Taking seriously Oswald's front steps alibi claim

[Greg Doudna]

Pierce Allman and the existential significance to the JFK case of a second possible corroboration of Oswald's alibi claim

(Thanks to David v. P. for the baseball lore and support for that ca. 140 feet/11 seconds time estimate of mine from GK fence to TSBD front steps, which really must be considered in the wild guess category at this point on my part. But loved reading that--thanks David!)

The following is from Bart Kamp's page on Pierce Allman. The only Secret Service information is from a 2/3/64 Secret Service report, and Pierce Allman's tellings over the years of the Secret Service visiting him. Kamp says there is no surviving Secret Service report of their original visit to Pierce Allman two weeks after the assassination, ca. first week of Dec 1963.

Which dealt with Oswald's alibi. That dealt with Oswald's claim in interrogation to have been out at the front steps at the time of the assassination, Oswald's naming of a person who encountered him there and whom Oswald possibly hoped might vouch for having seen him there, and most critically at issue, when in the timeline.

A written report, a document, dealing with that, with those issues, with Oswald's alibi, that does not exist. Just disappeared from the record. Of all the reports to "lose" from the record. By coincidence, dealing wih the same thing Hosty and Fritz did not put onto the public record even though it is in their handwritten notes. That particular Secret Service document someone, somewhere long ago, decided ought to be purged from knowledge and historical memory.

Hmm, OK. 

I just wanted to give that background prior to reading Kamp here:

"What needs to be brought up is that the Secret Service report above [2/3/64] is not his first interview with Allman,  they also got in touch with him about two weeks after the JFK assassination, however there is no documentation available about this.

"In the video below from the 6th floor museum Pierce Allman gives an in depth interview. At 23:00 Allman starts talking about the moment just after the shots and about him making his way towards the TSBD and telephoning the news through and just before that his encounter with Lee Oswald.

"According to this interview he times the moment from the final shot to his encounter with Lee Oswald at 3 minutes. He described his activities after the last shot to the audience but the Secret Service report on his actions is a bit more revealing. He ran opposite towards the grassy area where he saw the Newmans lying on the ground. Bill Newman told Pierce Allman that they were ok. Allman said he briefly lost it, and began to run, not knowing where, until he regained his composure and made his way towards the TSBD. This begs the question of course that when someone has ‘lost’ it how on earth can they time any of this? Also three minutes is cutting things fine with Oswald’s ‘escape’ from the 6th floor, then the so called 2nd floor lunchroom encounter, then a convo with Mrs Reid, then get his things and then leave, that is not taking onto consideration that Oswald talked with Bill Shelley before his departure and let’s not even take Buell Frazier’s version into account (which means he left from a  different exit!)." (http://www.prayer-man.com/pierce-allman/#lightbox[group]/2/) 

Nobody ever questioned whether Pierce Allman meeting Oswald at the location where Oswald claimed his alibi might have occurred before the second-floor Oswald encounter with Baker, instead of after.

If it was before--if Allman can be identified as the man running about to arrive at the front steps in Darnell at ca. 30 seconds--it would be a second confirmation, in addition to the photograph, that Oswald was elsewhere than the sixth floor at the time the shots were fired (because of timing). 

Here is Allman's story from the second Secret Service report of Feb 4, 1964, the one that was deemed acceptable to be seen and disseminated, possibly sanitizing something from the first, missing report which might be imagined to have been largely similar in content, but maybe not exactly similar on something?... (like Hosty's and Fritz's notes)?

Allman to the Secret Service as reported Feb 4, 1964:

"Mr. Allman stated that he was watching the parade from a position near the corner of Elm and Houston. Upon hearing the shots he ran across Elm Street to a couple who had fallen to the ground. He asked the man if he was all right; the man stated that he was. Allman then ran up an incline toward Houston Street. Upon reaching the top of the incline, he turned and ran back down. He stated that he is at a loss to explain this action other than he was extremely excited and upset by the encounter. Mr. Allen then stated that he ran full speed into the Texas School Book Depository Building with intention of locating a phone and calling his television station WFAA.

"Mr. Allman stated that after he had entered the front doors of the building, he had entered into a hallway and there he met a white male whom he could not further identify. He asked this white male for the location of a telephone. Mr. Allman stated that he did not identify himself to this person, stated further that he was extremely excited at the time and that he could not remember anything about the person except for the fact that he was a white male. 

"Mr. Allman has seen pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald and could not positively state whether or not he is the one of whom he inquired. Mr. Allman stated that the person pointed out a phone to him...."

A really, really, really, really important question: did Allman encounter Oswald at a time which, if it had been verified, would have

(a) exonerated Oswald from having been the sixth floor shooter on timing grounds;

(b) supported his alibi in that a specific claimed encounter at the location of his claimed alibi had checked out as claimed; and

(c) effectively removed any doubts on the photo identification of Oswald at the location where within seconds Allman met him several feet from where he appears in the photos.

 

Edited yesterday at 04:19 AM by Greg Doudna

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Baker said the man was walking away from the stairwell, which means he was in the hallway.

You're obviously wrong, as Marrion Baker himself told us in 1964:

INTERVIEW WITH MARRION BAKER (1964)
 

[Jean Ceulemans]

Greg D asked me to post these here, he´ll pick it up.

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

 

Thank you Jean (I am unable either to post any new images or delete any old ones so asked Jean).

The dark-clothed woman climbing the steps in front of PM/CO

The gif is for the purpose of assisting in recognition of the dark-clothed woman walking up the steps toward the PM/CO (contested Oswald) figure. With fingers one can enlarge and focus in on the area on the steps. Thanks to Chris Davidson for making the gif.

Recognition of the dark-clothed woman is significant in revealing that it has been an optical illusion that any part of a left leg of PM/CO is visible, and in revealing as an optical illusion the main cause of claims that the person of the figure is overweight, as of course Oswald was not. 

Edited 19 hours ago by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Greg D asked me to post these here, he´ll pick it up.

 

PM/CO neckline colors interpretation

The images of PM/CO in Darnell esp in the 6FM copy show a U-shaped neckline with three colors, or tones since it is in black-and-white, to be accounted for, not two in that area.

There is the color of the outer clothing worn. Then there is at either side of inside the “U”, white or light-colored. Then in the middle of the “U” between the whites is a darkish color. All of this is in the neckline area below the chin. 

That there are three colors calls for explanation. For those who are seeing a scoop neckline of a dress only two colors are expected, of the dress and of skin. What is the explanation for either the white or the dark (appears darker than the face skin color)? And why would there be two colors in the scoop of a woman’s scoop neckline dress instead of just one, skin color?

My argument. The three colors are from a man, Oswald.

Oswald was wearing a flannel-like, wool-like old gray work jacket as he routinely did at work according to Frazier and other coworkers. And Marrion Baker saw him in that jacket about 1 minute after the Darnell images of PM/CO (gray jacket reported seen by Baker as light brown in a poor lighting condition). Baker confirms Oswald was wearing his gray jacket a minute later, therefore he was wearing it a minute earlier and that is the outer upper body clothing item of PM/CO and that is its color. 

The two whites or light-colors at either side of the inside of the “U” are either from the shirt Oswald wore to work that morning from Irving, CE 151 (not CE 150), which was a light maroon or reddish colored dress shirt, button-down, if Oswald was wearing that during his work hours that morning, or else his white T-shirt which in either case he will have had on. I have been uncertain on the point of whether Oswald wore his shirt under the jacket while working that morning. I am not clear that there is direct evidence from witness testimony that settles that question other than most men put lightweight jackets over shirts without taking the shirt off over the T-shirt first. In either case the light-color will be from the light-reddish 151 shirt or the actually white T-shirt worn by Oswald.

The third and last color, which unless PM/CO was wearing a necktie, will be and can hardly be other than skin.

But it seems too dark to be PM/CO’s skin, compared to the lighter tone of PM/CO’s face, even though it is exactly in position where skin would be expected of the throat. 

That is the purpose of the two photos of Oswald above. He had a birthmark darker tone discoloration in the throat area.

The slightly darker area in the throat area of Oswald becomes the darker-than-face skin color in the exact same location at PM/CO’s throat, the third color of the three.

Edited 19 hours ago by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Stunning beyond belief

It is stunning beyond belief that none of the investigations investigated the man’s alibi. The massive, massive Warren Commission investigation, months of investigation and huge staff with no expenses limiting them, never investigated Oswald’s alibi, because they never knew Oswald had claimed it.

No one knew Oswald had claimed to go out on the front steps. It wasn’t because Oswald hadn’t told investigators questioning him. He DID. But the investigators he told never disclosed the existence of his claim, and the Warren Commission never were told, and Bugliosi in his prosecution and book… ignored considering the man’s alibi because nobody was aware it existed, that he gave it.

The alibi was there in Fritz’s handwritten notes never intended to see the light of day and which Fritz lied under oath in saying he had no notes, but “out front with Shelley” was not recognized as a claim by Oswald to have gone out on the front steps near Shelley, even though that is what it was from Oswald. After Fritz’s death some unknown family member or person handling his affairs and effects found them among his things, and did the right thing in turning them over to be archived and accessible to history.

Not until 2019 did the world become aware of the existence of a claim by Oswald that he went out on the front steps to see the President pass by, “out front to watch P Parade”, when Bart Kamp brought Hosty’s handwritten notes to light, also never intended to see the light of day and Hosty also lied under oath falsely telling the Warren Commission in his testimony that he had destroyed his notes.

There was a coverup of knowledge of even the existence of that claim of Oswald of the most basic of all questions in a murder charge: “where were you at <such and such time>?” Then investigate it to see if it can be verified.

One of the most celebrated murder cases in history. Convict a man without disclosing the existence of, let alone investigating, his alibi.

A travesty beyond belief.

Especially since his alibi claim was true. 

Edited 17 hours ago by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

I appeal to every serious LNer reading this to refrain from kneejerk reactions on this one.

Dreyfus case. Other famous ones in history. 

[Roger Odisio]

18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Second-floor lunchroom encounter

Roger O., yes although there may still not be agreement, the second-floor encounter is worth discussing and lets engage this. First the starting point for me. Its not just Baker said it happened. Its not just that Oswald also said it happened and on that floor (according to the interrogators). Its that Mrs. Reid independently verified Oswald was present on that second floor at the time of that encounter. (An objection that Geneva Hine was on the floor at the time and said she did not see Oswald does not impeach Mrs. Reid's testimony, because it only means she may have been in a restroom or had not returned to her desk until after the Mrs. Reid/Oswald encounter, or alternatively since her desk faced away from where Oswald was when Mrs. Reid saw him, it could have happened when Geneva was at her desk and she did not notice it behind her. But it does not mean what Mrs. Reid witnessed did not happen.) 

Mrs. Reid was talking about that that afternoon to her fellow employees on the second floor, and then throughout the weekend and forever after. She simply was not making that up or in on a plot to make that up. There is no reason why she would, there is no evidence she did, and it makes no sense, not to me anyway. Claims along that line strike me as just bizarre. And even the family hearsay of the Sarah Stanton family members of the Doyle interview on YouTube I believe stem from that talk of Mrs. Reid and some fellow women employees that were returning to their offices that afternoon at about that time. It got garbled in the hearsay over sixty years of Stanton family retelling, but the elements of the same story are there--the coke in his hand, the near a stairwell, the coke only without eating a lunch, how the women knew who he was and wondered why he kept to himself so much, had been curious about him, and so on--I believe stem from the hearsay of that of which Mrs. Reid told and the other employees discussed starting from the same afternoon, all stemming from Oswald having been present on the second floor when Mrs. Reid told he was.

So Mrs. Reid corroborates Baker's police report, as Truly also corroborates it, and the notion that three persons, two civilians and one random low-level working cop, with no evidence of direct kind whatsoever that any one of them were intentionally lying, let alone all three in coordination--I just go by what credible witnesses say, especially when corroborated and with no conflicting evidence of any substantial kind. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a conspiracy by unidentified invisible handlers to suborn three separte witnesses each to perjure on that narrative scale, and keep the secret for life without it ever leaking ... all I can say is in life one has to choose sometimes between the expected and reasonable explanation that agrees with the known evidence, and a hypothetical that is truly extraordinary in the extreme which has no evidence, and that is how I see the choice here.

"claims 2nd floor coke when off came in" -- Fritz's handwritten notes. Hosty's handwritten does not mention the officer but does not have Oswald denying it either, and Fritz was asking Oswald about it. Yes, since it was not recorded there is that element of uncertainty there, but that is there in the handwritten, it is in the typed-up reports, several heard him, and there's no information Oswald ever denied the encounter with the officer. I believe that may have been in the first interrogation that afternoon of Fritz, Hosty, and Bookhout but am not certain on that.

I don't believe the Dallas Police or FBI planned in advance to frame Oswald or had foreknowledge of the assassination. 

That has been repeated and repeated so long it is believed (as you do here), but it simply isn't true. It was right there in Baker's original report that first day: he told of that encounter with Oswald on the second floor, although he doesn't say second floor. He doesn't know the building, how would he know to remember the exact floor if he didn't? Baker wrote in his report it took place on the third or fourth floor. On that basis people have been saying he was describing some different encounter with a different person (that has never been verified to occur, because there never was any different encounter).

He just remembered or estimated the floor wrong, but it was the second floor encounter with Oswald told the first day. Another reason people say it couldn't be is because he said (first day statement) that the man he encountered was wearing a light brown jacket. The reasoning is, Oswald was not wearing a light brown jacket, therefore that was not Oswald Baker encountered but someone else, and Baker was lying for the rest of his life when he said it was Oswald.

No, it was Oswald. But why then the light brown jacket description? Note first Baker never said unqualified "brown", he said only "light brown".  Well what then was Oswald  ACTUALLY wearing when Baker encountered him. Here I have researched an answer that has NEVER (I think) even been CLAIMED before, but I am certain it is correct: the gray woolen-like, flannel-like gray jacket Buell Frazier said Oswald wore from Irving to the TSBD that morning and that Frazier and other TSBD employees indicated Oswald would sometimes wear during workdays as well.

Even though that is as plain as day in the on-the-record Warren Commission testimony from Frazier, has been all along--a non-162 gray wool-like, flannel-like jacket routinely worn by Oswald to the TSBD and specifically the morning of Nov 22--you will not find even acknowledgement of THAT jacket's EXISTENCE anywhere previous--its not in the Warren Commission's report in their own writing, its not in Posner, its not in Bugliosi, and you won't find it anywhere on David von Pein's site. 

Its only right there in front of everyone's faces in the Warren Commission testimony of Buell Frazier all along. But no one noticed it. I do not believe I am exaggerating on that (willing to be shown wrong if someone did notice a non-162 gray jacket worn by Oswald on Nov 22, but I have looked and not found any prior mention or discussion of it, apart from Frazier right out in detail and in the open in his Warren Commission testimony, apart from that I mean).

To me that is what Oswald WAS wearing when Baker encountered Oswald at gunpoint that day on the second floor.

Baker said Oswald was wearing a jacket: that part is right.

Then the color Baker gave was mistaken. The color of the old non-162 gray wool-like, flannel-like jacket Oswald was wearing was, by most witness account's, gray. 

Then the question is why would Baker call the color of an actually gray jacket "light brown"? Not whether he did, but why? That he did is fact, but the question is to explain that fact.

I believe I found the answer to that question, which is part of an unpublished paper I have been researching, but will give here the essential point on that. I did some research on human color perception, and more specifically reasons and mechanisms by which gray can be seen as some different color. I found in that literature that gray can sometimes be seen by humans as light brown associated with poor lighting conditions. I don't know the technical reasons why, only that it is a phenomenon. Then I reread Marrion Baker's testimony to the Warren Commission and he said in passing how he remembered poor or dim lighting in that second-floor lunchroom.

Irrelevant. You are referring to what the WR's interpretation was. Not the issue. The issue is what does the evidence say happened.

I keep repeating but Howard Roffman in an early book gave an argument that the Warren Commission misinterpreted the direction Oswald was going through the door when Baker saw the movement of Oswald that he considered suspicious. Quoting Roffman, Presumed Guilty (1976): 

“It should be noted that the [Warren] Report never mentions Baker’s position at the time he saw Oswald in the vestibule. Instead, it prints a floor plan of the second floor and notes Baker’s position ‘when he observed Oswald in lunchroom.’ This location, as indicated in the Report, was immediately outside the vestibule door. The reader of the Report is left with the impression that Baker saw Oswald in the vestibule as well from this position. However, Baker testified explicitly that he first caught a glimpse of the man in the vestibule from the stairs and, upon running to the vestibule door, saw Oswald in the lunchroom. The Report’s failure to point out Baker’s position is significant.

“The circumstances surrounding the lunchroom encounter indicate that Oswald entered the lunchroom not by the vestibule door from without, as he would have had he descended from the sixth floor, but through a hallway leading into the vestibule. The outer vestibule door is closed automatically by a closing mechanism on the door. When Truly arrived on the second floor, he did not see Oswald entering the vestibule. For the Commission’s case to be valid, Oswald must have entered the vestibule through the first door before Truly arrived. Baker reached the second floor immediately after Truly and caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald in the vestibule through a small window in the outer door …  In fact, the door had to be completely closed for Baker to see anything through the door window… 

“Baker’s and Truly’s observations are not at all consistent with Oswald’s having entered the vestibule through the first door. Had Oswald done this, he could have been inside the lunchroom well before the automatic mechanism closed the vestibule door. Truly’s testimony that he saw no one entering the vestibule indicates either that Oswald was already in the vestibule at this time or was approaching it from another source. However, had Oswald already entered the vestibule when Truly arrived on the second floor, it is doubtful that he [Oswald] would have remained there long enough for Baker to see him seconds later. Likewise, the fact that neither man [Truly, Baker] saw the mechanically closed door in motion is cogent evidence that Oswald did not enter the vestibule through that door … 

“Had Oswald descended from the sixth floor, his path through the vestibule into the lunchroom would have been confined to the north wall of the vestibule. Yet the line of sight from Baker’s position at the steps does not include any area near the north wall. From the steps, Baker could have seen only one area in the vestibule—the southeast portion. The only way Oswald could have been in this area on his way to the lunchroom is if he entered the vestibule through the southernmost door … Oswald could not have entered the vestibule in this manner had he just descended from the sixth floor. The only way he could have gotten to the southern door is from the first floor up through either a large office space or an adjacent corridor. As the Report concedes, Oswald told police he had eaten his lunch on the first floor and gone up to the second to purchase a coke when he encountered an officer…”

In agreement with this argument on that, the reconstruction is Oswald got there by coming up from the first floor by the southeast stairwell connecting the first to the second floor, and from there crossed the second floor to the lunchroom area intending to go out to the northwest stairwell and back down the northwest stairs to the first floor, then exit the building at the rear. That intention was interrupted when Oswald saw the officer through the glass in the door just as he was about to open the door outward. He retreated quickly but Baker saw the movement and at gunpoint accosted Oswald in the lunchroom until Truly told him Oswald worked there and was OK.

I do not see any testimony of Victoria Adams or Sandra Styles as of sufficient weight to prove Baker, Truly, and Mrs. Reid were lying about Oswald's presence and the Baker encounter with Oswald. How could it? I am not aware that there is even a contradiction from Adams or Styles to the lunchroom encounter as reconstructed here.

No I am not taking a WR lie or fabrication. The WR's interpretation or commentary play no role in the argument I have outlined of which I am aware; that is all irrelevant. What is relevant are facts and evidence. Neither the Dallas Police, the FBI, nor the later Warren Commission invented the Baker Oswald encounter. The participants and witnesses in that encounter originated telling of the encounter because it happened, is how it originated. Yes there is another point than what you suggest: foundational establishment of facts of timeline, location, and movements, facts of the case, as accurately as possible. 

 

When discussing your interesting take on Allman, you make extensive use of Bart Kamp's work.  Yet he is mostly missing in your story about the lunch room encounter.  Kamp has spent years studying the incident.  He published a 120 page treatise on the subject in preparation for his Prayerman book.  It's safe to say, he knows more about it than either of us.  Have you read it? Constantly being revised, here is what I think is the latest version.  Pay particular attention to the summary of his points at the end of the piece, but there is useful information throughout.

http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Anatomy%20of%20the%20second%20floor%20lunch%20room%20encounter.pdf.

 

Turns out Bart had already rebutted much of the argument you now advance. As he has explained more than once, Oswald was on the first floor before the murder, went to the second floor lunchroom to get a coke to have with his lunch on the first floor.  *Before the murder*.  He then went outside at some point to "watch the P parade"

 

You cite Fritz's cryptic note "Claims 2nd floor coke when officer came in" as evidence for the lunch room encounter.  Here is Bart's reaction:  "Although this may seem clear cut, it isn't.  It doesn't place Oswald on the second floor at all after the shooting.  It says that he had a coke from the second floor when a police officer came in. 'To the first floor had lunch' strengthens the claim that Oswald had the coke from the 2nd floor and had made his way down to the first floor and then had lunch"  (p.190, Prayerman).  That is in fact what Oswald said in his testimony based on the notes from it.

 

When the "officer came in" where?  Bart believes there was an encounter between Oswald and a cop shortly after the murder.  But it occurred on the first floor.  Needing a way to claim Oswald came down the back steps, the WR simply transferred the encounter to the second floor lunchroom and falsely claimed it happened as Oswald descended the back steps after the murder.

 

Baker had trouble keeping straight the story he was given.  Here is Bart again:  "After all the affidavits, time trials and testimony they still needed additional statements" at the last minute from Baker and Truly.  B&T provided them on Sept 23, and the affidavits were rushed to Washington to be included in the WR.  The WR was presented to Johnson the next day!  Even then Baker's last statement has ‘Coke’ and ‘third floor’ stricken through.

 

Whether Oswald had a coke in his hand at the time of the alleged encounter has always been a point of confusion, an unresolved hole in the story.  It's established by his testimony that Oswald drank a coke with his lunch.  As I recall you conjectured that maybe Oswald got a second coke to provide him with a reason to be on the second floor after the murder, when you think he confronted Baker.  Thin reed, that.  

 

Even thinner is your use of the claim Oswald never denied Fritz's quote, as a basis for the lunch room encounter, whatever the quote means.  You don't know that.  He had less than 2 days to live and his framers controlled the little information we know about what he said (with a few slipups).That's  in addition to Bart's point claiming Fritz's s statement doesn't mean what you think it does, or at a minimum is ambiguous, allowing several interpretations.

 

Btw, according to Kamp, Baker never identified Oswald in any of his lineups, despite claims that he did, and did not recognize Oswald when he was brought in as the suspect he encountered inside the TSBD.

 

Consider this exercise.  JFK was killed in a crossfire of multiple shooters.  The officials planning the murder of course knew Oswald didn't do it, but they decided to blame him as a lone shooter from the 6th floor.  But they could not get any of the people who were on floors 2-6 to lie and  say they saw or heard Oswald descending the back steps afterward.  Nor anyone who could place Oswald on the 6th floor during the murder.  

 

What to do?  How to fill in the gap.  The WC could not just claim Oswald did it from the 6th floor without a story to tell about what happened next.  So they took the encounter Oswald had soon after the murder on the first floor (Kamp thinks it was with another cop, not Baker) and fabricated the lunch room encounter on the second floor, which was supposed to happen as Oswald came down the steps.  Did the framers have a better choice? What would you have done instead? 

 

I must include a critique of your approach.  You treat Baker and Truly is disinterested, credible, and reliable sources of information.  They were not.  They played a role in the framing of Oswald that was directed by higherups  They had little choice.  We know about Roger Craig and what happened to him only because he was a rare case of refusing to play along. 

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

57 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

I must include a critique of your approach.  You treat Baker and Truly is disinterested, credible, and reliable sources of information.  They were not.  They played a role in the framing of Oswald that was directed by higherups  They had little choice.  We know about Roger Craig and what happened to him only because he was a rare case of refusing to play along. 

I have read Bart Kamp's study on the second floor lunchroom encounter several times, but just to make sure I'm not overlooking anything I have printed it out and will reread it again. It may be a couple of days to get back to you on it but I will. Briefly from my point of view he is right that Oswald went up to get a coke for his lunch, then returned to the first floor, before the parade went by, and it is also obvious that the reporting of the interrogators (Fritz, Hosty, Bookhout) is confusing. From that starting point of agreement there is then departure, for I interpret that as Oswald did go to the second floor a second time, and get a coke a second time even though that was not his purpose in going there the second time. The Bookhout-Hosty reporting etc. garble the two, mix up relative sequencing and timeline. Kamp interprets that garbling in different terms, as reflections of only one original was true and then that was disappeared in the narrative. Its a different interpretation or way of accounting for the same witness testimonies and reports. I don't think Baker was being told from above to lie to frame Oswald. I think most cops would get their hackles up if told to do that. I am not aware of any indication that Baker was corrupt or crooked, or that he was told from above to lie about anything.

 

Edited 17 hours ago by Greg Doudna

[Denny Zartman]

Why would Oswald lie? Isn't killing JFK the deed that is supposed to put his name in the history books, make a nobody into a "somebody", and impress his wife?

[Greg Doudna]

.

Edited 17 hours ago by Greg Doudna

[Michael Griffith]

I think the case that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting is compelling. He could not have correctly identified when and where certain people were on the first floor and on the front steps if he had been in the sixth-floor window. Plus, the WC's own reenactment of Oswald's alleged movements proved he could not have gone from the sniper's nest in time to be seen by Baker in the second-floor lunchroom or lunchroom doorway and in time not to be seen by Truly, who was running ahead of Baker. 

Edited 16 hours ago by Michael Griffith

[Jonathan Cohen]

52 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I don't think Baker was being told from above to lie to frame Oswald. I think most cops would get their hackles up if told to do that. I am not aware of any indication that Baker was corrupt or crooked, or that he was told from above to lie about anything.

This is an excellent point, Greg. Too many people here tie themselves into logical knots by using the lazy excuse "he/she lied!" or "he/she was forced to lie!" 

[Greg Doudna]

Imagine…

Yes there always have been some weaknesses in Oswald as the shooter: his record of not being a very good shot; his lack of target practice; the lack of any cleaning supplies or rifle ammo found among his stuff; paraffin tests came up clean for gunshot residue on his cheeks; and no good witness testimony putting him there. Summed up by the Dallas Police chief himself, Curry, commenting in retrospect, they never could put him with the rifle on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. Curry wasn’t stating he thought Oswald was innocent. He was stating however it might be another matter trying to prove that Oswald was with the rifle at the time of the shooting.

With that basic status of that issue in mind as background, imagine a thought experiment, and this is especially addressed to the honest seekers of LN persuasion.

Everyone is familiar with how Buell Frazier was asked to identify himself in a photo of the employees watching the parade on the steps. He does, “that’s me”. 

And Lovelady. Shown photos, identifies himself: “that’s me”. 

Now imagine Oswald at trial, charged with firing shots from the sixth floor that assassinated President Kennedy. The prosecution case is everything the Warren Report developed. 

Defense counsel calls Oswald to the stand. In a surprise move, defense stipulates that Oswald did order by mail the rifle, the murder weapon, and possessed it up until two weeks before the assassination, then Oswald claims he sold it in Irving and did not know how it got inside the TSBD building or who brought it in, or who used it to assassinate the president. Claims the reason he denied that in interrogation was because it was part of an ongoing investigation that he was not free at that time to reveal. Claim is not corroborated by any agency asked but that’s his story now. 

After the preliminaries and foundation, the important questions.

”Did you shoot at the president?”

”No.”

“Were you on the sixth floor at the time of the shots?”

”No.”

”Where were you then at the time of the shots?”

“I was out on the front steps to watch the president go by.”

”Where were you on those steps?”

”I was next to Frazier, Lovelady, and Shelley.”

Defense introduces photo stills blown up from the Darnell film footage of the front steps shown to the jury.

”Do you see yourself anywhere in this photo?”

”Yes.”

“Would you point to where you are.”

”I’m right there (pointing to the PM figure).” 

“Are you sure that is you?”

”Sure am. That’s where I was. That’s me.”

”Did you tell Fritz you were there after your arrest?”

”Sure did. And Hosty and Bookhout too.”

”Were you aware of Darnells film footage at the time you told them you were out front near Shelley, Frazier and Lovelady?”

“No.”

Defense rests. 

How would the prosecution respond? How would the prosecution knock down that alibi claim? 

How would the prosecution go about proving Oswald was not on the front steps as he claimed?

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Baker said the man was walking away from the stairwell, which means he was in the hallway.

 

13 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

You're obviously wrong, as Marrion Baker himself told us in 1964:

 

How can I be wrong? Baker himself said that the man was walking away from the stairwell. If the man were in a room (for example, the second floor lunchroom), it couldn't be said that he was walking away from the stairwell.

Obviously Baker lied later on, just like Shelley and Lovelady lied later on. Obviously the coverup artists had enlisted their help to support their (fake) narrative.