Evolution of a Second Floor Story

STORY ONE: In a first floor store room... Story one was put forward by Truly to Fritz (and overheard by Kent Biffle) and by Occhus Campbell to the Herald Tribune "In a storage room on the first floor, the officer, gun drawn, spotted Oswald. 'Does this man work here?' the officer reportedly asked" Kent Biffle, DMN 11/23/63 based on what he heard Truly tell Fritz. Shortly after the shooting we raced back into the building. We saw Oswald in a small storage room on the ground floor." NY Herald Tribune, 11/23/63 quoting Occhus Campbell who, after the story got switched to the second floor, disavowed seeing Oswald at any time ever. Fritz confirmed in his interrogation report that this was indeed, the story given him by Truly: Mr. Truly had told me that one of the police officers had stopped this man immediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway, so 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 didn't think there would be any more work done that day, and that as this company wasn't particular about their hours, that they did not punch a clock, and that he thought it would be just as well that he left for the rest of the afternoon. What was situated "somewhere near the back stairway" on the 1st floor? A little store-room. Fritz is either lying or mistaken in claiming Oswald said he was drinking a coke on the 2nd floor when Baker came in. It is clear from all the evidence that Oswald had simply said he was drinking a coke obtained from the 2nd floor - a habit he and his fellow employees shared was to go and grab a coke to have with, or after lunch in the 1st floor domino room. See for example, Frazier testimony on this: Mr. BALL - When you get off your job, did you usually go to the lunch room on the second floor to eat your lunch? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; most of the time I don't. Most of the time you see several of us guys sitting down at our own table and we just sit there. I say we usually go up there to get something to drink and I say I have ate up there several times but most of the times I eat with the guys I work with. Usually we just sit down and eat, and we lay down on the big tables there and sometimes talk or go to sleep.

Mr. BALL - That is on the first floor? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Truly put this story forward for one purpose: to establish Oswald's presence in the building during the time of the assassination. It therefore also provided an excuse to report Oswald missing after he or Shelley had cleared himwith the cop at the front entrance who then allowed Oswald to leave after taking his name and address. Ask yourself why Truly's first FBI report makes a point of declaring he saw no one on the first floor? Why would that be important when no one on the first floor could have been a shooter? It simply had to be said when it became clear that Oswald could not have gotten to the first floor in the time allowed. What he told Fritz and was overheard and published by Biffle simply had to be negated. STORY 2: Baker tells the truth about an encounter on an upper floor Later in the day, Baker would have his affidavit taken in a little office room which was also holding Oswald while awaiting interrogation. His affidavit describes an encounter on the stairway of the 3rd or 4th floor. Despite Oswald sitting in the same small room, his affidavit makes no mention of Oswald and gives a physical description of a dark-haired 30 year old who is about 20 pounds heavier than Oswald and wearing a light colored jacket. This description is a much better fit for the person described by Arnold Rowland. It was almost certainly the shooter - or the person drawing attention to the 6th floor, if that was not the origin of the shots . That he had only descended two floors by the time of this encounter explains the lack of evidence of exertion - and also Baker's interest in him. This was why Truly accompanied Baker - to make sure this person was not arrested. Baker inadvertently confirmed the only actual encounter he and truly had was on the 4th floor when he told the WC that "it seemed to me like the next floor up [from the encounter] Mr. Truly said let's take the elevator." The elevator was on the 5th floor, so Baker is placing the incident one floor below that: the 4th floor - just as he said in his affidavit. STORY 3: This has numerous versions, but basically... The authorities had a major problem on their hands. They know Oswald can't be the shooter if he's on the first floor, thus Fritz' comment during his testimony that they disregarded Truly's advice that the encounter was on the first floor where Oswald was seen in a

store-room because "THEIR INVESTIGATION" revealed it to have been in the (presumably) 2nd floor lunch room. "They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go" "Their investigation" here is code for coming up with a version which would fly better, and also eliminate the actual encounter on the 4th floor with the real perp described by Baker. They know Oswald had a coke, so they switch the little store-room on the first floor for the 2nd floor lunch room and get Baker on board with that version. Did this make Baker a bad person? Not really. Not in the context of Dallas circa '63. He probably believed Oswald was guilty and if switching his story helped convince everyone else, so be it. It was common practice, and probably not even thought of as "wrong" in the sense that he convinced himself it was serving justice. Although he later fell into line with the official myth, Baker was a hero for running into that building. That he is now being accused by some of being involved in the plot on the basis that he had his gun drawn... well... what can be said about that kind of reasoning... from anyone else, I'd be dumb-founded. But from David Lifton, it is becoming the standard fare. STORY 4: OSWALD'S ACTUAL ENCOUNTER WITH A COP: First floor entrance As with the 4th floor encounter with the probable real sniper, and the first floor store-room version, this one was "disappeared". Fortunately, as with those other stories, this one could not be entirely wiped from all the records, Oswald's actual encounter with a cop was at the front entrance as he tried to leave. It was not with Baker, but with Eugen Welcome Barnett who was guarding the front entrance. He was asked to step aside so that his details could be taken. Shelley confirmed he was an employee. He was allowed to leave: was the first to leave - thus his details ended up on top of the list provided to Revill. In typical Oswaldian style, he gave his name as Harvey Lee Oswald and his address as 605 Elsbeth (a variation on an old address). Did Oswald realize he needed to buy some time?

This encounter was recorded by the much maligned Holmes as being what Oswald said in response to his questioning. The fact that no one else mentioned it is only evidence that they knew it was poison. It is further supported by the initial report in the Sydney Morning Herald. Mr Lifton suggested this story would be untrustworthy unless it came under a byline. When told it did just that, Mr Lifton ignored that advice and continues to suggest the story had to be wrong. Lastly, it is supported by the recollections of James Jarman as recorded in his HSCA interview. Mr Lifton wants to dismiss this as hearsay forgetting completely that a lot of FBI reports are full of hearsay, as are the WC and HSCA records and interviews. In some legal settings, hearsay is allowed - otherwise the WC and HSCA were a gigantic waste of effort (well, to some extent, they were, but not for this reason). And the FBI may as well not have bothered interviewing anywhere near the numbers they did. What are the odds that three very different sources - independent of each other, all come up with the same story? Unless that story was essentially true, I'd say the odds would be astronomical. ADDENDUM Wade: Killing two birds... On leaving the building "Witnesses saw Oswald in the building and saw him leave immediately afterward." So who were the witnesses who saw him leave? Wade continues... "He was stopped by a policeman, but was told 'he's all right' because he worked in the building and was allowed to leave." Once again, confirmation that Oswald was stopped by a cop at the front entrance and allowed to leave after being cleared as an employee. On Bledsoe & the bus "Wade said Police got on his trail because of a woman who told of a man who laughed because President Kennedy had been shot." This was Mary Bledsoe, and as we now know, "laughing boy" was NOT Oswald - it was Roy Milton Jones. Her report, made initially by her son, Porter was in error. But no matter... the police needed to get Oswald - going solo - to the Tippit scene according to their own timeline.

It caused McWatters to believe he was taken to a line up to ID Jones. It caused the need to steal a transfer from McWatters bus, pretend it came from Oswald (which in turn required them to posit another unnecessary search of the prisoner so it could be "found") and then get McWatters to confirm it was one of his. It caused Mary to have to go with the Oswald as lodger story to save her having to ID anyone. Wade - in that one line - shoots down the whole bus ride saga. His record in court shows he was no idiot. But watch as Wade is accused anyway of being just that. -------------------------------Source: The Desert News, Nov 25, 1963