(PART 1031)


"Prayer Man" Is A Woman....

PM is a woman wearing a long buttoned coat.


I officially rename Prayer Man as Button Lady....


While it is entirely possible that I am wrong in agreeing with Patrick Jackson about Scarf Lady being the mystery person, I am 100% confident that the mystery Button Lady figure formerly known as Prayer Man is in fact a woman, and she is probably holding a purse in front of her in a classic female pose....


Duncan can see all kinds of things in that photo that no one else can see.


Gee, that sure sounds familiar. Where have I heard stuff like that before?

The pot/kettle irony that emanates from CTers nearly every day is unparalleled.

Badge Man.
Prayer Man.
Black Dog Man.
Tan Jacket Man.
Etc., etc...

And just two days ago, conspiracy theorist and nine-year Education Forum veteran Kathleen Collins took the time to send me a private e-mail in order to provide me with this bombshell proof of a gunman she sees in the Nix Film. The assassin in the film apparently decided to fire a rifle at the President while standing right out in the open where everybody could easily see (and film) him. Those Presidential assassins sure were brilliant planners, weren't they?....


Subject: Nix film
Date: 9/16/2015 11:58:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Kathleen (Kathy) Collins
To: David Von Pein


Dear David,

Here is a link to the Nix film that shows a man, leaning on a car, shooting. Whoever put the clip up is pointing to 2 other men. But clearly, the man at the car is shooting....


Kathy Collins



So, you agree that Dunc's "analysis" of PM is bogus?


It's impossible for me to tell. It's an analysis of pure mush and trying to make it solid. Can't be done with the awful, worthless image we have to deal with there. (IMHO.)

One thing is a certainty, however --- "Prayer (Wo)Man" is definitely NOT Lee Harvey Oswald. Even Oswald himself confirmed that fact....

REPORTER -- "Did you shoot the President?"

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "I work in that building."

REPORTER -- "Were you in the building at the time?"

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."


I will accept that as a total putdown of MacRae's "research analysis" or whatever he calls it.

Believe it or not, I, too, would like to see a better refining of this still of ["Prayer Man"] before I am completely convinced of anything about it.


Still pretty shaky interpretation of him being in that building. If I was to step out on the steps, but never left the alcove at the top of the steps, I might, if quickly answering a reporter's question, still have considered myself "in" that building.



I've discussed that "Inside or Outside?" subject with other people in the past, such as this discussion with J. Raymond Carroll in July of 2014....


Slight problem there, David: No motive, no means, and he was watching from the front steps. But you are correct that he acted alone!


J. Raymond Carroll is one of the very few conspiracy theorists on the planet who thinks Lee Oswald was totally innocent of everything regarding JFK's death---that is: Lee didn't even have any knowledge at all of the plot to kill the President. Lee was as innocent as Mother Teresa, per J. Raymond. That's how far afield from reality Mr. Carroll has strayed.

And I see that Raymond has been gullible enough to fall for the worn-out "Oswald Was Doorway Man" schtick too. Oh, my. Ray is in trouble.

I wonder if Ray can explain to us why Oswald HIMSELF lied about his location at the time of the assassination? Or does Raymond think that being on the front steps of the Book Depository is the same thing as being "inside" the building?


Lee Oswald was "out with Bill Shelley in front," just as he told Fritz. The front steps are actually "in the building," as you can see for yourself if you go there.

The proof is in the Darnell film, discovered by Sean Murphy, and you can see it for yourself in this thread on the Education Forum.


Nobody who was standing on the TSBD steps would ever say they were "in the building". That's nuts. The steps are OUTSIDE the front door, for Pete sake [see photo below]. And it goes to show how desperate CTers like Raymond Carroll truly are to exonerate a double-murderer.


He never said he was "inside," he said he was "in the building." Since the steps he was standing on are within the building's structure, he was quite correct in stating he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" yet still "in the building."

Actually, we cannot hear the question in the video, and the question may have been "were you in the building TODAY?"

Anyway, we don't have to parse what he said. The Darnell film PROVES he was on the front steps.


The Darnell Film proves no such thing. Your "Prayer Man" could be almost anybody. But you now like the idea that "PM" was Oswald---so, it's Oswald.

And we most certainly CAN hear the reporter's question to Oswald. The reporter clearly says: "Were you in the building at the time?"

Oswald's answer: "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."

And what do you think Oswald thought the reporter meant by "AT THE TIME"? Considering the previous question had been: "Did you shoot the President?", I don't think there's much doubt.


Again, only a person hell-bent on finding Oswald innocent for some odd reason could possibly think these steps are located "in the building"....

-- DVP; July 2014


And if Oswald had really been standing on the steps in front of the Book Depository Building at 12:30 PM, why did he tell Captain Fritz that he was on the first floor eating lunch at just about that same time?....

"I asked him what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor." -- Captain J.W. Fritz; Warren Report; Page 600


As I said HERE in August 2013, it's interesting to note "Stetson Man" (on the left) as he seems to look up toward the upper floors of the TSBD just after the shots were fired....

In addition, I noticed something else in the film frame below today....

It looks to me as if the man on the far right might be looking UP toward the upper TSBD floors too. It looks like his head is tilted upward here. So this image would certainly tend to indicate that at least two other people in Dealey Plaza had their attention drawn to the upper floors of the Book Depository Building within seconds of the last shot being fired at President Kennedy....


Both men were probably wondering what Jarman, Norman and Williams on the 5th floor were doing with [their] heads sticking out the window?


But what would have caused those two men to look up there in the first place to even notice Jarman, Norman, and Williams?

Those three fifth-floor parade watchers didn't shout down to the street, "Hey, Mr. Stetson Man, look up here!!"


Well, the shots did pass "over their heads" -- yet not everyone in DP [Dealey Plaza] uniformly looked up at the upper floors of the TSBD. Post shots, most ran to the railroad tracks. Officer Baker saw pigeons fly up into the air. There could be a multitude of reasons why people would look up.


Yeah, with one really good reason being....


Have you worked out how LHO got CE142 to the SE corner yet?


Oswald was all alone on the TSBD's sixth floor for several minutes on 11/22/63. So why would it have been an impossible feat for the man who was ALL ALONE up there to have moved a paper bag (and a rifle) to a different part of the sixth floor during the period of time when he was ALL ALONE up on that sixth floor? I see no problem with this at all.

Why do you see a problem with it, Tony?

I await your logical pro-CT response (if such a response is possible).



I really have no idea if the "Prayer" person is a male or a female, but I took note of this statement in Commission Document No. 706 (also found in CE1381) by Mrs. Pauline Sanders, a 55-year-old white female, who was standing on the TOP STEP of the Book Depository Building at the time of the President's assassination.

Sanders, however, said she was standing on the EAST side of the top step, so that wouldn't exactly fit the bill for "Prayer Person's" position. But it's pretty close.

In her March 19, 1964, FBI statement, Mrs. Sanders said that another woman, Sarah Stanton (age 41), was "standing next to me" on the steps of the Depository. Here is Stanton's 3/18/64 FBI statement.

So that means there were definitely two different women (aged 55 and 41) standing on the steps of the TSBD during the time of the assassination (and very likely on the top step, and that looks like the same step where "Prayer Person" is located).

And here is an FBI report regarding an interview with Pauline Sanders on 11/24/63 (CE1434).


To illustrate the fact that virtually anything can get published if it deals with a "JFK conspiracy" (no matter how silly and speculative and unprovable and blurry it might be), we now have "Prayer Man" in book form. Incredible. ....

David Von Pein
September 18, 2015
September 20-21, 2015
September 21, 2015
November 2, 2015 (EST)




IMO, the prayer man theory has the same fatal weakness as other JFK conspiracy theories: Instead of a narrative explaining how the evidence fits together to show what happened, we get a bunch of things that look “suspicious” and unseen plotters who plant evidence, suborn perjury, and do anything else necessary to frame the poor patsy.

The problem is that the masterminds are, as usual, all-powerful and yet incredibly stupid. They plant a weapon they’ve tied to Oswald yet somehow neglect to keep the patsy from wandering outside to acquire what should’ve been an ironclad alibi.

So now they have to get anyone who knew the truth to lie about it. But hey, no problem. With the right threats, who wouldn’t agree to help frame an innocent man in a president’s murder and keep quiet about it forever, right? Even better, Oswald doesn’t mention his alibi, either.

The usual CT explanation, “They lied,” is not the only alternative and not the most sensible one. Mrs. Reid testified that she didn’t stop at her desk when she came back into the office. Instead she kept on walking toward the same door Oswald emerged from at the back of the room. She and Oswald may’ve crossed paths while Hine was still in the front hall knocking on office doors. I don’t know if Reid was ever asked where she was headed, but she may’ve been in the restroom or in the lunchroom getting a snack when Hine returned. IOW, nobody had to be lying to explain why they didn’t see each other.

Reid entered through the door at the bottom of this chart. Her desk was near the dumbwaiter marked with an arrow near the top. The X and R show where she passed Oswald, which is on the other side of her desk:


Hine's and Reid's testimony:



The jig is up, Jean. They are no longer yours and McAdams' “mysterious and unseen plotters”. They are individuals within the DPD and DA’s office.


Please tell me that story. How do you suppose they pulled it off?

Did Wade and his henchman get Oswald his job? Fake Klein’s records, the BY [Backyard] photos (taken in springtime, according to the evidence)? Did they arrange for Oswald to bring a package to work that day or was that just a lucky coincidence? Did Wade & company control the autopsy, somehow make the “real” bullets disappear — or did someone steal the M-C [Mannlicher-Carcano] and use that?

In your story so far, there were numerous witnesses to Oswald’s “alibi” — Truly, Baker, Barrett, Reid, Campbell, whoever else was nearby and saw Oswald. Were all of them contacted right away and brought onboard? “Listen, Mr. Truly, you’ve got to say you saw him on the second floor….or else!” Etc.

Just speculate about how it might have been done, that’s all I’m asking. No WC critic has ever provided an alternative scenario to explain how all the evidence against Oswald got there if he didn’t do it. You would be the first.


The same way they pulled off the other 24 and counting, Jean.

Let’s try this BEFORE going into specifics. What I want you to do right now is acknowledge that this was a corrupt-to-the-core justice system operating in Dallas. Acknowledgement of the real issue is the first step on the path to rehabilitation – in this case of the real history.

Take that small but important step, Jean, and we can move on to the details.


Sure, I know of Wade’s disgraceful record as a prosecutor and the innocent men who were exonerated through DNA tests. If you can show that Wade framed Oswald, please do.

Now could you answer the questions I’ve asked, as a start?


Now you have gone too far Jean. It has been explained to you on numerous threads on this forum, how evidence was tampered with. How the chains of custody of evidence is broken. How the DPD lied. How the ‘snipers nest’ most certainly is a staged theater, how the ballistic evidence proves a shot from the front; how the back and throat wound are not provably connected, how the “Magic Bullet” theory is utter bunk…etc.


Yes, Willy, I know — you don’t get it. WC critics never do, it seems.


I would like to know what [Jean Davison] has to say about BWF [Buell Wesley Frazier] saying his family was threatened over his paper bag evidence.

It provides a clear example of one witness’ experience with the police.

It provides evidence of their MO when facing conflicting evidence.

It establishes their willingness to threaten the safety of witnesses' families.


Who said Frazier was afraid for his family because of what he said about the paper bag? Do you have a source for this? Or are we witnessing the dawn of a brand-new JFK myth?

Where is the quote from Frazier about being afraid for his family? Frazier has told his bag-too-short story repeatedly, so where’s the direct quote, please?



Here is the link to the Frazier interview where he says he was afraid for his family.


What I see there is this: “In closing, the reader reports that ‘Frazier said it was best to stay quiet about the assassination out of fear of what could be done to his family.'”

Vanessa, there is a big difference between “Frazier said” and “The reader reports that …” I still don’t know what Frazier actually said, if anything.

It’s highly ironic that this comes from an article about a C-span interview with Frazier, the guy who’s supposedly afraid to talk about the assassination. He has been doing just that for decades — countless interviews and appearances at JFK conferences. His latest is a scheduled appearance at the Lancer powwow later this year [2016].

Afraid to talk? Yeah, right.



Right at the end of this video [also embedded below], Buell says this:

Interviewer: You’ve given a few interviews over the years, but not that many. Why have you been so reluctant to share your story?

BWF: When this all happened, I was terrified. Some people believe in a conspiracy and some don’t. Well, you can believe whatever you like, this is America. That I knew there was people behind this – you best keep silent. Not go around talking, 'cause I didn’t want anything to happen to my family. I can accept a lot of things happening to me, but not my family.


Thanks for that link, Vanessa. If you’ll listen to the video, there’s an error in the closed captioning transcript.

Frazier actually said “…I knew that *IF* there was people behind this…”

Another example of how a secondary source can misstate the original one.


Back to the way Buell’s mind works. Why does he need an alibi? If he was innocent, there would be NO evidence of his guilt, would there?

No. Suggesting he could have used an alibi as well, despite knowing for a stone cold fact that he was innocent, is prima facie evidence that Buell knew how the justice system worked – that if they wanted to put you in jail, they would do that by any means available – including planting evidence and coercing witnesses etc.


That’s your interpretation, but not necessarily a fact. In an article I just found [here], Frazier said that some people blamed him for “helping” Oswald by giving him a ride to work. He said that at times he’d been “afraid that he might be killed by people seeking revenge for JFK’s death…”

If Oswald had been outside with him, Frazier wouldn’t have had that problem.


No. It just becomes a conspiracy of nuts with neither of those two being a shooter – but maybe lookouts. So it doesn’t necessarily get him off the hook with vengeful nuts, either.

But thank you for making Vanessa’s point. What may have begun as fear over one thing from one source, apparently morphed into a more generalized fear.


Frazier says he was pressured by Fritz to sign a confession that he was involved in the assassination (not that he was the lone assassin).

The two people we know that were threatened to sign confessions that weekend were Buell Frazier and Joe Molina.

Both were standing in close proximity to PM [Prayer Man] on the steps at the time of the assassination.

BWF and Molina both had rock solid alibis by being on those steps in full view of their co-workers who saw them and named them in WC testimony.

Why would the police threaten those two into signing false confessions when they were demonstrably innocent?


You’re jumping to the wrong conclusions, Vanessa. It was natural that the police would initially suspect Frazier might be an accomplice because as they saw it, he’d given Oswald and his murder weapon a ride to work. They couldn’t know that Frazier wasn’t involved.

Molina was pressured to sign a statement about his membership in a veterans organization that was considered to be “subversive.” Have you read Molina’s testimony?

Who told you that Molina was pressured to sign a false confession?



As of right now, Jean, do you, or do you not believe that the DA’s office and the DPD’s disgraceful record has any bearing on the Oswald case?

Unless you say you DO believe it had a bearing, then my claim that you believe it DOES NOT have any bearing, was quite correct. You are simply arguing from both sides of your mouth (again).


Bad reasoning, Greg. Neither alternative is correct. It had no bearing THAT I KNOW OF. Why don’t you enlighten me, as I asked? What are you accusing Wade of doing, specifically?

Speaking of “arguing from both sides of your mouth,” please don’t tell me you can’t answer this because you need editing tools or more than 500 words.


“That you know of”. Nice dodge.

Let’s get real. The honest answer from you would be “it had no bearing that I will ever admit to publicly”.

This is not about Wade per se. It is about a technique used by the police, Wade’s office, the FBI and USSS among others.

You know… the technique which is actually part of the name of the paper [linked here].


Very poor response. What’s your excuse for not explaining what bearing it had? Because you can’t and don’t want to admit it?




Oswald didn’t check out at the door, he was out of there before the building was sealed off. We know this from knowing the approximate times he directed a reporter to a phone on his way out, arrived at Beckley, etc.

CE 1381 (signed statements from every other employee) shows that no one still in the building was allowed to leave right away. E.g., Georgia Hendrix said she left about 2:20 p.m. after being checked out by the police. All these witnesses answered the same questions, including “did you see Oswald at the time of the shooting?”.

When you say, “Out front with Bill Shelley. Went to second floor to buy coke. Ate lunch on first floor…” you’ve got it backwards. Both in Fritz’s notes and Bookhout’s report, the sequence is that he had lunch on the 1st floor, THEN “out front” with Shelley.

Revill said he got the Elsbeth address from the cops who arrested Oswald and I see no reason to doubt it:


Mr. RANKIN. And the words 605 Elsbeth Street, was that given by you?

Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; this is the address we were given or I was given by some of the officers involved in the arrest.

Mr. RANKIN. Who gave that to you?

Mr. REVILL. I believe Detective Carroll, Carroll or Detective Taylor, they were both there.

Mr. RANKIN. And was that at the time you made this out that you were given that information?

Mr. REVILL. Shortly before I made this out.


Do you have any explanation, by the way, for the first names being around the wrong way around – or for the address that is listed?


The “605” was surely from his library card, which had the number 5 written over the correct one. Oswald had the card on him when he was arrested.

I suspect the first names were reversed because in that era the name “Lee” was a very common middle name in the South — e.g., southerners Tommy Lee Jones and Jerry Lee Lewis. One of Robert Oswald’s two middle names was “Lee.” Because of that, imo, “Lee Harvey” would’ve sounded strange to many Texans, unlike Harvey Lee. Revill’s list isn’t the only record in which these two names were reversed. People make mistakes.


The police first checked out Oswald’s current known addresses in Irving and Oak Cliff instead of rushing to the one on his library card, which listed a previous employer and was therefore older.

If you’ll search the Mary Ferrell archive you’ll find quite a few examples of the name written as “Harvey Lee,” including a translation of a Russian document. I’m sure none of these people ever saw Oswald’s library card.


Why do you suppose those standing on the steps would be asked if they had seen Oswald at the time of the shooting unless he stated that’s where he was?


What? Every TSBD employee was asked that question, Greg, including those who were outside — even Givens, who was several blocks away. If the WC hadn’t asked that question of every worker, wouldn’t you be giving them a hard time for that, instead? (I can hear it now, someone saying, “They didn’t ask that question because they didn’t want to know.”)

Oswald is on film saying he was inside the building “at the time.” [See video below.] No matter how anyone wants to spin it, the front steps are not inside the building and never will be. Who needs to identify PM to know it wasn’t Oswald? He said so himself!


But the fact is, no one saw ANYONE in that spot. Yet there quite obviously IS someone in that spot.


You don’t know who anyone saw in that spot fifty-odd years before someone dreamed up “prayer man” and thought it mattered.


And it remains a fact that it could only be Lee Harvey Oswald by a process of elimination plus general appearance.


The problem with a “process of elimination” has always been the difficulty of being certain that all possibilities have been eliminated. The number of people your theory requires to have lied and participated in a frame-up is too great to be anywhere near plausible. Even Oswald doesn’t agree with you.



There were 13 TSBD employees on the steps. In their WC testimony, they identified other groups of employees on the steps. People standing in front of, behind them and next to them. All TSBD employees.



From their answers, it's clear that the TSBD employees were asked something like, “Where were you when the shots were fired and who were you with?” They clearly weren’t asked, “Name or mention everyone around you,” because some mentioned only one or two people standing with them.


But they all failed to identify one person. They all failed to identify that there was even a person standing in the PM position.


You’re making a faulty assumption. There was no “PM position” in 1964. There was no reason to mention that particular spot or identify that particular person.


Not one of them mentioned a stranger on the steps.


No reason to. Strangers outside the building couldn’t be the 6th floor sniper, so who cared if they were there? The workers were asked only if they saw any strangers INSIDE the building.


They all failed to see and all failed to mention one man and that man was PM.

Yet, PM is there – visible in 2 films.


You don’t know what they “failed to see” because there was no reason to focus on that particular person before someone dreamed up PM many years later. There was absolutely no reason to ask “Who was standing in that corner?”

Oswald said he was inside, Vanessa. Fritz’s note said “out front with Shelley,” but as Bookhout’s report noted, this was where Oswald claimed he was after the lunchroom encounter, after the shots were fired.

Plus, you’ve got all those people lying to help frame an innocent man and never letting that secret slip out ever. This is NOT plausible. Even Oswald didn’t claim he was on the steps, when he had ample opportunity. That ought to tell you something.



There is a serious problem with your interpretation of Fritz’s notes.

If Oswald was ‘out front with Shelley’ AFTER the shots were fired, then it appears that Fritz has not noted where Oswald was AT THE TIME the shots were fired. Wasn’t that the single most important question to be answered by Oswald?


No, his notes say:

“claims 2nd floor Coke when
off came in
to 1st floor had lunch
out with Bill Shelley in front”


Are you ignoring that this says Oswald mentioned the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter that supposedly never happened? That it mentions lunch on the 1st floor and then and only then, “out front” with Shelley?

Fritz’s written report says the same thing more clearly — Oswald claimed he was on the first floor having lunch when the shooting occurred and that the policeman had stopped him on the 2nd floor. FBI reports give the same chronology.


13 TSBD employees on the steps and they all failed to identify the same person and all failed to identify that there was even someone standing in the PM spot. That is a very unlikely coincidence.


You’re not getting it, Vanessa. Nobody cared or made note of who was standing “in the PM spot.” They had no reason to. The object of CE 1381 wasn’t to locate exactly where everyone was standing. That didn’t matter. The object was to find out who was WITH someone else (and thus had an alibi) and more important, whether anyone saw Oswald at the time of the shooting.

The person in what is now called the “PM position” may’ve been one of the named workers, male or female, or someone unknown. Nobody had reason to remember who it was, even though he/she was probably seen at the time. It wasn’t important.

You say that Oswald “consistently placed himself on the 1st floor…” But it was not just “on the 1st floor”, it was in the 1st floor LUNCHROOM—the “domino room”—at the back of the building.


For the sake of argument, let’s say that no-one in front of PM saw him because they had their backs to him (except for all those coming back up the steps, of course). Then that brings us back to the person standing to PM’s left who even appears to be looking right at him in Wiegman.

Buell Wesley Frazier said he was ‘terrified’ to speak in public for 50 years because ‘if’ there were people behind it, then he didn’t want his family harmed. He also said Fritz threatened him to get him to sign a false confession.

Do you really think BWF was terrified for 50 years because there was a vague possibility that more people could be involved?

Or is it more likely he was terrified because he knew Oswald was not the assassin because Oswald was standing right in front of him when the shots went off.

All the PM evidence...puts Oswald on the 1st floor at the time of the shots (Bookhout, Holmes, Curry, DMN, NYT etc). The only question mark is whether he was in the 1st floor vestibule or coming out of the door when he had the encounter with Truly and Baker.

No one ‘dreamed up’ PM. He has been standing in that spot in the films for 50 years. Clearly visible to all those walking back into the TSBD. Why didn’t ANYONE see him that day?

The WC testimony of the TSBD employees accounts for the 13 people we see on the steps – all but one.

Every other TSBD employee is accounted for – except for one.

And that one employee, Oswald, consistently placed himself on the 1st floor or on the TSBD steps over a number of reports (including Fritz’s).


Maybe in some alternate universe Oswald claimed he was on the steps, but not in this one. (“Were you in the building at the time?” “Since I work in that building, yes sir.”)

There’s no evidence whatsoever that Frazier saw Oswald in the “PM position” and lied about it from day one, thus helping frame an innocent man. He has made himself available to researchers more than many other witnesses and he has always defended Oswald and said he doubted his guilt. Some thanks he gets! Apparently some CTs think they can accuse anyone of anything, no evidence needed, just suspicion. What rights do they have? Apparently, none.


When did Oswald ever place himself on the steps?

In fact, to reporters, he insisted he was “in the building” because “I work in that building.”


No. You’re not getting it, Jean.

The joint Hosty/Bookhout report, written while the patsy was still breathing, states:

“Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he 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 the patsy was killed, Bookhout wrote his solo report changing that chronology. Fritz cribbed his notes from Bookhout. This was amply demonstrated by [Sean] Murphy, who highlighted the similarities in the two.



All of the TSBD workers were interviewed by the FBI and gave statements about where they were at the time of the shooting. Not one of them placed themselves in the PM position. So it cannot have been any other TSBD employee – except one.


No, that’s false, since very few of the workers placed themselves in ANY position other than the nonspecific “I was on the front steps” or “on the top step,” neither of which rules out your “PM position.”


Now, Jean, we have been back and forth over the wording of Fritz’s notes and as you know, Fritz was splitting his sentences over a number of lines. They can be interpreted a couple of ways.

“claims 2nd floor Coke when
off came in
to 1st floor had lunch
out with Bill Shelley in front”

Your reading of these lines cuts a sentence in half and doesn’t make sense. “claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in” actually is part of the next line “to 1st floor”.

Otherwise you are splitting up the words “in” and “to”, resulting in a nonsensical statement on the next line, “to 1st floor had lunch”.

The grammatically correct reading of those lines is “claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in to 1st floor”.

Meaning: (Oswald) claims he had a coke from the 2nd floor when the officer came in to the 1st floor.

So as Baker came into the 1st floor of the building, Oswald was standing there with a coke. The coke machine was in the 2nd floor lunchroom. And if we look at the Darnell film, PM appears to be holding a coke bottle.

How do you justify breaking up ‘in’ and ‘to’ in these lines and still keep any meaning?


That’s how Fritz split the sentence, not me. You need to stop interpreting his notes like they’re tea leaves and look at Fritz’s OWN explanation in his written report and in his testimony. He said that Oswald was on the second floor when the officer came in, which is what Baker and Truly said also. All of them lying dogs, I suppose?


All I have to do is show that Oswald consistently said he was on the 1st floor and WC defenders have a problem. So are you agreeing Oswald said he was on the 1st floor?


According to witnesses, he said he was in the domino room at the rear of the first floor, not at the front of the building or outside.


[Harry] Holmes said Oswald claimed he was in the 1st floor vestibule – that is inside the building. I’m not sure why you keep disputing this point.


I dispute it because Holmes didn’t say anything about a vestibule in his 12/63 written report, only in his testimony the following April.

In his 12/63 report, he said that Oswald claimed to be on an upper floor when the shooting occurred. By April, his memory was obviously different....


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. [The 2nd floor lunchroom’s “vestibule” has “two sets of doors”.]

Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?

Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.

Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything about a Coca-Cola or anything like that, if you remember?

Mr. HOLMES. Seems like he said he was drinking a Coca-Cola, standing there by the Coca-Cola machine drinking a Coca-Cola.


Is PM standing by a Coke machine? No, and I think Belin asked this because he realized that Holmes’ memory was muddled.

Holmes also contradicted several other witnesses who said that Oswald flatly denied ever going to Mexico City. Holmes said Oswald admitted it.


Mr. BELIN. This wasn’t reported in your interview in the memorandum that you wrote?


Mr. BELIN. Is this something that you think you might have picked up from just reading the papers, or is this something you remember hearing?

Mr. HOLMES. That is what he said in there.


People accept what they “remember” as being accurate even when it’s malarkey.


Do you have anything at all to say about BWF saying he was threatened by Fritz to sign a false confession? Or Joe Molina saying he was threatened by the DPD to confess to being involved in the assassination?

The only 2 men who said they were threatened that weekend by the DPD to confess to involvement in the assassination and both of them were standing on the TSBD steps.


This suggests to me that the DPD was “grilling” the only two potential accomplices they could find: Frazier, who drove Oswald to work, and Molina, someone suspected of sharing his leftwing political views. (Molina got a raw deal when he was later fired. Too bad he didn’t sue for wrongful termination.)



There are quite detailed descriptions from those on the steps as to who was standing next to them and who else was out there and that has been matched with their positions in the films and their WC testimony. Buell Frazier is standing where he said he was in his WC testimony and where everyone else said he was standing. Tell me Jean, do you think that is Frazier on the steps or not?

Then there is Billy Lovelady. He actually identified himself in Altgens 6 to the FBI.

We can work through each TSBD employee on the steps this way if you want to. Bart Kamp and others have already done great work on this. No-one placed themselves in the PM position.



There’s no way I can believe that if Oswald had been outside and a reporter asked him, “Were you in the building at the time?”, Oswald wouldn’t have responded, “No! I was outside watching the motorcade” or “No, I was on the front steps with some guys I work with”. Oswald talked to his wife, mother, brother, a Dallas lawyer and the media. Nada about being outside the building when the shots were fired.


I’m happy to take Fritz’s WC testimony as confirmation of his notes. He said that Oswald said he had lunch with the other employees and saw the excitement. The other employees were outside on the steps and Oswald couldn’t have seen anything from the 2nd floor lunch room as it had no windows. It’s reasonable to conclude that Oswald was outside on the steps with the other employees.


No. You’re assuming he would’ve had to be outside in order to see “excitement,” but Fritz’s memo tells a different story:

“…I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in. I asked him why he left the building, and he said there was so much excitement he did not think there would be any more work done that day...”

Last paragraph here:

He “left the building” because there was excitement — like a policeman with pistol drawn rushing into the building, maybe?


As for Baker, I’m still waiting for you to explain why you prefer his WC testimony (4 months after the event) to his 1st day affidavit or the other 3 versions he gave of his meeting with Oswald.

Oswald’s accounts of being on the 1st floor are corroborated by him identifying 3 men that he could not have seen if he was in the sniper’s nest. These 3 men he could have only seen if he was in fact outside or in the vestibule minutes before the shooting – Shelley, Jarman and Norman.


Problem for you, Vanessa. Oswald didn’t claim he saw Jarman or Norman outside and they weren’t outside at the time of the shooting.


Grilling? We have been discussing the DPD’s woeful record under DA Wade of faking evidence and coercing witnesses – which you have deplored. You asked for any evidence that it happened in Oswald’s case and we have 2 witnesses who said they were threatened and now you are saying that it is a harmless part of the ‘grilling’ they received??

A ‘grilling’ would be presenting Frazier and Molina with some evidence against them and asking some tough questions. Frazier was 19. Do you consider attempting to force a 19 year old (who did not have a lawyer present) to sign a confession of conspiracy to kill the President a legitimate part of the interrogation process?

Molina’s house was raided by the police at 2.00am that weekend and he was threatened to confess to being involved in a conspiracy with Oswald before any evidence was actually gathered from his house.

Jean, are you really saying you are comfortable with these threats from the DPD in these circumstances?

They are the perfect example of the DPD’s MO under Wade where coercion took the place of genuine police work.


Molina asked to be allowed to testify because he wanted to complain about his unfair treatment by Curry and the DPD. I see nothing about being threatened in his testimony, so where does this claim come from?

Frazier also said nothing about a “threat” for about 50 years, and then this story appeared:


Dallas police Capt. Will Fritz, who was in charge of the homicide department, came into the room with a typed statement. He handed Frazier a pen and demanded he sign it. It was a confession. Frazier refused.

“This was ridiculous,” he said. “Captain Fritz got very red-faced, and he put up his hand to hit me and I put my arm up to block. I told him we’d have a hell of a fight and I would get some good licks in on him. Then he stormed out the door.”



Really?? You believe that?? I don’t. Not because I think Fritz or the DPD were saints. It’s just a ridiculous story, imo, and tales told so many years after the fact are always questionable.


ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963: