wilfred baetz

greg parker wrote:

Hasan Yusuf wrote:

Was Lane complicit in setting Waldo up with those two so they could get this into the papers? It clouded the whole issue of Piper, the black man seen running off after the assassination, and the black man seen by Rowland.

Greg,

Not sure if you were already aware of this, but the black man seen running off after the assassination was "Wilfied Daetz"

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/33389/rec/59

Thanks Hasan, no I wasn't aware anyone had "outed" themselves. The incident had been discussed at the forum without anyone seeming to know about Wilfred. Well found! It's just as beneficial to rule things out as well as in...

beowulf wrote:"the encounter Oswald had with Welcome Barnett (or some other cop) at the front entrance."

Jarman testified (in 1977) that he was told by Lovelady that a cop stopped Oswald by the front entrance but he was vouched for by truly. Besides the 14 year time lag, the problem isn't that its hearsay (Jarman reports what Lovelady said) but that its probably double hearsay (Jarmany reports what Lovelady was told by Truly).  If Lovelady heard secondhand from Shelley what Truly said then it was triple hearsay.

The thing is, neither the WC nor the FBI gave a toss whether something was hearsay or not - especially if it went against Oswald. And the WC and FBI were considerably above us on the food chain. I see no reason why we should set the bar to the heights of a court. But even if we did, are there not exceptions to the hearsay rule e.g. If Truly was deceased, or could not be found?

I simply apply the "balance of probability" test when weighing evidence. Here we have early newspaper accounts, Holmes' testimony as to what Oswald said and Jarman's HSCA interview, along with a list of employees names taken in order of when they were let go - in which Oswald's name appears at the top.

Try and chase that down as to what others believe - if there is any cite given (and often there is not) it will be citing the MIG 112th file as the source of that name and address  further citing Jones as testifying to that before the HSCA. Trouble is that Jones said no such thing. The most logical answer is that Oswald supplied it himself. 

I think Truly told his crew (as he told Fritz) that they saw Oswald back by the stairs (near the back exit, no?) Baker could have asked  "does he work here" there, with Truly vouching.

He could have -- but why would he? He was absolutely convinced the sniper was up top somewhere - no way Oswald gets down that quick, so why waste a second asking questions about him? 

Lovelady later hears from Truly that he vouched for Oswald as he was leaving and he assumes Oswald left by front entrance and the cop stationed there (Barnett) was the one who stopped him and (as Lovelady had seen him do w/others) told him to stay inside.

Except Truly supposedly asked one and all if they had seen the Mr O. Sorry, I just can't buy it in the face of available evidence. 

Is the answer, testimonial if not actual, of any of the following NOT 20 feet (I'm not sure lunchroom is even big enough):
Distance from Baker at elevator to white guy looking at him _____
Distance from elevator to  Dr. Pepper machine _____
Distance from Baker on 2nd fl landing to hallway where he glimpses Oswald_____
Distance from Baker to Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom _____

It may be in a commission document somewhere.

Finally, in Southern states, soft drinks are generically called coke (other parts of country call it either soda or pop). Texas is funny because its split on the coke/soda/pop issue, probably because Dr. Pepper started in Waco.  So if Baker saw Oswald drinking Dr. Pepper would he tell Fritz (or whoever) that he saw him with a coke in his hand?  If Oswald needed to get change for the Dr. Pepper machine, would he tell interrogators he needs to get change for the coke machine? In either case, would someone like S.A. Hosty (from the soda part of Missouri IIRC) misunderstand them?
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jakatz2/files/spcMap.png

Here's Frazier mentioning Oswald getting a drink. He refers specifically to Dr Pepper - not in any generic term.

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I never have seen him eat lunch. I have seen him go to the Doctor Pepper machine by the refrigerator and get a Doctor Pepper but I never have seen him, you might say, sit right down and eat his lunch. 

Although I can't find it right now, I am certain someone else testified that he would sometimes go upstairs to get a coke. Mrs Reid also testified he was drinking a coke (and here, "coke" should be assumed to be exactly that because why would he buy a Peppers and wander up to the second floor with it?

Hasan Yusuf wrote:Speaking of the wallet Greg, I suspect it was actually found inside a pocket of the light gray jacket. I have argued on my blog that it was found near Tippit's body, but I think that it would have been much too obvious that Oswald was being framed. However, by having it in the jacket, it would look like when "Oswald" disposed of the jacket (to alter his appearance) he "accidentally" left the wallet inside of it.

Richard Gilbride wrote:There's a high degree of certainty that Oswald left by the front entrance, shortly after directing WFAA's Pierce Allman to a telephone inside the Depository (WCH VII p. 302 & WR p. 629). The thread on page 6 of the JFK section on this website, "William Shelley: Betrayal and Perjury" explores Oswald's whereabouts and exit in detail. And on page 5, the thread "Who is This Man" examines film evidence from the Martin and Hughes films that most probably shows James Jarman when he was on the Depository steps.

Still waiting patiently for Robert Groden's "Absolute Proof", which should be out this year, which contains an interview with a secretary who claims she was in the 2nd-floor office with Oswald, giving him change for the lunchroom Coke machine, when the shots rang out.

beowulf wrote:Thanks for comments guys.  I take Greg's point that Oswald had to stick around to give his name and address and Richard's that he left by the front. My point about hearsay isn't to argue a legal technicality, simply that Jarman has no way of knowing if what Lovelady tells him (or thinks he tells him) is true.  For example, Lovelady's exact words 14 years prior might have been  "the boss vouched for him, told the cop Oswald worked here" and Jarman took that to mean TSBD superintendent (Truly) when actually Lovelady meant their direct supervisor (Shelley). Its on that issue hearsay is a problem.

My point with "20 feet" is that from Warren Commission (first floor diagram and Baker testimony), that seems to be Baker's approx distance for everything.  If he did see Oswald from 20 feet away, by the coke machine (serving Dr. Pepper) on the 1st floor is the likeliest place.

Hasan Yusuf wrote:The following is from Luke Mooney’s testimony before the Warren Commission, after he explains that he had run towards the Grassy knoll with Ralph Waters:
 
“And, of course, we didn’t see anything there. Of course the Officers had checked into the car there, and didn’t find anything, I don’t believe, but a Negro porter. Of course there were quite a few spectators milling around behind us. We were trying to clear the area out and get all the civilians out that wasn’t Officers.”
 
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=16491
 
Could the “Negro porter” be the man seen running towards the parking lot following the assassination, who was allegedly Wilfied Daetz? If not, then who was it?