+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Sean Murphy's research deserves more (/thread-11857.html)
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - David Josephs - 18-04-2015
So why then does Baker and Truly go so out of their way to remove the Coke from his hands in their story?
Is it to shorten the time line?
CE497 is the 2nd floor layout... there is another door on the NE side of the lunchroom.
If the entire lunchroom encounter is a lie... it has to be a constructed lie that addresses and discredits the other possibilities
Mrs Reid puts a Coke into the hands of the Oswald she sees walk past her in just a T-shirt - no brown overshirt
Bookout does the same...
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Albert Doyle - 18-04-2015
David Josephs Wrote:So why then does Baker and Truly go so out of their way to remove the Coke from his hands in their story?
Is it to shorten the time line?
It makes sense that the plotters realized the Coke was significant of Oswald being settled-in to the lunch room for an unknown period. It is also possible the controllers knew Oswald was settled-in to the lunch room for the duration of the shooting and had to remove all evidence of this. Carolyn Arnold sees Oswald chowing down at say 12:24. Baker sees him with the Coca Cola he bought to wash it down. Logic puts Oswald in the lunch room between those two things. The evidence is the conspiracy. The need to remove the Coca Cola Mrs Reid witnessed is incriminating. It could be Oswald told too many people he was in the lunch room in the police station so once they realized he had been witnessed by too many people they inserted it back into the story.
Think about how much time the purchase of the Coca Cola takes out of the dash from the 6th floor. It also bridges Carolyn Arnold's sighting with Baker's.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - David Josephs - 18-04-2015
Albert Doyle Wrote:David Josephs Wrote:So why then does Baker and Truly go so out of their way to remove the Coke from his hands in their story?
Is it to shorten the time line?
It makes sense that the plotters realized the Coke was significant of Oswald being settled-in to the lunch room for an unknown period. It is also possible the controllers knew Oswald was settled-in to the lunch room for the duration of the shooting and had to remove all evidence of this. Carolyn Arnold sees Oswald chowing down at say 12:24. Baker sees him with the Coca Cola he bought to wash it down. Logic puts Oswald in the lunch room between those two things. The evidence is the conspiracy. The need to remove the Coca Cola Mrs Reid witnessed is incriminating. It could be Oswald told too many people he was in the lunch room in the police station so once they realized he had been witnessed by too many people they inserted it back into the story.
Think about how much time the purchase of the Coca Cola takes out of the dash from the 6th floor. It also bridges Carolyn Arnold's sighting with Baker's.
We really need to agree that the Oswald Reid sees is NOT the man Ruby kills.
That the lunchroom scene never occurs and that we don't know who was on the stairs re: Baker's affidavit, and Truly also sees this person per Baker yet is never asked about it.
Baker's affidavit is completely ignored. As opposed to the affidavits of Boone and Weitzman which need to be refuted, repeatedly....
It was pointed out the Arnold denies saying he was near the front door, years later, as why would she be looking back...
Depends on what is believed about which story told when....
The PM location has to be the worst place to see the motorcade... and we know that Lovelady is cut off from revealing who it may be
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Lauren Johnson - 18-04-2015
Quote:The PM location has to be the worst place to see the motorcade...
This is the fact that has intrigued me. He is not doing what everyone else is doing -- looking at the motorcade.
What happens if he is not supposed to be looking at the motorcade -- that is, he is a identifying situations that might need cleaning up at a later date?
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Albert Doyle - 18-04-2015
David Josephs Wrote:We really need to agree that the Oswald Reid sees is NOT the man Ruby kills.
Mrs Reid puts the sighting at 2 minutes after the shooting. This should be the lunch room Oswald.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - David Josephs - 18-04-2015
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Quote:The PM location has to be the worst place to see the motorcade...
This is the fact that has intrigued me. He is not doing what everyone else is doing -- looking at the motorcade.
What happens if he is not supposed to be looking at the motorcade -- that is, he is a identifying situations that might need cleaning up at a later date?
A possibility for sure Lauren... but speculative at best.
Remember Oswald's answer to "were you in the building"... "naturally, if I work in that building"... (1:20 in) this is followed by the infamous "I'm a Patsy" declaration.
not exactly a yes or no... also notice how many times he requests a lawyer or representation....
Does it not seem painfully obvious that if PM is Oswald all he need say is "I was out front of the TSBD at the time standing on the top step by the doors"
Does not an innocent man IMMEDIATELY make that claim if it's the truth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FDDuRSgzFk
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Bart Kamp - 19-04-2015
Hi David
tried to pm you but your inbox is full.....
Great post btw!
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Lauren Johnson - 19-04-2015
David Josephs Wrote:Lauren Johnson Wrote:Quote:The PM location has to be the worst place to see the motorcade...
This is the fact that has intrigued me. He is not doing what everyone else is doing -- looking at the motorcade.
What happens if he is not supposed to be looking at the motorcade -- that is, he is a identifying situations that might need cleaning up at a later date?
A possibility for sure Lauren... but speculative at best.
Remember Oswald's answer to "were you in the building"... "naturally, if I work in that building"... (1:20 in) this is followed by the infamous "I'm a Patsy" declaration.
not exactly a yes or no... also notice how many times he requests a lawyer or representation....
Does it not seem painfully obvious that it PM is Oswald all he need say is "I was out front of the TSBD at the time standing on the top step by the doors"
Does not an innocent man IMMEDIATELY make that claim if it's the truth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FDDuRSgzFk
Yes. Speculation on my part.
Nevertheless, if it's Oswald, the Oswald who was shot by Ruby, he sure seems to be strangely indifferent to the position of JFK's vehicle, for a man who admired JFK. I am not trying to prove anything, btw. And yes, his statement about where he was eating his lunch is probably the one piece of evidence for PM being Oswald.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Albert Doyle - 19-04-2015
Lauren Johnson Wrote:And yes, his statement about where he was eating his lunch is probably the one piece of evidence for PM being Oswald.
His statement of being on the 1st floor is after the Baker encounter.
Doubt PM was Oswald because he would have to make the same run as Baker to the lunch room and be out of breath.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - David Josephs - 19-04-2015
Albert Doyle Wrote:Lauren Johnson Wrote:And yes, his statement about where he was eating his lunch is probably the one piece of evidence for PM being Oswald.
His statement of being on the 1st floor is after the Baker encounter.
Doubt PM was Oswald because he would have to make the same run as Baker to the lunch room and be out of breath.
Albert Albert...
Follow please. There was no lunchroom encounter between Baker, Truly and Oswald. It did not happen that way... It happened as Baker described in the affidavit he wrote that afternoon which the WC lawyers were told about by Baker during testimony and ignored 3 successive times... Truly was not asked about who they stopped according to the affidavit... but in the lunchroom
Baker and Truly claim there was not coke to shorten the time frame
Bookout's recap of the interrogation says that Oswald DID say he had gotten a coke, THEN went downstairs for lunch, THEN the officer came in - his name is first, stated incorrectly and with the ELSBETH address which he had not lived at since Dec 1962.
Given this document - what did Truly tell Fritz related to his address and the big question - DPD men were at Beckley by 2:30pm... none of the ID on him had Beckley. The Wallet WESTBROOK brought to the Tippit scene did not have an address... (I believe there are great threads that address this Beckley question)
The lunchroom is akin to the Randle/Frasier evidence about a bag that never was. Can you imagine the pressure on a person like Wesley with his Enfield and ammo taken, him tracked down and the notion pushed by the DPD that HE was the man who helped the killer get the rifle and then back to kill JFK... My OPINION is that he and Linnie Mae where maneuvered into creating a bag story and Wesley tried to help yet couldn't bring himself to directly incriminate Oswald... hence the wrong dimensions and such... just one line of thought.
He was living at the Paines when he got the job yet the FBI's report of 11/19 still does not have his home address - either Beckley or Irving... and it was Ruth who tells the FBI on 11/1 where Oswald is working yet no address while in Dallas.