Jump to content
The Education Forum
Jon G. Tidd

Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?

Recommended Posts

Mark:

That is Howard Roffman in his early book, Presumed GuIlty. Which Bill likes a lot. And it is a good book for its era. BTW, Howard went on to law school, from which he graduated at an early age. In fact, I think he wrote his book when he was something like 19 or 20. He ended up being the corporate lawyer for Lucasfilm.

That idea of Oswald coming up from below, and not above, is also used in Don Thomas', Hear no Evil. Which is an interesting book. (BTW the whole "coming down the stairs from above" baloney is detonated in the Ernst book about Vickie Adams. And he found her before she died.)

Roffman/Thomas is a solid argument I think. But I don't advocate it myself anymore. As I noted, I came to this through Weisberg's book Whitewash 2, in which he refers to Baker's first day affidavit. But he did not have the original documents in the book. So I found them online. But Harold did note how the DPD began to change Baker's affidavit that night. I then noted the Baker dialogue with Dulles, and this lead me to the whole issue of him preparaing the affidavit in the witness room with Oswald, which Dulles tried to soften the impact of.

Bill has a hard time believing Marrion Baker would lie. That's the bottom line.

The DPD made no changes in Baker's affidavit. They simply typed it up. The 2nd floor lunch room story emerged through Truly later that night via the FBI. Weisberg never questioned that the 2nd floor encounter actually happened, and Marvin Johnson was the first indication of Oswald being present when the affidavit was taken. It is not possible for you to have taken the idea of "no lunchroom encounter" from Weisberg. You may have extrapolated from his work. But then, that is not the claim you are making.

Johnson's statement:

REPORT ON OFFICER'S DUTIES IN REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT'S

MURDER

MARVIN JOHNSON - #879

"While in the office [Fritz's] from 3:00pm until 2:00am I answered the phone and took an affidavit from Patrolman ML Baker. Patrolman Baker stated in his affidavit that he was riding escort on his motorcycle for the President's motorcade; that he heard the shots that killed the President and wounded Governor Connally; that he decided the shots were coming from the Texas School Book Depository Building. After determining the origin of the shots, he jumped from his motor and ran into the building. He found a man who said he was the building manager. Officer Baker and the building manager then went to a stairway and started up the stairs to search the building. On the 4th floor Officer Baker apprehended a man that was walking away from the stairway on that floor. Officer Baker started to search the man, but the building manager stated that the man was an employee of the company and was known to him. Officer Baker released the man and continued his search of the building. Officer Baker later identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man he had seen on the 4th floor of the Texas School Book Depository."

"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.'"

------------------------------------------

I posted the above to McAdams' newsgroup in 2002.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/IjGQfgzWlEk

The statement is not dated. It's sole purpose seems to be to cover Baker's butt because Baker most emphatically did NOT identify Oswald in his affidavit. But it also confirms that Baker had an encounter on the 4th floor and since that is a lot closer to the top of the building, suspicion is far more warranted - so those talking about the gun being pulled etc as being in itself suspicious, are not correct - not when you move the encounter to the right location. Truly allowed either another employee, or a stranger in the building, to escape Baker's clutches. I rule out another employee on the basis that there seems no reason to cover that up.

Greg,

Unfortunately, your link https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/IjGQfgzWlEk gives me "This Webpage Is Not Available."

Bummer.

Never mind. It works now. Once you get there you gotta click on the title / link "REPORT ON OFFICERS' DUTIES IN REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT'S MURDER..." near the top of the page.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Weisberg's book Whitewash 2, he quotes from Baker's first day affidavit, about the 3rd or 4th floor. (See page 42.)

He then shows how this evolved over time into something else in another affidavit by Baker which contradicts the first one. (See page 44)

He then writes that certain documents he found since his first book, "destroy the basic parts of Baker's story" as portrayed in the WR. (ibid, p. 42)

Johnson said Baker identified Oswald as the man on the fourth floor. Harold refers to Johnson taking an affidavit from Baker. Which is what led me to Johnson.

If you are willing to do that kind of cheap smear against me, you can count me out of speaking at your conference.

And goodbye Greg.

Here is what I said, Jim "It is not possible for you to have taken the idea of "no lunchroom encounter" from Weisberg. You may have extrapolated from his work. But then, that is not the claim you are making."

I stand by every word. You could have extrapolated. You could NOT have copied the idea from him though as you seemed to insist - because he never laid out such an idea.

I can easily accept you did extrapolate from his work, and I'm not surprised Harold found Baker's and Johnson's statements. I did say he was one of the few early critics worth a dime. He certainly questioned the timing, claiming it alone exonerated Oswald. "the Baker-Oswald timing was too close...." "Seconds were precious to the report, for the timing is proof of the opposite of what it declares...."

What Harold did not do was dismiss that the 2nd floor encounter happened. He even writes "But Baker did run into Oswald. This is established by Oswald's boss Truly..."

Even as late as 1994, he was on the side of a 2nd floor lunch encounter as his notes on an article by William Weston demonstrate:

Weston wrote: "12:35: Oswald comes down from the second floor; goes outside where he talks to Shelley for 5 or 10 minutes. On the way out, he pauses to help a Secret Service man (?) find a telephone."

Weisberg bracketed that paragraph and wrote: "What happened to Oz meeting Truly + Baker?!!" Clearly Weisberg believed this oversight was a major flaw in Weston's piece. See last page: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/MacNeil%20Robert/Item%2003.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Weisberg's book Whitewash 2, he quotes from Baker's first day affidavit, about the 3rd or 4th floor. (See page 42.)

He then shows how this evolved over time into something else in another affidavit by Baker which contradicts the first one. (See page 44)

He then writes that certain documents he found since his first book, "destroy the basic parts of Baker's story" as portrayed in the WR. (ibid, p. 42)

Johnson said Baker identified Oswald as the man on the fourth floor. Harold refers to Johnson taking an affidavit from Baker. Which is what led me to Johnson.

If you are willing to do that kind of cheap smear against me, you can count me out of speaking at your conference.

And goodbye Greg.

Geez getting a little bent outta shape Di.

"Mr. Weisberg followed this book, which was republished by Dell in 1966, with ''Whitewash II.'' That book presents a close examination the Zapruder film and questions the time sequence accepted by the Warren Commission."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/04/us/harold-weisberg-88-critic-of-inquiry-in-kennedy-death.html

Ny Times must have missed it too Jim.

I find no one saying HW was theorizing the LunchRoomEncounter (LRE) did not happen, but that its timing was suspect for the LRE.

I.E. that LHO was never on Six because he was in the LR.

Whitewash II: The FBI-Secret Service Cover-Up - Google Books Result
Harold Weisberg - 2013 - ‎History
The FBI-Secret Service Cover-Up Harold Weisberg ... been on the sixthfloor, he would still have gotten to the second floor lunchroom after Baker. ... the BakerOswaldreconstruction would have been accepted as proof of Oswald's innocence.

or

The Baker-Oswald Encounter: Proof that Oswald Did Not ...
miketgriffith.com/files/bakerlho.htm

(If someone wants to propose that Baker was referring to the lunchroom door, though ...... As Harold Weisberg has said, "The Baker-Oswald timing was too close" ...

If anything nears Greg's idea it was Jerry Rose in The Third Decade where Rose states LRE may never have occured due to Bakers statements and admissions.

and in his letter to HW in 1984:

"Your own work on M.L. baker in Whitewash II influenced

one aspect of the analysis." Jerry Rose to Weisberg

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48722#relPageId=26&tab=page

This shows Weisberg was instrurmental in setting the stage but he didn't write the play.

Your move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly what I imagined when I served up this diary. But not a surprise.

DVP, you must be amused, and rightly so. I presented this diary thinking YOU rattle cages here. Ha, ha. You do. But you are not the recipient of the most bitter comments here. Which perhaps accounts for your good humor. You are the White Russian in the the Russian Revolution. An enemy, for sure, but not a Trotsky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly what I imagined when I served up this diary. But not a surprise.

DVP, you must be amused, and rightly so. I presented this diary thinking YOU rattle cages here. Ha, ha. You do. But you are not the recipient of the most bitter comments here. Which perhaps accounts for your good humor. You are the White Russian in the the Russian Revolution. An enemy, for sure, but not a Trotsky.

So who do you perceive to be the recipient of "the most bitter comments here"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP rattles cages because he will never, ever deviate from the WC conclusions...contrary evidence notwithstanding.

Greg Parker rattles cages because he challenges the "standard" CT conclusions.

Jim D. seems to mostly rattle DVP's cage.

Those are my own conclusions; your mileage may vary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP rattles cages because he will never, ever deviate from the WC conclusions...contrary evidence notwithstanding.

Greg Parker rattles cages because he challenges the "standard" CT conclusions.

Jim D. seems to mostly rattle DVP's cage.

Those are my own conclusions; your mileage may vary.

Gee, I'm disappointed. No one rattles my cage. If I see something I disagree with, I say so. I don't do it to 'rattle' a cage, but only for discussion. and Mark, I didn't know that there is a 'standard' CT conclusion. I know of at least 10 or so, is it likely that one of those is the 'standard'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Standard" is one of a multiple of possibilities that there is little agreement on.

IF the CT crowd could settle on one conclusion--or even three or 5 different ones--we might actually move closer to solving the case for conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2015 at 12:12 AM, 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 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.

Also see this newspaper clipping from the 11/23/63 edition of The Washington Post, which clearly shows a date for the article of "DALLAS, Nov. 22", in which the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter is clearly referenced.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rich Pope said:

Some people like to stir the pot.  DVP gets his kicks making others mad. 

Not true.

 

Quote

I'll be the first to say the U.S. Government has lied to us and continues to lie to us. 

Are you sure you're "the first"?

 

Quote

I'll be the first to say the CIA killed JFK while LBJ, the media (as part of operation mockingbird) and the FBI covered it up.  

The first again, eh? I kinda doubt it. Not around these parts.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rich Pope said:

DVP has mental and emotional issues.  He feels important arguing with everyone.  

Sounds to me like you're describing conspiracy theorist extraordinaire Anthony Marsh.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/13/2015 at 7:24 PM, David Von Pein said:

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".]

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.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html

Another "Refused To Sign" Addendum....

There's also the following Warren Commission testimony of Dallas Police Sergeant W.E. Barnes [at 7 H 285], which certainly indicates that Lee Harvey Oswald, while he was still alive and breathing and in the custody of the Dallas Police Department, definitely did "Refuse To Sign" a fingerprint card at some point in time in late November of 1963:

MR. BARNES -- "He [Oswald] would not sign the fingerprint card when I asked him. We have a place on this card for the prisoner's signature, and I asked him would he please sign that, and he said he wouldn't sign anything until he talked to an attorney."

 

Edited by David Von Pein

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

×
×
  • Create New...