The Statler-Hilton Hotel job application

greg doudna at the ed forum wrote:There are actually two, not one, reports of someone representing himself as Oswald applying for a job as a bellhop in high-rise hotels in downtown Dallas in the runup. The first report, at the Adolphus Hotel immediately across the street from the Carousel Club, read in isolation contains nothing inconsistent with having been Oswald. The question of impersonation would not arise in that case if it were not for the fact that a second "Oswald" applicant for an identical job as bellhop at the Statler-Hilton Hotel was not Oswald, thereby calling into question the truth of the identity of the Adolphus Hotel applicant who gave his name as Oswald.

Below is how Greg explains why the Statler applicant was not Oswald

• the person was said to have a deep voice
  
• the person goy angry at the interviewer, which Greg states is out of character for Oswald
  
• Oswald had no known history of being, or desire to be, a bellhop
  
• He stared while talking
  
• In a second interview, the witness decided the person was definitely not Oswald
  
• One of the three applicants was tracked down and denied any knowledge of Oswald. Greg adds that he was not asked about Larry Crafard - the person Greg believes was deliberatly impersonating Oswald on that and on other dates.
  

Greg went on to explain

The reason for the focus on only one impersonator in Dallas in late 1963 in the runup is because as I will bring out further there really is no hard or compelling reason to suppose more than one, and all else being equal, I am biased toward simpler explanations rather than complex ones, toward conspiracy theories that involve fewer moving parts rather than vast numbers of many moving parts all requiring secrecy. So the one-impersonator argument in Dallas 1963 is an hypothesis but from what I can see is sufficient to account for the facts.

And I say, hallelujah to that, brother!

But it can be simplified even further. 

Either the story was fabricated, or...

Oswald really did apply for it.

Let's examine both of those options.

FABRICATION
There was a single witness and no physical evidence.

The single witness was LAURA LAYFIELD.

[url=https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96522#relPageId=103&search=statler-hilton_and oswald]The Personnel Director[/url] at the Statler did not believe Oswald ever applied for a job there on the basis that Laura "tended to dramatize her job and has quite an imagination."

This was confirmed by another employee, Margaret "Peggy" Smith who told the FBI that "[url=https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96522#relPageId=110&search=statler-hilton_and oswald]Laura tended to dramatize many incidents that happened in the front office[/url]." She added that people being rude when looking for work was a common occurance. Many would come in drunk and become abusive when not gieven a job. 

Having communicated with and read many stories from Dallasites regarding the assassination, I will simply say the above does not surprise in the least. There are more bullshitters per square meter in Dallas than you'll find in an English pub on darts night. 

The lack of paperwork was attributed by Laura to "Oswald" becoming angry over being asked where he learned Russian (he had listed "Russian speaker on his application) and snatched the application back, ripping it up. 

Laura also claimed that there were two others applying for jobs at the same time and that they were all together. One of the three was allegedly identified as JAMES MURPHY - and Murphy had returned later and secured a job in the kitchen but left on or about Nov 26.

When Murphy was tracked down, he told the FBI he was not with anyone at the Statler, and no other employee recalled anyone else but him applying for work that day.

IT WAS OSWALD
Layfield stated that the application was made during the lunch period. Oswald was said by multiple witnesses to sometimes leave the building during lunch breaks. Google maps indicate it is a 19 minute walk from 411 Elm (assuming the Statler is in the same Commerce St location). Though it is a tight time frame to walk there, complete an application and return to the TSBD within the 45 minute break he had, I do not think anyone would be bothered if he was a little bit late getting back. No time cards, no one checking watches. 

Oswald was motivated to look for another job since the TSBD was only temporary and he was trying hard to reunite his family. The fact that he never had a known interest in hotel work is irrelavant. He needed work of any sort. In fact, he had never previously expressed any desire to work in a book warehouse either - yet there he was, so i find that argument from Greg a bit of a stretch. 

The background details supplied by Layfield describe only one person in all of Dallas - Oswald. That said, by the time she was interviewed, every detail she gave was in the public domain. 

The getting angry bit after being asked where he learned Russian would not be out of character at all - if Layfield had done more than ask an innocent question. This was Dallas in the middle of a Cold War against Soviet Russia. Could it be that she made a derogatory comment about his knowing Russian and having a Russian wife? 

On balance however, I lean toward this being a fabrication, without entirely ruling out the possibility it really was Oswald. 

These are the simplist explanations that account for all the known facts.

Good analysis, Greg. I agree with you that this most likely a fabrication.