Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?

[David Von Pein]

Good job, Ken. Let's crucify the DMN for saying "about 12:20" when the shooting actually occurred at 12:30. That surely must mean there was a conspiracy. (Maybe JFK was shot at BOTH 12:20 AND 12:30. Eh?)

BTW, the key word is "about" in the "about 12:20" quote. Or don't you think 12:30 is close to "about 12:20"?

[Kenneth Drew]

~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 here at EF (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.

But many CTers don't seem to believe that ANY "encounter" occurred between the policeman Baker and Lee Oswald AT ALL

are you just making it up as you go along? Name one CTer that has stated that they don't believe ANY encounter occurred between Truly Baker and Oswald. I don't believe you can come up with a name.

[Kenneth Drew]

You're the confused one, Ken.

Bob Prudhomme most definitely is silly enough to think there wasn't ANY "second-floor encounter" between Baker and Oswald.

Isn't it obvious he thinks there was no such encounter when he said all this?.....

"Whomever Baker saw on the 4th floor (wearing a jacket that Oswald did not own) could not have been LHO. .... At no point does Curry say where the encounter with Baker and Oswald took place. .... You got nothin', Dave."

Isn't it obvious he thinks there was no such encounter when he said all this? Absolutely not. Not even a suggestion.

[Kenneth Drew]

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 though 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. And while I know that you probably won't take any advice from me, I'll offer one tidbit anyway:

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

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 ptrevious 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 one I used them for in the DMN post).

. I NEVER deliberately misquote people, or newspapers, or anything else, with an intent to deceive. Huh?

[David Von Pein]

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

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 11/23 morning edition.)

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

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

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 the Curry video (via Bob P.'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 (which I did find 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.

Edited July 17, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Kenneth Drew]

Good job, Ken. Let's crucify the DMN for saying "about 12:20" when the shooting actually occurred at 12:30. That surely must mean there was a conspiracy. (Maybe JFK was shot at BOTH 12:20 AND 12:30. Eh?)

BTW, the key word is "about" in the "about 12:20" quote. Or don't you think 12:30 is close to "about 12:20"?

Or don't you think 12:30 is close to "about 12:20"? When the whole world was watching and knows it was 12:30? no it's not close. That's kinda like Tippet was killed at 1:05, or was it 1:15? Does it matter? I see you didn't make the same point about the Mauser. I mean, it's the same thing, isn't it? Do details matter?

[Kenneth Drew]

If it had just been an encounter, then no one would be lying and you wouldn't have a point. As it is, you tried to make up something to support your misleading info and got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

Wrong, 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 the Curry video (via Bob P.'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 (which I didf find in less than four minutes via the DMN article, which HAD to have been put to bed on Nov. 22, not Nov. 23).

(Can anybody say --- Holy Confusion!)

Anyway, I knew exactly what I meant and what I was doing when I put "second-floor encvounter" 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.

Give me credit for SOME gray matter, okay?

Where you put your hand in the cookie jar is when you thought you could use that story for two purposes, instead of just one. You thought that since it showed there had been an encounter, that the story could be used to bolster your claim that their was an encounter. But then you double dipped when you equated that with a 'second floor encounter'. As to your 'innocence' me thinks you protest too much.

[David Von Pein]

Name one CTer that has stated that they don't believe ANY encounter occurred between Truly Baker and Oswald. I don't believe you can come up with a name.

Huh? Are you really this thick, Ken? Really?

Try DiEugenio for starters....

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

And, as I said, it's obvious Prudhomme thinks there was no Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter at all (as I proved in my previous post about this, which you obviously totally ignored).

And it's fairly clear that Mark Knight doesn't believe in the Baker/Oswald meeting either. If he did, he wouldn't be fighting so hard to win an argument in this thread. He would be keeping silent. But he's not.

And Tommy Graves is also a member of the "No Baker/LHO Encounter At All" club, as we can see HERE.

Pat Speer, however, is a reasonable CTer (and getting more reasonable by the day, based on several of his very good posts here at EF recently). He believes that Baker encountered Oswald, just as all other rational people do.

So, you're still batting a perfect .000, Ken. Somebody should have benched you for the whole season while you were still down in Florida for spring training.

Edited July 17, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

That's kinda like Tippet was killed at 1:05...

Irony alert!

Kenny is punishing the DMN for inaccurate reporting in a post in which he mangles Tippit's name.

Ken must take lessons in being a punching bag.

Edited July 17, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

In fact, I know of nothing you have shown that would get a guilty vote.

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.)

I'll take this one: ...Oswald's prints on various items (boxes, rifle, paper bag). (I'm gonna speak on this at Lancer this November.)

It seems clear to me that you, as many others, just take all these at face value. Oswald was a pathetic loser and the DPD and WC were honorable men so therefore the prints must be genuine.

But imagine this. You know nothing of Oswald. He is a blank person. All you know is that he said he was innocent.

And then take another look at the fingerprint evidence. And what do you find?

A palm print on a box top...that was not photographed in place on the 22nd. That was then placed back on a box on the 25th, that was in the sniper's nest. Well, who's to say this box wasn't a box Oswald touched while pulling orders elsewhere in the building...that was later moved to the sniper's nest? I mean, there's something fishy about all this. The photos from the 25th prove that Lt. Day was yet to sign this box top, and yet he testified that he signed the box top on the 22nd. He was lying. So what else was he lying about?

Two prints on a paper bag that supposedly held the rifle...that the only people to see Oswald with a bag said was not the bag they saw in Oswald's possession. And not only that...this bag was not photographed in the sniper's nest, or recalled by any of those initially viewing the sniper's nest. And not only that there are no photos showing these prints on the bag now in the archives. There are photos of prints, and there are photos of a bag, but there is nothing in these photos to show these prints are on the same bag, or even a bag of any kind. And then there's Lt. Day, who once again claimed he'd signed the bag when discovered, but who later admitted he wasn't in the building when the bag was discovered. Hmmm...if he was lying about this, then what else was he lying about?

And then there's the rifle print...which was supposedly found and lifted on the 22nd, but was never entered into evidence in any manner. Yes, amazingly, there is no paper trail of its existence, none whatsoever...until 4 days later...two days AFTER the FBI told the Dallas Police they'd found no legible prints on the rifle. And, yes, here, once again is Lt. Day, who claimed he'd failed to compare this lift to Oswald's prints beyond making a cursory glance, even though his department had known for TWO WHOLE DAYS that the FBI had made no mention of this print in their report, and who also refused to sign a sworn statement regarding the prints when asked to do so by the FBI.

Now, right there, on these three points, any lawyer worth his salt would be able to raise a reasonable doubt. But when one looks at the other prints it just gets worse.

Three additional boxes from the sniper's nest were removed from the building on the 25th. Problem number 1: There is no concrete proof these were the boxes in the sniper's nest on the 22nd. Problem number 2: Oswald's prints were found on but one of these boxes...in locations other than where they were presented in the WC's exhibits. Problem number 3: one print on one of these boxes has never been identified. Problem number 4: another print on one of these boxes that was previously identified as belonging to a member of the Dallas PD was later identified as belonging to a crony of President Lyndon Johnson's. Problem number 5: while the identification of this print as belonging to this crony has fallen into disfavor, none of those second-guessing this identification have subsequently re-affirmed the original identification of this print as belonging to the Dallas officer who'd moved the boxes from the depository, which means both that this print is currently unidentified, and that there is reason to suspect some of the other original identifications could be in error.

And, oh yeah, there's this. A piece of wood was removed from the sniper's nest window. There is no report in the DPD's archives on this piece of wood, and the results of any tests performed on this wood. Why? And what other pieces of the building which could have contained prints were removed, and then made to disappear?

And then there's the Dr. Pepper bottle. A Dr. Pepper bottle was found on the sixth floor, near a bag holding some fried chicken bones. This was supposedly the lunch of Bonnie Ray Williams. And yet there is no report showing that this bottle was dusted for fingerprints. While it was subsequently reported, moreover, that no prints were found on this bottle, this seems highly unlikely, seeing as greasy chicken is a fingerprint analyst's best friend, along with glass bottles. Well, it follows then that this report was made to disappear for one reason or another. Did the DPD throw the bottle out when they realized the prints didn't belong to Oswald, even though they didn't know whose prints were on the bottle? Or did the DPD "find" Oswald's prints on the bottle? Before realizing the bottle belonged to Williams?

Who knows? But, in light of all the other problems with the prints, you can bet some hotshot Johnnie Cochrane type could have soaked all this up, and used most every piece of supposedly slamdunk evidence against Oswald against those accusing him.

Ken,

I've always been suspicious of the fingerprint evidence, myself.

The fact that the guy at the morgue said that some FBI types came in late one night while Oswald's corpse was still there and evidently got Oswald's prints (which may have been transferred to the rifle), the fact that one of "Mac" Wallace's fingerprints may have been found on one of the "sniper's lair" boxes, etc.

What do you mean when you say

A palm print on a box top...that was not photographed in place on the 22nd. That was then placed back on a box on the 25th, that was in the sniper's nest.

What was placed "back on a box on the 25th? A print? Another box?

Finally, a Devil's Advocate observation. The bottle of Dr. Pepper was probably cold when it was bought, and may have developed some moisture / condensation on its outside surface which prevented the adhering to it of anyone's fingerprints.

--Tommy

It was my post, Tommy. The DPD only made one positive ID of an Oswald print in the sniper's nest on the 22nd. It was a palm print on the box purportedly used as a seat by the assassin. They claimed they'd dusted the box--which is unusual in itself--and found the print, and later IDed it as Oswald's. But even on this, they screwed the pooch.

You see, they failed to take a picture of the print while it was on the box, and failed to take a picture of the box while it was in situ. They tore the corner off the box and brought it down to the station, IDed it as Oswald's and then, on the 25th, after Oswald was murdered, took the corner with the print back to the depository, where they took a picture of it sitting on the box, with the box in the sniper's nest. There was a problem even with this, however--the pictures were too clear.

You see, the pictures proved that on the 25th the corner with the print on it was signed by Det. Studebaker, and Det. Studebaker only. Well, this is a problem because...Lt. Day in his sworn testimony, claimed he'd signed the box top on the 22nd. Now, there is a photo from the 26th that shows Lt. Day's signature--so he probably signed it after the re-enactment in the depository. But it goes to credibility.

A good attorney would have absolutely destroyed Day on the stand.

[Pat Speer]

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 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.

You lost me on the line I've highlighted, Bob. Where did you get this? If I recall, Fritz's notes were only discovered after his death.

So why in heck would he make bogus notes, and write them in a manner suggesting they were original notes, and then fail to do anything with them?

Edited July 17, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Ian Lloyd]

I can't recall who it was now (Sean Murphy?), but a good case was made for Fritz's notes having been made not contemporaneously, but by using the LHO interrogation notes made by Holmes, Bookhout et al and scribbling down the pertinent points from them sometime later.

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.

Hi Jim

I've never seen this exchange between Mark Lane and Baker before. When did it take place?

You've obviously scared DVP quite badly by posting it. When he completely ignores something, you know it is Kryptonite to him.

How about it, Davey? Kind of an odd statement Baker makes right at the end there, eh what?

[Robert Prudhomme]

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 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.

You lost me on the line I've highlighted, Bob. Where did you get this? If I recall, Fritz's notes were only discovered after his death.

So why in heck would he make bogus notes, and write them in a manner suggesting they were original notes, and then fail to do anything with them?

From the Warren Commission testimony of Capt. J.W. "Will" Fritz, Dallas Police Dept:

"Mr. FRITZ. I don't remember whether there was anyone else right at that time or not.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember what you said to Oswald and what he said to you?

Mr. FRITZ. I can remember the thing that I said to him and what he said to me, but I will have trouble telling you which period of questioning those questions were in because I kept no notes at the time, and these notes and things that I have made I would have to make several days later, and the questions may be in the wrong place."

Yes, the notes were only discovered after Fritz's death. I would estimate he wrote them, and wrote them in the manner he did, just on the off chance any agency ever demanded to see them. As it turned out, such a demand never arose.

The mere fact the notes were written "several days later", once the alteration of evidence was well under way, calls into question their authenticity. As you yourself said, why make bogus notes, and attempt to make them appear hastily jotted down, several days after the assassination?

[Mark Knight]

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....