Time for Truth

[Alan J. Ford]

*self-reminder: pick up on the following connection later this week the Good Lord willing...

http://joanmellen.com/wordpress/gallery/warren-de-brueys/

Could this man have been the wrongly-accused's handler during the Summer of 1963 down in New Orleans? and, Is he also the individual who set the theatrics at the Texas Theatre in motion?

[Alan Ford]

I'll take a virtual stroll through the CE 1381 statements to account for every Negro employee on scene that fateful afternoon to get an idea that IF that figure in the Hughes film is a man of colour...

No if about it----------look at the back of his right hand!

[Alan J. Ford]

Where I applaud your apt assessment @ male figure, Mr. Ford, I respectfully disagree that the wrongly-accused's right hand suggests he is a man of colour. More below to cast doubt on that, but let me add that taking the same image you shared into consideration both the neckline and back of left-hand is characteristic of someone who isn't a Black male. That said, let's take the following into consideration as well...

(A) None of the Black male employees that afternoon wore clothing characteristic of the attire the wrongly-accused wpre that afternoon; (B) 90% of the Balck male TSBD employees employed that afternoon are very dark-complected skin tones, save for Mr. Williams (Bonnie Ray) who is easily eliminated because he appears in the same film capture as the wrongly-accused; (C) upon reading their CE 1381 statements, WC testimony, etc. none of the Black male TSBD employees returned to the building in the film capture shared timeline as each of them were forbidden to leave the building until upwards of 2PM that afternoon; and (D) the only Black males who did leave the building prior to that time (James "Junior" Jarman and Harold Norman) were quickly detained by Mr. Sorrels and ushered back inside per Mr. Brennan pointing them out as the figures he saw in the 5th floor window). Moreover, neither of these men wore the same clothing as the wrongly-accused's familiar reddish-brown openly worn shirt and grey coloured trousers as captured in 1. Mr. Mentesana's film, 2. once again in the film sequence we are discussing and 3. yet again at the Texas Theatre.

I had give some thought that IF he was indeed a man of colour there would be a possibility he could have been Mr. Givens (Charles). However, after researching that possibility there are two issues here with that possibility (1) Givens stood a towering 6'3" tall and (B) his following testimony as well ---->

Mr. Givens: So I stood therefor a while, and I went over to try to get to the building after they found out the shots came from there, and when I went over to try to get back in the officer at the door would’t let me in.
Mr. BELIN. Did you tell him you worked there?Mr. GIVENS. Yes; but he still wouldn’t let me in. He told me he wouldn’tlet no one in.
Mr. BELIN. This was the front of Elm Street?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes. So I goes back over to the parking lot.

Not wishing to stop prematurely with Givens, I then researched every other Black male employee of the TSBD...starting with Carl Jones & Roy Lewis, who were easily eliminated as they both appear in Mr. Hughes film as well, watching the wrongly-accused bound up the entrance stairs and reentering the building. BRB...

Troy West, Edward Sheilds and Eddie Piper were also eliminated as a possibility due to their respective WC testimonies about either being detained in the building until 2PM or in Edward Sheilds case simply remaining several streets away at the parking lot he and Givens shared space with a friend/associate named Tracy.

The wrongly-accused remained in Dealey Plaza post-assassination time as recorded by Mr. Mentesana & Mr. Hughes. There was no phantom bus ride nor fictitious cab ride amid a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure to frame an innocent party. The wrongly-accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody. That we both agree upon, Mr. Ford,  keep shining light, truth and justice on this case sir.

[Duncan MacRae]

No if about it----------look at the back of his right hand!

[Zeon Mason]

Unlikely Oswald reentering TSBD with officers help, because the shirt is no where near red enough to ever register as “red shirt “ man ( formally though to be Lovelady) on the steps in Hughes film raising that object to his mouth level.

Also would it not be Oswald coming OUT, not going back in, because 1st Oswald LEFT the steps to run out somewhere near the Elm st/Houston st. and then ran back  into TSBD just BEFORE  DPD officer Barnett locked the doors approx 3 min post shots?

And that man on the steps with the hat and suit on,  , is not he Mr. Campbell who was with Mrs Reid standing  on the Elm st Curb when Weigman film pans past the TSBD entrance?

[Zeon Mason]

Since Mr. I has posted a photo of Oswald wearing just his white shirt in response to my questioning the white ring effect that’s now more visible on PM in the more recent Darnell film version, then I’m not sure what that means.

I doubt Mr. I is suggesting it’s impossible the effect could be caused just from  a portion of T-shirt that would be visible if Oswald wore his reddish brown shirt open at the neck, because Mr.I is rarely that “absolute” about anything.

And since everyone (maybe) except Mr. Doyle has decided it’s either not definite or that’s it’s unlikely that PM could be Sarah Stanton, then there is still some probability that PM is Oswald IF the fuzzy white ring could be shown to be an aberration just from translating this version of Darnell film vs ALL the other earlier internet versions that did NOT show this exaggerated white fuzzy ring effect around PMs neck.

And since I just shot down the idea of the reflection of the illuminated woman in light clothing having her face reflected in the glass since her face is NOT facing the glass, therefore the apparent image that some people think is the 5’2” Pauline Sanders would be Pauline Sanders INSIDE the front lobby close to the glass looking out.

Now since Sanders affidavit statement is somewhat more detailed than the the average detail of other witnesses , especially about having actually seen a DPD officer running up the steps , something which BW Frazier and other witness did not notice, then one has to wonder why Sanders would not have also added that she moved from her east side corner position to the west side corner of the landing (PMs position) , in that same affidavit statement.

There does not appear imo to be any glasses On the face of PM. So if PM is Sanders then she must have taken the glasses off.

Suggestion was made that the PM white object raised to mouth level was a purse and so what follows from that if PM is Sanders is that she took off her glasses while standing outside, then checked her face in some small mirror affixed to part of her purse momentarily. Then, satisfied she looked better without glasses on, stayed that way until after shots were fired, when she then moved from the PM position to the inside of the lobby and put her glasses on again.

Again however, would not Sanders have stated all this moving around several times in her affidavit statement that was more detailed than the average statements of most of other witnesses?

[Bill Brown]

I don't believe otherwise. I think it's reasonable to accept that Oswald did in fact go to the roominghouse on 11/22. It's the overall credibility of Earlene Roberts as a witness that I question.

Fritz wrote his report from memory after Oswald's death. There is no way to verify what was true or not. Fritz, in my mind, lost all credibility when he presented Buell Wesley Frazier with a pre-written "confession" on Friday evening, which Frazier refused to sign.

Why do you want to shift the argument to what "conspiracy theorists" do or don't want to do. According to the reports (if they are to be believed) Oswald told his interrogators that he changed all his clothes, which makes Robert's "observation" somewhat questionable.

You're using a very vague time estimate of Earlene Roberts to make some sort of point. Even worse, you are doing so while ignoring the fact the Roberts said that she was concentrating on the television as she wanted to see the 1 PM news, just as Oswald walked in. That places his arrival at just about 1 PM and his departure at around 1:03 or 1:04

Pure speculation.

And, no, the total evidence does not indicate that Tippit was shot at 1:14 or 1:15. A simple example;

Markham testified that she left her home a little after 1 PM, perhaps 1:06. She needed to walk two blocks to get to the bus stop on Jefferson. According to their timetable there were busses at 1:12 and 1:22. Markham estimated that she would catch her usual bus at 1:15, which could be either one of the busses mentioned. To walk two blocks, Markham would have needed no more that 6 minutes, which means that she would have passed by 10th and Patton no later than 1:09 or 1:10 and she would have arrived at the bus stop at around 1:12 or 1:13. It is physically impossible for Markham to have been at 10th and Patton when Tippit was killed, if that indeed happened at 1:14 or 1:15. It does, however, match a timeline where Tippit is killed between 1:08 and 1:10.

No need to. At her WC testimony she was shown the jacket and she denied that it was the jacket she had seen. Why do you prefer what she said in an interview? Haven't we already established this is an unreliable witness?

It adds no significant value, but it's noted.

At her WC testimony she was shown the jacket and she denied that it was the jacket she had seen. Why do you prefer what she said in an interview? Haven't we already established this is an unreliable witness?

So you agree that Earlene Roberts indeed saw Oswald leave in a jacket of some sort, regardless of the color.  Why do you believe Oswald would get rid of this jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store on Jefferson?

[Martin Weidmann]

So you agree that Earlene Roberts indeed saw Oswald leave in a jacket of some sort, regardless of the color.  Why do you believe Oswald would get rid of this jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store on Jefferson?

No, I merely quoted what Earlene Roberts said in her testimony. I, personally, have serious doubts about what she did and could see in the few seconds she saw Oswald going out of the front door.
I seem to remember that you have actually been inside the roominghouse, as I have. So, you know how short the distance is between Oswald's room and the front door. You also know, as Roberts told the WC, she was concentrating on the television, which means she had her back turned towards the part of the room where Oswald must have walked. I wouldn't be surpised if she only saw him briefly and in a glance as he opened the front door and walked out. No more than two or three seconds at best.