Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send these  to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Jon G. Tidd

Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?

Recommended Posts

Witnesses are supposed to testify about what they recall, and the jurors (or in this case, the commission) are supposed to decide what actually happened...

​Uh Pat, to equate the WC with a jury, and therefore to imply the WC was some kind of a trial, with rules of evidence, I mean puhlease.

​The last thing in the world the WC was was a a legal proceeding. It was so far from that, that it was really a travesty.

​In any legal proceeding, Oswald's defense lawyer would have taken Baker over the coals with his first day affidavit.

And I don't know what you mean when you say the following:

I mean, it's not as if he changed his recollections to match what the WC undoubtedly wanted him to say--

That is what I just demonstrated above. I mean you did read the series I wrote right? But the altering of his affidavit was not started by him really. It was Johnson and the DPD that realized the affidavit presented a problem.

And I don't know what you are talking about with "masterminds" at work. What I am saying, and what Sean is saying is this: it was the cover up where all these machinations went into place. For the simple reason that there were no rules of evidence in place. Anything went. Espeically when you have no judge and no defense. What was there to prevent the WC from creating what they needed?

​(Sounds of silence.)

​In the above, I added how Vickie Adams was ignored in order to create this scenario of Oswald screaming down the stairs to get his soda, I mean think of that one: Guy just shoots the president and then he runs down the stairs to get a drink?

Or did he, because the official story realized later that this was a problem also. But Baker still did not get the memo on that for months later since he was still blabbing his mouth about the soda.

​And its not a simple recollection. I mean I pointed out all the problems with it. But further, how could he not recognize Oswald in the small witness room? Would he not have leaned over and said, "What's your name. I need to put you in my report." If the official story was true that is. But he did not.

Maybe you don't realize this as a problem. Allen Dulles sure did.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Please note above, Davey never answered my question.

Because he likely did not read either of the books.


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 l-i-a-r. 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 "l-i-a-r" 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.


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.


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?"


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."

Also see:



Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does DVP rattle cages here?

In part it's because he sets CT-ers against CT-ers.

Maybe that's a good thing, Jon. Not in the sense of encouraging us to "attack" each other, but engaging in constructive "peer review."

Sharpening one's theory by arguing against DVP is a good thing, too.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, DVP likes to Vince Bugliosi us.

He has learned from RH two lessons:

1.) Ignore the best evidence

2.) Bury the reader under a barrage of verbiage and insults.

Wake me up when DVP confronts Baker's first day affidavit and the fact he did not recognize Oswald in the witness room even though he almost tripped over him. Or apologizes for accusing me of making something up out of whole cloth.


As per Truly, OMG. Again, Davey wants us all to think he can put one over on us.

Tell us a little about the guy will you? Truly was a rightwing cracker who absolutely despised the Kennedys and thought he could control and manipulate the "colored boys" who worked for him. He was essentially an extension of the DPD at the building. Rich GIlbride, who you probably never heard of, did some very good work on this George Wallaceite. Davey, without smiling, notes his affidavit of the 23rd. The day after the DPD began to correct Baker's faux pas on the 22nd.


I didn't think he read either of my books. He doesn't like new research based on the ARRB. Since it discredits everything he writes.

BTW, if Pat Speer of Marty Hay disagree with me on certain things, that is OK with me. Because I am satisfied with the overall totality of their work. Pat has done some very good work on his site. And I have used some of it. And has has down some very good work on Dale Myers, the Fisher Panel, and the HSCA. Martin is one of our very best writers at the online Probe Magazine. His work is always welcome and will always be welcome.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

More liars....(Roy Truly)

More lies....

More phony affidavits....

This is the fantasy world of the fantasist named Jimmy D.

Watch the Curry video, Jimmy. (Which I edited and uploaded just for use in this discussion.) It'll do you good to watch it. That way, you'll get to add Chief Curry to your Liars List too (if he's not already on it, which he probably is---along with the rest of Texas and the southwest)....


Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still waiting for you to take back what you said about making something out of whole cloth.

That was false. And I proved it.

In your book, do you print Baker's first day affidavit or refer to it?

(Just yes or no will suffice. Please no references to your site since no one will click them. Or Vince Bugliosi filibustering.)

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still waiting for you to take back what you said about making something out of whole cloth. That was false. And I proved it.

You're going to grow mighty old waiting for that to happen, Jimbo.

Why would I take it back? It's the truth.

You make up stuff from nothing BUT whole cloth (i.e., your vivid imagination) nearly every day. Here are several examples from just this afternoon....

"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." -- J. DiEugenio; July 14, 2015

And I proved via many different avenues (Fritz' report, the Baker 1964 video, the Truly video, the Truly affidavit, and the Curry video) that the following statement by Jim DiEugenio is nothing but a huge pile of manure --- "Baker never saw Oswald."

Let's see if Jimmy is man enough to do the right thing and withdraw the above preposterous hunk of nonsense about Baker never having seen Oswald on Nov. 22. Of course, Jimmy won't retract it. He's got too much invested in promoting that crappy story about Baker lying through his teeth...along with Truly....and Curry....and even OSWALD himself (or Fritz).

I wonder if Jim even realizes how many conspiracy theorists are laughing at him regarding this quote....."Baker never saw Oswald."

I hope you keep trying to defend it, Jimbo. It makes people like you so very easy to combat. I mean, when you have to resort to calling almost EVERYBODY a l-i-a-r concerning the second-floor encounter, that should send up a red flag. But, to Jim, the more liars there are, the more LOGICAL his theory becomes.

Go figure that logic.



Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

So even though you were proven wrong, and I referenced first day evidence by Baker, in two affidavits, both on the 22nd, which show that he changed his story and it evolved over time, and the man he first referred to could not have been Oswald, you still insist that I made something up.

If anything proves you are in denial, that does. Evidence does not matter to you. Even if its first day evidence. Uninterfered with and done by his own volition. Even when he saw Oswald sitting there in front of him. And all those photos amassed by Sean Murphy,showing how the WC had to go through the whole dress rehearsal of this incident before they could get it right, you were aware of those also right?

There is denial and there is DENIAL.

You remind me of the Leni Riefenstahl case.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Jim, according to you, 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, right Jim? That was impossible, right? He MUST have been lying when he later confirmed it was the second floor? Is that how you see it? Geesh.

And it's 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. But Jimbo ignores that "third OR fourth" indecision.

In reality, what Jimbo thinks of as a story told by Marrion Baker that "evolved over time" is nothing more than Baker's account becoming more accurate over time (once Baker realized that he saw Oswald in the SECOND-floor lunchroom instead of on the third or fourth floor of the building).

But to Jim, any story that changes must certainly indicate that something is rotten in the state of Denmark (or Texas).

And Jim ignores Roy Truly's 2nd-day affidavit entirely, in which Truly confirms the floor number---the second floor.

But Truly can be tossed under the bus because he's just a right-wing "cracker", right Jimmy?

And even if that were true about Truly, you think that automatically means that Truly is going to want to immediately jump on board the "Let's Frame Oswald" train? Oh yeah, that's really believable there, Jim. Try that one in a courtroom and see how it flies.

And just because Oswald was in the same room with Baker at the police station, that is supposed to mean Baker could not possibly have seen LHO in the TSBD?

Time for one of these --- WTF????

Better watch that Curry video, Jim. I dare ya.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


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.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Better watch this Curry video, Jim. I again dare ya. And that is a video that existed six days before the Warren Commission was even created. So, Jim, you can't say that the Curry video was part of some kind of alleged WC "dress rehearsal".

(Thank God for videotape.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


If the "2nd floor encounter" with Baker was all just a ruse to frame Oswald, then why didn't the plotters and patsy-framers try to frame Oswald by having Baker and Truly and Fritz and Curry say that the encounter happened on the SIXTH FLOOR where the shooting actually occurred, instead of making up some crazy story about an encounter between Baker and Oswald on the SECOND FLOOR, four floors away from the Sniper's Nest?

Kooky, huh?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL again.


Davey, you did not read my series very well did you?

Take a look at when the affidavit started to evolve.

The DPD did not frame all those people because they were stupid.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now