Proof that Pat Speer has no interest in the facts

First topic message reminder :

From Morley's Pit of Dispair

PAT SPEER
SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 AT 5:55 PM
"Well, these responses prove my point. One person says the Prayer Man figure-which to me is almost certainly a woman-is clearly a man, and that we can therefore assume it is Oswald."

Disingenuous to the max. The person in question said that the figure had all of the features of Oswald, that all other males from the building had been ruled out and that no one admitted seeing any strangers. 

"This is ridiculous. it’s a blurry picture. Oswald, from what we can tell, never said he was out on the steps."

Of course, we now know he did say exactly that... and by saying this, Speer was suggesting that it may be evidence that could sway him. He is now aware of the Hosty note, but has it moved Speer one iota? No, it has not. Because for him and others, it s not about the facts - it is in crushing anything that threatens his shibboleths

"And no one who was out on the steps has ever said he was out on the steps. I mean, we would be on firmer ground claiming the figure is Jesus, than Oswald. At least Jesus wasn’t asked where he was at the time of the shots, and then failed to say he was out on the steps."

If you were inside when you thought the shots were fired, why would you say you were outside? Because that is where Oswald was when he thought the assassination occured. 

An elightening thread on the mindset of certain types.
https://jfkfacts.org/in-jfk-lore-who-is-prayer-man/

Mick_Purdy wrote:

Redfern wrote:Quite a few posters on the Education Forum still seem to be missing the key points about Prayer Man.

There are now two sources stemming from the first interrogation session that indicate Lee Oswald claimed to be at the TSBD entrance as the motorcade passed. Given that no-one as yet has identified another figure that could be Oswald from extant photographs and films, it is surely reasonable to conclude that if PM wasn’t Oswald then he lied in custody – and lied about the most critical of issues.

It is obvious why LNs would take that position.

But then where does that leave those believe he was innocent (at least of shooting at Kennedy) and was actually elsewhere on the lower floors? Why would he lie about where he was at the time of the assassination by placing himself – of all possible locations – on the front steps? There doesn’t seem to be a logical explanation.

I contend that Oswald essentially told the truth about the events that day, although of course we’ll never know the full story. (Deeper questioning of his background may have elicited a refusal to answer.) The central concern is the manipulation and distortion of his words by the FBI, DPD and the Secret Service who sought to destroy his alibi and create a false narrative.
 

Nine years after the lengthy thread on the Education Forum critics of PM being Oswald still haven’t named a credible alternative. Instead, they cite a “plunging neckline” in an indistinct film frame ostensibly to disprove Oswald could be PM – while falsely claiming their opponents rely on other indistinct imagery to prove the opposite.

The “plunging neckline” argument is based on assuming a level of reliable detail that is absent everywhere else in the relevant image. It looks like a photographic artifact. We are possibly at the limit of what can be achieved by analysing the frames currently available and messing around with contrast, brightness, etc. may ultimately produce distorted images.

Agree Redfern, And what trumps all of this is Harold Norman and Junior Jarman's testimony re their re-entering the building through the rear dock door and  walking "through" the first floor area past the Domino room to the rear freight elevators at approximately 12:25pm time stamped by the police radio message those two had overheard out front just prior to making their way up to the 5th floor. The interrogation reports clearly point to Oswald having related this information to his accusers - it's there in the record. He tells them he had seen those two at around that time.....just before he headed out.

This seals the deal in my opinion - this along with Arnold, stating - "caught just a glimpse of Oswald on the first floor" at around 12:15pm and then the recently discovered Hosty Notes - which place him on the first and then out front -add to that the Darnell frame - and Boom there's the alibi. So where was Jack Dougherty just for shits and giggles....

All so very true Mick. And how ironic that if the FBI, the WC, the CIA and most importantly, the media had actually wanted LHO on the front steps, then the Darnel and Wiegman films along with the remarks from OC and the other witness statements you identify would have been the cast in stone, definitive proof of his being there on the steps. The public would have been programmed to that affect and you would not be able to suggest to anyone even for one millisecond that LHO was on the 6th floor. After all, there is absolutely no proof that he was as it is!

There's no evidence for his being where he wasn't and ample evidence for his being where he was. That just leaves the illogical and badly flawed 2FE story, which simply never happened.

Hi Sandy

 Here is Bart's reply regarding Pat's claims.


https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t587p800-prayer-man#39837

Jake_Sykes wrote:

Mick_Purdy wrote:

Redfern wrote:Quite a few posters on the Education Forum still seem to be missing the key points about Prayer Man.

There are now two sources stemming from the first interrogation session that indicate Lee Oswald claimed to be at the TSBD entrance as the motorcade passed. Given that no-one as yet has identified another figure that could be Oswald from extant photographs and films, it is surely reasonable to conclude that if PM wasn’t Oswald then he lied in custody – and lied about the most critical of issues.

It is obvious why LNs would take that position.

But then where does that leave those believe he was innocent (at least of shooting at Kennedy) and was actually elsewhere on the lower floors? Why would he lie about where he was at the time of the assassination by placing himself – of all possible locations – on the front steps? There doesn’t seem to be a logical explanation.

I contend that Oswald essentially told the truth about the events that day, although of course we’ll never know the full story. (Deeper questioning of his background may have elicited a refusal to answer.) The central concern is the manipulation and distortion of his words by the FBI, DPD and the Secret Service who sought to destroy his alibi and create a false narrative.
 

Nine years after the lengthy thread on the Education Forum critics of PM being Oswald still haven’t named a credible alternative. Instead, they cite a “plunging neckline” in an indistinct film frame ostensibly to disprove Oswald could be PM – while falsely claiming their opponents rely on other indistinct imagery to prove the opposite.

The “plunging neckline” argument is based on assuming a level of reliable detail that is absent everywhere else in the relevant image. It looks like a photographic artifact. We are possibly at the limit of what can be achieved by analysing the frames currently available and messing around with contrast, brightness, etc. may ultimately produce distorted images.

Agree Redfern, And what trumps all of this is Harold Norman and Junior Jarman's testimony re their re-entering the building through the rear dock door and  walking "through" the first floor area past the Domino room to the rear freight elevators at approximately 12:25pm time stamped by the police radio message those two had overheard out front just prior to making their way up to the 5th floor. The interrogation reports clearly point to Oswald having related this information to his accusers - it's there in the record. He tells them he had seen those two at around that time.....just before he headed out.

This seals the deal in my opinion - this along with Arnold, stating - "caught just a glimpse of Oswald on the first floor" at around 12:15pm and then the recently discovered Hosty Notes - which place him on the first and then out front -add to that the Darnell frame - and Boom there's the alibi. So where was Jack Dougherty just for shits and giggles....

All so very true Mick. And how ironic that if the FBI, the WC, the CIA and most importantly, the media had actually wanted LHO on the front steps, then the Darnel and Wiegman films along with the remarks from OC and the other witness statements you identify would have been the cast in stone, definitive proof of his being there on the steps. The public would have been programmed to that affect and you would not be able to suggest to anyone even for one millisecond that LHO was on the 6th floor. After all, there is absolutely no proof that he was as it is!

There's no evidence for his being where he wasn't and ample evidence for his being where he was. That just leaves the illogical and badly flawed 2FE story, which simply never happened.

It is true Jake, and it's so important to keep beating this drum. We 100% know from the testimony of Norman and Jarman re the first floor walk through at 12:25pm that Oswald was telling the truth to his accusers about having seen them at that time. There can be no other explanation. We also know by extension that his accusers had actually asked him where he was inside the building before and after the assassination - that is a certainty. They buried his alibi - no ifs no buts. Jarman and Norman's testimony are proof of this. Now when we add all the other evidence in support of Oswald having been mostly on the first and then out front it becomes so crystal clear that he was framed by the DPD initially and then the subsequent cover-up by the FBI CIA and the Secret service.

JeremyBojczuk wrote:Apologies if my comments over the years have been unduly harsh - we all get carried away sometimes. It's nothing personal!

Roger Odisio wrote:DiEugenio has been a major disappointment to me, Sandy.  Before the Stone docs were released, I tried to get him to add something about that shadowy figure on the steps and NBC Universal's role in hiding the Darnell film.  Who knows better than Stone of the media's duplicity.  It would have fit beautifully right after Whoppi's conclusion that Oswald was not on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.

I tried again before Stone went on with Rogan to be interviewed before Rogan's large audience.  No response at either time.  Instead Rogan asked Stone, as I thought he would, well, if Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor where was he?

Stone said he was in the 2nd floor lunch room(!) eating his lunch.  Major blunder and missed opportunity.

Vinny wrote:Hi Sandy

 Here is Bart's reply regarding Pat's claims.


https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t587p800-prayer-man#39837

Hi guys,

Hey Vinny, thanks for the link! It's not surprising at all that the way Pat tells the story is nearly the opposite of what Bart says. This is, after all, the guy who thinks that "back of the head" means "top of the head" and that "watch P. Parade" mean's "didn't watch P. Parade."

Jeremy, no need to apologize. I know why you do what you do and can see how it makes sense given what you believe. Besides, I don't take debates personally.

Roger, so this is where you hang out... I never saw you posting on the Ed Forum till recently. Regarding DiEugenio, in one of the JFK documentary threads he said that he tried to pick topics that "can't be answered," by which I think he meant that LNers have no answer for. That might be the reason he didn't include Prayer Man. Just a thought. But I think you're right, that that would have made a great ending.

That was my sense of DiEugenio's approach without seeing his remark, Sandy.  And it is exactly the wrong approach.

Many people have accepted the WR, or don't care about it, and moved on.  A dramatic point needs to be made to shatter this complacency and spark interest in what really happened.  In particular the media's role in the coverup and as a gatekeeper to all further inquiry needs exposure.  What is not needed is a conservative cover your ass approach to minimize criticism.

No one understands media perfidy better than Stone.  I can't help but think that were PM and all of its ramifications explained to him, he could have been a strong voice in support.

After watching the first doc (I haven't yet seen the longer one) what I felt was missing was a clear reason for people to want to *do* something.  Now.  That could be done by discussing Oswald's alibi and the PM possibility being covered up.  Rogan's program was a good opportunity and I thought Rogan--who is a thorough, uninhibited interviewer--would give Stone the chance.  Which is why Stone's answer to Oswald's whereabouts was particularly egregious. 

I've been lurking at both sites for years, but only recently started participating.  I was initially energized by Shawn Murphy's work at EF 10 years ago and lately by further findings and analysis.  One thing about this site:  Greg says they pay attention to why someone shows up.  No DVP or Pat Speer distractions here, I think.  Only those wanting wanting to push the ball forward.

Sean Murphy's, Greg Parker's, and Barto's work, along with the core contributors here, WILL stand the test of time. No doubt in my mind whatsoever. History will not be kind to the detractors, the liars, and the deceivers.

Patsy Speer's latest perfidy...

So let's be clear... A handwritten draft for an FBI report which contains the claim Oswald said he went outside to watch the parade that does not specify at what time he went outside1 (and which is not supported by any actual reports written by the FBI or DPD, or even the statements of the man who wrote this draft) is clear-cut evidence Oswald was outside at the time of the shooting2... While a taped exchange with Oswald in which he is asked if he was in the building at the time of the shooting3 and responded in the affirmative is ambiguous...

Got it... 
Clear as mud...

1 We have a pretty good idea of what time it was. We know he went to lunch at noon. We know while eating lunch in the Domino Room that he saw Jarman and Norman enter from the rear at about 12:25. We know he was seen again on the 1st floor very shortly after the shots when Ochus Campbell and others raced back in. So at the earliest, he went out maybe two to four minutes prior to the shots and at the latest, seconds after the shots. Anywhere in that short window constitutes a valid alibi.

2 No one is saying this except Patsy. It is a straw man.

3 Patsy needs his head shoved down a toilet just after it has been used by Gaal for this one. The question asked was if he was in the building at the time - NOT at the time "of the shooting". That is Patsy's preferred interpretation, but it is not the actual quote. 

As for what support in other reports the alibi received... this is just more disingenuousness from this maggot. There are only hints of the alibi in other reports because the whole purpose of getting his alibi was so it could be buried and nullified.

Is he saying he agrees Oswald said he was on the steps but there is no corroboration.
(PS Weigman and Darnell do the talking for Lee)

But is he then saying since no one saw Lee there it was because Lee didnt say he was on the steps.?
.. its a crappy disjointed argument from ignorance.

Either way Lee is there where PM is and when I overlayed Lee's head onto PM the hairline and ear align.
They align and so does the dark haired head.

Why hide any "lie" by Lee about being out front?
Why not use it against him?
Pat says no one would have backed up Lee as being on the steps.
SO WHY BURY THAT!

Doesnt make a lick of sense.
Others saw Lee moments later inside.
Gee if Lee is closer to the door than them who is going to be just inside first........??????
Do I need to draw a diaphram! (old joke)

Seriously its only compelling if everyone STAYED on the steps but as I was told many left the steps to see down towards knoll/ railroad yard. So many are not in any position to gauge the steps occupants.
Neither were those only watching the parade and not swiveling ones head about like an owl to spot the new guy.

I love when these chumps find anyone standing on the top step at any unknown time but long after the shooting and Lee or PM's stay on the steps... They trot out this lady or that person as their top candidate.
Its arse backwards and atypical.

I felt sorry for Pat because he had cancer, but reading some of the nonsense he writes makes it a bit hard to have sympathy for him. For example.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28136-prayerperson/page/13/#elControls_472203_menu


As stated ad nauseam, the CTs with the means to get a clearer copy of the film have viewed a clearer copy of the film. and stopped pursuing a clearer copy of the film afterwards. To my understanding some who viewed this film remained convinced it showed Oswald. But none with the moolah or cache thought it worth the effort to purchase this film or pursue another film of similar quality. 
It's toast, IMO. Pursuing Prayer Man is like trying to document James Files' confession, or Judyth Baker's love story. If it was gonna happen it would have happened, IMO. 
In the meantime there are a number of much better leads that remain largely unexamined in the media.

Pat's position on EF is crazier than that, Ed.  He joined the chorus calling for a better look at Darnell because he thinks its likely to show PM *isn't* Oswald.

He tries to dismiss Hosty's note by claiming it was written after the initial interrogation in preparation for a report he was doing.  I asked for the basis of this claim and got no answer (but he just keeps repeating it).  I asked what difference it makes when Hosty wrote the note if it was shortly after Oswald's questioning (which he acknowledges) and it was in fact Hosty's recollection of what Oswald said.  No answer.  

At times he has implied Oswald never said he was out front.  Implying Hosty made it up before he deleted it from the report.  For what reason?  No answer.

Pat claims Oswald's alibi is not the answer he gave under formal questioning by the cops but the answer he blurted out to an ambiguous question from a reporter in the hallway.  In which he claims Oswald said he was inside the build when the shots were fired (not what he said).

Pat puts great stock in claiming no one backed Oswald's alibi.  He even sometimes includes his interrogators--cops working on framing Oswald--in that group as if they were disinterested "witnesses".  But after all authorities quickly asserted Oswald's guilt, and considering the repression already in place who is going to do that?  Would Pat?  And what difference would it have made if someone actually came forward to say the saw Oswald on the steps?  It, and perhaps they, would have been disappeared.  Come to think about it, maybe someone did actually try to back Oswald's alibi and we don't know about it.

I feel a bit squeamish about posting this here.  Apparently Pat won't be here to respond.  On the other hand, he rarely responds to a point anyway, despite his voluminous posts.  I've grown tired of responding to him, having it ignored, and Pat endlessly repeating the same BS.

I feel a bit squeamish about posting this here.  Apparently Pat won't be here to respond.  On the other hand, he rarely responds to a point anyway, despite his voluminous posts.  I've grown tired of responding to him, having it ignored, and Pat endlessly repeating the same BS.

They all come here and read what is being said while trying to maintain they don't. He, like everyone else there, is free to come here and have their say. Sandy did, and gee whillickers! he survived! 

I start these threads because I can't post there, but nor can I just ignore the shit that they spout which keeps dragging us all back 40 years.

Roger,
So he said Hosty made up stuff but didnt use it.
So what made up stuff DID Hosty use?
How does one reconcile using a source that made up anything, let alone may or may not have included it.

Bill Shelley was an alibi element.
Bill was on the steps.
A great guess for a sixth floor sniper.
Bill of course was first to leave the steps and wouldnt be much help in identifying Lee's arrival there.
Funny Carolyn Arnold is the one to back up Lee's alibi.
Gee, she was treated so well she isnt talking about it to this day.



Where was Carolyn looking .. sure isnt at limo or parade. Sure is oddly where shots did come from. Daltex.
But they kept Carolyn from spilling the beans.

Tough enough getting theater witnesses too.
But they support an early arriving Lee.
Funny also no charges against Lee for a very public attempted murder of McDonald.... but again the witnesses do not support this and place gun in officers hand.

When asked: Were You In That Building?
Lee calmly replies;
NATURALLY IF I WORK IN THAT BUILDING, YES

of course 20 other employees were not considered guilty by their location in the building or being on the floor said to be the source of shots. (Jack Dougherty) Or on a higher floor than Lee (1st floor) at the time of the shooting.

It all stinks, just some are hard of smell.
Cheers Roger!
Ed

It's hard making sense out of some of Pat's arguments, Ed.  That was my first try.

Pat says Hosty's note with Oswald's alibi (which he says was not actually his alibi)  was not written during Oswald's interrogation (tho the claim is Hosty was the only one who took notes then).  Instead it was a draft written by Hosty some time later for a report he was preparing with Bookout.

It got deleted from the report because (me talking now) it obviously did not fit the story they were making up to frame Oswald.  If we're interested in what actually happened, we need not pay attention to the report or everything that followed as they concocted the fairy tale to frame Oswald.

Occasionally Pat would then cast doubt that Oswald even said the passage because, well, Hosty wrote it down later, not at the interrogation.  What?  Well, where did it come from?  Did Hosty just make it up later and for what reason?  I don't know.

That's the best I can do.

Ed.Ledoux wrote:Roger,
So he said Hosty made up stuff but didnt use it.
So what made up stuff DID Hosty use?
How does one reconcile using a source that made up anything, let alone may or may not have included it.

Bill Shelley was an alibi element.
Bill was on the steps.
A great guess for a sixth floor sniper.
Bill of course was first to leave the steps and wouldnt be much help in identifying Lee's arrival there.
Funny Carolyn Arnold is the one to back up Lee's alibi.
Gee, she was treated so well she isnt talking about it to this day.



Where was Carolyn looking .. sure isnt at limo or parade. Sure is oddly where shots did come from. Daltex.
But they kept Carolyn from spilling the beans.

Tough enough getting theater witnesses too.
But they support an early arriving Lee.
Funny also no charges against Lee for a very public attempted murder of McDonald.... but again the witnesses do not support this and place gun in officers hand.

When asked: Were You In That Building?
Lee calmly replies;
NATURALLY IF I WORK IN THAT BUILDING, YES

of course 20 other employees were not considered guilty by their location in the building or being on the floor said to be the source of shots. (Jack Dougherty) Or on a higher floor than Lee (1st floor) at the time of the shooting.

It all stinks, just some are hard of smell.
Cheers Roger!
Ed

Great stuff Ed, please add to this collection Jarman and Norman.....they were seen by Oswald at around 12:25pm on the first floor....walk through the rear dock entrance passed the Domino room to the rear freight elevators on their way to the 5th.
I'd say Oswald's alibi is rock solid:

Piper
Shelley
Arnold
Campbell
Norman 
Jarman

and I'll add in Frazier here too - He saw Lee standing to his right - That for me is a certainty. 

Now that would explain all the goings on later that day and into the evening with the DPD and Wesley being hauled in and threatened...Speculation - well yes , but worthy for consideration IMHO - Threatened with a Polygraph - why??? 

For years everyone has speculated Wes was brought in for questioning re the drive to work and the bag story - but it may run a lot deeper than that.

And why wasn't Oswald charged with attempted murder of a Police officer - what, they decided to let that slide - thought he'd been charged with enough murders for one day?

This will get out there - the shear weight of the evidence will see this become public sooner or later.

Thanks for posting this a great reminder to the deniers, the naysayers, the BS artist's, the charlatan's, and the conmen running with this case that this evidence  absolutely proves Oswald was framed and completely nails down his alibi.

It's hard making sense out of some of Pat's arguments, Ed.  That was my first try.

 It looks like he just wants to bury Prayer Man and make sure it goes away. So he keeps desperately coming out with all sorts of crazy arguments.

Jeremy B at EF

Bart and Pat talking about the same incident, and the same film?


Yes
The diff being I saw it and he has not, everything he has posted is based on hearsay from someone who saw it as well and who shall not be named.

There were things that showed a bit better than the Stone docu version from 1992.
Such as:
Body outline which shows that Oswald is not a short blonde heavy set woman.
Sarah Stanton is the blonde woman on the east side of the steps
The woman at the bottom on the left side of the steps looking west.
Other than that so far there is nothing else to share.

“Pat says Hosty's note with Oswald's alibi (which he says was not actually his alibi)  was not written during Oswald's interrogation (tho the claim is Hosty was the only one who took notes then).  Instead it was a draft written by Hosty some time later for a report he was preparing with Bookout”


Yes Roger that is correct, but ot does not invalidate the draft which Speer is trying to accomplish to no avail if I may add.
And then when you look and compare it w Hosty’s flipbook notes it actually makes it stronger.

I didn't see how the claim that Hosty wrote the phrase later while preparing a report (which he acknowledged vaguely was only at most a couple of days later), rather than during the first interrogation when Oswald said it, invalidated anything about it's authenticity.

I asked him that.  Did he think Hosty made it up and then  deleted it later from the report, and if so for what purpose?  No answer of course. 

We know that a main task of the first interrogation was to get Oswald's alibi so they could set out to destroy it.  Then quickly followed the confrontation with Frazier to intimidate him and the visit to Lovelady with a blowup of Altgens.

An important factor is the DPD affidavit paper it is written on! You think it was written at FBI hq? I do not think so. Oswald’s bits which were in Senkel’s office were written on that very same DPD block after the first interrogation.
Speer missed that like it was in front of an open goal all of this is in great detail mentioned in my interrogations paper.
I have to be honest and say that CTers are starting to bore me more than LNers.

Speer, like Doyle, should not be taken seriously...unless it is an amusing anecdote...totally off topic. They keep us all rapt!

Did anyone here ever take Speer seriously?

barto wrote:Did anyone here ever take Speer seriously?

Once upon a time. (appropriate opening line)

I know a lot here disagree with me on this but many of these guys or gal's start off with the best intentions (I know - there's heaps of exceptions) but somehow for whatever reason it all goes pear shaped and heads south...ego's, greed, self interest, hidden agenda's dishonesty and a touch of megalomania causes their once reasonably logical opinions to disintegrate and vanish off the face of the earth.

White was one of those guys - not bad at first but just ended up plain whacky. Speer too - some of his early material seems to be on the money but now he's just a pathetic shell of that person.. now with nut job looney opinions with some sort of hidden agenda.

I have no clue why this phenomenon happens so much among the JFK researchers - grips a bloody lot of them too. ROKC is mostly despised by a lot of them because there is a certain honesty here, that some don't like. They can't stand that we have shown that in all likelihood the unidentified male standing a top of the steps is Lee Oswald. We have presented a solid case for Oswald's alibi - there is monumental resistance to this because it means the end of the show for so many.

pat speer bullshiting again wrote:As to Oswald's exact whereabouts at 12:30, that's not exactly clear. Dougherty came down a bit after Oswald and said he saw Oswald in the second floor lunch room, where Carolyn Arnold would later say she saw Oswald and where Oswald was spotted by Baker and Truly at 12:32 or so. So it seems possible Oswald went up to the break room around 12:00 and never came back. 

But we can suspect he did. He said he saw Jarman and Norman walk by the Domino Room, and they testified to doing just that...around 12:15, if I recall. 

I have searched Doughterty's testimony and MFF and cannot find any reference to Dougherty claiming to have seen Oswald sitting in the 2nd floor lunchroom. In fact, he specifically says in testimony  that he never saw Oswald again after seeing him before lunch.

Mr. BALL - That you saw Oswald again at approximately 11 a.m. on the sixth floor?.
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - But you didn't see him again after that, is that your testimony?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Is that the truth?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.

Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald just after 12:15 when she left the building and looked back briefly seeing him near the entrance. Her later story about seeing him at 12:25 in the 2nd floor lunch room was one that was influenced by the "certainty" of the Baker-Truly-Oswald encounter on that floor. She had to fall into line with that or risk being labelled a liar. But her later story is simply not possible, The girls all testified they left together at 12:15 and returned together after the shooting. 

Your "recall" about anything is about as reliable as a Mickey Mouse watch.  It was at or about 12:25 that Jarman and Shorty came back in via the loading dock. He didn't need to be hypervigilant to see it. He would have had a plain view through the windows of them coming up Houston St and then again as they walked along the loading dock to the entrance. He may have also seen them after they entered and made their way to the frieght elevators.

That delusional nutcase Doyle will have a hissy pissy fit Greg…..

barto wrote:That delusional nutcase Doyle will have a hissy pissy fit Greg…..

Doyle? THE Doyle of Dill, Doh & Doyle Detective Agency?