(PART 1080)


I was going over the 2nd floor plan of the TSBD earlier, and something struck me as I was looking at it.

In the upper left corner, we have the 2nd floor landing, with the stairs coming from the 1st floor and the stairs going to the 3rd floor shown. There is a door on each stairwell that must be opened. Roy Truly was ahead of Officer Marrion Baker, and Baker would likely have seen Truly making a hard left onto the 2nd floor landing as Baker was coming up to the 2nd floor landing; in other words, he was trying to keep up with Truly, and would have made an identical hard turn.

Now look at the diagram where it shows the vestibule door, leading to the hallway, and the lunch room door just beyond it (follow the solid line into the lunch room). As the WC apologists would have us believe, Baker, on his way to follow Truly to the 3rd floor stairwell, just happened to glance through the small window, in the upper part of the vestibule door, to catch a glimpse of Oswald in the lunch room, walking away from him.

One small problem, though. If you look again at the top of the stairs Baker was exiting, it is plain to see that, if Baker was making a hard left, in pursuit of Truly, he was not in a position for the window in the upper part of the vestibule door to line up with the lunch room door.

How could he have seen Oswald? If Oswald was just the other side of the door, why did Baker not report seeing the door still closing by means of its automatic closer?

Many of the WC apologists will say that Baker did not go directly to the 3rd floor stairwell but, rather, made a wide sweep of the 2nd floor landing, looking for bad guys. Well, there is a bit of a problem here, too, as the photo below shows.

Think the boxes are stacked only in view of the camera? I doubt it, in fact, I'll bet the mess of stacked boxes gets worse as you get into the corner, out of view to the camera's right. The corner, as the diagram shows, is a completely untravelled piece of floor, and that attracts clutter like nothing else in a warehouse.

Baker would have to be 2-3 feet to the right to get any kind of view into the lunch room and, unless he deliberately was attempting to look into the lunch room, why would he climb over a bunch of boxes? His testimony clearly states he saw Oswald quite by accident.

Once again, if Oswald had not travelled the 5 feet between the vestibule door and the lunch room door, would the vestibule door not still be in the process of closing itself, and would Baker not have stated this in his testimony?

As there was no window on the lunch room door, the diagram shows us another potential problem. See how the lunch room door is almost closed in the diagram? Think about that for a bit.



Do you REALLY think Marrion Baker AND Roy Truly are telling a pack of lies in these 1964 TV interviews? If so....please tell us WHY you think those two men felt compelled to lie like this on national television? ....


Wow! Who knew it was against the law to lie on NATIONAL television? Round every politician in the U.S. and lock 'em up!

Btw, David... this is an appeal to incredulity. A logical fallacy -- which is one of many logical fallacies you employ, but quite obviously one of your favorites.


If the whole Baker/Truly "encounter" was nothing but a lie in the first place, then why in hell didn't the Twins Of Deception (Baker and Truly) make their lie a much better one by saying they had encountered Oswald on the SIXTH FLOOR?

For Pete sake, even Oswald HIMSELF confirmed the second-floor encounter (Warren Report; Pages 600 and 619).

But I guess both Fritz and Bookhout were liars too, huh?


The lunchroom incident either happened, or it did not happen. Thanks to the multi-year efforts of Sean Murphy & Greg Parker, a school of thought has emerged that contends that the incident was hoaxed.

They refuse to acknowledge that every item of evidence relating to the lunchroom incident has a mundane explanation, readily available, that supports the incident's reality.

They refuse to acknowledge that there is a set of items, an aggregate — the filmed interviews, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the will-call counter bump, the lack of corroboration for Biffle's news story, the Martha Jo Stroud document — and every item of this aggregate has to be contorted, beyond common sense, in order to be construed as supporting the hoax.

Even if the researcher successfully un-contorts one of these items, there are four more to justify, and all of them must be justified in order to support a hoax interpretation, i.e. its chances are infinitesmal (if that).

Which means that you, the researcher, must evaluate this Bakerview problem through the lens of the lunchroom incident's reality.

Sean Murphy & Greg Parker are zealots in regards to this issue. They cannot and will not be reasoned with. To admit defeat would entail a loss of their sycophants, and an extreme loss of face. After all, they are the co-discoverers and marketers of this pernicious school of thought.

They might seem progressive, but are actually regressive. In this arena they are sophists extraordinaire.


Plus, Richard, as I said in my last post, if Baker and Truly were just going to MAKE UP an "encounter" with the person they were trying to frame for JFK's assassination, they would have made the encounter occur on the sixth floor, not the second floor (which was four floors away from the Floor Of Death).

Placing Oswald on the SECOND floor 90 seconds after the murder doesn't do anything to make LHO the patsy in JFK's killing. In fact, most CTers utilize that exact argument to try and get Oswald OFF the hook--not ONTO the hook. Those CTers will tell me --- Well, Dave, we know Oswald must be innocent--because there's no way he could have gotten down from the sixth floor to the second floor in only 90 seconds.

But now, the conspiracists in the "Baker & Truly Lied About The Lunchroom Encounter" club can never use the above argument ever again, because they think B&T just invented the 2nd-floor incident from whole cloth.

And another oft-heard theory that many CTers must now dump by the roadside is the "Bag Is Too Short" theory. Many Internet CTers now want to pretend that Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just MADE UP the paper bag story. But it doesn't bother those CTers that Frazier and Randle decided to make their MAKE-BELIEVE BAG too short to hold Oswald's rifle (even though, of course, Buell and Linnie COULD have made their imaginary bag ANY length they wanted to make it).

But such massive illogic regarding the Baker/Truly encounter and the paper bag never even faze a veteran Internet CTer. They'll just pretend the logic gaps don't even exist. Go figure.


As I wrote in Reclaiming Parkland (p. 193):

​"...the final Commission version does not even resemble the incident that Baker described on the day of the assassination. On that day Baker executed an affidavit in which he described this encounter himself. He described going up the stairs with Truly. Then this startling passage follows:

"As we reached the third or fourth floor, I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back towards me. The manager said I know that man he works here. I then turned the man loose and went on up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately thirty years old, 5' 9', 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket."

(p. 194...)

"In the affidavit, there is nothing about seeing Oswald through a window in the door. Nothing about the lunchroom. Nothing about a Coke. They weren't even in any room, but near a stairway. And the guy he saw does not appear to be Oswald. He was older, heavier and he was wearing a brown jacket."


And let us not leave out that Baker signed this affidavit not once but twice. And further he made out the handwritten version in the witness room--with Oswald sitting about five feet away from him. He almost had to fall over him to walk out.

And you are going to say that he never once asked this guy, "Didn't I stick a gun in your stomach in the lunchroom of the TSBD earlier today?"

Can you imagine at that phony baloney trial in London if that ingenue Spence had waited for Bugliosi to go ahead and take Baker through his paces. He then stood up and looked at Bugliosi, and said something, like "Vince, you are about to be taken to school." Walked over to the witness, put this affidavit in front of Baker, asked him if he recognized it, waited until he said yes, and then turned, walked over to the prosecutor and started reading it right in front of Bugliosi.

I would have paid a lot of money to have been there for that. When Lee Oswald really would have had a defense.


As usual, James DiEugenio doesn't have the slightest idea how to properly evaluate the sum total of the evidence connected with the various sub-topics associated with the JFK murder case. In this particular instance, Jim has decided that Marrion Baker told a bunch of lies in his Warren Commission testimony and in his 1964 CBS-TV interview.

And Jim believes Officer Baker lied about the lunchroom encounter even though Jim knows about Roy Truly's 11/23/63 affidavit, wherein Truly confirms that both he and Officer Baker saw "Lee Oswald" in the second-floor lunchroom within just a couple of minutes of the assassination.

So now Jim has no choice but to believe that BOTH Marrion L. Baker AND Roy S. Truly were big fat liars when it comes to the topic of their lunchroom encounter with Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963.

DiEugenio probably thinks the above affidavit filled out by Depository Superintendent Roy S. Truly is totally worthless and completely bogus due to the date that is on it -- November 23rd. Jimmy thinks that the fix was in by that time. So that means that anything Roy Truly said on the 23rd must have been the result of coaching by patsy-framing members of the DPD and FBI. Right, James?

As far as Baker saying "Nothing about a Coke" in his 11/22/63 affidavit, that's easy to explain, which I do, RIGHT HERE.

Re: this comment made by DiEugenio....

"And the guy [Marrion Baker] saw does not appear to be Oswald. He was older, heavier and he was wearing a brown jacket."

....as I told Hank Sienzant recently:

"I like to keep this "Assassination Arguments Part 1000" page handy whenever somebody tells me that it would have been utterly impossible for any witness to think Lee Oswald weighed as much as 165 pounds." -- DVP


"I rushed into the building with a policeman. He thought the shooting came from the roof, and we ran up the stairway. On the second floor, he stuck his head into a snack bar we have, and saw Oswald sitting at one of the tables. "Does this man work here?", the policeman asked. I said, "Yes he does". We continued up the stairs. That was when Oswald left the building." -- U.S. News and World Report, Dec. 8, 1963

Egads! According you, DVP, Truly LIED to the national media!!!!


So, Greg, do you want to throw Truly under the bus because he (allegedly) said that Oswald was sitting at a table?

Does that discrepancy mean the "encounter" never took place at all?

Egads indeed!


Ah... so it's okay for him to lie to the media all of a sudden? Your double standards would embarrass a lesser mortal!


If you take multiple statements made by the same witness to the same event, you'll likely find some minor differences in how they tell their story with each re-telling. Your inability to account for this reality would embarrass any reasonable and fair-minded mortal.

But, let's face it, your mind has been made up on this thing for years. You're going to toss Roy Truly under the bus no matter what. And to hell with common-sense inquiries like this one that I offered up earlier today:

If the whole Baker/Truly "encounter" was nothing but a lie in the first place, then why in hell didn't the Twins Of Deception (Baker and Truly) make their lie a much better one by saying they had encountered Oswald on the SIXTH FLOOR?


In various statements, Truly and Baker between them had Oswald walking away from the stairway, sitting in the lunchroom, leaning on the table, and standing beside the coke dispenser.


And so you think BOTH Baker & Truly were so dumb, so stupid, so idiotic, they decided to alter their totally fabricated lie a half-a-dozen times??

And would you care to explain WHY the evil Baker/Truly twins decided to put Oswald on the SECOND floor via their lies---instead of the SIXTH floor?

How does putting him on the second floor do the patsy-framers any good at all?


But you do have something right. Roy Truly is going under the bus. No "ifs" no "buts".


Gee, what a shocker.


Why didn't they put him on the 6th floor? Are you serious? That's hilarious!

The Headline:



Building superintendent arrested as accomplice after vouching for shooter.


Yeah, right. Too funny. As if Baker and Truly KNEW the sniper had been on the sixth floor as of 12:31:30 on Nov. 22. (Is that going to be your next lame-ass theory, Greg --- that Baker & Truly knew the "sixth floor" was the Floor Of Death as of 12:31 PM?)

Regardless of the FLOOR NUMBER, this headline would still apply....



You think Jim Bookhout lied on WCR Page 619 too, right?


No I don't.


Good. Then you agree that Oswald himself said he encountered the policeman on the second floor.

It's good to have that finally settled. Thanks.


Oswald's interrogations and the subsequent reports are [a] different kettle of fish. I am working on a major piece about those.


Will the number of liars in that "major piece" be three dozen or four dozen?


Baker supposedly stuck his gun in Oswald's gut for being in a second floor lunchroom. He thought the shots came from much further up. Don't you think if he catches someone on the 6th floor, he is going to hold him?


No. Not unless the person was carrying a gun. Baker very likely would have let him go from the sixth floor (just like he did on the 2nd floor) after Mr. Truly identifies LHO as just another employee. Baker originally thought the gunshots came from the roof, not the 6th floor (or any other floor).


The number one rule of a cop interrogation is to lie through your teeth at every opportunity. It's just policy and nothing personal, you understand.


Is that Rule #2A from "The CTer Guide To Make-Believe JFK Conspiracy Theories"?

But such a rule probably is in place for many Internet CTers. Otherwise, outer-fringe conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio and Greg R. Parker wouldn't be able to build up their lists of never-ending liars in the JFK case nearly as easily.

Good imaginary rule, Greg. It keeps you from having to accept the reality of Lee Harvey Oswald's obvious guilt.


Refute that Truly was full of it when he said he was ahead of Baker, when two newspaper interviews clearly state he was behind him!


Refute that Baker can't keep his story straight for one second!

Refute that Reid did not lie her sorry arse off, with Hine being inside the office clearly stating that between 12:25-12:35 no one was in that office and the first person that came in was a cop!


Refute that Truly spoke to Brennan!

[...snipping remainder of fantasy-filled nonsense...]


I can go on till the cows come home DVP, this matter has bypassed you and taken you over again leaving you a full lap behind, seriously this whole thing has moved on big time!

Oh and there's a 30 odd page update in a few weeks, so get ready and refute that torrent of evidence.


I know I shouldn't be the least bit surprised anymore when I see Internet conspiracy fantasists travelling to the ends of the Earth digging up things to try and justify their bizarre beliefs (like their super-nutty fantasy about the second-floor Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter never occurring at all), but the level of denial about certain things relating to President Kennedy's assassination that exists within some quarters of the "JFK Conspiracy Community" on the World Wide Web has just about reached levels of unparallelled proportions in the last few years (IMO). And, frankly, it's just plain crazy.

David Von Pein
December 24-26, 2015
January 29, 2017