Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Peter Martyn

@Ralph Cinque June 22:  As far as I can tell a roll call could be fitting
for any long count of people.  Maybe the reason why it has the juvenile
connotations is because the most critical case of it is more typical when
it is for taking care of the children (their lives could depend on it).  
Another case where it might seem time to get foolproof like that is when
someone has just shot our President?  And maybe Mr. Truly takes that quite
seriously? Under the circumstances I would probably have taken a roll call
myself, unless if I was counting a very small number of employees.

I don't remember anything about Givens but if it is well established that
Givens should have been counted and if he wasn't there then that would
seem to be much more consequential then the fact that any number of other
people had not mentioned a roll call.

Maybe someone should ask Shelly and Truly whether a roll call had really
been done? 

Ralph Cinque:

Peter, Truly and Shelley are long dead. But, they were questioned at length and asked to detail their actions and happenings following the assassination, and they both provided very detailed accounts of every move they made. Neither said anything about conducting a roll call- and they are the ones who supposedly did it. And neither did anyone who supposedly took part in the roll call report it except for one person: Buell Frazier. Can't you see? It's just like with the long bag. Of all the TSBD employees and other employees in that building, he and he alone claims Oswald went in with a long bag. 

It would have been more plausible if Frazier had said a "head count" was taken. In that case, Shelley would look and see who was there. He'd have gone down the list himself. He's not going to say "Lovelady" and wait for Lovelady to say "Present". For goodness sake, he just walked around the railroad yard with Lovelady, and they came in together. He doesn't have to hear the guy say "here" or "present." It's ridiculous. It's childish. It's infantile. He would just look and check off names, and if someone wasn't in plain view, he'd ask about so-and-so. That's how it would go down. But, Frazier insisted that each person's name was read off and "you had to answer."

This is 2016, for crying out loud. Can we bump the discussion up a notch?