Was truly the source of the police description?

Wed 17 Aug 2016, 7:31 pm

One of Greg's thread from the webs forum.

Was truly the source of the police description?

Was truly the source of the police description? ?siteId=87372064&memberId=54136632&size=small&665044

Greg
Site Owner
Posts: 1976

Credit to Johnny Hartley for finding this:

KING, Glen D Press Counsel to Chief Curry, statement to American Society of Newspaper Editors, Vol. XX, pp. 453-69.

"We were fortunate that we were able to talk to a person at the location of the events who gave us a description of a person, an employee who, he said, had been in the building prior to the assassination but was not there following it.’
"We broadcast this description on our police radio within a very few minutes after the assassination. The description was of a slender white male, about 30 years of age, about five feet ten, weighing about 165 pounds. at the time he was seen, he was carrying something that looked like either a 30-30 rifle or some type of a Winchester.”

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/K%20Disk/King%20Glen%20D%20Captain/Item%2001.pdf

Truly admitted he gave them a description - but not until much later:
Mr. TRULY. Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and he said no.

So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there or not. He said, "What do you think"? And I got to thinking. He said, "Well, we better do it anyway." It was so quick after that.
So I picked the phone up then and called Mr. Aiken, at the warehouse, and got the boy's name and general description and telephone number and address at Irving.

The description on his employment form was: weight 150 - height 5' 9". No age or date of birth.

Yet the description is almost a perfect match for Baker's 3rd or 4 th floor man. Weight 165 - height 5' 10" 30 years of age - dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.

-----------

I know Sean came to the conclusion that there was no one on the 3rd or 4th floor that Baker or Truly ran into, but I just couldn't bring myself to believe Baker had lied in his first statement.

This paints a whole new picture. That broadcast did go out - right down to the rifle. Given what King says, it had to have been Truly. And Truly was simply guessing Oswald's vital stats. Baker is immediately tapped to "confirm" that description as someone he runs into on an upper floor. Having Truly "confirm" it's an employee helps tighten the noose on Oswald with or without the description being right.

Next step was to plant a light brown jacket at the Tippit murder site - or as close as they could get on short notice!

Sean, I dips me lid again...

And another mark against Truly - the Inside Man on this.

--
I'm just one of the Dregs of Society from South Bunyip Valley Heights

In an expanding universe, time is on the side of the outcast. Those who once
inhabited the suburbs of human contempt find that without changing their
address they eventually live in the metropolis. Quentin Crisp

http://gregparke4.wix.com/gregrparker

Wed 17 Aug 2016, 7:33 pm

January 10, 2016 at 3:23 AM

Flag Quote & Reply



Beowulf Member Posts: 178	Interesting stuff Greg. Makes you wonder if the rifles brought into the office the previous day or so we're done so to get Oswald's prints on them, he might have declined an offer to hold one or the other rifles in Truly's office. To link LHO to a rifle it was necessary for DPD to print Oswald's corpse to find a palm print that somehow the FBI crime lab misses. Baker tripping up Truly's effort to frame Oswald does seem more likely thank Lifton's theory that Truly tripped up Baker's effort to shoot Oswald.
	--

Wed 17 Aug 2016, 7:34 pm

January 10, 2016 at 4:16 PM

Flag Quote & Reply



Greg Site Owner Posts: 1976	Beowulf at January 10, 2016 at 4:16 PM Interesting stuff Greg. Makes you wonder if the rifles brought into the office the previous day or so we're done so to get Oswald's prints on them, he might have declined an offer to hold one or the other rifles in Truly's office. To link LHO to a rifle it was necessary for DPD to print Oswald's corpse to find a palm print that somehow the FBI crime lab misses. Baker tripping up Truly's effort to frame Oswald does seem more likely thank Lifton's theory that Truly tripped up Baker's effort to shoot Oswald. It is important to note that the Dallas Police never did come clean on who provided the description that went out. Here is Saywers' testimony on it. Mr. BELIN. Now the next time that No. 9 appears is at what time? Mr. SAWYER. Immediately after 12:43 and before 12:45. Mr. BELIN. What did you say then? Mr. SAWYER. "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30, 5 feet 10, 165, carrying what looks to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester." Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made from the home office, "It was a rifle?" Mr. SAWYER. I answered, "Yes, a rifle." Mr. BELIN. Then the reply to you, "Any clothing description?" Mr. SAWYER. "Current witness can't remember that." Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made sometime before 12:45 p.m., and after the 12:43 p.m., call, "Attention all squads, description was broadcast and no furth er information at this time." Does that mean the description you made was rebroadcast? Mr. SAWYER. I rebroadcast that description. That is what that means. Here is his explanation as to the witness: Mr. SAWYER. That description came to me mainly from one witness who claimed to have seen the rifle barrel in the fifth or sixth floor of the building, and claimed to have been able to see the man up there. Mr. BELIN. Do you know this person's name? Mr. SAWYER. I do not. Mr. BELIN. Do you know anything about him, what he was wearing? Mr. SAWYER. Except that he was--I don't remember what he was wearing. I remember that he was a white man and that he wasn't young and he wasn't old. He was there. That is the only two things that I can remember about him. Mr. BELIN. What age would you categorize as young? Mr. SAWYER. Around 35 would be my best recollection of it, but it could be a few years either way. Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if he was tall or short, or can't you remember anything about him? Mr. SAWYER. I can't remember that much about him. I was real hazy about that. Mr. BELIN. Do you remember where he said he was standing when he saw the person with the rifle? Mr. SAWYER. I didn't go into detail with him except that from the best of my recollection, he was standing where he could have seen him. But there were too many people coming up with questions to go into detail. I got the description and sent him on over to the Sheriff's Office. Mr. BELIN. Inspector, do you remember anything else about this person who you say gave you the primary description? Mr. SAWYER. No, I do not, except that I did send him with an escort to the Sheriff's Office to give fuller or more complete detail. Mr. BELIN. Do you know if he was taken there to see a lineup at the police station? Mr. SAWYER. No. Mr. BELIN. Did you ever see him again? Mr. SAWYER. Not to my knowledge. Most people have suggested the witness was Brennan based on the above, even tho Brennan did not suggestion what type of weapon it was. But if you go by King's "We were fortunate that we were able to talk to a person at the location of the events who gave us a description of a person, an employee who, he said, had been in the building prior to the assassination but was not there following it." It is obviously referring to an employee. Now look at when Sawuer had all of this information: Mr. BELIN. Then at 12:40, there is a bunch of calls at 12:40, with the next call number at 12:43, so you assume sometime 12:40 and 12:43 you, as No. 9, called in, is that correct? Mr. SAWYER. That's correct. Mr. BELIN. Would you read what it says that you said there? Mr. SAWYER. "We need more manpower down here at the Texas Book Depository; there should be a bunch on Main if somebody can pick them up and bring them down here." Mr. BELIN. Was that said before or after you came down from the elevator? Mr. SAWYER. That was after. Mr. BELIN. Was that before or after you told the men there to guard the front door and not let anyone in or out? Mr. SAWYER. That was after. Mr. BELIN. Now the next time that No. 9 appears is at what time? Mr. SAWYER. Immediately after 12:43 and before 12:45. Mr. BELIN. What did you say then? Mr. SAWYER. "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30, 5 feet 10, 165, carrying what looks to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester." ------------------------- Mr. TRULY. Then we continued on down, and we saw officers on the fourth floor. I don't recall that we stopped any more until we reached the first floor. But I do recall there was an officer on the fourth floor, by the time we got down that far. Mr. BELIN. All right. -------------------------- Mr. BELIN. Did you give those instructions before or after you came down from the fourth floor or top floor? Mr. SAWYER. After I got down. --------------------------- Mr. BAKER - The next thing that I noticed was Inspector Sawyer, he was on one of those floors there,* he is a police inspector.* Mr. DULLES - City of Dallas Police? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. And he was on, I really didn't notice which floor he was on, but that is the first thing I saw as we descended how this freight elevator, you know, it has got these picket boards in front of it and it has got it open so far, and it seemed to me like we stopped for a moment and I spoke to him and I told him that I had been to the roof, and there wasn't anything on the roof that would indicate anybody being up there, and then we started on down. Mr. BELIN - Did you stay on the elevator while you spoke to him? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Mr. BELIN - Do you remember what floor it was that you spoke to him on or how many floors down that you went from the top before you saw him? Mr. BAKER - No, sir; not at that time. It seemed to me like it was on either the third or the fourth floor. As Sean Murphy noted... there's that damnable "3rd or 4th floor" again. The rifle being described as a Winchester is interesting because it was Winchester casings "found" up in the sniper's nest...
	-- I'm just one of the Dregs of Society from South Bunyip Valley Heights In an expanding universe, time is on the side of the outcast. Those who once inhabited the suburbs of human contempt find that without changing their address they eventually live in the metropolis. Quentin Crisp http://gregparke4.wix.com/gregrparker They put Johnny and Bobby in the ground Then the place was run by shucks and clowns Motherfuckers are still thick on the ground Coz there’s a new God – There’s a new God in town. Steve Schwartz & the Strap-Ons

Wed 17 Aug 2016, 7:36 pm

Beowulf at January 10, 2016 at 4:16 PM
Interesting stuff Greg. Makes you wonder if the rifles brought into the office the previous day or so we're done so to get Oswald's prints on them, he might have declined an offer to hold one or the other rifles in Truly's office. To link LHO to a rifle it was necessary for DPD to print Oswald's corpse to find a palm print that somehow the FBI crime lab misses. Baker tripping up Truly's effort to frame Oswald does seem more likely thank Lifton's theory that Truly tripped up Baker's effort to shoot Oswald.

It is important to note that the Dallas Police never did come clean on who provided the description that went out.

Here is Saywers' testimony on it.

Mr. BELIN. Now the next time that No. 9 appears is at what time?
Mr. SAWYER. Immediately after 12:43 and before 12:45.
Mr. BELIN. What did you say then?
Mr. SAWYER. "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30, 5 feet 10, 165, carrying what looks to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester."
Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made from the home office, "It was a rifle?"
Mr. SAWYER. I answered, "Yes, a rifle."
Mr. BELIN. Then the reply to you, "Any clothing description?"
Mr. SAWYER. "Current witness can't remember that."
Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made sometime before 12:45 p.m., and after the 12:43 p.m., call, "Attention all squads, description was broadcast and no furth er information at this time."
Does that mean the description you made was rebroadcast?
Mr. SAWYER. I rebroadcast that description. That is what that means.

Here is his explanation as to the witness:

Mr. SAWYER. That description came to me mainly from one witness who claimed to have seen the rifle barrel in the fifth or sixth floor of the building, and claimed to have been able to see the man up there.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know this person's name?
Mr. SAWYER. I do not.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know anything about him, what he was wearing?
Mr. SAWYER. Except that he was--I don't remember what he was wearing. I remember that he was a white man and that he wasn't young and he wasn't old. He was there. That is the only two things that I can remember about him.
Mr. BELIN. What age would you categorize as young?
Mr. SAWYER. Around 35 would be my best recollection of it, but it could be a few years either way.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if he was tall or short, or can't you remember anything about him?
Mr. SAWYER. I can't remember that much about him. I was real hazy about that.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember where he said he was standing when he saw the person with the rifle?
Mr. SAWYER. I didn't go into detail with him except that from the best of my recollection, he was standing where he could have seen him. But there were too many people coming up with questions to go into detail. I got the description and sent him on over to the Sheriff's Office.
Mr. BELIN. Inspector, do you remember anything else about this person who you say gave you the primary description?
Mr. SAWYER. No, I do not, except that I did send him with an escort to the Sheriff's Office to give fuller or more complete detail.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know if he was taken there to see a lineup at the police station?
Mr. SAWYER. No.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ever see him again?
Mr. SAWYER. Not to my knowledge.

Most people have suggested the witness was Brennan based on the above, even tho Brennan did not suggestion what type of weapon it was.

But if you go by King's "We were fortunate that we were able to talk to a person at the location of the events who gave us a description of a person, an employee who, he said, had been in the building prior to the assassination but was not there following it." It is obviously referring to an employee.

Now look at when Sawuer had all of this information:

Mr. BELIN. Then at 12:40, there is a bunch of calls at 12:40, with the next call number at 12:43, so you assume sometime 12:40 and 12:43 you, as No. 9, called in, is that correct?
Mr. SAWYER. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. Would you read what it says that you said there?
Mr. SAWYER. "We need more manpower down here at the Texas Book Depository; there should be a bunch on Main if somebody can pick them up and bring them down here."
Mr. BELIN. Was that said before or after you came down from the elevator?
Mr. SAWYER. That was after.
Mr. BELIN. Was that before or after you told the men there to guard the front door and not let anyone in or out?
Mr. SAWYER. That was after.
Mr. BELIN. Now the next time that No. 9 appears is at what time?
Mr. SAWYER. Immediately after 12:43 and before 12:45.
Mr. BELIN. What did you say then?
Mr. SAWYER. "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30, 5 feet 10, 165, carrying what looks to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester."
-------------------------
Mr. TRULY. Then we continued on down, and we saw officers on the fourth floor.
I don't recall that we stopped any more until we reached the first floor. But I do recall there was an officer on the fourth floor, by the time we got down that far.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
--------------------------
Mr. BELIN. Did you give those instructions before or after you came down from the fourth floor or top floor?
Mr. SAWYER. After I got down.
---------------------------
Mr. BAKER - The next thing that I noticed was Inspector Sawyer, he was on one of those floors there, he is a police inspector.
Mr. DULLES - City of Dallas Police?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. And he was on, I really didn't notice which floor he was on, but that is the first thing I saw as we descended how this freight elevator, you know, it has got these picket boards in front of it and it has got it open so far, and it seemed to me like we stopped for a moment and I spoke to him and I told him that I had been to the roof, and there wasn't anything on the roof that would indicate anybody being up there, and then we started on down.
Mr. BELIN - Did you stay on the elevator while you spoke to him?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember what floor it was that you spoke to him on or how many floors down that you went from the top before you saw him?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir; not at that time. It seemed to me like it was on either the third or the fourth floor.

As Sean Murphy noted... there's that damnable "3rd or 4th floor" again.

The rifle being described as a Winchester is interesting because it was Winchester casings "found" up in the sniper's nest...

--
I'm just one of the Dregs of Society from South Bunyip Valley Heights

In an expanding universe, time is on the side of the outcast. Those who once
inhabited the suburbs of human contempt find that without changing their
address they eventually live in the metropolis. Quentin Crisp

http://gregparke4.wix.com/gregrparker

They put Johnny and Bobby in the ground
Then the place was run by shucks and clowns
Motherfuckers are still thick on the ground
Coz there’s a new God – There’s a new God in town.
Steve Schwartz & the Strap-Ons

January 10, 2016 at 10:34 PM

Flag Quote & Reply

Was truly the source of the police description? ?siteId=87372064&memberId=128857444&size=small&873865

Hasan Yusuf
Moderator
Posts: 1250

Good work, Greg. I think we can chalk another one up for Truly being an inside man in the assassination.

January 10, 2016 at 10:43 PM

Wed 17 Aug 2016, 7:37 pm

Was truly the source of the police description? ?siteId=87372064&memberId=129002776&size=small&660982

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1401

Excellent stuff mate!

3rd or 4th floor, hmmm!

January 10, 2016 at 10:49 PM

Flag Quote & Reply

Wed 17 Aug 2016, 7:37 pm

Thanks for putting this up, Vinny. An important thread, IMO.

Wed 17 Aug 2016, 7:46 pm

Welcome Hasan.

Sat 03 Sep 2016, 8:10 pm

Sat 03 Sep 2016, 11:29 pm

Truly stinks to high heavens.

Was truly the source of the police description? 153%20Yours%20Truly

Sun 04 Sep 2016, 1:17 am

I saw this before, but didn't think it through. The broadcast description was a precise match to the bogus Oswald description disseminated (October 10th) to the various other security agencies by CIA of Oswald as a person who visited Mexico City embassies. Bogus since there was a second, separate but slightly different Oswald description sent to the MC station at the same time. (Read State Secret by Bill Simpich at Mary Ferrell site). Therefore it seems whomever provided that particular description was connected. Truly fits. It also seems that broadcasting the description sent a stealth message/threat to those other agencies who had already seen it once, that something huge was up and they should know that they are already in very hot water for missing it. It's good to know it wasn't Brennan, thanks to posts above.

Switch gears and consider the theory that if an inside man, then Truly perhaps was provided with that particular description ahead of time and the mission to do with it exactly what it looks like he did with it; tell the police for the dual purpose of sending the stealth threat and for framing Oswald. But, my theory is that Baker unexpectedly came charging into the building when he should have stayed on his bike, encountered Oswald on the steps (prayer man), and Truly had to stick to him like glue as Baker heroically searched the building. Truly led interference, running up stairs ahead of Baker to warn off the mechanics and in the process someone who should not have been seen was seen on the "3rd or 4th". Then, once Truly sufficiently damped down Baker's presence, he promptly delivered his description to Sawyer, as above.

It's all consistent with the theory that Truly was an inside man who could have freely placed Oswald anywhere in the building at any time he wanted to (even if he was actually on the steps) but for Baker's intrusion, which introduced the timing aspects that forced the manufacture, or relocation of the encounter from the 1st to the 2nd floor.

Sun 04 Sep 2016, 9:14 am

Jake Sykes wrote:I saw this before, but didn't think it through. The broadcast description was a precise match to the bogus Oswald description disseminated (October 10th) to the various other security agencies by CIA of Oswald as a person who visited Mexico City embassies. Bogus since there was a second, separate but slightly different Oswald description sent to the MC station at the same time. (Read State Secret by Bill Simpich at Mary Ferrell site). Therefore it seems whomever provided that particular description was connected. Truly fits. It also seems that broadcasting the description sent a stealth message/threat to those other agencies who had already seen it once, that something huge was up and they should know that they are already in very hot water for missing it. It's good to know it wasn't Brennan, thanks to posts above.

Switch gears and consider the theory that if an inside man, then Truly perhaps was provided with that particular description ahead of time and the mission to do with it exactly what it looks like he did with it; tell the police for the dual purpose of sending the stealth threat and for framing Oswald. But, my theory is that Baker unexpectedly came charging into the building when he should have stayed on his bike, encountered Oswald on the steps (prayer man), and Truly had to stick to him like glue as Baker heroically searched the building. Truly led interference, running up stairs ahead of Baker to warn off the mechanics and in the process someone who should not have been seen was seen on the "3rd or 4th". Then, once Truly sufficiently damped down Baker's presence, he promptly delivered his description to Sawyer, as above.

It's all consistent with the theory that Truly was an inside man who could have freely placed Oswald anywhere in the building at any time he wanted to (even if he was actually on the steps) but for Baker's intrusion, which introduced the timing aspects that forced the manufacture, or relocation of the encounter from the 1st to the 2nd floor.

Bill shows that at least part of the description can be found in Fain's report of his 1960 interview with Marguerite Oswald, as supplied by Marguerite.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0366b.htm

That's possibly where Bill and I diverge. I think that that description listed in the above report really was given by Marguerite, and it was this description used later, in the other instances listed, except that the age was at some point, mistranscribed as 30 instead of 20. Once the description entered the records with the mistranscribed age, it was the one that continued to be used. I don't think it was part of any "joker in the deck" ploy - just run-of-the-mill bureaucratic error. That's not to say that the description was used legitimately. Oswald was not in MC, so they simply referred to the file for his description.

Sun 04 Sep 2016, 9:17 am

Stan Dane wrote:Truly stinks to high heavens.

You bet your sweet bippy!

Sun 04 Sep 2016, 10:30 am

greg parker wrote:

Jake Sykes wrote:I saw this before, but didn't think it through. The broadcast description was a precise match to the bogus Oswald description disseminated (October 10th) to the various other security agencies by CIA of Oswald as a person who visited Mexico City embassies. Bogus since there was a second, separate but slightly different Oswald description sent to the MC station at the same time. (Read State Secret by Bill Simpich at Mary Ferrell site). Therefore it seems whomever provided that particular description was connected. Truly fits. It also seems that broadcasting the description sent a stealth message/threat to those other agencies who had already seen it once, that something huge was up and they should know that they are already in very hot water for missing it. It's good to know it wasn't Brennan, thanks to posts above.

Switch gears and consider the theory that if an inside man, then Truly perhaps was provided with that particular description ahead of time and the mission to do with it exactly what it looks like he did with it; tell the police for the dual purpose of sending the stealth threat and for framing Oswald. But, my theory is that Baker unexpectedly came charging into the building when he should have stayed on his bike, encountered Oswald on the steps (prayer man), and Truly had to stick to him like glue as Baker heroically searched the building. Truly led interference, running up stairs ahead of Baker to warn off the mechanics and in the process someone who should not have been seen was seen on the "3rd or 4th". Then, once Truly sufficiently damped down Baker's presence, he promptly delivered his description to Sawyer, as above.

It's all consistent with the theory that Truly was an inside man who could have freely placed Oswald anywhere in the building at any time he wanted to (even if he was actually on the steps) but for Baker's intrusion, which introduced the timing aspects that forced the manufacture, or relocation of the encounter from the 1st to the 2nd floor.

Bill shows that at least part of the description can be found in Fain's report of his 1960 interview with Marguerite Oswald, as supplied by Marguerite.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0366b.htm

That's possibly where Bill and I diverge. I think that that description listed in the above report really was given by Marguerite, and it was this description used later, in the other instances listed, except that the age was at some point, mistranscribed as 30 instead of 20. Once the description entered the records with the mistranscribed age, it was the one that continued to be used. I don't think it was part of any "joker in the deck" ploy - just run-of-the-mill bureaucratic error. That's not to say that the description was used legitimately. Oswald was not in MC, so they simply referred to the file for his description.

The key is the description duplicates a previous description of Oswald, not of a person observed that day, plus it apparently came from Truly. That's kind of a jackpot in and of itself. There really is no need to complicate it beyond that, which is what you are suggesting I think and I agree. Also agree that Oswald wasn't in MC. The bits we have point away from that notion. I think it is wise not to try to fill in unnecessary blanks when the pieces that persist have momentum of their own. What's needed is the clean scan of Darnell. Preaching to the Prayer Man choir I know, but hey, it's nice to see you here and offering your thoughts. Really! Thanks Greg.

Sat 10 Sep 2016, 8:53 am

I think the answer to this question lies in Inspector Sawyers answer, he could not describe the man that did give him the details, and when we have the two witnesses Brennan and Euins they stuck out one scared looking small black boy, and worker with a thin hat on his head, he is not even talking about them, because he tries so hard to remember who it was he that gave him the discription.
Who it was ? I don´t know, but Truly was older, nobody would say he was 35, it could just as well have been Jack D that told him he saw a man shooting out the window.
I have just read what somebody wrote about a police officer at the scene, he was one of the first officers at the TSBD, but was on no early photos, where he should have been, also i think something like this fits with the Rowland testimony, seeing several people up on the sixth floor, they could be BRW and JD and the "policeman", all just minding their own business til 12:30...
we need a scan

Sat 10 Sep 2016, 11:09 am

Faroe Islander wrote:I think the answer to this question lies in Inspector Sawyers answer, he could not describe the man that did give him the details, and when we have the two witnesses Brennan and Euins they stuck out one scared looking small black boy, and worker with a thin hat on his head, he is not even talking about them, because he tries so hard to remember who it was he that gave him the discription.
Who it was ? I don´t know, but Truly was older, nobody would say he was 35, it could just as well have been Jack D that told him he saw a man shooting out the window.
I have just read what somebody wrote about a police officer at the scene, he was one of the first officers at the TSBD, but was on no early photos, where he should have been, also i think something like this fits with the Rowland testimony, seeing several people up on the sixth floor, they could be BRW and JD and the "policeman", all just minding their own business til 12:30...
we need a scan

I don't think you could dismiss Truly based on Saywer's testimony. It's vague to say the least.

Mr. SAWYER. Except that he was--I don't remember what he was wearing. I remember that he was a white man and that he wasn't young and he wasn't old. He was there. That is the only two things that I can remember about him.
Mr. BELIN. What age would you categorize as young?
Mr. SAWYER. Around 35 would be my best recollection of it, but it could be a few years either way.

My biggest concern with it being Truly is that the name Oswald did not get broadcast with that description.

Sat 10 Sep 2016, 12:55 pm

think you are right, can see that I have been saying that it was not Truly, what I did mean to say was that some years ago when we tought it was Brennan and Euins, somebody was saying (maybe Lee ? ) that it was funny that Sawyer did not remember who he was talking to when Euins and Brennan were very easy to remember.
It could easily by Truly and I´m not all that certain that he knew Oswalds name by then, he had only been there 5-6 weeks and these two probably had no interaction except from inspecting rifles :-) , and he could not get in touch with Frazier, because Frazier was in the cellar eating his lunch, as it was more important to get a meal then to know what happened to the president.

Sat 10 Sep 2016, 3:49 pm

greg parker wrote:My biggest concern with it being Truly is that the name Oswald did not get broadcast with that description.

The same thing occured to me, Greg. No doubt in my mind that Truly would have known Oswald's name. Still, I don't discount him as being the source of the Police description.

Sat 10 Sep 2016, 8:59 pm

My speculation that it was Truly notwithstanding, in any case it does seem like Sawyer is hiding something. To say he's real "hazy" on recalling the person is suspect in itself. What would make him cover? Personal liability? A procedural error perhaps?

What if someone (a nondescript suit) came up to Sawyer at his command station on the street with a piece of paper with the description on it: "Take this down and broadcast it immediately, we got it from a witness who saw a gun. We sent him over to the Sheriff's office for interrogation." Sawyer takes it down and broadcasts it. The suit walks.

Later during interrogation prep Belin hears this story and puts the pressure on. Who was he? You don't know? You didn't recognize him but assumed he was with somebody and just let him walk? (or implications of that type). Then maybe Belin says something like "Look, the key here is there was a witness who gave a description. The witness went over to the Sheriff's, and you broadcast the description. Let's just leave the other guy out of this. It doesn't change anything anyway and you did your job like you were supposed to do." Then they go on record.

Tue 13 Sep 2016, 6:08 am

Interesting thread - these are my thoughts:

Truly?

The speed with which Sawyer put the description out on police radio indicates that Truly must have convinced him very, very quickly that there were strong reasons for suspecting Oswald - or that there was some degree of collusion.

But why no accurate description of Oswald in terms of height, weight, etc. and clothing?

Why would Truly - apparently - not tell Baker?

Did Sawyer even talk to Truly before 12.45?

Prior knowledge?

Truly doesn't really need to be in the picture as far as this angle is concerned and Sawyer had been briefed before the assassination. Possible, but it adds another layer of complexity and potential weakness to any plot. (I'm sceptical of scenarios that drag more and more unnecessary collaborators/conspirators into the plot.)

Again, though, why would there be no mention of Oswald or an up-to-date description?

Euins or Brennan?

Possible, but it is hard to believe Sawyer would have placed so much faith in physical descriptions from positions so far below the 6th floor window and which appeared vague and contradictory anyway.

Baker?

There are several possible scenarios involving Baker, including him seeing no-one on the 3rd or 4th floor and being persuaded or coerced into concocting a false affidavit.

In the same vein, he could have encountered Dougherty and lied about the physical description.

But if Baker was in on any frame at such an early stage, surely he would have identified Oswald as the suspect in City Hall. Given that he didn't due to some unfathomable slip-up, there would presumably be a further, later account that verified Truly's second-floor lunchroom encounter. Yet, there was no further word from Baker until the Warren Commission hearings.

Alternatively - and this is my view - Baker simply did not trust Truly and felt he had intercepted a prime suspect. It could be argued that doubt over this incident represented the central thrust of his affidavit.

The description Sawyer broadcast was given to him by Baker when they met in the TSBD - it matched the affidavit description apart from an error of 1 inch in height.

I believe "Winchester" was a generic description of a high-powered hunting rifle and was not intended to be definitive.

The timing here is particularly suggestive - Sawyer would have broadcast the description very shortly after meeting Baker. His inability/refusal to give an accurate description of the man who provided him with the information could be interpreted as a necessary obfuscation. Had he conceded it was Baker during the hearings, it would have opened a can of worms. (Sawyer never admitted to having met Baker.)

Possibly tangential to the topic of this thread, but I've often wondered if Baker's encounter with the suspect was witnessed by female workers on the 4th floor. I'll have to search through the various statements, but IIRC some claimed to have headed towards west-facing windows to look out on the car-park area. There is a very good chance they would have noticed this incident - or that this would have been a working assumption on the part of Truly.

Could this have been the reason the second-floor lunchroom was chosen as the site of the Oswald-Baker episode?

Tue 13 Sep 2016, 9:22 am

Redfern wrote:Interesting thread - these are my thoughts:

Truly?

The speed with which Sawyer put the description out on police radio indicates that Truly must have convinced him very, very quickly that there were strong reasons for suspecting Oswald - or that there was some degree of collusion.

But why no accurate description of Oswald in terms of height, weight, etc. and clothing?

Why would Truly - apparently - not tell Baker?

Did Sawyer even talk to Truly before 12.45?

Prior knowledge?

Truly doesn't really need to be in the picture as far as this angle is concerned and Sawyer had been briefed before the assassination. Possible, but it adds another layer of complexity and potential weakness to any plot. (I'm sceptical of scenarios that drag more and more unnecessary collaborators/conspirators into the plot.)

Again, though, why would there be no mention of Oswald or an up-to-date description?

Euins or Brennan?

Possible, but it is hard to believe Sawyer would have placed so much faith in physical descriptions from positions so far below the 6th floor window and which appeared vague and contradictory anyway.

Baker?

There are several possible scenarios involving Baker, including him seeing no-one on the 3rd or 4th floor and being persuaded or coerced into concocting a false affidavit.

In the same vein, he could have encountered Dougherty and lied about the physical description.

But if Baker was in on any frame at such an early stage, surely he would have identified Oswald as the suspect in City Hall. Given that he didn't due to some unfathomable slip-up, there would presumably be a further, later account that verified Truly's second-floor lunchroom encounter. Yet, there was no further word from Baker until the Warren Commission hearings.

Alternatively - and this is my view - Baker simply did not trust Truly and felt he had intercepted a prime suspect. It could be argued that doubt over this incident represented the central thrust of his affidavit.

The description Sawyer broadcast was given to him by Baker when they met in the TSBD - it matched the affidavit description apart from an error of 1 inch in height.

I believe "Winchester" was a generic description of a high-powered hunting rifle and was not intended to be definitive.

The timing here is particularly suggestive - Sawyer would have broadcast the description very shortly after meeting Baker. His inability/refusal to give an accurate description of the man who provided him with the information could be interpreted as a necessary obfuscation. Had he conceded it was Baker during the hearings, it would have opened a can of worms. (Sawyer never admitted to having met Baker.)

Possibly tangential to the topic of this thread, but I've often wondered if Baker's encounter with the suspect was witnessed by female workers on the 4th floor. I'll have to search through the various statements, but IIRC some claimed to have headed towards west-facing windows to look out on the car-park area. There is a very good chance they would have noticed this incident - or that this would have been a working assumption on the part of Truly.

Could this have been the reason the second-floor lunchroom was chosen as the site of the Oswald-Baker episode?

Another great post, Redfern.

I have to admit having growing doubts. Not sure when King made those statements, but it is possible that he was conflating the alleged witness for the radio description with Truly later's effort.

Could it be that one of the framers fed what they thought was Oswald's real description to Sawyer which they took from the files and which originated with Marguerite's not-quite-accurate description of her son to Fain? Not everyone is good at estimating height and weight so I see Marguerite's description as non-sinister - with the incorrect age entering the records through simple mistranscription.

Flowing from that, I wonder if Truly heard that broadcast description - realized it was wrong in terms of accurately describing Oswald and that is why he suddenly "realized" Oswald was missing - an excuse to ring and obtain the correct description from their own records. Just thinking out loud here...

Tue 13 Sep 2016, 1:33 pm

Redfern, can you please clairify what you meant when you said that Sawyer had been briefed before the assassination?

Wed 14 Sep 2016, 4:10 am

I personally do not believe that Truly was the source, nor was he in with it, until later....this was a DPD thing which was gradually moulded into Oswald.

Truly's story of Leroy missing is a lie and was 'made up' only after the fact. Had Oswald been missing inside the building there and then (and the roll call sheets prove he was duly noted as leaving the TSBD as the first person) if they did what they said they had then they would have blasted this through the police radio there and then. Truly walked to Fritz and claimed he had a boy missing (and we know more people were missing from the TSBD at that time, and several were kept outside due to the building being sealed). It's a complete fabrication and we know what a filthy liar Roy Samson Truly was and nailed Oswald to the cross after his so called fab worker ("I wish I had 5 guys like him" -Truly to Williams) proved to be a commie sympathiser.

There are the roll call sheets with Leroy's name on top of page 1, if the call for Oswald was made there and then it would have been a walk in the park who exactly to look for and describe him better.

Was truly the source of the police description? Downlo10

Was truly the source of the police description? Downlo10

Was truly the source of the police description? Downlo11

Wed 14 Sep 2016, 5:41 am

Hasan Yusuf wrote:Redfern, can you please clairify what you meant when you said that Sawyer had been briefed before the assassination?

Hasan,

Just that Sawyer had been told of the age 30/height 5'10"/weight 165 pounds description before the assassination (the height and weight being in CIA and FBI files). There would have been no need for him to encounter Truly.

In other words, he'd have been party to the plot in some way.

I know people don't like these strange coincidences and I'm certainly one but wouldn't that particular combination of height and weight be close to the mean for young-ish, fit American males at that time? It would have matched thousands in Dallas.

Truly was clearly involved in singling out Oswald later but it doesn't make much sense to have him as the source of the radio description.

It is certainly a conundrum but I'd narrow it down to either Sawyer knowing in advance or Baker telling him.

Wed 14 Sep 2016, 8:07 am

Here are a few things I take into account regarding Truly...

1.
Mr. TRULY. First, when I first went to work for this company, I had charge of the miscellaneous order department, which is actually a one-man operation. I filled orders for books other than state-adopted textbooks.

Mr. BELIN. And then what?
Mr. TRULY. I worked on through that time until the present time. During the war I worked in the North American plant at Arlington.
Mr. BELIN. That is the North American Aviation?
Mr. TRULY. North American Aviation plant at Arlington, for around 14 months, at night. But I continued to hold my job.
Well, I would go down to work 2, 3, 4 hours a day. Shortly after that, I took charge of all the shipping.
Well, I have been superintendent of the operation since some time in the late 1944.

Was truly the source of the police description? Legion10

Was truly the source of the police description? Legion10

-----------------------------

Was truly the source of the police description? Northa10

I believe Truly was one of those 20,718 security informants. Shelley too, who also told the commission he worked for a defense plant (un-named, but I'm guessing the same one). His TSBD employment was taking the same trajectory - head of the miscellaneous dept.

So between those things, I am certain both Truly and the TSBD had a longstanding association with the FBI.

---------------
2.
His role in hiring Oswald. If there was a bona fide temp vacancy to fill, there are indications that the TSBD used TEC and other employment agencies to fill those (e.g. Adams was worried that he had sent Oswald for the TSBD job - for him to think that, then the TSBD must have placed vacancies with them - and Frazier claimed he was sent by a private employment agency in Irving).

3.
His alleged heroics in putting himself unarmed between an armed cop and potentially, an armed and desperate assassin in the charge up the stairs.

4.
Other info I have on Truly being saved for my third volume silent

Truly having involvement in this plot back to at least the decision to lay the flooring is, to my mind, a given. That said, it's possibly he only knew what he needed to know, and may or may not have been aware of the ultimate purpose (assassination).

Wed 14 Sep 2016, 9:09 am

One more thing I forgot to add... the employment of Molina.... he started there in 1947. When he later got involved with the GI Forum, there is no way the TSBD is not aware of that, nor that it was on a subversive organization list. Yet he stays employed...

It reeks of complicity in the FBI infiltration of such groups.

Was truly the source of the police description?

Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Beowulf at January 10, 2016 at 4:16 PM

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Beowulf at January 10, 2016 at 4:16 PM

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?

Re: Was truly the source of the police description?