"Prayer Man" on the Education Forum

[ianlloyd]

First topic message reminder :

As I am not a member of the EF, I cannot post there but there is an interesting discussion going on there at the moment regarding a figure in the TSBD doorway generally referred to as "Prayer Man" due to the apparent position of his hands, seemingly clasped in front of his chest as if in prayer.
 
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354
 
I recall this person being discussed somewhere many years ago and was referred to as "Prayer Man" pretty much from the outset but I cannot recall where it originated, maybe on Lancer?
 
Anyway, the reason for this post is that, upon looking closely at the various photographs and movie clips presented as part of the discussion, it struck me that his hands don't seem to move from the "prayer" position for what seems to be quite some time. Was he holding something, I wonder? If so, it seems an odd way to hold whatever it was.

[Hasan Yusuf]

J. Ray, on the other hand, is stuck because he has his head up where the sun don't shine.

Come on, Greg. Don't ridicule Ray Carroll. See, whilst all of us Oswald "accusers" are busy accusing Oswald of being guilty, Ray and his relentless researchers are busy trying to solve the assassination. It's true!

[GuestGuest]

From the Ed Forum thread:


"Roy Edward Lewis - standing with some ladies in the middle of the front steps.  Roy Edwards is almost certainly the African American watching from behind the West Column in Altgen’s.  He is not Prayer Man."


Regardless of whether he is - or even could be - prayer man... this is not where Lewis located himself. His statement as found in CE1381:



"I stood by myself on the inside of the front entrance..."


The DPD curiously does not seem to have taken a statement from Lewis until Feb 18 - and then it was taken as a CI report -  on the same day that the same unit was investigating "Pierce Allman's use of the telephone."
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/27/2798-001.gif

Greg, that was my quote on the Ed Forum.  I believe I have correctly located Roy Lewis and will give my reasons below.  First, let's look at some statements made by Roy Lewis to the FBI and the Dallas Police.

12/9/63 FBI Report (CD 205 p23) "...  viewed the Presidential motorcade and heard the shots…but could offer no information as to where the shots had come from.” 


2/18/64 Dallas Police report, CD950, p.54) "Subject stated that he was in the entrance of the building when the president was assassinated."

3/18/64 Statement to FBI agents (referenced above) "... at approximately 12 :25,PM I stood by myself on the inside of the front entrance of the Texas School Book Depository Building to watch President John F . Kennedy come by the building in a motorcade..."

1998 No More Silence Pg 84-89  "...“I was standing with some ladies from up in the offices right in the middle of the steps in front of the building that led to the sidewalk beyond the glass door. As the motorcade came by, I remember seeing Kennedy brushing back his hair. That’s when all hell broke loose! I heard BOOM!... BOOM!... BOOM! with the second and third shots being closer together. The people down in front of me hit the ground then everybody started running toward the grassy knoll… 

In none of these statements does Lewis say he was in the building.  He specifically references the Entrance.  The entrance is the covered alcove that contains the steps leading up to the glass doors that lead to the inside of the building. The statements of 2/18 and 3/18/64 state "in the entrance" and "inside of the front entrance".  The statement published in No More Silence makes it crystal clear he is out on the steps.
I can understand how others might understand this differently if they were only viewing the statements of 1964, but to me it is clear.  Especially when you consider the following items:
• The Black Man peering around the corner in Altgen's is located exactly where Lewis located himself in the 1998 statement, "in the middle of the steps"  (it is not the middle of the steps left to right, but rather the middle steps when viewed from top to bottom.  There are 8 steps and Lewis is on probably the 3-4th step)
• The only other Black Man from the step group indicated he was later in the vicinity of Truly, Reid, and Campbell, all of whom had gone down to the north side of Elm Street to view the motorcade.
•  I have seen the WC graphics that place Lewis inside the building.  I believe whoever created this graphic must have misunderstood the witness statements.  If you wanted to watch the motorcade with the President of the U.S. going by right in front of you, why would you stand inside the building behind numerous people who were blocking your view on the top steps of the entrance, when you could take a few more steps outside and get a clear view for yourself?

Richard,

I'll qualify my reply by saying I don't know anything about the WC graphics you reference. I am not in any way a photographic expert - and - I am directionally challenged. I could get lost on a dime. Nor did I go searching for all of Lewis' statements.

All that said, I would put more faith in CE 1381 than any 35 years later interview. For a start, CE 1381 was seeking very specific information. And Lewis seems to have given extremely specific information as to his position: "Inside of the front entrance". I interpreted that on its face value without reference to any of his other statements. When you do that, it does sound like he in an enclosed area - whether inside the building or between what I believe was two sets of doorways. I would not automatically dismiss a different interpretation - but I would have to understand it first. You seem to dismiss the everyday meaning of "inside of the front entrance" based on later statements, if I have that right?

Also, how do you reconcile the 1964 statement, "I stood by myself" which was made to a federal authority, with 1995 statement to an author that "I was standing with some ladies"? Could the person you identify with Lewis be anyone else?

Greg,

Like you, I do not consider myself to be a photo expert. The WC Graphic places Lewis just inside the door on the first floor directly behind all the people who are standing on the top steps of the entrance.  From that location, with the number of people in front of him, I doubt that he would get more than a fractured glimpse of the motorcade turning onto Elm Street.  Here is the link:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=40395&relPageId=29

I believe that understanding Lewis description hinges on his definition of "Entrance".  I believe Lewis was referring to the Outdoor Covered Alcove with the Steps as the Entrance.  I can understand how others might believe he was referring to the Door as the Entrance.  It was meaningful to me that he never used the phrase "inside the building".

Nine times out of ten, I will give much more weight to the earliest witness statement. But if Lewis felt the steps were part of the entrance, then his 1998 statement does not contradict his earlier statements.  It simply provides more detail.  And it gives a precise location that removes any doubt.

As far as reconciling the statements, I can see how he might say either.  Looking at Altgen's, you could say he is alone peering around the column.  But Altgen's photo and other film also show some women standing just to his left.

The only other candidate for the Black Man by the column would be Carl Edward Jones.  At one point in his testimony he places himself on the steps and mentions Lovelady.  Then he continues on to say he was with Reid, Campbell and Truly, who were all standing by Elm St.

Regarding the discussion of Prayer Man, I believe it safe to say neither Jones nor Lewis is a candidate.

Putting all the above together, I am "nearly certain" that Roy Lewis is the guy peering around the column.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Richard,

thanks for the clarifications. 

I'm with you up to your discussion of Jones. I'll have to check his testimony. I really can't see a Black worker standing with Truly.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert, the same thoughts have occurred to me. 

Where (imho) you're going wrong is in assuming the upper floor encounter was with Oswald.

My own scenario is this:

Oswald is seen by Truly on first floor and perhaps also, but not necessarily by Baker. Nothing is said because he cannot possibly be the shooter. 

Baker and Truly reach the 4th floor where they encounter the man described by Baker in his affidavit. This is getting much closer to where Baker thinks the shots came from, so this person is NOT above suspicion and is questioned by Baker  - until Truly vouches for him as an employee. If an employee, it could only be Jack Dougherty - except for the fact that the description doesn't match Dougherty any better than it does Oswald.

Meanwhile, Oswald is stopped from leaving by Welcome Barnett and asked to stand aside until they can get his details. He is vouched for by either Truly (if he has descended in time) or Shelley and allowed to leave - presumably after his name and address are taken down as per every other employee - which is why his name and address ends up on top of Revill's list - and why it is slightly off in accuracy - an Oswald trait. The oft repeated claim that the information on Revill's list came from Robert Jones of 112th MIG is pure bunk for which there is absolutely zero evidence.

If this is in any way accurate -- then why is Truly vouching for "4th Floor Man"? It's almost as if he charged in after Baker to ensure Baker didn't get the wrong guy - or to put another way - the RIGHT guy... 

No way, no how this thing goes down without an "inside man". Truly was that man.

All of the above may well be true, Greg. 

The problem - as is well known to you and all others who've attempted squaring various statements, affidavits and testimonies - is that they're all at such variance to each other that it becomes difficult to sort the truth from the dog's breakfast deliberately fabricated to prevent a certifiable conclusion.  It is not just that various parties tell conflicting stories, but that individuals each recounted two or more self-contradictory versions of events, making it difficult to discern not just who is telling the truth, but which version of their story is true, if any at all are in fact true.

As for Barnett, he disputes having let Oswald out of the TSBD, whether or not anyone vouched for him as an employee:


Mr. LIEBELER - Did you let anybody out of the building after you got there?
Mr. BARNETT - No, sir; until they were authorized.
Mr. LIEBELER - Who was in a position to authorize people to come in and out?
Mr. BARNETT - Well, of course, for sometime no one left except city, county, and Federal officers, and then after the people in the building were took into the small room there and questioned, they were brought to the door by a lieutenant, which I don't remember his name, but that was sometime after, and he brought them to the door and told us to let them out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you notice Oswald around that area at anytime?
Mr. BARNETT - No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Later on you saw his picture in the paper and, of course, on television?
Mr. BARNETT - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - You have no recollection of seeing him in the area at all?
Mr. BARNETT - None whatsoever. There were hundreds of people in that intersection.


Likewise, I've always had trouble with the contention that the encounter inside the TSBD was to provide an excuse for Baker to kill Oswald.  It's been said that he failed to do so because Truly was with him.  Yet when Baker confronted Oswald, Truly was already allegedly racing up the stairs, ahead of Baker, who already had gun drawn.  Baker could have fired and told Truly the suspect had rushed toward him. To me, that's a non-starter.

Similarly, if Truly is the inside man on this, why vouch for Oswald when he's confronted by police, whether on the first, second, third or fourth floor?  Wouldn't the inside man finger Oswald at the first opportunity?  "Hey, you know this guy just started working here, so we don't really know much about him, and somebody told me he's some kind of "Red."  I think you should hold him for questioning." 

(That's not to say Truly *wasn't* necessarily the, or at least *an* inside man.  He is, after all, the man who offered a rationale for weapons being brought into the building prior to the assassination, via Warren Caster.  That fact alone should have marked both men for special attention from authorities they seemed never to receive.)

If the incident occurred on the first floor, and Oswald was stopped by Barnett, then the "authorization" for Oswald to leave presumably came from Shelley, since Truly couldn't have arrived back from the top of the building in time to vouch for Oswald as an employee.  Yet Barnett claims certainty that he never dealt with Oswald, and claims that "authorization" for non-law enforcement people to leave came only after each person was questioned by authorities.  If this is so, and Oswald was one of those employees, he presumably was held for a length of time that calls into question the timeline of his "escape" - bus, cab, UFO or whatever - his appearance at the boarding house and his ability to reach Tippitt in time to kill him. 

Moreover, the story told by Lovelady to Jarman and/or Norman about Shelley vouching for Oswald as an "employee" is rife with contradictions, not the least of which is that Lovelady failed to repeat that story to anyone else at any time, to the best of my knowledge.  If that's in error, I'd appreciate a cite for any statement to the contrary.  Nor did Shelley admit having done so.

We know that DPD Detective Ed Hicks told the press on 11/22/63 that Oswald had been stopped at the front door, but Hicks didn't know this from first hand knowledge, since he'd not been a party to the interrogation.  Whatever his source, it's impossible to know.  There is no reference made to Hicks in either the Warren volumes index, nor the Dallas DPD archives.  Though it is congruent with what Oswald allegedly told Fritz, and what Harry Holmes would recall of the later interrogation session for which he was present, it runs counter to what FBI's Bookhout allgedly heard Oswald say, meaning that either Fritz or Bookhout must have been mistaken or lying.  If Holmes is credible, Bookhout is not. Hicks is just another of many potentially fruitful sources whose possible contributions were foreclosed by a failure to investigate their credible claims.

I don't think there can by any doubt that Oswald purchased a soft drink that day, for there are too many independent mentions of it by civilians and authorities alike, right up to the date of Marrion Baker's final FBI statement.  There can be no doubt that Baker said in September '64 Oswald had been drinking a Coke when confronted, because his statement was dictated to an FBI agent.  It was only after having said so, and being informed that this undermined the notion of Oswald's guilt, that Baker agreed the "Coke" portion of his statement should be struck.  Or maybe, Baker was simply reminded that he'd already testified Oswald had been empty-handed.  One must presume that FBI and Commission felt secure this hand-written statement - and the self-contradiction it contained - would never see the light of day.  How problematic for them that it did.

It should also be noted that Oswald regularly went to the second floor to obtain change to buy a soda from a machine, but this does not mean he usually bought a "Coke" on the 2nd floor.  His preference was Dr. Pepper, an empty bottle of which was found on the 6th floor near the "sniper's nest."  We know from Junior Jarman's testimony that a Dr. Pepper machine was located near the Domino room, and that it was operational that day because he bought one.  It is possible that Jarman or some other employee got the last bottle of Dr. Pepper in that machine, which might have sent Oswald upstairs for another beverage.  But all of this is speculation, since he may have only gone upstairs for change; particularly so if Truly and Baker lied about this incident.

Moreover, one cannot place great confidence in the use of the word "Coke," as by that time it had already become a generic expression for any kind of soda pop.  No attempt was made to locate Oswald's bottle, so one cannot conclude with certainty that when people used the term "Coke" they were necessarily referring to a Coca~Cola.  He could well have had a bottle of Dr. Pepper instead, which further reduces the motive for going to the second floor.

Like all other reasonable minds, I think it ludicruous that Oswald bought the beverage after the shots were fired, assuming he knew they had been.  Others inside the building testified they heard shots, or at least loud sounds that they soon thereafter learned had been shots.  Presumably, wherever he was, Oswald heard the same.  I cannot imagine him being so incurious about the nature of the loud noises that he opted to grab a cold soda pop before investigating.  So much here is so completely wrong.

As we read various reports, we must bear in mind that the higher the floor upon which the "confrontation," the more easily one compresses the time frame for such an encounter.  The higher up Oswald is encountered, the likelier it is that he was on the 6th floor at the time of shooting.  Each storey higher increases Oswald's culpability.  This may have been a factor in Baker's initial written statement he'd seen Oswald on the third or fourth floor, if Baker was a crooked cop. 

For my own part, I've always invested confidence in the veracity of what Oswald said while in custody, where multiple witnesses recount the same Oswald comment(s).

We cannot give credence to contradictory individual recollections of what Oswald said while interrogated, without a recording to backstop them as legitimate.  They did not record.  

On the whole, Oswald's spontaneous reactions to his circumstances ring more true than the concoctions of his accusers.  His claim to have been on the ground floor at the time of the assassination and then outside with Shelley rings true.  He knew who'd been in the Domino room eating lunch, and that Shelley was outside the front door on the alcove steps, neither of which he could have known with certainty had he been on the 6th floor. 

On balance of the evidence, including police officers' accounts, I think a first floor encounter the likelier of the two alternatives (or more, thanks to Baker.)

[James DiEugenio]

Nice summary RCD.

And I agree with the conclusion.

Just one disagreement.  If I recall, I don't think Baker said that was Oswald on the fourth floor.

[beowulf]

Just one disagreement.  If I recall, I don't think Baker said that was Oswald on the fourth floor.

That's a very good point, Baker seems to have jumped to 2nd floor meeting without ever placing Oswald at 3rd/4th floor meeting. Of course that didn't stop Fritz from saying Baker identified LHO upstairs.

"Report to Chief J. E. Curry, by J. W. Fritz. Report to Chief Curry listing pieces of evidence, (Original), 12/23/63
...
6. While we were still searching the building, Mr. Roy G. Truly, 4932 Jade Drive, reported to us that one of his men was missing, a Lee Harvey Oswald, whose address was 2515 W. 5th Street, Irving, Texas. We also found that this man had been stopped by Officer M. L. Baker while coming down the stairs. Mr. Baker says that he stopped this man on the third or fourth floor on the stairway, but as Mr. Truly identified him as one of the employees, he was released. After seeing that this man was apparently running, two of the detectives and myself left the building and came to the office for an identification check and other information, and soon found that he was the same man who had shot Officer Tippit."
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/09/0986-002.gif

[James DiEugenio]

That's a really nice catch.  So even into Xmas, they are rewriting the back story on this one.

In order to make sure that Oswald was the only suspect. 

And to eliminate the other suspect on the 4th floor.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

All of the above may well be true, Greg.  

The problem - as is well known to you and all others who've attempted squaring various statements, affidavits and testimonies - is that they're all at such variance to each other that it becomes difficult to sort the truth from the dog's breakfast deliberately fabricated to prevent a certifiable conclusion.

Robert, I don't think it was done specifically for that reason. Plugging one hole in the Titanic caused other ruptures, which then had to be plugged, causing an occasional witness to progressively change their own narrative. This process continued until the ship was all bandaged up. By the time it sank, the verdict was in and the scapegoat had been well and truly keel-hauled. 

 It is not just that various parties tell conflicting stories, but that individuals each recounted two or more self-contradictory versions of events, making it difficult to discern not just who is telling the truth, but which version of their story is true, if any at all are in fact true.

As Larry has pointed out, first day recollections are (as a rule of thumb) the most reliable. This started for me the very first time I read Baker's affidavit. The evidence has been mounting ever since. 

As for Barnett, he disputes having let Oswald out of the TSBD, whether or not anyone vouched for him as an employee:

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you let anybody out of the building after you got there?
Mr. BARNETT - No, sir; until they were authorized.
Mr. LIEBELER - Who was in a position to authorize people to come in and out?
Mr. BARNETT - Well, of course, for sometime no one left except city, county, and Federal officers, and then after the people in the building were took into the small room there and questioned, they were brought to the door by a lieutenant, which I don't remember his name, but that was sometime after, and he brought them to the door and told us to let them out. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you notice Oswald around that area at anytime?
Mr. BARNETT - No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Later on you saw his picture in the paper and, of course, on television?
Mr. BARNETT - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - You have no recollection of seeing him in the area at all?
Mr. BARNETT - None whatsoever. There were hundreds of people in that intersection. 

Mr. HOLMES. He said, as I remember, actually, in answer to questions there, he mentioned that when lunchtime came, one of the Negro employees asked him if. he would like to sit and each lunch with him, and he said, "Yes, but I can't go right now." He said, "You go and take the elevator on down." No, he said, "You go ahead, but send the elevator back up."
He didn't say up where, and he didn't mention what floor he was on. Nobody seemed to ask him.

You see, I assumed that obvious questions like that had been asked in previous interrogation. So I didn't interrupt too much, but he said, "Send the elevator back up to me."

Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."

Oswald's alleged words here gel completely with what was actually happening. People were being asked to wait until there details could be taken. 

Likewise, I've always had trouble with the contention that the encounter inside the TSBD was to provide an excuse for Baker to kill Oswald.  It's been said that he failed to do so because Truly was with him.  Yet when Baker confronted Oswald, Truly was already allegedly racing up the stairs, ahead of Baker, who already had gun drawn.  Baker could have fired and told Truly the suspect had rushed toward him. To me, that's a non-starter.

That's Lifton's take on it. I take the complete opposite view (who'd have thought?!) Baker's actions in charging in were heroic. Truly's actions were bizarre. What unarmed citizen races ahead to lead an armed cop in search of an armed and lethal assassin? Truly did that to ensure the real perp wasn't arrested.    

Similarly, if Truly is the inside man on this, why vouch for Oswald when he's confronted by police, whether on the first, second, third or fourth floor?  Wouldn't the inside man finger Oswald at the first opportunity?  "Hey, you know this guy just started working here, so we don't really know much about him, and somebody told me he's some kind of "Red."  I think you should hold him for questioning."  

I don't believe he did vouch for him. There was no need for Baker to suspect anyone on the first floor. At best, Baker asked for someone who works here to tell him where the elevator was - and Truly stepped forward. The only vouching done was for the man on the 4th floor, and Oswald on the first floor as he tried to leave. That was most likely Shelley. 

(That's not to say Truly *wasn't* necessarily the, or at least *an* inside man.  He is, after all, the man who offered a rationale for weapons being brought into the building prior to the assassination, via Warren Caster.  That fact alone should have marked both men for special attention from authorities they seemed never to receive.)

I harbor zero doubt Truly was the inside man - and that is a lynch-pin of my solution to the case. 

If the incident occurred on the first floor, and Oswald was stopped by Barnett, then the "authorization" for Oswald to leave presumably came from Shelley, since Truly couldn't have arrived back from the top of the building in time to vouch for Oswald as an employee.  Yet Barnett claims certainty that he never dealt with Oswald, and claims that "authorization" for non-law enforcement people to leave came only after each person was questioned by authorities.  If this is so, and Oswald was one of those employees, he presumably was held for a length of time that calls into question the timeline of his "escape" - bus, cab, UFO or whatever - his appearance at the boarding house and his ability to reach Tippitt in time to kill him.  

Would you really expect Barnett to put his hand up and admit - "yep. I'm the dufus who let him walk out"?

As for how long it took... not too long for the Rambler... or another bus direct to the Texas Theatre... (which I believe was his original claim).

I believe he did give his name and address to a cop before leaving - thus making it to the top of Revill's list. Oswald had some form for giving slightly off information. There is zero evidence that this was obtained from Jones of MIG 112th - which is the oft repeated claim.  And Oswald WAS asked to stand aside (according to what Holmes claims he said). I don';t think this was for the purpose of swapping pancake recipes.   

Moreover, the story told by Lovelady to Jarman and/or Norman about Shelley vouching for Oswald as an "employee" is rife with contradictions, not the least of which is that Lovelady failed to repeat that story to anyone else at any time, to the best of my knowledge.  If that's in error, I'd appreciate a cite for any statement to the contrary.  Nor did Shelley admit having done so.

We don't know who it was said to. The HSCA investigators did a good job of eliciting information, but a lousy job of understanding its importance or following through on these leads. 


We know that DPD Detective Ed Hicks told the press on 11/22/63 that Oswald had been stopped at the front door, but Hicks didn't know this from first hand knowledge, since he'd not been a party to the interrogation.  Whatever his source, it's impossible to know.  

Does it really matter how he knew? The main point is that Oswald's account adds up to mutual corroboration. As does Jarman's account. Sure, it all hearsay. The reports and WC depositions are full of hearsay. We should allow it if passes the smell test.

There is no reference made to Hicks in either the Warren volumes index, nor the Dallas DPD archives.

He was described as a City Detective in a  Weisberg document... for some reason I seem to recall he was from Houston? Maybe he was seconded to help out...? 

 Though it is congruent with what Oswald allegedly told Fritz, and what Harry Holmes would recall of the later interrogation session for which he was present, it runs counter to what FBI's Bookhout allgedly heard Oswald say, meaning that either Fritz or Bookhout must have been mistaken or lying.  If Holmes is credible, Bookhout is not. Hicks is just another of many potentially fruitful sources whose possible contributions were foreclosed by a failure to investigate their credible claims. 

Bookhout contradicted Bookhout/Hosty. To my way of thinking, Holmes was not privy to the ongoing frame outside of his own domain at the PO. He had no inkling about the machinations with the lunch time story and so we get the facts from him.  

Staughton Lynd in 1964 said of the investigation "it was of manufactured information and of changing facts to a degree that made it appear as a Madison Avenue and Hollywood production."

I don't think there can by any doubt that Oswald purchased a soft drink that day, for there are too many independent mentions of it by civilians and authorities alike, right up to the date of Marrion Baker's final FBI statement.  There can be no doubt that Baker said in September '64 Oswald had been drinking a Coke when confronted, because his statement was dictated to an FBI agent.  It was only after having said so, and being informed that this undermined the notion of Oswald's guilt, that Baker agreed the "Coke" portion of his statement should be struck.  Or maybe, Baker was simply reminded that he'd already testified Oswald had been empty-handed.  One must presume that FBI and Commission felt secure this hand-written statement - and the self-contradiction it contained - would never see the light of day.  How problematic for them that it did.

It should also be noted that Oswald regularly went to the second floor to obtain change to buy a soda from a machine, but this does not mean he usually bought a "Coke" on the 2nd floor.  His preference was Dr. Pepper,

Though I have read that many times, I have yet to see any sources indicating any preference.  A quick search on "dr pepper" at mff didn't help. Truly testified he saw Oswald drinking "Coca Cola, Dr Pepper" on a few occasions. Ditto Frazier (although he just referred to "Dr Pepper"). But I recall  having also read testimony that Oswald would go upstairs for a coke (as opposed to change for a coke aka dr pepper), but I may be misremembering. In any case, if it comes down to these two, it's pretty thin to call a preference. It's like saying Oswald had a strict routine of only ever going to the Paine's Friday evenings. 

an empty bottle of which was found on the 6th floor near the "sniper's nest."  We know from Junior Jarman's testimony that a Dr. Pepper machine was located near the Domino room, and that it was operational that day because he bought one.  It is possible that Jarman or some other employee got the last bottle of Dr. Pepper in that machine, which might have sent Oswald upstairs for another beverage.  But all of this is speculation, since he may have only gone upstairs for change; particularly so if Truly and Baker lied about this incident.

Well, his getting change for a Dr Pepper would suit my position.  But it's not what he reportedly said. He reportedly went up for  a coke (not for change). 

Moreover, one cannot place great confidence in the use of the word "Coke," as by that time it had already become a generic expression for any kind of soda pop.  No attempt was made to locate Oswald's bottle, so one cannot conclude with certainty that when people used the term "Coke" they were necessarily referring to a Coca~Cola.  He could well have had a bottle of Dr. Pepper instead, which further reduces the motive for going to the second floor.

Change would be the motive.

Like all other reasonable minds, I think it ludicruous that Oswald bought the beverage after the shots were fired, assuming he knew they had been.  Others inside the building testified they heard shots, or at least loud sounds that they soon thereafter learned had been shots.  Presumably, wherever he was, Oswald heard the same.  I cannot imagine him being so incurious about the nature of the loud noises that he opted to grab a cold soda pop before investigating.  So much here is so completely wrong.

It is ludicrous. So was Frazier's reaction to the shots of slinking off to the basement to eat lunch alone. Alone where the elevator switches were. The elevators that went off. I've been reading old newspaper articles lately about escapes from crime scenes and fires, or to rescue people by people sliding down elevator cables...
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=fL1OAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7gAEAAAAIBAJ&dq=slide%20down%20elevator%20cables&pg=7158%2C1486719

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70F17F9395B17738DDDAF0994DD405B858DF1D3

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Z-gKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1k8DAAAAIBAJ&dq=slide%20down%20elevator%20cables&pg=5403%2C4676273

As we read various reports, we must bear in mind that the higher the floor upon which the "confrontation," the more easily one compresses the time frame for such an encounter.  The higher up Oswald is encountered, the likelier it is that he was on the 6th floor at the time of shooting.  Each storey higher increases Oswald's culpability.  This may have been a factor in Baker's initial written statement he'd seen Oswald on the third or fourth floor, if Baker was a crooked cop.  

That's possible, but not something I subscribe to.

For my own part, I've always invested confidence in the veracity of what Oswald said while in custody, where multiple witnesses recount the same Oswald comment(s).

That to me, only points to collusion.

This is how it worked (imo). Oswald would give his account. That account would be accepted until it became untenable to the frame.

Oswald says took a bus straight to TT. Later he allegedly fessed up to the McWatters bus/Whaley can scenario.

Oswald denied being in MC. Later allegedly admitted he had.

Oswald says encounter with cop on first floor. Later allegedly confesses it was 2nd floor lunch room.

How convenient that the soon to be dead suspect is changing his mind all over the place to help his framers frame him.

Dallas cops and FBI agreeing about what Oswald said? Are you certain you're happy with that?

Me? I'll look for the outsiders to inadvertently get the truth out: Ed Hicks and Harry Holmes should have stamps made in their honor.

We cannot give credence to contradictory individual recollections of what Oswald said while interrogated, without a recording to backstop them as legitimate.  They did not record.   

My perspective is slightly different. I'm taking into account who is providing the contradictions. It is the only non-DPD/FBI dude in the room (apart from Oswald). It is the others imo, who should be under suspicion.

On the whole, Oswald's spontaneous reactions to his circumstances ring more true than the concoctions of his accusers.  His claim to have been on the ground floor at the time of the assassination and then outside with Shelley rings true.  He knew who'd been in the Domino room eating lunch, and that Shelley was outside the front door on the alcove steps, neither of which he could have known with certainty had he been on the 6th floor.  

Exactly!

On balance of the evidence, including police officers' accounts, I think a first floor encounter the likelier of the two alternatives (or more, thanks to Baker.)

Your qualified but always considered endorsement is a welcome sign of being in the right ball park.                            

[greg_parkerAdmin]

That's a really nice catch.  So even into Xmas, they are rewriting the back story on this one.

In order to make sure that Oswald was the only suspect. 

And to eliminate the other suspect on the 4th floor.

For those following Sean at the Ed Forum... Sean has long suspected that there was no 3rd or 4th floor encounter any more than a 2nd floor one. I can't recall his reasoning, but I think he will be laying it out again soon.

It is one area in which we fail to agree... but a second perusal of his reasons may change that...

[beowulf]

Question for Jim, did Bugliosi ever share the full 20+ hour  (of which only 6 hours were broadcast) transcript of the London mock trial?

That Marrion Baker, he intrigues me. I'm curious what questions to him (direct and cross) were left on the editing room floor. Here's the 6 minutes of Baker testimony that was broadcast.https://youtu.be/I8AaL6B63sA

Couple things jumped out at me, but I'll give the rest of the gang a chance to comment first.

[James DiEugenio]

Bugliosi used the transcript of the whole 21 hours for his book.  HE makes several footnotes to it.

I don't know anyone else off hand who had access to it.

BTW, Greg, if Sean now says that the 4th floor incident did not happen then he has changed his mind.

Because one of the things that got me interested in this whole episode was when Sean said that he thought the guy Baker met on the 4th floor was part of the hit team.  In fact, if I recall correctly, he said he thought he was the sniper.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

In looking at photos at the EF in Sean Murphy’s post #347 of the Prayer Man thread, I think it’s possible to discern what Prayer Man’s doing.  Perhaps due to Sean altering the width of the photos.  I’d like others to have a look and report their own findings.

Prayer Man’s right hand is holding open his right side jacket flap, while his left hand is inside the jacket as if reaching for something, or replacing it.  Likely something mundane, maybe cigarettes or a lighter.

It explains the oddly high and near perpendicular angle of both arms in a way that his holding a soda bottle would not.  Both elbows seem raised, necessitating a physical motion that would require using both arms.

Thoughts?

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Bugliosi used the transcript of the whole 21 hours for his book.  HE makes several footnotes to it.

I don't know anyone else off hand who had access to it.

BTW, Greg, if Sean now says that the 4th floor incident did not happen then he has changed his mind.

Because one of the things that got me interested in this whole episode was when Sean said that he thought the guy Baker met on the 4th floor was part of the hit team.  In fact, if I recall correctly, he said he thought he was the sniper.

Jim,

I have repeatedly said that - maybe Sean has also said it at some stage - not sure. I know when we were in private discussion about it some 5 or 6 years ago, there were lots of scenarios we were bouncing around. At some point, Sean either told me privately, or posted that he no longer considered the 4th floor sighting as being valid. I don't recall his reasons.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

In looking at photos at the EF in Sean Murphy’s post #347 of the Prayer Man thread, I think it’s possible to discern what Prayer Man’s doing.  Perhaps due to Sean altering the width of the photos.  I’d like others to have a look and report their own findings.

Prayer Man’s right hand is holding open his right side jacket flap, while his left hand is inside the jacket as if reaching for something, or replacing it.  Likely something mundane, maybe cigarettes or a lighter.

It explains the oddly high and near perpendicular angle of both arms in a way that his holding a soda bottle would not.  Both elbows seem raised, necessitating a physical motion that would require using both arms.

Thoughts?

Robert,

I agree it looks more like that than holding a bottle.

[beowulf]

Prayer Man’s right hand is holding open his right side jacket flap, while his left hand is inside the jacket as if reaching for something, or replacing it...

He's putting a CIA flechette gun back into his shoulder holster. )

Oh about the Marrion Baker video (London mock trial testimony) I posted earlier.
1. He doesn't remember what Oswald was wearing;
2. When Gerry Spence throws the kitchen Cinque at him and shows Baker the Doorman picture (i.e. Billy Lovelady), Baker forthrightly says it looks like Oswald. I got the sense he thought it might actually be Oswald.  Funny how all the attention on Doorman has distracted people from noticing the guy standing right behind him.
I await Hasan's video analysis. )

[dwdunn(akaDan)]

J. Ray, on the other hand, is stuck because he has his head up where the sun don't shine.

Come on, Greg. Don't ridicule Ray Carroll. See, whilst all of us Oswald "accusers" are busy accusing Oswald of being guilty, Ray and his relentless researchers are busy trying to solve the assassination. It's true!

Judging by the posts he made at Lancer on "the fate of the EF," Hasan, he also finds time to whisper "counsel" in Simkin's ear

[dwdunn(akaDan)]

When I first read Baker's testimony (years ago) I took it as a straightforward account from an honest police officer doing his duty. For instance, he said he thought the shots had been fired from either atop the TSBD or the adjoining building and rushed to the TSBD first. But what I read of his account of Truly's behavior gave me similar impressions to what Greg's mentioned. Basically, I had 2 large questions:

1) Truly put himself forward as the building manager (nothing as such suspicious about that, typical of such people and their sense of self-importance), but he took Baker to the elevatr and, finding it wasn't available, Truly yelled up the elevator shaft for someone to send the elevator down. It occurred to me that this could theoretically be a way of warning someone "up there."

2) It didn't take long for Baker to say (paraphrasing), "The hell with it, let's take the stairs." But as Greg's mentioned, it was Truly in the lead! Running up the stairs, facing a potential confrontation with an assassin, with a police officer behind..... that didn't make a bit of sense to me.

I could rationalize much of this as odd behavior in the heat of the moment, but it occurred to me that it could mean Truly was taking advantage of the heat of the moment, and definitely seemed to be "taking the lead" at almost every point. So I've always been suspicous of Truly ever since, for whatever that's worth.

[ianlloyd]

In looking at photos at the EF in Sean Murphy’s post #347 of the Prayer Man thread, I think it’s possible to discern what Prayer Man’s doing.  Perhaps due to Sean altering the width of the photos.  I’d like others to have a look and report their own findings.

Prayer Man’s right hand is holding open his right side jacket flap, while his left hand is inside the jacket as if reaching for something, or replacing it.  Likely something mundane, maybe cigarettes or a lighter.

It explains the oddly high and near perpendicular angle of both arms in a way that his holding a soda bottle would not.  Both elbows seem raised, necessitating a physical motion that would require using both arms.

Thoughts?

Hi Robert - great spot - I would tend to agree with that - it's been bothering me for some time that his hands don't look like they're holding a bottle, or anything else for that matter. Just seems too unnatural.

So, if this is the case, did Oswald have a jacket that had inside pockets?

[ianlloyd]

Anyone following the Ed Forum thread will have noted Sean pointing to how Truly mentions NOT seeing anyone on the first floor when he runs in when it seems to be superfluous information - as if denying specifically any notion that Oswald was there.

You might have also picked up on the hint that Mrs Reid was taking her cues from her boss.

This might serve as another example:

Mr. BELIN. All right. When he [Campbell] said "this way" which direction was he pointing? 
Mrs. REID. Well, I hope I get my directions. In the direction of the parade was going, in the bottom of that direction 
Mr. BELIN. Now, did you look around after the shots and notice what people were doing? 
Mrs. REID. Well, it was just a mass of confusion. I saw people beginning to fall, and the thought that went through my mind, my goodness I must get out of this line of shots, they may fire some more. And don't ask me why I went into the building because I don't know. 
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else of people running or doing anything else? 
Mrs. REID. No; because I ran into the building. I do not recall seeing anyone in the lobby. I ran up to our office.  

Mrs Reid is being questioned about what is happening outside - and she quite rightly points out she can't say what was happening after she ran in. However, without any prompting whatsoever, she repeats verbatim, or close to, Truly's superfluous statement. 

Doth Truly and Reid Protesteth too much about the absence of people in on the 1st floor?

Reid said that when she saw Oswald, he was wearing a white t-shirt. I cannot recall who, (maybe Lovelady or Frazier?) but someone said in their WC testimony that Oswald had a habit of taking off his jacket/shirt and would regularly work wearing just his t-shirt.

If PM is Oswald, did he:

1. Put his jacket/shirt back on before going down to see what all the excitement was all about?
2. Take it off after seeing all the excitement then went to get a coke...etc.?

All about timing!?!?

Also, Baker's encounter - didn't someone describe a guy wearing a light beige (maybe tan) jacket:

1. In the window of the 5th or 6th floor;
2. Running away from the TSBD shortly after the shooting?

[Vinny]

Could Truly have been the inside man at the TSBD? Perhaps his role was to distract any policeman while the shooters escaped.

[Redfern]

Anyone following the Ed Forum thread will have noted Sean pointing to how Truly mentions NOT seeing anyone on the first floor when he runs in when it seems to be superfluous information - as if denying specifically any notion that Oswald was there.

You might have also picked up on the hint that Mrs Reid was taking her cues from her boss.

This might serve as another example:

Mr. BELIN. All right. When he [Campbell] said "this way" which direction was he pointing? 
Mrs. REID. Well, I hope I get my directions. In the direction of the parade was going, in the bottom of that direction 
Mr. BELIN. Now, did you look around after the shots and notice what people were doing? 
Mrs. REID. Well, it was just a mass of confusion. I saw people beginning to fall, and the thought that went through my mind, my goodness I must get out of this line of shots, they may fire some more. And don't ask me why I went into the building because I don't know. 
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else of people running or doing anything else? 
Mrs. REID. No; because I ran into the building. I do not recall seeing anyone in the lobby. I ran up to our office.  

Mrs Reid is being questioned about what is happening outside - and she quite rightly points out she can't say what was happening after she ran in. However, without any prompting whatsoever, she repeats verbatim, or close to, Truly's superfluous statement. 

Doth Truly and Reid Protesteth too much about the absence of people in on the 1st floor?

Reid said that when she saw Oswald, he was wearing a white t-shirt. I cannot recall who, (maybe Lovelady or Frazier?) but someone said in their WC testimony that Oswald had a habit of taking off his jacket/shirt and would regularly work wearing just his t-shirt.

If PM is Oswald, did he:

1. Put his jacket/shirt back on before going down to see what all the excitement was all about?
2. Take it off after seeing all the excitement then went to get a coke...etc.?

All about timing!?!?

Also, Baker's encounter - didn't someone describe a guy wearing a light beige (maybe tan) jacket:

1. In the window of the 5th or 6th floor;
2. Running away from the TSBD shortly after the shooting?

Carolyn Walther said she saw a man beside the sniper, who she placed on the 4th or 5th floor. He was dressed in a brown suit.

(I've wondered whether this might have been Truly or Shelley but Carolyn Walther seems to suggest her sighting was very close to the arrival of the motorcade.)

In his first affidavit, Baker stated that the man on the stairs wore a 'light brown jacket'. In his Warren testimony, he claimed he may have mistaken Oswald's shirt for a jacket, although he was not sure if it was the 'arrest shirt'.

A young man wearing a light-brown/tan jacket is seen acting suspiciously in the Hughes film at the TSBD end of the car park.


Mrs Reid's claim that Oswald was wearing only a T-shirt suggests she was not telling the truth about the encounter.

[ianlloyd]

Mrs Reid's claim that Oswald was wearing only a T-shirt suggests she was not telling the truth about the encounter.

Why? As I pointed out, Oswald was known to regularly remove any shirt or jacket he may be wearing and work in just a t-shirt. From Buell Wesley Frazier's WC testimony:

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have because most time I noticed when Lee had it, I say he put off his shirt and just wear a T-shirt the biggest part of the time so really what shirt he wore that day I really didn't see it or didn't pay enough attention to it whether he did have a shirt on.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Lee has been in touch with me and as result of those exchanges, I propose the following scenario (time has gotten away, so i will not provide citations right now):

Truly ate lunch with Oswald in the domino room - the purpose of which was to keep him out of sight. Oswald went up for a coke after lunch (but just prior to the assassination). When he returned, Truly was still inside.  At that point, Baker runs in asking who works there so he can be directed to an elevator. Following Baker in is Campbell - not Truly.  Truly steps forward and leads the way up - the purpose of which is to prevent Baker from arresting the actual sniper. On the 4th floor, Baker encounters either Dougherty or an UNSUB, and releases him on Truly's word.

Down on the first floor, Oswald attempts to leave, but is stopped and asked to step aside. He gives his details and is the first to leave at somewhere between 12:40 and 12:50. He goes direct to the TT by car or bus. 

This is not meant to be definitive or any kind of final solution - however there is evidence supporting the Truly/Oswald lunch - Truly already being in the building when Baker comes in - and that it was Campbell who followed Baker in. 

What it requires on the other hand, is that Truly was misidentified in films - and that Truly's description of Dougherty may have been somewhat exaggerated.
-------------------------
I should add that the scenario is one I cobbled together. Lee may only support certain aspects of it.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Hi Robert - great spot - I would tend to agree with that - it's been bothering me for some time that his hands don't look like they're holding a bottle, or anything else for that matter. Just seems too unnatural.

So, if this is the case, did Oswald have a jacket that had inside pockets?

Hi Ian:

It's possible the jacket had no inside pockets, and Prayer Man is instead reaching into a shirt pocket.

Marina testified that Oswald had only two jackets, neither of which seem congruent with whatever Prayer Man is wearing, but her testimony may not have been entirely accurate.

Buell Frazier was asked to testify about Oswald wore that day and described a grey woolen jacket with zipper that doesn't match either of the ones Marina ascribed to her husband.

Nor does it match the jacket later allegedly found in the Domino Room:

But it could well match whatever Prayer Man has on, when considered on a grey scale.

If Prayer Man is Oswald, however, we must hypthosize a reason for him to go back inside and remove his jacket after the shots, or remove it after leaving the TSBD, because when he was seen by Earlene Roberts she claimed he was without a jacket.

The possible ramifications of Prayer Man are intriguing.

[Redfern]

Mrs Reid's claim that Oswald was wearing only a T-shirt suggests she was not telling the truth about the encounter.

Why? As I pointed out, Oswald was known to regularly remove any shirt or jacket he may be wearing and work in just a t-shirt. From Buell Wesley Frazier's WC testimony:

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have because most time I noticed when Lee had it, I say he put off his shirt and just wear a T-shirt the biggest part of the time so really what shirt he wore that day I really didn't see it or didn't pay enough attention to it whether he did have a shirt on.

Baker said Oswald wore a ‘brown-type shirt’ he mistook for a jacket while (very shortly thereafter) Mrs. Reid said he was wearing a white T-shirt. At least one account is untrue, but I believe both are.

Geneva Hine contradicted the version given by Mrs. Reid of her coming back onto the 2^nd floor office area alone.

My view is that Oswald had planned to leave the TSBD quickly and would not waste time fetching his shirt if he didn’t already have it on. Mrs. Reid probably relied on her previous sightings of Oswald working in only a T-shirt.

[Sponsored content]