Almost 4 years ago, March 2015 to be precise, Carmine Savastano had a go at trying to bring Prayer Man down on his blog named after his book Two Princes and a King. Neither me or any other ROKCer was aware of this post. The article was updated last in Dec 2017.

Carmine departed from ROKC shortly before he wrote this, or was kicked off the forum, whoever you wish to believe. The core members had enough of his constant arguing about evidence. I was not really there when all this happened, I did not seriously partake until Jan. 2015 myself.

Now having read Savastano’s blog post  just now I can honestly say that his work or better yet his understanding of Prayer Man is not very good, as a matter of fact I rate it as high as Doyle’s comprehension of the case. The difference is that whenever Doyle is in a tight spot he uses Harvey and Lee to get himself out of it. How convenient it is to use Oswald’s ‘double’ when it becomes impossible to clear yourself out of the hole you have dug for yourself. But that is a different story. Let’s stick with the subject matter which is this blog post by him.

I will quote some from the article written by Carmine Savastano and write my comments down below in bold. Just wish to add that this is by no means a personal attack, it is a rebuttal to some of the arguments that are not only used by him, but by others as well who seem to lack to see the big picture and only use some of the evidence that is around.

1/The “Prayer Man” is similar to many other supposed “breakthroughs” coined by various people in the time since President Kennedy’s death. These include the Doorway Man, the Badge Man, the Black Dog Man, the Red Bandana Man, and the Black Hole Man, among many others.

I do not even know of the last two individuals, but to compare Prayer Man with Badge Man and Doorway Man is already a huge mistake.

Doorway Man was already cleared up the same evening, as the F.B.I. went to Billy Lovelady and he picked himself out from the table sized enlargement of the Altgens 6 Photograph. And Badge Man is not supported by anything but a colouring in, you could colour in a a pink elephant and try and make people believe that this is what is standing behind the picket fence. Looking at a very large b&w scan of the Moorman Polaroid does not show anything of a human outline at all. 

Prayer Man is supported by evidence, be it circumstantial, but it is not something that should be disregarded. All this can be found in the interrogations reports and testimonies from Will Fritz, Jim Hosty and Harry Dean Holmes. Something Savastano doesn’t even touch nor makes mention of. 

2/No witness testimony in the immediate area supports Oswald’s presence and not a single witness identifies him in the area during the shots.

Almost correct (Carolyn Arnold’s statement), but what Savastano omits from his writings is:

The primary statements by Shelley and Lovelady i/e do not contain a word about Oswald at all, as they were taken before Oswald was taken in. Once they witnessed Oswald’s arrival at City Hall, he was brought in as a cop killer, not as the shooter of J.F.K. Now who in their right mind would associate themselves with a cop killer? 

Nor did anyone mention the negro on the bottom of the steps, Carl Edward Jones or Joe Molina who stood next to Shelley and above Otis Williams. Only one person mentioned Joe Molina, and that was Victoria Adams, and that was after her descent from the 4th floor and being directed back to the T.S.B.D. by a police man.

At the same time not one witness standing on those steps during the shooting says who that Caucasian male actually is. That is troubling no?

And why should they, in those days anyone of non Caucasian build in Tx. was expected to shut up and not volunteer information (Carl Jones, Roy Lewis and Joe Molina).

The women? Same!

Frazier? He was 19 and got the scare of his life by being shoved a statement, for being a co-conspirator, in front of him to sign by ‘old reliable’ Will Fritz.

Lovelady? Got bailed out by Ochus Campbell (the vice-president of the T.S.B.D.) for a weapons charge he was going to be re-arrested for.

Shelley? Oswald’s foreman, why should he side with a commie sympathiser? A cop killer to boot. No thank you……

Plus why should they state were Oswald was at that time, they barely knew him and he was dead by the time quite a few of the T.S.B.D. workers were interviewed, and who would want the weight of local and national law enforcement agencies on their back for a dead commie sympathiser who had also killed a cop!

3/ This person could be from a number of businesses in the vicinity, a passerby, a tourist, any number of people besides Lee Harvey Oswald.

This is about the biggest mistake Savastano can make, not only by disregarding this person as anyone but Oswald and also avoiding using his common sense, but also for the fact that it is no stranger either as was documented in March of 1964, as per CE 1381. If you want evidence Carmine, the stranger scenario is killed off with that document.

4/ While a conspiracy is eminently feasible and supported by substantial evidence, that does not justify the “Prayer Man” claim.

A very strange claim to make, especially when Savastano fails to submit such evidence himself, pot kettle…..

5/ Additional feasibly contending evidence includes the verbal statement of Lee Harvey Oswald himself.Some suggest we cannot trust any of the evidence, which is ridiculous, for how else can we prove anything? If most evidence available indicates something, it is more than likely to have occurred. Consider the amount of work and people required to suppress this idea. It would be a large undertaking of little value, since the matter still proves nothing of substance. It is not a smoking gun in my view, but smoke and mirrors.

Here Savastano makes another whopper of a faux pas. Not only does he ascribe to some of Oswald’s  public statements in a video by Len Osanic, which are not timed in any way btw, but will be by me soon enough in my next paper “Anatomy Of Oswald’s Interrogations”.

But he also produces a very incomplete body of work. What Carmine should have done for starters is introduce the statements made by Fritz, Hosty, Bookhout and Holmes and also their notes and testimony as to Oswald’s whereabouts and more importantly about he destruction of Oswald’s alibi. Something I did in my first paper “Anatomy of The Second Floor Lunch Room Encounter” From thereon he could have concluded that the lunch room encounter was an utter fake event and from thereon investigate where Oswald actually was during that period, of shooting J.F.K.