The Implausibility of the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter

The Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter raises strong passions among assassination researchers. Due to
the absence of a proper investigation and the deaths of most of those involved, matters like this
probably cannot be resolved definitively. However, given the available statements it is certainly
reasonable to form an opinion based on what is most likely to have happened.

First and foremost, the Oswald-as-Prayer Man and SFLE issues are essentially mutually exclusive. It has
been mooted that Oswald may have re-entered the TSBD after the assassination and gone upstairs
(perhaps by the stairway at the front entrance), but this does not seem realistic given the time-scales
involved, the building lay-out and the sheer futility of such an action. It is analogous to the arguments
concerning Oswalds alleged walk from 1026 N. Beckley to 10th and Patton and his chance encounter
with Patrolman Tippit if we stretch credulity we might concede the possibility theoretically exists but it
is extremely unlikely. Consequently, there is effectively a direct trade-off between the probability of
Oswald being PM and the probability that the SFLE occurred and therefore we have to gauge the
comparative likelihoods of each scenario.

Sean Murphy threw open the following challenge in relation to Prayer Man: if the figure captured on
film is not Lee Harvey Oswald, then which TSBD employee was he? So far, the response has been
underwhelming. It has long been accepted by most Warren critics that since Oswald seemingly knew
Shelley was out front and Jarman accompanied by another black worker had entered the domino-room
then in all likelihood he was on the lower floors in the quarter of an hour before the assassination.
Carolyn Arnold saw him in the second-floor lunch-room around the same time. Seans explanation of
Oswalds alleged words in custody and how they were deliberately misinterpreted was something of a
breakthrough. Added to this, though, we have (as Officer E) Bakers version in the late 70s, Occhus
Campbells newspaper quote, Carolyn Arnolds suspicion that she saw Oswald near the entrance shortly
before the assassination, the Kent Biffle allegation and the strange assertions from Roy Truly, Geraldean
Reid and Roy Lewis that they saw or stood beside no-one at the front entrance. In short, there is a very
compelling argument that Oswald was PM.

Turning our attention to the SFLE, there is a major assumption associated with Marrion Baker and Roy
Trulys story, namely, the time it took for them to walk, trot or run from the front entrance to the
stairs/elevator in the NW corner. How do we know that Truly did not consciously ensure that Baker was
delayed and/or that there was a lengthy discussion about the best way to proceed?

The TSBD had seven floors and Baker said his attention was drawn by pigeons flying from the roof.
Although he was not aware of people looking from windows, he would have known it was a large,
occupied building. If it is argued that Baker and Truly made such rapid progress that they had reached
the second floor before Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles descended from the fourth (even if they left
immediately) then it begs the question as to why Baker would be so fascinated by someone in a lunch-
room only one floor up. After all, his original intention seems to have been to take the elevator to the
top floors. Would it not have occurred to him that it was far more likely hed encounter an assassin
higher in the building and that it would not have been physically possible for the assassin to have
descended in the time it took him to arrive? Would it have been wise for Baker to have allowed himself
to be diverted from his main objective to the extent that a real assassin could simply have walked down
the stairs while the officer was in the lunch-room? We also have to bear in mind the persuasive claims
by several researchers using graphical techniques that it would have been impossible (or, at least, highly
improbable) for Baker to have observed anyone in the lunch-room.

The argument that it might have been theoretically possible for Adams and Styles to walk past Baker and
Truly while they were occupied in the second-floor lunchroom does not constitute proof that this
episode actually happened. Victoria Adams was always a particularly problematic witness to the Warren
Commission. At one stage I was under the impression that she may have seen Shelley and Lovelady
when she reached the first floor with Sandra Styles. However, in Barry Ernests The Girl on the Stairs
she was adamant that she did not see anyone (including, of course, Marrion Bakers two white men near
the elevators) before exiting the back door and that her testimony had been altered with the clear aim
of proving that the pair had descended the stairs after Oswald. The matter of her original affidavit
being destroyed in a fire is yet another red flag surrounding the case. I believe she saw no-one because
Baker and Truly were still near the front entrance.

The only corroboration (of sorts) of the Baker-Truly story came from Geraldean Reid. She claimed that a
surly Oswald walked through her office after she returned from watching the motorcade. Yet, her story
is clearly contradicted by Geneva Hine. She also said Oswald wore only a white T-shirt, when Baker said
his suspect wore a light brown jacket* (although he later claimed to have mistaken Oswalds shirt for a
jacket). I conclude Mrs. Reid was lying.

Bakers original affidavit said nothing of a room and nothing of passing through two doors. How could
Oswald walk away from the stairway when he was in a lunch-room? The description given by Baker
didnt match the skinny Oswald either. (The almost identical description of the TSBD suspect broadcast
on DPD Radio Channels 1 and 2 at 12.45 is a related issue. Did Baker tell Sawyer?) The matter of the
light brown jacket is also significant. It appears that all the warehouse workers were in shirt-sleeves
and anyone other than a manager with a jacket* in 68 degree heat may have been suspected of
attempting to leave the building. Given that the two men were in the same small room at City Hall, I am
convinced Baker would have identified Oswald as the man on the third or fourth floor in his affidavit. A
single sentence that included the words this was the man now under arrest would be by far the most
important Baker would ever write and, arguably, one of the most important in history. Is it remotely
conceivable that Baker would fail to include this in his affidavit, were Oswald and the suspect one and
the same? By comparison, Roger Craig made it abundantly clear in his affidavit (and related FBI report)
that Oswald was the man he saw running towards the station wagon on Elm Street.

Due to the pandemonium in City Hall at the time and the multitude of issues piling up on Fritz, would it
be outrageous to suggest that Bakers input slipped through the net and that no-one immediately
realized the implications? His anonymous comments in 1977 (although he must surely have been aware
that he would be identified) look to me like a man relieving himself of a burden on his retirement from
DPD. He appeared less than comfortable in TV interviews when talking about the event. I think Baker
was an honorable police officer who resented being asked to lie. He might also have been troubled by
the belief he had let a genuine suspect loose and that he had to concoct a story with a man he knew was
an accomplice. Indeed, there are grounds for postulating that Baker may not have trusted Truly from the
outset.

The Warren Commissions version of events on November 22nd relating to Fraziers description of the
package, the abortive bus ride, the taxi trip, the Tippit murder and the circumstances surrounding
Oswalds arrest has been comprehensively undermined (especially by the latest generation of
researchers). The SFLE has now become the main conceptual problem facing conspiracy-oriented
assassination researchers at least, to those who portray Lee Harvey Oswald as an unsuspecting
innocent caught up in a fiendish plot. My view is that if Oswald was deep inside the TSBD at the time of
the assassination, then the possibility he was an active participant cannot be easily dismissed. The line
that Oz was so contemptuous of mainstream US politics he would not step outside the TSBD for a few
minutes to watch the presidential parade is not one that impresses me. Regardless, if it is accepted that
much of the Warren Commissions report is based on lies, then why should there be a psychological or
intellectual obstacle when it comes to questioning the SFLE?

Ultimately, the SFLE relies on the words of a police officer who gave alternative accounts on other
occasions and a man who must be considered as being a potential accomplice in the assassination. I
would place a very low probability on it having occurred.



* Im not sure about the other English-speaking countries, but in the UK a jacket would be the term
used to describe any outer, upper-body garment. A coat descends to the knees and would normally be
worn on top of a jacket. In the USA the terminology is seemingly different. Most witnesses drew a
distinction between a suit coat (or a sports coat) on the one hand and a jacket, meaning a less
formal, Levis-style jerkin which stopped at the waist and was worn mainly by manual workers. I sense
that Baker was specifically referring to the latter.