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. It’s 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!
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!
However, the point is that Baker wasn’t 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!
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!
the next day. Regardless of which one you choose, my original question hasn’t 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.
