Prayer Man

First topic message reminder :

Original Prayer Man thread at the Education Forum
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20354-oswald-leaving-tsbd/

___________________________________________________________________________________________________


G'day,
I have to say I find it oh so mildly amusing reading some of the comments, thoughts and rants associated on other forums regarding Prayer Man / Oswald on the front steps. It's sad really, watching people who have spent a lifetime married to an idea or a theory, only to witness that idea or theory shattering into a thousand pieces and not accepting the inevitable singular conclusion which is staring them in the face. To Greg Parker, Sean Murphy and all the other amazing researchers following the path of truth in this case I tips me Lid.

Mick

Vinny wrote:And I can't even figure out how to send an email to Jim Di.

Try here.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/contact-us

Or here
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/u156contact

Yesterday I sent the following email to Jim Di.  No response as yet.   I'll send it the address you suggest as well.

Congratulations on JFK Revisited, a magnificent achievement,  Everywhere I go on the internet these days I seem to see Oliver giving an interview about the doc.  


Question:  Does the 4 hour version of JFK Revisited include discussion of Oswald's alibi about where he was during the murder?  As I'm sure you know, interrogation notes discovered by Malcolm Blunt and Bart Kamp have him saying that after eating his lunch he went outside to see the parade.


I know a major theme of the doc is that you are explaining assassination facts, not merely theories.  But I'm not suggesting speculation about his whereabouts.


Instead I'm thinking of something like this:  "So if he wasn't on the sixth floor, where was Oswald?  We don't know at this point.  Oswald said during his interrogation that after eating lunch he went outside to see the parade.  But no recording was made of what he said.  We have only scraps of notes taken by a couple of questioners to go on.  Should we believe him?

Fortunately a local reporter, Jimmy Darnell, started filming immediately after he heard the shots. At one point his camera swings back to catch a fleeting glimpse of the spectators on the steps in front of the School Book Depository.  There, tucked into the corner on the top step, stands a figure that looks remarkably like Oswald.  The image isn't clear, but quite possibly modern enhancement techniques can tell us if that figure is indeed Oswald.

But Dallas station KXAS and its parent, NBC Universal, have locked the film away and won't let anyone see it.  Just like the original assassination records, but in perpetuity.  Except this time it's not the government hiding something it's a news organization (!) hiding important evidence of the crime.  


KXAS holds a broadcast license with the FCC that in order to use the public's airwaves it must 'serve the educational and informational needs of America'.  Having established that Oswald was not on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, his whereabouts is clearly news the public needs to be made aware of.  Under its FCC license KXAS is obligated to let the public see an enhanced version of the film.

Just like the public finally got to see the Zapruder film 12 years later, kicking up an public uproar, it's time see what the Darnell film shows."



This passage seems to fit right in behind Goldberg's statement in the doc that the testimony of the 4th floor secretaries is powerful evidence that Oswald was not on the 6th floor.  It finishes off the discussion of "he wasn't there" with "then where was he?"  And it points to the continued coverup of important facts by the media, which has always been one of Oliver's main points. 


Roger Odisio

Kudos to you Roger,

 Except this time it's not the government hiding something it's a news organization (!) hiding important evidence of the crime.  

I would however remind you that transfer copies (Possibly 2nd or 3rd generation) of the original Darnell footage have been made available at a cost to a number of people. These copies are not of any value in trying to ID the unsub in the frame atop of the stairs. This notion that NBC are hiding the original footage will be disputed by the films owners since they offer transfer copies of the film upon request. 

As an aside the Darnell footage (transfer video tape copy) can be seen in the special edition (50th anniversary) of the directors cut of JFK the Movie in a supplementary documentary contained within. So the argument that the owners are hiding something becomes a moot point. 

That's where we need those who matter or have sway in higher places to adjudge the the original film is meaningful in some sort of legal sense as it possibly shows evidence contained within which would appear to exonerate the person who was charged with Kennedy's murder.

It does look like Oswald is PM. And his military training should have taught him to take cover when hearing gun shots. Others in DP who were war veterans hit the deck instinctively.
Maybe if NBC realised there is a big scoop to be had they might be interested in doing something with the film? Money is normally their main priority in the media.
I can understand their ‘museum preservation’ stance, but because film degrades more with age, the sooner somebody scans the relevant frames the better. E.g. if they do it now it might be OK, but in 10-20 years time it might disintegrate with minor handling. Then it’s no good to anybody, ever.
On another note, why is there a woman with a large white elongated alien head stood to the right of the centre in the doorway?

Triple_Underpants wrote:It does look like Oswald is PM. And his military training should have taught him to take cover when hearing gun shots. Others in DP who were war veterans hit the deck instinctively.
Maybe if NBC realised there is a big scoop to be had they might be interested in doing something with the film? Money is normally their main priority in the media.
I can understand their ‘museum preservation’ stance, but because film degrades more with age, the sooner somebody scans the relevant frames the better. E.g. if they do it now it might be OK, but in 10-20 years time it might disintegrate with minor handling. Then it’s no good to anybody, ever.
On another note, why is there a woman with a large white elongated alien head stood to the right of the centre in the doorway?

They already know the importance of the original (as opposed to the copies they are happy to supply - if you're making a film and cough up).

I've told them and others have told them.  They can claim all they want that the copies fullfill their public interest obligation, but in the end, the films should not even be with them. The films are bona fide "assassination records" under the JFK Act and should be in the archives. 

What might work is if Stone and other luminaries sign a letter to them asking for it and again, explaining why it is needed. And if necessary, go on the talk show circuit or their own social media chanels, exlaining to the public what the issues are.

Unfortunately, it is hard to see that happening, for the same reason it hasn't already happened. Oswald on the steps fucks them all up as far as their theories go, not to mention the fact that they all nailed themselves to a different version of Oswald at lunchtime. One that relies more on wishful thinking than actual evidence.

None of them want Oswald to be the patsy he said he was.  

He is the fly in their ointment. The finger in their eyes. The puzzle piece that won't fit their template ,so has to be ignored,

Sean Coleman at the education forum wrote:I hope PM is Oswald. But how could the organisers of the main event , after so much clandestine work creating the legend of Oswald, allow him to wander when he is the designated trigger man? If he was pictured or remembered on the steps or the street (if he’d decided to wander further), wouldn’t all the planning and the plot to finger him have been for nothing? 

Well, that is the unified conpiracy theory where everything Oswald did and said in 1963, was all about creatng a legend so he could be framed in the assassination.

Let's asume that Landing/Corner Man is proven to be Oswald. What then? What does that do to the Unified Conspiracy Model? 

To look at a few things from 1963...

The Walker hit.  Thee evidence at the time of the incident tended to exclude Oswald. His alleged involvement was conjured up post-assassination.

Receiving commie material from overseas. Timed to test the waters of new laws about receipt of said material and nothing to do with creating a legend.

The FPCC leafleting in NO. Most likely part of an intel operation against the FPCC and nothing to do with creating a legend.

The alleged trip to Mexico City. He never went, but someone did use his name and background there. The Cuban and Russian Embassies were targets of various operations to recruit agents in place. There were also operations regarding the import of commie literature. The Mexico gvernment itself was rife with corruption and intrigue and the use of Oswald's name and background could fit into any of that. Nothing to do with creating a legend.

The Odio Incident. JURE and other left wing anti-Castro groups were the target of operations by other groups with and without the aid of US intel. This appears to have been one such operation. Oswald was not involved, nor was his name used in the operation. The American was named "Leon". One of the Latinos was named "Osvaldo". Sylvia put those names together post-assassination and cnvinced herself the unshaven Leon had to have been Lee Oswald. Nothing to do with creating a legend.

What is reasonably certain is that Oswald was manoeuvred into the TSBD job, regardless of whether those who did the manoeuvreing knew the ultimate purpose of doing so.

Inevitably, anyone looking to find anything leading to a resolution in ths case, needs to look at Oswald, and who manoeuvred him into that job, and look closely into the backgrounds of Oswald, his family members and those around him at various times, and the same with those who helped get him into that building along with some of the people in managerial rioles in that building. Let's throw in the owner of the building as well. 

As for Oswald last job... the much delayed part 2 of John Manning's essay on this should be ready during Jan/Feb, along with another revised version of Part One. 

John has been busy with his regular job, but he has spent spare time tracking down further material, and I am very keen to see the final versions of both parts. Just a matter of when he has time to put everything together.

At the Ed Forum Greg Doudna wrote:
 
"Below are cut-and-pasted from comments posted on a ROKC (ReOpen Kennedy Case) site discussion: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t587p650-prayer-man 
 
My comment: according to the comments below NBC already right now is making available access to copies of the Darnell film because they have done so, but will not allow access to the original for physical artifact preservation reasons. That is a defensible position familiar in the museum world. Asking for "public access" to the original of the Darnell film therefore is a nonstarter, should not be the issue. Rather, qualified scientists or film persons with expertise and credentials asking for access, for scientific reasons, outlining exactly what is wanted to do, the scientific justification (the research question and how that question will be answered), what will be done and will the methods be destructive or damage the artifact, maybe intended venue of publication (ideally a peer-reviewed science journal), and the realistic prospects of whether the studies and methods indicated will deliver meaningful results to the research question (the answer should be some form of "yes" here), etc.--that is how a request should be framed, coming from a scientist or film person with recognized expertise, or, even better, a well-regarded team of such (not Joe Q. Public). The more credentials and professional status signing to the request the better. Obviously the request should be directed toward a specific named individual senior in the hierarchy of the copyright owner capable of directing that a yes decision is to be done.    
 
From Roger Odisio:
 

• “In retrospect I think ownership of the Darnell film is pretty clear.  Storing the film at NBC headquarters in NY doesn't change the fact that Dallas station KXAS (formerly WBAP), an NBC affiliate, owns the film shot by its employee Jimmy Darnell. It is responsible under FCC rules for its use or lack thereof.  Not NBC. (. . .) NBC, on the other hand, is just a network of stations, that over the last 20 years has morphed into a small cog in a multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate known as NBC Universal.  That in turn was owned first by GE and now by Comcast and includes a myriad of domestic and international properties.   When you guys were rejected by NBC it was by a flunky who reports to a flunky who reports to a flunky, etc. in the conglomerate.  No surprise that is a blind alley.”
  

[size]
From Mick Purdy, an Australian who works in film and media:
 
[/size]

• “Make no mistake NBC have intimated that they will not allow anyone to handle the original film - exercising their rights as the owners of the footage. The fear of damage to the historical film is given as a reason for this stance. They have at certain moments offered to supply mediocre sub optimal video copies of that film at a cost to the person requesting said film. When Stone needed archive footage for his Documentary or JFK the Movie he was supplied with transfers - Video tape copies of the original films. It is not an uncommon practice. So NBC will and have claimed that the original film is not to be handled - Period.”
  

[size]
Mick Purdy again:
 
[/size]

• “I would however remind you that transfer copies (Possibly 2nd or 3rd generation) of the original Darnell footage have been made available at a cost to a number of people. These copies are not of any value in trying to ID the unsub in the frame atop of the stairs. This notion that NBC are hiding the original footage will be disputed by the films owners since they offer transfer copies of the film upon request. As an aside the Darnell footage (transfer video tape copy) can be seen in the special edition (50th anniversary) of the directors cut of JFK the Movie in a supplementary documentary contained within. So the argument that the owners are hiding something becomes a moot point. That's where we need those who matter or have sway in higher places to adjudge the the original film is meaningful in some sort of legal sense as it possibly shows evidence contained within which would appear to exonerate the person who was charged with Kennedy's murder.”
  

[size]

My comment:  No, asking for public access to the film is *not* a nonstarter because NBC Universal offered crappy copies it knew had no ID value.  The idea of public access arises because of KXAS's (the subsidiary) public interest obligation under it's FCC license.  It's worth pursuing.
[/size]
 
In fact it is reasonable to surmise that they know what the film shows about the shadowy figure on the steps because they are likely to have done the enhancement themselves.  It's only due diligence any lawyer would recommend.  Their claim of film damage is disingenuous and should be easy counter by someone who knows film.  In his letter to NBC almost 5 years ago Greg Parker asserted that the scanning he envisioned would actually preserve the film.  He got no response to the letter.

There are three likely outcomes of an enhancement: 1) the figure can be identified as someone other than Oswald. In this case we would have gotten the film yesterday, unless they are afraid of such a precedent leading to revealing something else later we don't know about.  2) the figure is still not clearly identified.  They could allow access, but won't because they don't want to take the chance some better enhancement could do the job.  3) the figure is Oswald. The current stonewalling will continue indefinitely.  We can probably eliminate 1) and that's a small cause for optimism.

I like the idea of shifting the emphasis from politicians and celebrities toward experts who can make the case for the viability of enhancement.  A legal case has merit too.


As an aside the 6th floor museum has what Gary Mack called a first gen copy.  But their website says they can't allow access to things for which they don't have the copyright.  That can be worked out, but first it will require establishing a public interest.  So it's back to Stone for the heavy lifting at the moment.

.

That thread, just like Bill Kelley's Oswald Leaving TSBD, is being turned into a complete speculative circus with just going on about "maybe", "I think" and "I believes....." do any of the computer chair dimwits actually achieve anything with just going on about their make believe theories....one Doyle is enough.

Get your finger out!!!

I can't speak for our American friends and their Judiciary system but what I do know is this - that in Australia the onus is squarely upon the prosecution to prove or make their case against the defendant. That said Oswald was murdered before he could defend himself. But if the case had gone to trial I would assume that the onus would have been on the prosecution to prove their case. Even with the notoriously corrupt Dallas Police department back in '63 they would have had a hard time of it making a case against Oswald at least to my mind.

For all those who make a case for Oswald having killed JFK and Tippit then the onus should be squarely on those who choose the prosecutors side of the case. It is not for the defense team to prove Oswald's innocence, at least that's the way the courts work here in Australia. It is the sole responsibility of the State to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Oswald was murdered before he could stand trial. In my opinion Oswald should be afforded the same rights now even though he was never able to go to trial and have some one defend him. 

He died in the eyes of the Law in the State of Texas an innocent man  - lest we forget. That's why any evidence which surfaces that may possibly exonerate the man even 60 years after the fact is still vitally important in my opinion. Malcolm Blunts Hosty Notes which Bart has kindly shared with us along with the Weigman and Darnell frames should become a matter of importance - it is in the public interest that these finds are brought to the attention of the appropriate people.

When these discoveries along with the many witness affidavits which place Oswald downstairs at various times between 11.50am and approximately 12.25pm are collated it brings us a strikingly accurate picture of Oswald's movements leading up to the assassination. It certainly helps eliminate him as suspect as a shooter on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

It is in this context that Curry's admission of his doubt about Oswald's guilt holds so much sway. Combine everything we have here in this thread and others which highlight in a remarkable way that Oswald was more than likely not where the authorities so desperately wanted him to be.

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand."
Jesse Curry, The JFK Assassination File (1969),


Let that sink in.

Well said Mick. It's the same here in the States. Jurisprudence. Better to let the guilty walk than punish the innocent since it's a given that the state has the power to abuse. That's the philosophy anyway. What actually goes down can be something quite different.

Your argument is a good one. Why should his name be fouled sans due process? Just to tie a ribbon on a murder? There is no reason good enough for striking such a public blow to the foundational premise of our judicial system. They may have thought they were avoiding world war III back then, but that is clearly not at stake today.

Jake_Sykes wrote:Well said Mick. It's the same here in the States. Jurisprudence. Better to let the guilty walk than punish the innocent since it's a given that the state has the power to abuse. That's the philosophy anyway. What actually goes down can be something quite different.

Your argument is a good one. Why should his name be fouled sans due process? Just to tie a ribbon on a murder? There is no reason good enough for striking such a public blow to the foundational premise of our judicial system. They may have thought they were avoiding world war III back then, but that is clearly not at stake today.

Thanks Jake,

and you've nailed it. There is NO National Security issue. None whatsoever - not now with the passage of time.

Agreed with all of this. PM is so important because it's evidence that could potentially verify Oswald's own alibi. Oswald was declared guilty without ever having a legal defense, claimed himself he was out front with Bill Shelly watching the parade, and there's an unidentified figure on film exactly where where he said he was but the original film is being kept from anyone even looking at it. One question I have that the most knowledgeable folks here can probably help with is what do you make of this FBI teletype? It shows Dallas reporting to Headquarters at 5:39 am Saturday that Oswald claimed he ate lunch and went outside with Shelly after the alleged lunchroom encounter, which is obviously bogus, but is this just the FBI putting events out of order by accident while writing the teletype or evidence they were trying to discredit Oswald's alibi from the get-go?

I just saw this interview with Bill Paxton (on Dave Von Pein’s channel) where Bill tells the story of when he saw JFK’s last speech (at Fort Worth) on the morning of the assassination. Bill was 8 years old. They were near the front of the crowd, and he was sat on his dad’s shoulders.
Then in the 2000’s he was visiting the 6th Floor Museum, and he asked if they had any old newsreel footage of the event. They got back to him within a few weeks, they found the film showing Bill, and gave him the negatives!
So when the 6th Floor Museum and NBC are saying they can’t look at archive film from 1963, they are lying.
Check out the interview (showing a very clear image they salvaged for him):

https://youtu.be/1dq1HPOQ0_A

Unfortunately copyright laws etc may have changed since the naughties. I've aske various people in my industry about the circumstances of the reluctance of NBC to hand over original footage and most agree wouldn't happen these days....they're saying it's almost set in stone that they insist on transfer copies unless there are exceptional circumstances.

I do believe we have exceptional circumstances by the way.

What circumstance could be more exceptional than that the film is important evidence in the murder of a President of the US?  Which is still an open case.  No one has been found responsible for the murder in a court of law.

Vasilios Vazakas mentions PM in his essay.


https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/creating-the-oswald-legend-conclusion



By all accounts, Oswald was innocent, never fired a shot, and he was not on the sixth floor of the TSBD at the crucial time. The latest research reveals that Oswald might have been outside on the steps watching the Presidential Parade

Another opportunity lost.
 
Stone and his doc are getting attention.  Whowhatwhy.com ran a series of articles last week revisiting the JFKA, including a piece by editor in chief Russ Baker about why they are doing it:  the JFKA is a study in the power of disinformation that has never stopped unfolding.  "Cleaning up the tangle of underbrush from our murky history can go a long way to establishing the primacy of carefully documented facts over lies, innuendo, and cover-up by all parties."
 
The first article, Why JFK Revisited is necessary, by Dick Russell, is a good review, but doesn't discuss Barry Ernest's story of the 4 women who watched the murder from a 4th floor window.  Which I think is Stone's most important point, allowing to him conclude there is strong evidence Oswald wasn't even on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.  Stone himself emphasized its importance during the Joe Rogan interview in early January.  So I posted a comment on the article setting out the story and the burying of the Darnell film by NBC Universal that might corroborate Oswald's alibi.
 
Edward Curtin, http://edwardcurtin.com/, who has long been good on the JFKA, posted a good review of the Stone doc and its importance.  "JFK Revisited emphatically shows why JFK’s assassination is crucial for understanding the United States today.  For without a clear and unambiguous accounting of why he was killed and by whom (I do not mean the actual shooters), and who in the government and media has covered it up, we are doomed to repeat the past as this country has been doing ever since." 
 
He does discuss Ernest's story.  But to me the key part is not Vicki Adams but Dorothy Garner's story, the women's supervisor.  Garner remained on the 4th floor after Adams went down the stairs and was there to meet Truly and Baker coming up.  Again no Oswald.  This eliminates the need to argue about the timing of Adam's descent, which the WC lied about to discredit her story, and eviscerates the story of the second floor lunch room encounter with Oswald, at least as the WC presented it.
 
Stone's interview with Joe Rogan https://open.spotify.com/episode/6wKuzs0IJDUEHk4t2MiLAT and his millions of followers was the big event so far.  I emailed DiEugenio beforehand that to complete the argument that Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor the doc needed to explore where Oswald was instead.  His alibi. But got no response.
 
Sure enough Rogan at 1:15 asks Stone, well then where was Oswald?  And Stone dropped the ball.  He was on the second floor, he said, when he encountered Truly and Baker, which makes sense because he was eating his lunch.  Readers will recognize that's not Oswald's alibi, its the WC fabrication.  Worse, I'm pretty sure DiEugenio, if not Stone, knows better. 
 
Worse still, missed was the opportunity to not only get the alibi out front for others to scrutinize, but to focus on the behavior of the "news" media in covering up possible corroboration.  Which is a theme of no little importance that Stone knows well.  It offers a what to do now opportunity for anyone interested in what really happened that day.  Finally killing the zombie story that Oswald did it is a prerequisite to a true reckoning of the the facts.

Is there anyone in the group who could possibly calculate with some degree of accuracy the likelihood of PM being Oswald using all the known data/facts we have about the people who have been identified on the steps and for those who are unaccounted for. In other words out of 100 what is the percentage likelihood that PM is Oswald. Is that a thing can this be done using known facts/data -  possibility / probability - mathematics? Asking for a friend. 

Mick_Purdy wrote:Is there anyone in the group who could possibly calculate with some degree of accuracy the likelihood of PM being Oswald using all the known data/facts we have about the people who have been identified on the steps and for those who are unaccounted for. In other words out of 100 what is the percentage likelihood that PM is Oswald. Is that a thing can this be done using known facts/data -  possibility / probability - mathematics? Asking for a friend. 

Mick, i think only way to do this is do 2 calcs. In the first, the inbuilt assumption is that Unsub is a TSBD employee. Using the known data as I undertsand it, there is 100% chance that PM is Oswald. All other possible candidates from that small pool of workers can be confindently eliminated.

Now let's assume he does not have to be a TSBD employee and could be a random from the crowd. To calculate those odds even roughly adequately, we would need an accurate estimate of the crowd number along with data on Dallas demographics for 1963. 

Since I don't have any of that, I am just going to use wild ass figures and see what happens.

Assume a crowd of 1000

Assume 50% of the dallas population is female, leaving 500 possibles.

Assume that 50% of the male population is over 30, leaving 250 possibles.

Assume that 60% of the under 30s are white (as opposed to Black or Latino) leaving 150 possibles.

Assume that 80% of those left are under 20, leaving 30. 

So that is 30 out of a thousand which equals 3%.

I actually think that would be pretty accurate.

But I know there are people here with a better grasp of math than I have and would defer to their input.

So can we say -just for my friends benefit that it's likely that there is a 97% chance of PM having been Oswald. All things considered.

Mick, a more accurate guesstimate on the crowd and population percentages  would no doubt move the result. Just not sure how far. I dont think it would be much but i could easily be wrong. Otherwise, yeah. 97%.

Inbuilt assumptions in both cases are that the figure is a white male between 20 and 30. Changing tbose parameters would also change the result - and as you know, there are no shortage of numpties who would violently and with menace aforethought, dispute those parameters.

Thanks Greg, I'll let my friend know. 

Mick_Purdy wrote:Thanks Greg, I'll let my friend know. 

Have been trying to nail down the crowd size without luck. All I have really been able to veryify so far was that I was almost spot on with my wildass guess about the percentage of the white population in 1963. I said 60%. It wa actually 62%.

Anyhow, if my figures are anywhere near close, it boils down to suggesting that in a random Dallas crowd of 1000, 30 would be white males between 20 and 30 years of age.  Were there as many as 30 white males age 20 to 30 wandering around Dealey Plaza during the assassination? If anything, that could be a high estimate.

But even if it was only one, it cannot be disproven that this solitary figure did not fight his way up the crowded steps without being noticed, to stand in one of the worst viewing spots possible. 

Tell your friend that in order to rule out that remote possibility,  we need the films.

Tell your friend that in order to rule out that remote possibility,  we need the films.


True, that.

I have great difficulty conceiving of a credible sequence of events that would place a random person from the crowd in the position of PM BEHIND the other spectators on the TSBD steps. There were so many other superior vantage points in DP even if he arrived just prior to the motorcade. It seems to me that the TSBD employees on the steps (and I believe all the other spectators on the steps were TSBD employees) were probably in position for several minutes prior to the arrival of the motorcade. PM would have likely walked up the steps through the TSBD employees to take up a position behind them. Surely, this stranger’s presence would have stood out.

The alternative explanation is that PM had been in the TSBD prior to the motorcade (get a drink of water, make a phone call, bathroom break or inquire about employment opportunities). Any of these activities would have placed PM in the TSBD for several minutes where he would have been seen and perhaps interacted with should he have asked for directions to the phone, bathroom etc. Yet no one reported seeing any strangers. If PM inquired about job opening, presumably he would have been directed to Roy Truly who was already outside. And it would have been a short inquiry since I think they were going to lay off some people.

It’s very unlikely that PM was a random stranger and highly likely that if he was not a TSBD employee, he was familiar with the building.