Business as usual or meet the lone gunman(UA-66627984-1)

Louise Steenbarge HSCA Interview

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt.

This is the only available record of Louise Steenbarge, She and her husband were accountants for the U.S. military.

After all these years we still have not been given the exact flight and timing of Oswald’s flight from London to Helsinki. Is it possible that Oswald was on that MATS flight with Mrs Steenbarge?



Gifts from Uncle Malcolm Part 3

Interesting doc of Robert MacNeil and his entry into the T.S.B.D., not a word of him seeing and interacting with Oswald there. Something the Secret Service “suggested” had happened.

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt for the copies.

Click pic. to enlarge.


Then there is Kent Biffle and the phone calls to Russia.

Click pic to enlarge.



Pauline Sanders and Sarah Stanton in Darnell

Updated Aug 5th 2018.

Pauline Sanders I have already posted more info on her page.

Sarah Stanton, according to Buell Frazier a short heavy set lady. And she was a blonde.

Thanks to Linda Giovanna Zambanini and her diligent research.

Sarah Dean Stanton. Thanks to Linda Giovanna Zambanini. Click pic. to enlarge.


Pauline Sanders and Sarah Stanton in the Darnell film.. Click to enlarge.


The photograph obtained by Brian Doyle of Sarah Stanton was taken after 1963, and according to her grand daughter(s) she was less heavy set in the photograph than as she was in 1963. According to the grand kids she weighed over 300 lbs. at the time of te assassination.


FBI statement Sarah Stanton March 1964.

FBI Statement Pauline Sanders. Click to enlarge.

FBI statement Pauline Sanders.

Buell Wesley Frazier also confirms in some videos that Sarah Stanton was standing to his left, as per her own statement on the East side of the steps along with Pauline Sanders.

At 18:25.


At 53:14.

At 06:02, Frazier who uses both his hands indicates only with his left hand outwards, so she was standing next to him to his left!


End of story!

Baker ID in Oswald corridor footage

Greg Parker posted this on FB recently, he pretty much IDed Baker in footage from the evening of the 23rd (about 30 hours after the assassination) of Baker seeing Oswald while he is about to be escorted through the hall and ducks away.

Now let me be very cynical for a change, but if I didn’t know any better then Baker looks at the guy who is being railroaded for the murder of The President, and after what has been going on about the second floor lunch room encounter that had only been public knowledge earlier that day and he cannot bear to look at him any longer after clocking him. That’s what the cynic inside tells me after looking at the man’s body language. I look too much at this stuff, but it’s one of those tells. Like Oswald’s face when he hears “You have been charged for murdering The President”. One of those moments were a picture starts to speak a thousand words.

There has to be more footage of this, as I have never seen this transfer of Oswald on the eve of Nov. 23rd before. It was from a documentary that I only had in a low resolution so never bothered to properly check it myself. Thanks to Greg Parker we all can see Baker on the 23rd no less. Closer inspection also reveals that this encounter is coincidental as Baker just tries to make his way past when the door has just opened with Oswald coming out.

I shall post some screen shots of this footage Greg pointed at. A very short snippet of The Lost JFK Tapes docu.

The video below will play the clip once in real time, and once in a crude slow motion.

Go to the Marrion Baker page to see more pictures.

Before people will bring J.W. Courson into the picture. Well his face shows something of a likeness, but it is not him..

Marrion Lewis Baker, click pic. to enlarge.


Gifts from uncle Malcolm Part 2

A couple more interesting pieces, thanks to Malcolm Blunt once again.

The first one shows timings of reports just after the assassination by NBC TV, the second is on Oswald and Bringuier, the D.R.E. (which receives financing from the CIA).

Gifts from uncle Malcolm Part 1

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt I have been handed a document on Wesley Liebeler, who was one of the senior lawyers of the W.C. And although this document has been described at , there is no active link to the document itself. Liebeler is ploughing through and raises his questions, offers feedback and proposes amendments to Chapter IV of the Warren Report dated Sept. 6th 1964. Compared to the date that the Warren Report was issued to L.B.J. on Sept 24th 1964. Not that much notice was given to Liebeler’s remarks since not a lot changed in those 18 days.

Ladies and gents have a good read, as some of his observations are golden.

What is mentioned by Wesley Liebeler are: the rifle, the finger/palm prints on the boxes, Buell Wesley Frazier, the description of Oswald after his departure from the T.S.B.D., Amos Euins, questioning the 2nd floor encounter,  Victoria Adams’ descent, the bus ride, the line-ups, the revolver, the arrest at the T.T., Johnny Calvin Brewer, Walker shooting, Marin Oswald, the rifle scope and its firing tests.

Even though the document is mentioned at the site above, you only get to read a summarisation, whereas now you have the whole thing at your own leisure.

I love the ending of the document:  “I forgot to mention that some question might be raised when the public discovers that there was only one eyewitness to the Tippit killing, i/e one person who saw him kill him. All the rest only saw subsequent events. Mrs. Markham is nicely buried there, but I predict not for long.”


Dealey Plaza UK Canterbury 2018 Seminar

On Fri the 27th the missus and I made our way to Canterbury to attend the 16th DPUK Canterbury seminar. I had a two hour presentation to give on the Saturday and also had scheduled two interviews, one with Malcolm Blunt and the other with John Newman on Sunday. Besides that I managed to get Jim DiEugenio to do his “JFK and his foreign policy” talk. We had some rain but other than that it was ok. Barry Keane and I shared a flat in the centre of Canterbury and we joined the rest of the posse (about a dozen at that time) in the pub for a couple of pints and from thereon we made our way to Pinocchio’s an Italian restaurant where Dealey Plaza UK has been going on the evening before the seminar ever since organising it in in Canterbury.

I myself left a bit earlier than the rest and managed to get really drunk at the flat in the time span of one hour, it took me by surprise to say the least. Waking up the next morning and not remembering how I got to bed at all was already the first indicator of a raging hangover that lasted pretty much all day. And it was not just me, Barry Keane who had the honours of doing the very first talk felt it too ;) But we managed to pull through, there was simply too much at stake. I myself felt like Richard Nixon with that sweaty patch just above my lips and had to wipe it several times while the booze was making its way out through my pores.

Professional indeed….

The whole weekend was great fun and obviously flew by rather quick. I enjoyed the entire program and could I do 4-5 days of this? Easy!

I would like to thank Stuart Galloway, DPUK’s outgoing secretary, for setting the seminar up like he has been doing for the past decade, he did a marvellous job. Thank you Stuart for everything you have done!

Thanks to all the speakers as well for sharing your time and knowledge to us.



The audio of the above interview of Malcolm can also be heard at the The Lone Gunman Podcast with an intro by yours truly.

The John Newman video will be inserted in a few days. But the Lone Gunman Podcast of the audio of this telephone interview can be listened to HERE.

Gayle Nix Jackson DPUK Talk

On March 24th Gayle Nix Jackson was kind enough to share her time with about fifteen DPUK members above in the Flying Horse pub. We let her do most of the talking, about her new and above all very good book Pieces of the Puzzle: An Anthology. I recommend it especially for those that read books with a keen interest in the case.

We started with about ten of us and by the end of the talk that had grown into fifteen. As you will be able to hear from the videos we had quite a few laughs, and with the audio difficulties considered we managed to pull of a largely unscripted chat that was of great fun to us all.

Stuart Galloway was kind enough to film the screen of our talk and I took a few quick shots with my iPhone shown below. Enjoy as much as we had two weeks ago.

Finally I will not be posting much until just before Canterbury. I have two Q&As to prepare and sort my  own two hour presentation out, and there is loads that needs to be done for it. Busy few weeks ahead. I hope to show a batch of videos of Canterbury in May.


DPUK Canterbury 2018 Seminar program

Here is the final program for the Dealey Plaza UK Canterbury seminar. Quite a few busy weeks ahead for me regarding my own presentation and the two Q&As.

Bart Kamp presenting at the DPUK Canterbury seminar 2016. Click pic. to enlarge.

We do intend to video the talks and they will be shown shortly after.


Living History with Karen Westbrook Scranton

Living History with Karen Westbrook Scranton


Updated March 25th 2018, March 20th 2019 and Dec 8th 2019.

Recently the 6th Floor Museum uploaded a video of Stephen Fagin’s interview with Karen Westbrook Scranton. She worked for a small publisher Southwestern Company alongside with Gloria Calvery, Karan Hicks, Carol Ann Reed and Carol Hughes on the second floor office of the T.S.B.D. after she graduated from high school.

At about 07:15 it is shown that her desk inside the second floor office is in the southeast corner. But this wrong, Room 203 is on the Western wall, what is shown is the 2nd floor office of the TSBD office and not the Southwestern offices.

Karen Westbrook’s desk was in the far right upper corner of this pic. Click to enlarge.

At 11:10 it starts to go really wrong. She states that after seeing the photograph of the fake vestibule that that door was always open. The door in question was part of a unit built to keep the noise out and had a door closing attachment fixed at the top of the door, which you can see below in a picture at the top left of the door on the inside. What she refers to as the door of the lunch room is the door after that, which I am showing next in the gallery below. Plus a close-up showing that that lunch room door is open. Imagine that outer door being open all that time then Baker’s and Truly’s remarks with the door being closed and that Baker caught a glimpse through the glass of the door can be completely discounted then. Some nerdy shizzle going on here folks….. But I do not find this suspicious merely human error and it being a long time ago.

At 12:10 Stephen Fagin makes the mistake of referring to the 2nd floor lunch room as to the Domino room, the Domino room was downstairs on the first floor and not the second. It was called that way as they tended to play a lot of domino games in there. It was the labourers’ lunch room.

Then shortly after that she drops a massive bomb shell, and states that Oswald had his lunch in there in the corner by himself. So that would be the first table coming in on the right on the photo below.

Click on pic to enlarge.

That is quite a thing to say as many others said that Oswald always had his lunch in the Domino Room which was on 1st. Then also if Oswald was in the lunch room at 12:15 as stated by Carolyn Arnold in the 70’s then others could have easily confirmed that. Reid especially as she left later at about 12:20. Molina had lunch and could have seen him there as well, but he made no mention of it, nor did anyone else. Plus the lunch room on the second floor was off limits to workers, since they had the Domino Room to have lunch in, on the first floor.It is quite possible it is true that she must have seen him on the odd occasion getting coke, but sitting down and having lunch no way.

At 13:00 she mentions that Lee was always reading strange looking material. Pamphlet style material. Again I have to take this with a massive grain of salt.

After that she tells about Altgens 6, and confirms that it was Billy Lovelady, and that the guy was looking a bit like Lee, but it wasn’t him. “It became a terrible joke in the office.”

At 18:10 Karen Westbrook Scranton IDs herself in the Zapruder film. And also pointed out that redheaded Gloria Calvery was standing right beside her. There was no doubt in her mind. Finally an ID of Gloria Calvery! She then says that she believes the person next to Gloria Calvery is Carol Ann Reed and that is wrong. It is Stella Mae Jacob, who was a (Native) Indian.

Click to enlarge.

With this ID, it can be said that running woman in Couch and Darnell is not Gloria Calvery. Furthermore she cannot be compared with any of the women going up on the west side of the stairs in Darnell either. Gloria Calvery’s son seems to dispute that the woman with the red hair is his mum. Stephen Fagin relays this, but does not elaborate any further, nor does anyone else


Add on March 25th.

In this film still, by James Darnell. We see Jakob, Holt and Simmons within a few minutes after the shooting.

Stella Mae Jakob, Gloria Holt and Sharron Simmons in the Darnell film. Click to enlarge.

If these three women are the same then Westbrook was wrong about the ID of the person standing next to Gloria Calvery as being her. The darker skinned person is Stella Mae Jacob, who describes herself as of Indian descent (in this context that means Native American). If this is true, then there is an even bigger problem with regards the timing of  their return, according to Jacob’s statement in CE1381 she did not even make it back inside the T.S.B.D. and left for home instead! That by itself is interesting with regards to the so called missing persons and the roll call by Roy Truly. There were lots of people missing, LOTS!

Here are all the women involved in this chapter. But they are from different companies.


From the women that are in that group according to their statements in CE1381 I can relay.

Gloria Little/Calvery stated she was with: Carol Reed, Karen Westbrook and Karan Hicks. After getting back in the office she made her way back down near the front entrance, but was told she could not leave.

Karan Hicks stated she was with: Gloria Calvery, Karen Westbrook and Carol Reed. After making her way back in the office, like Calvery, she made her way back down near the front entrance, but was told she could not leave.

Gloria Jean Holt was with Stella Mae Jacob and Sharron Simmons. She did not manage to get back inside the T.S.B.D. and subsequently went home.

Stella Mae Jacob was accompanied by Sharron Nelson/Simmons and Gloria Jean Holt. She also did not manage to get back inside the T.S.B.D. and subsequently went home as well.

Sharron Nelson/Simmons was with Gloria Jean Holt and Stella Mae Jacob.  She did not return to the T.S.B.D. either.

Carol Reed stated she was with Karan Hicks, Karen Westbrook and Gloria Calvery.

This then translates into the following graphic.


Click to enlarge.


We can see Stella Mae Jacob and Gloria Holt embracing each other in the Harry Cabluck picture from the Dallas Times Herald below. You can also notice the two ladies on the right are lady 4 and 5 to the left of the Stemmons freeway sign in the Z film still.

Stella Mae Jacob and either Gloria Calvery or Gloria Jean Holt embracing in a Harry Cabluck/D.T.H. pic. From Robin Unger’s Click to enlarge.



Then at 29:17 she starts to relay the conversation she apparently had with Mrs. Robert Reid, the clerical supervisor. The most astonishing bit is she had that convo after the assassination, on the very same day, while people were locked-in the office by the police and they were milling around inside it.  Mrs Reid said Lee came in with a coke in his hand and asked “what’s all that excitement all about.”  And she answered “OMG someone shot the President.” And Karen Westbrook Scranton then says “Whether that’s true and fits in with the timeline of the story. that was Mrs Reid’s story, seeing Lee after the assassination.”   Think about it, Lee asked what the commotion was about? Mrs Reid described Lee’s manner as almost non-responsive, he had said something that she could not understand. And she said all this to everyone inside the office within an hour after the assassination? Molina could have confirmed that, but he did not, nor did anyone else. Especially Geneva Hine would not relay that, since she was alone in the office between 12:25-12:35! And she saw Reid, Stanton, Reed, Molina and others come in about 25 mins after.

At 33:40 she tells the story of Marguerite Oswald coming in and causing a scene and being removed from the building. A situation that was described by Roy Truly as well. He even said that she showed Altgens 6 and claimed that it was Lee on the front page picture.

She is convinced Lee did it, and has of course taken in certain pro-Warren Commission scenarios to support that opinion. What she says is informative, but there are some mistakes and also some statements that are hard to believe.

Update Dec 8th 2019.

Karen Westbrook Scranton has donated a set of photos which were taken inside the office of Southwestern Publishing Company to the Sixth Floor Museum. I have enhanced these photographs with more colour and sharpness.

1964 photos

  1. These are enlarged pictures from contact sheets from the Holland McCombs collection.
  2. They were taken in 1964 (Jerry Lewis’ movie The Patsy is playing at the T.T., oh the irony).
  3. I have no idea who the photographer was.
  4. I would like to know who the individual is in front of the Texas Theatre. And no it’s not Dean Andrews!
  5. I don’t know whether that’s Trauma Room 1, if anyone knows then I am all ears.


McCombs on Sergio Arcacha Smith

Not my cuppa, but I know people are interested in this stuff, so here you go.

Hugh Aynesworth

His suggestions for an article on the JFK Assassination in 1967.


His phone number at that time and his article on the Garrison investigation.


On Jack Ruby and his death.

Al documents from the Holland McCombs Collection at the University of Tennessee.

Anatomy Of The Second Floor Lunch Room Encounter Update V4

Since August 2017 I came across a few more items so I decided to include these and release this new update. I am honestly not sure whether there is much left to include in this paper. I reckon time will tell. Since getting awarded by Lancer and Dealey Plaza UK this paper has doubled in size. More to read no doubt and more to bitch about by Richard Gilbride and Brian Doyle. Snooch to da mooch darlings ;)

The following has been added:

  • More info and a link to Roy Truly’s ‘deleted’ testimony video. Page 4.
  • Video link and transcript of an interview with Sylvia Meagher in which she discusses the 2nd floor lunch room encounter in depth. Added on pages 9-11.
  • Malcolm Couch still added showing Baker’s bike parked on Elm St. Page 20.
  • Detailed drawings of the TSBD front entrance. These were made by the FBI in early Dec. 1963. Pages 30 & 31. Thanks to Gary Murr.
  • More testimony and a line of text of Joe Molina added to “Who saw Baker going up the stairs” chapter, page 38.
  • Detailed drawings from the FBI on the 2nd floor of the TSBD, pages 63-64. Thanks to Gary Murr.
  • Press and Sun-Bulletin Binghamton, New York · Sun, Dec 8, 1963 article added, page 73.
  • Added Martha Reed’s affidavit in the chapter Oswald’s location during the so called 2nd floor encounter and just after, page 82.
  • Added two documents from Arch Kimbraugh’s collection with statements made by Roy Truly on the day he left for his W.C. testimony. Pages 102 and 103. Thanks to Malcolm Blunt.
  • Report by Charles Batchelor in the Where did Baker and Truly go after the Encounter chapter. Pages 107-109.
  • Jack Revill’s list of all persons’ details taken upon leaving the T.S.B.D. Pages 111 and 112.
  • The Carolyn Arnold sub-chapter has been re-written in part and has a few more photos/graphics/statements/book excerpts added. Pages 124-139.
  • FBI report with the timings of the re-enactment. Pages 159-161. Thanks to Malcolm Blunt.


The paper can be viewed HERE.

Buell Wesley Frazier’s polygraph

There are quite a few things from the JFK Assassination that have gone missing; many original films, photographs and negatives have disappeared. So have documents which were held for decades under lock and key (like the 50 odd interviews of Oswald’s Marine Core buddies). And of course documents held by the law enforcement agencies. Buell Wesley Frazier’s polygraph is obviously one of them.

While talking with Rob Clark of the Lone Gunman Podcast he pointed me to the polygraph documents of Buell Wesley Frazier at NARA. I paid $40.00 to have the files scanned and sent to me hoping to see the polygraph of Buell Wesley Frazier, instead I got hold of the documentation detailing the search and requests for the actual polygraph and where everyone contacted passed the buck. And then the paper bag Oswald was supposed to have brought alongside with him makes an entry, which I don’t care much about.

Bit of a waste of money and time really, not the first time and surely not the last.


The Death of Richard Gilbride’s Deluded Fantasies

The Death of Richard Gilbride’s Deluded Fantasies.


Richard Gilbride used to be a co-administrator at ROKC. He left the forum not just for his opposing and his dated views with regards the second floor room encounter, but he also behaved in a rather irritant and alienating manner, thinking his admin/mod status could speak for all the others of the ROKC forum.

In 2014 Richard Gilbride managed to post a few things while being at ROKC that obviously rubbed everyone else up the wrong way by moving the goalposts and also restating inexact facts and resort to made-up fairy tales. And of course like ROKC’s biggest ‘fan’ Brian Doyle he has been isolating himself further and further. A few samples…..

“The lunacy in me is in taking on the cult, the true believers, those who don’t think the lunchroom incident ever happened. Because those true believers are the true lunatics, who can’t accept concrete evidence that their hypothesis is incorrect, even with that evidence is dropped at their feet and thoroughly explained to them”  HERE

and  I find the contentions of those who say the lunchroom event didn’t happen an insult to my intelligence. What I am insulting is their reasoning power, regarding this particular facet of November 22nd- because as far as this incident goes, they have taken leave of their senses. “They” meaning Sean Murphy, Greg Parker, Lee Farley, and those who actively promote this school of thought. What they promulgate is an insult to my better judgement, and many other peoples’ better judgement. It should be an insult to their better judgement.  HERE

Almost four years later nothing has changed. You will see while reading on.

Since leaving ROKC in 2014 he has had a huge chip on his shoulder about ROKC research. Once in a blue moon he starts to appear on a forum and spews his gal, which does not hold any ground whatsoever. It only appears in Gilbride’s mind. Brian Doyle and his Prayer Woman beliefs fall in the exact same category, the category of being deluded and in deep denial only believing their own ‘truth’.

A year ago Richard Gilbride was still a member at the Education forum, but the disgusting post below got him his membership revoked, like the troll Brian Doyle who posted so much drivel he became the laughing stock of the JFK Research Community. Leaving Gilbride only the half decent Deep Politics Forum to vent. I don’t count the JFK Assassination forum run by disinfo clown Duncan MacRae as a proper forum. One has to ask themselves why these deluded individuals keep at this while at the same time their memberships are being revoked. It certainly doesn’t speak well for their argumentation overall, but in this case why don’t we let his ‘writings’ speak for himself and you the readers/researchers can make up their own mind.

No matter how strong the evidence is, it will be denied purely due to the fact that it comes from us at ROKC. I have very little time for flat earthers, climate change and holocaust deniers and these two people are from the same pack. Doyle and Gilbride are also technically inept to such an extend that mouthing off without providing any proof is their only weapon. Oh we at ROKC mouth off big time, but that is after presenting the proof in abundance after which we are  being lied to by these fantasists. Then of course we will address your shit.

Gilbride first two essays on the second floor lunch room encounter are filled to the brim with unsupported innuendo, made-up ‘evidence and have been demolished by various researchers (including yours truly). In 2014 at ROKC and later at the Education Forum in 2015/2016. And with his third ‘essay’ (90 pages too long) it is even worse. About half of it is used to attack me and my work and the other half is again just opinionated and unsubstantiated drivel which is nothing but a repeat from his dreadful fairy tale ‘research’ that is more than 4 years old. And only this once he gets the special treatment (a blog post) from me. I cannot be bothered otherwise since his crap does not deserve anyone’s attention.

When he made a forum post entitled “Death Of A Lunch Room Hoax” at the Deep Politics Forum earlier in Feb.,  he got rebutted by Jim DiEugenio, David Josephs and Alan Ford with great ease already. But why stop there……I want my slice of the cake as well. So here we go.

Good Stuff.

It seems that I made some typos regarding the dates of the SS report(s) concerning Mrs Robert Reid. I also forgot to add one page of these reports to my paper which resulted in me erroneously claiming she made no mention of the coke in that statement. That was wrong and I have corrected that. One thing that needs to be added is that the Secret Service Reports from early Dec. 1963 are to be treated with the utmost suspicion, some of the T.S.B.D. worker’s testimonies in those reports were contradicting their very first statements to the D.P.D. and the F.B.I.

I also erroneously ascribed a radio message to Jesse Curry whereas that should have been Bill Decker instead. I corrected that as well.

These correction will be in the V.4 update of Anatomy Of The Second Lunch Room Encounter out early March.

And that is it mistake-wise from all the 90 pages, now then y’all best strap in as the person who has never before attempted to look and research all the evidence before and relied way too much on his own innuendo for three essays on the same subject matter is about to get a serious kicking. Of course he himself will deny this up to the hilt.

Bad stuff.

The introduction by itself is a very weak start, instead of sticking to the point he drifts off already and drags in historical quotes which have no bearing on this case whatsoever. Gilbride tries to show of his intellect, not that it works as you will see further on where he makes some really dumb mistakes which are only made because of his blindness created by his hatred for ROKC and my work.  These first few pages are pure filler. Anyone can bang together a few historic quotes and massage the whole thing together. Gilbride should have included a few of these, it would have been more fitting to his work overall.

Then we arrive at Prayer Man, Gilbride feels the need to drag this part of the enigma into this document for a large part spread all over it. I myself make brief mention of it in the Anatomy Of The Second Floor Lunch Room Encounter paper I made. In this chapter it is already going horribly wrong, nothing new as the majority of this has been already posted more than two to four years ago at the Education Forum and back then it was torn to bits, not just by me but pretty much any member there in that thread. Gilbride’s so called photogrammetry calculations amount to junk science and like Brian Doyle he talks the talk trying to make everyone believe that they are the experts who know how to do this, but the reality is quite the opposite, drawing a few lines on a 2d photograph amounts to bugger all, a small child can do this.

He provides no info as to what camera/lens was used by both camera men (Darnell and Wiegman), there is no way to determine the exact spot of both camera men and their distance to the front steps of the TSBD, one can only guess. It is flawed from the word get go, but this was already relayed to him two years ago on the Education Forum, but Gilbride isn’t listening let alone researching just rehashing the same old fairy tale.

Nor does anyone know  whether Prayer Man stood on the top of the landing or one step down. I speculate he is one step down due to his stance, and the way the steps go wider. And also due to the size of Shelley/Frazier on the landing and Lovelady who stood on a lower step. There is no way of ascertaining by sight whether Prayer Man stood on the landing or one step down from either film. The height analysis is pure conjecture, there is zero and I repeat zero evidence to back up Doyle’s and Gilbride ‘s claims. His calculations are sucked out of his thumb and presented as gospel.

Gilbride states that Lovelady stood on the top step. If there is one thing abundantly clear in Wiegman it is that Lovelady is standing one step lower below Shelley and Frazier and is leaning against the railing. This cannot be done while standing on the top step. Take a look at the photographs below. Now pretend to stand on the landing and imagine leaning against that railing….bit difficult to do that no? Also look how close he is to Williams who stood one or even two steps down. No way could he have stood that close to him if he were standing on the landing. And also consider that Lovelady stood behind Carl Jones as you can see in the Hughes film and as the motorcade made its way down Elm he moved slightly to the right and up the steps. Not the landing where Shelley, Frazier, Sanders and Stanton were already standing. Lovelady had a curious mind and when the shots rang out he left those steps immediately with Shelley. Lovelady can be seen lowering on the steps in Wiegman as well.

Doyle tried to lie himself out of it and it never worked, and it doesn’t work this time for Gilbride either. Major fail on Gilbride’s part of repeating this debunked rubbish.

Click to enlarge


On Page 7 it gets “better”, Gilbride brings in the pix used by Brian Doyle for his Prayer Woman malarky. The buttons argument was debunked by me more than a year ago. These are not buttons they are artefacts from a transfer from tape to digital, as simple as that. I wrote two articles nailing Doyle and his lies to the cross. Gilbride pretends like his nose is bleeding and present this horse shit afresh…’d think he would be joking but he isn’t.

The Death Of Prayer Woman Part 1. and The Death Of Prayer Woman Part 2 deal with this BS in good detail. In case you were wondering where his latest essay’s title comes from, look no further.

In the very first article it was shown that Craig Lamson and Duncan MacRae faked the detail of the Darnell image which shows Prayer Man/Lee Oswald. Gilbride is using this image and on the same page of that article is also a photograph which shows the “buttons”, those buttons which appear all over the actual image. These buttons in correlation with the actual size of the image would be massive in real life. David Josephs brings a coherent argument forward at the Education Forum about this.

Here let me show you again in a very simple way and you can see they are all over the image. Buttons = fairy tale. Prayer Woman died a long time ago already. But like McAdams would do many years ago, even when debunked they still have a go at presenting this again at a later date. This is pure trolling.

Neither Doyle, MacRae and Gilbride possess any photography skills let alone be able to edit/manipulate/enhance/post the images. Recently Gilbride, already being a member at DPF for quite some time, had to ask the DPF members to show him how to post pix at that forum.  Gilbride’s photo analytical qualities come into question again later on.

In short the entire hooey from pages 3-9 is to be avoided purely for the bad research being done and repeating already debunked stories. if you do not think I make a point then just have a look at the replies Jim DiEugenio and David Joseph gave to Richard Gilbride with regards this BS. Another major fail on Gilbride’s account for adopting the sheer garbage produced by Brian Doyle, Duncan MacRae and Craig Lamson. When I asked Lamson, Doyle and MacRae for the EXIF data, and not meta data Doyle, they refused to pass it on as it would have shown heavy manipulation from their part. Instead the cowardly fakers ran away.

Then he asserts running woman is Gloria Calvery, there is absolutely nothing to support this, not even BWF’s statement. Since he brings this in connection with Shelley and Lovelady who had already departed. Shelley and Lovelady lied about their stay on the steps for 3-4 minutes during their WC testimony. It would have invalidated the W.C. fairy tale of  2nd floor lunch room encounter and Oswald’s departure there and then, as everyone would have seen Oswald leaving the TSBD. It is impossible that this happened. Calvery to this day has not been IDed in Dealey Plaza on that day no matter how hard people try. In Shelley’s first statement, before Oswald was marched in or let us even assume he gave that statement during it. He stated that he saw Gloria Calvery after he had left the steps. There is no interaction between Shelley and Lovelady and running woman at all.  It is pure guesswork. But it would have been a lot better if both these clowns actually paid attention to the very little info that is available of Gloria Calvery. In CE1381 she states. “After President Kennedy was shot, I returned to my office. I stayed there a short time then returned to the front entrance of the building. I remained there only two or three minutes and then came back to my office. I left my office for the day at about 1:30 PM and went home.” There is absolutely nothing about her running back, she went inside and up to her office and then came back down.

The drab is continued with Harry Dean Holmes’ affidavit and WC testimony, if anyone gave the game away on Oswald’s alibi it was H.D.H., he was not part of the boys club inside the DPD and surely did not get the memo to keep his mouth shut and not to volunteer any info. Holmes himself is also questionable for the fact that not one person could take responsibility handing the rifle to Oswald, as it supposedly had come through his office. The rifle that never existed in Oswald’s inventory, but that is a whole different story btw.

Gilbride refers to a 4 page memo from Dec 17th, which was his report from Nov. 24th. What Gilbride does not realise is that there is a 8 pager as well.  My position on Holmes’ testimony is quite clear in my paper, Gilbride thinks different due to his interpretation, which no one else but another research apologist by the name of Larry R. Trotter agrees with. Alan Ford demolishes that interpretation as well at DPF. Click and see for yourself. But why do I not paste part of Holmes’ WC testimony below.

Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?
Mr.HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule.
Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule?
Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part.
Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?
Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.

As simple as that Gilbride’s wishful fairy tales are torn up again. So the first 12 pages are completely worthless and why should we stop there. On page 13 the THE WILL-CALL COUNTER BUMP chapter is put forward. Since I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that both Truly and Baker never went in as fast as they claimed this chapter can also be dismissed. The 13 points of concurrence are also utterly worthless, David Josephs takes care of this already (post #2), no need for me to add anything.  So that is 15 pages that can be skipped due to the terrible work put forward by Richard Gilbride.

And it is getting worse, let me quote from page 19.

“Yet no other document even loosely correlates the existence of a “3rd or 4th floor” man, and do not wait up nights hoping that something supportive will turn up among the documents-yet-to-be-released. The chances are nil. “3rd or 4th floor” man has been utterly useless as a tool to help decipher what went on, just after the assassination, inside the Texas School Book Depository. All we can infer is- if he ever existed at all- he vanished into thin air. This empty result adds nothing contributory to the crime scene investigation, certainly nothing better than what the commonly-held assertion gives us- that Baker was simply confused about the TSBD floor layout when he composed his affidavit.” 

Ah yes Baker was just so confused, he went up two short flights of stairs and was already confused about what floor he was on, sure…… Had Baker thought that the shipping dept. on the first floor was the ground floor then he would have mistaken the 2nd floor for the 1st and not 3rd or 4th, but Gilbride wants everyone to believe that Baker’s first affidavit has no real meaning yet it is paramount in showing that there was no second floor lunch room encounter at all. That document by itself is a major cliff hanger. Gilbride keeps pushing this terrible scenario again and again, and this was also debunked at the Education forum as utter hogwash.

On page 21 he cannot believe the amount of people that are supposedly involved with this encounter lie, what Gilbride omits is that

1/ there is no mention of a second floor encounter on the 22nd, the first public outing is at around lunch time on the 23rd (almost 24 hrs after Oswald’s arrest) and

2/ that quite a few statements are taken on the 24th after Oswald has been given a set of wings…….. Gilbride thinks that by not presenting the evidence in the right context and dragging in philosophy makes his argument stand tall, the opposite is more true.

So far up to this point of this ‘essay’ everything mentioned can be skipped, it offers very little or no value at all, it solely contains Richard Gilbride’s personal innuendo.

The Stroud Document is also equally dismissed with again Gilbride’s apologising for how Adams and Styles could not have seen Baker and Truly while coming down swiftly wearing high heels on creaky wooden stairs. Truly allegedly heard Baker talking while the door was closed, but neither of them were hearing Adams and Styles clacking with their heels and making their way down those stairs. Dorothy Garner heard them descending while out of sight to her. An absolute stinker of an excuse. The ladies were already outside before Baker and Truly even attempted to go in and up. As simple as that. Gilbride ought to he ashamed producing this type of dross.

The arrows showing the alleged route on the 1st floor diagram are wrong, as per testimony they went diagonally through the shipping dept.

On page 25 Gilbride claims “Baker first caught a glimpse of Oswald somewhere between 50-60 seconds after the head shots.” Oh really? And the evidence for that is where exactly? Ah yes only in Gilbride’s head……that glimpse that got no mention until a few days before his W.C. testimony…. The timing aspect was a mess from day one, but Richard Gilbride and his fairy tales make matters a lot worse.

On the same page he claims “The November 27th Secret Service re-enactment film, at the 23 ½ minute mark, shows it closing unaided in only 1.8 seconds.”

See for yourself that this is rubbish, the film below (starts at the point of opening the door) and Barry Ernest’s testing in 1968 (3 seconds) shows it took longer that 1.8 seconds. Baker who only followed him by a few feet managed to open the door and have it closed in a few seconds and stop Oswald while Truly was just a few feet ahead and was on the 2nd or 3rd step up the stairs towards the 3rd floor. Pull the other one sunshine!

Gilbride again wants to apologise for the Baker and Truly encounter which never happened in the first place.


On page 26 Gilbride shows the Gary Murr drawing I put forward with my paper (he borrows a lot of graphics from my piece without properly crediting anyone!) and names it the vestibule.

Vestibule: a passage, hall, or antechamber between the outer door and the interior parts of a house or building.

On that same page he slanders Sean Murphy again without providing any linkage to it. Insiders know that Murphy got in contact with Sandra Styles and got some contradictory statements compared to what Barry Ernest presented in his book The Girl On The Stairs. There was some debate about this, but nothing like Gilbride dares to present, he is economical with the truth again. Gilbride’s hatred for Sean Murphy is more than evident. He acts like a sore loser who was outgunned and above all outclassed years ago.

Pages 27-30 are about the filmed interviews, the B&W ones for CBS and the biggest turd known to mankind The Trial Of LHO, held in London during the 70’s. Defence council Spence looks so weak with his questioning it is utterly laughable. The witnesses have all been instructed and coached by Vince Bugliosi (another filthy denier….) what to say. A fab example is Harold Norman’s testimony, just count the times how often he glances towards Bugliosi when questioning becomes a tad tough. With the CBS interviews it isn’t much better. Jim DiEugenio and Jerry Policoff wrote excellent articles on how CBS conducted itself with these interviews and the JFK Assassination overall.

So that is 30 pages without anything of real value, my suggestion: skip the lot!

Pages 31-40 are about Baker’s first statement, his FBI statement from Sept. 1964 and so on.

Again Gilbride makes a few serious mistakes.

1/ If we are to believe that Baker and Truly raced up those stairs then how comes there were several people inside the lobby? We know that Roy Edward Lewis was inside the vestibule and that Otis Williams had left the steps to go inside up too the 4th floor (yup using those same wooden stairs…). Other than that everyone was still outside. That by itself already indicates a much later arrival than has been presented.

2/ Then Richard Gilbride dismisses all newspaper reports for being brought up by overexcited newspaper reporters hungry for details, and even remembered incorrectly by the protagonists. This is how he classes journalism. You think that is a bad case of generalising then wait a little for another nugget further down.

3/ Gilbride digs into Baker’s first statement while padding himself on the back for doing, superfluous, research while complaining the Murphyites don’t do this, first of all the derogatory word has no impact and he ought to know that this started decades before Sean Murphy got involved and I personally have taken it much much further than any forum poster. Of course we not do superfluous research. It’s a complete waste of time and proves nothing nor does it debunk anything what has already been questioned before. (pages 31/39).

Then we finally reach the real juice: “Anatomy Of A Cherry Picker” and with that he means me and my paper. Thank you Richard, I looked through all the available evidence.  Something he failed to do with his two earlier essays which resembled Swiss cheese. One could pick holes in these two bodies of work and conclude that they were rightfully ignored by the overwhelming majority of the JFK research community. for all these years. And only after my paper was released and awarded  by Lancer and DPUK , combined with that huge chip on his shoulder did he get his finger out and produced this (s)hit piece.

Before I utterly destroy this typed up excrement on the second half of his ‘essay’ I should mention that it was my sole intention to collect everything available about this so called encounter to present a bigger picture. One thing that stood out were the huge amount of contradictions in statements, testimonies and newspaper reports. Which requires a lot more than your mundane explanation Richard!

He starts of with that I failed to address my counter-arguments against the lunchroom hoax hypothesis at the Education Forum, this is a lie, his dated beliefs were argued against at The Education Forum two years back. As a matter of fact his points were nullified by not just me, but also others. I know I am repeating myself……

See this thread at The Education Forum.  Greg Parker on page 8 of that thread summed it up nicely then, and it is even more than applicable now.

“Fact: Baker wrote 3rd or 4th floor. Your opinion is that he was confused

Fact: Baker described a 165 pound 30 year old wearing a light tan jacket. Your opinion is that he was mistaken

Fact: Oswald allegedly claimed to buy one coke: your opinion is that he bought two.

Fact: Mrs. Reid stated Oswald wore a white t-shirt. Your opinion is she was mistaken

Fact: The re-enactments were done over and over again until they could make the timing work. Your opinion is that they was done over and over to “refresh” Baker’s memory

Fact: The will-call counter “bump” is a change to the original story given which was that Truly was already inside. Your opinion that it was just additional information is an opinion you’re entitled to. You are also entitled to the opinion that there is no elephant in the room.

It’s always instructive when someone whose opinions are not attracting any support of note, will start claiming that the support of other positions is merely due to sycophancy. Ouch-B.K.

As Terry (Martin-B.K.) said, people have long smelled something foul regarding the 2nd floor encounter. You are so tied up in trying to extract some sort of revenge, that you are actually falling back on Warren Commission apologist type arguments. Not bad coming from someone who believes the MJ12 garbage was what got Kennedy killed.”

Terry Martin and Ed Ledoux post excellent rebuttals and I myself have made a few posts, see for yourself and especially look at Page 16.

In this so called essay of his he writes“Kamp could not provide any substantive answers to my complaints.” Nothing more than a terrible lie, click on the link and check that page and the following ones out and see for yourself and you can conclude that Richard Gilbride is lying. When a ‘researcher’ has to resort to lying then I am more or less done communicating with them in any shape or form, I only make an exception here since there are 50 odd pages attacking me and the work I have produced.

Then Gilbride’s assumptions get the better of him and he fails in a rather spectacular fashion while addressing Truly’s deleted testimony. In the Sept 2017 release of my paper (V.3) I said that we tried to get hold of it and also wondered why the testimony was withheld, nothing else. Gilbride on the other hand scribbles down a fairy tale even Hans Christian Anderson would be jealous of. In the end this deleted testimony was nothing else than someone else reciting his testimony, there was nothing deleted about it all. For that the “blame” lies with either NARA or the WC. You will see in the V.4 update.

Then he questions why I wondered why Baker had not called the observation of a possible shooter in, which anyone with half a grain of common sense would wonder aloud since that would be proper police procedure no? Not according to Dick Gilbride……  My second question was why Baker did not seal off the building, I should have asked why did he not seal the front entrance and call others in? What cop goes inside a building with a gun man still inside on his own when several buddies are about ‘dancing’ behind the picket fence and the rail road yards. Baker was no Rambo, far from it.

We now know that Baker was standing between the TSBD and the Dal Tex building as became apparent during his WC testimony (and was eventually led to saying it was the TSBD) plus the Darnell film shows Baker veering to the right.

Then he posts two newspaper articles from Nov 24th and 25th which have no bearing since the lunch room encounter did not publicly exist until Nov 23rd around lunch time. And a ten year old child could come up with a handful more of those articles from after the 23rd repeating the fakery created by the D.P.D.

Gilbride then continues to attack every single piece concerning this case and cherry picks his way through it all, what he fails to realise (not a first…) is that I post everything that is available! Gilbride calls that a blunder and even starts stating the bloody obvious.  I post all matters whether it supports my conclusions or not, but again his anger and his blindness prevents him from seeing that massive lump of wood swinging in front of his eyes, like the first two essays this third  essay is becoming an utter joke and I wonder why I bother refuting this worthless crap and I am only halfway this shitty hit piece!

And it goes on and on in Gilbride’s minuscule world. So instead of wasting more time, I will post a few more utter rubbish remarks. I have work to do besides tearing Gilbride’s essay a new one so I am going to be a tad more selective.

Page 48. Does he realize that Sean Murphy would be acclaimed in Ireland if there was even a remote chance that his theory was true? But it’s a clunker, and he quit the research community because he can’t handle failure. Gilbride has no knowledge or evidence for this, again his grudge against Sean Murphy takes the upper hand and spite takes the upper hand.

Page 49. Gilbride is reaching big time as to Brennan’s encounter with Truly in Roy Bode’s interview and screws up so bad it had me rolling with laughter as he himself directly refutes that so called super fast entry by Baker and Truly. “The truth was that Brennan didn’t leave his wall perch until nearly 2 ½ minutes after the shooting.”  

Page 50 Truly tried to account himself in bravery and knew full well he was taking large liberties with the facts for this 16-year-old reporter. Pure fiction! Gilbride deals with these matters, as they only exist in his head and nowhere else.

Page 52 He positions Roy Lewis outside instead of behind the glass, and uses Larry Rivera’s 2016 conference for this as evidence. I suggest you check that talk out, it is so wrong and badly put together that you will not thank me for wasting your time.

Page 53 He denies that Holmes was referring to the vestibule on the first floor, again scroll up and see what Holmes’ testimony says.


Page 69 contains a photographic still from the Cook film and this image shows Carolyn Arnold and two other ladies, whose ID has not been established at all. They are not Reid and Adams. This wishful rubbish was posted at the Duncan MacRae disinfo forum and never shown to have any substance to it whatsoever. I know as I worked on this with Linda Giovanna Zambanini. This is good research? He also lambasts me for not using footnotes, anyone else can see the interactive links to documents/pix and videos and besides plenty of material is inserted. That I overlooked one page of an affidavit is for Gilbride to have a go at me, yet his own footnotes are rubbish to use. What layman could possible use the non interactive notes at the bottom nor is there any further reference where to go to check up on his claims. Pot…kettle….geddit?

On page 70 he fantasises (“most probably” HA) about Oswald using the corridor instead of taking the alleged route through the second floor office which supposedly happened after the fake encounter in the lunch room, you couldn’t make this crap up but Richard Gilbride just does. Gilbride further claims that “Shelley- even though he denied this- had seen Oswald leave the building via the front landing.” and refers to his own essay to this as a footnote. How corrupted is this? Very, since there is no evidence Shelley saw him leave again this is just in Gilbride’s mind. Oswald said that he spoke with Shelley and asked if he could leave since no further work was going to be done that day. Shelley denied this. Even though this happened there is nothing that points that Shelley actually saw Oswald leave via the front entrance or even stood there after the assassination, Shelley was busy assisting the law enforcement officers in the building and not standing on the front steps another mistake by Gilbride. Billy Lovelady did see him leave after Oswald was stopped at the front door and Truly had vouched for him.

It’s getting boring, I know as I have to plough through this tripe!

Again, on page 71, he brings up Holmes’ testimony and tries to twist and turn it into his favour, yet fails again.

Pages 72-74 deal with Kent Biffle and him overhearing what Truly had said and pretends that the NYHT article quoting Ochus Campbell are coming from the same source, this is nothing short of misleading, a damn lie! He produces no evidence to back this up besides his deluded dream-like scenario. A very dirty game is being played here by Gilbride and it doesn’t work. And it goes on about the other newspaper reports using the same deplorable tactic and generalising that newspaper reports overall are inaccurate and lead to Chinese whispers, if you ask me Gilbride has had a hefty dose of them himself.

Carolyn Arnold is next on pages 76-78, and Gilbride’s presumptions are dead wrong. I will let the reader decide about this since I have rewritten that chapter for the V4 of the Anatomy Of The Second Floor Lunch Room Encounter paper, and he could not have read it by the time he wrote this  and it is even more detrimental to Carolyn Arnold’s statements. You will see soon for yourself.

Then we move to Oswald’s alibi at the bottom of page 78. Pay attention to the following: “He lied because he needed to protect his assignment to the 2nd-floor lunchroom. He did not want even to begin to expose the plot he had participated in. He knew full well that the 6th floor of the Depository was a key sniping position in the ambush of Kennedy. Saying he was on the ground floor at the time would buffer him from any suggestion that he was anywhere near being “upstairs in the building.”  Is there any evidence available besides Gilbride’s delusions and lies? Of course not. Utter bunk!

Gilbride asserts that Fritz took notes only when Bookhout arrived, but there is no evidence for this and on top of that the notes are not contemporary (he speaks of ‘the deceased’) and in my second paper Anatomy Of LHO’s Interrogations I bring plenty of evidence that Fritz took no notes at that time! It looks like Jim Hosty was the only one taking some notes at that interrogation. He then starts to misinterpret the notes to such an effect that I start to wonder whether Gilbride actually has studied the material carefully. Bookhout’s and Hosty’s joint report clearly states: “claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building. After hearing what had happened, he said that because of all the confusion there would be no work performed that afternoon so he decided to go home.” Bookhout’s solo report after Oswald was snuffed was a complete joke and made to fix Oswald as the solo killer of the President and encountered by Baker/Truly. There are some questionable bits that they directly contradict his first joint report. I point all this out in my paper.

Then at the bottom of page 81 (almost there thank fuck) he has the audacity to say “But what Bart forgets is that Shelley returned to the landing in time to vouch to Officer Welcome Barnett that Oswald was all right, that he worked there.” This is another lie, Shelley was nowhere to be seen outside from his return from the rail road yards until leaving the TSBD at about 13:30 and seen escorting Garcia and Williams to the police car. Shelley was busy helping the law inside the building, as per his statement. And Barnett was not checking people, according to De. Chief Lumpkin it was Eric Kaminski.

Then this “essay” descends into deeper chaos by going into the bus ride, the bus ride by itself has been disproved by Ed Ledoux who has turned this fake story into mincemeat, enough already.

Page 86 contains the following whopper: “Any newspaper reader is fully aware that any article potentially contains misinformation, from the journalist or the interviewee. It is only an adjunct source for arriving at the historical truth- particularly in this instance when there are so many other sources of information available. And in this case the newspapers contained actual disinformation.” For a second I thought Gilbride meant his own writing as it is so succinctly described here, but no all newspaper reports potentially contain misinformation.”  Can this essay be any more shit?

From thereon this ”essay” descends deeper into the abyss with Richard Gilbride’s conclusions. I think I have spent enough time laying out the mistakes, the lies and the make believe scenarios by him that I cannot stomach this piece any longer.

Among all (former) ROKC staffers there is a broad consensus that the second floor lunch room encounter did not happen, but we disagree on some of the details. Merely due to lack of additional info but what Gilbride puts forward we and other people who are not members of ROKC unanimously agree that he is nothing more than a sore loser, stuck in beliefs that can only be maintained with innuendo and lies. Richard Gilbride is a bully and a fraud of which John McAdams could only be most proud of. His hit piece misses on every occasion, but a couple of mistakes for which I am thankful for as he took the time to go through it all. But he could have saved himself a lot of time writing his third essay since the whole thing could have been dealt with less than half a page of A4.

Enough already.


All memes by: Stan Dane.

Dealey Plaza UK Canterbury Seminar 2018

April 28-29 at Christchurch Uni in Canterbury DPUK will hold its annual seminar.

Preliminary program (STC)

Saturday 28th April

09.40m – 09.50am Introduction to the Seminar by Stuart Galloway

09.50am – 10.50am Harold “Skip” Rydberg by Barry Keane

10.50am – 11.10am Break: Coffee/Tea

11.10am – 12.10pm Interrogations of LHO-1 by Bart Kamp

12.10pm – 1.40pm LUNCH That means of to the pub 

1.40pm – 2.40pm Interrogations of LHO-2 by Bart Kamp

2.40pm – 3.50pm ZR/RIFLE, William Harvey, & QJ WIN by Larry Hancock

3.50pm – 4.10pm Break: Tea/Coffee

4.10pm – 5.10pm Q & A with Malcolm Blunt with B Kamp

5.10pm – 6.00pm Possible Film or extend Larry’s talk from

Dinner at the Abbotts Barton Hotel – 7.30pm for 8.00pm

Sunday 29th April

09.30am – 10.30am The DPUK Auction with Mike Dworetsky

10.30am – 12.00pm Evidence of Gunmen in David Percox

12.00pm – 12.30pm The Dallas Police by Ian Griggs

12.30pm – 1.40pm LUNCH ( Buffet in the Lecture Theatre)

1.40pm – 2.40 pm Q & A with John Newman and B.Kamp

2.40pm – 3.40pm Jim Di Eugenio JFK’s foreign policy and also the recent released files. The impact of Donald Trump and how they were ignored by the media.

3:40pm – 3.50pm Closure of the Seminar by Stuart Galloway.

More info on attendance and pricing at DPUK FB Event page.

Costs for members.

Two day seminar including tea and coffee on Saturday – £35

Dinner at Best Western (Abbots Barton)   – £37 (we have our own room)

Buffet lunch in The Old Sessions House on Sunday – £7

Total = £79  (£42 without Dinner)

Attendance Saturday only – £20

Attendance Sunday only  – £24 (includes Buffet).


Some of the talks will be videod and shown on YouTube/Vimeo.


Oswald DPD Corridor Wade Press Conference Beckley and the TSBD all by Jim Murray.

This is an interesting set by Jim Murray. First we have Oswald being led down the corridor, then we see him on his way to a line up. Then three shots of Wade’s press conference, and then Murray must have gotten up early on the 23rd and started shooting the T.S.B.D. from all possible angles. The Hertz sign displays a time of 7:43 am. And two shots of the Beckley residence.

All photos Jim Murray BlackStar. All scans by ROKC of the Richard E. Sprague archive at the National Archives in Wa.


Jim Murray at The Trade Mart

All pix by Jim Murray / BlackStar. Scans made by ROKC from the Richard E. Sprague collection at the National Archives.

The roll call inside the TSBD never happened.

Updated June 30th 2018.

Added Harold Norman’s HSCA testimony.

Updated December 4th 2019

Added a snippet of Buell Wesley Frazier’s W.C.testimony


Let’s begin with Roy Truly’s testimony where he sheds light on what was done about this just after the shooting.

He tells a scenario that Fritz was notified of Oswald being missing around 1 PM.  Had that been the case the APB going out would have been a lot more specific than the generic message of

Attention all squads, the suspect in the shooting at Elm and Houston is supposed to be an unknown white male, approximately 30, 165 pounds, slender build, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle, – repeat, unknown white male, approximately 30, 165 pounds, slender build. No further description at this time or information, 12:45 p.m.

Had Truly known about this at 1 PM then it would have been broadcast as such.

MR. TRULY. 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.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have any address for him in Dallas, or did you just have an address in Irving?
Mr. TRULY. Just the address in Irving. I knew nothing of this Dallas address. I didn’t know he was living away from his family.
Mr. BELIN. Now, would that be the address and the description as shown on this application, Exhibit 496?
Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ask for the name and addresses of any other employees who might have been missing?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Why didn’t you ask for any other employees?
Mr. TRULY. That is the only one that I could be certain right then was missing.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do after you got that information?
Mr. TRULY. Chief Lumpkin of the Dallas Police Department was standing a few feet from me. I told Chief Lumpkin that I had a boy missing over here “I don’t know whether it amounts to anything or not.” And I gave him his description. And he says, “Just a moment. We will go tell Captain Fritz.”
Mr. BELIN. All right. And then what happened?
Mr. TRULY. So Chief Lumpkin had several officers there that he was talking to, and I assumed that he gave him some instructions of some nature I didn’t hear it. And then he turned to me and says, “Now we will go upstairs”.
So we got on one of the elevators, I don’t know which, and rode up to the sixth floor. I didn’t know Captain Fritz was on the sixth floor. And he was over in the northwest corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. By the stairs there?
Mr. TRULY. Yes; by the stairs.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. TRULY. And there were other officers with him. Chief Lumpkin stepped over and told Captain Fritz that I had something that I wanted to tell him.
Mr. BELIN. All right. And then what happened
Mr. TRULY. So Captain Fritz left the men he was with and walked over about 8 or 10 feet and said, “What is it, Mr. Truly,” or words to that effect.
And I told him about this boy missing and gave him his address and telephone number and general description. And he says, “Thank you, Mr. Truly. We will take care of it.
And I went back downstairs in a few minutes.
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.
Mr. BELIN. When you got on the sixth floor, did you happen to go over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor at about that time or not?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir; I sure didn’t.
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor? 
Mr. TRULY. That I can’t answer. I don’t remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases. It could have been at the time I went up and told them about Lee Harvey Oswald being missing. I cannot remember. But I didn’t know it. I didn’t see them find them, and I didn’t know at the time I don’t know how long they had the things.
And what the hell was Truly doing in the sniper’s next before they found the shells and the rifle??? Alan Ford already made mention of this at The Deep Politics Forum

Shelley is gone to City Hall and he is there for a good few hours and I reckon he left with some of the 6th floor workers. Garcia and Williams, get treated right by the cops.

He sees Oswald being paraded in by the DPD and remarks that ‘he’ works at the TSBD and he is his mgr. Shelley’s statements are taken by Det. C.W. Brown who makes mention of this in his report.

C.W. Brown on the third floor corridor just outside the Robbery and Homicide office where Oswald has just been transferred to and can be overheard demanding “Hygienic Rights” Nov 23 1963. Screen grab B.K.

Report on officer’s duties in regards the President’s Murder- C.W. Brown.

In the video below Billy Lovelady is sitting while Oswald is being led past him into another room

What he does not do is point him out as the man missing at 1 PM before he left.  Now why not as that would have sealed the deal. Same as Marrion Baker’s supposedly IDing Oswald as the man he stopped when nothing can be produced to confirm this, not even Marvin Johnson BS report can. Baker would have been inside Fritz’s office there and then confirming him as the man he apprehended.

Shelley confers with Truly  upon his return and brings back the news that Oswald is brought in for killing a cop.
Add on that that same afternoon Oswald’s commie credentials were broadcast all over.
Then there is the whole matter of the missing employees. Most people who are researching this will name Charles Douglas Givens who was absent for a while and Shelley said that they were going to send out an APB, but he just happened to return in time.
This does not rhyme with the Revill List at at all. There are many more employees missing.
What we can see from this list is that:
  • Oswald is mentioned on the top of it. Which lends more credence to the slighting by Roger Craig and other witnesses seeing a person resembling Oswald running down the grassy slope and getting into a Nash Rambler.
  • Shelley’s name is nowhere to be seen. His departure and return are not recorded at all.
And here comes the hammer the following people all left at 12:15. But this list shows that:
  • Lloyd Viles arrived back at 3:10 PM.
  • Virgie Rackley, Dolores Kounas and Mrs  William Parker all returning at 2:55 PM.
Virgie Rackley returning at just before 3 PM and seen here talking to Kent Biffle inside the TSBD. Had Biffle known then his questioning and reporting would have been different.

Virgie Rachley being interviewed by Kent Biffle

But Biffle did say something about all this in 1982 in the Dallas Morning News.
. . . only two of us [reporters] had arrived at the ambush building [ the Depository] by this point. . . . Getting in was no problem. I just hid my press badge . . . and went in with the first wave of cops. . . . 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 except Oswald. I jotted down the Oswald information. . . . Neither the police in the building nor the superintendent knew that Oswald already was under arrest. Oswald’s name was not called out until after 3 PM!
Then there is Buell Wesley Frazier who during his W.C. testimony mentions the following:
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.
Mr. BALL – Then you went on home?
Mr. FRAZIER – Right.
Add on Harold Norman’s HSCA interview. In it at roughly 21 mins in.

Q: Prior to the time they let you go for the day, was everybody looking for Oswald?

Norman. I don’t think so.

Q: There was no speculation about Oswald being the shooter?

Norman: Not that I recall.

About 7 minutes later.

Q: You gave as I understand it, you gave your name and address and identified yourself just like everyone else was doing.

Norman: Right.

Q: …that worked there, they was making some kind of head count?

Norman: Right.

Q: Was that right?

Norman: Yes.

Q: Did you know who was missing at the time of that headcount?

Norman: No, I just can’t recall who was missing.

Q: All right did they tell you anyone was missing?

Norman: I don’t recall if they did that either.

Q: Did you know Oswald was missing?

Norman: No.

In CE 1381 (the FBI 6 questions for all TSBD employees  in one file) Norman’s statement says he left the T.S.B.D. at 2 PM.
Then you can add the Martin film as evidence as well. This film was supposedly shot between 12:50 and 13:00. This film shows Lovelady, Williams and Garcia outside waiting on the steps to get in.
Now then if the roll call is bogus then Will Fritz went to City Hall to check upon a suspect brought in for the Tippit Killing, nothing more. The rest is pure fairy tales made up after the fact. Plus Truly and Shelley were covering their rears for letting him go 15 minutes after the assassination.
Any questions?
Additional research by Ed Ledoux, Greg Parker and Donald Willis.

James Darnell RIP

Fellow ROKC member Vinny brought me up to date with Jimmy Darnell’s death. It happened late Sept and was unnoticed until now.

See a brief video HERE

There’s a brief shot of Jimmy Darnell along the east side of the TSBD.

I managed to get hold of him on the telephone last year, but he was not up for talking about that day.

R.I.P. Jimmy Darnell


X-Mas 2017 update

Merry X-Mas everyone, hope you are all having a joyful time with your closest ones.

I was going to release an update to The Interrogations of Lee Harvey Oswald, but that is a bit on the back burner for about a month or so. I hope to be able to do it by end of Jan. 2018. At this stage there are already 45 pages extra, but I need to work more on a few chapters and I am awaiting some more stuff which I’d like to include once I get my hands on it. It’ll be worth the wait ;)

There is also another update to the Anatomy Of The Second Floor Lunch Room Encounter coming early next year. Only about thirteen extra pages this time.

Hugh Aynesworth and Paul Barger

Here is a rather revealing FBI Document ID-ing Paul Barger of the DPD as confidential informant for the FBI and also brings up Hugh Aynesworth up in a rather unfavourable light. And that is not for the first time. When is someone actually going to confront Hugh Aynesworth and his actions?

There is quite a discussion going on about this at the Education Forum.

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt for snail mailing it to me.

Prayer Man The Movie 2 years later

Yesterday two years ago I uploaded The Prayer Man movie, it has managed to be seen just under 108,000 times. That averages roughly just over 1,000 views per week! An amazing result for which I have to thank everyone who took the effort to go through it all. It is a lot of info to digest in 100 minutes.

I have said that there will be a follow up and there is still none, but I will start working on it over the next few weeks and then it will be released in shorter instalments as 2 years later there is even more information to divulge.

Thanks again for watching and sharing!!!


Billy Lovelady the Doorway Man

Here is an article from the New York Herald Tribune which has been quoted from many times in various articles, here is the chance to read the whole article and its pix in full. It was published in the NYHT May 24th 1964. Great read actually, and this was pubbed before the Warren Report was issued.


Add on Dec 13th:

From Larry Sneed’s No More Silence

In May 1964, while the Warren Report was still being assembled, Don Bonafede, a reporter for the now defunct New York Herald Tribune, called me from here in town and said that he was in Dallas to do a story on a very controversial photograph I had made at the time the President was assassinated. All he wanted to know, he said, was the information I had already given the
authorities, and he would be satisfied with that information. I told him that no authorities had questioned me, including the Warren Commission people. “That’s my story!” he shouted. Of course, he was referring to the picture showing the questionable person, story set the authorities to work, and eventually even the FBI sent two men to visit and interview me. What had happened was that Bonafede’s story was picked up by columnists all across the country who then began asking if other witnesses had been overlooked like the photographer who was only fifteen feet from the limousine when Kennedy was killed.


Dealey Plaza UK had one of its meets at The Flying Horse again, and we had a jolly good time beers flowed and the subject was Tippit.

Funny how things go. Joseph McBride’s book Into The Nightmare is the best book on this subject and I read it 3-4 years ago, but what I had forgotten about is that McBride had interviewed Jim Leavelle and what he said is most interesting and naturally I will add these quotes to the 2nd paper Anatomy Of Oswald’s Interrogations. Leavelle is sinking deeper and deeper if you read what is below and in my paper.

When asked by McBride why Oswald was not arraigned for the killing of J.F.K. Leavelle replied:

“Now the thing was, the Captain (Will Fritz, the Head of Homicide, who was running the interrogation of Oswald) asked me if I had enough to make a case on him for the Tippit killing. And I said, ”Oh yeah. I got plenty on that.” I had him identified by about three or four people. And so Cap said, “Well go ahead and make a tight case on him in case we have trouble making this one on the presidential shooting.” “So that was one reason he was arraigned early on the Tippit shooting. But I was thinking that we also arraigned him somewhere down the line on the shooting of the president. But I wouldn’t swear to that offhand.”  (P.235/236).

When asked how his department had reacted to the shooting of the president Leavelle said: “As the old saying goes back then, “it was no different than a South Dallas nigger killin’” When you get right down to it – because it was just another murder inside the city lines of Dallas that we could handle. It was just another murder to me. And I have handled hundreds of ‘em. So it wasn’t no big deal.” (P 240).


TSBD drawings-3rd-7th floor

Final set for now, thanks again to Gary Murr for these.

These are drawings of the 3rd to the 7th floor, there is a page with measurements of the front steps and the pavement and a page with notes on the TSBD building’s height in comparison to the DalTex building and The Records Building.

All these drawings shed more light about the TSBD dimensions, way more than the WR versions.

More first floor drawings TSBD

Once again thanks to Gary Murr I can present another set of drawings of the 1st floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

These are made in March 1964,  the majority of it by SA Eugene Paul Arey, classified by the FBI as a “visual exhibits specialist.”

Gary spends an entire chapter on the FBI model and its construction in the first volume of his Connally trilogy, a chapter titled “Model Behaviour.” “I get the impression, indeed memoranda states as such, that the intent of the model was for the benefit of individuals who were to be called to testify to the WC regarding various aspects of the assassination event, in particular members of the DPD and witnesses/employees of the TSBD. However, I believe the display of the model became too cumbersome and so as a trade off the WC asked the FBI to produce detailed diagrams of the TSBD again for use during testimony sessions, such as Baker and Truly – mark where you were etc. etc. The model was moved to the “exhibits room”,  a singular room in the VFW  Building, access to which was controlled by J. Lee Rankin’s personal secretary, Julia T. Eide. She generated a “log book” in which anyone who visited the room – and she had the only key – had to sign the key in and out, note the times, identify themselves and anyone who was with them, etc. To me it is one of the more important documents that survives and I suspect very few people are aware of it’s existence. Indeed, I argue that a lot of what occurred as far as planning out the eventual SBT and in particular the eventual WC staff reconstruction in Dallas in May of 1964 took place in this room with the model over the weekend of March 14 – 16, 1964. FWIW

Thank you Gary, once again.

And there’s more to come ;)

TSBD 2nd floor drawings

Special thanks once again to Gary Murr.

If anyone feels inclined to build a 3D model then do let me see the end result :)

These are  detailed drawings made by members of the FBI Exhibits Section of various areas of the TSBD building. They were made in the first week of December, 1963, and were used in conjunction with the eventual construction of the FBI model of Dealey Plaza, TSBD, etc

These are of very nice detail and shows how short the area was from the first door to the lunch room door. So Oz was standing in the opening of the lunch room and Baker was inside with the door behind him shut, and then Truly leant in……….right.

FBI File:  62-109060-3961, Box 104A, Folder A1-1.

Detailed drawings of the front steps of the TSBD

Special thanks to Gary Murr for these who nabbed them from the Archives. So make sure you credit him if you are using these.

These are  detailed drawings made by members of the FBI Exhibits Section of various areas of the TSBD building. They were made in the first week of December, 1963, and were used in conjunction with the eventual construction of the FBI model of Dealey Plaza, TSBD, etc.

FBI File:  62-109060-3961, Box 104A, Folder A1-1.

Debunking The 2nd Floor Lunchroom Encounter one year later.

Just over a year ago, after 4 attempts! Rob Clark and I managed to do a good chat on the 2nd floor fugezi.

It ended up being the No.1 listened to show with up to this point with 1,049 Plays and 3,967 Downloads. Just over 5,000 listens. This amount was way above the average show ratings and to this day it is the No.1 show being way ahead in front of the No. 2 show. It is just a crying shame the LGP is no more. 

One year on I would have done some things different. The essay was only out by a month and since then it has been updated twice with a lot of extra information.

You can listen to it HERE.

Meanwhile I will try and make a new interactive presentation on video very soon.

By Stan Dane.

James Bookhout ID

Thanks to Denis Morissette and Steve Roe and our ROKC scan we have a James Bookhout ID.

Awesome work lads!

1968 newspaper clipping, thanks to Steve Roe.

James Bookhout (light suit and smoking a pipe). Pic Jim Murray-Black Star. ROKC Scan from the Richard E Sprague collection at the National Archives.


Anatomy Of Lee Harvey Oswald’s Interrogations

For those not knowing: I have been in the hospital a lot. I had eleven (!) operations on my foot from June 8th and in that period I was either in a hospital bed or heavily sedated in bed at home. I used this time period mainly to work on the next paper, when I had the clarity and will power to do so. Glad I did spend all that time on it, as it turned out to be much of a bigger mission than originally anticipated. The amount of ‘players’ of various law enforcement agencies involved and the legal side of this subject proved to be daunting tasks to take care of.

Just over 300 pages and filled to the brim with documentation, photographs and links to many videos about the many participants inside the D.P.D. bureau while Lee Oswald was in custody and being interrogated. Originally believed that there was not much around and that this would be the thinnest chapter of the 4, but due to the many people involved its size increased considerably and a picture has manifested itself nevertheless. And that is the main point of this excercise, to show a better overall picture of this particular situation inside the JFK Assassination.

You can download the Anatomy Of Lee Harvey Oswald’s Interrogations paper: HERE.

48 MB big!!


New updates to 2nd floor encounter paper

A second update has been applied to the Anatomy Of The Second Floor Lunch Room Encounter paper. A mirror link of this paper is available at the Dealey Plaza UK Website. It has been made by Bernard Wilds. Many thanks Bernard!!!

I have added
 St. Louis Post Dispatch article from Nov.26 1963 added on page 8.
 Medicine Hat News newspaper article added to “Research history….” page 10.
 Link to newspaper article from The Houston Post (Nov. 23rd) with Billy Lovelady’s remarks added. Page 30.
 Norman Redlich memo (3 pages) discussing the elevators added to “The Stairs and The Elevators” chapter, pages 50-52. Thanks to Malcolm Blunt for this!
 Text added to page 53, in the chapter “Did Truly Walk Ahead Of Baker”, with regards to the
Secret Service agents taking statements of the TSBD employees in early Dec. 1963.
 Also added in the re-enactment chapter I added an article by the Dallas Morning News on page 118.
 FBI re-enactment photo added, from Robin Unger, page 119.
 Document of Thomas J. Kelley added with regards to the Secret Service re-enactment on page 120.
 Set of FBI re-enactment photos added, which I managed to score at the Holland McCoombs collection. Added these, as they are rare and have not been seen before by many. Pages 122-126.
 Photo added of Marrion Baker alongside with fellow DPD officers and John Sherman
Cooper in Wa. Page 129.


Meme by Stan Dane.

Can anyone give Lee Oswald a voice?

Is there anyone out there who is able to tell me what Lee Oswald is saying in the videos below?

I cannot recall having ever seen these videos with his audio attached to it.

And here the same sequence, longer and from a slightly different angle.



Then there is another sequence of Oswald being escorted with no audio.

If you are able to help, then please email me at meetthelonegunman at


Thank you.

Eleanor Cowan

Eleanor Cowan


Eleanor Cowan.

Eleanor Cowan, was a school teacher in Dallas. She wrote a letter to TIME magazine condemning Dallas for the JFK Assassination. Her freedom of expression got her suspended and this even got Greg Olds and the DCLU (The Dallas affiliate of the ACLU) involved.

Another example of what happens when one is not falling into line and conforms. In this case the publicity must have  gotten the people, that suspended her, thinking and reverse that Nazi style tactic……

Read the articles below.

Added Mexia Daily News article from Dec 9th 1963 on July 10th 2017.

The American Media & The Second Assassination of John F. Kennedy – London screening

Dealey Plaza UK meeting at the Flying Horse Saturday August 5th.
We have arranged for a showing of the John Barbour documentary: The American Media & The Second Assassination of John F. Kennedy

Director John Barbour blends archival footage from his 3-hour interview with Jim Garrison as well as video of the Zapruder tape, interviews with witnesses, and clips which show concrete evidence of how the mainstream media mislead the public with false information.

It will be followed by a Q and A with John Barbour via Skype. We intend to video record the Q&A.

New members welcome, if you wish to join us then email

Meeting Starts at 12 noon. Film starts at 13:30 and ranting hour begins at about 4-ish :-)


Venue location:
The Flying Horse Pub
52 Wilson St.
London EC2A 2ER 
Tel: 020 7247 5338

ROKC Conference 2017

On Nov 18th Greg Parker will hold the second ROKC Conference, and I will be speaking at it, either through Skype or pre- recorded video. I will be talking about Oswald’s alibi and all the other shenanigans surrounding his interrogations. For more info and how to get tickets please go here. Obviously I am biased but this program is rock solid.

A one day event with speakers covering many aspects of the JFK assassination. The focus is on new evidence and the push to reopen the case and have it treated as any other cold case. Local speakers include Phil Hopley who is currently working on a book about the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, Greg Poulgrain from the Sunshine Coast University, author and expert on JFK Indonesian policy, Colin Crow, an academic from Adelaide and an expert in the first day evidence, and Greg R. Parker, author of Lee Harvey Oswald’s Cold War who will provide new evidence not yet released to the public. Via skype from the UK we have Bart Kamp who has done extensive work on Oswald’s alibi and the photographic evidence supporting it, Gokay Hasan Yusuf from Melbourne will talk to us about one of Oswald’s captors, Officer Jerry Hill, and giving our Keynote Speech is internationally renowned author Peter Dale Scott

A documentary called The Searchers about the early critics of the Warren Commission will be shown during lunch.

June update


I have been in the hospital for a week and have been in recovery since leaving and will be for at least another week. It has given me time to work on the next paper which is getting big, I mean BIG!

Set at 222 pages already and probably gaining to a solid 250 for its V1 release on Aug 1st “The Interrogations Of Lee Harvey Oswald” will be looking at the many people who were present inside City Hall while Oswald was kept in custody. This piece has gotten a lot bigger than I had anticipated, which is the same as what happened with the “Anatomy Of The Second Lunch Room Encounter”. Speaking of that one there will be a second update on Aug. 1st as well. It will not be as big but there is still about ten extra pages to go through.

So hold on tight, it won’t be much longer before there is plenty to plough through :)

The Houston Post

Thanks to Denis Morissette who posted 4 editions from Nov 22nd to Nov 24th 1963.

Anything interesting then?

Eh…yeah! :)

Billy Nolan Lovelady did not like Oswald,because he kept too much to himself……Lovelady just tried to distance himself from Oswald the commie no doubt.

What’s even more telling is his description of officer Smith who ran west towards the railroad yards, a telling remark and confirmation that he and Shelley had left those steps almost immediately after the shots had been fired.

Then there is assistant DA Bill Alexander in the same day’s edition who says 6 witnesses can attest to Lee being inside the TSBD up to ten mins after!!!!

Most interesting indeed.

Click pix to enlarge.

Updated Sept 8th 2017 with the close-ups of the text below.






Looking very much forward to this, I shall be there on the Saturday and will be posting a review from that day and I hope to post videos of the speakers soon after.

SEMINAR ADMISSIONSeminar, including tea and coffee, for the both days – £35 There will be an optional Buffet Lunch on Sunday for an extra £7 Attendance on Saturday only will be £20 Own arrangement for lunch on Saturday Sunday only will be £24 (including Buffet Lunch) Contact DPUK Secretary Stuart Galloway for booking info: stuart.galloway at Tel: 07976 614633
09.45m – 10.00am
Introduction to the Seminar
10.00am – 10.15am
100 Years – Tribute to John F. Kennedy
10.15am – 10.30am
Introduction talk on Video to his film
10.30am – 11.05am
11.05am – 11.20am
Break: Coffee/Tea
11.20am – 12.10pm
12.10pm – 1.40pm
LUNCH (Own Arrangements)
1.40pm – 2.20pm
Update on Medical Evidence – Nurse Diana Bowron
2.30pm – 3.30pm
A talk on Sources and Criteria for Vetting Sources – (By Telephone)
3.30pm – 3.45pm
3.45pm – 4.45pm
The Secret Service failure on 22/11/63 – Why JFK should have survived Dallas
(By Telephone)
4.45pm – 5.45pm
The Bus Transfers – LHO’s movements after the Assassination (By Telephone)

09.30am – 10.30am
The DPUK Auction
10.30am – 11.30am
Tabernacling in the Bowels of the Warren Commission
11.30am – 12.40pm
Predictive Programming in the Assassination of President Kennedy: Is This an Example?”
12.40pm – 1.40pm
1.40pm – 3.20pm
Latest evidence by top researchers into the Assassination (Film)
3:20pm – 3.30pm
STUART GALLOWAY —————- Closure of the Seminar

09.45m – 10.00am
Introduction to the Seminar
10.00am – 10.15am
100 Years – Tribute to John F. Kennedy
10.15am – 10.30am
Introduction talk on Video to his film
10.30am – 11.05am
11.05am – 11.20am
Break: Coffee/Tea
11.20am – 12.10pm
12.10pm – 1.40pm
LUNCH (Own Arrangements)
1.40pm – 2.20pm
Update on Medical Evidence – Nurse Diana Bowron
2.30pm – 3.30pm
A talk on Sources and Criteria for Vetting Sources – (By Telephone)
3.30pm – 3.45pm
3.45pm – 4.45pm
The Secret Service failure on 22/11/63 – Why JFK should have survived Dallas
(By Telephone)
4.45pm – 5.45pm
The Bus Transfers – LHO’s movements after the Assassination (By Telephone)

09.30am – 10.30am
The DPUK Auction
10.30am – 11.30am
Tabernacling in the Bowels of the Warren Commission
11.30am – 12.40pm
Predictive Programming in the Assassination of President Kennedy: Is This an Example?”
12.40pm – 1.40pm
1.40pm – 3.20pm
Latest evidence by top researchers into the Assassination (Film)
3:20pm – 3.30pm
STUART GALLOWAY —————- Closure of the Seminar.


Black Op Radio April 2017

Thanks to Jim DiEugenio for putting me forward to do Len Osanic’s radio show Black Op Radio.

Just over an hour’s worth talking about how I started and of course the second floor lunch room encounter fugezi.

Great fun, but I was tired and a bit nervous and due to that I lost my train of thought twice.

Thanks Len and Jim!!

Listen to it HERE. This link downloads the MP3 file.

Or listen at Len’s website. Show #831

Meme by Stan Dane.

Time to make some movies about the 2nd floor paper soon. anatomy essay review

Last year at the JFK Lancer Conference in Dallas, Bart Kamp was awarded the New Frontier award. The citation stated that his work in reexamining the second floor encounter of Oswald with Texas School Book Depository foreman Roy Truly and motorcycle officer Marrion Baker utilized “a broad array of new data, including documents and statements of the participants and a variety of TSBD witnesses.” We agreed with this award and the description of the achievement. The second floor lunch encounter is a thread-worn shibboleth of the Warren Report that – like Oswald’s mail order rifle – the first generation of critics simply passed on; the notable exception being Harold Weisberg in his book Whitewash II. In Reclaiming Parkland, I began to question it, largely based on Marrion Baker’s first day affidavit, where the officer does not even mention the episode – or Oswald or Truly.  Even though, as he wrote the affidavit, Oswald was sitting across from him in the rather small witness room. In other words, after he had just stuck a gun in his stomach, Baker didn’t recognize him.

But Bart Kamp goes much further than that in his analysis. We are presenting a small part of that long essay here, with a link to the longer version at the admirable group Dealey Plaza UK. The new revised version of the essay, from which this part is adapted, will be posted there soon and we will link to it then. This is the kind of work, daring and original, questioning accepted paradigms with new and provocative evidence, that stands for.

~ Jim DiEugenio

Anatomy of a 2nd floor lunchroom encounter updated

Here it finally is, the update to the Anatomy Of The Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter.

35 Pages of extra stuff (pix, videos, newspapers and documents).

Hope you enjoy reading it.

Happy Easter!

Meme by: Stan Dane.

Secret Service Report 491

Secret Service Report 491


A few months ago I first noticed about this so called report, and was wondering what was going on. Well Google was not of much help, until I started to chat with Vince Palamara who kindly pointed me to Barry Krush’s book Impossible The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald Appendices. This book had Patricia Lambert’s article in full. So to make this valuable piece a bit more search friendly I decided to repost this.  In due time I will add some personal notes, I am too busy trying to finish the 2nd floor lunch room encounter essay, which just keeps getting delayed as I am finding little bits that need to be added. The constant search for additional material got me to ‘find’ this again, and it is a good read.

By Patricia Lambert.

On December 2, 1963, three agents from the Dallas field office of the U.S. Secret Service, Arthur Blake, William Carter and Elmer Moore, began a series of interviews with the employees of the Texas School Book Depository which ultimately influenced the Warren Commission’s reconstruction of events on November 22, 1963. The interviews were conducted over a four-day period and are summarized in a Secret Service Report designated “491.”[1]

Three of the witnesses interviewed, Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams and Charles Givens gave totally new evidence to the Secret Service during these December interviews, evidence which conflicted dramatically with earlier statements made by each of them to the FBI. Harold Norman, who was directly beneath the alleged sniper’s nest during the shooting, claimed he heard the gunman working the bolt action of this rifle and that he also heard the ejected shells as they hit the floor overhead; Bonnie Ray Williams provided an explanation for the presence of chicken bones found on the sixth floor; and Charles Givens’ testimony linked “Oswald with the point from which the shots were fired.” These three stories, first garnered by the Secret Service, were later quoted in the Warren Report to support the Commission’s version of what occurred that Friday in Dallas. Some of the testimony has been challenged in the past by critics of the Warren Commission but no one has demonstrated how much these stories have in common, nor examined the implications of the extraordinary parallels. In each instance these witnesses first gave totally different testimony to the FBI; in each instance their testimony changed the first week in December; in each instance the new story surfaced during interviews conducted by the same three Secret Service agents; in each instance the story influenced the Warren Commission’s interpretation of the events of November 22; and finally, all three stories were important enough to be included in the Commission’s one-volume Report. And the parallels do not end there. None of these stories holds up under close scrutiny. A review of the evidence casts serious doubt on their credibility and suggests that all of them evolved days after the assassination in order to support a particular interpretation of certain evidence, an interpretation which is inconsistent with the real facts. If this view is correct, the fact that all these stories originated in Secret Service Report 491 casts doubt on the integrity of the investigation conducted by that agency’s Dallas field office. For if these stories are fabrications, the witnesses who supplied them had guidance from someone. Someone in a position to screen out and coordinate information at its source. The testimony of these three witnesses is important then not only because it supplies certain details about the events of that day, but because it suggests that basic evidence was falsified at a very early stage, evidence which influenced the direction of the investigation and, in time, affected the conclusions reached by the Warren Commission. HAROLD NORMAN — The Man Beneath the Sniper’s Nest On the day of the assassination, Harold Norman and two other employees of the Depository, Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman, watched the motorcade from windows on the fifth floor of their building, one floor below the alleged sniper’s nest. The three men positioned themselves at the pair of double windows in the southeast corner, each man at a different window, with Harold Norman directly beneath the window allegedly used by Oswald to kill the President. Harold Norman made no statement to anyone on the Friday the President was shot. He made no statement to anyone on the following Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Finally, on Tuesday, November 26, four days after the President was assassinated, Norman was interviewed by the FBI. (Both of his companions were interviewed much earlier. By Sunday, November 24, both Jarman and Williams had been interviewed twice, once by the Dallas Police and once by the FBI. This four-day gap between the shooting and Norman’s first interview has never been explained. It is difficult to understand Norman’s silence on the day of the assassination and the days immediately following, difficult to understand why he failed to tell anyone what he had heard. But even more inexplicable was his failure to tell the FBI about it when he was questioned by that agency on November 26. During that interview, Norman made no mention of hearing the shells and the bolt action of the rifle. He told the FBI that after the first shot: … he stuck his head from the window and looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing because small particles of dirt were falling from above him. He stated two additional shots were fired after he had pulled his head back in from the window.[2]

This is Norman’s earliest, most credible statement and there are no falling shells here only falling “particles of dirt” which struck Norman when he stuck his head out the window. This original version is buttressed by testimony from two other sources: Witnesses on the street below saw Norman with his head out the window. Four people present at Dealey Plaza during the shooting later testified that they saw two Negro men at windows on the fifth floor of the Depository below the alleged sniper’s nest who were looking up toward the top of the building.[3]

Two of these witnesses described the Negroes as “leaning out” of the windows at the time.[4]

(Norman was one of these men and the other was Bonnie Ray Williams, as indicated by his statement to the FBI on November 23.[5])

In addition, James Jarman told the FBI on November 24 that, when the shots were fired, Harold Norman said “something had fallen from above his head and that a piece of debris … had hit him in his face.[6]

This is entirely consistent with Norman’s own statement to the FBI. What Jarman called “debris,” Norman called “particles of dirt” but both statements obviously referred to the same thing. In his first interview, Norman did not mention the sounds which the gunman supposedly generated as he killed the President. Instead he gave the FBI an entirely different account of what happened when the shots were fired. Later before the Warren Commission, Norman repudiated this statement. And that body, anxious to accept his valuable testimony, did not pursue the matter. If they had, they would have been confronted with the unsettling fact that the testimony which Norman repudiated in March of 1964 had been corroborated four months earlier by the initial testimony of one of the men who was with him on the fifth floor during the shooting, and by the testimony of four witnesses who were present on the street below. Secret Service Interview (SS491) Norman’s allegation that he heard the shells hit the floor and the bolt action of the rifle surfaced in toto in SS491. Twelve days after the assassination and eight days after his interview by the FBI, Norman’s startling disclosure made its belated appearance. Norman’s sworn affidavit to the Secret Service states: I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I could also hear the bolt action of the rifle. I also saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me.[7]

Missing entirely from this new version is the description of Norman putting his head out the window and looking up toward the roof, a gesture which was witnessed by at least four people. Norman permanently eliminated this event from this testimony at this point. Also, the particles of dirt, which he told the FBI fell outside the building and prevented him from seeing anything when he looked up, are changed in this version to “some dust.” This dust fell “from the ceiling” inside the building and the intended implication appears to be that it was dislodged by the shells hitting the floor of the sniper’s nest. This then is Norman’s new story. Not only are the sounds of the gunman added for the first time, but one part of his earlier statement to the FBI is excised and another part altered to accommodate the new information. This new story transformed Norman from an inconsequential witness to one of major importance who provided first hand evidence linking the shots that were fired at 12:30 to the hulls that were found on the sixth floor 40 minutes later. This important information became the focus of his interview three months later before the Warren Commission. Warren Commission Interview On March 24, 1964, Norman told the Warren Commission what he heard on the fifth floor during the shooting: Well, I couldn’t see at all during the time, but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle. … I remember saying that I thought I could hear the shell hulls and the ejection of the rifle.[8]

The essential part of this statement, the description of what Norman heard, is the same as that first recounted in SS491. In other respects, certain changes appeared. The particles of dirt which fell outside the window in his original story to the FBI and which were converted to “some dust” which fell from the ceiling in his statement to the Secret Service, assumed still another form in this interview. In response to a question from Commission attorney George [sic – Joseph] Ball, Norman stated, “I didn’t see any falling [dust or dirt] but I saw some in Bonnie Ray Williams’ hair.” [9] Later, when Ball asked Norman about the head-out-the-window story in the FBI report and the falling dirt, Norman said that he did not “recall” telling that to the FBI, and he also said: “I don’t remember ever putting my head out the window.”[10]

In essence, Norman simply denied making his earlier statements to the FBI and which were converted to “some dust” which fell from the ceiling in his statement to the Secret Service version, except for the falling dust which he handed off to Bonnie Ray Williams. He also introduced one new item. He told the Commission, at the time he heard the shots overhead, he told his companions what he heard. This new fact enabled Jarman and Williams to corroborate Norman’s story insofar as what he said at the time. Unfortunately, for Norman’s credibility, this corroboration suffers from the same problems afflicting the story it is intended to support. It surfaced late, even later than Norman’s story, appearing for the first time during their Warren Commission interviews in March. Also, while Williams’ testimony supports Norman’s version, Jarman’s account of when and where Norman made his statement is substantially different.[11]

The net result of this late-blooming, conflicting “corroboration” is the creation of additional suspicious testimony. The Re-Enactment The Warren Commission gave Norman’s story great weight and went to some lengths in their efforts to verify the fact that Norman could have heard what he claimed he did. These efforts were only partially successful, but that fact is carefully disguised in the Warren Report. First, the Commission’s legal staff arranged a re-enactment of the audio effects allegedly heard by Norman on November 22. On March 20, 1964, Norman, Jarman and Williams took their places at the windows on the fifth floor and, the Report states: A Secret Service agent operated the bolt of a rifle directly above them at the southeast corner window of the sixth floor. At the same time, three cartridge shells were dropped to the floor at intervals of about 3 seconds.[12]

Norman told the Commission that the sounds he heard during this re-enactment were the same sounds he heard on November 22. The Report does not relate what, if anything, Jarman and Williams heard. Later, this same re-enactment was conducted for all seven members of the Warren Commission: The experiment with the shells and rifle was repeated for members of the Commission on May 9, 1964, on June 7, 1964, and again on September 6, 1964. All seven of the Commissioners clearly heard the shells drop to the floor.[13; emphasis added]

Notice that while the “experiment” included both “the shells and rifle,” the Report says only that the Commissioners “heard the shells drop to the floor,” omitting any reference to the bolt action. This can only mean that the Commissioners were not able to hear the bolt action as it was “operated” by the Secret Service agent. If the Commissioners could not hear the bolt action during the re-enactment, why should we believe that Norman heard it on the day of the shooting? But that is not the most important question raised by this experiment. If all seven Commissioners heard the shells, why didn’t either Williams or Jarman hear them on the day of the shooting? Since Jarman was in the far side of the second set of double windows, it might be argued that he was too far away, but that reasoning cannot apply to Williams, who was at the window right next to Norman’s. A strip of wood less than a foot wide separated the two men, but Norman alone heard the shells. Williams was obviously troubled by this anomaly, and attempted to explain it by offering the following curious explanation to the Warren Commission: “… But I did not hear the shell being ejected from the gun, probably because I wasn’t paying attention.”[14]

During Norman’s testimony it was pointed out that there were spaces between the boards in the ceiling separating the fifth and sixth floors which were wide enough to permit “daylight” to pass through in at least two places. Considering the condition of the ceiling, it is understandable that the Commissioners heard the shells during the re-enactment, and quite remarkable that Williams did not hear them on November 22. By proving that the ejected shells hitting the floor of the sniper’s nest would have been audible on the fifth floor, the Warren Commission’s re-enactment underscored the importance of Norman’s testimony. If the shots came from the sixth floor sniper’s nest, anyone directly beneath it surely would have heard the shells as they hit the floor, just as the seven Commissioners heard them months later. Yet Williams and Jarman admit they did not hear them on November 22 and the evidence strongly indicates that Norman did not hear them either, and that his belated claim that he did is simply not true. All of which points to the possibility that the shots which killed the President were not fired from the so-called sniper’s nest but from some other location, and that the shells found on the sixth floor of the Depository were merely planted there. Long after the shooting, the Commission’s re-enactment demonstrated that these men should have heard the shells as they landed overhead. Much earlier, someone else identified the problem: anyone familiar with the condition of the floor at the sniper’s nest, and aware of the early statements made by Norman, Williams and Jarman to the FBI, needed no re-enactment to realize that a gap existed in their testimony. That gap was, in effect, closed on December 4, 1963, when Harold Norman signed the affidavit included in SS491. The Dropped Carton A reasonable assessment of Norman’s testimony leads to the conclusion that the original statement he gave to the FBI was truthful and his later testimony a fabrication. When the shots were fired on November 22, Norman did not hear the shells hit the floor above him, nor did he hear the bolt action of the rifle. Something prompted him to lean out the window and look up. While doing so “particles of dirt” fell on him. The question is, what prompted him to lean out the window and what caused the dirt to fall? One possible answer to these questions is found in the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, who was the first to see the sniper’s nest when he discovered the spent shells on the floor in front of the window. Mooney told the Commission that the box in the windows with the crease on it appeared to have been “tilted.” He said it “looked like he might have knocked it off,” referring to the gunman.[15]

In the picture which Mooney identified, this box (which contained books) is resting partially on the brickwork in front of the window and partially on the wooden sill.[16]

If Mooney was correct, and the person who arranged the boxes at the sniper’s nest “knocked” this particular one off, or if he accidentally dropped it onto the window sill, the resulting jolt may have prompted Norman to lean out the window below and look upward. If this is the case, the falling dirt was dislodged by the same jolt. Evidence that someone, other than Oswald, arranged the boxes at the sniper’s nest is found in the testimony of Lillian Mooneyham, a District Court clerk in Dallas. On November 22, Lillian Mooneyham was in the court house on Main Street and she watched the motorcade from a window facing toward the Depository. On December 31, 1963, Dallas attorney S.L. Johnson told the FBI that Mooneyham told him that she saw “some boxes moving” in the window from which the shots allegedly came.[17]

Interviewed by the FBI on January 8, 1964, Mooneyham stated that: 4½ to 5 minutes following the shots … she looked up towards the sixth floor of the TSBD and observed the figure of a man standing in a sixth floor window behind some cardboard boxes.[18]

The man she saw was standing back from the window and “looking out.” Since a Dallas policeman, M.L. Baker, encountered Oswald in the lunchroom on the second floor of the Depository only 90 seconds after the shots were fired, the man seen by Mooneyham “4½ to 5 minutes” after the shooting could not have been Oswald. He could, however, have been the person who arranged the boxes at the sniper’s nest and in the process dropped the carton, described by Deputy Mooney, onto the window ledge. He could also have planted the shells on the floor. Lillian Mooneyham was not called to testify before the commission, and her statement to the FBI was not pursued. Bonnie Ray Williams — The Chicken Bone Story Forty minutes after the shots were fired, Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney discovered the so-called sniper’s nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Several tall stacks of boxes were arranged around the southeast corner window concealing it from view on three sides. Inside this enclosure, other boxes were stacked directly in front of the window. Presumably the gunman rested his rifle on this smaller pile of boxes. On the floor in front of the window, Mooney found three spent shell casings. And at the west end of the enclosure, on top of one of the tall stacks of boxes, Mooney saw a partially-eaten chicken bone and a lunch sack.[19]

Four other men were on the sixth floor when Mooney found the sniper’s nest: Police officers E.D. Brewer, G. Hill and CA.A. Haygood, and Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig. When Mooney saw the shell casings he yelled out, and the other men responded immediately by going to his location.[20]

All of them – Brewer, Hill, Haygood and Craig – later testified that they too saw some portion of the chicken lunch at the same window where the shells were found.[21]

In addition, Officer L.A. Montgomery, who arrived on the sixth floor after the shells were found and was one of the two men assigned to guard the scene, testified to seeing the lunch remnants at the sniper’s nest.[22]

There is a remarkable unanimity in the statements of these six men. The lunch remnants consisted of at least two chicken bones, an ordinary lunch sack, and a Dr. Pepper bottle. Not all six men saw all of these items, some saw more than others, but no one saw anything differently. They all described what they saw and where they saw it in similar terms. The similarity of language used to describe the bones is particularly striking. Three of these men gave almost identical descriptions. Mooney said he saw “one partially eaten piece of fried chicken,” while Brewer saw “a partially eaten piece of chicken,” and Montgomery saw “one piece … I believe it was partially eaten.”[23]

Obviously, these men were describing the same chicken bone. This is further supported by the fact that they all saw the bone at the same location: on top of a box. Mooney indicated that the bone and sack were on top of one of the larger stacks of boxes at the west side of the window. This corresponds with the testimony of Gerald Hill, who said the “chicken leg bone” and the sack were “on top of the larger stack of boxes that would have been used for concealment.” Montgomery, too, saw a piece of chicken “on a box” (he also noticed another piece on the floor). And Roger Craig, who remembered only the sack, saw it “on top of a box.”[24]

Three of these men – Haygood, Brewer and Montgomery – saw the Dr. Pepper bottle, but only Montgomery described its location in any detail. (Montgomery’s testimony regarding the location of the bottle as well as the second piece of chicken on the floor deserves great weight since he guarded the scene after the others left, and had greater opportunity to observe the area.) He said that the bottle was “over a little more to the west of that window … sitting over there by itself.”[25]

This means that the bottle was separated from the stack of boxes on which the bone and sack rested, that it was on the floor somewhat farther west of the sniper’s nest. This may explain why Mooney, Hill and Craig did not see the bottle. A precise and consistent picture emerges from the testimony of these six witnesses. On top of one of the tall stacks of cartons which formed the west end of the enclosure encircling the sniper’s nest was a partially eaten chicken bone and a paper sack; on the floor nearby was another bone; and outside the enclosure and farther to the west was a Dr. Pepper bottle. Exactly one hour after Deputy Sheriff Mooney discovered the sniper’s nest and saw the chicken bone and lunch sack there, Dallas Police Inspector J.H. Sawyer told the Associated Press about the chicken lunch and that wire service, quoting Sawyer, carried the story: Police found the remains of fried chicken and paper on the fifth floor. Apparently the person had been there quite a while.[26]

This first public reference to the chicken lunch (which incorrectly identified the sniper’s nest as being on the fifth floor) occurred one hour and 42 minutes after the assassination. In it, Inspector Sawyer linked the “fried chicken” to the assassin and word flashed around the world that the gunman had eaten fried chicken shortly before killing President Kennedy. United Press International actually photographed the “Dallas police technician” as he removed part of the lunch from the building. This photograph shows the “police technician” holding two sticks, one protruding into the mouth of a Dr. Pepper bottle and the other attached to a small lunch sack. The caption reads: A lunch bag and a pop bottle, held here by a Dallas police technician, and three spent shell casings were found by the sixth floor window. The sniper had dined on fried chicken and pop while waiting patiently to shoot the President.[27]

Many other stories appeared in the new media that day describing the gunman’s chicken lunch. On November 22, it was generally believed that the chicken lunch belonged to the assassin. The first five witnesses to see the sniper’s nest thought so, as did Inspector Sawyer, who first relayed the information to the press. Furthermore, the photograph of the “technician” carefully removing the sack and bottle from the building indicates that the Dallas Police regarded them as significant evidence. Nevertheless, when the Warren Report was published ten months later, the chicken lunch was dismissed as inconsequential. It was not found at the sniper’s nest, the commission decided, but 20 or 30 feet west at the third or fourth set of double windows. Furthermore, according to the Commission, it was left there not by the assassin, but by Bonnie Ray Williams, the same witness who later watched the motorcade from a windows on the fifth floor next to Harold Norman. Part II In arriving at its conclusions, the Warren Commission relied on two pieces of evidence: (1) the Dallas Police photographs of the sixth floor taken by R.L. Studebaker which show no sack, no bones, and no bottle at the sniper’s nest, but do show a sack and a bottle on the floor at the third set of double windows; and (2) the testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams, who claimed he left the sack and bottle on the floor as shown in the Studebaker picture. The Studebaker Picture Detective Studebaker testified before the Warren Commission that he took the picture of the chicken lunch “before anything was touched and before it was dusted.” The picture shows a Dr. Pepper bottle and a lunch sack on the floor near a two-wheel cart in front of the third set of windows.[28]

There are no chicken bones visible in this picture nor in any other picture taken that day. Studebaker explained why. The chicken bones, he told the Commission, “were all inside the sack, wrapped up and put right back in.”[29]

By the time Studebaker took this picture, the chicken bones seen at the sniper’s nest by Deputy Sheriff Mooney and police officers Brewer, Hill and Montgomery were no longer visible because they were “inside the sack.” Also, the sack and bones were no longer atop a box in the southeast corner, but now were on the floor in front of the third set of windows. Studebaker may have taken this picture “before [anything] was dusted,” but he certainly did not take it “before anything was touched.” The fact is, no one who saw the chicken lunch that day saw what Studebaker photographed. In addition to the six men who saw the lunch at the sniper’s nest, other witnesses arrived on the sixth floor later that afternoon. These later witnesses saw the lunch at various locations, but none of them saw the sack and bottle as photographed. Like Mooney and the others, these men also saw the chicken bones. But unlike the first group of witnesses, each of these men saw the lunch at a different place. Officer Marvin Johnson saw the sack, “remnants of fried chicken” and the bottle at the second set of double windows; Detective E.L. Boyd saw “some chicken bones” and a “lunch sack” on “top of some boxes” at the third set of double windows; and FBI agents Nat Pinkston and J. Doyle Williams, accompanied by an employee of the Depository, William Shelley, viewed the scene after the sack and bottle were removed from the building, and saw the bones along with some wax paper on the floor near the center (i.e., third) window.[30]

The wide variety of these later sightings and their chronology (that is the fact that they all occurred after the initial group saw the lunch at the sniper’s nest) suggest that the lunch was removed from its original position and moved about on the sixth floor before it was finally placed on the floor in front of the third set of double windows where it was photographed. Clearly, the Studebaker picture, supposedly taken before anything was touched on the sixth floor, suffers from a severe credibility problem. During his Warren Commission interview, Studebaker was asked if he saw any chicken bones at the sniper’s nest, and he replied that he did not recall any, and if there had been, “it ought to be in one of these pictures ….”[31]

There, Studebaker defined the problem. Not only did the deputies and officers who saw the lunch on November 22 fail to provide testimony that supported the picture, but the two of them who saw the picture unequivocally rejected it. When Deputy Sheriff Mooney and Officer Montgomery were shown the Studebaker picture, both of them told the Warren Commission that they did not remember the scene it depicted. And Montgomery, after looking at the picture, continued to insist that there were chicken bones “over here around where the hulls were found … I know there was one piece laying up on top of the box there.”[32]

[Dallas Police] Lieutenant J.C. Day, who also took photographs of the sixth floor that afternoon, arrived on the scene with Studebaker and was his immediate superior. Day is the only one of these later witnesses who provided any support for Studebaker’s picture. He is the only one of this group, except Studebaker, who did not see the chicken bones outside the sack. Also, he recalled seeing the lunch sack and pop bottle at the third set of windows. However, when he was shown the picture, he was unable to locate th sack and commented that it didn’t show in the picture. He then stated that he didn’t remember where the sack was located.[33]

Day’s failure to see the sack in the picture is understandable. As shown, the sack is practically hidden from sight. It is on the floor at the east end of of a two-wheel cart between the cart and a stack of boxes. A sack in that position would have been difficult to spot on November 22. Certainly no sack in that location could have been confused with one on top of a box in the southeast corner, 20 or 30 feet to the east. If the chicken bones were inside the sack as Studebaker claims and as his picture indicates, none of the people on the sixth floor that day would have seen them. But six of them did: three from the first group at the scene, and three who arrived later.[34]

The only explanation for this contradiction is that the bones were outside initially and were put inside the sack before the picture was taken. Since the bones were obviously moved from outside the sack to inside, it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that the entire lunch was then moved from one location to another, from the sniper’s nest to the third set of double windows before being photographed. The question that remains is why this was done. A police affidavit contained in the 26 volumes of Commission Hearings and Exhibits provides the motive. Sometime on November 22, Wesley Frazier, the man who drove Oswald to work that Friday morning, signed a sworn statement which included the following information: Lee (Oswald) did not carry his lunch today. He told me this morning he was going to buy his lunch today.[35]

This statement, made the day of the assassination, established that the remnants of a chicken lunch found at the sniper’s nest were not Oswald’s. This meant someone else ate his lunch there, and the bones, sack and bottle were evidence of that fact. Once it was known that Oswald did not bring his lunch to work that day, the chicken lunch became an impediment to the theory that Oswald, acting alone, fired the fatal shots from the southeast corner window of the sixth floor. Consequently, the chicken bones, lunch sack and Dr. Pepper bottle were moved away from the alleged sniper’s nest in order to disassociate them from the gunman. The Chicken “Sandwich” Two weeks after the assassination, the Secret Service found a witness to support the Studebaker picture. Bonnie Ray Williams was interviewed on November 23 by the FBI, but not until he was interviewed by the Secret Service in December did he lay claim to the chicken lunch found on the sixth floor. The day after the assassination, Williams was interviewed by the FBI and gave a detailed account of his movements on November 22: At approximately 12 noon, Williams went back upstairs … to the 6th floor with his lunch. He stayed on that floor only about three minutes, and seeing no one there, descended to the fifth floor ….[36]

Here Williams described a brief three-minute trip to the sixth floor. There is no suggestion in this FBI report (1) that he at his lunch on the sixth floor; (2) that his lunch contained chicken bones; or (3) that he left anything behind on the sixth floor. Williams’ entire chicken bone story materialized in December when he was interviewed by the Secret Service. SS491 summarizes Williams’ statement in part as follows: After Williams picked up his lunch on the first floor he returned to the sixth floor and sat near the windows in the centre of the building overlooking Elm Street and ate his lunch. Included in his lunch was a chicken sandwich and Williams’ claims that there were some chicken bones in the sandwich and he left them on the floor at the time he ate. He also left an empty Dr. Pepper bottle at the same location. He drank the Dr. Pepper with his lunch. Williams … went to the fifth floor … prior to 12:15 p.m.[37]

Williams’ three-minute trip to the sixth floor, which he described to the FBI the day after the assassination, expended here to 15 minutes during which he at his curious “chicken sandwich” and left the bones behind. Williams’ Secret Service story is not only late-blooming but, like Norman’s, it conflicts with his earlier statement to the FBI. This December testimony is the final solution to the problem posed by the chicken bones. It is an important solution, however, one that fails to explain the most credible evidence, the testimony of those who saw the chicken bones at the sniper’s nest. On the contrary, it is a story that corroborates the Studebaker picture, the only testimony to do so, and that alone is cause for skepticism. Three months later, when Williams testified before the Warren Commission, he improved his story somewhat. He included the two-wheel cart (shown in the Studebaker picture), claiming he sat on it while eating his “sandwich.” And he added a sack, saying he put the bones back inside before he “threw the sack down.” To his credit, Williams’ reluctance to associate himself with the chicken bones is apparent in his refusal to call his lunch “fried chicken.” He repeatedly referred to it as a “chicken sandwich.” This “sandwich” prompted the following exchange between Williams and Commission attorney

Ball: WILLIAMS: I had a chicken sandwich.

BALL: Describe the sandwich. What did it have in it besides chicken?

WILLIAMS: Well, it just had chicken in it. Chicken on the bone.

BALL: Chicken on the bone?


BALL: The chicken was not boned?

WILLIAMS: It was just chicken on the bone. Just plain old chicken.

BALL: Did it have bread around it?

WILLIAMS: Yes it did.[38]

Understandably, Ball had difficulty visualizing a chicken sandwich with bones in it. That was Williams’ story, however, and Ball resolved the problem by suggesting that Williams’ “chicken on the bone” had bread around it. This conjured up a strange culinary image but it permitted Williams to have his “sandwich” and the Commission to have an explanation for the bones found on the sixth floor. There is no doubt about the function of Williams’ testimony. As first outlined in the December report, the message imparted was clear: the bones found on the sixth floor which received so much early publicity were not found at the sniper’s nest as first reported, but at a totally different windows, well removed from the southeast corner, and they were not left there by the assassin, but by Bonnie Ray Williams. This story, secured by the Secret Service ten days after the assassination and passed on to the staff of the Warren Commission, determined the course of the inquiry regarding the chicken lunch. By providing this innocent explanation early in the investigation, the Secret Service precluded the exploration of other possibilities which might have yielded quite a different story. Certainly if someone other than Oswald ate his lunch at the sniper’s nest, and that person was there when the shots were fired or shortly before, that information would have had an impact on the Commission’s investigation. There is evidence that such a person was seen at the sniper’s nest. A witness outside the building, Arnold Rowland, testified that he saw an elderly Negro at the window of the sniper’s nest five or six minutes before the shooting. In addition, there is other evidence that another witness, Amos Euins, moments after the shooting, said the man at the sniper’s nest was black. (Euins later said he could not say whether the man was black or white.) The Warren Report explains that while Rowland was not regarded as a credible witness, his assertion about the elderly Negro at the sniper’s nest was investigated. This investigation consisted of interviews with certain employees of the Depository which determined that the only two men who might fit Rowland’s description were on the first floor “before and during the assassination.[39]

A more vigorous inquiry might have been conducted if the Commission, in addition to investigating Rowland’s clam, had been actively seeking an explanation for the presence of chicken bones found at the sniper’s nest. The chicken lunch would have given Rowland’s allegation more substance and additional steps might have been taken. For instance, the Commission could have made an effort for Rowland to identify the Negro he saw from among the employees of the building. Also, fingerprints on both the lunch sack and the bottle could have been checked against those of the employees. Since the chicken lunch was dismissed early in the Commission’s investigation, it was not associated with Rowland’s testimony, and only a superficial effort was made to identify the man Rowland claimed he saw at the sniper’s nest only minutes before the shooting. The Warren Commission’s attitude toward the lunch remnants was determined early in December when the Commission’s inquiry was just beginning. The testimony in SS491 indicated to the Commission staff that the lunch was totally unrelated to both the sniper’s nest and to the assassin. This position is challenged by the testimony of the Deputy Sheriff who found the shells, and four other law enforcement officers present on the sixth floor at the time, as well as by the testimony of the officer who guarded the sniper’s nest. Unfortunately, these men all testified late in the investigation, long after the Secret Service interview with Williams had steered the Commission’s inquiry away from the chicken lunch. Charles Givens – Oswald at the Crime Scene The day of the assassination, Givens told the FBI he saw Oswald three times that morning: 1. Working on the fifth floor during the morning filling orders; 2. Standing by the elevator in the building at 11:50 AM when givens went to the first floor; and 3. Reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M.[40] The original version of when and where Givens saw Oswald during that day is totally different from his later statement to the Secret Service. In this first account given to the FBI on November 22, Givens last saw Oswald on the first floor in the room where the employees, including Oswald, normally ate lunch. At that time, roughly 40 minutes before he allegedly committed the crime of the century, Oswald was behaving quite normally, doing what he did at lunchtime: reading a newspaper. To some extent, this testimony by Givens corroborates Oswald’s own statement made that afternoon after his arrest. During his interrogation at Police headquarters, Oswald claimed he was on the first floor when the President’s motorcade passed the building. Two FBI agents heard Oswald make this statement: Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom…. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building.[41]

Oswald claimed he was in the first floor lunchroom “at approximately noon.” Givens’ statement to the FBI placed him there at 11:50, indicating that Oswald was telling the truth about his whereabouts at that time. Oswald also claimed he was still on the first floor when the motorcade passed the building, but it does not make Oswald’s assertion plausible. Givens’ November 22 statement lent credibility to Oswald’s alibi and this presented a problem for those intent on establishing Oswald’s guilt. This problem was solved two weeks later when Givens withdrew his original testimony and converted to a witness for the prosecution. Secret Service Interview (SS491) Sometime between December 2 and 5, 1963, Givens was interviewed by the Secret Service, and according to SS491: Givens stated that he saw Oswald on the sixth floor at about 11:45 A.M. … and that Oswald was carrying a clipboard that appeared to have some orders on it. Givens felt that Oswald was looking for some books to fill an order, which is his job, and did not give the matter further thought. Shortly thereafter, Givens and the other employees working on the floor-laying project quit for lunch and they took both elevators. They were racing the elevators to the first floor and Givens heard Oswald call to them to send one of the elevators back up.[42]

This account describes only one sighting of Oswald and it took place on the sixth floor at about 11:45. At this point, the picture of Oswald last seen reading a newspaper in the domino room is replaced by a totally new image. Now he is last seen on the sixth floor. The purpose of this new version is obvious: to incriminate Oswald. The Clipboard A new and important item was added to Givens’ story during this December interview: Oswald’s clipboard. SS491 contains the first mention of the clipboard Oswald was supposedly carrying when last seen on the sixth floor: “Oswald was carrying a clipboard that appeared to have some orders on it,” the report states. The Warren Report explains the importance of this item: The significance of Given’s observation that Oswald was carrying his clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee, Frankie Kaiser, found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the northwest corner of the sixth floor at the west wall a few feet from where the rifle had been found … Kaiser identified it as the clipboard which Oswald had appropriated from him when Oswald came to work at the Depository.[43]

This narrative outlines the following sequence of events: once alone on the sixth floor, Oswald hid the clipboard near the spot where he later concealed his rifle; it went undetected for ten days; on or about December 2, Givens made his statement to the Secret Service, but the “significance” of his reference to the clipboard was not apparent until the clipboard was found by Kaiser on December 2. This interpretation raises numerous questions. First, why would Oswald bother to hide his clipboard? And if he did, why wasn’t it found during the search of the sixth floor on November 22? According to Kaiser’s description of its location, the clipboard wasn’t hidden at all, merely lying on the floor between some cartons and the wall. How then did it go unnoticed for ten days? The major question, however, relates to the timing of the clipboard’s discovery and Givens’ testimony about it. The Warren Report implies that Givens’ reference to the clipboard occurred prior to the clipboard’s discovery, but in fact, both arrived on the scene with the juxtaposition of Siamese twins. Givens’ statement to the Secret Service occurred between December 2 and December 5, which means his reference to the clipboard was made the same day it was “found” or within three days afterward. The true implication of this tardy, simultaneous appearance is ominous and far-reaching. It means that whoever was reshaping the testimony of witnesses also had access to certain items of physical evidence. The clipboard and Givens’ Secret Service testimony are virtually inseparable. They appeared at the same time, each supported the other, and together they provided the Warren Commission with evidence “linking Oswald with the point from which the shots were fired.” Yet in the first statement that Givens made on November 22, he stated that he last saw Oswald on the first floor, not the sixth, and that Oswald was reading a newspaper, not carrying a clipboard. Only one version can be true: Oswald was either in one place or the other, and the earliest most reliable evidence places him in the lunch room. There is no reason do doubt Givens’ first statement to the FBI, but there is abundant reason to doubt his later statement to the Secret Service. Givens had no motive to fabricate the first version. It served no purpose and helped no one, except Oswald, a fact Givens could not have known when he gave the statement on November 22. On the other hand, the later story served a valuable function. Coupled with the physical evidence provided by the clipboard, it contributed to the web of circumstantial evidence used to incriminate Oswald. Moreover, it effectively eliminated Givens’ earlier testimony which had raised the disquieting possibility that Oswald’s statements about his whereabouts during the assassination might be true. SS491 — What Does It Mean? In evaluating the significance of this document, it is useful to consider how different the record would be if the original statements made by Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams and Charles Givens to the FBI had prevailed. There would be no audio evidence, raising the question of why the men below the sniper’s nest heard nothing overhead during the assassination. There would be no explanation for the remnants of a chicken lunch found on the sixth floor, necessitating further investigation in that area. And there would be no testimony placing Oswald on the sixth floor after everyone else went to lunch, instead there would be support for Oswald’s claim that he was on the first floor when the shots were fired. (It should be noted that the FBI reports detailing the initial statements of the three men were not published in the Commission’s 26 volumes but, instead, were placed in the Archives.) This report by the Secret Service suggests a certain pattern of activity. It is extremely unlikely that these three stories blossomed independently of each other and appeared for the first time in the same document either by accident or coincidence. On the contrary, a systematically coordinated effort appears to be be operating. One designed to steer the Warren Commission’s inquiry in a particular direction during its early stages and to prevent the Commission from pursuing certain areas where investigation might have yielded conclusions different from those finally reached. (It is possible, in fact likely, that similar efforts too place in other, more critical areas.) When viewed in this way, SS491 could be interpreted as circumstantial evidence implicating the Secret Service in an orchestrated effort to conceal the truth about the assassination. On the other hand, it could be argued that the Secret Service was merely an unwitting conduit for the new information supplied by these three witnesses.

That possibility prompts a number of questions:

* Who decided it was necessary to re-interview the employees of the TSBD en masse?

* Why was the Secret Service chosen to do the job, instead of the FBI?

* And what bureaucratic process was involved in these decisions; who set the process into motion; and why?

* Were these interviews really necessary, or were they only set up to allow Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams and Charles Givens to revise their earlier testimony, and to put their new stories into the record?

The obvious implication of this line of thinking is that someone involved in manipulating the testimony of these three men was in a position to influence the actual mechanics of the Warren Commission’s field investigation. In the final analysis, the ultimate dimensions of SS491 cannot be adequately defined at this point; more information is needed. But what we know is grim enough: eyewitness testimony was falsified and physical evidence manipulated. Regardless of the role played by the Secret Service, whether that agency was the source of the revised testimony or merely a conduit for it, the implications are unpleasant in the extreme. For such a complex and calculated effort could not have succeeded without high level assistance from within the investigation itself.

For footnotes I refer to the original article. Scroll to the very bottom!


Add on Feb 6 2021.

I came across this document which is a letter by Patricia Lambert in Jan of 1979 to the HSCA. The document’s primary focus is the (non-)reaction of the Secret Service inside and behind the Presidential limo in the follow-up car. With thanks to Malcolm Blunt.



2nd floor lunchroom encounter talk

This coming Saturday I am giving an informal talk at the Dealey Plaza UK meeting. It will be about the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter that never was.

Venue The Flying Horse in London. 52 Wilson St, London EC2A 2ER

Start at about 13:30

In about a week the update to my essay will be published as well, an additional 30 pages/8,000 words extra stuff.


Billy Lovelady HSCA Interview

In part 1 of  Lovelady’s HSCA interview (originally posted by Richard Gilbride at the ROKC website) we skip to around the 24:50 mark where the talk is about the front steps of the TSBD, its occupants (he names Frazier, Shelley and Stanton and some ladies from the offices inside the building).

His position was the 2nd or 3rd step sitting and eating his lunch and having a coke (which he purchased in the second floor lunchroom).

He is asked whether he saw Oswald on those steps and he answers this with a “No.”.

The follow-up question whether it could have been possible that Oswald could have been on those steps and him not noticing is answered with: “Could have.”

Just after the 29:00 mark he talks about a lady who ran up to them (without any indication as to where “they” were-B.K.) and say that The President had been hit and  he identifies her as Gloria Calvery. He then says after  Gloria Calvery says that The President had been hit they leave for the rail road yard and then make their way back in through one of the side entrances of the TSBD.

Then he describes the situation inside the building after they got back in (31:20) wondering whether they should go back to work. And at 31:40  the  roll call is discussed.


In part 2 (better quality audio) Lovelady describes at first that Truly and the police officer (Baker) had run up the steps, and connects this with shots being fired from the 6th floor and those two on their way investigating this. He does declare that he did nit know the reason for their ascend at that time, only later. Then Secret Service and others come in and want to get up to the top floor so Lovelady takes about ten to fifteen of them up in one of the freight elevators.

After taking them the 7th and the 5th floor he takes them to the 6th floor and while he is standing near the freight elevator he states he was present when they found the shells. He did not see them, he also states that he saw the rifle being found from about a distance of 50 feet. It did have a sling attached to it. He times these finds at about 20-25 minutes after his arrival back inside the TSBD.

Around the 08:20 mark he states that the first time he spoke with a law enforcement official and had his primary statement taken was at 13:30, one hour after the assassination. The second time is in the evening and he confirms it’s him in Altgens6 when FBI agents show up at his house at 18:00.

After that he is shown a still of him on the front steps of the Martin film, with his 5 o’clock shadow and he confirms it is him. A voice in the background (Robert Groden.) says that this was shot between 8-15 minutes after the assassination. Lovelady sees this image for the first time. Lovelady’s wife is present as well and recognises him in that image. This part is interesting due to the interaction of the interviewer and Lovelady. Sean Murphy posts about Billy Lovelady at the Education Forum in 2013 (Prayer Man: Out of the Shadows and Into the Light, Chapter 9):

In the first part of his HSCA interview Billy Lovelady Lovelady is shown an image he has never seen before: a frame from the John Martin film showing him (Lovelady) standing over by the east side of the entrance some 15 minutes post-assassination. Lovelady identifies himself immediately.

HSCA: If a movie camera showed you farther in the center of the doorway than that person there [i.e. Lovelady in Altgens, who appears, due to the deceptive angle, to be well over to the left/west of the entrance] would you still identify that person as being yourself?

LOVELADY: Sure would. I would say the other picture was not taken at the split second as the one to the left is.

HSCA: Okay, alright. If it showed two figures in that doorway at the same time, and you could positively identify one as yourself, would that have any bearing on your identification of that other figure?

LOVELADY: No, that’s still me at the left [of the] doorway.

Whether knowingly (i.e., with knowledge of the Prayer Man figure in Wiegman) or unknowingly (i.e., by pure speculation), the HSCA interviewer noticed  Two Lovelady-resembling men caught on film at the time of the assassination, one over on the west (“left”) side of the entrance and the other more towards the center.

The interviewer could have been getting some information from Richard E. Sprague regarding this discovery, since he was already well informed on the sighting of that man on the west side of the TSBD steps in the shadow.


From thereon the convo steers into the shirt matter, when the FBI ask him to come so he can be photographed as a comparison to Altgens6. No one tells him to wear the same shirt so he does NOT wear it while his pix are taken.

Lovelady also mentions that Joseph Ball contacted him before he was to testify in front of the Warren Commission (27:10). Ball discusses that he will be interviewing him about the actions around the assassination about him around the building. He is also asked whether he was coached by Ball or if anyone else from any agency tried anything, and to both he replies “No.”

But the biggest revelation is saved to the very last, at 29:20 when he says that it took 20-25 minutes before he got back in the building, so while captured by Martin and Hughes he still had not regained entry back into the building, which makes you wonder how he got back in through the side of the TSBD along with Shelley?

ROKC Webs Forum Archive

While ROKC was housed at Webs for about just under two years, as you all know we went back the old place and at some point the webs archive became inaccesible due to the subscription expiring and the renewal being just too expensive.
I managed to d/l the majority of the stuff.
What you can do is browse through the first ten pages with posts and see all the pix that were inserted.
You cannot make posts, it is purely for browsing and reading through the threads.
The search function does not work either, but at some point Google will start indexing this stuff so it will make finding bits on it easier!
There is some wicked stuff there.
This copy is from Sept 1st or thereabout, so not the very latest but still with all the juice present!


Marrion Baker in Hughes

A week or so ago Robin Unger posted a Hughes GIF with Marrion baker riding alongside Cam Car 3. Seen about halfway the footage, just after the splice in the video below of which the GIF has been repeated a few times.


Here is a still.

Marrion Baker in the Hughes film. Click to enlarge.


Here is a map of Dealey Plaza which marks Baker’s location on Houston captured by Hughes.

Baker in Hughes on Dealey Plaza Robert Cutler Map.


The reader ought to familiarise himself with the distance from the front of the TSBD and Baker’s position on the map.

From what I can see the shooting has yet to start or has just started as Baker looks passive nor does his head change as to looking upward and seeing those pigeons. Nothing looks out of the ordinary.

Then the camera men inside the cars. They are still looking backwards towards the corner of Main and Houston where a toss of film went hilariously wrong and ‘everyone had a good laugh’. This has been confirmed by several of the car’s occupants in Richard Trask’s book Pictures Of The Pain.

Baker’s testimony regarding this matter.

Will you take up your trip from there, please?
Mr. BAKER – As we approached the corner there of Main and Houston we were making a right turn, and as I came out behind that building there, which is the county courthouse, the sheriff building, well, there was a strong wind hit me and I almost lost my balance.

Mr. BELIN – How fast would you estimate the speed of your motorcycle as you turned the corner, if you know?
Mr. BAKER – I would say–it wasn’t very fast. I almost lost balance, we were just creeping along real slowly.
Mr. DULLES – That is turning from Main into Houston?
Mr. BAKER – That is right, sir.
Mr. BELIN – You turned-do you have any actual speed estimate as you turned that corner at all or just you would say very slow?
Mr. BAKER – I would say from around 5 to 6 or 7 miles an hour, because you can’t hardly travel under that and you know keep your balance.
Mr. BELIN – From what direction was the wind coming When it hit you?
Mr. BAKER – Due north.
Mr. BELIN – All right.
Now, tell us what happened after you turned on to Houston Street?
Mr. BAKER – AS I got myself straightened up there, I guess it took me some 20, 30 feet, something like that, and it was about that time that I heard these shots come out.
Mr. BELIN – All right.
Could you just tell us what you heard and what you saw and what you did?
Mr. BAKER – As I got, like I say as I got straightened up there, I was, I don’t know when these shots started coming off, I just–it seemed to me like they were high, and I just happened to look right straight up—
Mr. DULLES – I wonder if you would just tell us on that chart and I will try to follow with the record where you were at this time, you were coming down Houston.
Mr. BELIN – Sir, if you can–I plan to get that actual chart in a minute. If we could—-
Mr. DULLES – I want to see where he was vis-a-vis the building on the chart there.
Mr. BAKER – This is Main Street and this is Houston. This is the corner that I am speaking of; I made the right turn here. The motorcade and all, as I was here turning the front car was turning up here, and as I got somewhere about right here—-
Mr. DULLES – That is halfway down the first block.
Mr. BELIN – No, sir; can I interrupt you for a minute?
Mr. DULLES – Certainly.
Mr. BELIN – Officer Baker, when we were in Dallas on March 20, Friday, you walked over with me and showed me about the point you thought your motorcycle was when you heard the first shot, do you remember doing that?
Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN – And then we paced this off measuring it from a distance which could be described as the north curbline of Main Street as extended?
Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir; that would be this one right across here.
Mr. BELIN – And we paced it off as to where you thought your motorcycle was when you heard the first shot and do you remember offhand about where you said this was as to what distance it was, north of the north curbline of Main Street?
Mr. BAKER – We approximated it was 60 to 80 feet there, north of the north curbline of Main on Houston.
Mr. DULLES – Thank you.
Mr. BELIN – Does that answer your question?
Mr. DULLES – That answers my question entirely.
Mr. BELIN – In any event you heard the first shot, or when you heard this noise did you believe it was a shot or did you believe it was something else?
Mr. BAKER – It hit me all at once that it was a rifle shot because I had just got back from deer hunting and I had heard them pop over there for about a week.
Mr. BELIN – What kind of a weapon did it sound like it was coming from?
Mr. BAKER – It sounded to me like it was a high-powered rifle.
Mr. BELIN – All right. When you heard the first shot or the first noise, what did you do and what did you see?
Mr. BAKER – Well, to me, it sounded high and I immediately kind of looked up, and I had a feeling that it came from the building, either right in front of me or of the one across to the right of it.
Mr. BELIN – What would the building right in front of you be?
Mr. BAKER – It would be this Book Depository Building.
Mr. BELIN – That would be the building located on what corner of Houston and Elm?
Mr. BAKER – That would be the northwest corner.
Mr. BELIN – All right. And you thought it was either from that building or the building located where?
Mr. BAKER – On the northeast corner.
Mr. BELIN – All right. Did you see or hear or do anything else after you heard the first noise?
Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir. As I was looking up, all these pigeons began to fly up to the top of the buildings here and I saw those come up and start flying around.
Mr. BELIN – From what building, if you know, do you think those pigeons came from?
Mr. BAKER – I wasn’t sure, but I am pretty sure they came from the building right on the northwest corner.
Mr. BELIN – Then what did you see or do?
Mr. BAKER – Well, I immediately revved that motorcycle up and was going up there to see if I could help anybody or see what was going on because I couldn’t see around this bend.
Mr. BELIN – Well, between the time you revved up the motorcycle had you heard any more shots?
Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir; I heard–now before I revved up this motorcycle, I heard the, you know, the two extra shots, the three shots.

And later.

Mr. BELIN – All right. After the third shot, then, what did you do?
Mr. BAKER – Well, I revved that motorcycle up and I went down to the corner which would be approximately 180 to 200 feet from the point where we had first stated, you know, that we heard the shots.
Mr. BELIN – What distance did you state? What we did on Friday afternoon, we paced off from the point you thought you heard the first shot to the point at which you parked the motorcycle, and this paced off to how much?
Mr. BAKER – From 180 to 200 feet.
Mr. BELIN – That is where you parked the motorcycle?
Mr. BAKER – Yes.
Mr. BELIN – All right.
I wonder if we could go on this plat, Officer Baker, and first if you could put on here with this pen, and I have turned it upside down.
With Exhibit 361, show us the spot at which you stopped your motorcycle approximately and put a “B” on it, if you would.
Mr. BAKER – Somewhere at this position here, which is approximately 10 feet from this signal light here on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston.
Mr. BELIN – All right.
You have put a dot on Exhibit 361 with the line going to “B” and the dot represents that signal light, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER – That is right, sir.
Mr. BELIN – You, on Friday, March 20, parked your motorcycle where you thought it was parked on November 22 and then we paced off the distance from the nearest point of the motorcycle to the stop light and it was 10 feet, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER – That is correct, sir.
Mr. BELIN – All right.
Now, I show you Exhibit 478 and ask you if you will, on this exhibit put an arrow with the letter “B” to this stoplight.
Mr. BAKER – Talking about this one here?
Mr. BELIN – The stoplight from which we measured the distance to the motorcycle. The arrow with the letter “B” points to the stoplight, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER – That is correct, sir.
Mr. BELIN – And you stopped your motorcycle 10 feet to the east of that stoplight, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER – That is correct, sir.
Mr. BELIN – We then paced off the distance as to approximately how far it was from the place your motorcycle was parked to the doorway of the School Book Depository Building, do you remember doing that, on March 20?
Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN – And it appears on Exhibit 477 that that doorway is recessed, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER – That is correct, sir.
Mr. BELIN – Do you remember how far that was from the place your motorcycle was parked to the doorway?
Mr. BAKER – Approximately 45 feet.
Mr. BELIN – This same stoplight appears as you look at Exhibit 477 to the left of the entranceway to the building, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER – That is correct, sir.
Mr. BELIN – After you parked your motorcycle, did you notice anything that was going on in the area?
Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir. As I parked here
Mr. BELIN – You are pointing on Exhibit 361 to the place that you have marked with “B.”
Mr. BAKER – And I was looking westward which would be in this direction.
Mr. BELIN – By that, you are pointing down the entrance to the freeway and kind of what I will call the peninsula of the park there?
Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN – Toward the triple underpass.
Representative BOGGS -Where is the underpass?
Mr. BAKER – The underpass is down here. This is really Elm Street, and this would be Main and Commerce and they all come together here, and there is a triple overpass.
Representative BOGGS -Right.
Mr. BAKER – At this point, I looked down here as I was parking my motorcycle and these people on this ground here, on the sidewalk, there were several of them falling, and they were rolling around down there, and all these people were rushing back, a lot of them were grabbing their children, and I noticed one, I didn’t know who he was, but there was a man ran out into the crowd and back.
Mr. BELIN – Did you notice anything else?
Mr. BAKER – Except there was a woman standing–well, all these people were running, and there was a woman screaming, “Oh, they have shot that man, they have shot that man.”
Mr. BELIN – All right.
Now, you are on Exhibit 361, and you are pointing to people along the area or bordering the entrance to that expressway and that bit of land lying to the west and north, as to where you describe these people, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER – That is correct, sir.
Mr. DULLES – Would you mark where the overpass would be, right at the end of those lines, just so we get oriented on it.
Mr. BELIN – I am trying to see down here.
Mr. DULLES – I just wanted to get a general idea.
Mr. BELIN – On Exhibit 361, sir, it wouldn’t show but it basically would be off in this direction coming down this way. The entrance to the freeway would go down here and the overpass would roughly be down here.
Mr. DULLES – As far as that?
Mr. BELIN – Yes, sir; I think Mr. Redlich is going to get a picture that will better describe it.
Mr. DULLES – All right.
Mr. BELIN – All right.
Is there anything else you saw there, Officer Baker, before you ran to the building?
Mr. BAKER – No, sir; not at that time.
Mr. BELIN – All right.
Then what did you do after surveying the situation?
Mr. BAKER – I had it in mind that the shots came from the top of this building here.
Mr. BELIN – By this building, you are referring to what?
Mr. BAKER – The Book Depository Building.
Mr. BELIN – Go on.
Representative BOGGS -You were parked right in front of the Building?
Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir; ran right straight to it.
Representative BOGGS -Right.

Now suspicious or not regarding Baker measuring out with Belin his distance after he heard the first shot.

What can be derived from this part of the episode is that from a distance p.o.v. there is not much to play with regarding observing pigeons coming over/of the roof of the TSBD and then the so called revving up to park the bike just on Elm near the side walk.

Oswald seen at 12:45 in the TSBD?

Here are three newspaper articles from the 23rd and 24th of Nov, saying there are timing issues with Oswald’s sighting at Mrs. Roberts’ house visit and subsequent clothes change and the reports of Oswald being inside the TSBD at 12:45.

Eureka Humboldt Standard from Nov. 23rd 1963.

Eureka Humboldt Standard Nov 23 1963


And the Washington Post of Nov. 24th.



The Cuero Record November 24, 1963


Article No. 4 (added Feb 19th 2017)

Scottsdale Progress Nov 23rd 1963 Click to enlarge.


Then there is of course Roger Craig, his story has been told many many times before.

One of those ‘times’ is Gary Shaw. I shall post 5 pages of his fab book Cover Up. read and inspect the material for yourself. This book is hard to obtain and only at a serious price btw.

Earle V. Brown a patrolman with the DPD, while talking to the HSCA.

During the interview with the committee, Brown also added that soon after the Presidential motorcade passed, after the last shot was heard, Brown saw a man run down the stairs on the west side of the depository and then turn north away from the front of the building.(297) Brown estimated that this occurred approximately 15 minutes after the shots.(298) He said he was not able to follow the path taken by the man because of an obstructed view.(299)
Brown described the man to the committee as young, of medium size, fair complexion, and not having dark hair.(300) He said the man was dressed in light blue work pants and a shirt which was similar.(301) He did not see anything in the man’s hands.(302)
Brown was shown a picture of Dealey Plaza and the depository during the committee’s interview.(303) At that time, he noted that his view of the west door world have been obscured by an add-on shed section of the building.(304) Investigation by the committee indicated that the section was added to the building prior to 1956.(305) There is a door there at the west side of the building, but the door is hidden by uncut bushes and trees; no determination was made of the age of the bushes trees.(306) The doorway does face the trestle on which Brown was standing at the time of the assassination; the estimated distance to the trestle is approximately 500 yards.(307)
Brown told the investigators that he had not mentioned seeing the man leaving the building when he testified before the Warren commission because he had not been asked by the Commission counsel, and also because he was not able to identify the man as Lee Harvey Oswald, although the man was about Oswald’s size.(308) Brown said he thought he had mentioned the incident to his wife and to his partner at the time, Officer Lomax.(309)
Brown also mentioned that he had experienced an extrasensory perception premonition before the assassination about the President being shot by a rifle barrel protruding from a window in a brick wall.(310)

Then there are the news reports, such as the collection of Jack White’s “Escape” document.

11/24/63          Dallas – … Oswald stuck to his story that he left work early at the building from which the shots were fired because he thought it would close in honor of the President.  San Francisco Chronicle, UPI.

This by itself it worth further thinking about. If Oswald had left the TSBD in the three minutes as the Warren Commission stated, of which you can subtract 2 for the official version of Oswald’s escape down the stairs and his lunchroom encounter and the sighting by Mrs Robert Reid. It would be highly unlikely that anyone could leave the TSBD that quick