Truly's False Roll

[Dan O'meara]

Is the suggestion here that Truly was involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald in the assassination of the President by staging a fake roll call?  What point would there be in that?  Oswald was gone.  His name was going to come up once the FBI learned that a former defector to the USSR and avowed Marxist worked in the building from which the shots were fired and was missing.  There was no apparent urgency from a conspirator's perspective to raise Oswald's name once he is gone.  His flight is evidence of guilt.   If anything, their incentive would have been to silence Oswald in the TSBD before he got away.  But Truly was his ticket to escape by vouching for him when Baker had him cornered.  Not exactly consistent with a role in framing Oswald.  If there is no contention, however, being made that Truly was involved in a conspiracy, then whether there was a roll call or not is just a historical curiosity (like whether John Wilkes Booth's horse was brown or black).

What's happening here, Richard, is that I'm pointing out the reality of the situation:

Fact - Biffle overheard Truly telling Fritz Oswald had failed to show up for a roll call
Fact - The roll call was used as a pretense to single out Oswald and immediately steer the investigation towards apprehending him.
Fact - the roll call never happened

If you can come up with a moderately plausible scenario in which Truly invents a roll call to single out Oswald to the authorities that doesn't involve Truly doing it purposefully, I'd like to hear it.

"His name was going to come up once the FBI learned that a former defector to the USSR and avowed Marxist worked in the building from which the shots were fired and was missing."

How far into Mexico would Oswald have been by the time that happened?
And let's not forget - the FBI were fully aware "that a former defector to the USSR and avowed Marxist worked in the building from which the shots were fired".

"But Truly was his ticket to escape by vouching for him when Baker had him cornered."

So, when Baker asked Truly if Oswald worked there what was Truly supposed to say? "I've never seen him in my life" "I know him but he's a bit dodgy"
Think it through.

"If anything, their incentive would have been to silence Oswald in the TSBD before he got away."

Please regale us with how that would've went down 

[Alan Ford]

It appears to me that the sole purpose of Truly inventing the roll call was so that he had a pretense on which he could put the spotlight of suspicion immediately on Oswald and set the course of the investigation towards apprehending him.

SCENARIO A: Mr Truly is a liar who lies about the roll call.
O'MEARA TAKE ON SCENARIO A: I feel the need to consider this scenario

SCENARIO B: Mr Truly is a liar who lies about the lunchroom incident.
O'MEARA TAKE ON SCENARIO B: I don't feel the need to consider this scenario and anyone who does is a madman

[Alan Ford]

Is the suggestion here that Truly was involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald in the assassination of the President by staging a fake roll call?  What point would there be in that?  Oswald was gone.  His name was going to come up once the FBI learned that a former defector to the USSR and avowed Marxist worked in the building from which the shots were fired and was missing.  There was no apparent urgency from a conspirator's perspective to raise Oswald's name once he is gone.  His flight is evidence of guilt.   If anything, their incentive would have been to silence Oswald in the TSBD before he got away.  But Truly was his ticket to escape by vouching for him when Baker had him cornered.

The man caught walking away from the rear stairway several floors up, whom Mr Truly had vouched for, was not Mr Oswald. Mr Truly had a big problem on his hands

The man may have been this fellow:



Consistent with Officer Baker's description and the other witness descriptions. And with the suspect sketch, which likely came from either Mr Howard "I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again" Brennan, Mr Fischer or Mr Edwards:



 

[Charles Collins]

Is the suggestion here that Truly was involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald in the assassination of the President by staging a fake roll call?  What point would there be in that?  Oswald was gone.  His name was going to come up once the FBI learned that a former defector to the USSR and avowed Marxist worked in the building from which the shots were fired and was missing.  There was no apparent urgency from a conspirator's perspective to raise Oswald's name once he is gone.  His flight is evidence of guilt.   If anything, their incentive would have been to silence Oswald in the TSBD before he got away.  But Truly was his ticket to escape by vouching for him when Baker had him cornered.  Not exactly consistent with a role in framing Oswald.  If there is no contention, however, being made that Truly was involved in a conspiracy, then whether there was a roll call or not is just a historical curiosity (like whether John Wilkes Booth's horse was brown or black).

John Wilkes Booth’s horse was white. It’s name was Mr. Ed Sr. Mr Ed Sr. talked just like his TV star grandson. And Mr. Ed Sr squealed on John Wilkes Booth. How else do you think that they caught him?   

[Richard Smith]

What's happening here, Richard, is that I'm pointing out the reality of the situation:

Fact - Biffle overheard Truly telling Fritz Oswald had failed to show up for a roll call
Fact - The roll call was used as a pretense to single out Oswald and immediately steer the investigation towards apprehending him.
Fact - the roll call never happened

If you can come up with a moderately plausible scenario in which Truly invents a roll call to single out Oswald to the authorities that doesn't involve Truly doing it purposefully, I'd like to hear it.

This is more in a continuing pattern of making a mountain out of a molehill.  You begin with a false (or at least a very questionable premise) that Truly lied about the roll call. And that he did this to "steer the investigation towards" Oswald.  That sounds like you are suggesting that Truly was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime given its proximity to the crime (i.e. just a short time afterward).  It is hard to explain that conduct in any other way.  Truly had no apparent personal animosity toward Oswald to steer the DPD to Oswald as a suspect in the murder of the President.  By implication that leaves Truly as part of the conspiracy.  There is absolutely no evidence - none - to suggest this is the case. 

We can test the plausibility of this theory by applying some level of critical analysis to determine if it makes any sense in the context of a conspiracy.  And it doesn't.  Truly is the person who actually vouches for Oswald when Baker has a gun pointed at him.  The conspirators in this fantasy later recruit Ruby to silence Oswald (but only after he has an opportunity to speak before the world press and talk with his family).  Surely, they would have taken this golden opportunity in the lunchroom to silence or arrest Oswald at the TSBD but Truly is the guy who allows him to escape.  Why would Truly have to fabricate a roll call to steer the investigators to Oswald?  He could merely mention that he noticed he was not present.  Truly would have had some cause to bring Oswald to mind because he knew that Oswald - unlike most others - had been in the building.  It's not every day that Truly would have been involved in the search for a murderer that included a cop pulling a gun on one of his employees.  So Truly knows Oswald was in the building at the time of the shooting and notices that he is gone afterward.  It would be natural to point that out as it differed from the conduct of most every other employee.

Can we ever untangle all the details of the roll call?  Was it like in grade school or more informal in which some witnesses like Frazier might recall it as a roll call and others not mention it because Truly just asked around?  Who knows?  The roll call is not the issue.  The important point is that Oswald WAS missing.  Whether that was noticed via roll call or otherwise.  The conspirators certainly knew that Oswald would soon come to the attention of the authorities because he was already a suspect person known for his nutty political activities and was missing.  What would be the rush?  The more Oswald ran and evaded the authorities the more guilty he appeared.  If he got to Mexico (unlikely for a guy with no money or car) then who cares?  They would eventually capture or kill him.  The incentive of the conspirators was for the public to believe Oswald was guilty.  Flight does that.  The FBI and others would eventually capture him.  If they are "in" on the conspiracy, they already presumably know who the patsy is anyway.  No need for any roll call cover story given that Oswald worked in the building, was a known kook to the FBI, left a ton of evidence including his rifle, and was missing.  They didn't need Truly to fabricate any story to point the finger at Oswald.

[Bill Chapman]

billchapman

[Dan O'meara]

This is more in a continuing pattern of making a mountain out of a molehill.  You begin with a false (or at least a very questionable premise) that Truly lied about the roll call. And that he did this to "steer the investigation towards" Oswald.  That sounds like you are suggesting that Truly was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime given its proximity to the crime (i.e. just a short time afterward).  It is hard to explain that conduct in any other way.  Truly had no apparent personal animosity toward Oswald to steer the DPD to Oswald as a suspect in the murder of the President.  By implication that leaves Truly as part of the conspiracy.  There is absolutely no evidence - none - to suggest this is the case. 

Your analytical powers leave a lot to be desired.
Firstly, I do not begin with the premise that Truly lied about the roll call.
Even the most cursory glance through what I've posted reveals that.
I begin with Biffle overhearing Truly's interaction with Fritz during which he hears that Oswald has failed to show up for a roll call and that they "can't find him anywhere".
I then present evidence that this roll call did not take place.
I also present evidence that this singling out of Oswald via the invented roll call immediately turns the direction of the investigation towards Oswald.
The roll call is the single element that turns the investigation towards Oswald but the roll call didn't happen. Truly invented it. I am at a loss to explain how this could be done in any innocent fashion so I am led to conclude that Truly lied about the roll call.

It's not a premise I begin with, it is a conclusion I am led to by the evidence.

If you believe the roll call happened, present the evidence.
If you believe there is an innocent explanation for Truly inventing the roll call, let's hear it.

The bottom line is this - if it is demonstrated beyond doubt that Truly lied about the roll call, then this itself is evidence that he was involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald.

We can test the plausibility of this theory by applying some level of critical analysis to determine if it makes any sense in the context of a conspiracy.  And it doesn't.  Truly is the person who actually vouches for Oswald when Baker has a gun pointed at him.  The conspirators in this fantasy later recruit Ruby to silence Oswald (but only after he has an opportunity to speak before the world press and talk with his family).  Surely, they would have taken this golden opportunity in the lunchroom to silence or arrest Oswald at the TSBD but Truly is the guy who allows him to escape.  Why would Truly have to fabricate a roll call to steer the investigators to Oswald?  He could merely mention that he noticed he was not present.  Truly would have had some cause to bring Oswald to mind because he knew that Oswald - unlike most others - had been in the building.  It's not every day that Truly would have been involved in the search for a murderer that included a cop pulling a gun on one of his employees.  So Truly knows Oswald was in the building at the time of the shooting and notices that he is gone afterward.  It would be natural to point that out as it differed from the conduct of most every other employee.

When Baker turns to Truly and says "Does this man work here?", what do you think Truly should do if he is a conspirator?

Can we ever untangle all the details of the roll call?  Was it like in grade school or more informal in which some witnesses like Frazier might recall it as a roll call and others not mention it because Truly just asked around?  Who knows?  The roll call is not the issue.  The important point is that Oswald WAS missing.  Whether that was noticed via roll call or otherwise.  The conspirators certainly knew that Oswald would soon come to the attention of the authorities because he was already a suspect person known for his nutty political activities and was missing.  What would be the rush?  The more Oswald ran and evaded the authorities the more guilty he appeared.  If he got to Mexico (unlikely for a guy with no money or car) then who cares?  They would eventually capture or kill him.  The incentive of the conspirators was for the public to believe Oswald was guilty.  Flight does that.  The FBI and others would eventually capture him.  If they are "in" on the conspiracy, they already presumably know who the patsy is anyway.  No need for any roll call cover story given that Oswald worked in the building, was a known kook to the FBI, left a ton of evidence including his rifle, and was missing.  They didn't need Truly to fabricate any story to point the finger at Oswald.

Waffle.

[Bill Chapman]

If you believe the roll call happened, present the evidence.

Living History with Karen Westbrook Scranton

27:40-ish
'They took a roll call to make sure everyone was there' -- Scranton