oswald (not an easy ting to do since that is who it was)--reasonable doubt that Oswald was the sixth floor shooter would be near universal. How could there not be reasonable doubt on Oswald as the shooter if a photograph that looks like him where he said he was is not otherwise identified or explained?

By not disclosing Oswald's alibi, that photographed image looking like Oswald never got noticed or studied until decades later, even though it had always been there.

The Warren Commission did its massive investigation. HSCA did its. Bugliosi did his 2600 pages. None with even knowledge of the existence of Oswald's alibi claim, or study of the photographed figure which appears to corroborate it. How bizarre is that in a criminal case? 

Pat's argument is just haywire on that one in my opinion, just rhetoric--the odd claim that disclosure of Oswald's alibi claim would have harmed Oswald's case. 

[David Von Pein]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I think you're missing a big something. IF Oswald did yessiree tell these men he'd been outside at the moment of the shooting, and they failed to acknowledge this publicly for the rest of their lives...they did him a HUGE FAVOR.

If the media had gotten wind that Oswald claimed he'd been outside, when there were no witnesses to support this, and no photographic evidence to support this, it would have been a major mark against him--that this man was an obvious liar.

And not only did Fritz, Bookhout, and Hosty do Oswald a HUGE FAVOR....but Oswald HIMSELF did those men an even bigger favor when he clammed up and decided to not tell the world VIA LIVE TELEVISION that he was standing on the Depository steps when the shooting occurred. And, keep in mind, Oswald had MULTIPLE chances to do just that while he was in police custody and to shout out to the reporters and live TV cameras: I was on the front steps when JFK was shot!

So why on Earth didn't Lee Oswald tell the world--on TV--that he was really outside the building at 12:30 PM on Nov. 22nd?

The most logical (and obvious) answer to my last question is:

Because Oswald wasn't outside the building at all when the assassination of JFK was taking place.

 

Edited yesterday at 04:16 AM by David Von Pein