Deep Politics Forum
The doors of perception - proof oswald is not guilty - Printable Version

+- 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: The doors of perception - proof oswald is not guilty (/thread-11022.html)

Pages: 1 2

The doors of perception - proof oswald is not guilty - Bill Kelly - 10-07-2013

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-doors-of-perception-why-oswald-is.html

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/07/howard-roffmans-presumed-guilty.html

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/07/who-framed-ozzie-rabbit.html

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/07/oswald-from-out-of-cosmos.html

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/07/oswald-from-out-of-cosmos.html

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/07/robert-k-tanenbaum-wecht-conference.html

THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION - PROOF OSWALD IS NOT GUILTY
of being the Sixth Floor Sniper and Assassin of President Kennedy

By William Kelly [billkelly3@gmail.com

Excuse me, Judge JohnTunheim and Gary Cornwell and those who have publicly pronounced Lee Harvey Oswald guilty of killing President Kennedy, I'd like you to consider a few facts that prove he is not guilty of the murder.

Can you give Lee Harvey Oswald a break? Can you give the accused assassin of President Kennedy the benefit of the doubt? Can you assume that he's innocent, if only for a few minutes while I try to convince you he didn't kill President Kennedy?

Do you support the time honored American tradition of presumption of innocence- a constitutional right that presupposes one's innocence until proven guilty in a court of law? Well Oswald was never convicted in a court of law - other than for disturbing the peace for rumbling around on a New Orleans street corner with some anti-Castro Cubans, and now he can't defend himself because he was murdered while in custody of the Dallas Police, which greatly reflects on the law enforcement officers who first considered him a suspect.

If you can at least try to keep an open mind, and consider a few basic previously established points - four facts that if true, proves Oswald is innocent of killing the President, then maybe you can view the assassination in a new light and from a different perspective, and join the effort to try to identify the real assassins.

For a variety of reasons most people believe Oswald is not guilty of being the assassin and was framed as a patsy,as he himself claimed, and they consider him a pawn in a larger conspiracy, one that still affects us today. The unresolved nature of the assassination of President Kennedy still affects us today in the continued unhindered use of political assassination as a means of controlling power and the continued withholding of government records relating to the assassination on grounds of national security.

But a few people - less than 20%, whostill believe that Oswald was the lone, deranged gunman, and maintain he isguilty of the crime. Those who think Oswald did it alone also usually attributeto him a psychological motive - such as seeking fame. As the former chairman of the Assassination Records Review Board Judge Tunheim put it: "I think his motivation is he thought he was supposed to be someone famous in his own mind, and if he did this he would be viewed with great glory in the Soviet Union and Cuba," an informed opinion that belies the fact that Oswald denied the deed.

Since it can be clearly shown, as I will do, that Oswald could not have been the Sixth Floor Sniper, then what can be made of the motivation of the patsy, framed for the crime, just as he claimed to be?

Whatever you believe, your opinionis based on something - probably some true facts that you learned over the years - or maybe it is based on an accumulation of a lot of knowledge about the case, but the positive proof Oswald that Oswald is not guilty of killing JFK is based only on a few simple officially acknowledged facts that were established in the first few minutes after the assassination.

Those predisposed to Oswald's singular guilt usually list the hard, circumstantial evidence that proves to them, that Oswald shot the president from the Sixth Floor Sniper's nest. As they attest, the rifle found on the Sixth Floor was ordered by Oswald, his palm print was on the rifle, three bullet shells found at the scene were ejected from Oswald's rifle and the bullet found at Parkland hospital was fired from the rifle. What more do you need to convict him?

Although Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry was one of the first to proclaim Oswald guilty, he also acknowledged that ,after all is said and done, "we can't put him in that window."

And the preponderance of testimony and evidence supports the fact Oswald wasn't the gunman in that window, as those who did eyeball the gunman exonerate Oswald as they unanimously agree the gunman wore a white shirt, while Oswald was wearing a brown one, and as one witness noticed, the sniper had a distinguishing bald spot on the top of his head that excludes Oswald as a sniper suspect.

There are also witnesses who saw aman with a rifle in the Sixth Floor widow at 12:15 p.m., when Oswald was seen on the first floor. And after theassassination a court clerk from across the street saw a man in the Sixth Floorwindow five minutes after the last shot was fired, when Oswald was on theSecond Floor. If Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper, then who was the man seenin the window with a rifle fifteen minutes before the assassination, whenOswald was seen on the first floor? And if not Oswald, who was the man seen inthe sniper's window five minutes after the last shot, when Oswald was on theSecond Floor?

But these questions don't seem to bother those who are setin their belief that it was Oswald who shot the President from that window and then quickly ran down the steps to the Second Floor Lunchroom.

TECHNICALLY NOT GUILTY

The bottom line is Oswald was not convicted in a court of law and probably wouldn't have been if subjected to a trial for a number ofreasons, as enumerated by former Manhattan prosecutor Robert K. Tanenbaum, the first deputy chief counsel to the HSCA. [SeeR.K. Tanenbaum - 2003 Wecht Conference transcript]

When he was Chairman of the ARRB, Judge Tunheim didn't takea position as to whether there was a conspiracy, or pass judgment on Oswald, ashis job was not to investigate the assassination, but to locate and releasegovernment records to the public and to let people make up their own minds. Buthe has more recently been quoted in the media that he personally believesOswald guilty.

Judge Tunheim must have read a lot about Lee Harvey Oswald,and he certainly knows much more about the accused assassin than most people, buthe's also a federal Judge and should know better than to describe Oswald as "guilty,"a legal term that applies only to those who have been convicted in a court oflaw.

When discussing Oswald, open minded and honest people,especially those familiar with legal terminology, refer to Oswald as the "accusedassassin" or "alleged assassin," as the TSBD historic marker correctly callshim, because that's what he is.

And the gunman in the window should be referred to as theSixth Floor Sniper, because it has never been established for certain that itwas Oswald, and there is a preponderance of evidence that Oswald wasn't on theSixth Floor at the time the shots were fired, as I will demonstrate.

OSWALD - PAWN & "MERE PATSY?"

Judge Tunheim isn't the only well-informed person topublicly express a person-al belief in Oswald's guilt, as Gary Cornwell, theformer Deputy Chief Counsel to the HSCA does in his book. After the resignationof the first HSCA Chief Counsel Richard Sprage, Cornwell was recruited by secondchief counsel G. Robert Blakey.

In his book "RealAnswers" Cornwell wrote: "…we confirmed that much of what the WarrenCommission said was wrong. But we alsofound that most of the many reasons that led critics of the WarrenCommission to conclude that Oswald was amere patsy were also wrong, and were based upon inadequate access to theavailable evidence, questionable assumptions and logic, and/or faultyscientific' analysis…"

"Mere patsy"!?

Certainly if Oswald was framed for the crime, and was set upas the patsy, as he claimed, and as much of the evidence indicates, then theassassination wasn't the work of a deranged lone nut, but was a well plannedand successfully executed conspiracy by unknown confederates still at large, andthe case an unsolved homicide and a major national security threat today.

There's nothing "mere" about it.

If Oswald wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper and was a patsy, thenhe most certainly played a smaller role - that of a sacrificial pawn - in amuch larger game and scheme of things that has yet to be figured out.

Since Gary Cornwell, not only thinks Oswald guilty, but thatthose like me who have concluded Oswald was a "mere patsy" are wrong because wehave had "inadequate access to the available evidence," make questionableassumptions and use faulty logic and/or make "faulty scientific analysis," I'dlike him to evaluate the four facts and reasoning that have led me to believethat Oswald is not guilty of killing the President.

I'd like for him to point out where I am wrong, or acknowledgeOswald is really not guilty if these four facts and reasoning are agreed on andcorrect.

While Cornwell, like Tunheim, probably knows a lot about Oswald,I'm pretty sure they haven't reviewed these four basic facts, acknowledged bythe Warren Commission, that whatever else you believe about him, if they aretrue, prove Oswald didn't kill the President.

My purpose here is to present this evidence in a publicforum and use it to convince them and anyone else who believes Oswald is guilty,that he deserves the benefit of the doubt and a presumption of innocence thatthe Constitution, as well as the evidence in the case, legally and morally grantshim.

So I publicly ask, challenge Gary Cornwell and Judge Tunheimto consider the following facts and refute or agree 1) that Oswald should notbe considered or referred to as guilty and 2) there's at least the distinct possibilitythat Oswald was not the Sixth Floor Sniper.

Judge Tunheim should recognize that Oswald, not having beenconvicted in a court of law, should not be considered or called "guilty," asthat word is a legal term reserved for those convicted in a court of law, andCornwell should acknowledge, based on these four facts, that it is possible thatOswald wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, and therefore the investigation into thisunsolved homicide should consider the probability that someone other thanOswald killed the President.

In his book Cornwell doesn't address or refute the issues orreasons that lead me to believe that Oswald could not have been the Sixth FloorSniper, but I would like him and Tunheim to consider them and respond.

I base my conclusion on just four facts from the evidenceand testimony provided to the Warren Commission, four facts that if true,completely exonerate Oswald from being the Sixth Floor Sniper. And if I makeany questionable assumptions, use faulty logic or make an incorrect scientificanalysis, I'd like to be corrected.

This is not to say that Oswald is innocent of everything. Idon't know who killed President Kennedy, I don't know who took a shot atGeneral Walker and I don't know who killed Dallas Police officer J.D. Tippit,but I do know for a fact that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill President Kennedy.

Not my original observation, I credit Howard Roffman, in hisbook "Presumed Guilty," of first pointingout most of these details, though I've since come across some additional documentsand evidence that supports the contention that Oswald is not guilty and wasframed as the patsy, and I believe it can be proven to anyone interested inreviewing these few facts, that Oswald was not the Sixth Floor Sniper. [seeDave Ratcliff http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/- http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PG.html]

Oswald did not kill President Kennedy if you believe the twomen who claim they ran into Oswald in the Second Floor lunchroom ninety secondsafter the last shot - Dallas policeofficer Marrion Baker and Roy Truly, the superintendent of the Texas SchoolBook Depository (TSBD).

There are dissenting voices who think they are lying, and there are those whobelieve the first police reports and discount the later official testimony, andthese objections are certainly worth considering. [See: Greg Parker'sReopenJFKcase blog, and The lunchroom encounter that never was.
http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-lunchroom-encounter-that-never-was.html?spref=fb].

But the following analysis is based strictly on four pointsof fact that have been entered into evidence in the official record aspublished in the Warren Report, and it rests entirely on the credibility ofDallas Policeman Marrion Baker and TSBD superintendent Roy Truly, and what theysaid occurred in the first two minutes after the assassination.

OSWALD'S ALIBI

Among the Dallasmotorcycle policemen escorting the President's motorcade through Dallas,Marrion Baker was behind the last press car when shots rang out on Dealey Plaza. Baker had just turned thecorner onto Houston Streetwhen he and was startled by the gun shots, his attention drawn to the roof ofthe building in front of him where a flock of pigeons took flight.

The digital clock on the Hertz car rental sign on the roofread: 12:30.

Baker pulled out of the motorcade, parked his bike,dismounted, and as seen in the photo taken by Malcolm Couch, entered the frontdoor of the building he suspected shots were fired from the roof - the TexasSchool Book Depository (TSBD).

At the front door Baker met Roy Truly, who identifiedhimself as the building superintendent. Baker said he wanted to go to the roof,so Truly led Baker back through the first floor to the rear service elevatorsthat went up to the roof.

Just inside the front door there are steps that lead up tothe second floor, and a passenger elevator that went up to the fourth floor,but Baker suspected the shots came from the roof, and that's where he wanted togo, and Truly knew that only the back stairs and two rear service elevatorswent to the top floors and roof, so that's where they headed.

At the back of the first floor, looking up the open elevatorshaft, Truly saw that the two service elevators were stopped together on thefifth floor, so Baker followed Truly as they ran up the rickety wooden stairs.

During their Warren Commission testimony, commission counselDavid Belin, Commissioner Allen Dulles, Senator John Sherman Cooper andCongressman Hale Boggs all questioned both Truly and Baker about theirlunchroom encounter with Oswald.

Mr. Dulles: "You do not think he used any of the elevatorsat any time to get from the sixth to the second floor?"
Mr. Truly: "You mean after the shooting? No, sir; he justcould not, because those elevators, I saw myself, were both on the fifth floor,they were both even. And I tried to get one of them, and then when we ran up tothe second floor - it would have been impossible for him to have come downeither one of those elevators after the assassination. He had to use thestairway as his only way of getting down - since we did see the elevators inthose positions."

When Roy Truly got to the top of steps on second floor, hesaid he made a sharp left turn walked ten feet and started to ascend the stepsto the third floor, thinking Baker was right behind him.

Truly: "I suppose I was uptwo or three steps before I realized the officer wasn't following me…I cameback to the second-floor landing. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming fromthe area of the lunchroom, or the inside vestibule. I ran over and looked inthis door…I opened the door…I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway tothe lunchroom facing Lee Harvey Oswald.…He was just inside the lunchroom door,two or three feet possibly. When I reached there, the officer had his gunpointing at Oswald. The officer turned this way and said, This man work here?'And I said, Yes.' … Then we left Lee Harvey Oswald immediately and continuedto run up the stairways."

THEDOORS OF PERCEPTION

When Marrion Baker got to the top of steps on the SecondFloor landing he started to turn the corner a few feet behind Truly but suddenlystopped, later testifying under oath that as he turned the corner on the secondfloor, he "scanned the room" and out of the corner of his eye, he saw a manthrough the glass window of a door.

Marrion Baker: "As I came outto the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I waskind of scanning, you know, the room, and I caught a glimpse of this manwalking away from this I happened to see him through this window in thisdoor. I don't know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him comingdown there."

The Warren Report: "On thesecond floor landing there is a small open area with a door at the east end.This door leads into a small vestibule, and another door leads from thevestibule into the second-floor lunchroom. The lunchroom door is usually open,but the first door is kept shut by a closing mechanism on the door. Thisvestibule door is solid except for a small glass window in the upper part ofthe door. As Baker reached the second floor, he was about 20 feet from thevestibule door. He intended to continue around to his left toward the stairwaygoing up but through the window inthe door he caught a fleeting glimpse of a man walking in the vestibuletoward the lunchroom."

Attracted by the man in the door window, Baker suddenlystopped, took out his .38 revolver from its holster and moved towards the door.

At the moment Baker caught a fleeting glimpse of a manthrough the Second Floor lunchroom window, the Hertz clock on the roof read 12:30, within ninety seconds after the lastshot was fired.

THE LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER

As Harold Weisberg concluded, "The lunchroom encounter wasOswald's alibi; it proved that he could not have been at the sixth-floorwindow during the shots."

But knowing this, the Warren Commission, the Commissionstaff attorneys, the FBI and the Secret Service merely ignored it, as they alsotried to do at first with the missed shot that injured James Tague, and likemagicians, deflected attention to the amount of time it would take for an assassinto go from the Sixth Floor Sniper's window to the lunchroom, and that wouldconstitute proof that it could be done.

As Roffman indicates, "One of thecrucial aspects of Baker's story" (that proves his innocence) is his positionat the time he caught a fleeting glimpse' of a man in the vestibule (throughthe door window). Baker marked this position during his testimony as havingbeen immediately adjacent to the stairs at the northwest corner of the building."

Hoffman: "It should be noted thatthe Report never mentions Baker's position at the time he saw Oswald inthe vestibule. Instead, it prints a floor plan of the second floorand notes Baker's position when he observed Oswald in lunchroom.' Thislocation, as indicated in the Report, was immediately outside the vestibuledoor. The reader of the Report is left with the impression that Baker sawOswald in the vestibule as well from this position. However, Baker testifiedexplicitly that he first caught a glimpse of the man in the vestibule from thestairs and, upon running to the vestibule door, saw Oswald in the lunchroom.The Report's failure to point out Baker's position is significant."

The Warren Commission marked an X at a point on the map ofthe Second Floor, that was introduced into evidence, just outside the closedlunchroom door where Baker -through the window - saw a man in the lunchroom walkingaway from him, so Baker opened door and with gun drawn, halted the man who stoppedand turned around, as Baker ordered the man to "Come here."

With Baker's revolver aimed at his belly, the man slowlywalked back towards Baker and appeared perplexed, but not surprised or out ofbreath.

In his testimony before theWarren Commission, Allen Dulles and Hale Boggs recognized the significance ofthis encounter, and questioned Baker about it.

Dulles: "Where was he comingfrom, do you know?"
Baker: No, sir. All I seen ofhim was a glimpse of him go away from me. He was walking away from me about 20feet away from me in the lunchroom… I hollered at him at that time and said,Come here.' He turned and walked right straight back to me."

Baker couldn't say where theman was coming from. He first saw the man from the top of the stairs throughthe door window and couldn't say that the man went through that door, and he wasn'tgoing to.

Commissioner Boggs: "Were yoususpicious of this man?"
Baker: "No, sir; I wasn't."
Boggs: "When you saw him, washe out of breath, did he appear to have been running, or what?"
Baker: "It didn't appear thatto me. He appeared normal, you know."
Boggs: "Was he calm andcollected?"
Baker: "Yes, sir; He neverdid say a word or nothing. In fact, he didn't change his expression one bit."
Mr. Belin: Did he flinch in anyway when you put the gun up .. .?
Mr. Baker: No, sir.
Sen. Cooper: He did not show any evidence of anyemotion?
Mr. Baker: No, sir.

They go "off the record" a number of times while taking thetestimony of both Baker and Truly, and you have to wonder what they are talkingabout, trying to get their stories straight, but the most curious thing is, ifBaker saw Oswald as he had just entered through the door, then Truly - a fewsteps ahead of Oswald, should most certainly have seen him going through thedoor - but he didn't see anyone.

When Roy Truly realized that Baker had not following him upthe second flight of steps he stopped, turned around and walked back to the lunchroomdoor where he found Baker with his gun pointed at Oswald.

Commission Counsel David Belin, should have asked Truly,since he was ahead of Baker, if he saw Oswald, but he doesn't ask that specificquestion because he knows the answer, - Truly had already testified he didn'tsee anyone when he got to the top of the stairs, and he could't have missedOswald - 20 feet in front of him, walking through an open door. Instead hepicks up the action at the lunchroom door.

Mr. Belin: Did you see any expression on his face? Or weren'tyou paying attention?
Mr. Truly: He didn't seem to be excited or overly afraid or anything. He mighthave been a little startled, like I might have been if someone confronted me.But I cannot recall any change in expression of any kind on his face.
Counsel Belin: All right. Howfar was the officer's gun from Lee Harvey Oswald when he asked the question?"
Truly: …it seemed to me likeit was almost touching him.

Baker asked, "Does this man work here?" and Truly said yes, identifyingthe man as an employee. Baker loweredhis gun and thenTruly and Baker continued their assent up the stairs to theroof, and Oswald proceeded to buy himself a coke.





That Oswald didn't do it is the only conclusion that can bereached. What exonerates Oswald is the combination of four basic facts. 1) RoyTruly didn't see anyone at the top of the Second Floor stairs; 2) Moments laterMarrion Baker saw someone through the lunchroom door window; 3) that person wasLee Harvey Oswald; and the clincher 4) that door was closed when Baker sawOswald though the window.

Those are the basic facts of the case, as presented by theWarren Report, facts that exonerate Oswald as the assassin.

Since the door had to be closed when Baker first saw Oswaldthough the window, Oswald couldn't have entered through that door, didn't comedown the stairs, wasn't on the Sixth Floor when the shots were fired, and didn'tkill the President.

The lunchroom door had to be closed for Baker to see Oswaldthrough the window because if the door was open, even if only an inch or two,physics and pure geometry dictate the 2 foot by 2 foot square window decreasein size as the door opens and closes, which makes it impossible for Baker,standing 20 feet away at the top of the stares, to see anything through thewindow. The door had to be closed for Baker to see Oswald through that window.

Rather than recognize the significance of Baker seeingOswald through the lunchroom door window, the Warren Commission tried toestablish that it was at least possible for Oswald to have gone from the SixthFloor window to the Second Floor lunchroom within the allotted ninety secondsit took for Truly and Baker to get there - ninety seconds.

Numerous attempts were made to time how long it took forsomeone to traverse the distance from the Sixth Floor window to the lunchroomwithin a minute and a half, as Oswald would have had to do if he was theassassin. Repeated tests successfully demonstrated that the Sixth Floor Snipercould have made it to the Second Floor lunchroom in that amount of time, butlogically, that doesn't prove Oswald did it, it only proves that anyone couldhave traversed that distance in that amount of time.

They also repeatedly timed Truly and Baker walking andrunning from the front curb to the Second Floor lunchroom door, and came upwith the same one minute and thirty seconds, give or take ten seconds one wayor another. So the Second Floor lunchroom incident occurred approximately ninetyseconds after the last shot was fired.

As Michael Roffman, after a thorough analysis, concluded, "HadOswald been the assassin, he would have arrived in the lunchroom atleast five to eleven seconds after Baker reached the second floor,even if Baker took the longest time obtainable for his ascent - aminute, 30 seconds. Had Baker ascended in 70 seconds - as he easily could have- he would have arrived at least 25 seconds before Oswald (or someonedescending from the Sixth Floor). Either case removes the possibility thatOswald descended from the sixth floor, for….he unquestionably arrived in thelunchroom before Baker."

In his book ("Presumed Guilty") Roffman writes: "Thecircumstances surrounding the lunchroom encounter indicate that Oswald enteredthe lunchroom not by the vestibule door from without, as he wouldhave had he descended from the sixth floor, but through a hallway leadinginto the vestibule. The outer vestibule door is closed automatically by aclosing mechanism on the door When Truly arrived on the second floor, he didnot see Oswald entering the vestibule. For the Commission's case to bevalid, Oswald must have entered the vestibule through the first door beforeTruly arrived. Baker reached the second floor immediately after Truly andcaught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald in the vestibule through a small window inthe outer door. Although Baker said the vestibule door "might havebeen, you know, closing and almost shut at that time," it is dubious thathe could have distinguished whether the door was fully or almost' closed." Infact, the door had to be completely closed for Baker to see anything throughthe door window.

Roffman: "Baker's and Truly's observations are not at allconsistent with Oswald's having entered the vestibule through the first door.Had Oswald done this, he could have been inside the lunchroom well before theautomatic mechanism closed the vestibule door. Truly's testimony that he sawno one entering the vestibule indicates either that Oswald was already in thevestibule at this time or was approaching it from another source. However,had Oswald already entered the vestibule when Truly arrived on the secondfloor, it is doubtful that he would have remained there long enough for Bakerto see him seconds later. Likewise, the fact that neither man saw themechanically closed door in motion is cogent evidence that Oswald did not enterthe vestibule through that door."

It was only for that one fleeting moment - as Baker reachedthe top of the stairs and began to turn to the left and make his scan of theroom when he was attracted by the moving blur in the window - the sidewaysprofile of Oswald's head as he passed behind that window from right toleft.

"Had Oswald descended from the sixth floor," writes Roffman,"his path through the vestibule into the lunchroom would have been confined tothe north wall of the vestibule. Yet the line of sight from Baker's position atthe steps does not include any area near the north wall. From the steps, Bakercould have seen only one area in the vestibule - the southeast portion. Theonly way Oswald could have been in this area on his way to the lunchroom is ifhe entered the vestibule through the southernmost door, as the previouslycited testimony indicates he did. Oswald could not have entered thevestibule in this manner had he just descended from the sixth floor. The onlyway he could have gotten to the southern door is from the first floor upthrough either a large office space or an adjacent corridor. As the Reportconcedes, Oswald told police he had eaten his lunch on the first floor and goneup to the second to purchase a coke when he encountered an officer…"

The significance of Baker's view of Oswald through the windowof the closed lunchroom door became apparent to the Secret Service during thecourse of their reconstruction of the assassination, as they stopped theirreenactment at the lunchroom door.

It also came to the attention of Warren Commission investigatorswho realized that if Baker did indeed see Oswald through the window of thelunchroom door, then he wasn't the assassin. Proof the Warren Commissionrecognized this exculpatory evidence is based on the fact they recalled Trulyto testify a second time, just to put it on the record.

When the Warren Commission attorneys realized thesignificance of these facts, they recalled Roy Truly a second time, after hehad already testified extensively, just to ask him one question, the clincher.At an office in the Post Office Annex just across Dealey Plaza from the TSBD, they placedTruly under oath and created a legal affidavit in order to answer one peculiarquestion: did the door to the second floor lunchroom have an automatic closingdevice?

And the answer is yes, it does.

The following affidavit was executed by Roy Sansom Truly on August 3, 1964.
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF TEXAS,
County of Dallas,ss:
I, Roy Sansom Truly, being duly sworn say:
1. I am the Superintendent of the Texas School Book Depository Building Dallas,Texas.
2. The door opening on the vestibule of the lunchroom on the second floor ofthe Texas School Book Depository Buildingis usually shut because of a closing mechanism on the door.
Signed this 3d day of August 1964, at Dallas Tex.
(S) Roy Sansom Truly,
ROY SANSOM TRULY

Now those Warren Commission lawyers could have easily walkedacross Dealey Plaza and in a matter of minutes learned that basic truththemselves, but they recalled Truly to put the question and answer on therecord did the 2nd Floor lunchroom door have an automatic closing device? Itis a simple fact that exonerates Oswald from being Kennedy's killer because, asthe affidavit say, the door is usually closed shut because of that mechanism,and in fact the door was closed when Baker saw Oswald through the window of thedoor.

Of course the Warren Commission lawyers did not explainthis, they simply dismissed Truly from answering any further questions, and theSecret Service, also knowing these facts, just stopped their reconstruction ofthe assassination right there at that door, without bothering to follow Oswaldoutside or to Oak Cliff or anywhere else.

But they never bothered to explain what that meant, its truesignificance or the resulting and inescapable conclusions that stem from thefact that since the door was closed, Oswald didn't enter the lunchroom throughthat door, he didn't descend the stairs, wasn't on the Sixth Floor when theshots were fired and didn't kill the President.

In addition, other evidence supports the fact that Oswalddidn't come down the steps, and reaffirms his alibi including 1) Truly didn'tsee Oswald as he would have if Oswald had gone through the door; 2) Jack Dougherty,a worker on the Fifth Floor landing, who took one of the elevators down, didn'tsee anyone run past him, as he should have if the Sixth Floor Sniper had immediatelyran down the steps; 3) two secretaries from the Fourth Floor offices didn't seeanyone on the stairs as they descended to the first floor immediately after theassassination, and 4) the three black guys, who witnessed the assassinationfrom the Fifth Floor corner window directly beneath the Sixth Floor Sniper,didn't see anyone run past them near the steps and elevator, where they werewhen Baker and Truly arrived up the steps and took the other elevator to theSeventh Floor and inspected the roof; 5) minutes after the last shot a courtclerk from across the street saw a man in the Sniper's Window, ostensiblymoving boxes around, when Oswald was on the second floor.

Under interrogation Oswald said that at the time of theassassination he was on the first floor in the Domino Room eating lunch, whentwo of the black guys he worked with walked through. Although they claimed notto have noticed Oswald, the two men acknowledged that before going up to theFifth Floor they did walk through the Domino Room, so how did Oswald know theywere there if he didn't see him? Further corroboration that Oswald was in theDomino Room came a few weeks after the assassination when his jacket wasdiscovered in the window sill, right where he said he ate lunch.

Oswald said when he left the Domino Room he went up the front steps to theSecond Floor Lunchroom to get a coke, when he was confronted by the policemanand Roy Truly. After buying the coke in the lunchroom, Oswald walked out thedoor he entered, not the one Baker saw him through, and went into the outeroffice where he encountered a secretary, who wasn't there when he had walkedthrough a few minutes earlier. She said Oswald walked past her desk with a cokein his hand, and when she said something about the President being shot, she didn'thear what he mumbled in response.

Oswald then ostensibly went down the front steps to the first floor, calmlydirected a reporter to a pay phone, heard Bill Shelly say that there wouldn'tbe any more work that day, then walked out the front door and into the streetsof Dallas.

Time on the Hertz Clock on the TSBD roof: 12:34

[For comments and corrections billkelly3@gmail.com

The doors of perception - proof oswald is not guilty - David Josephs - 11-07-2013

I am concerned though over a few things... an assumption is made that Oswald would have NOT lingered in the vestibule if he had been there early enough to both beat Truly AND allow the door to close... or that he would not be so close to the vestibule door as Baker sees him... {enter key not working again only in this box??} everything is based on timings and assumptions that can be challenged.... I went to PG to see for myself whether Baker's affidavit was discussed... and to my disappointment it wasn't. Here is 1st day proof that "Oswald" could have been descending the stairs ABOVE the 3rd floor... no doors, no window, no coke.... at a time the shooter could have been doing so. - well within the time frame established... "After all this commotion started, I just went downstairs and started to see what it was all about. A police officer and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told officers that I am one of the employees in the building"-(Fritz notes) We do not know if this is what he said or what Fritz needed him to say... Oswald had to go UPSTAIRS to the lunchroom... Bottom line... not only was the door closed and it not possible Oswald came that way based on the door mechanism and timing... but the WCR ignores Baker's affidavit even though Baker himself brings it up three times..... A brief study of what was ignored leads one to conclude that the Affidavit encounter was much more likely and was NOT Oswald (since he was never asked about the statement or person), while the lunchroom story seems to me, contrived... Is it just lucky that Oswald in in that lunchroom at the same time someone is coming down and is seen between the third and forth floors? Not jumping on this great timing by Baker encountering Oswald on the stairs right after the assassination is imo one of the grossest oversights in the TSBD investigation.. and begs the question... did Oswald ever actually say where he was... and why is Roy Truly testifying to a lunchroom scene while Baker drops it from his affidavit.... DJ

The doors of perception - proof oswald is not guilty - Bill Kelly - 17-07-2013

Thanks for reading and commenting David, and I agree, logically speaking, after killing JFK from the Sixth Floor window, Oswald could have ditched the rifle and made it to the 2nd floor lunchroom in time to do a cartwheel and handstands, but according to the Warren Commission Report, he came down the steps and went through that door just before Baker saw him through the window. What is now established is that not only did Truly not see anyone, as he should have seen Oswald if he went through the door, but the door was most certainly closed shut when Baker did see him through the window. I've added a new opening and have included some photos, footnotes and links. [URL="http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-doors-of-perception-why-oswald-is_14.html"]

JFKcountercoup: THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION - WHY OSWALD IS NOT GUILTY w/notes[/URL]

The doors of perception - proof oswald is not guilty - Vasilios Vazakas - 17-07-2013

Bill

It is unfortunate that your article about Oswald's innocence would not be taken in consideration by those that should. I am not surprised that Judge Tunheim said what he said.
Carolyn Kennedy did not award Jim Garison the profile in courage as a final recognition to this heroic man's efforts to find out the truth. Why Tunheim should bother then?

The doors of perception - proof oswald is not guilty - David Josephs - 17-07-2013

Bill Kelly Wrote:Thanks for reading and commenting David, and I agree, logically speaking, after killing JFK from the Sixth Floor window, Oswald could have ditched the rifle and made it to the 2nd floor lunchroom in time to do a cartwheel and handstands, but according to the Warren Commission Report, he came down the steps and went through that door just before Baker saw him through the window. What is now established is that not only did Truly not see anyone, as he should have seen Oswald if he went through the door, but the door was most certainly closed shut when Baker did see him through the window. I've added a new opening and have included some photos, footnotes and links. [URL="http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-doors-of-perception-why-oswald-is_14.html"]

JFKcountercoup: THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION - WHY OSWALD IS NOT GUILTY w/notes[/URL]
I appreciate the comment Bill yet I would like you comments on the Baker Affidavit and why you think this was not used to place Oswald on the stairs coming down and bypass the lunchroom and door entirely. And why does Truly not mention this man on the stairs? Whether a person could hide the rifle and get to the lunchroom is NOT the issue as we KNOW this did not occur. What is of issue is who did Baker see between the 3rd and 4th floors and why didn't Truly see him as well? It is only Baker, Truly and Fritz' notes which put Oswald in the lunchroom... the door, timing, stairs and witnesses - not so much.

The doors of perception - proof oswald is not guilty - Peter Lemkin - 17-07-2013

Most all [I'd hazard 95+%] of these puppets of the system know DAMN WELL, just as you and I, Bill, and others here, that LHO was only a Patsy=set-up to be guilty BEFORE the 'fact' and before the 'act'. They are only protecting an evil economic/political/control system of power and privilege, at any cost. They are not even trying [other than lip service] to use evidence, logic, law, chain of custody, physics, witnesses, presumption of innocence....etc., ad nauseum.....they are just following the snake-dance that started with the assassination-coup that had LHO scripted as guilty, just as JFKs bloody public removal as a 'stone in some Oligarchs' shoes was scripted for that day. They won't depart from the script...facts will not move them. Their hearts are in their power positions, bank accounts, off-shore safes, and weapons of mass destruction/deception, wars, propaganda, etc.

Your logic and your articles, Bill, are great!, but you're reasoning with zombies who can not think for themselves - or dare not to. If anyone thinks any of the 'names' and 'usual suspects' (as well as our 'elected leaders in Congress and other halls of power) we toss about over and over didn't all know for a fact [or assume, by logic] that LHO was innocent; and a multi-shooter-team, long-term planned, secret government-sanctioned coup/public execution had not gone down when, or shortly after, the clock on 11/22/63 hit high noon:thirty, then I've got some snake oil that stops aging and cures all ills (mortal or otherwise) to sell ya....but it 'ain't cheap!

Despite my well-deserved/earned cynicism, we must [if only to be able to say 'we tried with all our might' and 'we told you so'] keep at/after 'them' with the truth, facts, and logic - but these are commodities they do NOT trade in - nor do the MSM [that they own]!

Go get 'em Bill!

The doors of perception - proof oswald is not guilty - Bill Kelly - 17-07-2013

Vasilios Vazakas Wrote:Bill

It is unfortunate that your article about Oswald's innocence would not be taken in consideration by those that should. I am not surprised that Judge Tunheim said what he said.
Carolyn Kennedy did not award Jim Garison the profile in courage as a final recognition to this heroic man's efforts to find out the truth. Why Tunheim should bother then?

Can you provide a link to Juge Tunheim saying that?

Thanks, BK

The doors of perception - proof oswald is not guilty - Vasilios Vazakas - 17-07-2013

I don't understand what you said about the link tou Tunheim.
Can you explain it Bill?

The doors of perception - proof oswald is not guilty - Gordon Gray - 17-07-2013

Just eyeballing it without actual measurements, it would seem that the distance covered by a shooter from the 6th floor window down 4 flights of stars, is greater than the distance Baker covered from were he parked his motor cycle, up one flight of stairs, to the second floor lunch room. And we know from film clips that Baker was sprinting to the TSBD door. Hard to believe it took him all of 90 seconds to get to the second floor. More like 60 -70 IMO.

The doors of perception - proof oswald is not guilty - Bill Kelly - 17-07-2013

Vasilios Vazakas Wrote:I don't understand what you said about the link tou Tunheim.
Can you explain it Bill?

Did Tunheim really say something about Caroline Kennedy not giving Garrision a Profile In Courage Award?

If so, I'd like to see and read where he says that, as that is interesting.

I'm not doubting you, I just want to hear it from the horse's mouth.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly