Who do you believe?

[Colin Crow]

Norman and Jarman were not on the front steps. They were on the sidewalk of Elm.

Mute point Tim once I acknowledged they moved south easterly with Givens. My recollection was that they were standing just west of the steps close to the building when Truly was standing on the other side by the mailboxes. My memory is not great these days.....getting old.

[Colin Crow]

He wouldn't have needed to see them walking along the East side of the building. He could see from their angle of approach that they were not headed for the front entrance. Therefore, when he heard them below on the fifth floor he knew that they had entered the building from the rear.

Use Google street.

Assuming he was noting them and their angle of approach was consistent with your argument. So he noted their movements, heard them below....deduces that they passed the lunchroom on their way. Why say he ate lunch with them as an alibi that would be so easily disproven? Why say he was in the room when anyone could have been there? West, Piper and Dougherty could all be candidates to destroy his "alibi" along with Norman and Jarman. He had to have known they moved the way they did and that no one else was in the domino room at 12.25pm.

[Tim Nickerson]

Mute point Tim once I acknowledged they moved south easterly with Givens. My recollection was that they were standing just west of the steps close to the building when Truly was standing on the other side by the mailboxes. My memory is not great these days.....getting old.

Mr. BALL. Where did you stand?
Mr. NORMAN. We stood on the Elm Street sidewalk.
Mr. BALL. On the sidewalk?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes. We didn't go any further than that point.
Mr. BALL. What time was it that you went out there?
Mr. NORMAN. Oh, I would say, I don't know exactly, around 12 or 12:10, something like that.
Mr. BALL. Who was standing with you when you were standing on the sidewalk, on the Elm Street sidewalk?
Mr. NORMAN. I remember it was Danny Arce.
Mr. BALL. And who else?
Mr. NORMAN. I remember seeing Mr. Truly and Mr. Campbell. They were standing somewhere behind us, not exactly behind us but they were back of us.

[Colin Crow]

Mr. BALL. Where did you stand?
Mr. NORMAN. We stood on the Elm Street sidewalk.
Mr. BALL. On the sidewalk?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes. We didn't go any further than that point.
Mr. BALL. What time was it that you went out there?
Mr. NORMAN. Oh, I would say, I don't know exactly, around 12 or 12:10, something like that.
Mr. BALL. Who was standing with you when you were standing on the sidewalk, on the Elm Street sidewalk?
Mr. NORMAN. I remember it was Danny Arce.
Mr. BALL. And who else?
Mr. NORMAN. I remember seeing Mr. Truly and Mr. Campbell. They were standing somewhere behind us, not exactly behind us but they were back of us.

Thanks Tim, I think my impression of Truly being near the mailbox was obtained from his mentioning Shelly to his right "when he faced the motorcade". So at some stage he must have turned back to view Shelley on the steps (behind and to his west).

Mr. TRULY. 3 or 4 minutes after we reached the entrance, the walkway, we stood on the steps 2 or 3 minutes, and then I don't believe we just gradually moved out a bit.
And then when the policemen leading the motorcade came off of Main on to Houston, we saw them coming, and then we just moved out a little farther to the edge of the parkway.
Mr. BELIN. Did you notice any other company employees with you other than Mr. Campbell at that time?
Mr. TRULY. Well, I did. I noticed several. Mrs. Reid was standing there close. And it seemed like there were several of the other employees standing out in front of the building. But I cannot--I think Bill Shelley was standing over to my right as I faced the motorcade--somewheres in that area.
I noticed just before the motorcade passed there were, I believe, three of our colored boys had come out and started up, and two of them came back. And I didn't see them when the motorcade passed.
But they had started across Houston Street up Elm, and they came back later on, and I think those were the ones that were two of them were the ones on the fifth floor. Possibly they could not see over the crowd. They are short boys. I wasn't doing too well at that, myself.
Mr. BELIN. All right.

[Colin Crow]

Actually, she was very consistent in her statement. It was the FBI that kept altering it. She never said that she only got a glimpse of LHO. That was dreamed up by the FBI. She consistently said 12:25 p.m., but this sunk the official claim so they changed the time.

I covered all of this in my series.

Rob, has it ever occurred to you that she changed her story in 1978 out of fear? Moving her sighting back to 12.15pm is much less of a problem for the WC version. Also was it ever confirmed where the drinking fountain was? I believe some research places the place her drink of water could be obtained was some distance from the lunch room.

[Tim Nickerson]

When the author contacted Arnold in 1978 to get a first and account, she was surprised to hear how she had been reported by the FBI. Her spontaneous reaction, that the FBI had misquoted her, came before the author explained to her the importance of Oswald?s whereabouts at given moments. Arnold?s recollection of what she observed was clear?having spotted Oswald had been her one personal contribution to the record of that memorable day. As secretary to the company vice president she knew Oswald; he had been in the habit of coming to her for change. What she claimed she told the FBI is very different from the Bureau report of her comments. ?About a quarter of an hour before the assassination,? she said in 1978, ?I went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment? . Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right-hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him, but I recognized him clearly.?

Arnold had some reason to remember having gone into the lunchroom. She was pregnant at the time and had a craving for a glass of water. She also recalled, in 1978, that this was ?about 12:15. It may have been slightly later.? --  "Not In Your Lifetime" by Anthony Summers, page 92

[Wesley Johnson]

Actually, she was very consistent in her statement. It was the FBI that kept altering it. She never said that she only got a glimpse of LHO. That was dreamed up by the FBI. She consistently said 12:25 p.m., but this sunk the official claim so they changed the time.

I covered all of this in my series.

I read your disclaimer Rob on one of your posts that get hardly any replies about keeping on topic. Practice what you preach. The question is "who do you believe? Oswald or Arnold. And you are always spouting off about LNers never having evidence. What a joke. You buffs never have anything but third party hearsay, or "It was altered, it was faked , it was covered up, he said, she said". Very amusing. By the way, are you one of the fence walkers on here? Which theory do you believe?

[Wesley Johnson]

Name a witness that supports Arnold or Oswald's statements of where Oswald had lunch.

Asking for information which you know does not exist, or at least is not included in the official narative, does not make your case any stronger. In fact, trying to shift the burden of proof only weakens your own arguments.

I've read the statements by Captain Will Fritz and he stated that when asked "Oswald said he had lunch on the first floor".

The problem is, that what Fritz says isn't always supported by what others who were present said in their reports. But in this case, if Oswald said he had his lunch on the first floor (in the Domino room) what do you think that proves?

On the one hand it only makes it more possible that he did indeed see Norman and Jarman enter the building, minutes before the shots being fired and on the other hand it does not rule out at all that, after he finished his lunch, Oswald went up to the 2nd floor lunchroom to get a drink. So, what is your point?

Remember, the man in the 6th floor window was first seen some 15 minutes prior to the shooting. The problem for you is that we know for a fact that Norman and Jarman entered the shipping room of the building anywhere between 12.20 and 12.25. If Oswald did in fact see them and/or if Carolyn Arnold did see Oswald some time between 12.20 (when Sanders said she was in the 2nd floor lunchroom) and 12.25 (when Arnold said she left the building to watch to motorcade) you've got Oswald on either the first or second floor at a time when the man seen in the 6th floor window was already in position!

Seriously? What if they were asked  "could Oswald have been in the toilet when they came through?" what if they were asked "could Carolyn Arnold have been on the first floor when they walked through?"

Trying to ridicule a serious point is a weak strategy. The point I was making, which apparently went over your head, is that the quality of the answer by a witness is determined by the quality of the question asked. Ask the wrong question and you get a wrong answer. Failure to question Norman and Jarman more closely on this subject tells me that Fritz et all were not really interested in finding out anything that might support Oswald's claim.

You can attempt to twist and spin it however you like Martin, I stand by my question "name any witness that can support Oswald's and Arnold's statements concerning where Oswald was during lunch."

Name one person who can support Brennan's claim that it was Oswald who was shooting from the 6th floor window?
Name one person who can support Bledsoe's claim that Oswald was wearing the same shirt on the bus as he was arrested in?
Name one person who can support Roberts' claim that Oswald left the roominghouse zipping up a jacket?

See, how easy it is to ask such questions?

You seem to think (as many LNs do) that your position is correct unless you can be proven wrong. It doesn't work that way. There is no "winning by default". You need to prove your case... try and concentrate on that!

Have you read the documents concerning Oswald's interrogation and studied the films of the man while in custody?

Yes, I have read the reports and they contradict eachother too often to be considered accurate or sufficiently reliable. As for the fims of Oswald in custody, I don't really see what's there to study...

If he was being framed and a "patsy" as he claimed, he sure didn't act like it.

Really? How was he supposed to act?

I would have been screaming my head off every chance I got for a lawyer and telling Captain Fritz I was innocent.


You are not Oswald. Not everybody reacts and acts in the same way. Just because you would do something one way, doesn't mean that everybody else has to do it that way. Your argument is bogus. Besides, Oswald protested his innocence and he did ask for a lawyer several times.

Oswald did not do that Martin. On the contrary he was confrontational the whole time.

How in the world would you even know this for a fact? And what does that mean to you? Oswald did something different than you would do and thus he must be guilty, is that it? That's right out of the Salem playbook. 

He told lie after lie.

We have already established that there is no verbatim account of what Oswald really said while in custody, yet you continue to claim he lied.... based on what, exactly?

Martin you and your CT buff buddies better not ever start a life of crime or be in a real conspiracy. None of you have any common sense or any sense at all. Over the years the CTers have created so many theories that there must be over a hundred shooters now. It is funny that a lot of the people on here will not commit to saying which theory they believe. Instead all they do is argue with the people who believe Oswald acted alone. CTers have more people being at the plaza then were really there. You said earlier that you had concerns about the evidence against Oswald. So let me ask you. Is there a single piece of evidence that points to Oswald that you do trust? Anything? It is entertaining though.