Sean Murphy's research deserves more

[Bob Prudhomme]

Albert

If you go through the statements and testimonies of the people on the front steps of the TSBD, you often find them telling who they were out on the steps with. However, not a single one of them mentions a short guy back in the west corner at the top of the steps with something shiny in his hands; not even Frazier who is apparently looking directly at him at one point.

Don't you find this a bit odd?

[Donald Manning]

I do tend to side with the coming down early picture for Arnold after another look.
The main point being, if she came down at 12:25 she would have missed JFK and Jackie since that's the time the motorcade was due at Houston and Elm.
Coming down earlier makes sense and after standing for a few minutes with nothing to see one naturally tends to look all round.

She told Summers the second floor encounter could have been as early as 12:15.
Bottom of page8 since I can't check "Conspiracy" atm.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%...m%2001.pdf
Was her recollection straight in '78? Perhaps, not very.

Also, if she's close to Truly, like him and those around him, I suggest she knew nothing about a shooting until she went back inside and the rumours began.


I'm well aware of mainipulated FBI statements with a certain bunch of DP witnesses in the months leading up to the report but I can't think of something obvious from this same timeframe of the Arnold statement just four days in(edited!). Could I get a friendly reminder?


*Lauren, yes, the shorter guy in the suit. Sean pointed him out in Darnell(where others were looking at another man with similar facial features to Truly just, in workclothes).

[Donald Manning]

Arnold's first statement has her trying to help out when asked regarding Oswald that day, she said she may have seen Oswald she's not sure.
Her second is limited to "at the time of the shooting" and it's a negative.
There's no real contridiction.
Only difference is the time she came down and that itself only becomes significant after Golz interviews her and we learn she is claiming to have positively seen the alleged assassin in the lunch room.
Golz reported 12:25 and Summers 12:15.

For me, the early reports get the square.
There's a few reasons, most importantly, we have to conclude that Arnold sat on this story for fifteen years until she was approached by a couple of very keen individuals*?
There you have it, someone keeping quite for a long period of time with strong evidence towards a man's innocence. We have our proof either way.


Regarding Frazier and Fritz.
He's been telling people recently that Fritz asked him to sign a confession that put him with Oswald planning to shoot the POTUS and when he refused Fritz went to strike him.
He then says he challenged Fritz and told him "if you want to go, let's go", the Captain bottled it and walked out.
When did this first come to light?


*Gordon Arnold was another Golz exclusive.

[LR Trotter]

Over the years, I have read a few books, monitored some JFK Assassination forums, and posted some thoughts, and questions as well, on this forum. My first knowledge of DPD Captain Will Fritz almost striking Buell Wesley Frazier over a refusal to sign a document, as well as BWF's response to WF's actions, came this year (2014) after viewing a Youtube video presentation moderated by Hugh Aynesworth from an earlier date. Even going back to 2008, I would think I would have known before then. I guess I just missed it.
::zzzzz::

[LR Trotter]

I suppose I am the only person to believe that the person identified as "PrayerMan" is quite possibly a female, somewhat stocky with short hair, and maybe middle aged, and holding their arms that way to hold a purse by the strap. Yes, I suppose I'm the only one.
::

No you're not, I suggested something like that further upstream in the thread.

Tracy, I recently read some testimony by Billy N Lovelady and Buell W Frazier regarding the occupants in the TSBD doorway area and on the steps at 12:30pm on 11/22/63. That testimony, although somewhat ambiguous, indicates to me that the person id'd as PrayerMan, is actually a female named Sarah Stanton. Although the testimony was ambiguous, I was also unable to disqualify that indication. JMO.
::

[Bob Prudhomme]

I suppose I am the only person to believe that the person identified as "PrayerMan" is quite possibly a female, somewhat stocky with short hair, and maybe middle aged, and holding their arms that way to hold a purse by the strap. Yes, I suppose I'm the only one.
::

No you're not, I suggested something like that further upstream in the thread.

Tracy, I recently read some testimony by Billy N Lovelady and Buell W Frazier regarding the occupants in the TSBD doorway area and on the steps at 12:30pm on 11/22/63. That testimony, although somewhat ambiguous, indicates to me that the person id'd as PrayerMan, is actually a female named Sarah Stanton. Although the testimony was ambiguous, I was also unable to disqualify that indication. JMO.
::

Pauline Saunders: (3-19-64 statement to the FBI, 22H672) "At approximately 12:20 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the lunchroom on the second floor of the building and went out the front entrance to await the arrival of the presidential motorcade which I knew was due to pass the Depository about 12:30 PM. I took up a position at the top of the front steps of the Depository building facing Elm Street. To the best of my recollection, I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance. I recall that while standing there I noticed Mrs. Sarah Stanton standing next to me, but I am unsure as to the others."

If Pauline Sanders was standing at the east end of the entrance and Sarah Stanton was standing next to her, that would also place Stanton at the east end of the entrance or, at the very least, in the middle of the entrance. Prayer Man was plainly backed into the corner at the west end of the entrance.

[Bob Prudhomme]

What I believe would have been very revealing is if Billy Lovelady had not been cut off by Ball while testifying to the WC.

From the WC testimony of Billy N. Lovelady, April 7, 1964:

"Mr. BALL - You ate your lunch on the steps?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me
Mr. BALL - What was that last name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton.
Mr. BALL - What is the first name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley.
Mr. BALL - And Stanton's first name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Miss Sarah Stanton.
Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the steps
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Were you there when the President's motorcade went by
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Did you hear anything?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir; sure did.
Mr. BALL - What did you hear?
Mr. LOVELADY - I thought it was firecrackers or somebody celebrating the arrival of the President. It didn't occur to me at first what had happened until this Gloria came running up to us and told us the President had been shot. "

Who was right behind Lovelady? Was it PM? Why was Ball so quick to cut Lovelady off when he was about to say who was behind him? Interestingly, Ball does not let him return to listing who was on the steps.

[LR Trotter]

The statement by the late BNL, "Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me", is the primary ambiguity of the identification of Ms Sarah Stanton as PrayerMan. Of course I don't know exactly what BNL was saying, but sometimes the Texlish Language has different meanings.
As for Ms Pauline Saunders statement, the size of the doorway entrance area would allow for Ms Sarah Stanton to be "next to her", and still be on the west side of the entrance. For that reason, the PS statement does not disqualify SS as PM, in my opinion.
The best thing of course, would be a dependable identification of SS in the doorway area. So far, I don't recall seeing that information.
For some reason, I have an interest in this subject, and definitely would like resolution, either way.
::computerpunch::

[Bob Prudhomme]

The statement by the late BNL, "Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me", is the primary ambiguity of the identification of Ms Sarah Stanton as PrayerMan. Of course I don't know exactly what BNL was saying, but sometimes the Texlish Language has different meanings.
As for Ms Pauline Saunders statement, the size of the doorway entrance area would allow for Ms Sarah Stanton to be "next to her", and still be on the west side of the entrance. For that reason, the PS statement does not disqualify ST as PM, in my opinion.
The best thing of course, would be a dependable identification of ST in the doorway area. So far, I don't recall seeing that information.
For some reason, I have an interest in this subject, and definitely would like resolution, either way.
::computerpunch::

Frazier is clearly seen in the middle of the top of the steps. If Stanton was furthest west, in the corner (PM), and Sanders was "at the east end of the entrance", wouldn't Sanders have said that Frazier was standing next to her, instead of Stanton, and that Stanton was on the far side of the entrance?

Lovelady is, to me, quite clear in his answer, and is plainly cut off by Ball before he has a chance to say who is behind him.

"Mr. BALL - Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me"

The transcribers of WC testimony only left punctuation off the end of someone's utterances (lawyer or witness) when it was clear that person was being interrupted. Lovelady never had a chance to say who was behind him, yet he told Ball he was with Shelley and Stanton. I cannot see how you can interpret his testimony as him attempting to tell the WC that PM was Sarah Stanton.

[Albert Doyle]

Albert

If you go through the statements and testimonies of the people on the front steps of the TSBD, you often find them telling who they were out on the steps with. However, not a single one of them mentions a short guy back in the west corner at the top of the steps with something shiny in his hands; not even Frazier who is apparently looking directly at him at one point.

Don't you find this a bit odd?

I think my points deserve a better answer. I kind of consider your ignoring them a concession.