JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Dan O'meara on February 28, 2022, 08:03:29 PM
-
The reason Oswald is in custody so quickly is the murder of J D Tippit.
But this papers over an under-appreciated reality - that before Oswald was even approached in the Texas Theater he was already on the police radar as a suspect in the killing of JFK.
In a Dallas Morning News article entitled "Suspected Killer Defected To Russia In '59" [dated 11/23/63], Kent Biffle reports:
"Oswald later failed to report at a 1:15 p.m. roll call. Truly reported this to the police."
This is the first recorded mention (I can find) of the roll call that apparently took place in the TSBD during which it was noticed Oswald had left the building. As a result of this roll call, Truly goes to Fritz to tell him Oswald is missing and the wheels are set in motion. Standing close by was Biffle who overheard Truly talking to Fritz and wanted to know what was going on.
Truly recalls the moment in his WC testimony:
"There was a reporter followed me away from that spot, and asked me who Oswald was. I told the reporter, "You must have ears like a bird, or something. I don't want to say anything about a boy I don't know anything about. This is a terrible thing." Or words to that effect.
I said, "Don't bother me. Don't mention the name. Let's find something out."
So I went back downstairs with Chief Lumpkin."
There is a touch of "the lady doth protest too much" in Truly's account of his interaction with the reporter, as if he had nothing to say to him, but Biffle's article has a number of quotes attributed to Truly:
"Truly, who said he had interviewed and hired Oswald "a couple of months earlier", reportedly told the policeman that Oswald was a worker."
"Truly later said Oswald came to work as a temporary warehouse worker. "He was a pretty quiet individual. His work was fine and I had no reason to believe...no idea the man had ever been in Russia."
Truly said as far as he knew, Oswald and a few other workers repairing an old floor were the only persons on the sixth floor Friday morning.
He said most of the building's workers walked out in front to watch the President's motorcade."
In an article entitled "Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim", placed earlier in the same newspaper, Biffle writes:
"R. S. Truly, superintendent of the textbook building, was standing in front of the building. "I just went blank at first...couldn't believe it was happening."
Truly said about 90 people work in the building but most of them were out front at the time the shooting started."
In the same article Biffle describes the moment the police are told Oswald is missing. Interestingly, he doesn't specifically name Truly as the man doing the talking:
"An employee of the textbook firm walked up, "I don't know if you're interested in this...but one of the fellows who works here is gone. Can't find him anywhere."
The police were interested.
"He's 23, about five-foot-nine and weighs around 150 pounds. I'd have to check the payroll records to be sure but I think he's been here a couple of months.
His name is Lee Oswald.""
Although unnamed in the article we can be sure Biffle is reporting the moment Truly tells Fritz that Oswald is missing. This is confirmed by Truly's WC testimony where he describes in detail what he said to Fritz:
"I just told him his name and where he lived and his telephone number and his age, as 23, and I said 5 feet, 9, about 150 pounds, light brown hair--whatever I picked up off the description there. I did not try to depend on my memory to describe him."
It is exactly the same description Biffle reports in his article. It must be remembered that this exchange is something that Biffle was not supposed to hear, he was not supposed to know, let alone report, that there had been a roll call taken at which Oswald was found missing. The problem this raised was simple - there was no roll call. Truly had made this up as a pretense to put the police on Oswald's trail. This becomes evident when we read Truly's testimony regarding the moments leading up to his decision to put Oswald in the frame:
"Then we continued on down, and we saw officers on the fourth floor.
I don't recall that we stopped any more until we reached the first floor. But I do recall there was an officer on the fourth floor, by the time we got down that far."
"When I got back to the first floor, at first I didn't see anything except officers running around, reporters in the place. There was a regular madhouse."
"Then in a few minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth.
There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys.
So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there.
First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell--I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him, he looked around and said no."
At no point is a roll call mentioned. Truly is looking around and notices Oswald is missing [remember it's"a regular madhouse" at this time], so he asks Bill Shelley if he'd seen him and he says "no" [even though Oswald is reported to have gone home strictly on Bill Shelley's say so].
This brief glance around is enough to convince Truly that Oswald has left the building.
However, Biffle overhears Truly telling Fritz that Oswald had failed to show up for a roll call and that was the reason he was reporting it.
Why would Truly lie to Fritz about the roll call?
-
Why would Truly lie to Fritz about the roll call?
The same reason he would lie about the lunchroom incident. He was crooked
-
The same reason he would lie about the lunchroom incident. He was crooked
He was crooked?
So he just decided to lie?
What a waste of space you are.
-
He was crooked?
So he just decided to lie?
To deprive Mr Oswald of his alibi for the shooting, duh
What a waste of space you are.
SCENARIO A: Mr Truly is a liar who lies about the roll call.
O'MEARA TAKE ON SCENARIO A: I feel the need to consider this scenario
SCENARIO B: Mr Truly is a liar who lies about the lunchroom incident.
O'MEARA TAKE ON SCENARIO B: I don't feel the need to consider this scenario and anyone who does is a madman
-
Buell Wesley Frazier said that there was definitely a roll call. If I remember correctly it is somewhere in this interview. I don’t remember the exact time in the interview that he states this. But if you are interested, you can check it out for yourself.
-
Buell Wesley Frazier said that there was definitely a roll call. If I remember correctly it is somewhere in this interview. I don’t remember the exact time in the interview that he states this. But if you are interested, you can check it out for yourself.
Not one of the TSBD employees who worked under Truly and who testified before the WC ever mentioned a roll call. Including Frazier, even though he was questioned in detail about what happened after he came back inside the building after the shots until he left.
After going down to the basement for his lunch:
Mr. Ball: Come back up?
Mr. Frazier: No, sir; I didn't come back up. I was sitting eating my lunch. I looked at my watch and didn't have but 10 minutes, so I naturally ate faster than normal, so I was eating a couple of sandwiches, and eat an apple or something and come right back up and the guys, the people who worked there, standing around on the first floor, some of them eating their lunches and others merely talking.
Mr. Ball: You never went back to work?
Mr. Frazier: No, sir; we didn't. I didn't work any more that day.
Mr. Ball: You stayed there on the job until you were told to go home?
Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: What time did they tell you to go home?
Mr. Frazier: It was between 1 and 2 there sometime, roughly, I don't know what time it was.
Mr. Ball: Had the police officers come in there and talked to you?
Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir; they come in and talked to all of us. They asked us to show our proper identification, and then they had us to write our name down and who to get in touch with if they wanted to see us.
Mr. Ball: Did they ask you where you had been at the time the President passed?
Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir; they had. I told them I was out on the steps there.
Mr. Ball: Asked you who you were with?
Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir; I told them and naturally Mr. Shelley and Billy vouched for me and so they didn't think anything about it.
Mr. Ball: Did you hear anybody around there asking for Lee Oswald?
Mr. Frazier: No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. Ball: At any time before you went home, did you hear anybody ask for Lee?
Mr. Frazier: No, sir; I don't believe they did, because they, you know, like one man showed us, we had to give proper identification and after we passed him he told us to walk on then to the next man, and we, you know, put down proper information where he could be found if they wanted to see you and talk to you any more, and then we went on up to a little bit more to the front entrance more toward Mr. Shelley's office there with another man and stood there for a little while and told us all that was there could go ahead and go home.
Not one of the TSBD workers who testified before the WC mentions a roll call - Shelley, Lovelady, Dougherty, Frazier, Jarman, Norman, Williams, Arce, Piper, West - not one.
More importantly, Truly doesn't mention in his testimony. On the contrary, he describes having a quick look around and then deciding Oswald was the one, even though he'd run into him in the building shortly after the shots.
The point is that Biffle wasn't supposed to overhear Truly's conversation with Fritz, it was the only time a roll call was mentioned but once it had been reported it created a real problem for the official narrative.
As much as I get a good vibe from Frazier, some of his later "additions" have undermined his credibility as a witness and I think it is safer to trust his earlier testimony.
To a certain point.
-
From an article entitled "Reporter Recalls The Day Camelot died In Dallas", Biffle gives a bit more information about Truly's encounter with Fritz:
"Hours dragged by. The building
superintendent showed up with some
papers in his hand. I listened as he
told detectives about Lee Oswald failing
to show up at a roll call.
"My impression is that there was
an earlier roll call that had been inconclusive
because several employees were missing. This time,
however, all were accounted for but Oswald.
"I jotted down the Oswald information. The
description and address came from company records.
The superintendent would recall that he and a
policeman had met Oswald as they charged into the
building after the shots were fired."
There can be no doubt that Biffle overhears Truly talking about a roll call.
And there can be very little doubt this roll call is an invention of Truly's.
The only reason I can imagine Truly would have for doing such a thing is so he can put Oswald in the frame for the shooting of the president.
He wasn't to know that, at more or less the time he was talking to Fritz, officers a few miles away were closing in on Oswald. But as soon as he passed on this message the investigation immediately turned towards Oswald:
Mr. Ball: While you were there Mr. Truly came up to you?
Mr. Fritz: Yes, sir; where the rifle was found. That was about the time we finished Mr. Truly came and told me that one of his employees had left the building, and I asked his name and he gave me his name, Lee Harvey Oswald, and I asked his address and he gave me the Irving address.
Mr. Ball: How long did you stay at the Texas School Book Depository after you found the rifle?
Mr. Fritz: After he told me about this man almost, I left immediately after he told me that.
Mr. Ball: You left almost immediately after he told you that?
Mr. Fritz: Almost after he told me that man, I felt it important to hold that man.
It appears to me that the sole purpose of Truly inventing the roll call was so that he had a pretense on which he could put the spotlight of suspicion immediately on Oswald and set the course of the investigation towards apprehending him.
LATER EDIT:
As I understand it, the company records for Oswald didn't have the Irving address. The address was for Elsbeth Street.
I could be mistaken about that but, if not, one must wonder where the Irving address came from.
-
Is the suggestion here that Truly was involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald in the assassination of the President by staging a fake roll call? What point would there be in that? Oswald was gone. His name was going to come up once the FBI learned that a former defector to the USSR and avowed Marxist worked in the building from which the shots were fired and was missing. There was no apparent urgency from a conspirator's perspective to raise Oswald's name once he is gone. His flight is evidence of guilt. If anything, their incentive would have been to silence Oswald in the TSBD before he got away. But Truly was his ticket to escape by vouching for him when Baker had him cornered. Not exactly consistent with a role in framing Oswald. If there is no contention, however, being made that Truly was involved in a conspiracy, then whether there was a roll call or not is just a historical curiosity (like whether John Wilkes Booth's horse was brown or black).
-
Is the suggestion here that Truly was involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald in the assassination of the President by staging a fake roll call? What point would there be in that? Oswald was gone. His name was going to come up once the FBI learned that a former defector to the USSR and avowed Marxist worked in the building from which the shots were fired and was missing. There was no apparent urgency from a conspirator's perspective to raise Oswald's name once he is gone. His flight is evidence of guilt. If anything, their incentive would have been to silence Oswald in the TSBD before he got away. But Truly was his ticket to escape by vouching for him when Baker had him cornered. Not exactly consistent with a role in framing Oswald. If there is no contention, however, being made that Truly was involved in a conspiracy, then whether there was a roll call or not is just a historical curiosity (like whether John Wilkes Booth's horse was brown or black).
What's happening here, Richard, is that I'm pointing out the reality of the situation:
Fact - Biffle overheard Truly telling Fritz Oswald had failed to show up for a roll call
Fact - The roll call was used as a pretense to single out Oswald and immediately steer the investigation towards apprehending him.
Fact - the roll call never happened
If you can come up with a moderately plausible scenario in which Truly invents a roll call to single out Oswald to the authorities that doesn't involve Truly doing it purposefully, I'd like to hear it.
"His name was going to come up once the FBI learned that a former defector to the USSR and avowed Marxist worked in the building from which the shots were fired and was missing."
How far into Mexico would Oswald have been by the time that happened?
And let's not forget - the FBI were fully aware "that a former defector to the USSR and avowed Marxist worked in the building from which the shots were fired".
"But Truly was his ticket to escape by vouching for him when Baker had him cornered."
So, when Baker asked Truly if Oswald worked there what was Truly supposed to say? "I've never seen him in my life" "I know him but he's a bit dodgy"
Think it through.
"If anything, their incentive would have been to silence Oswald in the TSBD before he got away."
Please regale us with how that would've went down ::)
-
It appears to me that the sole purpose of Truly inventing the roll call was so that he had a pretense on which he could put the spotlight of suspicion immediately on Oswald and set the course of the investigation towards apprehending him.
SCENARIO A: Mr Truly is a liar who lies about the roll call.
O'MEARA TAKE ON SCENARIO A: I feel the need to consider this scenario
SCENARIO B: Mr Truly is a liar who lies about the lunchroom incident.
O'MEARA TAKE ON SCENARIO B: I don't feel the need to consider this scenario and anyone who does is a madman
-
Is the suggestion here that Truly was involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald in the assassination of the President by staging a fake roll call? What point would there be in that? Oswald was gone. His name was going to come up once the FBI learned that a former defector to the USSR and avowed Marxist worked in the building from which the shots were fired and was missing. There was no apparent urgency from a conspirator's perspective to raise Oswald's name once he is gone. His flight is evidence of guilt. If anything, their incentive would have been to silence Oswald in the TSBD before he got away. But Truly was his ticket to escape by vouching for him when Baker had him cornered.
The man caught walking away from the rear stairway several floors up, whom Mr Truly had vouched for, was not Mr Oswald. Mr Truly had a big problem on his hands
The man may have been this fellow:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Twt8f8qD/Tan-Jacket-Man-Oswald-200.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Consistent with Officer Baker's description and the other witness descriptions. And with the suspect sketch, which likely came from either Mr Howard "I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again" Brennan, Mr Fischer or Mr Edwards:
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjTBfqMf/Suspect-sketch.png) (https://postimg.cc/Bjhh939Z)
Thumb1:
-
Is the suggestion here that Truly was involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald in the assassination of the President by staging a fake roll call? What point would there be in that? Oswald was gone. His name was going to come up once the FBI learned that a former defector to the USSR and avowed Marxist worked in the building from which the shots were fired and was missing. There was no apparent urgency from a conspirator's perspective to raise Oswald's name once he is gone. His flight is evidence of guilt. If anything, their incentive would have been to silence Oswald in the TSBD before he got away. But Truly was his ticket to escape by vouching for him when Baker had him cornered. Not exactly consistent with a role in framing Oswald. If there is no contention, however, being made that Truly was involved in a conspiracy, then whether there was a roll call or not is just a historical curiosity (like whether John Wilkes Booth's horse was brown or black).
John Wilkes Booth’s horse was white. It’s name was Mr. Ed Sr. Mr Ed Sr. talked just like his TV star grandson. And Mr. Ed Sr squealed on John Wilkes Booth. How else do you think that they caught him? ;)
-
What's happening here, Richard, is that I'm pointing out the reality of the situation:
Fact - Biffle overheard Truly telling Fritz Oswald had failed to show up for a roll call
Fact - The roll call was used as a pretense to single out Oswald and immediately steer the investigation towards apprehending him.
Fact - the roll call never happened
If you can come up with a moderately plausible scenario in which Truly invents a roll call to single out Oswald to the authorities that doesn't involve Truly doing it purposefully, I'd like to hear it.
This is more in a continuing pattern of making a mountain out of a molehill. You begin with a false (or at least a very questionable premise) that Truly lied about the roll call. And that he did this to "steer the investigation towards" Oswald. That sounds like you are suggesting that Truly was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime given its proximity to the crime (i.e. just a short time afterward). It is hard to explain that conduct in any other way. Truly had no apparent personal animosity toward Oswald to steer the DPD to Oswald as a suspect in the murder of the President. By implication that leaves Truly as part of the conspiracy. There is absolutely no evidence - none - to suggest this is the case.
We can test the plausibility of this theory by applying some level of critical analysis to determine if it makes any sense in the context of a conspiracy. And it doesn't. Truly is the person who actually vouches for Oswald when Baker has a gun pointed at him. The conspirators in this fantasy later recruit Ruby to silence Oswald (but only after he has an opportunity to speak before the world press and talk with his family). Surely, they would have taken this golden opportunity in the lunchroom to silence or arrest Oswald at the TSBD but Truly is the guy who allows him to escape. Why would Truly have to fabricate a roll call to steer the investigators to Oswald? He could merely mention that he noticed he was not present. Truly would have had some cause to bring Oswald to mind because he knew that Oswald - unlike most others - had been in the building. It's not every day that Truly would have been involved in the search for a murderer that included a cop pulling a gun on one of his employees. So Truly knows Oswald was in the building at the time of the shooting and notices that he is gone afterward. It would be natural to point that out as it differed from the conduct of most every other employee.
Can we ever untangle all the details of the roll call? Was it like in grade school or more informal in which some witnesses like Frazier might recall it as a roll call and others not mention it because Truly just asked around? Who knows? The roll call is not the issue. The important point is that Oswald WAS missing. Whether that was noticed via roll call or otherwise. The conspirators certainly knew that Oswald would soon come to the attention of the authorities because he was already a suspect person known for his nutty political activities and was missing. What would be the rush? The more Oswald ran and evaded the authorities the more guilty he appeared. If he got to Mexico (unlikely for a guy with no money or car) then who cares? They would eventually capture or kill him. The incentive of the conspirators was for the public to believe Oswald was guilty. Flight does that. The FBI and others would eventually capture him. If they are "in" on the conspiracy, they already presumably know who the patsy is anyway. No need for any roll call cover story given that Oswald worked in the building, was a known kook to the FBI, left a ton of evidence including his rifle, and was missing. They didn't need Truly to fabricate any story to point the finger at Oswald.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/3JpjhG6m/87-FREE-TO-FLEE.png)
billchapman
-
This is more in a continuing pattern of making a mountain out of a molehill. You begin with a false (or at least a very questionable premise) that Truly lied about the roll call. And that he did this to "steer the investigation towards" Oswald. That sounds like you are suggesting that Truly was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime given its proximity to the crime (i.e. just a short time afterward). It is hard to explain that conduct in any other way. Truly had no apparent personal animosity toward Oswald to steer the DPD to Oswald as a suspect in the murder of the President. By implication that leaves Truly as part of the conspiracy. There is absolutely no evidence - none - to suggest this is the case.
Your analytical powers leave a lot to be desired.
Firstly, I do not begin with the premise that Truly lied about the roll call.
Even the most cursory glance through what I've posted reveals that.
I begin with Biffle overhearing Truly's interaction with Fritz during which he hears that Oswald has failed to show up for a roll call and that they "can't find him anywhere".
I then present evidence that this roll call did not take place.
I also present evidence that this singling out of Oswald via the invented roll call immediately turns the direction of the investigation towards Oswald.
The roll call is the single element that turns the investigation towards Oswald but the roll call didn't happen. Truly invented it. I am at a loss to explain how this could be done in any innocent fashion so I am led to conclude that Truly lied about the roll call.
It's not a premise I begin with, it is a conclusion I am led to by the evidence.
If you believe the roll call happened, present the evidence.
If you believe there is an innocent explanation for Truly inventing the roll call, let's hear it.
The bottom line is this - if it is demonstrated beyond doubt that Truly lied about the roll call, then this itself is evidence that he was involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald.
We can test the plausibility of this theory by applying some level of critical analysis to determine if it makes any sense in the context of a conspiracy. And it doesn't. Truly is the person who actually vouches for Oswald when Baker has a gun pointed at him. The conspirators in this fantasy later recruit Ruby to silence Oswald (but only after he has an opportunity to speak before the world press and talk with his family). Surely, they would have taken this golden opportunity in the lunchroom to silence or arrest Oswald at the TSBD but Truly is the guy who allows him to escape. Why would Truly have to fabricate a roll call to steer the investigators to Oswald? He could merely mention that he noticed he was not present. Truly would have had some cause to bring Oswald to mind because he knew that Oswald - unlike most others - had been in the building. It's not every day that Truly would have been involved in the search for a murderer that included a cop pulling a gun on one of his employees. So Truly knows Oswald was in the building at the time of the shooting and notices that he is gone afterward. It would be natural to point that out as it differed from the conduct of most every other employee.
When Baker turns to Truly and says "Does this man work here?", what do you think Truly should do if he is a conspirator?
Can we ever untangle all the details of the roll call? Was it like in grade school or more informal in which some witnesses like Frazier might recall it as a roll call and others not mention it because Truly just asked around? Who knows? The roll call is not the issue. The important point is that Oswald WAS missing. Whether that was noticed via roll call or otherwise. The conspirators certainly knew that Oswald would soon come to the attention of the authorities because he was already a suspect person known for his nutty political activities and was missing. What would be the rush? The more Oswald ran and evaded the authorities the more guilty he appeared. If he got to Mexico (unlikely for a guy with no money or car) then who cares? They would eventually capture or kill him. The incentive of the conspirators was for the public to believe Oswald was guilty. Flight does that. The FBI and others would eventually capture him. If they are "in" on the conspiracy, they already presumably know who the patsy is anyway. No need for any roll call cover story given that Oswald worked in the building, was a known kook to the FBI, left a ton of evidence including his rifle, and was missing. They didn't need Truly to fabricate any story to point the finger at Oswald.
Waffle.
-
If you believe the roll call happened, present the evidence.
Living History with Karen Westbrook Scranton
27:40-ish
'They took a roll call to make sure everyone was there' -- Scranton
-
Your analytical powers leave a lot to be desired.
Firstly, I do not begin with the premise that Truly lied about the roll call.
Even the most cursory glance through what I've posted reveals that.
I begin with Biffle overhearing Truly's interaction with Fritz during which he hears that Oswald has failed to show up for a roll call and that they "can't find him anywhere".
I then present evidence that this roll call did not take place.
I also present evidence that this singling out of Oswald via the invented roll call immediately turns the direction of the investigation towards Oswald.
The roll call is the single element that turns the investigation towards Oswald but the roll call didn't happen. Truly invented it. I am at a loss to explain how this could be done in any innocent fashion so I am led to conclude that Truly lied about the roll call.
It's not a premise I begin with, it is a conclusion I am led to by the evidence.
If you believe the roll call happened, present the evidence.
If you believe there is an innocent explanation for Truly inventing the roll call, let's hear it.
The bottom line is this - if it is demonstrated beyond doubt that Truly lied about the roll call, then this itself is evidence that he was involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald.
When Baker turns to Truly and says "Does this man work here?", what do you think Truly should do if he is a conspirator?
Waffle.
It makes no sense for Truly to fake a roll call when there was nothing to preclude him from having a roll call. LOL. He doesn't need to fake anything as an excuse to notice that Oswald is missing. He had ample cause to notice (with or without a roll call) that Oswald was missing. If Truly is part of some conspiracy with the role to bring Oswald to the attention of the authorities as you conclude (something that is pointless from a conspiracy perspective since the authorities would have quickly identified an unaccounted for nut job as a suspect) then he has a roll call or just claims he noticed him missing. A perfectly reasonable explanation. He doesn't make it up a fake excuse. It's not like Oswald was still there and having a roll call would undermine this objective. Another in a growing list of being unable to see the forest for the trees.
-
When Baker turns to Truly and says "Does this man work here?", what do you think Truly should do if he is a conspirator?
Waffle.
I'm not sure why I should have to explain how your fantasy conspiracy worked. If Truly is part of a conspiracy to ensure that Oswald is apprehended, the plan presumably wouldn't involve vouching for Oswald to the DPD so that he could escape only then to turn around and make up a fake roll call so that he can be apprehended. Truly could have told Oswald to accompany them on the search for the assassin and kept him from leaving until the DPD secured the building. Imagine Old Ozzie on the trail of the assassin!
-
Your analytical powers leave a lot to be desired.
Firstly, I do not begin with the premise that Truly lied about the roll call.
Even the most cursory glance through what I've posted reveals that.
I begin with Biffle overhearing Truly's interaction with Fritz during which he hears that Oswald has failed to show up for a roll call and that they "can't find him anywhere".
I then present evidence that this roll call did not take place.
I also present evidence that this singling out of Oswald via the invented roll call immediately turns the direction of the investigation towards Oswald.
The roll call is the single element that turns the investigation towards Oswald but the roll call didn't happen. Truly invented it. I am at a loss to explain how this could be done in any innocent fashion so I am led to conclude that Truly lied about the roll call.
It's not a premise I begin with, it is a conclusion I am led to by the evidence.
If you believe the roll call happened, present the evidence.
If you believe there is an innocent explanation for Truly inventing the roll call, let's hear it.
The bottom line is this - if it is demonstrated beyond doubt that Truly lied about the roll call, then this itself is evidence that he was involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald.
When Baker turns to Truly and says "Does this man work here?", what do you think Truly should do if he is a conspirator?
Waffle.
…if it is demonstrated beyond doubt that Truly lied about the roll call,…
Two people, who were there, state that there was a roll call and have been pointed out in this thread. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Truly lied about the roll call.
-
…if it is demonstrated beyond doubt that Truly lied about the roll call,…
Two people, who were there, state that there was a roll call and have been pointed out in this thread. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Truly lied about the roll call.
I have to assume the two people you're talking about are Frazier and Karen Westbrook Scranton.
Firstly, Scranton is talking about a roll call taken on the second floor of the office workers there and has nothing to do with any roll call that may or may not have taken place on the first floor. Unless you're aware of a roll call where everyone in the building was taken to the same room and checked.
Secondly, Frazier has already been dealt with. I can't find any mention of a roll call in the interview you posted although it does contain Frazier's claims that after the shooting, instead of going straight back into the TSBD and down into the basement as he stated in his WC testimony, he walked towards the railroad yard where he encountered an impeccably dressed man with a rifle which was placed into a car. He then walked to the corner of Elm and Houston where he saw Oswald walking up Houston street toward him! It is these kind of claims that have undermined his credibility as a witness and the reason why his earlier statements should be accepted. I came across this excerpt from an interview with Frazier in 2002 - https://app.box.com/s/1rtitsd5catfh496qbdaxjrc96zhsp87
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Mr. Shelley got us together--he and Mr.
Truly--and we had a roll call."
GARY MACK -- "And where did this take place?"
FRAZIER -- "Outside Mr. Shelley's office."
MACK -- "Did they actually read off names? Or did they just ask you guys,
'anybody missing'?"
FRAZIER -- "No, they read names off and you had to answer."
MACK -- "Okay. And who was missing?"
FRAZIER -- "The only person missing was Lee Oswald."
There are a number of problems with this.
'1) Frazier never mentions any kind of roll call in his WC testimony even though he talks about hanging around the area outside Shelley's office.
2) Not one single person working under Truly testifies to anything even remotely like this.
3) Truly himself never mentions anything even remotely like this.
4) Givens is also absent at this time.
Obviously, when witness testimony disagrees with what you think it's "he said, she said" crap but Frazier's later, completely unsubstantiated claims about a roll call decades after the event is all you need.
In the excerpt of the interview I've posted Frazier clearly states that the only person missing was Lee Oswald. This is from his WC testimony:
Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir; I told them and naturally Mr. Shelley and Billy vouched for me and so they didn't think anything about it.
Mr. Ball: Did you hear anybody around there asking for Lee Oswald?
Mr. Frazier: No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. Ball: At any time before you went home, did you hear anybody ask for Lee?
Mr. Frazier: No, sir; I don't believe they did, because they, you know, like one man showed us, we had to give proper identification and after we passed him he told us to walk on then to the next man, and we, you know, put down proper information where he could be found if they wanted to see you and talk to you any more, and then we went on up to a little bit more to the front entrance more toward Mr. Shelley's office there with another man and stood there for a little while and told us all that was there could go ahead and go home.
-
It makes no sense for Truly to fake a roll call when there was nothing to preclude him from having a roll call. LOL. He doesn't need to fake anything as an excuse to notice that Oswald is missing. He had ample cause to notice (with or without a roll call) that Oswald was missing. If Truly is part of some conspiracy with the role to bring Oswald to the attention of the authorities as you conclude (something that is pointless from a conspiracy perspective since the authorities would have quickly identified an unaccounted for nut job as a suspect) then he has a roll call or just claims he noticed him missing. A perfectly reasonable explanation. He doesn't make it up a fake excuse. It's not like Oswald was still there and having a roll call would undermine this objective. Another in a growing list of being unable to see the forest for the trees.
"It makes no sense for Truly to fake a roll call when there was nothing to preclude him from having a roll call."
There is an incredibly simple point being made in this thread that you do not know how to deal with.
Truly lied to Fritz and his men about taking a roll call in which it was discovered Oswald had left the building.
You cannot provide any credible evidence that such a roll call took place.
That evidence does not exist.
It's enough that not one of the warehouse men who testified made any mention of anything like a roll call conducted by Truly.
But when we examine Truly's testimony it is clear that no such roll call took place:
"When I got back to the first floor, at first I didn't see anything except officers running around, reporters in the place. There was a regular madhouse."
"Then in a few minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth."
Baker and Truly arrive back on the first floor around 10-15 minutes after the shooting to find "a regular madhouse".
I believe Tom Alyea takes footage of the two men stood talking with others shortly after they arrive on the first floor.
After an indeterminate amount of time Truly states that he notices some officers taking the names and addresses of some of his "boys". Frazier alludes to this in his WC testimony:
"...we had to give proper identification and after we passed him he told us to walk on then to the next man, and we, you know, put down proper information where he could be found if they wanted to see you and talk to you any more..."
Truly continues:
Mr. Truly: There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys.
So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there.
First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell--I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him, he looked around and said no.
Mr. Belin: When you asked Bill Shelley if he had seen whom?
Mr. Truly: Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and he said no.
So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there or not. He said, "What do you think"? And I got to thinking. He said, "Well, we better do it anyway." It was so quick after that.
So I picked the phone up then and called Mr. Aiken, at the warehouse, and got the boy's name and general description and telephone number and address at Irving.
Not only is it abundantly clear that no roll call took place, Truly makes the decision that Oswald is missing even though he "had another one or two out then" and he "didn't know whether they were all there or not".
He didn't know whether they were all there or not !!
For some reason known only to himself Truly rings up Aiken for Oswald's details. Somehow he has discerned that Oswald has left the building and is the only employee missing.
It is clear you want to jump ahead to make your argument that the invented roll call has no relevance but it is down to the evidence to determine the correct opinion and not, as you would have it, down to your opinion to determine the correct evidence.
So I'll keep it simple and to the point of this thread:
1) Do you agree there was no roll call taken by Truly?
If so:
2) Do you agree Truly invented this roll call?
If so:
3) Do you agree this invented roll call was used to single out Oswald as a person of interest to the police?
Keep to the subject of the thread rather than trying to reverse engineer your own entrenched position to try and deal with this issue.
-
I have to assume the two people you're talking about are Frazier and Karen Westbrook Scranton.
Firstly, Scranton is talking about a roll call taken on the second floor of the office workers there and has nothing to do with any roll call that may or may not have taken place on the first floor. Unless you're aware of a roll call where everyone in the building was taken to the same room and checked.
Secondly, Frazier has already been dealt with. I can't find any mention of a roll call in the interview you posted although it does contain Frazier's claims that after the shooting, instead of going straight back into the TSBD and down into the basement as he stated in his WC testimony, he walked towards the railroad yard where he encountered an impeccably dressed man with a rifle which was placed into a car. He then walked to the corner of Elm and Houston where he saw Oswald walking up Houston street toward him! It is these kind of claims that have undermined his credibility as a witness and the reason why his earlier statements should be accepted. I came across this excerpt from an interview with Frazier in 2002 - https://app.box.com/s/1rtitsd5catfh496qbdaxjrc96zhsp87
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Mr. Shelley got us together--he and Mr.
Truly--and we had a roll call."
GARY MACK -- "And where did this take place?"
FRAZIER -- "Outside Mr. Shelley's office."
MACK -- "Did they actually read off names? Or did they just ask you guys,
'anybody missing'?"
FRAZIER -- "No, they read names off and you had to answer."
MACK -- "Okay. And who was missing?"
FRAZIER -- "The only person missing was Lee Oswald."
There are a number of problems with this.
'1) Frazier never mentions any kind of roll call in his WC testimony even though he talks about hanging around the area outside Shelley's office.
2) Not one single person working under Truly testifies to anything even remotely like this.
3) Truly himself never mentions anything even remotely like this.
4) Givens is also absent at this time.
Obviously, when witness testimony disagrees with what you think it's "he said, she said" crap but Frazier's later, completely unsubstantiated claims about a roll call decades after the event is all you need.
In the excerpt of the interview I've posted Frazier clearly states that the only person missing was Lee Oswald. This is from his WC testimony:
Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir; I told them and naturally Mr. Shelley and Billy vouched for me and so they didn't think anything about it.
Mr. Ball: Did you hear anybody around there asking for Lee Oswald?
Mr. Frazier: No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. Ball: At any time before you went home, did you hear anybody ask for Lee?
Mr. Frazier: No, sir; I don't believe they did, because they, you know, like one man showed us, we had to give proper identification and after we passed him he told us to walk on then to the next man, and we, you know, put down proper information where he could be found if they wanted to see you and talk to you any more, and then we went on up to a little bit more to the front entrance more toward Mr. Shelley's office there with another man and stood there for a little while and told us all that was there could go ahead and go home.
Yes, I did day "if I remember correctly" regarding Frazier's sixth floor museum interview. I remembered incorrectly and placed that statement in the wrong interview. But Frazier does say that way back in 2002.
Anyway, O.V. Campbell's statement shortly after the assassination (11/24/63) appears to support Frazier's statement in the 2002 interview. Here is what Campbell said:
Inside he was told shortly thereafter by the warehouse superintendent, Mr. TRULY, that all the employees of the company had been rounded up and one employee, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, was missing.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce1435.htm (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce1435.htm)
I seem to remember reading that one of the investigators had requested to know of any missing employees. But I haven't been able to remember exactly who requested this. So, it appears reasonable to me that the request would get communicated and that the different companies in that building would have their own individual roll calls. And that any missing employees would be reported.
-
Yes, I did day "if I remember correctly" regarding Frazier's sixth floor museum interview. I remembered incorrectly and placed that statement in the wrong interview. But Frazier does say that way back in 2002.
Anyway, O.V. Campbell's statement shortly after the assassination (11/24/63) appears to support Frazier's statement in the 2002 interview. Here is what Campbell said:
Inside he was told shortly thereafter by the warehouse superintendent, Mr. TRULY, that all the employees of the company had been rounded up and one employee, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, was missing.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce1435.htm (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce1435.htm)
I seem to remember reading that one of the investigators had requested to know of any missing employees. But I haven't been able to remember exactly who requested this. So, it appears reasonable to me that the request would get communicated and that the different companies in that building would have their own individual roll calls. And that any missing employees would be reported.
Point out in Truly's testimony where he rounds up all the employees of the company.
Conveniently it's been recently posted.
And note that Campbell is one of the people Truly confers with when he makes his decision that Oswald is missing.
" I didn't know whether they were all there or not." - Roy Truly
Did Truly tell Campbell the same lie, the same lie he told Lumpkin and then Fritz and his men? Note what Campbell says - he was told by Truly he had rounded up all the employees.
Thank you for further corroboration that Truly was telling the same lie to different people.
LATER EDIT:
In his testimony Truly says this at the moment he decides Oswald is missing:
So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there.
First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell--I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him, he looked around and said no.
Note he says - "First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell" - and then suddenly cuts himself off and changes the subject to Shelley.
Could this be the moment he told Campbell that he'd rounded up all the employees and Oswald was missing but then realised he shouldn't be saying that in his testimony?
-
Point out in Truly's testimony where he rounds up all the employees of the company.
Conveniently it's been recently posted.
And note that Campbell is one of the people Truly confers with when he makes his decision that Oswald is missing.
" I didn't know whether they were all there or not." - Roy Truly
Did Truly tell Campbell the same lie, the same lie he told Lumpkin and then Fritz and his men? Note what Campbell says - he was told by Truly he had rounded up all the employees.
Thank you for further corroboration that Truly was telling the same lie to different people.
I think what I remember reading was related to this but was explained in more detail.. I will continue to look.
Mr. STERN - And you were able to enter the building without identifying yourself?
Mr. SORRELS - Yes, sir.
Mr. STERN - Then you got inside the building and what did you do?
Mr. SORRELS - I asked for the manager, and I was directed to Mr. Truly. He was standing there.
I went up and identified myself to him. I said, "I want to get a stenographer, and we would like to have you put down the names and addresses of every employee of the building, in the building."
-
…if it is demonstrated beyond doubt that Truly lied about the roll call,…
Two people, who were there, state that there was a roll call and have been pointed out in this thread. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Truly lied about the roll call.
Buell Frazier has stated several times a roll call did take place and Oswald was the only person not present.
-
From the book: “JFK Assassination, The Reporters’ Notes”:
Inside cover note:
In May of 1964, the top editors of the Dallas Morning News decided to collect the recollections of all staffers who took part in covering the Kennedy assassination.
A part of the Kent Biffle notes in the appendix (photos of the original typewritten pages):
“The building superintendent showed up with some papers in his hand. I listened as he told detectives about Lee Oswald failing to show up at a roll call.
My impression is there was an earlier roll call but it was inconclusive inasmuch as several employees were missing. This time, however, all were accounted for but Oswald.
I jotted down all the Oswald information. The description and address came from company records already examined by the superintendent. The superintendent would recall later that he and a policeman met Oswald as they charged into the building after the shots were fired.”
Emphasis added by me.
-
"It makes no sense for Truly to fake a roll call when there was nothing to preclude him from having a roll call."
There is an incredibly simple point being made in this thread that you do not know how to deal with.
Truly lied to Fritz and his men about taking a roll call in which it was discovered Oswald had left the building.
You cannot provide any credible evidence that such a roll call took place.
That evidence does not exist.
It's enough that not one of the warehouse men who testified made any mention of anything like a roll call conducted by Truly.
But when we examine Truly's testimony it is clear that no such roll call took place:
"When I got back to the first floor, at first I didn't see anything except officers running around, reporters in the place. There was a regular madhouse."
"Then in a few minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth."
Baker and Truly arrive back on the first floor around 10-15 minutes after the shooting to find "a regular madhouse".
I believe Tom Alyea takes footage of the two men stood talking with others shortly after they arrive on the first floor.
After an indeterminate amount of time Truly states that he notices some officers taking the names and addresses of some of his "boys". Frazier alludes to this in his WC testimony:
"...we had to give proper identification and after we passed him he told us to walk on then to the next man, and we, you know, put down proper information where he could be found if they wanted to see you and talk to you any more..."
Truly continues:
Mr. Truly: There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys.
So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there.
First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell--I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him, he looked around and said no.
Mr. Belin: When you asked Bill Shelley if he had seen whom?
Mr. Truly: Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and he said no.
So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there or not. He said, "What do you think"? And I got to thinking. He said, "Well, we better do it anyway." It was so quick after that.
So I picked the phone up then and called Mr. Aiken, at the warehouse, and got the boy's name and general description and telephone number and address at Irving.
Not only is it abundantly clear that no roll call took place, Truly makes the decision that Oswald is missing even though he "had another one or two out then" and he "didn't know whether they were all there or not".
He didn't know whether they were all there or not !!
For some reason known only to himself Truly rings up Aiken for Oswald's details. Somehow he has discerned that Oswald has left the building and is the only employee missing.
It is clear you want to jump ahead to make your argument that the invented roll call has no relevance but it is down to the evidence to determine the correct opinion and not, as you would have it, down to your opinion to determine the correct evidence.
So I'll keep it simple and to the point of this thread:
1) Do you agree there was no roll call taken by Truly?
If so:
2) Do you agree Truly invented this roll call?
If so:
3) Do you agree this invented roll call was used to single out Oswald as a person of interest to the police?
Keep to the subject of the thread rather than trying to reverse engineer your own entrenched position to try and deal with this issue.
Again, I'm not sure that there is enough available evidence to determine what form any "roll call" took. As pointed out, there is evidence that it did occur. However, the details are likely beyond confirming at this point. What we are left with is to consider whether it makes any difference. And it does not. Whether there was a roll call or not is only relevant as to whether Oswald was present at the TSBD. We know without any doubt whatsoever that Oswald was gone. That conclusion is not dependent on Truly's roll call. Lastly, I believe it is an outlandish and baseless claim to suggest that Truly was involved in a conspiracy into the assassination of JFK. That is far out Bigfoot stuff. But if you believe, as you have insisted here, that the evidence confirms that Truly lied and therefore must have been involved, why not take your evidence to the NY Times or some respected media outlet and seek their opinion? I'm not sure why CTers who are convinced they have evidence that proves a conspiracy limit themselves to an Internet forum. If I honestly believed that I had such evidence, I would present it to NY Times or DPD.
-
I have to assume the two people you're talking about are Frazier and Karen Westbrook Scranton.
Firstly, Scranton is talking about a roll call taken on the second floor of the office workers there and has nothing to do with any roll call that may or may not have taken place on the first floor. Unless you're aware of a roll call where everyone in the building was taken to the same room and checked.
Secondly, Frazier has already been dealt with. I can't find any mention of a roll call in the interview you posted although it does contain Frazier's claims that after the shooting, instead of going straight back into the TSBD and down into the basement as he stated in his WC testimony, he walked towards the railroad yard where he encountered an impeccably dressed man with a rifle which was placed into a car. He then walked to the corner of Elm and Houston where he saw Oswald walking up Houston street toward him! It is these kind of claims that have undermined his credibility as a witness and the reason why his earlier statements should be accepted. I came across this excerpt from an interview with Frazier in 2002 - https://app.box.com/s/1rtitsd5catfh496qbdaxjrc96zhsp87
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Mr. Shelley got us together--he and Mr.
Truly--and we had a roll call."
GARY MACK -- "And where did this take place?"
FRAZIER -- "Outside Mr. Shelley's office."
MACK -- "Did they actually read off names? Or did they just ask you guys,
'anybody missing'?"
FRAZIER -- "No, they read names off and you had to answer."
MACK -- "Okay. And who was missing?"
FRAZIER -- "The only person missing was Lee Oswald."
There are a number of problems with this.
'1) Frazier never mentions any kind of roll call in his WC testimony even though he talks about hanging around the area outside Shelley's office.
2) Not one single person working under Truly testifies to anything even remotely like this.
3) Truly himself never mentions anything even remotely like this.
4) Givens is also absent at this time.
Obviously, when witness testimony disagrees with what you think it's "he said, she said" crap but Frazier's later, completely unsubstantiated claims about a roll call decades after the event is all you need.
In the excerpt of the interview I've posted Frazier clearly states that the only person missing was Lee Oswald. This is from his WC testimony:
Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir; I told them and naturally Mr. Shelley and Billy vouched for me and so they didn't think anything about it.
Mr. Ball: Did you hear anybody around there asking for Lee Oswald?
Mr. Frazier: No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. Ball: At any time before you went home, did you hear anybody ask for Lee?
Mr. Frazier: No, sir; I don't believe they did, because they, you know, like one man showed us, we had to give proper identification and after we passed him he told us to walk on then to the next man, and we, you know, put down proper information where he could be found if they wanted to see you and talk to you any more, and then we went on up to a little bit more to the front entrance more toward Mr. Shelley's office there with another man and stood there for a little while and told us all that was there could go ahead and go home.
If you believe the roll call happened, present the evidence.
Living History with Karen Westbrook Scranton
27:40-ish
'They took a roll call to make sure everyone was there' -- Scranton
-
"It makes no sense for Truly to fake a roll call when there was nothing to preclude him from having a roll call."
There is an incredibly simple point being made in this thread that you do not know how to deal with.
Truly lied to Fritz and his men about taking a roll call in which it was discovered Oswald had left the building.
You cannot provide any credible evidence that such a roll call took place.
That evidence does not exist.
It's enough that not one of the warehouse men who testified made any mention of anything like a roll call conducted by Truly.
But when we examine Truly's testimony it is clear that no such roll call took place:
"When I got back to the first floor, at first I didn't see anything except officers running around, reporters in the place. There was a regular madhouse."
"Then in a few minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth."
Baker and Truly arrive back on the first floor around 10-15 minutes after the shooting to find "a regular madhouse".
I believe Tom Alyea takes footage of the two men stood talking with others shortly after they arrive on the first floor.
After an indeterminate amount of time Truly states that he notices some officers taking the names and addresses of some of his "boys". Frazier alludes to this in his WC testimony:
"...we had to give proper identification and after we passed him he told us to walk on then to the next man, and we, you know, put down proper information where he could be found if they wanted to see you and talk to you any more..."
Truly continues:
Mr. Truly: There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys.
So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there.
First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell--I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him, he looked around and said no.
Mr. Belin: When you asked Bill Shelley if he had seen whom?
Mr. Truly: Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and he said no.
So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there or not. He said, "What do you think"? And I got to thinking. He said, "Well, we better do it anyway." It was so quick after that.
So I picked the phone up then and called Mr. Aiken, at the warehouse, and got the boy's name and general description and telephone number and address at Irving.
Not only is it abundantly clear that no roll call took place, Truly makes the decision that Oswald is missing even though he "had another one or two out then" and he "didn't know whether they were all there or not".
He didn't know whether they were all there or not !!
For some reason known only to himself Truly rings up Aiken for Oswald's details. Somehow he has discerned that Oswald has left the building and is the only employee missing.
It is clear you want to jump ahead to make your argument that the invented roll call has no relevance but it is down to the evidence to determine the correct opinion and not, as you would have it, down to your opinion to determine the correct evidence.
So I'll keep it simple and to the point of this thread:
1) Do you agree there was no roll call taken by Truly?
If so:
2) Do you agree Truly invented this roll call?
If so:
3) Do you agree this invented roll call was used to single out Oswald as a person of interest to the police?
Keep to the subject of the thread rather than trying to reverse engineer your own entrenched position to try and deal with this issue.
If you believe the roll call happened, present the evidence.
Living History with Karen Westbrook Scranton
27:40-ish
'They took a roll call to make sure everyone was there' -- Scranton
-
Again, I'm not sure that there is enough available evidence to determine what form any "roll call" took. As pointed out, there is evidence that it did occur. However, the details are likely beyond confirming at this point. What we are left with is to consider whether it makes any difference. And it does not. Whether there was a roll call or not is only relevant as to whether Oswald was present at the TSBD. We know without any doubt whatsoever that Oswald was gone. That conclusion is not dependent on Truly's roll call. Lastly, I believe it is an outlandish and baseless claim to suggest that Truly was involved in a conspiracy into the assassination of JFK. That is far out Bigfoot stuff. But if you believe, as you have insisted here, that the evidence confirms that Truly lied and therefore must have been involved, why not take your evidence to the NY Times or some respected media outlet and seek their opinion? I'm not sure why CTers who are convinced they have evidence that proves a conspiracy limit themselves to an Internet forum. If I honestly believed that I had such evidence, I would present it to NY Times or DPD.
I suggest Fox News; they'll believe anything
-
FYI / FWIW....
For those who think there was positively no roll call performed at the TSBD following the assassination, I offer up the two newspapers linked below. Both of these papers are dated Saturday, November 23, 1963. The words "roll call" can be found within the highlighted blue box that I have drawn in on each paper.
Also take note of the photograph of an alleged "Assassin's Bullet" that appears in the upper-right corner of the Fort Worth newspaper below. You'll no doubt note, as I did, that there's nothing at all in that photograph that comes even remotely close to resembling a "bullet":
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xuz0L6ZG77k/Wg0oMXbc5cI/AAAAAAABNq8/kmiVtOOEMfcw4ZeJw1D9jcHwRQr1PUZ4ACLcBGAs/s300/Click-Here-Logo.png) (http://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgIiyJi-HKV8Efzd4Req1FLcqXiOVP3hK0uMe4KGJvUkvGY6wxbqKODb2gbwRbwesXyAv9X393gtzbD36GxZKYN4q2I-jOurtZwf-eG4nyXu36bh_n7C0GfHiRKAnCeaKYmVdvw2PuEHmWXpARmL1_J5PcaDXCsA6kjRBPZ5bX6mVAYS6Vz2dY5hjJy=s6000)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xuz0L6ZG77k/Wg0oMXbc5cI/AAAAAAABNq8/kmiVtOOEMfcw4ZeJw1D9jcHwRQr1PUZ4ACLcBGAs/s300/Click-Here-Logo.png) (http://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiWQiQvTjhTTe7zXJHnOBjU6e9NdF96AlRqCj3gDgqpcib603JQBtZFeQqdA2muutdgseK1ngD0bSJrFAi0Qz5OSnSRIhVznBHtZBg9pobX7pbKw8uGz4VexQToR5xM-lLUppb19BCssJNW-bK4Jozd7t-BXlmrgw1dLwwJZYqxNVCXrOi4l4JqgQnC=s6000)
More "Roll Call" talk here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1142.html
-
I would present it to NY Times or DPD.
ROFLMAO
Has your brain been deprived of oxygen lately?
Another typical Otto contribution. No substance - check. Personal insult - check. In which we learn that if someone has what they believe to be evidence in the assassination of the US President, it is not reasonable for them to present that "evidence" to a national media source or law enforcement agency instead of spending their time on an Internet forum. What does this reveal to us? That CTers don't actually believe their own nonsense.
-
Brain damage - check.
The information has been known for 50+ years.
Do enlighten us as to what the DPD was supposed to do today?
Yes, what would the police do with credible evidence of the involvement of someone in a homicide? And one of the most famous criminal cases in history. I wonder! No need to bother them with that because such evidence should be limited to an Internet forum. LOL. Obviously, you do not believe in your own CTer nonsense. But prove me wrong and report to them that you have evidence that Truly lied about the roll call and that this is evidence he was involved in the conspiracy to assassinate the President. Report back to us.
-
If you believe the roll call happened, present the evidence.
Living History with Karen Westbrook Scranton
27:40-ish
'They took a roll call to make sure everyone was there' -- Scranton
The roll call in question is the one Truly invented.
It supposedly took place on the first floor and involved all the warehouse men who constituted Truly's "boys".
It has nothing to do with any roll call of the office workers on the second floor.
Scranton makes it clear that she and her work colleagues were in the "bullpen type office" on the second floor.
If you are imagining a roll call of every single worker in the building that day was made to see who was missing, the result would have been that about one third of the employees had not made it back into the building and not just Oswald.
In no way does this constitute evidence that a roll call involving Truly's "boys" had taken place.
It has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
-
FYI / FWIW....
For those who think there was positively no roll call performed at the TSBD following the assassination, I offer up the two newspapers linked below. Both of these papers are dated Saturday, November 23, 1963. The words "roll call" can be found within the highlighted blue box that I have drawn in on each paper.
Also take note of the photograph of an alleged "Assassin's Bullet" that appears in the upper-right corner of the Fort Worth newspaper below. You'll no doubt note, as I did, that there's nothing at all in that photograph that comes even remotely close to resembling a "bullet":
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xuz0L6ZG77k/Wg0oMXbc5cI/AAAAAAABNq8/kmiVtOOEMfcw4ZeJw1D9jcHwRQr1PUZ4ACLcBGAs/s300/Click-Here-Logo.png) (http://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgIiyJi-HKV8Efzd4Req1FLcqXiOVP3hK0uMe4KGJvUkvGY6wxbqKODb2gbwRbwesXyAv9X393gtzbD36GxZKYN4q2I-jOurtZwf-eG4nyXu36bh_n7C0GfHiRKAnCeaKYmVdvw2PuEHmWXpARmL1_J5PcaDXCsA6kjRBPZ5bX6mVAYS6Vz2dY5hjJy=s6000)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xuz0L6ZG77k/Wg0oMXbc5cI/AAAAAAABNq8/kmiVtOOEMfcw4ZeJw1D9jcHwRQr1PUZ4ACLcBGAs/s300/Click-Here-Logo.png) (http://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiWQiQvTjhTTe7zXJHnOBjU6e9NdF96AlRqCj3gDgqpcib603JQBtZFeQqdA2muutdgseK1ngD0bSJrFAi0Qz5OSnSRIhVznBHtZBg9pobX7pbKw8uGz4VexQToR5xM-lLUppb19BCssJNW-bK4Jozd7t-BXlmrgw1dLwwJZYqxNVCXrOi4l4JqgQnC=s6000)
More "Roll Call" talk here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1142.html
As difficult as it is to prove something that didn't happen I believe, in this case, it is possible.
The testimony of the man who supposedly conducted this roll call is unequivocal that no such roll call actually took place. Truly gives his thought processes leading up to his decision to call Mr Aiken and get Oswald's details to pass on to the authorities.
"There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys."
"I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him, he looked around and said no."
"I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and he said no."
This is the sum total of the process Truly went through before he decided to put Oswald forward as the only employee missing. What makes this even more startling are the following comments:
"So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there or not."
I didn't know whether they were all there or not!
No roll call took place, there can be little doubt about that.
What possible justification can there be for singling out Oswald?
Truly reports saying to Campbell "I have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not."
However, according to an FBI report dated 11/24/63 Truly said more than this to Campbell:
"Inside he [Campbell] was told shortly thereafter by the warehouse superintendent, Mr. TRULY, that all the employees of the company had been rounded up and one employee, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, was missing."
Truly is unequivocal in his testimony - he saw some of his "boys" being interviewed by police officers and couldn't see Oswald there.
He asks Bill Shelley if he has seen Oswald who says he has not.
Even though he didn't know whether all his men were there or not he decides Oswald must be reported.
There is no justification and no rational reason why Truly would come to this decision.
He tells Campbell that he has rounded up all his men and Oswald is the only one missing.
He tells Lumpkin he has a boy missing and he is taken to Fritz where Biffle overhears Truly telling him about the roll call at which Oswald was discovered missing.
But there was no roll call. There was no rounding up of his "boys".
-
Again, I'm not sure that there is enough available evidence to determine what form any "roll call" took. As pointed out, there is evidence that it did occur. However, the details are likely beyond confirming at this point. What we are left with is to consider whether it makes any difference. And it does not. Whether there was a roll call or not is only relevant as to whether Oswald was present at the TSBD. We know without any doubt whatsoever that Oswald was gone. That conclusion is not dependent on Truly's roll call. Lastly, I believe it is an outlandish and baseless claim to suggest that Truly was involved in a conspiracy into the assassination of JFK. That is far out Bigfoot stuff. But if you believe, as you have insisted here, that the evidence confirms that Truly lied and therefore must have been involved, why not take your evidence to the NY Times or some respected media outlet and seek their opinion? I'm not sure why CTers who are convinced they have evidence that proves a conspiracy limit themselves to an Internet forum. If I honestly believed that I had such evidence, I would present it to NY Times or DPD.
"We know without any doubt whatsoever that Oswald was gone."
Of course we know he was gone.
It's almost 6 decades after the event - of course we know.
But how did Truly know Oswald was missing?
-
...there was no roll call. There was no rounding up of his "boys".
Eddie Piper said there was....
JOSEPH A. BALL -- Did you at any time after the shooting miss Lee Oswald—did you notice he wasn't around?
EDDIE PIPER -- No, sir; I didn't notice it until the lineup. You know, I just figured all the people was there.
MR. BALL -- You did notice it at the lineup, did you?
MR. PIPER -- Yes.
MR. BALL -- Tell us about that.
MR. PIPER -- I did notice it in the lineup.
MR. BALL -- What do you mean by the lineup?
MR. PIPER -- I mean, when they lined us all up and told us to give our name and address and just to go home.
MR. BALL -- You say "they"; who do you mean?
MR. PIPER -- The detective—whoever it was.
MR. BALL -- The police?
MR. PIPER -- Yes; they had the building all surrounded. They went to locking the doors back and front and told us to all come up and then go home, and I told him, I says, "I've got to go down in the basement and get my clothes," and he said, "You can go down and get your clothes and come on back up here, but give me your identification and your name and tell us where you are staying," and everybody heard me say that, I guess, and he let us out of the building, one by one, and I went on out the front door.
-----------------------
In the above testimony, however, Eddie Piper was talking about the POLICE conducting that "lineup", not Roy Truly or Bill Shelley of the TSBD staff.
But after reading Piper's testimony, it makes me wonder if perhaps the "lineup" that Piper talked about could be the "roll call" that Frazier and Lovelady remembered. ? ? ?
In any event, that makes THREE separate Depository employees—Frazier, Lovelady, and Piper (plus reporter Kent Biffle)—who each has made reference to some type of "roll call" or "lineup" being conducted in the Book Depository Building before the employees were sent home on 11/22/63.
-
The roll call in question is the one Truly invented.
It supposedly took place on the first floor and involved all the warehouse men who constituted Truly's "boys".
It has nothing to do with any roll call of the office workers on the second floor.
Scranton makes it clear that she and her work colleagues were in the "bullpen type office" on the second floor.
If you are imagining a roll call of every single worker in the building that day was made to see who was missing, the result would have been that about one third of the employees had not made it back into the building and not just Oswald.
In no way does this constitute evidence that a roll call involving Truly's "boys" had taken place.
It has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
Another thing: Why did you entitle the thread 'Truly's False Roll' instead of 'Truly's False Roll Call'
-
Another thing: Why did you entitle the thread 'Truly's False Roll' instead of 'Truly's False Roll Call'
A play on the word "Role"
-
Eddie Piper said there was....
JOSEPH A. BALL -- Did you at any time after the shooting miss Lee Oswald—did you notice he wasn't around?
EDDIE PIPER -- No, sir; I didn't notice it until the lineup. You know, I just figured all the people was there.
MR. BALL -- You did notice it at the lineup, did you?
MR. PIPER -- Yes.
MR. BALL -- Tell us about that.
MR. PIPER -- I did notice it in the lineup.
MR. BALL -- What do you mean by the lineup?
MR. PIPER -- I mean, when they lined us all up and told us to give our name and address and just to go home.
MR. BALL -- You say "they"; who do you mean?
MR. PIPER -- The detective—whoever it was.
MR. BALL -- The police?
MR. PIPER -- Yes; they had the building all surrounded. They went to locking the doors back and front and told us to all come up and then go home, and I told him, I says, "I've got to go down in the basement and get my clothes," and he said, "You can go down and get your clothes and come on back up here, but give me your identification and your name and tell us where you are staying," and everybody heard me say that, I guess, and he let us out of the building, one by one, and I went on out the front door.
-----------------------
In the above testimony, however, Eddie Piper was talking about the POLICE conducting that "lineup", not Roy Truly or Bill Shelley of the TSBD staff.
But after reading Piper's testimony, it makes me wonder if perhaps the "lineup" that Piper talked about could be the "roll call" that Frazier and Lovelady remembered. ? ? ?
In any event, that makes THREE separate Depository employees—Frazier, Lovelady, and Piper (plus reporter Kent Biffle)—who each has made reference to some type of "roll call" or "lineup" being conducted in the Book Depository Building before the employees were sent home on 11/22/63.
In any event, that makes THREE separate Depository employees—Frazier, Lovelady, and Piper (plus reporter Kent Biffle)—who each has made reference to some type of "roll call" or "lineup" being conducted in the Book Depository Building before the employees were sent home on 11/22/63
_And Karen Scranton makes four
'We went back into the building and it was pandemonium.. there were police everywhere and they took a roll call of all
of us to make sure we were all there'' - Scranton
Just sayin'..
-
Eddie Piper said there was....
JOSEPH A. BALL -- Did you at any time after the shooting miss Lee Oswald—did you notice he wasn't around?
EDDIE PIPER -- No, sir; I didn't notice it until the lineup. You know, I just figured all the people was there.
MR. BALL -- You did notice it at the lineup, did you?
MR. PIPER -- Yes.
MR. BALL -- Tell us about that.
MR. PIPER -- I did notice it in the lineup.
MR. BALL -- What do you mean by the lineup?
MR. PIPER -- I mean, when they lined us all up and told us to give our name and address and just to go home.
MR. BALL -- You say "they"; who do you mean?
MR. PIPER -- The detective—whoever it was.
MR. BALL -- The police?
MR. PIPER -- Yes; they had the building all surrounded. They went to locking the doors back and front and told us to all come up and then go home, and I told him, I says, "I've got to go down in the basement and get my clothes," and he said, "You can go down and get your clothes and come on back up here, but give me your identification and your name and tell us where you are staying," and everybody heard me say that, I guess, and he let us out of the building, one by one, and I went on out the front door.
-----------------------
In the above testimony, however, Eddie Piper was talking about the POLICE conducting that "lineup", not Roy Truly or Bill Shelley of the TSBD staff.
But after reading Piper's testimony, it makes me wonder if perhaps the "lineup" that Piper talked about could be the "roll call" that Frazier and Lovelady remembered. ? ? ?
In any event, that makes THREE separate Depository employees—Frazier, Lovelady, and Piper (plus reporter Kent Biffle)—who each has made reference to some type of "roll call" or "lineup" being conducted in the Book Depository Building before the employees were sent home on 11/22/63.
How would you interpret the Truly testimony regarding his thought processes leading up to making his decision?
It seems misleading to take my final point out of context and comment on that.
-
A play on the word "Role"
use 'Truly false'
-
In any event, that makes THREE separate Depository employees—Frazier, Lovelady, and Piper (plus reporter Kent Biffle)—who each has made reference to some type of "roll call" or "lineup" being conducted in the Book Depository Building before the employees were sent home on 11/22/63
_And Karen Scranton makes four
'We went back into the building and it was pandemonium.. there were police everywhere and they took a roll call of all of us to make sure we were all there'' - Scranton
Just sayin'..
As David points out:
In the above testimony, however, Eddie Piper was talking about the POLICE conducting that "lineup", not Roy Truly or Bill Shelley of the TSBD staff.
But after reading Piper's testimony, it makes me wonder if perhaps the "lineup" that Piper talked about could be the "roll call" that Frazier and Lovelady remembered. ? ? ?
There is no doubt there was a "lineup" of employees taken by the police.
Truly -
"I noticed some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses"
Frazier
Mr. Ball: Had the police officers come in there and talked to you?
Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir; they come in and talked to all of us. They asked us to show our proper identification, and then they had us to write our name down and who to get in touch with if they wanted to see us...they, you know, like one man showed us, we had to give proper identification and after we passed him he told us to walk on then to the next man, and we, you know, put down proper information where he could be found if they wanted to see you and talk to you any more, and then we went on up to a little bit more to the front entrance more toward Mr. Shelley's office there with another man and stood there for a little
while and told us all that was there could go ahead and go home.
Piper
MR. PIPER -- I mean, when they lined us all up and told us to give our name and address and just to go home.
MR. BALL -- You say "they"; who do you mean?
MR. PIPER -- The detective—whoever it was.
MR. BALL -- The police?
MR. PIPER -- Yes...
Frazier describes it best as a systematic processing of the warehouse men by the police, taking names and addresses. Piper describes it as being "lined up". He goes on to say he didn't think Givens was there either.
Both Frazier and Piper are talking about having their names taken by the police and not a roll call organised by Truly in which he rounds up all his "boys". Remember, Truly describes seeing his men being questioned by the police (the "lineup") but in no way does he relate it to a roll call at which only Oswald is absent.
For the third time, Scranton is referring to a roll call taken on the second floor which has nothing to do with the supposed roll call that Oswald fails to turn up for.
That leaves Lovelady.
To be honest I'm not sure what this is a reference to so can't really comment on it.
You're down to one (maybe not even that)
Just sayin'
-
use 'Truly false'
Nice ;D
"A Truly False Roll Call"
Is it possible to change a thread title once it's going?
-
Nice ;D
"A Truly False Roll Call"
Is it possible to change a thread title once it's going?
Better check forum rules
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/RVhHb20v/88-LHO-ENROLLED-IN-MURDER.png)
billchapman
-
Eddie Piper said there was....
JOSEPH A. BALL -- Did you at any time after the shooting miss Lee Oswald—did you notice he wasn't around?
EDDIE PIPER -- No, sir; I didn't notice it until the lineup. You know, I just figured all the people was there.
MR. BALL -- You did notice it at the lineup, did you?
MR. PIPER -- Yes.
MR. BALL -- Tell us about that.
MR. PIPER -- I did notice it in the lineup.
MR. BALL -- What do you mean by the lineup?
MR. PIPER -- I mean, when they lined us all up and told us to give our name and address and just to go home.
MR. BALL -- You say "they"; who do you mean?
MR. PIPER -- The detective—whoever it was.
MR. BALL -- The police?
MR. PIPER -- Yes; they had the building all surrounded. They went to locking the doors back and front and told us to all come up and then go home, and I told him, I says, "I've got to go down in the basement and get my clothes," and he said, "You can go down and get your clothes and come on back up here, but give me your identification and your name and tell us where you are staying," and everybody heard me say that, I guess, and he let us out of the building, one by one, and I went on out the front door.
-----------------------
In the above testimony, however, Eddie Piper was talking about the POLICE conducting that "lineup", not Roy Truly or Bill Shelley of the TSBD staff.
But after reading Piper's testimony, it makes me wonder if perhaps the "lineup" that Piper talked about could be the "roll call" that Frazier and Lovelady remembered. ? ? ?
In any event, that makes THREE separate Depository employees—Frazier, Lovelady, and Piper (plus reporter Kent Biffle)—who each has made reference to some type of "roll call" or "lineup" being conducted in the Book Depository Building before the employees were sent home on 11/22/63.
In the above testimony, however, Eddie Piper was talking about the POLICE conducting that "lineup", not Roy Truly or Bill Shelley of the TSBD staff.
Exactly, and, in reading Truly’s testimony, it appears to me that he realized Oswald was missing because he believed that he should have been there, but wasn’t. After all Eddie Piper says:
MR. PIPER -- Yes; they had the building all surrounded. They went to locking the doors back and front and told us to all come up …
The “conclusions” that have been suggested about Truly conducting a roll call or lying about conducting a roll call, etc. are not founded on what was said.
-
Yes, what would the police do with credible evidence of the involvement of someone in a homicide? And one of the most famous criminal cases in history. I wonder!
Is there a reason you choose to double down on your own stupidity instead of answering my question?
No need to bother them with that because such evidence should be limited to an Internet forum. LOL.
See above, again, the information has been available to them for 50+ years.
Obviously, you do not believe in your own CTer nonsense.
I'm not a CTer, have the nurses cut off your oxygen again?
But prove me wrong and report to them that you have evidence that Truly lied about the roll call and that this is evidence he was involved in the conspiracy to assassinate the President.
ROFL, I never claimed that.
Report back to us.
N/A, see above.
You are really asking me to explain to you what the police would do with credible evidence of the involvement of someone in a homicide under their jurisdiction? HA HA HA. Maybe look to some similar examples. DNA results are bringing to light the names of many murderers who escaped justice decades ago. If they are still alive, they are arrested. If they are dead, their names are revealed to bring closure to the family members. If Truly were engaged in a conspiracy to frame Oswald and involved with other conspirators to assassinate the President of the United States, it would be a newsworthy event (to say the least). If he was invovled with others, the investigation could be reopened. So present your evidence to them if you think it does that. If not, then you are agreeing with me that Truly had nothing to do with this. And you are not a CTer? Whew. What is with all the hostility and references to medical treatment? That is weird.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/5tX9W0wL/89-ROLL-EYES.png)
billchapman
-
Another person who appears to confirm the police were conducting the roll call/lineup:
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.
-
Another person who appears to confirm the police were conducting the roll call/lineup:
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.
The Martin & Hughes films show Mr Billy Lovelady and Mr Bonnie Ray Williams out on the steps. How soon after the shooting is this?
(https://i.postimg.cc/RhMz1RJ5/martinhughessynch100prkc9v.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Mr. BALL. Did you go out of the building shortly after you came downstairs?
Mr. WILLIAMS. They wouldn't let anybody out of the building.
(...)
Mr. McCLOY. Were you physically kept from leaving the building when you got downstairs? Did you try to go out of the building?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I wasn't trying to go out of the building because there wasn't any use of trying to, because at the time we arrived on the first floor, I heard an officer shout out and say, "No one leave the building."
-
The Martin & Hughes films show Mr Billy Lovelady and Mr Bonnie Ray Williams out on the steps. How soon after the shooting is this?
(https://i.postimg.cc/RhMz1RJ5/martinhughessynch100prkc9v.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Mr. BALL. Did you go out of the building shortly after you came downstairs?
Mr. WILLIAMS. They wouldn't let anybody out of the building.
(...)
Mr. McCLOY. Were you physically kept from leaving the building when you got downstairs? Did you try to go out of the building?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I wasn't trying to go out of the building because there wasn't any use of trying to, because at the time we arrived on the first floor, I heard an officer shout out and say, "No one leave the building."
If I remember correctly, Barnett said he thought it was within 3 to 4 minutes.
-
A roll call is a check of a complete list of names to see who is and who is not there. Simply gathering a list of the people who are there and getting their contact info is NOT a roll call. Many employees did not return after lunch.
-
As I understand it, the company records for Oswald didn't have the Irving address. The address was for Elsbeth Street.
I could be mistaken about that but, if not, one must wonder where the Irving address came from.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth190981/m1/3/med_res_d/)
-
The police don't just arrest people, how old are you?
They just arrested Oswald for murder with no probable cause whatsoever.
-
If I remember correctly, Barnett said he thought it was within 3 to 4 minutes.
My apologies, Mr Collins, I should have worded my question more clearly------------------------I was asking how long after the shooting the Martin/Hughes clip was taken
-
Buell Wesley Frazier said that there was definitely a roll call.
Why the same old stuff redundantly?
Where does it say that there was a roll call and Oswald was missing?-----
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339642/m1/1/med_res/)
Statements if there were really any... made 50 years later [not under oath]? C'mon man.
-
Is the suggestion here that Truly was involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald in the assassination of the President by staging a fake roll call? What point would there be in that? Oswald was gone. His name was going to come up once the FBI learned that a former defector to the USSR and avowed Marxist worked in the building from which the shots were fired and was missing. There was no apparent urgency from a conspirator's perspective to raise Oswald's name once he is gone. His flight is evidence of guilt. If anything, their incentive would have been to silence Oswald in the TSBD before he got away. But Truly was his ticket to escape by vouching for him when Baker had him cornered. Not exactly consistent with a role in framing Oswald. If there is no contention, however, being made that Truly was involved in a conspiracy, then whether there was a roll call or not is just a historical curiosity (like whether John Wilkes Booth's horse was brown or black).
More straw there than a Texas cattle ranch [be they brown or black].
BTW... who told you Booth had a horse?
-
Truly said in his WC testimony: that he never made a "complete check" of his employees, but merely "saw a group of the employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy wasn't with them." That's not an official roll call.
FBI statements from 73 TSBD employees revealed that 17 employees never went back inside the building after the shots were fired. So, if 17 of them never went back inside, Oswald wouldn't be the only one missing for a roll call.
-
My apologies, Mr Collins, I should have worded my question more clearly------------------------I was asking how long after the shooting the Martin/Hughes clip was taken
Maybe someone else can say something about the time of the two film clips, I really couldn't say definitely. I thought you were asking about Barnett's statement because you included the quote for that.
-
The roll call that never was-----AKA... The TSBD rollcall that doubtfully happened
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3121.msg117163.html#msg117163
Also-----
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3121.msg117163.html#msg117163
Additionally------
https://www.flickr.com/photos/83057948@N07/8159323311
So you guys can stop making stuff up.
Kudos to Rick's avatar!!! Wifey is Ukrainian and we are heartsick over this :'(
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/02/24/opinion/24Hass/merlin_202687800_c65d96e4-10c1-4984-815c-ff567d3773f7-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale)
-
Eddie Piper affidavit snip:
It was about 1:00 PM when the police made us vacate the building and as we were being checked out, I noticed that "Lee" wasn't with us and I mentioned to some of the employees there checking out that Lee wasn't there and somebody said, he must have already gone out.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/piper3.htm (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/piper3.htm)
It appears to me that Truly wasn’t the only one who noticed Oswald was missing. And Eddie Piper’s mentioning it to others could have even been what brought it to Truly’s attention. At any rate, the idea that Truly’s intentions were somehow sinister seems ridiculous to me.
-
And Eddie Piper’s mentioning it to others could have even been what brought it to Truly’s attention.
No, then he would simply have said so.
Instead he came up with some BS explanation about subconsciously missing him.
You failed again.
No, then he would simply have said so.
Not necessarily. I didn’t say that is actually what happened. Just a possibility. There are several people who said they noticed he was missing. Who noticed it first? We will probably never know. And it really doesn’t matter.
-
And it really doesn’t matter.
Never the less you felt the desire to bring it up -- ROFL
If it happened, there was no need to invent a half-assed explanation of a subconsistence event.
Next?
I brought up the fact that Eddie Piper said that he noticed Oswald missing and mentioned it to some others. That, I consider to be significant to counter the silly argument that Truly had sinister intentions. Do you have anything to say that actually adds to the conversation?
-
11/22 DPD were telling the press that Mr Oswald was seen leaving the building by the front entrance. Mr Billy Lovelady was telling Mr James Jarman the same thing. And Mr Oswald was telling Captain Fritz the same thing
-
Another typical Otto contribution. No substance - check. Personal insult - check. In which we learn that if someone has what they believe to be evidence in the assassination of the US President, it is not reasonable for them to present that "evidence" to a national media source or law enforcement agency instead of spending their time on an Internet forum. What does this reveal to us? That CTers don't actually believe their own nonsense.
Another typical Otto contribution.
Exactly, it's as if Roger Collins never left!
Personal insult - check.
In virtually every one of "Otto's" posts he chucks in some sort of insult, obviously as a way to hide the sad fact that the evidence that he's relying on is weak as piss and requires a ton of self serving speculation. The deductive reasoning skills on display is embarrassing.
In which we learn that if someone has what they believe to be evidence in the assassination of the US President, it is not reasonable for them to present that "evidence" to a national media source or law enforcement agency instead of spending their time on an Internet forum. What does this reveal to us? That CTers don't actually believe their own nonsense.
You gotta wonder who are these conspiracy theorist's trying to convince? At the end of the day if the CT's had a case that Oswald was set up then it shouldn't be hard to convince anybody but as we know they can't even convince each other!
Btw I like how these Conspiracy theorist's come here day after day and endlessly theorize that there was a massive conspiracy, and then proudly and loudly proclaim that they're not conspiracy theorists, hilarious!
JohnM
-
Truly worked for the Texas School Book Depository since July 1934, so enquiring minds would like to know, was Truly a long term 30 year plant? Or was he approached sometime in the days leading up to the assassination and told to say that there was a roll call and Oswald was missing? Both explanations are equally absurd, or perhaps the CT's can present a plausible provable scenario?
And if Truly did have prior knowledge then his actions of vouching for Oswald at the lunchroom which essentially lets him go, doesn't make sense. Wouldn't the plan be to contain the Patsy Oswald as quickly as possible but Oswald escapes within a few minutes and goes on to kill a Policeman and then the Police have another chance to silence Oswald at the Texas Theatre but again miss their chance. And finally the Dallas Police trot out Oswald in front on the Press and even give Oswald centre stage at a midnight press conference, some conspiracy. :D
JohnM
-
Why get upset for being caught speculating when that's what you Nutters do all day long?
Your "argument" is plain foolish since, if it was a fact the information originated with Piper, there was no need for any subconscious nonsense.
In fact, his explanation was so incredibly stupid that he was called in for questioning again on May 14.
Being caught speculating? What the heck are you talking about. I said that it is possible. I didn’t get caught, I said (by implication) that I was speculating. What the heck is your problem? Several people said that they noticed Oswald missing. Truly notified the police.
What is so incredibly stupid is people trying to make this into something sinister. It “truly” is one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories that I have seen.
-
Which guy was "missing" Oswald and inquired of the other? Did their signals get crossed there?
Mr. TRULY. Then in a few minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth.
There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys.
So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there.
First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell--I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him, he looked around and said no.
Mr. BELIN. When you asked Bill Shelley if he had seen whom?
Mr. TRULY. Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and he said no.
So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not."
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338312/m1/1/high_res/)
-
Oswald got what he deserved
-
And Eddie Piper’s mentioning it to others could have even been what brought it to Truly’s attention.
This was your initial claim which would have been a nobrainer for Truly to tell the commission.
Instead he kooked up some subconscious BS on top of a timeline that didn't work.
So much for your impossible possibility, it's simply disconnected from what Truly said.
There is nothing impossible about what I said. WTF are you blabbering about?
-
Sure, everything is possible but highly improbable that Truly wouldn't have said so if it happened.
You simply launched a counter argument that totally flopped.
Suck it up and move on.
I launched no counter argument. I brought up a valid and relevant point and a possibility. That is all. On the other hand, you have contributed exactly nothing of value whatsoever.
-
Speaking of Mr Kent Biffle, here's what he wrote on the evening of 11/22:
(https://i.postimg.cc/0NvJskx1/Biffle-storage.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Cf! New York Herald Tribune, 11/23:
(https://i.postimg.cc/pTh9QpJ8/Ochus-Campbell-storage.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
There were two storage rooms on the first floor:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g27mV4SS/TSBD-1st-floor-storage-rooms.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
BS:
Previously...
That, I consider to be significant to counter the silly argument that Truly had sinister intentions.
Here is that sentence in context with the rest of that post:
I brought up the fact that Eddie Piper said that he noticed Oswald missing and mentioned it to some others. That, I consider to be significant to counter the silly argument that Truly had sinister intentions. Do you have anything to say that actually adds to the conversation?
The sentence you have chosen to take out of context and twist was written simply to state why I brought that fact up. This was done because you tried to twist another sentence and pretend that I brought something up that didn't matter. What I stated doesn't matter is who out of the several people who said that they noticed Oswald missing actually noticed Oswald missing first. Now, if you or anyone else wants to argue against the fact that Eddie Piper said what he did, please do.
-
Speaking of Mr Kent Biffle, here's what he wrote on the evening of 11/22:
(https://i.postimg.cc/0NvJskx1/Biffle-storage.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Cf! New York Herald Tribune, 11/23:
(https://i.postimg.cc/pTh9QpJ8/Ochus-Campbell-storage.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
There were two storage rooms on the first floor:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g27mV4SS/TSBD-1st-floor-storage-rooms.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Notice Campbell says "shortly after the shooting we raced back into the building" and that alao includes Sarah Stanton who confirmed that in her FBI statement.
-
Your possibility does not counter anything, that's the unpleasant fact you need to deal with.
Frankly, there is nothing to counter. The whole idea that Truly lied for some sinister purpose has no reasonable foundation to counter. It is just another unfounded ridiculous idea.
-
It was you who introduced the counter thing "to counter" something and you now claim it's unnecessary -- ROFL
BTW, why would employee contact information include hair color?
Representative FORD. In your description of Oswald to Captain Fritz, did you describe the kind of clothes that Oswald had on that day?
Mr. TRULY. I don't know, sir. No, sir; I just told him his name and where he lived and his telephone number and his age, as 23, and I said 5 feet, 9, about 150 pounds, light brown hair--whatever I picked up off the description there. I did not try to depend on my memory to describe him. I just put down what was on this application blank. That's the reason I called Mr. Aiken, because I did not want to mislead anybody as to a description. I might call a man brown-halted, and he might be blonde.
Another example of a kook trying to make something out of nothing. ::)
-
Why get all stirred up over a simple question?
I haven't made anything out of it yet.
Are you unfamiliar with this statement or Truly's testimony in general?
Try to make something out of it and give us something to laugh at.
-
Not much you had to offer.
Let's try this:
Who reported Charles Givens missing?
You don’t need my answers to make your case. Tell us what you think was going on, and be sure to let us know all the reasons you think this.
-
You don’t need my answers to make your case. Tell us what you think was going on, and be sure to let us know all the reasons you think this.
Yes, that would be quite a fairy fable to spin. Particularly since Otto claims he is not a CTer. That apparently doesn't preclude him from claiming the evidence against Oswald is fake or the product of lies, though.
-
Yes, that would be quite a fairy fable to spin. Particularly since Otto claims he is not a CTer. That apparently doesn't preclude him from claiming the evidence against Oswald is fake or the product of lies, though.
It’s the same old spombleprofglidnoctobunse, find an inconsistency in the minor details and invent some sinister plot. ::)
-
LOL
Fascinating how you went from having full confidence in Truly a few pages back to clamming up!
Does it make sense to you that Truly only reported Oswald missing?
I have suggested that you make a case several times now. You avoiding it only confirms that there is none to make.
-
It"s fine with me to admit you have no opinion of your own but need to look it up in the commission's report.
Take your time.
Thumb1:
I will respond if and when you make a case. Otherwise don’t hold your breath.
-
I know it must hurt getting called out on your bogus counter argument.
Reviewing the exiting case first makes sense to me but evidently not to you.
Stiil a mystery to me, however, how quickly you went silent when you have 888 pages of commission BS to pick from!
It is not my place to try to answer all your silly little questions to your satisfaction. They have been discussed many times before. And you still have no case to make?
-
Did I miss your post documenting the June 18 sale of C 2766?
How far does this all go back in your fairy tale? Do I need to trace the "wooden stock" of Oswald's rifle back to the specific tree from which it was cut in Italy? Remember you are not a CTer. Just implying that Oswald was framed by numerous individuals from different walks of life in the assassination of the President beginning years before the event to frame Oswald. Down the rabbit hole we go. Weeeee. How come you never spin us your fantasy yarn to provide an alternative narrative that ties together all your baseless claims in a way that makes some sense?
-
How come an unfaked record can cause you so much headache?
There is a discrepancy in the date. Big deal. What does it matter unless you are suggesting Klein's faked its documentation? Is that what you are suggesting? Instead of cryptic posts why not actually spell out what you are claiming? What do you think happened?
-
At least we learned that even little questions can make you bail in a hurry.
Do report back on Givens when you grow a pair.
Thumb1:
Thanks for confirming your sole purpose for being on the forum. All you ever try to do is insult other people. If you ever grow a pair of your own perhaps you will have something to report to us about your case.
-
There is no doubt that an "official" roll call did not take place.
At no time did Truly gather all his men together to discover that only Oswald was missing. We can tell this from Truly's comment:
"I didn't know whether they were all there or not."
BUT...
There was a time on the first floor when Truly's "boys"were being processed with the express intent of finding who was on the sixth floor that day. It was noticed by some of the men that Oswald was missing at that time:
EDDIE PIPER
MR. BALL -- Did you at any time after the shooting miss Lee Oswald—did you notice he wasn't around?
MR.PIPER -- No, sir; I didn't notice it until the lineup. You know, I just figured all the people was there.
MR. BALL -- You did notice it at the lineup, did you?
MR. PIPER -- Yes.
MR. BALL -- Tell us about that.
MR. PIPER -- I did notice it in the lineup.
MR. BALL -- What do you mean by the lineup?
MR. PIPER -- I mean, when they lined us all up and told us to give our name and address and just to go home.
MR. BALL -- You say "they"; who do you mean?
MR. PIPER -- The detective—whoever it was.
MR. BALL -- The police?
MR. PIPER -- Yes; they had the building all surrounded. They went to locking the doors back and front and told us to all come up and then go home, and I told him, I says, "I've got to go down in the basement and get my clothes," and he said, "You can go down and get your clothes and come on back up here, but give me your identification and your name and tell us where you are staying," and everybody heard me say that, I guess, and he let us out of the building, one by one, and I went on out the front door.
JAMES JARMAN
MR. JARMAN -- When we started to line up to show our identification, quite a few of us asked where was Lee. That is what we called him, and he wasn't anywhere around. We started asking each other, have you seen Lee Oswald, and they said no.
BONNIE RAY WILLIAMS
MR. WILLIAMS. -- When we arrived to the first floor, the first thing I noticed was that the policemen had rushed in. I think some firemen came in with a water hose. And then the next thing that happened, these detectives, or maybe FBI--anyway, they stopped us all and they said, "Do you work here?" And we told them yes. And they took our name, address, and they searched everybody. And then the other fellow--I think one fellow asked whether we had been working upstairs. I think we told him yes. They got out all the fellows I think that was working on the sixth floor at the time, and they took us all down to the courthouse, I think, and we had to fill out some affidavits and things.
It would appear that if there was anything resembling a roll call it would have been while they were being processed and it was noticed Oswald was missing, particularly, as Williams points out, the emphasis was on finding who had been working on the sixth floor. It is this "processing" Truly observes when he states:
"There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys."
It would seem reasonable that this is the moment Truly noticed Oswald was missing and decided to take action.
However, as is often the case, things are never that simple.
Detective B. L. Senkel arrives at the TSBD about 12:50pm (With Det. F. M. Turner, Dep. Chief Lumpkin and Forrest Sorrels). He enters the rear door and starts searching floor by floor until he reaches the sixth floor where he finds Fritz, Sims and Boyd. He arrives there around the time the hulls are found in the southeast corner and before the rifle is found:
"Capt. Fritz advised me to take the employees that had been on the sixth floor to the City Hall for statements. Officer C. W. Brown stated he had a car and would drive me to City Hall. Brown and I left the Texas School Book Depository with witnesses W. H. Shelly, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Danny Garcia Arce."
Detective C. W. Brown also enters the TSBD by the rear door and makes his way up to the 6th floor where he contacts Fritz:
"Capt. Fritz advised me and Det. B. L. Senkel, who was already there, to bring the employees of this building to the Homicide Office and get affidavits from them."
Before the rifle is even found Detectives Senkel and Brown are down on the first floor processing the employees specifically trying to find who was on the sixth floor. As a result, around 1:30pm, Shelley, Williams and Arce are taken to City Hall. There is no mention of going back to collect any of the other sixth floor employees - Oswald, Givens, Lovelady and Dougherty. We know with hindsight Oswald has gone and Givens never returned, but what about Lovelady and Dougherty?
When Truly notices Oswald is missing he is with Shelley, so this must be the time when Dets. Senkel and Brown are processing the "boys" and before Shelley, Williams and Arce are taken to City Hall, approximately 1:20 - 1:30pm. It is well known with hindsight that Oswald and Givens are missing from this processing but what is less well known is that Lovelady and Dougherty are also missing.
In his HSCA interview Lovelady states that he takes a group of officers up through the TSBD to the seventh floor. He then takes them down to the 6th floor and is present when the rifle is found around 1:25pm.
Dougherty is also on the sixth floor but even later:
"Well, when the FBI men---I imagine it was who it was---he showed me his credentials, but he asked me who the manager was, and I told him, "Mr. Truly." He told me to go find him. Well, I didn't know where he was so I started from the first floor and Just started looking for him, and .by the time I got to the sixth floor, they had found a gun and shells."
At the time of "processing" Dougherty is wandering around the TSBD actually looking for Truly!
This is why Lovelady and Dougherty are not taken down to City Hall until later - because they are not present when the processing takes place. This is why Truly states that there were still employees missing when he decides that only Oswald is missing.
So how can he be so confident that Oswald has left the building?
I believe the answer comes from Oswald.
During his interrogations he reveals that before he leaves the TSBD he meets Shelley near the front entrance and it is on Shelley's advice that he actually leaves. If there is anything to this then Shelley is in a perfect position to tell Truly that Oswald has already left. Obviously, neither man says this is the case but it is the only way I can think of that Truly can be so certain that Oswald is missing.
-
Oswald's handwriting requesting a Carcano rifle order No. C20-T750 are on a Kleins magazine coupon and on his handwriting is on an envelope addressed to Kleins.
Oswald's handwriting is on the Kleins moneyorder.
Oswald's PO box was the return address.
Kleins sent a Carcano rifle with their order No. C20-T750 to Oswald's PO box.
Kleins sent a Carcano rifle with the serial No. C2766.
Oswald was photographed with the same rifle, C2766.
C2766 was found on the 6th floor, the same floor that eyewitnesses saw a man with a rifle.
C2766 had Oswald's palm print and Oswald's fingerprints on the trigger guard.
C2766 contained 3 types of fibers which matched the types of fibers in Oswald arrest shirt.
Oswald's handwriting on the Kleins coupon and envelope
(https://i.ibb.co/Btkf0H5/CE-773-Kleins-coupon.jpg)
Waldman7 indicating C2766 was sent to Oswald's PO box.
(https://i.ibb.co/yWHgzbG/Waldman-Exhibit-No7.jpg)
The HSCA photo expert analysis of the gouge on the forestock of Oswald's rifle which can be seen in one of the backyard photos.
(https://i.ibb.co/s5PkDwH/Photo-hsca-ex-206-rifle-gouge.jpg)
Oswald's handwriting on the money order.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d3/e5/52/d3e552db51dc93380b961a1de2f1e69c--kennedy-assassination-killing.jpg)
The characteristics of 3 fibers discovered on the rifle were a match to fibers taken from the shirt was arrested in.
(https://i.ibb.co/JzmM7wT/brownshirtfibers.jpg)
The bag with Oswald's prints which was discovered in the snipers nest was a size match to Oswald's broken down rifle.
(https://i.ibb.co/wzFqWfS/38-inch-bag-for-36-inch-rifle.jpg)
The FBI determined that the card with Day's palm print came from Oswald's rifle.
(https://i.ibb.co/X3JyWGv/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0072b.jpg)
JohnM
-
Can we keep this on topic.
Any thoughts on that John?
-
Can we keep this on topic.
Any thoughts on that John?
Yeah sure, just got a little side-tracked.
Anyway, Truly just saw Oswald skulking about at the 2nd floor lunchroom and simply remembered him, wouldn't you?
JohnM
-
Yeah sure, just got a little side-tracked.
Anyway, Truly just saw Oswald skulking about at the 2nd floor lunchroom and simply remembered him, wouldn't you?
JohnM
"Skulking" ;D
The guy can't even get a coke without looking dodgy.
-
"Skulking" ;D
The guy can't even get a coke without looking dodgy.
OK let's say Oswald was on the first floor in the lunchroom as the President went by and he hears gun shots, police sirens and much commotion outside, but instead of initially finding out what's going on, he chooses at that exact point in time to go and get a coke, that in my book is a bit dodgy.
JohnM
-
OK let's say Oswald was on the first floor in the lunchroom as the President went by and he hears gun shots, police sirens and much commotion outside, but instead of initially finding out what's going on, he chooses at that exact point in time to go and get a coke, that in my book is a bit dodgy.
JohnM
He's not just some guy minding his business.
He's up to his eyeballs in the events of the day,
Still not on topic though.
-
He's not just some guy minding his business.
He's up to his eyeballs in the events of the day,
It's quite simple, a man who hated authority, hated his country, tried to defect to the enemy, attempted political change, tried assassinating General Walker, and finally just took his rifle to work and shot the President. There was no one else involved.
JohnM
-
As usual...this thread has wobbled off topic like a drunk sailor!
I want an answer to my very--- on topic question [Reply #80]
Which guy was "missing" Oswald and inquired of the other?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3385.msg124975.html#msg124975
-
He's not just some guy minding his business.
He's up to his eyeballs in the events of the day,
Still not on topic though.
There is not enough information to recreate the event with absolute certainty because it was not the "roll call" that was important. It was the fact that Oswald was missing. And what constitutes a "roll call" is not a scientific matter that can have only one correct interpretation. Truly had a memorable encounter with Oswald just after the assassination. He saw a police officer pull a gun on Oswald while in search of the assassin of the President of the United States which had occurred just minutes beforehand. Not something that happens every day. As a result, he knew Oswald, unlike many others, was in the building instead of standing out on the street watching the motorcade. If Truly had observed Oswald on the street during the motorcade, the fact that he was missing later would not have been as important since Oswald obviously could not have been the assassin. The police gather information from the folks that are around. Truly is present for this. He notices that Oswald is missing during this roll call-like process. Oswald comes to mind because he IS missing and the dramatic encounter in the lunch room just after the assassination. Truly asks around and no one has seen Oswald. He reports it not knowing whether Oswald has anything to do with this or not. This entire matter becomes summarized as a roll call. No one anticipates any pedantic nitpicking of every word and event relating to how Oswald is noticed missing because it does not occur to anyone that this is important. Because it is not.
-
There is not enough information to recreate the event with absolute certainty because it was not the "roll call" that was important.
"because"?
It was the fact that Oswald was missing.
No, it was of no relevance really as Truly had plenty of order fillers.
And what constitutes a "roll call" is not a scientific matter that can have only one correct interpretation.
BS, the definition in the dictionary is quite concise, reading names from a list to check attendance.
Truly had a memorable encounter with Oswald just after the assassination.
Okey...
He saw a police officer pull a gun on Oswald while in search of the assassin of the President of the United States which had occurred just minutes beforehand.
Wrong, the gun was out already according to Baker.
Not something that happens every day.
Well, not in this context anyway.
As a result, he knew Oswald, unlike many others, was in the building instead of standing out on the street watching the motorcade.
Sure.
If Truly had observed Oswald on the street during the motorcade, the fact that he was missing later would not have been as important since Oswald obviously could not have been the assassin.
Double BS, Truly did not believe shots were fired from the building and at no time did he suspect Oswald as being involved with anything related to the assassination.
The police gather information from the folks that are around. Truly is present for this.
OK.
He notices that Oswald is missing during this roll call-like process.
OK.
Oswald comes to mind because he IS missing and the dramatic encounter in the lunch room just after the assassination.
BS, apparently is missing and there was no drama.
Truly asks around and no one has seen Oswald.
Not according to Frazier.
He reports it not knowing whether Oswald has anything to do with this or not.
Except there was no need to bother a police Captain with names and addresses when, as you state, there were already low ranking police around doing the roll call-like job.
This entire matter becomes summarized as a roll call.
By some, apparently, including Truly according to a journalist.
No one anticipates any pedantic nitpicking of every word and event relating to how Oswald is noticed missing because it does not occur to anyone that this is important.
Untill somebody begins picking over the evidence...
Because it is not.
Just because you can't deal with it doesn't mean it's not important; usual sloppy analysis riddled with errors
Spin us a yarn and tell us what you think happened and why it matters. Remember you are not a CTer.
-
There were several employees who were outside or gone which made it hard to tell who was there and who was not there . Roll Call ?
-
Bumped for "Richard Smith":
There is no doubt that an "official" roll call did not take place.
At no time did Truly gather all his men together to discover that only Oswald was missing. We can tell this from Truly's comment:
"I didn't know whether they were all there or not."
BUT...
There was a time on the first floor when Truly's "boys"were being processed with the express intent of finding who was on the sixth floor that day. It was noticed by some of the men that Oswald was missing at that time:
EDDIE PIPER
MR. BALL -- Did you at any time after the shooting miss Lee Oswald—did you notice he wasn't around?
MR.PIPER -- No, sir; I didn't notice it until the lineup. You know, I just figured all the people was there.
MR. BALL -- You did notice it at the lineup, did you?
MR. PIPER -- Yes.
MR. BALL -- Tell us about that.
MR. PIPER -- I did notice it in the lineup.
MR. BALL -- What do you mean by the lineup?
MR. PIPER -- I mean, when they lined us all up and told us to give our name and address and just to go home.
MR. BALL -- You say "they"; who do you mean?
MR. PIPER -- The detective—whoever it was.
MR. BALL -- The police?
MR. PIPER -- Yes; they had the building all surrounded. They went to locking the doors back and front and told us to all come up and then go home, and I told him, I says, "I've got to go down in the basement and get my clothes," and he said, "You can go down and get your clothes and come on back up here, but give me your identification and your name and tell us where you are staying," and everybody heard me say that, I guess, and he let us out of the building, one by one, and I went on out the front door.
JAMES JARMAN
MR. JARMAN -- When we started to line up to show our identification, quite a few of us asked where was Lee. That is what we called him, and he wasn't anywhere around. We started asking each other, have you seen Lee Oswald, and they said no.
BONNIE RAY WILLIAMS
MR. WILLIAMS. -- When we arrived to the first floor, the first thing I noticed was that the policemen had rushed in. I think some firemen came in with a water hose. And then the next thing that happened, these detectives, or maybe FBI--anyway, they stopped us all and they said, "Do you work here?" And we told them yes. And they took our name, address, and they searched everybody. And then the other fellow--I think one fellow asked whether we had been working upstairs. I think we told him yes. They got out all the fellows I think that was working on the sixth floor at the time, and they took us all down to the courthouse, I think, and we had to fill out some affidavits and things.
It would appear that if there was anything resembling a roll call it would have been while they were being processed and it was noticed Oswald was missing, particularly, as Williams points out, the emphasis was on finding who had been working on the sixth floor. It is this "processing" Truly observes when he states:
"There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys."
It would seem reasonable that this is the moment Truly noticed Oswald was missing and decided to take action.
However, as is often the case, things are never that simple.
Detective B. L. Senkel arrives at the TSBD about 12:50pm (With Det. F. M. Turner, Dep. Chief Lumpkin and Forrest Sorrels). He enters the rear door and starts searching floor by floor until he reaches the sixth floor where he finds Fritz, Sims and Boyd. He arrives there around the time the hulls are found in the southeast corner and before the rifle is found:
"Capt. Fritz advised me to take the employees that had been on the sixth floor to the City Hall for statements. Officer C. W. Brown stated he had a car and would drive me to City Hall. Brown and I left the Texas School Book Depository with witnesses W. H. Shelly, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Danny Garcia Arce."
Detective C. W. Brown also enters the TSBD by the rear door and makes his way up to the 6th floor where he contacts Fritz:
"Capt. Fritz advised me and Det. B. L. Senkel, who was already there, to bring the employees of this building to the Homicide Office and get affidavits from them."
Before the rifle is even found Detectives Senkel and Brown are down on the first floor processing the employees specifically trying to find who was on the sixth floor. As a result, around 1:30pm, Shelley, Williams and Arce are taken to City Hall. There is no mention of going back to collect any of the other sixth floor employees - Oswald, Givens, Lovelady and Dougherty. We know with hindsight Oswald has gone and Givens never returned, but what about Lovelady and Dougherty?
When Truly notices Oswald is missing he is with Shelley, so this must be the time when Dets. Senkel and Brown are processing the "boys" and before Shelley, Williams and Arce are taken to City Hall, approximately 1:20 - 1:30pm. It is well known with hindsight that Oswald and Givens are missing from this processing but what is less well known is that Lovelady and Dougherty are also missing.
In his HSCA interview Lovelady states that he takes a group of officers up through the TSBD to the seventh floor. He then takes them down to the 6th floor and is present when the rifle is found around 1:25pm.
Dougherty is also on the sixth floor but even later:
"Well, when the FBI men---I imagine it was who it was---he showed me his credentials, but he asked me who the manager was, and I told him, "Mr. Truly." He told me to go find him. Well, I didn't know where he was so I started from the first floor and Just started looking for him, and .by the time I got to the sixth floor, they had found a gun and shells."
At the time of "processing" Dougherty is wandering around the TSBD actually looking for Truly!
This is why Lovelady and Dougherty are not taken down to City Hall until later - because they are not present when the processing takes place. This is why Truly states that there were still employees missing when he decides that only Oswald is missing.
So how can he be so confident that Oswald has left the building?
I believe the answer comes from Oswald.
During his interrogations he reveals that before he leaves the TSBD he meets Shelley near the front entrance and it is on Shelley's advice that he actually leaves. If there is anything to this then Shelley is in a perfect position to tell Truly that Oswald has already left. Obviously, neither man says this is the case but it is the only way I can think of that Truly can be so certain that Oswald is missing.
-
Bumped for "Richard Smith":
There is no doubt that an "official" roll call did not take place.
At no time did Truly gather all his men together to discover that only Oswald was missing. We can tell this from Truly's comment:
"I didn't know whether they were all there or not."
BUT...
There was a time on the first floor when Truly's "boys"were being processed with the express intent of finding who was on the sixth floor that day. It was noticed by some of the men that Oswald was missing at that time:
EDDIE PIPER
MR. BALL -- Did you at any time after the shooting miss Lee Oswald—did you notice he wasn't around?
MR.PIPER -- No, sir; I didn't notice it until the lineup. You know, I just figured all the people was there.
MR. BALL -- You did notice it at the lineup, did you?
MR. PIPER -- Yes.
MR. BALL -- Tell us about that.
MR. PIPER -- I did notice it in the lineup.
MR. BALL -- What do you mean by the lineup?
MR. PIPER -- I mean, when they lined us all up and told us to give our name and address and just to go home.
MR. BALL -- You say "they"; who do you mean?
MR. PIPER -- The detective—whoever it was.
MR. BALL -- The police?
MR. PIPER -- Yes; they had the building all surrounded. They went to locking the doors back and front and told us to all come up and then go home, and I told him, I says, "I've got to go down in the basement and get my clothes," and he said, "You can go down and get your clothes and come on back up here, but give me your identification and your name and tell us where you are staying," and everybody heard me say that, I guess, and he let us out of the building, one by one, and I went on out the front door.
JAMES JARMAN
MR. JARMAN -- When we started to line up to show our identification, quite a few of us asked where was Lee. That is what we called him, and he wasn't anywhere around. We started asking each other, have you seen Lee Oswald, and they said no.
BONNIE RAY WILLIAMS
MR. WILLIAMS. -- When we arrived to the first floor, the first thing I noticed was that the policemen had rushed in. I think some firemen came in with a water hose. And then the next thing that happened, these detectives, or maybe FBI--anyway, they stopped us all and they said, "Do you work here?" And we told them yes. And they took our name, address, and they searched everybody. And then the other fellow--I think one fellow asked whether we had been working upstairs. I think we told him yes. They got out all the fellows I think that was working on the sixth floor at the time, and they took us all down to the courthouse, I think, and we had to fill out some affidavits and things.
It would appear that if there was anything resembling a roll call it would have been while they were being processed and it was noticed Oswald was missing, particularly, as Williams points out, the emphasis was on finding who had been working on the sixth floor. It is this "processing" Truly observes when he states:
"There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys."
It would seem reasonable that this is the moment Truly noticed Oswald was missing and decided to take action.
However, as is often the case, things are never that simple.
Detective B. L. Senkel arrives at the TSBD about 12:50pm (With Det. F. M. Turner, Dep. Chief Lumpkin and Forrest Sorrels). He enters the rear door and starts searching floor by floor until he reaches the sixth floor where he finds Fritz, Sims and Boyd. He arrives there around the time the hulls are found in the southeast corner and before the rifle is found:
"Capt. Fritz advised me to take the employees that had been on the sixth floor to the City Hall for statements. Officer C. W. Brown stated he had a car and would drive me to City Hall. Brown and I left the Texas School Book Depository with witnesses W. H. Shelly, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Danny Garcia Arce."
Detective C. W. Brown also enters the TSBD by the rear door and makes his way up to the 6th floor where he contacts Fritz:
"Capt. Fritz advised me and Det. B. L. Senkel, who was already there, to bring the employees of this building to the Homicide Office and get affidavits from them."
Before the rifle is even found Detectives Senkel and Brown are down on the first floor processing the employees specifically trying to find who was on the sixth floor. As a result, around 1:30pm, Shelley, Williams and Arce are taken to City Hall. There is no mention of going back to collect any of the other sixth floor employees - Oswald, Givens, Lovelady and Dougherty. We know with hindsight Oswald has gone and Givens never returned, but what about Lovelady and Dougherty?
When Truly notices Oswald is missing he is with Shelley, so this must be the time when Dets. Senkel and Brown are processing the "boys" and before Shelley, Williams and Arce are taken to City Hall, approximately 1:20 - 1:30pm. It is well known with hindsight that Oswald and Givens are missing from this processing but what is less well known is that Lovelady and Dougherty are also missing.
In his HSCA interview Lovelady states that he takes a group of officers up through the TSBD to the seventh floor. He then takes them down to the 6th floor and is present when the rifle is found around 1:25pm.
Dougherty is also on the sixth floor but even later:
"Well, when the FBI men---I imagine it was who it was---he showed me his credentials, but he asked me who the manager was, and I told him, "Mr. Truly." He told me to go find him. Well, I didn't know where he was so I started from the first floor and Just started looking for him, and .by the time I got to the sixth floor, they had found a gun and shells."
At the time of "processing" Dougherty is wandering around the TSBD actually looking for Truly!
This is why Lovelady and Dougherty are not taken down to City Hall until later - because they are not present when the processing takes place. This is why Truly states that there were still employees missing when he decides that only Oswald is missing.
So how can he be so confident that Oswald has left the building?
I believe the answer comes from Oswald.
During his interrogations he reveals that before he leaves the TSBD he meets Shelley near the front entrance and it is on Shelley's advice that he actually leaves. If there is anything to this then Shelley is in a perfect position to tell Truly that Oswald has already left. Obviously, neither man says this is the case but it is the only way I can think of that Truly can be so certain that Oswald is missing.
Did you leave out this testimony from BRW on purpose?
Mr. McCLOY. Do you know whether or not anybody got out of the building before the police could get there? Did any of your friends or the people you were working with, did you hear whether any of them had left the building before the building was closed?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; I heard Mr. Truly-he said that-he mentioned that-he said, "Where is Lee?" That is what everybody called him. "Where is Lee?", he said, and therefore I assume he did not know where Lee was, that he was out of the building, because everybody else was there. And there was another colored fellow by the name of Charles Givens. He wasn't in the building at the time. He was downtown somewhere.
Mr. McCLOY. Had he been at the building at the time of the shooting--Givens?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I don't believe he had.
Mr. DULLES. What did Mr. Truly say about Lee not being there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. The only thing I heard him say is--I think an officer asked him, "Is everyone here?" And he said, "Where is Lee?"--like that, you know.
Mr. DULLES. Mr. Truly said that?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
So according to BRW Truly was asked if everyone was there by one of the officers. And that is when Truly realized that LHO was missing.
-
Did you leave out this testimony from BRW on purpose? So according to BRW----
Mr. BALL. You say you went back upstairs. Where did you go?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I went back up to the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL. Why did you go to the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time everybody was talking like they was going to watch from the sixth floor. I think Billy Lovelady said he wanted to watch from up there. And also my friend; this Spanish boy, by the name of Danny Arce, we had agreed at first to come back up to the sixth floor. So I thought everybody was going to be on the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL. Did anybody go back?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Nobody came back up. So I just left.
Mr. BALL. Where did you eat your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe.
Mr. BALL. Facing on what street?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Facing Elm Street.
Mr. McCLOY. What floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Sixth floor.
Mr. DULLES. You ate your lunch on the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. And you were all alone?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you sit on while you ate your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. First of all, I remember there was some boxes behind me.
It practically sounds like your Bonnie Ray ate his lunch in the snipers nest :D
Talk about convoluted.
-
It practically sounds like your Bonnie Ray ate his lunch in the snipers nest :D
Talk about convoluted.
The only thing convoluted is how one has to twist selected and isolated testimony to make-believe BRW ate his lunch in the sniper's nest. A little later BRW diagrams the area where he ate his lunch.
Mr. BALL. I will. I am going to introduce them all. Let's go back to the diagram, which is 483. Could you mark on this diagram the window that is shown in this picture 484 that is, the place where you were sitting and eating your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. That would be facing Elm Street. I would say right around in this.
Mr. BALL. In other words, you are marking here something between--some area between the third and the fourth window.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You are not able to tell exactly?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No; I am not.
Mr. BALL. The witness has drawn a red rectangle to show the approximate area which runs from about the center. of the second row of windows from the southeast corner over to about the fourth pane of windows.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I would say about right in here, third or fourth.
Mr. BALL. Third or fourth?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, you have made two marks, so I will identify the last mark. Between the third and fourth, is that right?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. We will mark the rectangle, and we will mark it "W-3" and "W-4" the end of the lines.
(https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce483.jpg)
-
There were several employees who were outside or gone which made it hard to tell who was there and who was not there . Roll Call ?
Correct.
Buell Frazier has stated on more than one occasion there was an employee "roll call" and Oswald was the only employee not present.
-
The only thing convoluted is how one has to twist selected and isolated testimony to make-believe BRW ate his lunch in the sniper's nest. A little later BRW diagrams the area where he ate his lunch.
Mr. BALL. I will. I am going to introduce them all. Let's go back to the diagram, which is 483. Could you mark on this diagram the window that is shown in this picture 484 that is, the place where you were sitting and eating your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. That would be facing Elm Street. I would say right around in this.
Mr. BALL. In other words, you are marking here something between--some area between the third and the fourth window.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You are not able to tell exactly?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No; I am not.
Mr. BALL. The witness has drawn a red rectangle to show the approximate area which runs from about the center. of the second row of windows from the southeast corner over to about the fourth pane of windows.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I would say about right in here, third or fourth.
Mr. BALL. Third or fourth?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, you have made two marks, so I will identify the last mark. Between the third and fourth, is that right?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. We will mark the rectangle, and we will mark it "W-3" and "W-4" the end of the lines.
(https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce483.jpg)
Even though his lunch remains were found on top of the Sniper's Nest?
-
Correct.
Buell Frazier has stated on more than one occasion there was an employee "roll call" and Oswald was the only employee not present.
Givens
-
Even though his lunch remains were found on top of the Sniper's Nest?
Are you imagining things again? ??? ::)
Try paying attention to the evidence:
Mr. BALL. I have an exhibit here marked 484.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize that?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; I recognize that.
Mr. BALL. What do you see?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I see a two-wheeler, a Dr. Pepper bottle, and some boxes in the windows.
Mr. BALL. And is that anywhere near where you were sitting?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; that is the exact place I was sitting.
Mr. BALL. That is the two-wheeler you were sitting on?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
(https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce484.jpg)
-
Are you imagining things again? ??? ::)
Try paying attention to the evidence:
Mr. BALL. I have an exhibit here marked 484.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize that?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; I recognize that.
Mr. BALL. What do you see?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I see a two-wheeler, a Dr. Pepper bottle, and some boxes in the windows.
Mr. BALL. And is that anywhere near where you were sitting?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; that is the exact place I was sitting.
Mr. BALL. That is the two-wheeler you were sitting on?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
(https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce484.jpg)
Your memory is very short Charles.
Eight officers stated the remains were found in the location of the SN.
Three officers specifically stated they were on top of the SN.
Try and wish it away all you want but that's the fact of the matter.
I think Bonnie Ray is the most interesting witness in this case because I think he saw the real shooter.
I think that for a young black man to sit in the offices of the racist, right wing DPD and lie to their faces on the day of the assassination is genuinely extraordinary. He states he had lunch with Norman and Jarman on the first floor and went up to the fifth floor with the two of them. He knew damn well he went up to the 6th floor alone and stayed there for at least 25 minutes before going down to the 5th floor.
What would make him tell such a lie?
And, why, months later, long after Oswald is dead, is he still lying to the WC about where he had his lunch?
Eight officers testified the lunch remains were at the SN
Arnold Rowland saw a black male in the SN window at the time Bonnie Ray was having his lunch on the 6th floor.
This same man left the SN window just a few minutes before the motorcade arrived and Bonnie Ray went down to the 6th floor just a few minutes before the motorcade arrived.
The lies Bonnie Ray tells in every statement he gives about what he did that day all have the same thing in common - to distance himself from the SN.
-
Your memory is very short Charles.
Eight officers stated the remains were found in the location of the SN.
It's not his memory that's short. Charles Collins has been short on curiosity from the time he joined the forum. And I really don't know why. I "twisted" nothing around.
All I did was quote William's testimony. One minute he was eating on the 3rd or 4th floor--- but he wasn't sure---then what floor again? Oh 6th floor. But wait a sec...he was photographed on the 5th with the other guys. Why would he go into solitude to eat his fried chicken all scrunched up between some boxes? And after desiring viewing companionship with his comrades?
Charles subscribes whole heartedly to this floor plan created belatedly for Bonnie Ray by the Commission lackeys. Try finding B R Williams' affidavits on line. There should be two. Try linking them and while you're at it his FBI interviews.
There is this scribbled, undated, & unsigned thing....
(https://dp.la/thumb/d38eadb86f8baec7b10015b28620f315)
Compare with J Jarman----
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared James Earl Jarman, Jr., c/m 33, 3942 Atlanta Street, Dallas, Texas HA8-1837 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
I work for the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, as a Checker on the first floor for Mr. Roy S. Truly. On Friday, November 22, 1963, I got to work at 8:05 a.m. The first time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was about 8:15 a.m. He was filling orders on the first floor. A little after 9:00 a.m. Lee Oswald asked me what all the people were doing standing on the street. I told him that the President was supposed to come this way sometime this morning. He asked me, "Which way do you think he is coming?". I told him that the President would probably come down Main Street and turn on Houston and then go down Elm Street. He said, "Yes, I see". I only talked with him for about three or four minutes. The last time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon when he was taking the elevator upstairs to go get some boxes. At about 11:45 a.m. all of the employees who were working on the 6th floor came downstairs and we were all out on the street at about 12:00 o'clock noon. These employees were: Bill Shelley, Charles Givens, Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray (last name not known) and a Spanish boy (his name I cannot remember). To my knowledge Lee Oswald was not with us while we were watching the parade.
/s/ James Earl Jarman, Jr.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 23rd DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
To my knowledge Lee Oswald was not with us while we were watching the parade.
What an odd statement. He either saw Oswald there or he didn't.
From Harold Weisberg--- http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/J%20Disk/Jarman%20James%20%20Jr/Item%2001.pdf
6 pages
this means is that Williams, Jarman and Norman remained
on the fifth floor until after Oswald was seen on the second floor and
they did not hear anybody running or walking above ithem or coming down
the ancient steps or using the creaky elevators. If this testimony
means anything, it means that neither Oswald nor anyone else left the
sixth floor until after Williams, Norman and Jarman did. It would cer-
tainly seem to confirm Oswald's statement to the police that he was on,
as I recall it, the first floor. And it would clearly mean that whoever
'fired the rifle remained on the sixth floor. Williams's testimony about
seeing the police officer occurs in a reference to his questioning- by
FBI Agents Odum and Griffin
Here is an article in a Don Willis blog---
Why Bonnie Ray Williams Did Not Really Want To Say Which Window He Was
in When the Shooting Started; or, The Rewriters
It's pretty common knowledge that two of the three depository fifth-
floor witnesses--James Jarman and Harold Norman--did not even mention,
in interview or statement, the fifth floor until two days later (in
the case of Jarman) and four days later (in the case of Norman). Less
well known is that the third witness, Bonnie Ray Williams, was
actually much more dilatory about disclosing his precise whereabouts
at 12:30pm on 11/22/63--about four months' worth of dilatory. Not
until his Warren Commission testimony of March 24, 1964, in fact, is
Williams able to say precisely where he was. Why was Williams so
reluctant to say where, exactly, he was on that date, at that time?
It's not that his location was a secret to the world at large. There
he is, in two Dillard photos and a Powell slide, in the SE corner
double window on the fifth floor. Or, as Norman put it in his Secret
Service affidavit (12/4/63), "We took a position in the south-east
corner of the building on the fifth floor...." Did Williams really
think that he could hide the fact of his presence there in the
window? Why this odd phobia?
To be fair, Williams does, in his 11/22/63 county affidavit, admit
that he "went back on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank and
Junior...." And in his 1/8/64 FBI interview, he states that he
"joined" Hank and Junior "on the fifth floor". He's not shy about the
fifth floor in general--just about that strangely problematic corner
double window. And in the above affidavit and interview, he tells the
truth, as far as he goes.
However, in two other FBI interviews, he goes further, and leaves
truth behind, though it would seem to stand to reason that he must
have known he wasn't fooling anyone:
"[Williams] stayed on [the sixth floor] only about three minutes, &
seeing no one there, descended to the fifth floor.... There he joined
two other men known to him as Hank & Junior. They were looking out
windows on the south side of the building APPROXIMATELY AT THE MIDDLE
OF THE BUILDING...." (FBI interview 11/23/63)
Must be a mistake. But, again for the FBI--almost four months later--
on 3/19/64, Williams has this to say:
"I, along with Norman and Jarman... were on the fifth floor.... We
were at the windows which are located at about the CENTER OF THE
BUILDING on the south side."
Just before his testimony for the Warren Commission, he's still saying
"the center of the building".
No mistake. This bit of misdirection seems intentional, if baffling.
Williams was not delusional--most of the time, on record, he seems
perfectly mentally balanced. Why can't he just say, for instance,
"east end of the building"? In his 11/23 interview, he mentions the
"stairs at the west end of the building". Why does he go out of his
way to contradict fellow witnesses and photographic evidence? And he
does go out of his way--he could, simply, here, have again just
referenced the fifth floor and been done with it. But he--or his
subconscious--seems intent on blotting out every trace of that corner
window.
Williams takes *everyone* with him to the center of the building--not
just Norman and Jarman, but the apparent shooter as well:
"Williams heard two shots which sounded like they came from right over
his head." (11/23)
"I heard three shots which sounded like they came from directly above
me." (3/19)
In other words, Williams relocates the shooter to the sixth-floor
window which he himself occupied about noon:
"He did go to the windows on the south side of the sixth floor, middle
of the building, about three minutes after 12...." (11/23)
Ironically, then, Williams' machinations put him in the "sniper's
nest". Out of the frying pan....
In his Commission testimony, building manager Roy Truly commented on
the state of mind of Williams and his two fellow witnesses, in the
period after the assassination:
"I do know that they have been rather, as the expression goes, shook
up about this thing--especially this tall one, Bonnie Williams. He is
pretty superstitious, I would say." (v3p241) Shook up enough to try
to take himself right out of the picture. To put himself in another
window. To jettison reality.
David Von Pein's response to that blog entry was that Willis is obviously insane. [without any further mental examination]
Mr. McCLOY. From what you know of these young men who testified before you today, are they trustworthy?
Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir; I think they are. They are good men. They have been with me, most of them, for some time. I have no reason to doubt their word. I do know that they have been rather, as the expression goes, shook up about this thing, especially this tall one, Bonnie Williams. He is pretty superstitious, I would say. For 2 or 3 weeks the work was not normal, or a month. The boys did not put out their normal amount of work. Their hearts were not in it. But after that, they have picked up very well. They are doing their work well.
Mr. BELIN. If we can go off the record for just a moment. (Discussion off the record.)
[{Mr Belin---- Lets not talk about that again.
Mr Truly-----OK]}
The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.
Mr. TRULY. I thank you very much.
-
I think Bonnie Ray is the most interesting witness in this case because I think he saw the real shooter.
Williams had no trouble going directly to the relative exact same window on the floor below, what stopped him from at least looking at these windows just in case his friends were at these windows on the 6gth floor, it doesn't make sense?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS38KrVdQFtXaAeM_SOLMof-EnRLKD74wria76jrsx5ayrwfx_P_mR2ogtGwB2S20fyt3g&usqp=CAU)
When you read all of the various statements by Williams, initially he was elusive about being on the 6th floor and as time went on, he admitted more and more. Imo it appears that there was a sinister reason(he saw Oswald and being black immediately distanced himself) for his lack of consistent memories.
I reckon from this line of questioning about this very subject from the WC that they had a similar idea, because when hearing Williams answer about the sniper's nest, Ford immediately associates Williams with breaking the law, Breaking the Law.
Mr. DULLES. How much of the room could you see as you finished your lunch there? Was your view obstructed by boxes of books, or could you see a good bit of the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me.
Representative FORD.Have you ever had any trouble with the law at all?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir.
Representative FORD.No difficulty as far as the law is concerned?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have never been inside of a courthouse before.
JohnM
-
(https://dp.la/thumb/d38eadb86f8baec7b10015b28620f315)
Can you post a larger readable version?
JohnM
-
Can you post a larger readable version?
The best I can do is the link here--- https://dp.la/item/d38eadb86f8baec7b10015b28620f315
Created Date --
1963-11-22 [bullsheist]
Description --
Handwritten affidavit by Bonnie Ray Williams, an employee at the Texas School Book Depository, who worked on the sixth floor on November 22nd. At lunchtime Williams went to the fifth floor with a man named Hank where they saw the President pass and heard two shots, which sounded as though they came from just above them. Williams saw Lee Harvey Oswald when she arrived at the building at 8 AM and recognized him when he was brought into the Homicide Bureau.
Creator
Dallas (Tex.). Police Department [some creation huh?]
-
Your memory is very short Charles.
Eight officers stated the remains were found in the location of the SN.
Three officers specifically stated they were on top of the SN.
Try and wish it away all you want but that's the fact of the matter.
I think Bonnie Ray is the most interesting witness in this case because I think he saw the real shooter.
I think that for a young black man to sit in the offices of the racist, right wing DPD and lie to their faces on the day of the assassination is genuinely extraordinary. He states he had lunch with Norman and Jarman on the first floor and went up to the fifth floor with the two of them. He knew damn well he went up to the 6th floor alone and stayed there for at least 25 minutes before going down to the 5th floor.
What would make him tell such a lie?
And, why, months later, long after Oswald is dead, is he still lying to the WC about where he had his lunch?
Eight officers testified the lunch remains were at the SN
Arnold Rowland saw a black male in the SN window at the time Bonnie Ray was having his lunch on the 6th floor.
This same man left the SN window just a few minutes before the motorcade arrived and Bonnie Ray went down to the 6th floor just a few minutes before the motorcade arrived.
The lies Bonnie Ray tells in every statement he gives about what he did that day all have the same thing in common - to distance himself from the SN.
I will believe what BRW testified. He was actually there at the time. You can believe that your “interpretations” are the gospel. But you are only fooling yourself.
-
It's not his memory that's short. Charles Collins has been short on curiosity from the time he joined the forum. And I really don't know why. I "twisted" nothing around.
All I did was quote William's testimony. One minute he was eating on the 3rd or 4th floor--- but he wasn't sure---then what floor again? Oh 6th floor. But wait a sec...he was photographed on the 5th with the other guys. Why would he go into solitude to eat his fried chicken all scrunched up between some boxes? And after desiring viewing companionship with his comrades?
Charles subscribes whole heartedly to this floor plan created belatedly for Bonnie Ray by the Commission lackeys. Try finding B R Williams' affidavits on line. There should be two. Try linking them and while you're at it his FBI interviews.
There is this scribbled, undated, & unsigned thing....
(https://dp.la/thumb/d38eadb86f8baec7b10015b28620f315)
Compare with J Jarman----
What an odd statement. He either saw Oswald there or he didn't.
From Harold Weisberg--- http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/J%20Disk/Jarman%20James%20%20Jr/Item%2001.pdf
6 pagesHere is an article in a Don Willis blog--- David Von Pein's response to that blog entry was that Willis is obviously insane. [without any further mental examination]
I "twisted" nothing around.
So how do you conclude that you think BRW ate in the sniper’s nest from the testimony that you posted in that response? Because boxes were behind him? ???
And I think that you need to read a little more carefully if you think BRW said he ate on the 3rd or 4th floor.
-
Williams had no trouble going directly to the relative exact same window on the floor below, what stopped him from at least looking at these windows just in case his friends were at these windows on the 6gth floor, it doesn't make sense?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS38KrVdQFtXaAeM_SOLMof-EnRLKD74wria76jrsx5ayrwfx_P_mR2ogtGwB2S20fyt3g&usqp=CAU)
When you read all of the various statements by Williams, initially he was elusive about being on the 6th floor and as time went on, he admitted more and more. Imo it appears that there was a sinister reason(he saw Oswald and being black immediately distanced himself) for his lack of consistent memories.
I reckon from this line of questioning about this very subject from the WC that they had a similar idea, because when hearing Williams answer about the sniper's nest, Ford immediately associates Williams with breaking the law, Breaking the Law.
Mr. DULLES. How much of the room could you see as you finished your lunch there? Was your view obstructed by boxes of books, or could you see a good bit of the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me.
Representative FORD.Have you ever had any trouble with the law at all?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir.
Representative FORD.No difficulty as far as the law is concerned?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have never been inside of a courthouse before.
JohnM
I think that it is possible that BRW either saw LHO or at least “sensed” that someone else might have been on the sixth floor while he was eating his lunch. The reason I say “sensed” is that sometimes I can just “get a feeling” that someone is looking at me and inexplicably look up and see that a person actually is looking at me. And I have heard other people relate similar stories of these types of “feelings.” Call it ESP if you want to.
However, in this case, I think that BRW’s memory wasn’t the greatest (just look at how many times he said he couldn’t remember things in his testimony). And that it took a reenactment of sorts that the Warren Commission did, I believe on March 20th, where they took some photos of the three men on the fifth floor, to refresh his memory on some of the aspects. Also, I think that it is possible that he could have simply temporarily mentally blocked his presence on the sixth floor. Mental blocks are common when people experience things that they perceive as being very bad. An extreme example is Jackie Kennedy having no memory of crawling onto the trunk of the limo. But the experience doesn’t have to be that extreme for there to be a mental block. At any rate, I don’t believe that there necessarily was anything sinister about BRW’s early omissions regarding the sixth floor.
-
I will believe what BRW testified. He was actually there at the time. You can believe that your “interpretations” are the gospel. But you are only fooling yourself.
Do you believe BRW's affidavit on the day of the assassination when he says he got his lunch and went to the 5th floor with Norman and Jarman?
-
Do you believe BRW's affidavit on the day of the assassination when he says he got his lunch and went to the 5th floor with Norman and Jarman?
Why shouldn’t I?
-
Why shouldn’t I?
So you simultaneously believe that Williams collected his lunch on the first floor, went up to the 6th floor alone for at least 25 minutes then went down to the 5th floor to join Jarman and Norman AND that he collected his lunch on the first floor, went up to the 5th floor with Jarman and Norman just as the motorcade was arriving in Dealey plaza?
To be honest, that's quite impressive.
-
So you simultaneously believe that Williams collected his lunch on the first floor, went up to the 6th floor alone for at least 25 minutes then went down to the 5th floor to join Jarman and Norman AND that he collected his lunch on the first floor, went up to the 5th floor with Jarman and Norman just as the motorcade was arriving in Dealey plaza?
To be honest, that's quite impressive.
Another one of your nutty interpretations. ???Read it again, that’s not what he said.
-
So how do you conclude that you think BRW ate in the sniper’s nest from the testimony that you posted in that response? Because boxes were behind him?
That statement/question is another of your gaslighting arguments. I did not conclude anything.
And I think that you need to read a little more carefully if you think BRW said he ate on the 3rd or 4th floor.
Mr. BALL. Where did you eat your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe.
Please :-\
-
Another one of your nutty interpretations. ???Read it again, that’s not what he said.
"We rode the elevator to the 1st floor and got our lunches. I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow named Hank and Junior, I don't know his last name. Just after we got on the 5th floor we saw the President coming around the corner..."
Tell me what you're seeing because I'm seeing Williams saying that he, Norman and Jarman arrived on the 5th floor together.
-
That statement/question is another of your gaslighting arguments. I did not conclude anything. Please :-\
Jerry, you are not formatting the quotes properly. When I try to quote your post all I get is the above. There is no text included for the testimony that you put in your post. This has happened before with your posts. You might want to revise your methods accordingly. I will include the testimony that you just posted:
Mr. BALL. Where did you eat your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe.
I have no way of knowing what you mean with your comment: " :-\ Please " But earlier you posted:
It's not his memory that's short. Charles Collins has been short on curiosity from the time he joined the forum. And I really don't know why. I "twisted" nothing around.
All I did was quote William's testimony. One minute he was eating on the 3rd or 4th floor--- but he wasn't sure---then what floor again? Oh 6th floor. But wait a sec...he was photographed on the 5th with the other guys. Why would he go into solitude to eat his fried chicken all scrunched up between some boxes? And after desiring viewing companionship with his comrades?
Charles subscribes whole heartedly to this floor plan created belatedly for Bonnie Ray by the Commission lackeys. Try finding B R Williams' affidavits on line. There should be two. Try linking them and while you're at it his FBI interviews.
There is this scribbled, undated, & unsigned thing....
(https://dp.la/thumb/d38eadb86f8baec7b10015b28620f315)
Compare with J Jarman----
What an odd statement. He either saw Oswald there or he didn't.
From Harold Weisberg--- http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/J%20Disk/Jarman%20James%20%20Jr/Item%2001.pdf
6 pagesHere is an article in a Don Willis blog--- David Von Pein's response to that blog entry was that Willis is obviously insane. [without any further mental examination]
He didn't say that. And apparently you didn't read it when you posted it again without retracting your claim. ::)
-
"We rode the elevator to the 1st floor and got our lunches. I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow named Hank and Junior, I don't know his last name. Just after we got on the 5th floor we saw the President coming around the corner..."
Tell me what you're seeing because I'm seeing Williams saying that he, Norman and Jarman arrived on the 5th floor together.
You are "seeing" your own interpretation, the actual words do not say what you are "seeing". Later, Mr. Ball and company asked enough questions to clarify what BRW did and did not do. If you choose to ignore what they brought out (including that an officer asked Truly if anyone was missing), that is your problem.
-
Jerry, you are not formatting the quotes properly. When I try to quote your post all I get is the above. There is no text included for the testimony that you put in your post. This has happened before with your posts. You might want to revise your methods accordingly. I will include the testimony that you just posted
That has just got to be the most incoherent drivel I have ever read.
And I think that you need to read a little more carefully if you think BRW said he ate on the 3rd or 4th floor.
Mr. BALL. Where did you eat your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe.
Where did I say that I thought BRW ate his lunch on floors 3 or 4 when he stated himself that he was not sure which one?
I shall no longer respond to any more of your ignorant blither.
-
You are "seeing" your own interpretation, the actual words do not say what you are "seeing". Later, Mr. Ball and company asked enough questions to clarify what BRW did and did not do. If you choose to ignore what they brought out (including that an officer asked Truly if anyone was missing), that is your problem.
Yeah Charles, I was asking for your interpretation of what BRW was saying in his affidavit:
"We rode the elevator to the 1st floor and got our lunches. I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow named Hank and Junior, I don't know his last name. Just after we got on the 5th floor we saw the President coming around the corner..."
What is your interpretation of what he is saying here?
In his affidavit.
-
That has just got to be the most incoherent drivel I have ever read.
Where did I say that I thought BRW ate his lunch on floors 3 or 4 when he stated himself that he was not sure which one?
I shall no longer respond to any more of your ignorant blither.
That has just got to be the most incoherent drivel I have ever read.
Apparently, you don't care whether or not you are formatting your posts correctly so that others can quote your post properly. (You are still doing it by the way.) Too bad, but not surprising.
Here I again have to insert the testimony that you posted but formatted wrong again (so that it doesn't show up in quotes of your post):
Mr. BALL. Where did you eat your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe.
Where did I say that I thought BRW ate his lunch on floors 3 or 4 when he stated himself that he was not sure which one?
Which one what? ??? Do you even know the difference between a window and a floor? Are you that "lost"? ???
I shall no longer respond to any more of your ignorant blither.
::)
Your loss.
-
Yeah Charles, I was asking for your interpretation of what BRW was saying in his affidavit:
"We rode the elevator to the 1st floor and got our lunches. I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow named Hank and Junior, I don't know his last name. Just after we got on the 5th floor we saw the President coming around the corner..."
What is your interpretation of what he is saying here?
In his affidavit.
Interpretations are just opinions and a waste of time. I prefer to look at the evidence. I have already pointed the evidence out that shows us what BRW did and did not do.
But I will ask you why you think BRW used the word "we" when they rode the elevator together, but used the word "I" when he went to the 5th floor.
-
Interpretations are just opinions and a waste of time. I prefer to look at the evidence. I have already pointed the evidence out that shows us what BRW did and did not do.
Apologies Charles. I'd missed a couple of the earlier posts and you'd already answered the point I was driving at when you said:
I don’t believe that there necessarily was anything sinister about BRW’s early omissions regarding the sixth floor."
You acknowledge the early omissions I was trying to point out but you don't find anything sinister about them.
Fair enough.
It was also interesting to see you acknowledge the possibility that either Bonnie Ray saw the assassin or he had ESP. In the post I'm responding to you make the point that you "prefer to look at the evidence". I assume your evidence for BRW's ESP is solid so I won't pursue the matter.
I'm also a bit surprised at the faith you have in BRW's testimony considering you wrote this:
"I think that BRW’s memory wasn’t the greatest (just look at how many times he said he couldn’t remember things in his testimony)"
My favourite part of that post was this:
"Also, I think that it is possible that he could have simply temporarily mentally blocked his presence on the sixth floor. Mental blocks are common when people experience things that they perceive as being very bad."
I wonder what he perceived as being so bad he mentally blocked it when he was interviewed by the DPD a couple of hours after the assassination. What do you think it was?
Again, I'm sure the evidence you have about BRW's mental block is rock solid and not just some nonsense you're plucking out of thin air.
But I will ask you why you think BRW used the word "we" when they rode the elevator together, but used the word "I" when he went to the 5th floor.
When he uses the word "we" in his statement about riding the elevator he is referring to multiple people.
Whe he uses the word "I" he also uses the word "with", as in - I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow named Hank and Junior"
In this instance "with" is like an addition in maths:
I (BRW) with (+) Norman and Jarman = 3 people together.
So when he arrives on the 5th floor he uses the word "we" [BRW + Jarman + Norman]
This is a lie Williams tells to the DPD hours after the assassination.
A lie. Not a mental blockage.
-
Apologies Charles. I'd missed a couple of the earlier posts and you'd already answered the point I was driving at when you said:
I don’t believe that there necessarily was anything sinister about BRW’s early omissions regarding the sixth floor."
You acknowledge the early omissions I was trying to point out but you don't find anything sinister about them.
Fair enough.
It was also interesting to see you acknowledge the possibility that either Bonnie Ray saw the assassin or he had ESP. In the post I'm responding to you make the point that you "prefer to look at the evidence". I assume your evidence for BRW's ESP is solid so I won't pursue the matter.
I'm also a bit surprised at the faith you have in BRW's testimony considering you wrote this:
"I think that BRW’s memory wasn’t the greatest (just look at how many times he said he couldn’t remember things in his testimony)"
My favourite part of that post was this:
"Also, I think that it is possible that he could have simply temporarily mentally blocked his presence on the sixth floor. Mental blocks are common when people experience things that they perceive as being very bad."
I wonder what he perceived as being so bad he mentally blocked it when he was interviewed by the DPD a couple of hours after the assassination. What do you think it was?
Again, I'm sure the evidence you have about BRW's mental block is rock solid and not just some nonsense you're plucking out of thin air.
When he uses the word "we" in his statement about riding the elevator he is referring to multiple people.
Whe he uses the word "I" he also uses the word "with", as in - I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow named Hank and Junior"
In this instance "with" is like an addition in maths:
I (BRW) with (+) Norman and Jarman = 3 people together.
So when he arrives on the 5th floor he uses the word "we" [BRW + Jarman + Norman]
This is a lie Williams tells to the DPD hours after the assassination.
A lie. Not a mental blockage.
It was also interesting to see you acknowledge the possibility that either Bonnie Ray saw the assassin or he had ESP. In the post I'm responding to you make the point that you "prefer to look at the evidence". I assume your evidence for BRW's ESP is solid so I won't pursue the matter.
I know you are being sarcastic. (How's that for ESP?) When I say that I think something is possible I am usually engaging in conjecture. This was in response to Mytton's statement regarding his beliefs. I was only pointing out some other possibilities. By the way, conjecture doesn't require solid evidence.
You acknowledge the early omissions I was trying to point out but you don't find anything sinister about them.
Just point things like this out. No need to ask a bunch of questions. All you were trying to do was get an opinion from me so that you could attack it. (How's that for ESP?)
I wonder what he perceived as being so bad he mentally blocked it when he was interviewed by the DPD a couple of hours after the assassination. What do you think it was?
Again, I'm sure the evidence you have about BRW's mental block is rock solid and not just some nonsense you're plucking out of thin air.
Again, I was engaging in conjecture. You don't "know" what he perceived as bad? ??? I am surprised! You act like you think you know all these other things that you think he meant to say (but didn't).
I will engage in a little more conjecture to give you an answer to your question, but it is only conjecture so save your silly sarcastic remarks about evidence. By the time BRW made his statement to the DPD, LHO had been arrested and brought in where BRW could see him. It is reasonable to believe that BRW had by then put two and two together and that he probably realized that LHO had fired the shots from the sixth floor. Just the realization that he (BRW) was on the sixth floor while eating his lunch just before the assassination could have been an extremely terrifying thing for BRW. So I think it is possible that he mentally blocked that realization. And if he heard, saw, or even "sensed" that there was someone else on the sixth floor with him, it could have made that realization even more terrifying. All of this conjecture is just that, conjecture. It is quite possible that BRW simply thought that he didn't need to put down where he ate his lunch in his statement.
When he uses the word "we" in his statement about riding the elevator he is referring to multiple people.
Whe he uses the word "I" he also uses the word "with", as in - I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow named Hank and Junior"
In this instance "with" is like an addition in maths:
I (BRW) with (+) Norman and Jarman = 3 people together.
So when he arrives on the 5th floor he uses the word "we" [BRW + Jarman + Norman]
This is a lie Williams tells to the DPD hours after the assassination.
A lie. Not a mental blockage.
There is also another crucial word that BRW used in his statement to the DPD:
We went downstairs...
versus
I went back up on the fifth floor with...
He didn't say he went to the fifth floor with anybody. He said he went on the fifth floor. There is a difference. And, again, Mr. Ball and company asked enough questions to get clarifications. You can believe that your "interpretation" is correct. Nothing that I am going to say is likely to change your mind. But, again, you are only fooling yourself. You really don't have ESP, Mr Ball and company proved that by getting BRW to answer their questions.
-
By the time BRW made his statement to the DPD, LHO had been arrested and brought in where BRW could see him. It is reasonable to believe that BRW had by then put two and two together and that he probably realized that LHO had fired the shots from the sixth floor. Just the realization that he (BRW) was on the sixth floor while eating his lunch just before the assassination could have been an extremely terrifying thing for BRW. So I think it is possible that he mentally blocked that realization.
Fascinating, the exact same thing happened to Marrion Baker.
Luckily, months later the WC managed to unblock him!
ROFLMAO
Your response is a good example of why people need to ask questions. No one knows WTF you are talking about.
-
Truly had a memorable encounter with Oswald just after the assassination. He saw a police officer pull a gun on Oswald while in search of the assassin
Wrong, the gun was out already according to Baker.
Mr. BAKER - I had my revolver out.
Mr. BELIN - When did you take your revolver out?
Mr. BAKER - AS I was starting up the stairway.
I guess we see how words matter. Everybody has a chance to be wrong.
Mr. TRULY- When I reached there, the officer had his gun pointing at Oswald.
I now acknowledge that Mr Williams said that he ate his lunch on the 6th floor about the 3rd or 4th set of windows.
But what I can't understand is how around that 12 o'clock time according to testimony, there is an alleged presence on the 6th floor involving Charles Givens, Bonnie Ray Williams and Lee Oswald except Williams didn't seem to hear the other two.
It is reasonable to believe that BRW had by then put two and two together and that he probably realized that LHO had fired the shots from the sixth floor. Just the realization that he (BRW) was on the sixth floor while eating his lunch just before the assassination could have been an extremely terrifying thing for BRW. So I think it is possible that he mentally blocked that realization.
Another resident psychoanalyst ::)
-
I guess we see how words matter. Everybody has a chance to be wrong.
I now acknowledge that Mr Williams said that he ate his lunch on the 6th floor about the 3rd or 4th set of windows.
But what I can't understand is how around that 12 o'clock time according to testimony, there is an alleged presence on the 6th floor involving Charles Givens, Bonnie Ray Williams and Lee Oswald except Williams didn't seem to hear the other two. Another resident psychoanalyst ::)
But what I can't understand is how around that 12 o'clock time according to testimony, there is an alleged presence on the 6th floor involving Charles Givens, Bonnie Ray Williams and Lee Oswald except Williams didn't seem to hear the other two.
If you show us what specific testimony you are referring to, perhaps someone can psychoanalyze it for you.
-
I'll admit it was directed toward those who really know the evidence, no wonder it went over your head.
Marvin Johnson, who took Baker's affidavit, has a direct quote by Baker in his report stating he recognized Oswald as the guy he stopped on the 4th floor, yet this was left out of Bakers affidavit.
Get it now?
Here's a link to Marrion Baker's affidavit of 11/22/63:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm)
I don't see where Marvin Johnson had anything to do with it. And I don't see any correlation to what I said about BRW and the sixth floor. Like I said, no one knows WTF you are talking about.
-
Baker, ”mentally blocked”.
What's missing in his affidavit?
Try one more time.
Stop trying to be cryptic. You tell us.
-
what I can't understand is how around that 12 o'clock time according to testimony, there is an alleged presence on the 6th floor involving Charles Givens, Bonnie Ray Williams and Lee Oswald except Williams didn't seem to hear the other two.
Jerry Freeman
If you show us what specific testimony you are referring to, perhaps someone can psychoanalyze it for you.
I'll try [this one time] :)
Mr. McCLOY. What time of day was this, when you were eating your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. About 12.
Mr. McCLOY. Just 12?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/givens1.htm
Mr. BELIN. When did you see Lee Harvey Oswald next?
Mr. GIVENS. Next?
Mr. BELIN. Yes.
Mr. GIVENS. Well, it was about a quarter till 12, we were on our way downstairs, and we passed him, and he was standing at the gate on the fifth floor.
I came downstairs, and I discovered I left my cigarettes in my jacket pocket upstairs....
I took the elevator back upstairs to get my jacket with my cigarettes in it. When I got back upstairs, he was on the sixth floor in that vicinity, coming from that way.
Mr. BELIN. Coming from what way?
Mr. GIVENS. Toward the window up front where the shots were fired from.
Mr. BELIN. Just a second, where did you go? Where were you when you saw him on the sixth floor?
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/givens1.htm
I don't believe either one told the truth.
-
Jerry Freeman
I'll try [this one time] :)
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/givens1.htmhttps://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/givens1.htm
I don't believe either one told the truth.
Based on their testimonies, it appears to me that:
1. Givens went back to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes and saw LHO at about 11:55.
2. Then BRW arrived back on the sixth floor after Givens had gone back down (about 12:00).
3. BRW ate his lunch on the sixth floor but testified that he didn't see or hear LHO.
So why is it that you believe that both Givens and BRW didn't tell the truth?
-
Based on their testimonies, it appears to me that:
1. Givens went back to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes and saw LHO at about 11:55.
2. Then BRW arrived back on the sixth floor after Givens had gone back down (about 12:00).
3. BRW ate his lunch on the sixth floor but testified that he didn't see or hear LHO.
So why is it that you believe that both Givens and BRW didn't tell the truth?
Ever see the movie called "Clue"? That's what this reminds me of. Everybody moved around and just missed everybody else ::)
Chas Givens------
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1960.msg52976.html#msg52976
-
Ever see the movie called "Clue"? That's what this reminds me of. Everybody moved around and just missed everybody else ::)
Chas Givens------
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1960.msg52976.html#msg52976
I don’t remember seeing that movie, but I think that I understand the concept. Do you understand that it is entirely possible that BRW and Givens are telling the truth? That it is not impossible for them to have just missed each other on the sixth floor and that LHO simply had to stay hidden and quiet while BRW was on that floor?
-
I don’t remember seeing that movie, but I think that I understand the concept. Do you understand that it is entirely possible that BRW and Givens are telling the truth? That it is not impossible for them to have just missed each other on the sixth floor and that LHO simply had to stay hidden and quiet while BRW was on that floor?
In this scenario the workers on the 6th floor, including Williams and Givens, have an elevator race down to the first floor and most of them hear or see Oswald still working on the 5th or 6th floor. While Williams collects his lunch Givens realises he's left his cigarettes on the 6th floor so goes back up where he sees Oswald, apparently still working. As Givens heads back down Williams is heading up, it is during this time that Oswald takes up his position in the SN and waits there quietly while Williams has his lunch.
Would you agree with this assessment?
-
In this scenario the workers on the 6th floor, including Williams and Givens, have an elevator race down to the first floor and most of them hear or see Oswald still working on the 5th or 6th floor. While Williams collects his lunch Givens realises he's left his cigarettes on the 6th floor so goes back up where he sees Oswald, apparently still working. As Givens heads back down Williams is heading up, it is during this time that Oswald takes up his position in the SN and waits there quietly while Williams has his lunch.
Would you agree with this assessment?
That’s the general idea that makes sense to me. But I am reasonably sure that you are planning to spring some conflicting account(s). Do you agree with this assessment (ESP)?
-
That’s the general idea that makes sense to me. But I am reasonably sure that you are planning to spring some conflicting account(s). Do you agree with this assessment (ESP)?
;D
You're starting to make me believe in ESP.
The trap that I'm about to spring involves Eddie Piper and his testimony that he saw Oswald around 12:00 as he was heading for his lunch.
How does Oswald get down to the first floor to interact with Piper in the scenario you are proposing?
-
;D
You're starting to make me believe in ESP.
The trap that I'm about to spring involves Eddie Piper and his testimony that he saw Oswald around 12:00 as he was heading for his lunch.
How does Oswald get down to the first floor to interact with Piper in the scenario you are proposing?
Is this the account that you are referencing?
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 23rd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Eddie Piper. Address 3402 Munger Avenue, Dallas. Age 55, Phone No. TA 1 2190 Wks: Janitor - Texas School Bk Dep.
Deposes and Says:
I have been employed as janitor for the Texas School book Depository for a little over 4 years. I do the packing of the books as well as lock up at night. I came to work yesterday about 10:00 AM and I worked until 2:00 PM. There has been a man that I know only as "Lee" who has been working there about 5 weeks. He fills the orders and I pack the orders. Yesterday at about 12:00 Noon, this fello Lee says to me, "I'm going up to eat" and I went on to my lunch. I went to the front window on the first floor and ate my lunch and waited to see the President's parade go by. I saw the President pass and heard some shots and looked at the clock there and saw it was 12:55PM. The shots seemed to me like they came from up inside the building. It was about 1:00 PM when the police made us vacate the building and as we were being checked out, I noticed that "Lee" wasn't with us and I mentioned to some of the employees there checking out that Lee wasn't there and somebody said, he must have already gone out. This man Lee has never talked much to anyone and hardly said anything to me. He kept pretty much to himself and hardly even answer when I would say "Goodmorning".
/s/Eddie Piper
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this th 23rd day of November A.D. 1963
/s/Rosemarry Allen
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
When I see how far off from reality that the other times of day that Eddie Piper came up with are, I have absolutely no confidence in the time of day that he said he saw LHO “going up to eat”.
But, unless my ESP is failing me, I am positive that you have your own interpretation that you are going to use to try to show that Eddie Piper was correct.
-
Is this the account that you are referencing?
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 23rd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Eddie Piper. Address 3402 Munger Avenue, Dallas. Age 55, Phone No. TA 1 2190 Wks: Janitor - Texas School Bk Dep.
Deposes and Says:
I have been employed as janitor for the Texas School book Depository for a little over 4 years. I do the packing of the books as well as lock up at night. I came to work yesterday about 10:00 AM and I worked until 2:00 PM. There has been a man that I know only as "Lee" who has been working there about 5 weeks. He fills the orders and I pack the orders. Yesterday at about 12:00 Noon, this fello Lee says to me, "I'm going up to eat" and I went on to my lunch. I went to the front window on the first floor and ate my lunch and waited to see the President's parade go by. I saw the President pass and heard some shots and looked at the clock there and saw it was 12:55PM. The shots seemed to me like they came from up inside the building. It was about 1:00 PM when the police made us vacate the building and as we were being checked out, I noticed that "Lee" wasn't with us and I mentioned to some of the employees there checking out that Lee wasn't there and somebody said, he must have already gone out. This man Lee has never talked much to anyone and hardly said anything to me. He kept pretty much to himself and hardly even answer when I would say "Goodmorning".
/s/Eddie Piper
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this th 23rd day of November A.D. 1963
/s/Rosemarry Allen
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
When I see how far off from reality that the other times of day that Eddie Piper came up with are, I have absolutely no confidence in the time of day that he said he saw LHO “going up to eat”.
But, unless my ESP is failing me, I am positive that you have your own interpretation that you are going to use to try to show that Eddie Piper was correct.
Piper is consistent about the time he saw Oswald. From his WC testimony:
Mr. BALL. What time was it that you spoke to Oswald and said you thought you would have your lunch?
Mr. PIPER. Just about 12 o'clock.
Lunch was from 12:00 to 12:45pm so it makes sense it was around this time.
Piper takes his lunch around 12:00pm so he can be fairly confident about the time.
James Jarman makes this point in his affidavit on the 23rd:
"The last time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon when he was taking the elevator upstairs to go get some boxes. At about 11:45 a.m. all of the employees who were working on the 6th floor came downstairs and we were all out on the street at about 12:00 o'clock noon"
As Oswald was seen/heard by the men coming down from the 6th floor he must have went up there sometime between 11:30 and 11:45pm. At least fifteen minutes before Piper goes for lunch.
The problem is, if Oswald has come back down to the first floor around 12:00pm then he's not up there when Givens says he is and there's no way he can sneak past Williams having his lunch to hide in the SN.
-
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/omeka-net/30216/archive/files/82483d60e9d0e8efc7bcda920736ff79.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAI3ATG3OSQLO5HGKA&Expires=1648684800&Signature=%2BzUsEYuunXmVLUKyqwXCyEMjJyk%3D)
-
Piper is consistent about the time he saw Oswald. From his WC testimony:
Mr. BALL. What time was it that you spoke to Oswald and said you thought you would have your lunch?
Mr. PIPER. Just about 12 o'clock.
Lunch was from 12:00 to 12:45pm so it makes sense it was around this time.
Piper takes his lunch around 12:00pm so he can be fairly confident about the time.
James Jarman makes this point in his affidavit on the 23rd:
"The last time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon when he was taking the elevator upstairs to go get some boxes. At about 11:45 a.m. all of the employees who were working on the 6th floor came downstairs and we were all out on the street at about 12:00 o'clock noon"
As Oswald was seen/heard by the men coming down from the 6th floor he must have went up there sometime between 11:30 and 11:45pm. At least fifteen minutes before Piper goes for lunch.
The problem is, if Oswald has come back down to the first floor around 12:00pm then he's not up there when Givens says he is and there's no way he can sneak past Williams having his lunch to hide in the SN.
What it boils down to is whether or not to believe that Piper was correct with the 12 noon time.
Reasons to doubt:
1. Other employees have stated that they normally break for lunch about 10-minutes or so before noon to wash up, etc. And that on 11/22/63 they broke a little earlier than normal because of the motorcade.
2. Piper also said that when he heard the shots he looked at the clock and it was 12:55 pm. ???
3. Piper also said that it was about 1:00 pm when the police made them vacate the building. ???
4. Jarman said that LHO went up between 11:30 and 12:00.
Your reasons to believe:
1. Lunch was from 12:00 to 12:45pm so it makes sense it was around this time. [Do you really think that Piper normally continued to work on his own while the other employees normally broke for lunch about 10-minutes before noon (and a little earlier than normal on this date?] ???
2. Piper takes his lunch around 12:00pm so he can be fairly confident about the time. [ this is redundant, so see my comment on #1]
As Oswald was seen/heard by the men coming down from the 6th floor he must have went up there sometime between 11:30 and 11:45pm. At least fifteen minutes before Piper goes for lunch.
The problem is, if Oswald has come back down to the first floor around 12:00pm then he's not up there when Givens says he is and there's no way he can sneak past Williams having his lunch to hide in the SN.
You are assuming that Piper didn't typically break for lunch when the others normally did. There is simply no evidence that supports your assumption.
-
What it boils down to is whether or not to believe that Piper was correct with the 12 noon time.
Reasons to doubt:
1. Other employees have stated that they normally break for lunch about 10-minutes or so before noon to wash up, etc. And that on 11/22/63 they broke a little earlier than normal because of the motorcade.
2. Piper also said that when he heard the shots he looked at the clock and it was 12:55 pm. ???
3. Piper also said that it was about 1:00 pm when the police made them vacate the building. ???
4. Jarman said that LHO went up between 11:30 and 12:00.
Your reasons to believe:
1. Lunch was from 12:00 to 12:45pm so it makes sense it was around this time. [Do you really think that Piper normally continued to work on his own while the other employees normally broke for lunch about 10-minutes before noon (and a little earlier than normal on this date?] ???
2. Piper takes his lunch around 12:00pm so he can be fairly confident about the time. [ this is redundant, so see my comment on #1]
As Oswald was seen/heard by the men coming down from the 6th floor he must have went up there sometime between 11:30 and 11:45pm. At least fifteen minutes before Piper goes for lunch.
The problem is, if Oswald has come back down to the first floor around 12:00pm then he's not up there when Givens says he is and there's no way he can sneak past Williams having his lunch to hide in the SN.
You are assuming that Piper didn't typically break for lunch when the others normally did. There is simply no evidence that supports your assumption.
The 6th floor crew broke about 11:45-11:50pm. Not every worker did:
Mr. Ball: What time did you quit for lunch?
Mr. Jarman: It was right about 5 minutes to 12.
Mr. Belin: When did you quit for lunch that day?
Mr. West: Well, we always quit at 12 o'clock in the day.
Mr. Ball: What time do you usually go to lunch?
Mr. Dougherty: Well, usually about 12 o'clock or 12 noon.
The 6th floor crew were given permission by Shelley to break early. Piper didn't have such permission and broke at 12 which is when he saw Oswald. He remembers because they were specifically talking about breaking for lunch:
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.
"It's about lunch time", that is to say, "It's about 12".
But let's say you're right and Piper was wrong - when did this exchange between Oswald and Piper take place?
-
The 6th floor crew broke about 11:45-11:50pm. Not every worker did:
Mr. Ball: What time did you quit for lunch?
Mr. Jarman: It was right about 5 minutes to 12.
Mr. Belin: When did you quit for lunch that day?
Mr. West: Well, we always quit at 12 o'clock in the day.
Mr. Ball: What time do you usually go to lunch?
Mr. Dougherty: Well, usually about 12 o'clock or 12 noon.
The 6th floor crew were given permission by Shelley to break early. Piper didn't have such permission and broke at 12 which is when he saw Oswald. He remembers because they were specifically talking about breaking for lunch:
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.
"It's about lunch time", that is to say, "It's about 12".
But let's say you're right and Piper was wrong - when did this exchange between Oswald and Piper take place?
These guys didn't punch a time clock. There were no school type bells that rang to signal breaks and lunches. It was reportedly normal for the guys to break for lunch at about 11:50 to wash up. I would expect that Piper heard the guys on the elevators as they played their race to the first floor game. And that he therefore knew that it was about time to break and wash up for lunch.
Jarman said he saw LHO go up. Givens said he saw LHO on the sixth floor. Both said it was before noon.
You, on the other hand, cling to your ad hoc assumption that Piper waited until it was actually noon. ::) Go ahead and believe that if you want to. I really don't care.
-
These guys didn't punch a time clock. There were no school type bells that rang to signal breaks and lunches. It was reportedly normal for the guys to break for lunch at about 11:50 to wash up. I would expect that Piper heard the guys on the elevators as they played their race to the first floor game. And that he therefore knew that it was about time to break and wash up for lunch.
Jarman said he saw LHO go up. Givens said he saw LHO on the sixth floor. Both said it was before noon.
You, on the other hand, cling to your ad hoc assumption that Piper waited until it was actually noon. ::) Go ahead and believe that if you want to. I really don't care.
Two of the employees I quoted stated that they broke for lunch at 12 but you know better.
The question is - when did the exchange between Oswald and Piper take place?
-
Two of the employees I quoted stated that they broke for lunch at 12 but you know better.
The question is - when did the exchange between Oswald and Piper take place?
I wasn't there and neither were you. So any answer, by either one of us, to your "question" is only a guess.
A theory that appears plausible to me is that Shelly came down shortly before the work crew did. LHO probably noticed Shelly and what time it was and told Piper that he was going up to lunch. LHO probably took the elevator back up to the sixth floor. This meant that both elevators were on the sixth floor for the race. Just after the race started, LHO hollered for them to close the gates when they got off. Givens saw LHO on the sixth floor when he came back up to get his cigarettes. BRW came up after that and ate his lunch on the sixth floor while LHO kept quiet and out of sight.
But I am pretty sure that you will provide very shortly a conflicting account to this theory.
-
The only thing convoluted is how one has to twist selected and isolated testimony to make-believe BRW ate his lunch in the sniper's nest. A little later BRW diagrams the area where he ate his lunch.
One window away from the snipers nest then....woopiespombleprofglidnoctobuns! Let's split hairs and then split the ends.
BRW sat right next to the snipers nest and then became deaf :D
Apparently Mr Collins did not read my link to the Charles Givens thread which demonstrated to great lengths that he lied and that David Belin made sure his lies were documented as witness/evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor at noon.
Here it is again--- https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1960.msg52976.html#msg52976
-
One window away from the snipers nest then....woopiespombleprofglidnoctobuns! Let's split hairs and then split the ends.
BRW sat right next to the snipers nest and then became deaf :D
Apparently Mr Collins did not read my link to the Charles Givens thread which demonstrated to great lengths that he lied and that David Belin made sure his lies were documented as witness/evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor at noon.
Here it is again--- https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1960.msg52976.html#msg52976
Two windows down from the sniper's nest (about 35-feet). That is not right next to it. Keeping quiet enough to be undetected, and out of sight, would not be difficult under those circumstances.
I read your thread when you posted it earlier. And I re-read it again just now. I agree with the several people who posted counter opinions.
-
Two windows down from the sniper's nest (about 35-feet). That is not right next to it. Keeping quiet enough to be undetected, and out of sight, would not be difficult under those circumstances.
Who had to keep quiet...the sniper or BRW? So then if Williams had to keep quiet...then he lied. And you claim he didn't. Two windows down is not 35 ft.
I read your thread when you posted it earlier. And I re-read it again just now. I agree with the several people who posted counter opinions.
Of course you do.
You read 200 posts that quickly? A true blue Myttoneer :D Bullcrap.
-
Who had to keep quiet...the sniper or BRW? So then if Williams had to keep quiet...then he lied. And you claim he didn't. Two windows down is not 35 ft.
Of course you do.
You read 200 posts that quickly? A true blue Myttoneer :D Bullcrap.
The sniper would have needed to be quiet.
The sets of windows are about 14-feet apart (on center) from each other. So, just say 28-feet for the distance from the center of the first set to the center of the third set. But the box that the sniper sat on was aligned with the east side of the first set of windows (not the center). Therefore, add a little over 3-feet to account for the width of that window. This totals a little over 31-feet. I inadvertently calculated from the corner the first time and came up with the 35- feet, my mistake.
Oh, and there are only 22 posts in the thread you linked to (not 200).
-
Giving BRW a perfect view to nothing behind the grimy window panes hit by bright sunlight.
Makes perfect sense to a Nutter.
Thumb1:
Here's an Allen photo that shows the windows in question. It appears to me that the third set (where BRW said he ate his lunch) is not any dirtier than the closed window in the sniper's nest.
(https://i.vgy.me/xpIGsB.jpg)
And here's a photo showing a fire truck, etc. on the street through that closed window in the sniper's nest.
(https://i.vgy.me/qZargA.jpg)
Your claim that he could see nothing doesn't hold up to the real world facts.
-
The sniper would have needed to be quiet.
Why?
.. there are only 22 posts in the thread you linked to (not 200).
:D Silly me. I errantly calculated this thread.
-
I read your thread when you posted it earlier. And I re-read it again just now. I agree with the several people who posted counter opinions.
Several? Of the posters [if I figure correctly] 4 were openly skeptical of the Givens testimony. Three were [as usual] skeptical only of the skeptics if that classifies as a counter opinion.
-
Why? :D Silly me. I errantly calculated this thread.
Why?
To keep BRW from detecting his presence.
-
Several? Of the posters [if I figure correctly] 4 were openly skeptical of the Givens testimony. Three were [as usual] skeptical only of the skeptics if that classifies as a counter opinion.
There are valid alternative explanations expressed. You might want to consider working on becoming a better “listener”. That is important if you want to become a more effective communicator.
-
Why?To keep BRW from detecting his presence.
The sniper knew that Williams was there but Williams didn't know the sniper was there? Talk about theories.There are valid alternative explanations expressed.
So the skeptics' points have no validity?
You might want to consider working on becoming a better “listener”. That is important if you want to become a more effective communicator.
Class dismissed? ::)
-
OK.
I'd take the open window in the cubby hole any day of the week, like they did on the fifth floor.
Thumb1:
BRW said that he was expecting the others to come back up to the sixth floor to watch the motorcade. And when they didn't come back up there he decided to go elsewhere to see if he could find them. Also, the sniper's nest was a pretty tight squeeze even for just one person. I cannot imagine three of them trying to get in there between the windows and boxes. And, apparently, they could open windows as needed, the windows were open on the west side (where they had been working).
-
Your point being?
Reasons why I think BRW didn’t choose the open window in the cubbyhole (like you indicated that you would have).
-
Right, so let's have a look at you reasons:
BRW said that he was expecting the others to come back up to the sixth floor to watch the motorcade.
But they didn't agree to squeeze into the cubby hole, or did I miss something?
And when they didn't come back up there he decided to go elsewhere to see if he could find them.
So plenty of time to enjoy his lunch, and the view, until they might show up.
Also, the sniper's nest was a pretty tight squeeze even for just one person.
But BRW was super slim and only carried his lunch.
I cannot imagine three of them trying to get in there between the windows and boxes.
Agreed, kind of a straw man you tried to launch there (RE your first reason).
And, apparently, they could open windows as needed, the windows were open on the west side (where they had been working).
Exactly, spreading out, so you just destroyed you own list of arguments.
So, are you trying to argue that BRW would have chosen the sniper’s nest to eat his lunch?
-
Since your reasons don't work that would have been the obvious choice, wouldn't you agree?
In which we are told that the location for someone to eat lunch in a 1963 building is "obvious." This despite the person in question testifying under oath to the contrary. The rabbit hole beckons. I do wonder if Otto is simply spoofing a contrarian to see how long he can extend discussions.
-
Since your reasons don't work that would have been the obvious choice, wouldn't you agree?
The reasons I expressed are perfectly fine. You haven't said anything at all that diminishes them whatsoever, wouldn't you agree?
-
In which we are told that the location for someone to eat lunch in a 1963 building is "obvious." This despite the person in question testifying under oath to the contrary. The rabbit hole beckons. I do wonder if Otto is simply spoofing a contrarian to see how long he can extend discussions.
Agreed.
-
Your question makes no sense.
I picked them apart into a list of five and dismissed everyone of them.
Your "reasons" remain nonsense, as I've already explained.
Dismissed only in your mind, wouldn’t you agree.
-
You have so far providid no counter arguments to my 5 x dismissals.
Translation: you lost the argument.
BTW, as part of your failed argument you failed to explain when BRW concluded that the cobby hole was inappropriately sized?
Only in your own mind, wouldn't you agree?
-
Wrong, you fail again.
Simply a matter of fact, anybody can check the record.
Any reason you avoided my bonus question?
Only in your own mind, wouldn't you agree?
-
Enter LN broken record syndrome - - LOL
Losing one argument isn't a big deal, we can start fresh:
When did BRW conclude that the cubby hole was inappropriately sized?
Only in your own mind, wouldn’t you agree?
-
Stop acting like a 5-year-old.
Even if you are a loser don't make yourself look like one.
When did BRW conclude that the cubby hole was inappropriately sized?
Have you ever wondered why you have to beg people to engage you and your nonsense?
-
Since you jumped right in there couldn't be any begging involved, could there?
And since size matters (does happen) according to you, my question is spot on.
Oh, thanks to whoever nudged the pickup!
Yes, there is begging involved for anyone to look at the record and see.
-
You even have to borrow my lines.
Doesn't prevent you from failing again, however.
Can you point out the begging?
You even have to borrow my lines.
It’s called mocking and involves sarcasm.
-
Have you ever wondered why you have to beg people to engage you and your nonsense?
Hahaha, yeah right on Charles,
Otto takes some some minor anomaly and tries to build his entire case from it, just like his Oswald and the taxi/bus incident which ironically never went anywhere, just like his Kleins dates which he simply doesn't understand and just like his single eyewitness who slightly contradicted other witnesses at the Tippit crime scene and on and on it goes.
He just comes here and begs like a little doggy to be included in the conversation and then when you reluctantly respond to him he attempts to insult you and literally bites the hand that feeds him.
But what is really bizarre is that he comes here day after day and theorizes that there was some huge conspiracy, then he will tell you with a straight face that he's not a "conspiracy theorist" classic, you can't make that up!
JohnM
-
Hahaha, yeah right on Charles,
Otto takes some some minor anomaly and tries to build his entire case from it, just like his Oswald and the taxi/bus incident which ironically never went anywhere, just like his Kleins dates which he simply doesn't understand and just like his single eyewitness who slightly contradicted other witnesses at the Tippit crime scene and on and on it goes.
He just comes here and begs like a little doggy to be included in the conversation and then when you reluctantly respond to him he attempts to insult you and literally bites the hand that feeds him.
But what is really bizarre is that he comes here day after day and theorizes that there was some huge conspiracy, then he will tell you with a straight face that he's not a "conspiracy theorist" classic, you can't make that up!
JohnM
Exactly!
-
But lovely to see he still relives the moments when I crushed him.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuXr5lCCAAAMHZg?format=png&name=900x900)
JohnM
-
I wasn't there and neither were you. So any answer, by either one of us, to your "question" is only a guess.
A theory that appears plausible to me is that Shelly came down shortly before the work crew did. LHO probably noticed Shelly and what time it was and told Piper that he was going up to lunch. LHO probably took the elevator back up to the sixth floor. This meant that both elevators were on the sixth floor for the race. Just after the race started, LHO hollered for them to close the gates when they got off. Givens saw LHO on the sixth floor when he came back up to get his cigarettes. BRW came up after that and ate his lunch on the sixth floor while LHO kept quiet and out of sight.
But I am pretty sure that you will provide very shortly a conflicting account to this theory.
Why do your "plausible scenarios" always pre-assume Oswald's guilt?
Edward Shields said that Givens was with him at Record and Main at noon. And why did it take Givens 5 months and 5 interviews to remember going back for his cigarettes out of a "jacket" on the 6th floor when he said he hung up his coat on the first floor when he got to work? And that was after Revill stated to Gemberling that Givens had been previously handled by the Special Services Bureau on a marijuana charge and he believed that Givens would change his story for money.
But by all means, let's go with that statement because it's the only thing putting Oswald on the 6th floor at any time that day.
-
Why do your "plausible scenarios" always pre-assume Oswald's guilt?
Edward Shields said that Givens was with him at Record and Main at noon. And why did it take Givens 5 months and 5 interviews to remember going back for his cigarettes out of a "jacket" on the 6th floor when he said he hung up his coat on the first floor when he got to work? And that was after Revill stated to Gemberling that Givens had been previously handled by the Special Services Bureau on a marijuana charge and he believed that Givens would change his story for money.
But by all means, let's go with that statement because it's the only thing putting Oswald on the 6th floor at any time that day.
"he believed" LOL!
JohnM
-
Mr. Truly: When I noticed this boy was missing, I told Chief Lumpkin that "We have a man here that's missing." I said, "It my not mean anything, but he isn't here." I first called down to the other warehouse and had Mr. Akin pull the application of the boy so I could get--quickly get his address in Irving and his general description, so I could be more accurate than I would be.
Mr. Ball: Was he the only man missing?
Mr. Truly: The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was one or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in front walking up the street just before the firing of the gun.
Mr. Ball: But walking which way?
Mr. Truly: The last time I saw him, he was walking across Houston Street, east on Elm.
Mr. Ball: Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?
Mr. Truly: No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy wasn't with them. With no thought in my mind except that I had seen him a short time before in the building, I noticed he wasn't there.
Mr. Ball: What do you mean "a short time before"?
Mr. Truly: I would say 10 or 12 minutes.
Mr. Ball: You mean that's when you saw him in the lunchroom?
Mr. Truly: In the lunchroom.
Mr. Ball: And you noticed he wasn't over there?
Mr. Truly: Well, I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him around and he said "No."
Mr. Ball: Now, you told Chief Lumpkin that there was a man missing?
Mr. Truly: Yes; and he said, "Let's go tell Captain Fritz." Well, I didn't know where Captain Fritz was.
Was there a roll call?
The definitive answer is "No".
Truly himself states he didn't take a check of his employees. He states he saw a group of men stood around and noticed Oswald wasn't with them.
He makes the point that, other than Oswald, there were "one or two more" others missing. One was Givens, the other would have been Dougherty who, at this time, was wandering around the TSBD looking for Truly!
He states that Oswald's absence stood out because he'd seen him in the building shortly before, so why he would assume Oswald had left the building is hard to say.
There was no attempt at any search to locate Oswald. All Truly does is ask Shelley if he'd seen him. Shelley says no but, interestingly, Oswald is reported to have met up with Shelley just before he left the TSBD and it was actually as a result of a conversation with Shelley that Oswald decided to leave.
Maybe that's how Truly knew Oswald had left the building - because Shelley had told him that.
Whatever the case, Truly had no real reason to assume Oswald had left the building, there had been no roll call and no search for him.
-
Mr. Truly: When I noticed this boy was missing, I told Chief Lumpkin that "We have a man here that's missing." I said, "It my not mean anything, but he isn't here." I first called down to the other warehouse and had Mr. Akin pull the application of the boy so I could get--quickly get his address in Irving and his general description, so I could be more accurate than I would be.
Mr. Ball: Was he the only man missing?
Mr. Truly: The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was one or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in front walking up the street just before the firing of the gun.
Mr. Ball: But walking which way?
Mr. Truly: The last time I saw him, he was walking across Houston Street, east on Elm.
Mr. Ball: Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?
Mr. Truly: No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy wasn't with them. With no thought in my mind except that I had seen him a short time before in the building, I noticed he wasn't there.
Mr. Ball: What do you mean "a short time before"?
Mr. Truly: I would say 10 or 12 minutes.
Mr. Ball: You mean that's when you saw him in the lunchroom?
Mr. Truly: In the lunchroom.
Mr. Ball: And you noticed he wasn't over there?
Mr. Truly: Well, I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him around and he said "No."
Mr. Ball: Now, you told Chief Lumpkin that there was a man missing?
Mr. Truly: Yes; and he said, "Let's go tell Captain Fritz." Well, I didn't know where Captain Fritz was.
Was there a roll call?
The definitive answer is "No".
Truly himself states he didn't take a check of his employees. He states he saw a group of men stood around and noticed Oswald wasn't with them.
He makes the point that, other than Oswald, there were "one or two more" others missing. One was Givens, the other would have been Dougherty who, at this time, was wondering around the TSBD looking for Truly!
He states that Oswald's absence stood out because he'd seen him in the building shortly before, so why he would assume Oswald had left the building is hard to say.
There was no attempt at any search to locate Oswald. All Truly does is ask Shelley if he'd seen him. Shelley says no but, interestingly, Oswald is reported to have met up with Shelley just before he left the TSBD and it was actually as a result of a conversation with Shelley that Oswald decided to leave.
Maybe that's how Truly knew Oswald had left the building - because Shelley had told him that.
Whatever the case, Truly had no real reason to assume Oswald had left the building, there had been no roll call and no search for him.
"Roll call" has a subjective meaning to different people. It could mean a school-like reading of names in which everyone says "here" but it could be interpreted more informally as in checking around for who was there. The police were also taking names. Truly had a great reason to "assume" Oswald had left the building. He wasn't there. Truly had every reason to specifically recall Oswald because he knew that, unlike most others, Oswald was in the TSBD during the assassination. He had seen a policer officer actually pull his gun on Oswald. Not something easily forgotten. And the same guy is not around after the fact. Truly had reasonable grounds - "roll call" or no roll call - to notice and report Oswald missing. And what difference does it really make if there is no suggestion that Truly was acting as part of some conspiracy to frame Oswald? Whether there was a roll call or some other explanation for noticing Oswald missing in that context it doesn't really matter except as an historical curiosity.
-
"Roll call" has a subjective meaning to different people. It could mean a school-like reading of names in which everyone says "here" but it could be interpreted more informally as in checking around for who was there. The police were also taking names. Truly had a great reason to "assume" Oswald had left the building. He wasn't there. Truly had every reason to specifically recall Oswald because he knew that, unlike most others, Oswald was in the TSBD during the assassination. He had seen a policer officer actually pull his gun on Oswald. Not something easily forgotten. And the same guy is not around after the fact. Truly had reasonable grounds - "roll call" or no roll call - to notice and report Oswald missing. And what difference does it really make if there is no suggestion that Truly was acting as part of some conspiracy to frame Oswald? Whether there was a roll call or some other explanation for noticing Oswald missing in that context it doesn't really matter except as an historical curiosity.
"Truly had a great reason to "assume" Oswald had left the building. He wasn't there."
If that reasoning were any more circular it would have infinite angles.
The point I'm making is that there were others missing at the time in question and no attempt was made to locate Oswald in the building.
How could Truly know Oswald had left the building?
How could he be so sure of it as to feel it should be reported, before any attempt is made to locate Oswald elsewhere.
Dougherty wasn't there, he was wandering around the building looking for Truly.
The importance, whether intended or not, is that Truly reporting Oswald immediately focused the attention of the police on locating Oswald. If the Tippit murder hadn't have happened, this would have been the sole reason to focus on Oswald.
It must also be remembered that, if what Biffle overheard is true, Truly is less than truthful when he said Oswald had failed to report for a roll call at 1:15pm, because, as we know from Truly's own words, there was no such roll call.
Truly also 'extends the truth' when he says they can't find Oswald anywhere, not surprising considering nobody looked for him.
Also of interest is what's known as the Revill List - a list of people signed out of the TSBD. At the top of the list is Oswald's name and, of great interest, his Elsbeth Street address. At the TSBD they only had his Irving address, so where did the Elsbeth address come from?
As I believe Oswald was a patsy these things become more than just historical curiosities.
-
"Truly had a great reason to "assume" Oswald had left the building. He wasn't there."
If that reasoning were any more circular it would have infinite angles.
The point I'm making is that there were others missing at the time in question and no attempt was made to locate Oswald in the building.
How could Truly know Oswald had left the building?
How could he be so sure of that as to feel it should be reported, before any attempt is made to locate Oswald elsewhere.
Dougherty wasn't there, he was wandering around the building looking for Truly.
The importance, whether intended or not, is that Truly reporting Oswald immediately focused the attention of the police on locating Oswald. If the Tippit murder hadn't have happened, this would have been the sole reason to focus on Oswald.
It must also be remembered that, if what Biffle overheard is true, Truly is less than truthful when he said Oswald had failed to report for a roll call at 1:15pm, because, as we know from Truly's own words, there was no such roll call.
Truly also 'extends the truth' when he says they can't find Oswald anywhere, not surprising considering nobody looked for him.
Also of interest is what's known as the Revill List - a list of people signed out of the TSBD. At the top of the list is Oswald's name and, of great interest, his Elsbeth Street address. At the TSBD they only had his Irving address, so where did the Elsbeth address come from?
As I believe Oswald was a patsy these things become more than just historical curiosities.
So you are suggesting Truly was involved in some unspecified manner in a plot to frame Oswald for the assassination of the President? His role was to allow Oswald to escape but later note that he was missing even though Oswald would quickly have become a person of interest given that: 1) he was missing without explanation; and 2) his suspect political background was known to the FBI. Given the timing of these events, Truly would have to not only be involved in the post-assassination frame up of Oswald, but be recruited prior to the assassination. There is zero evidence that Truly was involved in any such plot. None. Again, Truly entered the TSBD with a police officer right after the assassination. He saw the police officer with a gun pointed at Oswald inside the building. A memorable event. Oswald comes to his mind for that reason when he is noticed missing. Getting hung up on whether there was a "roll call" or not when that term is not defined in this context is an example of focusing on minutia instead of what is important. Truly knew Oswald was in the building during the assassination (unlike most others) and was gone after the assassination (unlike most others). That is why it came to Truly's mind as he himself explained.
-
"Truly had a great reason to "assume" Oswald had left the building. He wasn't there."
If that reasoning were any more circular it would have infinite angles.
The point I'm making is that there were others missing at the time in question and no attempt was made to locate Oswald in the building.
How could Truly know Oswald had left the building?
How could he be so sure of that as to feel it should be reported, before any attempt is made to locate Oswald elsewhere.
Dougherty wasn't there, he was wandering around the building looking for Truly.
The importance, whether intended or not, is that Truly reporting Oswald immediately focused the attention of the police on locating Oswald. If the Tippit murder hadn't have happened, this would have been the sole reason to focus on Oswald.
It must also be remembered that, if what Biffle overheard is true, Truly is less than truthful when he said Oswald had failed to report for a roll call at 1:15pm, because, as we know from Truly's own words, there was no such roll call.
Truly also 'extends the truth' when he says they can't find Oswald anywhere, not surprising considering nobody looked for him.
Also of interest is what's known as the Revill List - a list of people signed out of the TSBD. At the top of the list is Oswald's name and, of great interest, his Elsbeth Street address. At the TSBD they only had his Irving address, so where did the Elsbeth address come from?
As I believe Oswald was a patsy these things become more than just historical curiosities.
How the fck is a typewritten list any proof of who the hell signed out? Let's see signatures.
It seems this list is of the ppl who had gone missing at that point
Can you point out where the following Revill list indicates that these people 'signed out'? Did Oswald himself say he had signed out?
(https://i.postimg.cc/bNnvnRY3/sign-out.png)
-
How the fck is a typewritten list any proof of who the hell signed out? Let's see signatures.
It seems this list is of the ppl who had gone missing at that point
Can you point out where the following Revill list indicates that these people 'signed out'? Did Oswald himself say he had signed out?
(https://i.postimg.cc/bNnvnRY3/sign-out.png)
Alright Bill, keep your wig on!
"Signed out" was completely the wrong term to use.
I retract it, I withdraw it, it is an ex-statement, it has ceased to be.
It was more the Elsbeth address I was interested in. What's with that?
-
Alright Bill, keep your wig on!
"Signed out" was completely the wrong term to use.
I retract it, I withdraw it, it is an ex-statement, it has ceased to be.
It was more the Elsbeth address I was interested in. What's with that?
Stop squirming. You retract it only because you got got caught.
-
Stop squirming. You retract it only because you got got caught.
Don't be a dick, Bill.
As you point out, there are no signatures so nobody is signing out. It was incorrect of me to use that phrase so I retracted it because you seemed to be having some kind of meltdown about it.
It was the Elsbeth address I was interested in.
I see you've got nothing to say about that.
I've looked into it a bit and so far found out it came from Oswald's library card.
Revill says he got the address from Det. Carroll, that someone read it out to him in the car after Oswald was arrested.
But Carroll has no recollection of anyone mentioning anything to do with Oswald's address, let alone passing it on to Revill.
As usual, even the most innocuous details in this case descend into a mist of uncertainty.
Now make yourself a nice mug of hot chocolate, stick your slippers on and chill.
LATER EDIT: And why is it HARVEY LEE OSWALD?
-
Don't be a dick, Bill.
As you point out, there are no signatures so nobody is signing out. It was incorrect of me to use that phrase so I retracted it because you seemed to be having some kind of meltdown about it.
It was the Elsbeth address I was interested in.
I see you've got nothing to say about that.
I've looked into it a bit and so far found out it came from Oswald's library card.
Revill says he got the address from Det. Carroll, that someone read it out to him in the car after Oswald was arrested.
But Carroll has no recollection of anyone mentioning anything to do with Oswald's address, let alone passing it on to Revill.
As usual, even the most innocuous details in this case descend into a mist of uncertainty.
Now make yourself a nice mug of hot chocolate, stick your slippers on and chill.
LATER EDIT: And why is it HARVEY LEE OSWALD?
'Don't be a dick, Bill.'
_You're the one with your nose parked up Oswald's arse
'As you point out, there are no signatures so nobody is signing out. It was incorrect of me to use that phrase so I retracted it because you seemed to be having some kind of meltdown about it'.
_Nah, you did it because you were caught red-handed
'It was the Elsbeth address I was interested in.
I see you've got nothing to say about that.'
_Stop deflecting. It has nothing to do with Oswald signing out or not
I've looked into it a bit and so far found out it came from Oswald's library card.
Revill says he got the address from Det. Carroll, that someone read it out to him in the car after Oswald was arrested.
But Carroll has no recollection of anyone mentioning anything to do with Oswald's address, let alone passing it on to Revill.
As usual, even the most innocuous details in this case descend into a mist of uncertainty.
Now make yourself a nice mug of hot chocolate, stick your slippers on and chill.
_Bossy little b-awtch, aren't you? There's some of that anger you have such a hard time suppressing
LATER EDIT: And why is it HARVEY LEE OSWALD?
_Keep your minutae to yourself
-
'Don't be a dick, Bill.'
_You're the one with your nose parked up Oswald's arse
'As you point out, there are no signatures so nobody is signing out. It was incorrect of me to use that phrase so I retracted it because you seemed to be having some kind of meltdown about it'.
_Nah, you did it because you were caught red-handed
'It was the Elsbeth address I was interested in.
I see you've got nothing to say about that.'
_Stop deflecting. It has nothing to do with Oswald signing out or not
I've looked into it a bit and so far found out it came from Oswald's library card.
Revill says he got the address from Det. Carroll, that someone read it out to him in the car after Oswald was arrested.
But Carroll has no recollection of anyone mentioning anything to do with Oswald's address, let alone passing it on to Revill.
As usual, even the most innocuous details in this case descend into a mist of uncertainty.
Now make yourself a nice mug of hot chocolate, stick your slippers on and chill.
_Bossy little b-awtch, aren't you? There's some of that anger you have such a hard time suppressing
LATER EDIT: And why is it HARVEY LEE OSWALD?
_Keep your minutae to yourself
You seems to be the one all het up but two can play at this game.
From your earlier post regarding Revill's list:
It seems this list is of the ppl who had gone missing at that point
People who'd "gone missing"??
What kind of crazed bullsh%t is this?
It's clearly a list of people who were in the TSBD after the shooting and who had to give their details before they left the building.
The list contains over 50 names.
Do you expect us to believe over 50 people had suddenly "gone missing"? What are you trying to pull? Why are you lying about it?
It even lists people who couldn't get back into the building until later in the afternoon, who came back to collect their things and who then had to give their details before they left.
People who'd "gone missing"??
Get a grip. No-one is falling for that kind of outrageously obvious fabrication on your part. What are you trying to hide?
I told you two can play at this game Thumb1:
-
You seems to be the one all het up but two can play at this game.
From your earlier post regarding Revill's list:
It seems this list is of the ppl who had gone missing at that point
People who'd "gone missing"??
What kind of crazed bullsh%t is this?
It's clearly a list of people who were in the TSBD after the shooting and who had to give their details before they left the building.
The list contains over 50 names.
Do you expect us to believe over 50 people had suddenly "gone missing"? What are you trying to pull? Why are you lying about it?
It even lists people who couldn't get back into the building until later in the afternoon, who came back to collect their things and who then had to give their details before they left.
People who'd "gone missing"??
Get a grip. No-one is falling for that kind of outrageously obvious fabrication on your part. What are you trying to hide?
I told you two can play at this game Thumb1:
Go ahead, make my day: Keep deflecting from the fact that you tried to imply that Oswald had signed out.
-
Go ahead, make my day: Keep deflecting from the fact that you tried to imply that Oswald had signed out.
50+ people have just "gone missing"/
WTF are you talking about?
You think you're just going to skirt over such an outrageous lie?
You think you can distort the evidence any way you want.
How can you justify your fabrication that the Revill List is a list of people who'd gone missing?
"...tried to imply..."
Oh - did I try to imply.
So I didn't even imply it, I just tried to imply it?
What a crime.
A list of 50+ people who'd gone missing?
That's the worst piece of tinfoil bullsh%t I've ever come across in this forum.
-
It appears to me that Revill was more interested in trying to make Givens and Hosty look bad than he was in getting his information correct. He got LHO’s first and middle names reversed. And he put a wrong street number on the Elsbeth Street address. The #2 apartment was at 604 Elsbeth Street, not 605. He used that same wrong street number in his report to Ganaway regarding Hosty. And the library card that has been mentioned has 602 as the street number on Elsbeth. 602 was the correct street number for the manager of the apartments. But the Oswalds lived in the 604 wing of that building.
-
The list of employees at the Texas School Book Depository and there at the top of the list is " Harvey Lee Oswald " but I believe that as from day one upon being hired at the TSBD that Lee Harvey Oswald went by Lee Harvey Oswald , " NOT " Harvey Lee Oswald " and on that list they had his address as 605 Elsbeth ? Where did they get that address from ? They already knew that Oswald was going to be framed !!!!!!!!!!