A Rock Solid Alibi.....

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: A Rock Solid Alibi.....  (Read 13798 times)

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3851
Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #100 on: August 03, 2022, 09:17:37 PM »
I would like to see that too [didn't know one existed]

We anxiously await evidence of Mr Collins' amazing discovery!  Thumb1:

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #100 on: August 03, 2022, 09:17:37 PM »

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2603
Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #101 on: August 03, 2022, 09:22:42 PM »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #101 on: August 03, 2022, 09:22:42 PM »

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3851
Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #102 on: August 03, 2022, 09:27:37 PM »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #102 on: August 03, 2022, 09:27:37 PM »

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3711
  • Skeptic
Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #103 on: August 03, 2022, 10:04:41 PM »
For some reason...I can't get that page site to load :(
But I found page one where is the other?--

Is that a Truly signature or a stamp? I guess it doesn't matter much. It just all looks 'contrived'.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2022, 10:22:25 PM by Jerry Freeman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #103 on: August 03, 2022, 10:04:41 PM »

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3711
  • Skeptic
Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #104 on: August 03, 2022, 10:32:04 PM »
texashistory-unt" border="0

Did Roy take his stamp with him to the county office?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #104 on: August 03, 2022, 10:32:04 PM »

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2603
Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #105 on: August 03, 2022, 10:51:55 PM »
:D

Read the second sentence on p.1, Mr Collins!


This is what I noticed:


Dallas (Tex.). Police Department. [Affidavit In Any Fact by Roy S. Truly #1], text, November 22, 1963; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338979/m1/1/: accessed August 3, 2022), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Dallas Municipal Archives.



It is below the affidavit on page one, just scroll down a bit. Itís apparently in error based on what you pointed out. I must have skimmed over and missed the word yesterday. My mistake.

However, the point is that Baker wasnít familiar with the building and apparently guessed wrong regarding which floor they encountered LHO on. Truly correctly stated which floor and room the next day. Regardless of which one you choose, my original question hasnít been answered. How realistic is it for him to get from the top of the stairs of the entrance to where Baker and Truly encountered him without being seen?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #105 on: August 03, 2022, 10:51:55 PM »

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #106 on: August 03, 2022, 10:57:22 PM »

The "absence of evidence is not evidence" some contrarian philosopher once said.  We know someone was on the 6th floor.  Witnesses saw a rifle pointed out the window.  We know that person got off that floor without being noticed.  Therefore we know it was entirely possible for Oswald to have done so.


It's without question true that the absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense, but the fact that something is theoretically possible doesn't automatically mean that it is practically possible also. Nobody has ever seen a pig fly, but that doesn't mean that they can fly!

The problem for the theory is that Oswald had to be in the 2nd floor lunchroom some 75 seconds after the last shot and the only way to get there would be the stairs. The same stairs where Dorothy Garner stood in close proximity of.

Any other shooter could have just mingled with the crowd and simply walked out later.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2022, 11:18:39 PM by Martin Weidmann »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #106 on: August 03, 2022, 10:57:22 PM »

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3851
Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #107 on: August 03, 2022, 11:21:19 PM »

This is what I noticed:


Dallas (Tex.). Police Department. [Affidavit In Any Fact by Roy S. Truly #1], text, November 22, 1963; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338979/m1/1/: accessed August 3, 2022), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Dallas Municipal Archives.



It is below the affidavit on page one, just scroll down a bit. Itís apparently in error based on what you pointed out. I must have skimmed over and missed the word yesterday. My mistake.

No problem, Mr Collins!  Thumb1:

Now----------------there are two FBI documents (in the production of both of which FBI agent Agent Pinkston is involved) dated 11/22/63 in which Mr Truly is indeed reported as describing a lunchroom incident. And then we have an official interrogation report (by FBI agent Bookhout) that has Mr Oswald confirming such an incident. But we now know (since 2019) that Mr Oswald actually said he visited the lunchroom for a coke BEFORE the P. Parade, which he afterwards went out to see.

Well! You will claim that Mr Oswald is lying. OK. But then you have to explain why two different interrogation reports have Mr Oswald telling two VERY different stories about the second-floor lunchroom in the same interrogation session. Who's doing the lying here?

If the lunchroom incident happened as Mr Truly and (later) Officer Baker claim, why does a false 'confirmation' of it need to put in Mr Oswald's mouth? Because it's a fiction, designed to deprive him of his front steps alibi. And the interrogation report that says NOTHING about his claim to have gone outside to watch the P. Parade just so happens to be the one that has him 'confirm' a lunchroom encounter. Go figure!

And! The interrogation report that DOES have Mr Oswald claim a PRE-Parade visit to the lunchroom but NO cop encounter there, as well as the going outside to watch P. Parade is--------buried. Go figure!

Quote
However, the point is that Baker wasnít familiar with the building and apparently guessed wrong regarding which floor they encountered LHO on.

A very naive attempt to harmonize two very different accounts (11/22/63 affidavit + official lunchroom story).

And the man Officer Baker describes in his affidavit was caught "walking away from the stairway".

And Mr Oswald was brought into the Homicide Office while Officer Baker was giving his affidavit-------yet the affidavit makes no connection between the suspect Officer Baker now sees in front of him and the man he caught several floors up walking away from the stairway.

Go figure!

Quote
Truly correctly stated which floor and room

Well of course he did------------he knew the location of the lunchroom. Doesn't mean he was telling the truth about an encounter happening there!

Quote
the next day. Regardless of which one you choose, my original question hasnít been answered. How realistic is it for him to get from the top of the stairs of the entrance to where Baker and Truly encountered him without being seen?

It's v. improbable but not physically impossible. And that's precisely why the lunchroom was chosen (probably by Agent Pinkston) as the location of the fictitious encounter. Mr Oswald was very quickly known to have been out front during the assassination, and there was every possibility that positive proof of this would emerge over the coming days. So they had to choose a location which he could physically have reached in time for an encounter v. shortly after the assassination---------a location that he could conceivably have made his way to from the front steps via the second-floor corridor or office area while Mr Truly & Officer Baker were making theirs via the first-floor shipping room. Otherwise the 'investigating' authorities are caught in a blatant lie.

Mr Oswald did visit the lunchroom, but it was several minutes before the assassination. There was no post-assassination lunchroom encounter.

 Thumb1:
« Last Edit: August 03, 2022, 11:45:50 PM by Alan Ford »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #107 on: August 03, 2022, 11:21:19 PM »

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3851
Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #108 on: August 03, 2022, 11:35:26 PM »
For some reason...I can't get that page site to load :(
But I found page one where is the other?--

Is that a Truly signature or a stamp? I guess it doesn't matter much. It just all looks 'contrived'.

It's legit. Mr Truly was brought on board the concocted lunchroom story several hours after the assassination-------------after DPD had been telling the world he'd been stopped by an officer at the front door.

All the evidence suggests that Officer Baker was MUCH slower to come on board the lunchroom fiction train

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #108 on: August 03, 2022, 11:35:26 PM »

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3851
Re: A Rock Solid Alibi.....
« Reply #109 on: August 03, 2022, 11:42:36 PM »
It's without question true that the absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense, but the fact that something is theoretically possible doesn't automatically mean that it is practically possible also. Nobody has ever seen a pig fly, but that doesn't mean that they can fly!

The problem for the theory is that Oswald had to be in the 2nd floor lunchroom some 75 seconds after the last shot and the only way to get there would be the stairs. The same stairs where Dorothy Garner stood in close proximity of.

Any other shooter could have just mingled with the crowd and simply walked out later.

Once again-------------

The descending shooter was seen, by Officer Baker, who caught him "walking away from the stairway" a number of floors up the building



And, a little after this, he was seen running from the building



The uncanny match between the two descriptions is no fluke.

The true source of the suspect description that went out was not Mr Howard Brennan but another construction worker, the man who saw the man running from the building.

Cf. Mr Amos Euins' testimony:

Mr. SPECTER. Do you know who that man was who said somebody ran out the back?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir. He was a construction man working back there.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you there when the man talked about somebody running out the back?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. He said the man had--he said he had kind of bald spot on his head. And he said the man come back there.


 Thumb1:

 

Mobile View