JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 973)


THE LUNCHROOM
ENCOUNTER....


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Something for conspiracy theorists to ponder....

Howard Brennan's initial description of the gunman is remarkably similar to policeman Marrion Baker's description of the man he encountered on the 2nd floor just a couple of minutes after the shooting. And the man Baker encountered was undeniably Lee Harvey Oswald (although, incredibly, some CTers on the outer fringe of reality are now pretending that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter on the 2nd floor never even happened AT ALL, which is pure tommyrot, of course).


THOMAS GRAVES SAID:

To nip this argument in the bud, yes, David, I believe that Baker and Truly prevaricated about their "Oswald encounter."


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then what do you do about OSWALD HIMSELF confirming that the encounter with Officer Baker took place on the SECOND floor, not the fourth or any other floor? Oswald told Captain Fritz it was the "second floor". That's in Fritz' notes and Fritz' written report too (WR; p.600).

Was Oswald lying too? Was LHO in cahoots with Truly and Baker....and Fritz?

Or was Fritz the other liar, Tommy? Which is it?




THOMAS GRAVES SAID:

His [Oswald's] "estimated weight" at autopsy was 150 pounds. Nice round number. Kinda non committal right in the middle like that.

Whereas his cadaver was an exactly-measured 5' 9 1/2" "tall" and weighed an exact 131 pounds on 11/25/63 when his fingerprints were taken by the Dallas Police Department.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're a bit mixed up, Tommy. On 11/25/63, Oswald was already six feet under at Rose Hill Cemetery in Fort Worth. (Well, actually, he was buried on that exact day.) And nobody took Lee's fingerprints on Nov. 25. Those prints were taken of the living Oswald on Nov. 22.

Commission Exhibit No. 630 was dated "11-25-63", after his death, yes. But his prints most certainly weren't taken on Nov. 25.*

It's obvious that some of the info on that fingerprint card (CE630) was acquired when Oswald was still alive. Note the "Refused To Sign" remark on the same document. And I doubt that refers to Oswald's corpse. Most dead people wouldn't be able to "refuse to sign" anything. Because they're dead.

So the "131 lbs." weight figure on his fingerprint card couldn't possibly have been obtained on Nov. 25 either. LHO was in a casket the whole day. And the autopsy report's "estimated 150 pounds" weight [CE1981] is the only official weight figure I know of for LHO after his death. And if they weighed the corpse on a scale, why the need to "estimate" the weight in the official autopsy report? Makes no sense.

* Footnote/Addendum:

Also see 8 HSCA 385, which indicates that the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald seen in CE630 were taken on "November 22, 1963", and not on November 25. However, author Vincent Bugliosi was of the opinion that the FBI did take Oswald's prints after his death on November 25 at Miller Funeral Home in Fort Worth, Texas. [See pages 413-415 of Endnotes in Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History". And also Click Here.]

I, however, tend to disagree with Mr. Bugliosi on this particular topic. I think Vince overlooked the date shown at the top of 8 HSCA 385, and Vince also might not have realized the significance of the words "Refused To Sign" that are typed on the fingerprint card seen in CE630 and on page 385 of HSCA Volume 8. Those words -- "Refused To Sign" -- almost assuredly mean that Lee Oswald was ALIVE, and not dead at a funeral home in Fort Worth, when those fingerprints were taken off of Oswald's hands.


THOMAS GRAVES SAID:

So, when do you think Oswald was measured as being 5' 9 1/2" tall and weighing 131 pounds by the Dallas Police Department?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I really don't know. I'm puzzled by those figures too (69.5 inches and 131 lbs. exactly). I was looking through the Warren Commission exhibits relating to the cards that Oswald had on him when he was arrested, and I was thinking that one of those cards might have had that height and weight information on them. But I didn't find any such document or card. But I'm thinking there might be one.

But I suppose it's also possible the DPD put Oswald on a scale and also measured his height as part of the routine procedure when booking a suspect who has been arrested. (Is it routine to "weigh in" the suspects after they're arrested? I haven't the foggiest idea. But maybe they did. That info could be in the WC testimony of some DPD personnel, I suppose.)

But the whole topic about Marrion Baker seeing somebody OTHER than the real Lee Oswald on the 2nd floor is simply CTer desperation in full-fledged panic mode. Nothing more than that.

As I proved earlier, it was certainly possible for a person to stare right at Lee Harvey Oswald and guess his AGE and WEIGHT incorrectly. And Marrion L. Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit is the PROOF that that did happen.

And, as fate would have it, Howard Brennan said the sixth-floor assassin was around 30 years of age and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds....perfectly matching Baker's inaccurate guesses with respect to the real Lee Harvey Oswald.

And Mr. Oswald just happened to be a man whose fingerprints (and bullet shells) littered the exact same place where Brennan saw his "30-year-old, 165- to 175-pound" assassin in the window firing a rifle.

How 'bout that for coincidence?


GLENN NALL SAID:

If you're puzzled by those figures, then why were you so quick to say that Thomas was a bit mixed up? I had asked, "are you trying to say he gained 19 lbs. since he gave those fingerprints and then died...?" (which was ignored) and by that was saying the same things that Thomas declared - it seems more likely that LHO was closer to 131 lbs. than to 150.

You're quick to point out others' apparent errors even when you're puzzled by the material you use to do so.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Glenn,

I said Tommy was "mixed up" because he was. And he knows that now too. Tommy was claiming things were happening to the dead body of Lee Oswald on Nov. 25 that could not have been happening to Oswald on Nov. 25, because Lee was inside a casket that whole day.

That's what I meant by "mixed up".


PAT SPEER SAID:

Is this dispute over Oswald's being fingerprinted after death? Because I'm virtually positive he was. To my recollection, it was SOP when suspects were killed that they be fingerprinted so the records would reflect they were dead, and not on the lam somewhere. It's also true that Rusty Livingston, in First Day Evidence, admitted that he was the one who took Oswald's prints. He said he did this on Sunday night.

From "First Day Evidence":

"As stated earlier, Rusty has an original fingerprint card that he and J. B. Hicks made of Oswald following his murder while his body lay in the morgue at Parkland Hospital Sunday night. At that time, the Dallas Police Department used a small fingerprint card which was manufactured by the Faurot Company of New York. To use the card, an invisible chemical was placed on the victim's fingers, and the card was then rolled over them. The paper that the card was made from then reacted to the chemical from the finger, producing a print on the card. This type of card was typically used by detectives on deceased individuals in order to avoid leaving ink stains on a body already prepared for burial.

The reason Rusty and J. B. Hicks took a photograph and fingerprinted Oswald in the morgue was actually a routine assignment for the Crime Lab.

Rusty told me, "In fingerprinting, normally a lot of times we would have to go to a mortuary where a body had already been prepared for burial, and if we didn't get to it beforehand, we had to go to the mortuary and roll a set of prints. We did roll some prints while Oswald was in the morgue. He hadn't been prepared for burial."

Rusty and J. B. Hicks rolled at least three inkless cards and one inked card of Oswald that Sunday night in the Parkland morgue. Rusty retained one inkless card for his reference. The inked card was taken back to the Identification Bureau and was checked the following day against Oswald's prints taken the previous Friday. Rusty told me it was typical that when a detective back at the office verified that the prints were indeed from the same person, the fingerprint card was usually initialed by him, showing it had been done."



DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Pat,

I'm still scratching my head about the "Refused To Sign" remark if the prints seen in CE630 were really taken on 11/25/63. And the HSCA doesn't seem to think the CE630 prints were taken on 11/25 either.

~big shrug~

And the fingerprint card signed by J.B. Hicks is dated 11-22-63. It is seen in CE627.

Did Hicks take Oswald's prints twice? He sure as heck never said a word in his Warren Commission testimony about fingerprinting Lee Oswald after he was killed. Hicks said he fingerprinted Oswald in Captain Fritz' office at the DPD....

Mr. BALL -- "Where were you when you took the prints?"

Mr. HICKS -- "I was in Captain Fritz' office. In other words, I made those on an inkless pad. That's a pad we use for fingerprinting people without the black ink that they make for the records."



Hicks also said this.....

Mr. BALL -- "Did you do anything else with respect to the investigation?"

Mr. HICKS -- "I don't recall anything outstanding that I did in the investigation further there. Now, I know we were all pretty well busy there until about 2 or 2:30 in the morning but most of it was, I would imagine regular office work and just back and forth if someone had asked did we get a picture of this and picture of that; well, I can't recall any other particular item that I might have done."



Why wouldn't Hicks have told the Warren Commission that he had fingerprinted Oswald in the morgue if he really had done so and if it was merely "a routine assignment for the Crime Lab", as it says in the book "First Day Evidence"?


THOMAS GRAVES SAID:

David,

Thanks for admitting you don't have the foggiest idea about those measurements of Oswald that were written on his fingerprint card on 11/22/63.

Just because Baker said the man he encountered on the 2nd floor (Oswald?) or more likely on the 4th floor (Tan Jacket Man / Brown Coat Man?) weighed "about 165 pounds" and this figure seemed to dovetail with key witness Howard Leslie Brennan's "calculations" of "160 to 170 pounds" for the assassin (even though he "viewed," from far below and at a horrible angle, the assassin, standing and shooting through an impossible-to-shoot-through-from-a-standing-position dirty, partially-opened, low window) doesn't necessarily mean that Baker and Brennan were both talking about Oswald or that the descriptions they gave even supported each other's description of Oswald / The Assassin.

It's more plausible, IMHO, that Baker and Brennan were coached, maybe even beforehand, on the descriptions (based on a 1960 Lee Harvey Oswald FBI / CIA "marked card" in which Oswald was described as being a Robert E. Webster-like 5' 10", 165 pounds) they were to give the authorities in order to incriminate Oswald...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So you're pretty much saying the patsy-framers screwed up pretty badly, huh? They were trying to frame the very skinny, 131-pound Lee Oswald, but they used a 165-pound person as their "Oswald double"? Is that it?

And you think BOTH Baker and Brennan were "coached"?

And what about Roy Truly? Was he "coached" to say the encounter occurred on the second floor too?

Tommy, that's a lot of unprovable and unfounded speculation on your part, don't you think?

You have no GOOD reason to think Marrion Baker was "coached". Why would you even suggest such a thing?

I'll answer my last question myself --- You NEED to suggest it in order for your conspiracy theory to work.

So--voila!--Baker was "coached".

Not very persuasive, Tommy.


GLENN NALL SAID:

Are you asserting that he gained ~19 lbs. between the time he was weighed by DPD and the time his weight was estimated at autopsy?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Of course not, Glenn. And I have never once suggested anything that silly.

LHO's autopsy report estimates his weight at 150 pounds. That figure is very likely not a correct one. But so what? It's just an estimate for the paperwork that was done. Perhaps Oswald looked a little heavier to the coroner who was doing the autopsy. I don't know. And it matters very little (if at all) in the long run.

But I will say this....

If Oswald did weigh only 131 pounds on November 22 when he was arrested, then the "150 pounds" estimate we find in the autopsy report would serve as just one additional item to indicate that different people who were looking at the real Lee Oswald were making inaccurate (i.e., too heavy) guesses as to Oswald's weight.

We know Marrion Baker guessed incorrectly in a "too heavy" manner. And we can see that the person who estimated LHO's weight at his autopsy did the same thing --- he thought Oswald weighed more than he really did. Not to mention Howard Brennan, who we all know DID see Lee Oswald shooting at the President (even though no CTer on the Internet would ever have the guts to admit that obvious fact).

So that really makes three different people who estimated Oswald's weight at between 150 and 175 pounds. And I have no doubt at all that those three persons were each looking at the real Lee Oswald when they made those estimates.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

...Baker never saw Oswald...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's fun just making up total crap out of whole cloth, isn't it Jimmy?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Did you ever read either one of my most recent books?

Please, a yes or no answer will suffice for once.

If no--too busy reaching out to Mack and Davison right?--then where do you get the cajones to say something like the above? Especially after what I just did to you on the rifle order? You want some more?

It is you who are making stuff up. The worst part is that you don't even know it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Let's cut to the chase --- You're full of crap, Jimmy. And the worst part is that you don't even know it. (Or maybe you do, but you can't admit it.)

The bottom line on this is that you said something that was incredibly stupid and I called you on it. And now you don't like it. Well, that's just tough, Jimbo. And you can't walk it back. So you're stuck with that dumb quote from now until doomsday. You said something that is not supported by the facts in any way, shape, or form--and you damn well know it. And the incredibly stupid thing you said was this....

"Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015

The above quote doesn't come close to resembling the facts and the witness testimony of both Marrion L. Baker and Roy S. Truly, and anyone with the ability to read the testimony (and to watch the video below) knows it.

And yet I am being chastised for "making stuff up". The irony is so delicious and thick, we'd need a chainsaw to slice through it.

You, Jimmy D., give new meaning to the words POT, KETTLE, and "MAKING STUFF UP".

You're a joke, Jimmy. And, yes, you're a clown. (There, I said it again. Cry me a river.)




JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Please note above, Davey never answered my question.

Because he likely did not read either of the books.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Of course I haven't read any of your books. None. Nada. I get enough of your nonsense just reading it on the Internet. Why would I torture myself further by actually buying one of your fantasy books?

And it appears that Jim has already forgotten this short exchange we had just two days ago on this forum:

DiEUGENIO -- "Now if you look through the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, which you will not..."

DVP -- "A double root canal would be preferable to reading that book. I mean, a guy who still props up Garrison in the 21st century? Geesh. Incredible."


BTW, that was a hint that I had NOT read Jim's book.

So, let's continue....

I'm assuming that Jimmy is probably about done spreading his snake oil through the veins of this forum thread (for the moment anyway), so I'll talk again....

Nothing Jim DiEugenio has said in this thread [beginning here] concerning Marrion Baker negates the "second-floor encounter" that Officer Baker had with Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63. That encounter, on the second floor, is even confirmed by Oswald himself in the written report of Dallas Police Homicide Captain J. Will Fritz. Here's what Fritz said on page 2 of his report....

"I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a Coca-Cola when the officer came in."
-- Warren Report; Page 600

And the "second floor" encounter between Baker and Oswald is also mentioned in Fritz' handwritten notes as well, right here.

And if Jim wants to switch gears and talk about the "Coca-Cola" that Fritz said that Oswald said he was drinking at the time of the lunchroom encounter with Officer Baker, I'm prepared for that argument too. Click here.

So, in order for Jim to have a prayer of debunking the second-floor lunchroom encounter between Baker and Oswald, DiEugenio has no choice but to call all three of the following people outright liars when it comes to this particular issue:

Marrion Baker.
Roy Truly.
Lee Harvey Oswald (DiEugenio's resident "patsy" for all 11/22/63 murders).

Now, granted, Mr. Oswald was one heck of a liar. No doubt about that. He practically turned into a lying machine after he was arrested in the Texas Theater on November 22nd. But in this instance we're discussing here, when he was answering Captain Fritz' question about where he was located when the policeman encountered him within the Depository building, he was not lying. And we can know for an absolute fact he was not lying in this instance due to the fact that his "second floor" version of the event is corroborated by TWO other people---Marrion Baker and Roy Truly.

It's kind of a funny switch here, isn't it? The LNer (DVP) is supporting and believing something uttered by Oswald; and the CTer (DiEugenio) has no choice but to think Oswald was lying about this incident.

Or maybe Jim thinks Captain Fritz just put the words "second floor" into Oswald's mouth when Fritz wrote up his report. Either way, we can add one more "liar" to Jim's growing list of liars, can't we, Jim?

Jim DiEugenio is packaging and selling snake oil. He has attempted to dress up his snake oil in a "scholarly" and "well sourced" manner. But it's still snake oil that Jimmy is selling and nothing more.

The initial inconsistencies in Marrion Baker's account of what floor he saw Oswald on do not mean that Baker was lying. He simply mixed up the floor numbers in his rush to race up the stairs in a frantic effort to locate the President's assassin.

The very same kind of early first-day inconsistencies and innocent errors of fact can be found in several other places within the JFK assassination landscape. For instance, there are the initial news reports of FOUR bullet shells being found on the FIFTH floor of the Book Depository. But when the dust had settled, it became obvious that those early news reports were simply erroneous (and non-sinister) in nature, and that, in reality, only three shells had been found in the building--and on the SIXTH floor, not the fifth.

Two more examples that show how people can get things innocently mixed up can be found in the affidavits of two Dealey Plaza witnesses, Ronald Fischer and Robert Edwards. In Fischer's 11/22/63 affidavit, he said he saw a man on the "fifth floor". He later told the Warren Commission that the "white man" he saw was on either the "fifth or sixth floor". And since we know from the picture taken by Tom Dillard that there was no "white man" in any window on the southeast side of the fifth floor, Fischer was simply mistaken when he said "fifth floor" in his initial affidavit.

And Edwards, who was standing next to Fischer during the assassination, made the very same mistake Fischer made when Edwards filled out his affidavit on November 22 too. Edwards said the man was on the "fifth floor". But we can know that he really meant to say "sixth floor", because in the same affidavit Edwards said "there was a stack of boxes around him". And there certainly was not a "stack of boxes" surrounding anyone in the fifth-floor windows that day.

So, as we can see, it's certainly not unusual for witnesses to be mistaken when it comes to the TSBD's floor numbers.

It seems as if a whole new breed of conspiracy theorist is among us. And members of this new breed, in addition to being part of the proverbial "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity, are now also members of the "It Never Happened At All" club too.

I can remember not that long ago when CTers would argue in FAVOR of the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter happening just where all sensible people know it happened--in the second-floor lunchroom of the TSBD. With those CTers using that FACT as "proof" (they would say) of conspiracy, because they'd say that Oswald couldn't possibly have made it down to the second floor in time to see Officer Baker in the lunchroom.

But now we get INHAA [It Never Happened At All] members (like Mr. DiEugenio) who can never use that other "He Couldn't Have Made It There In Time" argument ever again---because DiEugenio is convinced the encounter never happened at all.

And the same with the "paper bag" argument. In past years, that brown paper bag (CE142) that Oswald was seen carrying on the morning of November 22, 1963, was propped up as a "proof of conspiracy" crown jewel by the conspiracy faithful, with the CTers insisting the bag itself was proof that Oswald never carried any rifle into the Depository on November 22 because the bag was way too short.

But now, it's a new ballgame with the bag. And people like Jim DiEugenio can never again utilize the "Too Short" argument. Why? Because Jimmy assures the world that Oswald never had a bag at all on November 22. Go figure.

Kind of funny, isn't it? I think so.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Anyway, thanks Davey, no one leads with his chin like you do. I am already getting emails thanking me for putting you in your place again. Some things never change.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And nobody can sell snake oil and a bunch of made-up, imaginary crap like you can, Jimbo. You just might be the new Babe Ruth of snake oil salesmen, Jimmy. Congratulations on that fine achievement in life.

My favorite bits of Jimbo made-up fantasy from his recent marathon filibuster regarding Marrion Baker and Lee Harvey Oswald are these gut-busters (which should make the "Fantasy Hall-of-Fame" very soon)....

"I believe the incident [i.e., second-floor encounter] was created after the fact. .... I think the guy on the stairway was probably the guy that [James] Worrell saw running out the back of the building. I think the other conspirators got out through the freight elevator after planting the rifle and shells. And I think the odds are that Sean [Murphy] is correct about LHO being outside. Sean brought up some other devastating evidence--including photos--about how the WC aided in putting the whole lunch room encounter together. It took them awhile to get it down and he showed some amazing photos of the dress rehearsal." -- James DiEugenio; July 14, 2015

Only two words need be uttered by me at this point in the proceedings ---

Oh brother!

And please note that Jim D. totally avoids and/or ignores the affidavit of Depository Superintendent Roy Truly. It is, in fact, Mr. Truly who VERIFIED that Baker was pointing his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald in that second-floor lunchroom on 11/22/63.

Mr. Truly is the key to knowing that the man who was seen by Officer Baker on the second floor was, in fact, the one and only Lee H. Oswald --- and that's because Mr. Truly was the man who had hired Oswald at the Depository just one month before the assassination. Ergo, Truly knew Oswald on sight and then Truly cleared Oswald as being just one of the TSBD employees, so Baker let Oswald go on his way (unfortunately for Officer J.D. Tippit).

Roy S. Truly filled out this affidavit in his own words on Saturday, November 23, 1963, just one day after President Kennedy was murdered by Lee Oswald. Let's have a look at what Mr. Truly had to say (which DiEugenio completely ignored during his marathon posting session just a little while ago). The added emphasis is my own....

"The officer and I went through the shipping department to the freight elevator. We then started up the stairway. We hit the second floor landing, the officer stuck his head into the lunch room area where there are Coke and candy machines. Lee Oswald was in there. The officer had his gun on Oswald and asked me if he was an employee. I answered yes." -- Roy Truly; 11/23/63

Therefore, on the day after the assassination, the Depository's Superintendent, Roy Truly, is saying that he and Officer Baker definitely did encounter Lee Oswald (and nobody else) on the second floor of the TSBD right after the shooting of the President.

I guess Jim DiEugenio didn't think that Mr. Truly's affidavit was important at all. Eh, Jim?

Plus, we can also turn to Police Chief Jesse Curry's impromptu press conferences on Saturday (11/23/63) for additional confirmation that an encounter between Lee Harvey Oswald and a Dallas policeman did take place inside the Depository building just minutes after the President was shot.

And keep in mind this conversation with Chief Curry occurred only about 24 hours after JFK was killed. That's not much time for any "cover story" about the Baker/Oswald encounter to have developed and evolved. There is no mention of the "second floor" or "lunchroom" during Curry's interview with reporters, but it's quite clear from Curry's comments that an encounter DID take place inside the TSBD between a Dallas police officer and Lee Harvey Oswald...



REPORTER (BOB CLARK OF ABC) -- "Has he [Oswald] admitted that he was in the building at the time the shots were fired?"

DALLAS POLICE CHIEF JESSE CURRY -- "Yes....well, we know...he couldn't deny that. We have witnesses."

[...]

REPORTER (TOM PETTIT OF NBC) -- "Chief Curry, could you detail for us what led you to Oswald?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "Not exactly. Except...when we went to the building, he was observed in the building at the time, but the manager told us that he worked there. And the officers [sic] passed him on up then because the manager said he is an employee."

REPORTER -- "Is that before the shooting or after?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "After the shooting."

[...]

REPORTER (TOM PETTIT) -- "Did you say, Chief, that a policeman had seen him in the building, after the shot was fired?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "Yes."

REPORTER (TOM PETTIT) -- "Why didn't he arrest him then?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "Because the manager of the place told us that he was an employee. He said he's alright, he's an employee."

REPORTER (BOB CLARK) -- "Did he look suspicious to the policeman at this point?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building."

[...]

REPORTER (TOM PETTIT) -- "And you have the witness who places him there [in the TSBD] after the time of the shooting?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "My police officer can place him there after the time of the shooting."



PAT SPEER SAID:

Unlike most researchers, who are mostly concerned with who killed Kennedy, and why, I have spent much of my time researching what people were thinking, when they were thinking it, and why they were thinking it. Your video archive has proved most helpful in this effort, so thank you for that.

In any event, when one approaches the case from this angle, it's clear that the media had no idea what was going on on 11-22-63, and quickly tired of guessing. They then decided to sit back and let the government tell them what to think. Meanwhile, the government, by and large, also had no idea what was going on, and then decided it was easiest and best to let the public believe it was one wacko acting alone.

The problem, however, is that this wasn't an actual conclusion, but a decision, a political decision. They then had to find a way to confirm this decision. This, then, led to another political decision--the creation of the Warren Commission. While this commission was purportedly granted the autonomy to come to whatever decision it felt appropriate, the members of this commission were all completely entrenched in Washington, and extremely unlikely to say anything which would reflect badly on the Johnson Administration, or cause public alarm. When one reads the news of the day, in fact, it seems clear that the commission's relatively minor criticisms of the FBI, and the SS, came as a bit of a surprise to those "inside the beltway".

Now, one could argue from all this that the WC was a whitewash of a crime that didn't need to be whitewashed. But nobody really does that, do they? No, those suspecting there was more to it than Oswald are normally treated like idiots by those thinking he acted alone, because those thinking he acted alone "know" he did it all alone.

It's called cognitive dissonance. Virtually all of those thinking Oswald acted alone also claim some inside baseball understanding of Oswald's motivations--that he was crazy, a wife-beater, a dyed-in-the-wool commie, an America-hater, etc. While NONE of that is clear from the record.

In other words, they KNOW Oswald did it, based upon what they actually don't know at all, but only think they know.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Nobody can ever prove Oswald's motive, Pat. All we can do is guess. And I've never been shy about saying that very thing.

But as far as the EVIDENCE incriminating Oswald --- well, that's a different matter. The evidence against him is truly overwhelming. You don't deny that, do you Pat?

And guilt is usually established by using evidence.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Only if the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And I know of no evidence, and you certainly haven't shown us any, that proves any guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, I know of nothing you have shown that would get a guilty vote.

By the time all exculpatory evidence is presented, along with yours, the net is 'not guilty'.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, sure, Ken.

All you have to do, Ken, is totally IGNORE all of these little nitpicky items in order to avoid a "Guilty" vote against Lee Oswald....

...The C2766 rifle.

...The documents establishing that OSWALD owned the C2766 rifle.

...All of the bullets.

...All of the bullet shells.

...Oswald's prints on various items (boxes, rifle, paper bag).

...The Tippit murder evidence (and eyewitnesses).

...Howard Brennan's WC testimony.

...Oswald's OWN ACTIONS and out-of-the-ordinary behavior on both Nov. 21 and 22.


Good luck, Ken, in finding 12 jurors who are willing to pretend that ALL OF THE ABOVE is "fake" stuff (including OSWALD'S OWN ACTIONS AND LIES).

(Are all of the O.J. jurors still alive? You might give them a call. They're about your only hope.)


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

So, according to Jim DiEugenio and other conspiracy theorists, apparently there was NO WAY IN HADES that Baker's "third or fourth floor" remark in his Day 1 affidavit could have POSSIBLY been just a simple mistake. He MUST have been lying when he later confirmed it was the second floor?

Geesh.

And it's also clear already from his first-day affidavit that Baker was NOT EXACTLY SURE which floor it was -- "third or fourth". So he doesn't really know even on Day 1.


IAN LLOYD SAID:

A MISTAKE???? For Pete's sake, he only went up ONE floor! How could he possibly believe he had arrived at the 4th floor??


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Maybe it was because of the way the TSBD's stairways were constructed. Perhaps someone better informed of the way the stairs were configured can chime in on this....but didn't it take two "sets" of L-shaped stairs to constitute a whole flight of steps? Frankly, I've always been a little perplexed by the configuration of the TSBD stairwells.

Anyway, Marrion Baker made a mistake in his 11/22 affidavit. And anyone who thinks it was anything other than an honest mistake is a person bent on creating a conspiracy where none exists at all.

Here's the sixth-floor diagram....




ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Nice try, Davey, but probably one of the lamest posts you have ever come up with. You actually are trying to tell us that, as Baker made the turn, INSIDE the stairwell, from one set of steps to another, he believed he had arrived at the 2nd floor?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Bob, I just don't know. I was just throwing that out there as a possibility. And I said I was a bit confused myself as to the configuration of the staircases in the building. But I recalled from the Secret Service re-enactment films and the diagrams (like the one above) that the stairs were not laid out in one continuous set of steps from one floor to the next. So.....~SHRUG~.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Baker made no mistake in his statement when he said he was on either the 3rd or 4th floor. The only mistake he made was allowing himself to be pressured into changing his memory to the 2nd floor lunch room.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But if the whole "second-floor lunchroom encounter" was fake and bogus from the very start, then why would the people who were allegedly trying to frame Lee Oswald want to make it look like Baker and Truly saw the "patsy" on the SECOND floor instead of where YOU say Baker really did see an "Oswald-like" person on the third or fourth floor?

Keeping the patsy CLOSER to the sixth floor (i.e., the "Floor of Death") would be better than creating a fake "encounter" way down on the SECOND floor, don't you think?

And what about Oswald HIMSELF? Captain Fritz' report shows that Oswald said he WAS on the second floor when the policeman stopped him. So was Oswald himself lying? Or was it Fritz who was lying?

And what about Roy Truly's 11/23/63 affidavit? I guess it's nothing but a lie too, correct Bob? Because Truly, right off the bat, said the encounter took place on the second floor and inside the lunchroom.

And then there's the video featuring Jesse Curry that I posted earlier. Is that nothing but a lie too?

All those lies and liars just to put Oswald four floors away from the gunman's sniper's perch?

Yeah, right.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

It's a matter of timing, Dave, plus the fact Oswald was seen by a receptionist on the 2nd floor. Whomever Baker saw on the 4th floor (wearing a jacket that Oswald did not own) could not have been LHO, as he could not be seen by the receptionist PLUS be on the 4th floor.

Add to this it would look very suspicious for Oswald to have descended only two storeys in the time it took Baker to make his way to the 4th floor.

Fritz's notes, written to appear to be hastily jotted down during an interview, were actually written a week after the assassination. Bogus, and not a reliable source.

Why was Truly's affidavit taken on the 23rd, while almost every other TSBD [employee] gave their affidavits on the 22nd?

Not only was the interview with Curry filmed on the 23rd, at no point does Curry say where the encounter with Baker and Oswald took place. It could have been at the front door, for all we know. No matter, by the 23rd, the conspiracy was taking shape nicely. If this interview with Curry had taken place on the afternoon of the 22nd, I might take you seriously.

You got nothin', Dave.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Let me get this straight, Bob....

You, too, are actually in the "THERE WAS NO SECOND-FLOOR ENCOUNTER AT ALL" camp?

So, here's the LIARS COUNT (per CTers) on JUST this one issue re: the second floor....

Baker
Truly
Fritz
Curry

Incredible.

And your excuse about Mrs. Reid and Oswald is laughable. If the encounter with Oswald had really happened on the 4th floor, there's no good reason under the moon to CHANGE it to the 2nd floor. In fact, it's idiotic. They'd be lying for no good reason whatsoever. And Oswald could have easily still seen Mrs. Reid in the 2nd-floor offices AFTER the encounter with Baker just two floors higher. There was nobody with a stopwatch timing Oswald's movements. The timing could have still worked out perfectly for LHO and Mrs. Reid to see each other on the 2nd floor.

You're inventing bogus nonsense out of nothing more than Marrion Baker misremembering exactly what floor he saw LHO on.

Pathetic.

IOW---par for the ABO [Anybody But Oswald] / CT course.


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

While searching my November 1963 newspaper archive, I found the following excerpt in the 11/23/63 Dallas Morning News....

"Police had encountered him [Oswald] while searching the building shortly after the assassination. They turned him loose when he was identified as an employe..." -- Dallas Morning News, 11/23/63, p.1

Now keep in mind that the DMN newspaper was, of course, a MORNING paper and therefore in order for the above words to appear in that paper on the morning of Saturday, November 23rd, the information in the article would have certainly been obtained no later than the previous evening (November 22).

Therefore, the story about Lee Harvey Oswald having been "encountered" by the "police" while the police were "searching the building shortly after the assassination", and then the police having "turned him loose when he was identified as an employe" (all direct quotes from the DMN front-page article on November 23), was most definitely being reported to the press no later than the evening of Friday, November 22, 1963.

So, it looks like the conspiracy theorists can add the staff of the Dallas Morning News to their list of liars when it comes to this topic of Baker and Oswald and the "second-floor encounter".

Click to enlarge....




MARK KNIGHT SAID:

Mr. Von Pein, if you would, kindly quote the part in that newspaper story where it says police encountered Oswald on the second floor...because I apparently missed that part.

And yes, I enlarged the newspaper to try to find it. Maybe your eyes are better than mine; please draw an arrow to the part...where it says police encountered Oswald on the second floor. Because I'm not seeing a "second-floor encounter," to use your words, mentioned at all.

If it's NOT in the news story shown that the encounter was on the second floor....then you cannot use this newspaper story to prove a "second-floor encounter."

Which means you're being deceitful IF you're trying to tell us it mentions a "second-floor encounter" when it actually does not.

So please have the courtesy to point out where in the story it says that there was a "second-floor encounter," or please have the courtesy to admit that the story makes no mention of a "second floor encounter" and you were engaging in something less than honesty.

Unless you mean that the DMN actually WAS lying, when they FAILED to mention an encounter on the second floor. If that's what you meant, please clarify your statement.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

~sigh~

Mark, when I put quotes around the words "second-floor encounter", I was certainly NOT directly quoting the DMN article. I've been putting quote marks around those words ("second-floor encounter") for the last couple of days now in my posts (such as this post and this post), only to stress that the conspiracy theorists think the "second-floor encounter" is a totally bogus and fabricated "second-floor encounter" altogether. The utilization of quotation marks around a word or phrase, as you know, oftentimes is done by a writer to denote something that ALLEGEDLY has taken place.

If I confused you with my quotation marks in my last post, I'm sorry. But I was not quoting the DMN there. Because, you're right, the paper doesn't specifically say the "encounter" took place on the second floor.

But the main point I was making in posting that DMN article was to simply show people like Bob Prudhomme, etc., that an "encounter" involving the police and Lee Oswald inside the Depository WAS being reported to the press on November 22. With the press also receiving the additional important information about Oswald being "turned...loose when he was identified as an employe".

All of that information fits perfectly with every version of the event that was ever uttered by both Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. The only thing missing is the exact location within the Depository where the "encounter" took place.

Now, let's see if Robert Prudhomme would like to take back what he told me just a few hours ago when he said this....

"If this interview with Curry had taken place on the afternoon of the 22nd, I might take you seriously." -- Bob Prudhomme

Well, I think I just proved in my last post (via the DMN article) that the press most definitely had the story on November 22 itself about Oswald being seen by the police in the TSBD and then "turned loose". But many CTers don't seem to believe that ANY "encounter" occurred between the policeman Baker and Lee Oswald AT ALL.

So let's see if Bob now wants to claim that the alleged official cover story concerning the Baker/Oswald encounter started just a tiny little bit BEFORE the 11/23/63 edition of the Dallas Morning News went to press.

And then when I find an AFTERNOON paper from November 22 from somewhere else in the country, or when I locate a radio or television snippet from the afternoon of November 22 which mentions the policeman/Oswald encounter (which might very well exist somewhere in my huge audio/video collection), maybe Bob can then move those goal posts even more, perhaps to the MORNING of November 22nd.


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

So then...the term "second floor encounter" is nowhere to be found in the newspaper page you used to prove a "second floor encounter." Thank goodness; I thought my eyes had failed me.

While I believe you DID intend to mislead by using the phrase "second floor encounter" in conjunction with the newspaper page, I'll let you off the hook since I cannot prove intent.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I resent the implication in that remark, Mr. Knight. I NEVER deliberately misquote people, or newspapers, or anything else, with an intent to deceive. Never have. Never will.

I fully explained the reason I utilized the quote marks in that previous post. And I even cited TWO previous recent examples where I did exactly the same thing (and I certainly wasn't quoting the DMN in those posts; ergo, those quote marks were there for a different purpose---the very same purpose I intended in the DMN post).


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

Resent all you want.

I'm simply surprised you didn't double down, and use your "anyone with half a brain" argument...as in, "Anyone with half a brain could see they were talking about the second floor lunchroom encounter," despite the fact there was no mention of the second floor at all. I'm totally SHOCKED that you failed to go there with your "explanation." That wasn't like you at all.

You're the one who has built these expectations of your style of debate...based entirely, of course, on your style of debate.

And I still believe that, had Tommy and I not called you on this, that's exactly where you would have left things.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mark,

Actually, that "anyone with half a brain" argument isn't too bad. Maybe I should have used those words. (But this being a moderated forum, I'm always walking on eggshells, of course, so such a comment might not fly too well here. So I'm always careful not to heap on the insults in large doses.)

But, yes, since the SUM TOTAL of the Baker & Truly & Oswald (through Fritz) statements positively indicates that the "encounter" did take place on the SECOND floor and no other floor of the Book Depository, you could, indeed, look upon that previous post of mine that you seem to have a problem with (where I put "second-floor encounter" in quotation marks) as representing substitute wording in lieu of using these precise words Mark Knight just now used....

" "Anyone with half a brain could see they were talking about the second floor lunchroom encounter," despite the fact there was no mention of the second floor at all." -- M. Knight; 7/17/15

Not bad, Mark. In fact, given the obvious fact that the encounter did occur on the second floor, that quote of yours above fits like a glove. Thanks.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Because it is in a morning paper does not mean they had to know the 'evening' before. Some reporters may actually work until the paper goes to press.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And when do you think the Dallas Morning News went to press in order for it to be on the streets early in the morning on the 23rd?

Care to split any more hairs, Ken?

You guys are cooked on this thing and you know it.

After my Curry and DMN proofs supplied in this discussion, no CTer can possibly still pretend that NO "encounter" (regardless of the floor number) took place between a Dallas policeman and Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63.

But I'm guessing there will be a few CTers who will still give it a try.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

If it had just been an encounter, then no one would be lying and you wouldn't have a point.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dead wrong, as usual.

In fact, that was THE WHOLE POINT that I was making in that post --- i.e., to show that "an encounter" (ANY encounter, regardless of the TSBD floor number) had occurred between a policeman and Oswald and that it was being reported in the media PRIOR to 12:01 AM Nov. 23rd. And I proved it via the DMN article. (Seeing as how the DMN reporters would have had that info on Nov. 22 for the Nov. 23 morning edition.)

Let's see you mangle what I just said yet again, Ken. You have a nice talent for that sort of thing.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

As it is, you tried to make up something to support your misleading info and got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Wrong yet again, as usual, Ken.

I only searched the newspaper archive to combat Prudhomme's previous post when he said this....

"If this interview with Curry had taken place on the afternoon of the 22nd, I might take you seriously." -- B. Prudhomme

And the Curry video doesn't say a thing about the encounter being a "second-floor encounter" either. And Bob's post referring to that Curry video was my entire motivation for seeking out a newspaper article to shove down his throat which proved that the same type of ENCOUNTER that was referred to in the Curry video (regardless of floor number) was also being reported on a day which Prudhomme said he would find more satisfactory so that he could stop pretending that ANY "encounter" took place INVOLVING OSWALD and a Dallas policeman. And I did find the proof in less than four minutes via the DMN article, which HAD to have been put to bed on Nov. 22, not Nov. 23.

Anyway, I knew exactly what I meant and what I was doing when I put "second-floor encounter" in quote marks.

You actually think I would be stupid enough to think you CTers wouldn't catch me in a lie if I truly was trying to suggest that those exact words ("second-floor encounter") WERE part of the DMN article---even when I posted the article itself for all to see and check?

That's hilarious.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

I questioned the Baker/Oswald encounter back in the 1990s on Rich DellaRosa's old forum. I wasn't alone. This isn't something Greg Parker or anyone else recently came up with. The same thing goes for Lee Farley questioning Oswald's alleged bus ride. I questioned that, along with every other aspect of Oswald's supposed post-assassination actions, long before he even started researching this case. And again, there were others who felt the same way.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And the contortions a CTer needs to go through in order to believe that ANY of those facts are false are staggering in number.

Liars, liars everywhere!

That seems to be the CTer motto.

And the list of liars includes all kinds of non-Government people too -- like Cecil McWatters, William Whaley, Buell Frazier, Linnie Mae Randle, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, Gladys Johnson, Earlene Roberts, Johnny Brewer, Virginia Davis, Barbara Davis, Helen Markham, Ted Callaway, William Scoggins, and God knows how many more.

Shouldn't at least a few Internet conspiracy theorists see how utterly preposterous it is to believe that all of the above citizens were lying through their teeth about things relating to 11/22/63?

Well, even if CTers can't see it, I sure as hell can.


GREG PARKER SAID:

Up until 2001 or 02, the only criticism of the second floor lunch story was about how long it would take Oswald to get down there from 6. No one suggested that meant there was no encounter on the second floor. If anyone HAD suggested it, I believe the famous scene in Stone's movie would have looked quite different. No one gave the affidavit a second look. In fact, few in any, gave it a FIRST look. So Don [Jeffries] and anyone else claiming they questioned if the second floor lunchroom story ever actually happened are just conflating their questioning of ASPECTS of the story with questioning the whole damn story.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

You [Greg Parker] won't win any prizes for it, but if it makes you feel better, keep claiming credit for being the first to doubt Baker encountered Oswald.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This is hilarity at its finest.

It's kind of like wanting to take credit for being the person who designed
The Edsel.



David Von Pein
July 12-27, 2015


================================


ANOTHER DISCUSSION....


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

When did the Coke appear?

Since [Marrion] Baker was confused about this point all the way to September, and I don't think [Roy] Truly mentioned it in his testimony, when was the first appearance of the Coke Oswald allegedly was drinking on the second floor?

Did it come from the Fritz notes?


JAMES DiEUGENIO LATER SAID:

I got a reply from Greg Parker on this.

He says that the first mention of the coke was in Oswald's FBI interrogation. But the problem with that was he made it pretty clear that he had gotten the coke before the motorcade had come by and was drinking and eating on the first floor.

Therefore, after he was killed, both the FBI and DPD went to work changing that story to vitiate his alibi.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And Oswald would never lie.....right Jim?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Lies Of Lee Harvey Oswald

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Oswald, Baker, Truly, And The Coke


B.A. COPELAND SAID:

For the record, what is your explanation for Baker's lack of a 2nd floor lunchroom encounter in his first affidavit? He wrote it on the very day, according to the record.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Marrion Baker describes the encounter in his original affidavit. He just didn't specifically say the encounter occurred in the "lunchroom".

Given the frantic circumstances just after the assassination, I think it's quite possible that Baker might not have had the slightest idea he had encountered Oswald in a "lunchroom" at all. The brief encounter took just a matter of seconds, and Baker was certainly not concentrating his attention on the TYPE of room he was in at the time he shoved his gun up against Oswald's mid-section. And Baker, of course, wasn't familiar with the layout of the building at all on November 22. So he might have only later learned that the encounter took place in the Depository's lunchroom.

Yes, Baker got the floor number wrong in his November 22 affidavit. But the absolute proof that the "Oswald/Baker Lunchroom Encounter" took place is Roy Truly's presence there in the lunchroom when Baker saw Oswald. Truly confirmed it happened on the SECOND FLOOR and in the LUNCHROOM. And Truly confirmed it was OSWALD who had been stopped by Baker.

Do conspiracy believers really want to drag Roy S. Truly through the mud by labelling him a liar or a "conspirator"? Come on. That's just silly.

Also --- I'm wondering if the skeptics would be more willing to accept the lunchroom encounter if Officer Baker had said "second or third floor" in his original affidavit, instead of "third or fourth floor"? I doubt they would. But it's quite clear to me that Baker wasn't sure at all which floor he was on when he saw Oswald. Hence his writing "third or fourth floor".


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

I once said that DVP should do stand up.

The proof of that is above us for all to see.

The guy just rewrote the first day Baker affidavit. Which does not take place in the lunchroom, does not take place on the right floor, and which features no coke, and the guy he accosted does not fit the correct description and is wearing a jacket. Dave says, no problem.

...Oswald's words were transformed, but Davey says, forget it.

At least he did not say this time: Vince Bugliosi said it happened alright!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And the one person DiEugenio completely ignored just now is Roy S. Truly, who is the person who verified the "encounter" took place on the SECOND FLOOR in the LUNCHROOM with OSWALD.

But I guess Roy Truly was just one more lying S.O.B. who wanted to frame poor Lee Harvey, right Jim?

(Jimmy's stand-up gig in Vegas awaits.)


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

First let me note that I didn't begin with a conclusion (that the second floor encounter didn't occur) and then look for evidence to support it. Rather, I began with the evidence and ultimately concluded that the second floor encounter didn't occur. So I can only speculate as to why the encounter was inserted into the story.

It appears that Oswald had a pretty strong alibi. He was on the first floor and in the employee lunchroom right before or around the time the motorcade went by. He was probably seen by others while there. I believe he was also seen by a police officer on the first floor, near the front entrance, right after the assassination. The government had to eliminate this alibi. They apparently did so by changing Oswald's first-floor encounter with some police officer to a second floor encounter with Officer Baker, near the back of the building.

The second floor encounter may seem like a good alibi to those who know the timing quite well, but superficially it makes sense that a guilty Oswald went down a couple floors and went into a back room right after shooting the president.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sandy,

If the lunchroom encounter never occurred at all, then can you provide an explanation for WHY both Marrion Baker and Roy Truly would have a desire to go on national TV in September of 1964 and tell lie after lie regarding their encounter with Lee Oswald on 11/22/63?

Those two men weren't being FORCED to go on television and repeat their alleged lies....so why do you think EITHER man would want to say the things they said in the 1964 video shown below? Did they do it just for kicks---even though, according to you and many other conspiracy believers, they KNEW they would have to lie their asses off every second they were on camera with CBS News?



And the same question applies to Marrion Baker and his VOLUNTARY appearance at the 1986 Bugliosi/Spence docu-trial [see video below]. Baker wasn't issued a subpoena forcing him to appear at that mock trial. So why did he want to (again) go on national TV and lie his butt off? Who would do a thing like that--over and over again--if he didn't HAVE to?




SANDY LARSEN SAID:

David,

I believe that Roy Truly was a CIA asset and was instructed to do what he did.

Marrion Baker was probably told that his lies were necessary to prevent WW3, or some other national security nonsense. He was doing his patriotic duty.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And that must mean you think that Marrion Baker thought that "prevent[ing] WW3, or some other national security nonsense" was STILL a valid reason for him to voluntarily appear on television and lie his butt off in the year 1986, twenty-three years after the assassination. Correct?



And weren't the conspirators/plotters super-lucky to have a "CIA asset" named Roy Truly employed as the Superintendent of the Book Depository on the day JFK was shot?

Was Truly "planted" in the building as a TSBD employee by his CIA handlers? If so, those plotters sure had great foresight, because Truly had worked for the Depository for 29 years as of 11/22/63:

MR. TRULY -- "I went to work for the Texas School Book Depository in July 1934."


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

We have no way of knowing why Baker went on that show 23 years later. I mean, why would he do that even if he did tell the truth in 1963/64? Do you think he wanted media attention? I don't.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then you'll admit it would have been a very odd thing for Baker to have done (to go on TV voluntarily 23 years later) if he knew he was going to have to tell one lie after another to the American public....right?

But going on TV in order to tell the TRUTH (and to get a free trip to London, England) doesn't sound very odd at all. Wouldn't you agree, Sandy?


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

I don't know, David. I wouldn't do it myself, even for a free trip. But everybody is different.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Why don't we ask Davey Boy why Marvin Johnson lied when he changed Baker's first day affidavit?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Johnson didn't "change" Baker's affidavit. Why did you word it that way?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Why did Johnson add that Baker identified Oswald on the fourth floor, when in fact, that guy does not resemble Oswald?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Anybody telling the story of the "Baker/Oswald encounter" AFTER THE FACT (such as Marvin Johnson) very likely had to have known that the person Baker saw in the TSBD was definitely Lee Harvey Oswald. Roy Truly VERIFIED that fact for all time, and all reasonable people examining this case know it. But, being a charter member of the popular Anybody But Oswald club, Jim DiEugenio has no capacity for properly assessing and evaluating the evidence in a reasonable manner.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

And why did Johnson also add that Baker identified Oswald in the witness room. When in fact, Baker made his first day affidavit out in that room and never wrote one word out that LHO was sitting opposite him there. (See Reclaiming Parkland, pgs.218-19. Soon to be re-released as JFK: The Evidence Today.)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That particular argument brought forth constantly by Internet conspiracy theorists has always made me laugh. Why CTers think that Officer Baker had a strict obligation to add these words to his affidavit is beyond me....

Oh, btw, the guy I saw in the TSBD is in the same room with me right now as I'm writing this affidavit.

But, IMO, the above information isn't the kind of info that someone would necessarily feel they needed to include in their written statement. I don't think I would have included such information either. Now, maybe some people would have included such information (had they actually seen Lee Oswald in the same room with them when they wrote their statement), but others likely would not include it.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Further, why did Spence not bring this up at that phony as a three dollar bill trial?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

#1. I don't think Gerry Spence knew a whole lot of the minutiae pertaining to the JFK murder case.

#2. Even if he did know every last detail of the case, Spence knew that his opponent at the mock trial—Vincent Bugliosi—would be able to rip to shreds the defense notion that Oswald really wasn't encountered by Officer Baker in the lunchroom. How could Bugliosi do this? Two words: Roy Truly.

So, yes, Spence could have brought up the incredibly stupid "There Was No Lunchroom Encounter At All" theory at the 1986 TV docu-trial, but if he had brought it up, Spence would have ended up looking very silly after Vince came back with the true facts. And at a real trial (instead of just a mock trial where no subpoenas were issued for any of the witnesses), Roy Truly would, of course, have been called to the stand by Bugliosi, versus what happened at the mock trial, when Baker had to tell us what Truly said about OSWALD being the person encountered in the lunchroom (which is testimony that probably wouldn't have been allowed at a real trial in the first place, because it's hearsay).*

* And that part of Bugliosi's questioning of Officer Baker wasn't entirely accurate, and should have elicited an objection from Mr. Spence, but it did not. The inaccuracy occurs when Baker tells Bugliosi that Roy Truly told Baker during the lunchroom encounter that the man Baker had just stopped at gunpoint was named "Lee Oswald". In actuality, of course, Baker didn't learn Oswald's name until much later. But I'm guessing that the questioning was done that way merely to save time at the televised mock trial. Many technically inappropriate questions were put forth to the witnesses at that docu-trial in London. At a real trial, of course, we would have seen many more objections and sidebar conferences, etc. But because of the strict time limitations for the TV trial, many things were overlooked by Judge Bunton at the London mock trial in 1986.


BART KAMP SAID:

That stupid trial and that stupid CBS interview are both a joke. A well rehearsed one at best. Zero evidentiary value. Baker got himself a nice candy arse trip, so did the others.

Watch Harold Norman being interviewed by Spence and see how many times Norman's eyes glance towards Vince B. Too funny.

Baker and Truly contradicted themselves when it came to...

1. How they entered the building.
2. Who said "let's take the stairs".
3. Who walked ahead of whom on those stairs.
4. Oswald's actual position inside the lunch room during the encounter.
5. That damn coke!

And then there are the many reports Oswald was seen on the first floor and encountered........ah yes, those reports.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And all of that subterfuge and lying was done just so they could—what was it now?—oh, yes....just so they could falsely place Oswald on the SECOND FLOOR instead of the FIRST FLOOR (which is where most CTers say he was in the first place).

Hardly seems worth it, does it? Because the SECOND FLOOR isn't the SIXTH FLOOR, is it?

You'd think the crafters of this Baker/Oswald ruse would have had Baker and Truly (both rotten liars, according to CTers) say they saw Oswald dashing down the stairs between the SIXTH and FIFTH floors. Such a fabricated tale would have been infinitely better for the "Let's Frame Oswald" team of plotters. But no! They only wanted to say they saw him on the SECOND floor. As if THAT story somehow nails the resident "patsy" to the cross more efficiently. (Hilarious!)

Please explain for me, Bart, why the plotters and patsy-framers didn't make up a better lie regarding WHERE Baker and Truly saw Oswald. After all, most Internet CTers think BOTH of those men (Marrion Baker and Roy Truly) were evil rotten liars anyway. So why not have them say they saw Oswald either ON the sixth floor or coming down the stairs nearer to the sixth floor?

The fact that the "Lunchroom Encounter" makes ZERO sense if it were, in fact, just made up from whole cloth is one of the reasons to know that it really did happen the way Officer Baker and Roy S. Truly always said it happened.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

It always astounds me the way that DVP contorts, stretches, and distorts both the evidence and the English language in his long failed attempt to prop up the indignities and disgraces that make up the Warren Report.

Any objective person--which DVP does not even come close to qualifying as--would say that when someone who was not at the scene alters the first day affidavit of someone who was at the scene, and does so in a material way, then that is a completely unwarranted and unjustified alteration in the evidence trail. It makes sense that DVP has no problem with this, because in a large way, this is how the WR made its case throughout. Which is why, in a real trial--not the London sideshow--the case against Oswald would very likely be thrown out.

Now, unless DVP thinks that description Baker made of a guy being on the third or fourth floor wearing a brown jacket and about 30-35 pounds heavier than Oswald, actually was Oswald--and I do not see how anyone can say that based on the evidence--then Johnson altered the evidence trail.

The idea that somehow Baker would be sitting opposite Oswald in the witness room--the guy who he almost just killed--and Baker did not walk over to him to say one word, or to ask his name, or the key question: what was he doing there? in order to verify his affidavit, that is so ludicrous, it's something Allen Dulles would say. Which, by the way, Dulles did do. He tried to make an excuse about this saying Oswald was only in the room a brief time. And, let us not forget, Dulles and Belin took the Baker testimony off the record five times. Hmm.

For anyone to call Baker's first day affidavit minutiae, I mean what can one declare about something like that? It's anything but. IMO, it's quite important. Like the early reports about another lying witness Bugliosi used, Mr. Norman. And the exposure of Norman would have been key, since--although Baker appears to have changed his story for the DPD-- Norman changed his story for the infamous Elmer Moore. And man, what any informed person could have done with that--anyone of course except Spence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Liars, liars, everywhere!! (Per James DiEugenio)....

Johnson, Baker, Truly, Fritz, Paine, Norman, Frazier, Randle, the whole Warren Commission, plus dozens of others.

It's hilarious! There's no other word but "hilarious" to describe the constant "LIAR" refrain. But Jimmy doesn't care. The more liars, the better.

And Johnson "altered" nothing! He knew that Baker HAD, indeed, encountered the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. Everybody at the DPD knew it after a short period of time following the assassination. [Also see my "Baker/Johnson Addendum" below.]

You, Jimmy, are just doing what you always do----quick to label someone as a liar or a conspirator. NO OTHER EXPLANATION is even possible in your world. Isn't that right, James D.?


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Baker/Johnson Addendum....

Dallas Police Department Detective Marvin Johnson's undated multi-page statement concerning how he was present at Dallas City Hall when Marrion Baker filled out his affidavit can be found HERE and HERE.

And I don't see any inconsistencies or "alterations" in Baker's statements at all when comparing those two pages from Johnson's statement to this affidavit authored by Marrion Baker.

Johnson's report merely ADDS some additional information that Baker did not choose to include in his 11/22/63 affidavit---that information being the following statement that Johnson said Baker made while both Baker and Johnson were together in the Homicide Bureau of the Dallas Police Department:

"When Patrolman M.L. Baker identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man that he stopped in the Texas School Book Depository Building, Patrolman Baker was in the Homicide Bureau giving an affidavit and Oswald was brought into the room to talk to some Secret Service men. When Baker saw Oswald he stated, "That is the man I stopped on the 4th floor of the School Book Depository"." -- M. Johnson

So, given this portion of the statement made by Marvin Johnson....

"While in the office from 3:00 pm [November 22nd] until 2:00 am [November 23rd] I answered the phone and took an affidavit from Patrolman M.L. Baker."

....it's fairly clear that Detective Johnson himself heard Officer Baker utter the words "That is the man I stopped on the 4th floor of the School Book Depository". And that's why Johnson wrote it down in his own report later on. Johnson HEARD Baker identify Oswald, but Baker chose not to write down that information in his own affidavit. Simple as that.

But when a dedicated conspiracy theorist like James DiEugenio gets ahold of this very easy-to-figure-out situation regarding Johnson and Baker, it gets turned into a nefarious and devious scenario where Marvin Johnson "lied when he changed Baker's first day affidavit", even though nothing like that occurred at all.


GREG PARKER SAID:

Marvin Johnson TOOK Baker's affidavit. I believe that means he wrote it based on Baker responding to questions from Johnson.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't think that's the way an affidavit works. (I never thought it was anyway.) The way I have always thought an "affidavit" worked is --- The person giving the affidavit is given a piece of paper and he writes down his own account (statement) of what happened—in his or her own words (without being grilled or interviewed by anybody)—and then that handwritten version is typed up by a DPD or Sheriff's Department clerk to create the final neat typewritten version. And then it gets notarized by a notary public (e.g., Mary Rattan, et al). (It's possible that the handwritten version gets notarized as well, but I'm not positive about that.)

Yes, Marvin Johnson said he "took" Baker's affidavit at City Hall, but I'm not sure that means that Johnson was questioning Baker at all. It could be that Johnson was just THERE when Baker was filling out his written statement, and then Johnson possibly physically took the affidavit into his physical possession and then it made its way into Mary Rattan's hands (the notary public).

I really don't know what the word "took" means in this case. But here are the three HANDWRITTEN pages of Baker's affidavit (below). Can anybody confirm whose handwriting this is? Is it Baker's or Johnson's? The "B" in "M.L. Baker" at the top of page 1 looks somewhat like Baker's own signature that we find on this 9/23/64 statement that Baker initialled and signed, but I'm not 100% sure. Any handwriting experts out there?....

Baker's Affidavit (handwritten version):

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3


GREG PARKER SAID:

As for his [DVP's] nonsense about why not say they saw him run down from the 6th floor? Why place him on only the second floor? Let's look at it as much as we can through the eyes of the cops at the time.

1. Oswald was still alive and would refute any such 6th floor flight.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And you actually think that anyone is going to believe the word of the alleged assassin? You must be kidding!

This same kind of "Would Oswald Lie?" argument has cropped up when talking about some of Oswald's other statements that he made while in custody -- such as Oswald claiming he never owned a rifle, and his lie about not knowing anything about the alias "Hidell", and his lie about having never been in Mexico City, and his whopper of a lie when he said "I didn't shoot anybody". Many conspiracy believers seem to think Oswald was being TRUTHFUL in every one of those statements. Naturally, I disagree. Oswald was a Lying Machine on November 22nd and 23rd of 1963. He never stopped lying.

Therefore, WHY on Earth would anyone (a jury or anybody else) start BELIEVING this lying machine named Oswald even if he denied something that WAS, indeed, just made up from whole cloth (like the alternate scenario I proposed earlier about Truly and Baker making up a BETTER lie by saying they had seen Oswald on or near the SIXTH floor, vs. the second floor)?


GREG PARKER SAID:

2. Oswald had mentioned getting a coke.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So what? Once again (like point #1 above), who cares what the ALLEGED ASSASSIN says? Even in the "Let's Pretend" scenarios that I've been talking about in this discussion, who is going to take ANYTHING uttered by the assassin (or the "alleged" assassin) seriously. An assassin is going to LIE a whole lot of the time. And, as all reasonable people know, Oswald (the Real Assassin) DID lie constantly while he was in custody.


GREG PARKER SAID:

3. Oswald had mentioned a cop encounter in or near a vestibule.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Once again --- Who cares what Oswald said?!

If all you're going to do is use OSWALD'S own statements in your arguments, then you've already lost. Because the desperate statements made by the guy charged with the murder aren't going to carry much weight with a jury (or anybody).


GREG PARKER SAID:

4. Baker had told a story of encountering someone on the 3rd or 4th floor who did not match Oswald.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But if Marrion Baker was the rotten evil liar that you think he was, then (via my alternate scenario) he would have NEVER said he saw anybody on the 3rd or 4th floor at all. He would have said ALL ALONG that he saw Oswald nearer to the sixth floor.

But I guess it depends on exactly WHEN you think Marrion Baker decided to start telling lies. You think he was being completely truthful in his 11/22/63 affidavit, right? It was only LATER that he was strong-armed into telling the "lie" about seeing Oswald on the 2nd floor, correct?

And that's always a nice comfy cop-out for conspiracy theorists to use when they're stuck for something better --- just say the person was "coerced" into changing his or her story.

In other words, it couldn't POSSIBLY have been an honest and simple MISTAKE that Marrion L. Baker made in his 11/22/63 affidavit when he said he encountered the man (Oswald) or the "third or fourth floor", instead of saying the correct floor (the second), right? (Even though it couldn't be more obvious that Baker WAS, indeed, unsure as to which floor it was—because he mentioned TWO different floor numbers in his original affidavit. And, quite obviously, he wasn't implying he had an encounter on BOTH of those floors. So at least one of them HAD to be incorrect in the first place.)

Why can't conspiracists accept Marrion Baker's "third or fourth floor" statement for what it so clearly is — a simple and honest mistake made by a police officer who was in a chaotic and frantic situation within minutes of the President having just been shot, and who was not paying close attention at all to what floor he was standing on when he pointed his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald's stomach in the lunchroom on November 22, 1963?


GREG PARKER SAID:

Somehow, the cops had to juggle those elements and come up with a single story to explain it all. Truly did not make his first statement until later that night - and it was to the FBI, not DPD. By that time, they had Oswald's alibi and Baker's statement. It is decided to relocate the 3rd or 4th floor encounter to the second floor lunchroom because that is where the coke machine is. It is also the only location apart from the front entrance, where you have any chance of claiming there is a vestibule.

Truly made his statement and wrote the name of his secretary (Mrs. Reid) at the bottom of the otherwise typed document. She gives her statement the next day and "confirms" that she sees Oswald walking through the office with a coke post-assassination.

Meanwhile, Baker is put on ice and kept well away from the media and only wheeled out again for [his] WC appearance. By then, he has his story straightened out (kind of). Keeping him on ice also helps deep-six his initial statement. After all, it is an internal document and no one is going to leak the contents to the media and sure as hell, Baker is not being let off his leash until he has his mind right!

So that is why they ended up on the second floor. Not ideal, but it was forced upon them as the best compromise that with some fudging on the timing could still make it theoretically possible for Oswald to get down from the 6th.

DVP is in for a rude shock when my stuff on Truly gets posted.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, brother. What a big load of craptrap that was.

As we can all see, Greg R. Parker has a very active imagination.


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

If statements from the accused were deemed unimportant, then why is every alleged criminal always allowed to give a statement?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

A statement (or trial testimony) from the accused can be very important, yes. I don't deny that. In many cases, it can exonerate the accused person (if the statement can be corroborated via other evidence).

But in many cases, of course, a statement from a defendant can hang him. And I think Oswald's statements (aka: his lies) in THIS (JFK) case help to do just that—hang him.

That's mainly what I meant when I said earlier — "And you actually think that anyone is going to believe the word of the alleged assassin? You must be kidding!" — i.e., given the evidence that built up against Oswald IN THIS CASE, and given the number of times Oswald PROVABLY LIED to the police about substantive issues connected to the investigation, there's no way a jury is going to suddenly start BELIEVING Oswald if he were to have denied that he came down the stairs from the sixth floor—even via the make-believe scenario I talked about earlier, which had Baker and Truly just inventing a "better" story, with each of them saying they saw LHO on the stairs near the sixth floor.

Even in that kind of "pretend" situation, given all of Oswald's other lies, I kind of doubt a juror would be saying this to himself — Hmmm, maybe I should believe Oswald about THIS particular part of his statement, even though it was proven by various other witnesses and evidence that he lied his butt off many other times during this trial.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

According to Fritz, Oswald said he was having lunch on the first floor when the president was shot.

Then he went upstairs and got a coke.

So if you want to believe everything that Fritz said was true, then Oswald couldn't have been on the sixth floor when the President was shot.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Only if I choose to believe the word of the alleged assassin. (Duh!)

And given Lee's track record for telling lies (and lots of them), why in the world would anyone believe most of the things Oswald told Fritz?

But in one of the rare instances when he actually told the truth, we can believe him when he told Fritz that the encounter with Baker happened on the SECOND FLOOR. We KNOW that part of Oswald's statement to Fritz was true because we've got Baker AND Truly to corroborate it.

Many CTers here, however, seem to feel that FRITZ was the liar when he said LHO said it was the second floor. Some CTers are desperate to keep that encounter from occurring on the second floor, which is kind of funny and ironic, because I can recall arguing with some conspiracy theorists not that long ago who were using the "Second-Floor Encounter" as absolute PROOF (in their minds) that Oswald was innocent. Because they'd always tell me that there was no way in the world Oswald could have possibly made it down to the lunchroom from the sixth floor in about 90 seconds (despite the fact that a Secret Service agent did it [twice] in less than 80 seconds).

But nowadays, it seems to be in vogue for conspiracists to believe the 2nd-floor encounter never took place AT ALL. Funny, huh? It's similar to the transformation that has occurred with the "paper bag" theory too. In the past, CTers would always say "That bag Oswald took to work is too short to hold the rifle" (and many CTers still do use that argument, of course). But it's now becoming more popular among CTers to just pretend that the bag never existed in the first place. Poof! It's gone! Oswald never had ANY paper bag with him at all on November 22! Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Randle lied their butts off! That's how silly and fantastic some of the conspiracy theories have become.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Yeh, go ahead and believe those statements which suit your stance, David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Everybody does that, Ray. Picking and choosing is human nature and always will be. I've yet to meet a single person who doesn't "pick & choose" to a certain extent. CTers certainly do it too. They love the part about Oswald telling Fritz that he (LHO) was on the "first floor" eating lunch when JFK was shot (WCR, p.600), but many Internet CTers have decided to just ignore the part when Oswald told Fritz he was on the "second floor" when the officer came in.


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

David,

Some CTers are angry with me because I claim that the second floor encounter didn't occur. (I guess because the second-floor thing provides an alibi of sorts.) The point is that there is no incentive for trying to make the encounter fake.

The reason I call it fake is because the evidence points in that direction. We have proof that Lovelady lied, and Shelley lied, and we know from Victoria Adams that the WC altered her testimony. The film of Officer Baker crossing the extension show that the TSBD wasn't his intended destination. First day statements changed over time, all related to the second-floor encounter.

I've shown how adding the fabricated second-floor encounter to Bookhout's account, after-the-fact, caused the chronology to become impossible. Removing only the second floor sentences fixes the chronology problem.

Those are the reasons some of us believe the encounter didn't occur. Baker's statement agrees with us.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sandy,

I think it just goes to show that if someone (such as a conspiracy believer) tries hard enough, they will probably be able to scour the records and statements and find something that they feel verifies the thing they are trying to prove.

Take the "Greer Shot JFK" theory. If you look at a particular frame of the Zapruder Film, the sunlight on Roy Kellerman's head does somewhat resemble a "gun". So, for some CTers, that frame(s) of the Z-Film--alone--is enough for them to advance their ludicrous theory.

And I have no doubt that a good researcher who has access to all the documents and various witness and FBI statements and reports can probably come up with a pretty decent argument for why that researcher believes the second-floor encounter is a fake. There's always SOMETHING that doesn't quite "ADD UP", isn't there? Somebody's statement, for example, will almost always be in conflict with this other person's statement. But I think you, Sandy, said it well in your last post when you said this:

"The point is that there is no incentive for trying to make the encounter fake."

I agree with that sentiment, too.

And I'd like to see your "proof" to back up these three bold declarations (I, of course, don't think any of these things are correct at all):

"We have proof that Lovelady lied, and Shelley lied, and we know from Victoria Adams that the WC altered her testimony." -- S. Larsen


SANDY LARSEN SAID ALL THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sandy,

I think you're assigning assumed levels of accuracy that are way too high when it comes to your interpretation of all of those various witness statements. Via such statements, given over a period of time (and which vary to some degree in their details, including adding more details [TRUE details, mind you, not made-up details] to subsequent tellings of their story which they had not previously mentioned, which is a very normal thing to have happen when someone tells a story over and over again), there's no way to pinpoint a perfect timeline with spot-on accuracy. Can't be done.

And the reason it can't be done is mainly because none of those witnesses was specifically TIMING anything that they did on November 22nd. Therefore, when they told their stories later on, they were providing ESTIMATES (i.e., their BEST GUESSES) concerning how long it took them to do this or that. To think we could possibly nail with detailed precision (practically right down to the minute) the type of exact timeline that the conspiracy theorists require would be akin to believing in miracles.

In short, there was absolutely no need for Billy Lovelady or Bill Shelley to "lie" about anything that happened on 11/22/63. And I see no "proof" that either one of them did.

You, Sandy, obviously strongly disagree with me. But to think that someone within "Officialdom" somehow got all of these various people (Lovelady, Shelley, Baker, Truly, and maybe more?) to tell a bunch of lies just so the official "patsy framers" could say the second-floor lunchroom encounter took place is something that I think all reasonable people would consider to be a totally FANTASTIC idea. And it's a fantastic idea that I don't think the conspiracy theorists have nearly enough support for.

Also....

Why is it that so many people who weren't charged with committing two murders (e.g., Billy Lovelady, Bill Shelley, Marrion Baker, et al) are accused of being liars in the JFK case, and the person who was charged with two murders is treated with kid gloves by so many conspiracists? Isn't that also a rather "fantastic" idea? (I think it is.)


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

David,

What makes you believe Oswald told a lot of lies?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, come now, Sandy. You must be kidding.

The evidence is telling us that Oswald was a Mega Liar....




SANDY LARSEN SAID:

Every one of those things that you claim is a lie sounds like the truth to me.

Your problem is that you assume Oswald was guilty. So whenever he says something that makes him innocent, you conclude he was lying.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, you think Oswald DIDN'T own a rifle?

You think Oswald bought his revolver in Fort Worth?

You think Oswald was telling the TRUTH when he said he had never used the alias "Hidell" in his life?

You think Oswald was telling the truth when he said he had never said anything at all about "curtain rods" to Wes Frazier?

You think Oswald was being truthful when he said he didn't carry any large-ish bag into the TSBD on Nov. 22?

You think Oswald was being truthful when he said "I didn't shoot anybody" (not even J.D. Tippit)?!

And on and on....

Come now, Sandy, you're wayyyyy too smart to fall for such obvious lies.......aren't you?




SANDY LARSEN SAID:

That wasn't in your list [about "Fort Worth" and the revolver].


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, it was. It's in Part 2 of my "Oswald's Lies" series.


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

He [Lee Harvey Oswald] was obviously a patsy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

My thoughts on the matter....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The "Patsy Plot" Silliness (Part 1)


BART KAMP SAID:

This thread shows how outgunned you [DVP] are.

You have been overtaken and left far far behind. Your argumentation falls completely flat.

Perhaps you will learn from this some day.

One can only hope.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, thank the Maker I have all these astute Education Forum members to tell me what really went down with respect to all those rotten liars named Truly, Baker, Shelley, and Lovelady. Otherwise, I'd just be totally lost.




SANDY LARSEN SAID:

Shelley and Lovelady BOTH changed zero seconds to three minutes. The Darnell film shows that their initial assessments were correct, the three minutes wrong. BOTH made that change! How convenient for the two to be wrong in the very same way.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Once again, you're assigning absurd levels of assumed timestamping accuracy to the Lovelady/Shelley statements. But such pinpoint accuracy concerning those statements just cannot be obtained.

Upon reading Shelley's and Lovelady's Day 1 statements that you quoted in this previous post, there is NOTHING in those 11/22/63 statements by either witness that would justify this conclusion by you: "Shelley and Lovelady BOTH changed zero seconds to three minutes."

Here's what Shelley and Lovelady said on Day 1 (Nov. 22) (copied from your own post, Sandy)....

"After [the shooting] was over we went back into the building...." -- Billy Lovelady; 11/22/63

"...immediately after hearing the shots [Lovelady] and Shelley started running towards the presidential car, but it sped away...[They] then returned to the [TSBD]." -- 11/22/63 FBI Report

"I ran across the street to the corner of the park and ran into [Gloria Calvery]...I went back to the building and went inside and called my wife and told her what happened." -- William Shelley; 11/22/63

[End Quotes.]

None of those three statements eliminates the possibility that Lovelady and Shelley could have remained outside the building for three or more minutes before they entered the west entrance.

In fact, it's obvious to me from the last two statements quoted above that at least A LITTLE BIT OF TIME must have elapsed in order for Shelley and Lovelady to do the things they said they did in those statements (e.g., "Lovelady and Shelley started running towards the presidential car" and "I ran across the street to the corner of the park").

Do you think those men accomplished those things in "zero seconds" (which is what you claimed in your last post)?

Just because MORE details emerged in the later statements of both Lovelady and Shelley, you think that is proof that both men "lied" about those additional details. But that's just silly if you ask me. There were no sinister or sneaky alterations done to the later statements given by Lovelady and Shelley. There were merely more details revealed in those later statements. Simple as that.

Plus....

When we look at all of the 1964 statements by Lovelady and Shelley that you, yourself, quoted in an earlier post, we can easily see that those statements themselves are all over the place as far as how many minutes the two men took to get back inside the TSBD. In their '64 statements, we find ALL of these various estimates....

"...approximately five minutes..."

"...about three minutes..."

"...about ten minutes later..."

"...about three or four minutes after the shots..."

"...we...watched them searching for a while..."

[End Quotes.]

So why you think both men changed their statements to an exact figure of "three minutes" is a mystery to me, because they did no such thing. They were all over the map in their estimates, ranging from "about three minutes" all the way up to "about ten minutes".

And as far as the Darnell Film is concerned....

How in the world do you KNOW WITH 100% CERTAINTY that the woman we see near Billy Lovelady in this still photo is, in fact, Gloria Calvery? That frame from the film is not clear at all. Certainly not nearly clear enough to make a positive identification of an unknown individual. But you're convinced anyway that the lady near Lovelady couldn't be anyone BUT Gloria Calvery, is that right?


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

The reason you think their was no reason for them to lie is that you don't know the whole story. According to Victoria Adams' testimony, she came down the steps shortly after the shots. Oddly, she didn't hear anybody else using the steps. She should have heard Oswald going down to the 2nd floor.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And if she had really been on the stairs as early as she claimed, she most certainly should have heard (or seen) Marrion Baker and Roy Truly coming up the stairs. But she didn't hear them and she didn't see them. Why not?


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

[Victoria Adams'] testimony continues... that when she reached the first floor she saw Shelley and Lovelady, who had supposedly just entered the west entrance SEVERAL MINUTES after the shooting.

[The] WC concluded from this that Victoria Adams did NOT come down the steps as quickly as she had thought. Because it had taken Shelley and Lovelady several minutes before they had entered the west door.

Therefore, Victoria Adams' testimony was discredited. She didn't hear Oswald come down the steps because she came down later that what she'd thought.

NOW, HERE'S THE RUB... a few years ago, researcher Barry Earnest [sic] interviewed Victoria Adams. She told him that she did NOT see Lovelady and Shelley upon her arrival at the first floor. The WC had changed her testimony to her saying that she DID see them!

I believe it was that revelation that got researchers looking closely at the testimonies of Shelley and Lovelady, and the Darnell film. And we now have a nearly complete picture of what really happened. Shelley and Lovelady lied about the 3-minute wait. (Though their initial statements were correct.) Baker lied about the second-floor encounter. (Though his initial statement was probably correct.) Victoria Adams' testimony was changed. (Her actual testimony was correct.) And I believe Adams had a coworker who corroborates her actual testimony... was it Sandra Styles? This person wasn't ask to testify before the WC.

So there we have it. ALL the initial statements fit together like a glove, and are supported by what we see in the Darnell film. In contrast, the later WC testimony is wildly inconsistent with the original statements and Darnell film.

The second floor encounter did not happen.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sandy,

In my opinion, you don't have nearly enough evidence to back up this bold declaration that you made: "The second floor encounter did not happen".

As I explained earlier, the initial November 22nd statements provided by Shelley and Lovelady are not IN ANY WAY inconsistent or contradictory to their later 1964 statements. The witnesses simply added more details about the timing in their later statements. They weren't lying; they were adding more TRUTHFUL details. And you cannot possibly prove otherwise (even though you think you have already).

As for Victoria Adams claiming her Warren Commission testimony was "changed" or "altered" --- well, I've heard that allegation before too. A witness years later is interviewed and says she (or he) thinks their testimony was changed (Julia Mercer being another example of this). But the likely answer is, of course: The witness being interviewed years (or decades) later is very likely not remembering correctly what her verbatim Warren Commission testimony was. That, IMO, is a much more logical explanation rather than to jump aboard the "Testimony Was Altered For Sinister Reasons" bandwagon.

Also (re: Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles)....

You might be interested in what Sean Murphy said in 2011 about Miss Styles (and Murphy is a CTer, no less!):

"Sandra Styles mentioned to me that this author [Barry Ernest] had contacted her some years ago. She even knew the name of the book (which I hadn't heard of myself). Sandra claimed she told Ernest what she was now telling me: that she and Victoria Adams did *not* go to the rear stairs anything close to as quickly as Victoria had claimed. I find it a little worrying that there is no mention of Sandra's counter-version in any of the promotional material linked here. Why is the book not titled 'The GirlS On The Stairs'? It will be interesting to see how Ernest deals with Sandra's information." -- Sean Murphy; January 27, 2011

More about Adams and Styles and Dorothy Garner and Jack Dougherty and the "Stroud Document" and Barry Ernest can be found at my webpage here.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Sandy,

That is some really good work and it shows just how intent the WC was to discredit Victoria Adams.

You've got DVP spinning like a top, so what does he do? He goes to Bugliosi land.

If you read RH ["Reclaiming History"]--no need to, and you will be a worse person if you do--whenever VB admitted a problem in the evidence in [the] text of the book, he usually did one of three things:

1. Went [off] on a vituperative, over-the-top, wild man rant against whoever produced the evidence. (What he did to Doug Horne took the prize.)

2. Said something like, "But this means they were part of the conspiracy." Which was nothing but a rhetorical device since VB did not like to differentiate between the actual crime and the cover up.

3. He would say something like DVP does above, "Well I think you rely too much on people keeping with a consistent story."

DVP had no idea you were going to blast him away on this, so he waded in unprotected. (A common occurrence when I was arguing with him about VB.) Now he is beating a retreat into Bugliosi land.

The extremes the WC went to to neutralize Adams--in this case getting people to change their stories--tells you just how fatal she was to the official fantasy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Go tell that to your pal Sean Murphy....

"Sandra Styles...claimed she told [Barry] Ernest what she was now telling me: that she and Victoria Adams did *not* go to the rear stairs anything close to as quickly as Victoria had claimed." -- Sean Murphy; January 27, 2011


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

Shelley left the steps between 0 and 4 seconds after the shooting.

It was not until their WC testimony that they inflated that to 3 minutes. And made other changes.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But the time they left the steps to go to the concrete island doesn't really help your argument at all. You don't think it was possible for 3 measly minutes to have elapsed between the time they left the Depository steps until the time they re-entered the building? You can't be serious! Because THAT'S the key "timing" issue here---the amount of time it took Shelley and Lovelady to RE-ENTER THE BUILDING, not merely the amount of time it took the two men to START their journey to the concrete island and then to the railroad yards. And you don't DENY that they DID travel to both of those locations, correct? So how could it have taken much LESS than three minutes, Sandy? Or do you think they both just LIED about going to those locations right after shooting? Seems to me as if 3 minutes would be a minumum amount of time to do what Lovelady and Shelley always said they did. Why would you disagree with that?


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

The video Jim DiEugenio posted featuring Sandra Styles does NOTHING to contradict or undermine the quote I posted earlier from Sean Murphy. And Sandy Larsen's post containing additional correspondence between Murphy and Styles only tends to buttress the notion that Sandra thinks she and Adams started down the stairs LATER than what Vickie Adams has claimed, mainly due to this comment from Styles:

"I only go by what seems reasonable. I can only report my personal recollections the best I can. I was easily led back then, lol. If she [Vickie Adams] said we went down immediately, I thought that must be true. If the interviewer said that was not possible due to the amount of time it took the police to get over there, I re-thought it and accepted HIS assessment. The truth may lie somewhere in between. What is logical is that, in all the pandemonium, it is unlikely that we would hear shots and head for the back stairs!" -- Sandra Styles [DVP's emphasis]


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Someone should have asked:

"Officer Baker / Mr. Truly: the Baker Affidavit 11/22 states you both encountered a man coming down the stairs between the 3rd and 4th floors who worked at the TSBD - who was that?"


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But what difference would it have made to the outer-fringe Internet conspiracy theorists if Marrion Baker had been asked the above question by David Belin of the Warren Commission?

Would any CTer here actually have believed Baker's answer if he had said he was merely confused and got the floor number mixed up, and if he had provided an answer about the "stairway" similar to what Lance Payette proposed earlier?

Come now! Let's get real! No (Internet) CTer would suddenly start believing Officer Baker---no matter what he said in front of the WC.

Replay....

"Why can't conspiracists accept Marrion Baker's "third or fourth floor" statement for what it so clearly is — a simple and honest mistake made by a police officer who was in a chaotic and frantic situation within minutes of the President having just been shot, and who was not paying close attention at all to what floor he was standing on when he pointed his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald's stomach in the lunchroom on November 22, 1963?" -- DVP; December 2017

David Von Pein
December 15-25, 2017
January 3, 2018





ANOTHER....



AND ONE MORE....