David Von Pein Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) .... Edited July 18, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) But come to think of it... Do either of you--DVP [or] Jim D--know what's to become of Bugliosi's papers? If they're to be kept here in L.A., maybe I can arrange to get a copy of the transcript after all. I don't know what will happen to Vince's papers. But it would be nice if a complete "On Trial" transcript could be made available. Several years ago, I asked Vince if there was any way to obtain the complete 21-hour trial on videocassette. He told me to contact his lawyer friend Jack Duffy, because Vince thought that Duffy had the whole 21 hours of the trial on VHS tape. I did try to reach Duffy at his law office website, and I asked if he did have the entire trial on tape. I never received an answer through his law office. But Jack Duffy is a person I have talked to (and argued with about the JFK case) at Facebook in the past few years. I don't recall ever asking Jack if he had the tapes or not. But anyone here could contact him at Facebook. Here's his FB page.... https://www.facebook.com/jack.duffy.58 Whether or not he'd be willing to make copies of the tapes for anyone who asks is another matter entirely however. Edited July 18, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Captain Fritz testified to the Warren Commission that he took NO contemporaneous notes. He further testified that the "notes" he had were written "several days" afterward. Good thing for DVP's side that he didn't "misremember" a single thing, the way Baker "misremembered" the encounter on either the second, third, or fourth floor.... As I recall, according to Harry Holmes from Larry Sneed's 'No More Silence', Holmes described himself and Fritz as having faultless memories, that they could interrogate someone without making notes and, when called to the stand in the subsequent trial, could recall perfectly everything that had been said!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Jack Duffy does have the entire video of On Trial. Someone needs to approach him and ask him what format he has it in. And if he can duplicate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Great discovery, Jim! It would be wonderful to have if only to see what questions were asked [and what questions remained unasked] and what the actual replies to those questions were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 LOL Mark Lane: Mr. Baker, do you know the difference between a stair well and a lunch room? Baker: Yes. Lane: Let me show you a picture of a stairwell. (Shows him a stairwell in the TSBD) Now, let me show you the lunchroom on the second floor. Did you have any problem seeing those? Baker: No. Lane: Now, if I showed you the third floor stairwell or the fourth, do you think they would look different? Baker: No. Lane: Now, let me show you the photo of the lunch room again. Do you notice there is a door ajar here, do you notice the furniture, do you notice the soda machine? Baker: Yes. Lane: Now did you notice any of those things on the stair well photo? Baker: No. Lane: Have you ever in your entire life seen a stair well with this kind of furniture in it? Baker: No. Lane: Was there any door window on the stairwell that you looked through to see Oswald? Baker: No. Lane: So how could you possibly confuse one with the other? Baker: Well, it wasn't easy. But I wanted to keep my job. I mean you saw what happened to Roger Craig. Jim, nice punch-line. Shame about the rest. Lane never ever questioned the veracity of the second floor lunch encounter. His take on it was that Oswald could not have gotten from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor in time. You have attributed my work to Lane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) "Lane never questioned the veracity of the second floor lunch encounter" No kidding Greg. And this examination never happened either, did it? It was a thought experiment based on certain facts that went unexposed. Can you name another attorney I should have inserted for Lane in 1964? As per this owing to your work, are you serious? Way back in 1965, Harold Weisberg had Baker's original affidavit and compared it to the WC version. He discusses this issue at length in Whitewash 2. Which was published in 1966. I have had that book for about 15 years in my library. Which is before I ever heard of you. When I first started my Bugliosi series, about eight years ago, that it what I used to begin that part of the argument. I then got the actual first day affidavit online. Most of the rest of my material about Baker was from the WC volumes. I never asked for or was offered anything you had written on the subject. I never even knew you had done anything about Baker at that time. The only thing I ever recall using from you in that entire long series was some material about Ruby and Karen and Bruce Carlin. For which you are properly credited in Reclaiming Parkland. (p. 201) As anyone who knows me understands, I always try and properly credit people for things they discover and I use. But most of the time I work alone. I then issue academic sources in my work, which I do plentifully. Edited July 22, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 LOL Mark Lane: Mr. Baker, do you know the difference between a stair well and a lunch room? Baker: Yes. Lane: Let me show you a picture of a stairwell. (Shows him a stairwell in the TSBD) Now, let me show you the lunchroom on the second floor. Did you have any problem seeing those? Baker: No. Lane: Now, if I showed you the third floor stairwell or the fourth, do you think they would look different? Baker: No. Lane: Now, let me show you the photo of the lunch room again. Do you notice there is a door ajar here, do you notice the furniture, do you notice the soda machine? Baker: Yes. Lane: Now did you notice any of those things on the stair well photo? Baker: No. Lane: Have you ever in your entire life seen a stair well with this kind of furniture in it? Baker: No. Lane: Was there any door window on the stairwell that you looked through to see Oswald? Baker: No. Lane: So how could you possibly confuse one with the other? Baker: Well, it wasn't easy. But I wanted to keep my job. I mean you saw what happened to Roger Craig. Jim, nice punch-line. Shame about the rest. Lane never ever questioned the veracity of the second floor lunch encounter. His take on it was that Oswald could not have gotten from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor in time. You have attributed my work to Lane. So let's rewrite this script the way it should have been written. Greg Parker: Mr. Baker, do you know the difference between your arse and your elbow? Baker: Yes. Greg Parker: Are you able to locate them without undue difficulty? Baker: Um... Yes... yes, I'd be pretty confident of that. Greg Parker: You do understand that I am not being literal here...? Just imagine for a minute that your arse is this stairwell. (Shows him a stairwell in the TSBD) Now, let me show you the lunchroom on the second floor which represents your elbow. Did you have any problem seeing those? Baker: Wait a minute. Your honor, can I object? My arse isn't that big! Judge: Stand up and do a 360 for me. Baker complies. Judge: Objection dismissed. Carry on Mr. Parker. Greg Parker: Now, if I showed you the third floor stairwell or the fourth, do you think they would look different? Baker: No. Wait a minute. Look different to what? I'm getting confused! Greg Parker: Come now Mr. Baker. Let's not play games. The stairwell looked the same all the way up, did it not? Baker: Yes, I guess so. Greg Parker: Now, let me show you the photo of the lunch room again. Do you notice there is a door ajar here, do you notice the furniture, do you notice the soda machine? Baker: Yes. Greg Parker: Now did you notice any of those things on the stair well photo? Baker: No. Greg Parker: Have you ever in your entire life seen a stair well with this kind of furniture in it? Baker: Oh, I see what you're doing here! No. Hey, you're good! Can I hire you for my trial? Greg Parker: Was there any door window on the stairwell that you looked through to see Oswald? Baker: No. Greg Parker: So how could you possibly confuse one with the other? Baker: Well, it wasn't easy. But I wanted to keep my job. I mean you saw what happened to Roger Craig. -------------------------------------- There. That's far more accurate now. I doubt that Lane is even aware that the 2nd floor lunch-room story has been destroyed. Last I saw, he was trying to heave himself out of the '70s and into the '80s. And that was only a few weeks ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Yawn. See my reply above. Greg wasn't even a gleam in his father's eye in 1964. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Yawn. See my reply above. Greg wasn't even a gleam in his father's eye in 1964. I was born in '58, Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) disregard-duplicate Edited July 22, 2015 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) frankly, I think Harvey & Lee is rattling more cages than DVP ever will. Along with author-editor Jim Fetzer, Armstrong (after JFK the 1991 movie of course) vaulted JFK assassination research into the 2000's. The 1964 WCR supporters/die-hards have been playing catch up ever since. The fact remains, LHO was much more than what we've been led to believe... debating minutiae concerning same, is foolhardy... where's the new JFK movie, whose the new Oliver Stone? Where's the $cript? comment in quote box above... Edited July 22, 2015 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 "Lane never questioned the veracity of the second floor lunch encounter" No kidding Greg. And this examination never happened either, did it? It was a thought experiment based on certain facts that went unexposed. Can you name another attorney I should have inserted for Lane in 1964? As per this owing to your work, are you serious? Way back in 1965, Harold Weisberg had Baker's original affidavit and compared it to the WC version. He discusses this issue at length in Whitewash 2. Which was published in 1966. I have had that book for about 15 years in my library. Which is before I ever heard of you. When I first started my Bugliosi series, about eight years ago, that it what I used to begin that part of the argument. I then got the actual first day affidavit online. Most of the rest of my material about Baker was from the WC volumes. I never asked for or was offered anything you had written on the subject. I never even knew you had done anything about Baker at that time. The only thing I ever recall using from you in that entire long series was some material about Ruby and Karen and Bruce Carlin. For which you are properly credited in Reclaiming Parkland. (p. 201) As anyone who knows me understands, I always try and properly credit people for things they discover and I use. But most of the time I work alone. I then issue academic sources in my work, which I do plentifully. In a thought experiment, does it really matter who you use? Why not the originator of the theory? Since you (albeit wrongly) believe that was Weisberg, even he would have been preferable, even though he did no more than Lane and everyone else by simply questioning Oswald's ability to get from 6 to 2 in the time allowed. I doubt Lane is even aware of this theory. If his association with OIC is anything to go by, he still believes it is Oswald in Altgens 6. Weisberg in '65 http://jfk50d.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/april-8-2012-whitewash-report-on-warren.html Me in 2002 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/IjGQfgzWlEk/ti5o9RYz7IQJIf I kept searching, I think my first questioning of it was a year before that. Me in 2004 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/JnZMKvEZwAs/rl10wAxxDSgJ John, He wrote the original affidavit with Oswald sitting in front of him, yet still gave a description which did not match very closely. Marvin Johnson was the man who took Baker's original affidavit. He confirms in his memo regarding his duties that day that Baker had said "4th floor": "When Patrolman ML 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.'" Note how Johnson states Baker IDd Oswald verbally... but also note that that ID is remarkably missing from the affidavit. Oswald himself said under interrogation that he was spoken to by officerS (plural) when the encounter happened. Oswald interrogation commencing 9:30am Sunday: "After all this commotion started, I just went downstairs and started to see what it was all about. A police officer and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told officers that I am one of the employees in the building. . . ." So Oswald himself said it happened, but the difference being when Truly gave LHO the thumbs up, it was not for Baker's benefit (though Baker was with him), it was to the officerS who were by then taking names of employees. So where did Oswald descend from, and where to? From the 2nd floor lunch room to the 1st floor... where Truly had told reporters the meeting with Oswald had occured. And as for Truly's original affidavit saying 2nd floor lunch room... you need to know the date of that... it was taken on the Saturday (Baker's on the Friday)... seems by then, it was known a few changes were needed. Recommend looking also at few archived posts from Donald Willis on this. My own conclusion is that Baker and Truly did encounter someone on the 4th floor. That someone was not Oswald. The encounter with Oswald happened after they (Baker and Truly had descended) as per Oswald and Truly above -on the 1st floor. greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) Jim, you say you never read my stuff on this, and that Weisberg was the real originator of it. So let's see what you said in Reclaiming Parkland "Oliver Stone then memorably depicted it in his 1991 film JFK. Since the incident has attained iconic status, we all understand what it conveys and what it means..." That was published when, 2012? Here is what I said in 2010. I know this scenario is deeply ingrained in the national psyche – thanks not only to the prominence given it by the WC, but also “thanks” to Oliver Stone and Gary Oldman who together, stunningly recreated the myth in an epic film. http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t42-oswald-s-two-cop-encounters You also bluntly state that "no one questioned whether or not it happened." That statement is made within the context of you discussing what various authors believed about various aspects of the case. So presumably you (correctly) include Weisberg in that. But it isn't correct, is it/ I had been raising the issue that it never happened across a number of forums for years prior to your book coming out. I know you are unhappy with me over my debates regarding "Harvey & Lee", but you appear to be now letting that color reality. My take down of Harvey is nothing personal against you. edit to add link Edited July 23, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 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. The original band of critics missed some things, but overall they did a remarkable job of exposing the impossible nature of the official story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now