Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: The "Domino Room Alibi"  (Read 12361 times)

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2798
Re: The "Domino Room Alibi"
« Reply #80 on: September 14, 2019, 08:45:33 AM »
If you listened to the podcast via the link provided earlier all will be revealed. Quickly, a documentary about 1978 on the HSCA shortly followed by "Conspiracy" by Anthony Summers. Then pretty much my own research, access to the WC volumes in my library and later NARA records etc.

Oh yeah?

Great!

What's your "take" on HSCA perjurer John L. Hart's testimony?

Nosenko's?

Tennent H. Bagley's?
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=109752#relPageId=2&tab=page

--  MWT   ;)

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The "Domino Room Alibi"
« Reply #80 on: September 14, 2019, 08:45:33 AM »

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2798
Re: The "Domino Room Alibi"
« Reply #81 on: September 14, 2019, 08:48:48 AM »
Which meaning of the word? In a legal sense?

LOL

Mull it over while you loiter, Colin.

--  MWT  ;)

Online Colin Crow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: The "Domino Room Alibi"
« Reply #82 on: September 14, 2019, 08:55:39 AM »
LOL

Mull it over while you loiter, Colin.

--  MWT  ;)

Obviously an inappropriate use of the term and now you can’t defend it. Duck and weave Thomas. Then again linguistics is not my area of expertise. Not mulling just going to check if any reds under my bed.....hopefully back in a bit.

While I wait, how about a non-asinine response to Oswald’s lunchtime roaming? Rare or "the norm" to be with colleagues on the first floor based on the evidence we have?

PS....David has been loitering for a long time....in threads I start I normally respond with alacrity. Hmmm, perhaps expeditiously is a more appropriate.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 08:59:47 AM by Colin Crow »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The "Domino Room Alibi"
« Reply #82 on: September 14, 2019, 08:55:39 AM »

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2798
Re: The "Domino Room Alibi"
« Reply #83 on: September 14, 2019, 08:58:19 AM »
Obviously an inappropriate use of the term and now you can’t defend it. Duck and weave Thomas. Then again linguistics is not my area of expertise. Not mulling just going to check if any reds under my bed.....hopefully back in a bit.

While I wait, how about a non-asinine response to Oswald’s lunchtime roaming? Rare or "the norm" to be with colleagues on the first floor based on the evidence we have?

Colin,

Get it straight:  You've been maligning Lance Payette by insinuating that he isn't a lawyer, or that he wasn't a lawyer, or that he isn't who he claims to be.

--  MWT   ;)

PS  "Duck and weave"?

I prefer to call it "wending".

Look it up?


« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 09:05:19 AM by Thomas Graves »

Online Colin Crow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: The "Domino Room Alibi"
« Reply #84 on: September 14, 2019, 09:05:29 AM »
Colin,

Get it straight:  You've been maligning Lance Payette by insinuating that he wasn't a lawyer, or wasn't who he claimed to be.

--  MWT   ;)

No, as you don’t seem to understand, I stated if he was a practicing lawyer I would not hire him based on what I saw in his post on the EF. That is an opinion and I showed where he "made stuff up" that was easily disproved.

You on the other hand have proven nothing (that I did not suspect previously). David introduced his post here, I anxiously await his response.

Good luck with your wending......just be careful I heard you can go blind doing that.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 09:08:47 AM by Colin Crow »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The "Domino Room Alibi"
« Reply #84 on: September 14, 2019, 09:05:29 AM »

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2798
Re: The "Domino Room Alibi"
« Reply #85 on: September 14, 2019, 09:30:59 AM »
No, as you don’t seem to understand, I stated if he was a practicing lawyer I would not hire him based on what I saw in his post on the EF. That is an opinion and I showed where he "made stuff up" that was easily disproved.

You on the other hand have proven nothing (that I did not suspect previously). David introduced his post here, I anxiously await his response.

Good luck with your wending......just be careful I heard you can go blind doing that.

Colin,

"To insinuate" is not quite the same as "to state," now is it?

Of course you didn't come right out and state that Lance isn't (or wasn't) a lawyer, but you sure-as-hell insinuated it with your asinine rhetorical questions (plural).

So who's "ducking and weaving," now, Crow?

--  MWT  ;)

PS   "prove, proved, proved" is the preferred declension, (or conjugation, or whatever it's called)

PPS  No, it's what Iacoletti is rumored to do on a regular basis in the garden at midnight that makes one grow semi-blind and unable, eventually, to see anything but "blobs," not wending, especially as gracefully as I do it through a crowded coffeehouse with a hot and lid-less cup of coffee.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 09:46:43 AM by Thomas Graves »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2878
Re: The "Domino Room Alibi"
« Reply #86 on: September 14, 2019, 10:13:48 AM »
Obviously an inappropriate use of the term and now you can’t defend it. Duck and weave Thomas. Then again linguistics is not my area of expertise. Not mulling just going to check if any reds under my bed.....hopefully back in a bit.

While I wait, how about a non-asinine response to Oswald’s lunchtime roaming? Rare or "the norm" to be with colleagues on the first floor based on the evidence we have?

PS....David has been loitering for a long time....in threads I start I normally respond with alacrity. Hmmm, perhaps expeditiously is a more appropriate.

in threads I start I normally respond with alacrity
>>> Congratulations... is she cute?

Alacrity definition: A rarely used term around here that a snooty pseudo-intellectual uses in an attempt to sound superior.
Expeditiously definition: See above.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The "Domino Room Alibi"
« Reply #86 on: September 14, 2019, 10:13:48 AM »

Online Colin Crow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: The "Domino Room Alibi"
« Reply #87 on: September 14, 2019, 10:24:10 AM »
in threads I start I normally respond with alacrity
>>> Congratulations... is she cute?

Alacrity definition: A rarely used term around here that a snooty pseudo-intellectual uses in an attempt to sound superior.
Expeditiously definition: See above.

Thanks for you contribution Bill but we have moved past asinine....try and keep up. I do dispute your use of the prefix "pseudo", perhaps Thomas will ask why you malign me so.

« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 10:36:43 AM by Colin Crow »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The "Domino Room Alibi"
« Reply #87 on: September 14, 2019, 10:24:10 AM »

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2798
Re: The "Domino Room Alibi"
« Reply #88 on: September 14, 2019, 10:32:13 AM »
in threads I start I normally respond with alacrity
>>> Congratulations... is she cute?

Alacrity definition: A rarely used term around here that a snooty pseudo-intellectual uses in an attempt to sound superior.
Expeditiously definition: See above.

Bill,

I love that word, actually. For two reasons (I told you I wasn't very good at math):

1)  To impress people with my incredible verbal intelligence

2)  To make them believe, usually mistakenly, that I think they're verbally intelligent, too.

3)  It's comprised (there I go again; sorry about that) of only four syllables, much fewer than "brisk and cheerful readiness".

--  MWT  ;D
« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 11:03:52 AM by Thomas Graves »

Online Colin Crow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: The "Domino Room Alibi"
« Reply #89 on: September 14, 2019, 10:48:45 AM »
Here is Lance's piece in italic for everyone to read....my stuff is inserted where appropriate.

Regarding the "Domino Room Alibi" -

We know Oswald was an incredible, bald-faced l-i-a-r in almost every conceivable situation – even, as Marina chided him, when the truth would have served him just as well.  It’s no more surprising that he would've claimed to be eating lunch in the domino room than that he would've claimed (as he did) to have never owned a rifle or to have claimed that his mother was dead and he had no siblings (as he did in Minsk).


Lance starts with this rather simplistic argument. There is no doubt Oswald told lies on some occasions…..as does everyone. Surely, the key is to separate truth from fiction.

If Oswald wasn't going to confess to sitting on the sixth floor with a rifle in his hand, a lunchroom was probably the most plausible noontime alibi.  And he certainly would have known that he had in fact been seen downstairs, albeit not at the time of the assassination.  It isn't implausible that he would have made sure he was seen downstairs, thereby laying the groundwork for an alibi.

Seems a circular argument but if I interpret it correctly Lance now uses the notion that an assassin who did not want to take credit for the act (ie. claim innocence at the time of apprehension) would try and develop an alibi close to the time of the shooting. Therefore he would hang out where he would be seen just before the act. Oswald was certainly observed on the first floor by Shelley and Piper around noon. The Piper sighting put this after the “elevator race” which placed him on the 5th floor (most likely).

Mr. Ball.
Was that the last time you saw him?
Mr. Piper.
Just at 12 o'clock.
Mr. Ball.
Where were you at 12 o'clock?
Mr. Piper.
Down on the first floor.
Mr. Ball.
What was he doing?
Mr. PIPER. Well, I said to him---"It's about lunch time. I believe I'll go have lunch." So, he says, "Yeah"---he mumbled something---I don't know whether he said he was going up or going out, so I got my sandwich off of the radiator and went on back to the first window of the first floor.

The domino room was in fact, regularly used by both Jarman and Norman.  Almost every day, in fact.  But very seldom by Oswald.

Let’s not let facts get in the way of a good story Lance……

Mr. BALL. Did you ever eat lunch with him?
Mr. ARCE. We all eat lunch together in this little domino room. We play dominoes and eat our lunch. He might walk in and lay around with us and he would walk out. He didn't stay in there too long. I guess he didn't like crowds.

Mr. BALL - Did he have any close friend that he would eat lunch with every day?
Mr. JARMAN - No. sir; not that I know of.
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether Oswald brought his lunch most of the time or bought his lunch most of the time?
Mr. JARMAN - Most of the time he brought his lunch.
Mr. BALL - Most of the time he brought his lunch?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see him buy his lunch?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, occasionally. I don't think so.
Mr. BALL - I don't understand.
Mr. JARMAN - I mean sometimes he would go out of the building. One time I know in particular that he went out, but he didn't buy any lunch.
Mr. BALL. There is a catering service that comes by the building every morning at 10 o'clock, isn't there?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see him buy his lunch from this catering service?
Mr. JARMAN - I think once or twice he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see him when he was eating his lunch?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Where?
Mr. JARMAN - Sometimes in the, as we called it, domino room, and again over coffee table where they make coffee.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald brought or bought any lunch on November 22nd, let alone a cheese sandwich and an apple.


Seems occasionally he bought his lunch from the truck according to Jarman.....maybe he did that day. See Piper's comment above "out to eat". Perhaps he is guilty of not bringing his lunch with him that day.

Mr. BELIN. Did you ever observe Lee Oswald getting the newspaper in the
domino room shortly before lunch on days other than November 22d?
Mr. GIVENS. Not before lunch. It would be right at lunch time.
Mr. BELIN. Right at lunch time?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir. We always ate in there.
Mr. BELIN. Would Oswald always eat in there?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir

Fritz's notes stated "two negr. came in.....one Jr. + short negro."
Fritz's report stated Oswald "said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him. One of them was called ‘Junior’ and the other one was a little short man whose name he did not know."

Bookhout's report stated Oswald "recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period."

Kelley's report stated Oswald "said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He described one of them as ‘Junior,’ a colored boy, and the other was little short negro boy."

(Hosty’s note that Bart reproduces has Oswald getting his drink from the second-floor lunchroom before returning to the domino room to eat lunch but says nothing about Jarman and Norman.)

Thus, two sources report Oswald as saying he ate with Jarman and Norman.  One says they “walked through the room.”  One says they “came in.”

Thus, three of four sources indicate Jarman and Norman were actually in the domino room with Oswald.

It appears that Fritz’s “came in” note is being interpreted as meaning Oswald saw Jarman and Norman as they “came in” the loading dock door at about 12:25 while he was eating in the domino room.  In light of the other three sources, this interpretation is completely unwarranted and seems unlikely given the eating arrangements in the domino room and the sight line from there to the loading dock entrance.


We have no recordings of the interrogation sessions or any signed statement by the accused. Therefore the recollections of various witnesses it all that can be interpreted. We have no stenographic record of the exact questions asked or answered, therefore the best we have is a form of “Chinese whispers” interpretation of the response by Oswald.

What appears to be unquestioned is that he mentioned the domino room and Jarman and Norman specifically. If he was trying to establish a believable alibi it makes no sense for him to have claimed he ate lunch with them if they were not there. Too easy to get statements from them denying such a claim. As we have seen from the above testimonies it was normal for “all of them” to be in the domino room at lunch time. This was not an ordinary lunchtime though. The President was going to pass by the building so of all those workers who would be expected to be watching the motorcade at that time, how did Oswald know those two would be walking by the domino room and into the back door on their way to the elevators?

I believe the key to this is the wording of Bookout’s report. Having those two “walking through the room” to someone who knows the layout of the first floor makes no sense. However if one substitutes the word “through” with “by” the scenario of Oswald sitting in the lunch room and noticing them passing through the window becomes a possibility.

Some CTers suggest that Oswald actually saw Jarman and Norman through the domino room window when they were on the sidewalk outside the loading dock, which doesn’t fit any of the four sources.  (And what about conspiracy saint Carolyn Arnold, who decided years after the event that she had seen Oswald eating in the second-floor lunchroom?  Oops.)
See above…….the four “sources” all differ to some degree…..the key to this is the fact he referred to two specific individuals at a place and time one would not expect them to be….at the rear of the TSBD about the time the President was expected to pass the front of the building.
Query:  Why would the nefarious Fritz, Bookhout and Kelley (and Hosty) even have reported these statements by Oswald?  Why would they not have made sure their notes and reports included no possible alibi for Oswald?  Again, we see the familiar game of the conspirators being geniuses at steps 1-3-5 and dolts at steps 2-4-8.
Not even worth replying to by really serious CT with an IQ above room temperature. None of them were comparatists to the assassination. At the time the notes were not freely available and quite frankly did not know what we know now about the sequence of events. THE WC myth regarding the events was “in production” some months after they were created.
Moreover (as DVP would point out if he were here), this interpretation views the Domino Room Alibi in a vacuum and ignores a boatload of inconvenient evidence, including Oswald’s curious trip to Irving on Thursday, Frazier’s testimony that Oswald did not bring a lunch, the existence of the sixth floor sniper’s nest with Oswald’s rifle in it, the complete lack of evidence of any other gunmen in the building or being observed leaving the building, the second-floor lunchroom encounter with Baker and Truly, Oswald’s inexplicable actions after the assassination, and Oswald’s failure, despite multiple opportunities, to scream to reporters and everyone else within earshot “I was eating in the first floor lunchroom, for God’s sake!!!  After that I was standing on the front steps with Shelley and all the other employees!!!”
Oh dear……the “classic” LN lament……well it doesn’t matter anyway because we know he did it. Please, those that troll this line out should simply disappear from fora that consider themselves serious about “debating” evidence in order to further understanding of the events.

For this alibi to work, an almost incredible number of people from diverse walks of life would have to have been conspirators or accessories after the fact.  Which, of course, they were – if one is neck-deep in the Conspiracy Game.  But even then, you’re left with all of the other evidence that would become inexplicable if the alibi were true.
More drivel…..

Put the Domino Room Alibi outside the TSBD if you like – but I probably wouldn’t put it in stone.  Maybe you can hire a homeless guy to hold a cardboard sign?

I previously caused a furor by referencing some of the peer-reviewed literature on the conspiracy mindset.  I won't wade into those waters again, but it would be very enlightening for you to study some of the professional literature (of which there is a mountain) regarding the psychology and unreliability of eyewitness testimony and specifically recollections of highly traumatic events.  You will learn that the wildly conflicting stories and timelines, far from being evidence of conspiracies and lies, are exactly what we would expect if the witnesses were telling the truth to the best of their ability.


No one doubts the issues with relying on uncorroborated witness observations/statements that are uncorroborated. Then again, why do you ignore numerous testimonies when they are essentially in agreement for events and just make crap up to fit your narrative, like the lunch room observations of TSBD workers above become Oswald seldom ate lunch in the Domino room?

As new member Sean DeGrilla points out in his recent book Malcontent, which I did buy and read, Oswald's words and actions are exactly what we would expect from someone who was guilty.

Observations of a cop…..no need for a courts anymore from a lawyer is priceless, just “book ‘em Dano”. I heard that guy on an interview on Lone Gunman podcast……didn’t even know it was Givens who was missing and not allowed back inside….there is no doubt that Oswald was guilty of something…..the question is what exactly.

My original analysis of Lance's post on the EF as referenced by David. You will note there is no reference to his profession. I am happy to debate my rebuttal with anyone who wishes to.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The "Domino Room Alibi"
« Reply #89 on: September 14, 2019, 10:48:45 AM »

 

Mobile View