Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

When did the Coke Appear?

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

You know, why don't we ask Davey Boy why Marvin Johnson lied when he changed Baker's first day affidavit?

Johnson didn't "change" Baker's affidavit. Why did you word it that way?

 

Quote

Why did Johnson add that Baker identified Oswald on the fourth floor, when in fact, that guy does not resemble Oswald.

Anybody telling the story of the "Baker/Oswald encounter" AFTER THE FACT (such as Marvin Johnson) very likely had to have known that the person Baker saw in the TSBD was definitely Lee Harvey Oswald. Roy Truly VERIFIED that fact for all time, and all reasonable people examining this case know it. But, being a charter member of the popular Anybody But Oswald club, Jim DiEugenio has no capacity for properly assessing and evaluating the evidence in a reasonable manner.

 

Quote

And why did Johnson also add that Baker identified Oswald in the witness room.  When in fact, Baker made his first day affidavit out in that room and never wrote one word out that LHO was sitting opposite him there.  (See Reclaiming Parkland, pgs.218-19.  Soon to be re released as JFK: The Evidence Today.)

That particular argument brought forth constantly by Internet conspiracy theorists has always made me laugh. Why CTers think that Officer Baker had a strict obligation to add these words to his affidavit is beyond me....

Oh, btw, the guy I saw in the TSBD is in the same room with me right now as I'm writing this affidavit.

But, IMO, the above information isn't the kind of info that someone would necessarily feel they needed to include in their written statement. I don't think I would have included such information either. Now, maybe some people would have included such information (had they actually seen Lee Oswald in the same room with them when they wrote their statement), but others likely would not include it.

 

Quote

Further, why did Spence not bring this up at that phony as a three dollar bill trial?

#1. I don't think Gerry Spence knew a whole lot of the minutiae pertaining to the JFK murder case.

#2. Even if he did know every last detail of the case, Spence knew that his opponent at the mock trial—Vincent Bugliosi—would be able to rip to shreds the defense notion that Oswald really wasn't encountered by Officer Baker in the lunchroom. How could Bugliosi do this? Two words: Roy Truly.

So, yes, Spence could have brought up the incredibly stupid "There Was No Lunchroom Encounter At All" theory at the 1986 TV docu-trial, but if he had brought it up, Spence would have ended up looking very silly after Vince came back with the true facts. And at a real trial (instead of just a mock trial where no subpoenas were issued for any of the witnesses), Roy Truly would, of course, have been called to the stand by Bugliosi, versus what happened at the mock trial, when Baker had to tell us what Truly said about OSWALD being the person encountered in the lunchroom (which is testimony that probably wouldn't have been allowed at a real trial in the first place, because it's hearsay).*

* And that part of Bugliosi's questioning of Officer Baker wasn't entirely accurate, and should have elicited an objection from Mr. Spence, but it did not. The inaccuracy occurs when Baker tells Bugliosi that Roy Truly told Baker during the lunchroom encounter that the man Baker had just stopped at gunpoint was named "Lee Oswald". In actuality, of course, Baker didn't learn Oswald's name until much later. But I'm guessing that the questioning was done that way merely to save time at the televised mock trial. Many technically inappropriate questions were put forth to the witnesses at that docu-trial in London. At a real trial, of course, we would have seen many more objections and sidebar conferences, etc. But because of the strict time limitations for the TV trial, many things were overlooked by Judge Bunton at the London mock trial in 1986.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That stupid trial and that stupid CBS interview are both a joke. A well rehearsed one at best. Zero evidentiary value. Baker got himself a nice candy arse trip, so did the others.

Watch Harold Norman being interviewed by Spence and see how many times Norman's eyes glance towards Vince B. Too funny.

Baker and Truly contradicted themselves when it came to

  1. How they entered the building
  2. Who said "let's take the stairs."
  3. Who walked ahead of whom on those stairs.
  4. Oswald's actual position inside the lunch room during the encounter.
  5. That damn coke!

 

And then there are the many reports Oswald was seen on the first floor and encountered........ah yes those reports.

  

Edited by Bart Kamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bart Kamp:

And all of that subterfuge and lying was done just so they could---what was it now?---oh, yes....just so they could falsely place Oswald on the SECOND FLOOR instead of the FIRST FLOOR (which is where most CTers say he was in the first place).

Hardly seems worth it, does it? Because the SECOND FLOOR isn't the SIXTH FLOOR, is it?

You'd think the crafters of this Baker/Oswald ruse would have had Baker and Truly (both rotten liars, according to CTers) say they saw Oswald dashing down the stairs between the SIXTH and FIFTH floors. Such a fabricated tale would have been infinitely better for the "Let's Frame Oswald" team of plotters. But no! They only wanted to say they saw him on the SECOND floor. As if THAT story somehow nails the resident "patsy" to the cross more efficiently. (Hilarious!)

Please explain for me, Bart, why the plotters and patsy-framers didn't make up a better lie regarding WHERE Baker and Truly saw Oswald. After all, most Internet CTers think BOTH of those men (Marrion Baker AND Roy Truly) were evil rotten liars anyway. So why not have them say they saw Oswald either ON the sixth floor or coming down the stairs nearer to the sixth floor?

The fact that the "Lunchroom Encounter" makes ZERO sense if it were, in fact, just made up from whole cloth is one of the reasons to know that it really did happen the way Officer Baker and Roy S. Truly always said it happened.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always astounds me the way that DVP contorts, stretches, and distorts both the evidence and the English language in his long failed attempt to prop up the indignities and disgraces that make up the Warren Report.

Any objective person--which DVP does not even come close to qualifying as--would say that when someone who was not at the scene alters the first day affidavit of someone who was at the scene, and does so in a material way, then that is a completely unwarranted and unjustified alteration in the evidence trail.  It makes sense that DVP has no problem with this, because in a large way, this is how the WR made its case throughout.  Which is why, in a real trial,--not the London sideshow--the case against Oswald would very likely be thrown out.

Now, unless DVP thinks that description Baker made of a guy being on the third or fourth floor wearing a brown jacket and about 30-35 pounds heavier than Oswald, actually was Oswald--and I do not see how anyone can say that based on the evidence--then Johnson altered the evidence trail.

The idea that somehow Baker would be sitting opposite Oswald in the witness room--the guy who he almost just killed--and Baker did not walk over to him to say one word, or to ask  his name, or the key question: what was he doing there? in order to verify his affidavit,  that is so ludicrous, its something Allen Dulles would say.  Which, by the way, Dulles did do.  He tried to make an excuse about this saying Oswald was only in the room a brief time.  And, let us not forget, Dulles and Belin took the Baker testimony off the record five times.  Hmm.

For anyone to call Baker's first day affidavit minutiae, I mean what can one declare about something like that?  Its anything but. IMO, its quite important. Like the early reports about another lying witness Bugliosi used, Mr. Norman.  And the exposure of Norman would have been key, since--although Baker appears to have changed his story for the DPD-- Norman changed his story for the infamous Elmer Moore.  And man what any informed person could have done with that--anyone of course except Spence.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liars, liars, everywhere!! (Per James DiEugenio)....

Johnson, Baker, Truly, Fritz, Paine, Norman, Frazier, Randle, The whole WC, plus dozens of others.

It's hilarious! There's no other word BUT "hilarious" to describe the constant "L-i-a-r" refrain. But Jimmy doesn't care. The more liars, the better.

And Johnson "altered" nothing! He knew that Baker HAD, indeed, encountered the one & only Lee Harvey Oswald. Everybody at the DPD knew it after a short period of time following the assassination.[Also see my "Baker/Johnson Addendum" in my later post below.]

You, Jimmy, are just doing what you always do----quick to label someone as a "l-i-a-r" or a conspirator. NO OTHER EXPLANATION is even possible in your world. Isn't that right, James D.?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baker/Johnson Addendum....

Dallas Police Department Detective Marvin Johnson's undated multi-page statement concerning how he was present at Dallas City Hall when Marrion Baker filled out his affidavit can be found HERE and HERE.

And I don't see any inconsistencies or "alterations" in Baker's statements at all when comparing those two pages from Johnson's statement to this affidavit authored by Marrion Baker.

Johnson's report merely ADDS some additional information that Baker did not choose to include in his 11/22/63 affidavit---that information being the following statement that Johnson said Baker made while both Baker and Johnson were together in the Homicide Bureau of the Dallas Police Department:

"When Patrolman M.L. 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"." -- M. Johnson

So, given this portion of the statement made by Marvin Johnson....

"While in the office from 3:00 pm [November 22nd] until 2:00 am [November 23rd] I answered the phone and took an affidavit from Patrolman M.L. Baker."

....it's fairly clear that Detective Johnson himself heard Officer Baker utter the words "That is the man I stopped on the 4th floor of the School Book Depository". And that's why Johnson wrote it down in his own report later on. Johnson HEARD Baker identify Oswald, but Baker chose not to write down that information in his own affidavit. Simple as that.

But when a dedicated conspiracy theorist like James DiEugenio gets ahold of this very easy-to-figure-out situation regarding Johnson and Baker, it gets turned into a nefarious and devious scenario where Marvin Johnson "lied when he changed Baker's first day affidavit", even though nothing like that occurred at all.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Greg Parker:

 

"Marvin Johnson: "When Patrolman M.L. 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"."

 

Marvin Johnson"While in the office from 3:00 pm [November 22nd] until 2:00 am [November 23rd] I answered the phone and took an affidavit from Patrolman M.L. Baker."

 

Surely DVP sees the problem? Marvin Johnson TOOK Baker's affidavit. I believe that means he wrote it based on Baker responding to questions from Johnson. If Johnson thought the ID of Oswald was important enough to mention later, why would he NOT include it in Baker's statement? Baker simply never said it and the actual description he gave, proves it (as if the absence itself doesn't). 

 

As for his nonsense about why not say they saw him run down from the 6th floor? Why place him on only the second floor? Let's look at it as much as we can through the eyes of the cops at the time.
 

  1. Oswald was still alive and would refute any such 6th floor flight
  2. Oswald had mentioned getting a coke
  3. Oswald had mentioned a cop encounter in or near a vestibule
  4. Baker had told a story of encountering someone on the 3rd or 4th floor who did not match Oswald

 

 

Somehow, the cops had to juggle those elements and come up with a single story to explain it all. Truly did not make his first statement until later that night - and it was to the FBI, not DPD. By that time, they had Oswald's alibi and Baker's statement. It is decided to relocate the 3rd or 4th floor encounter to the second floor lunchroom because that is where the coke machine is. It is also the only location apart from the front entrance, where you have any chance of claiming there is a vestibule. Truly made his statement and wrote the name of his secretary (Mrs. Reid) at the bottom of the otherwise typed document.  She gives her statement the next day and "confirms" that she sees Oswald walking through the office with a coke post-assassination. Meanwhile Baker is put on ice and kept well away from the media and only wheeled out again for WC appearance. By then, he has his story straightened out (kind of). Keeping him on ice also helps deep-six his initial statement.  After all, it is an internal document and no one is going to leak the contents to the media and sure as hell, Baker is not being let off his leash until h has his mind right! 

So that is why they ended up on the second floor. Not ideal, but it was forced upon them as the best compromise that with some fudging on the timing, could still make it theoretically possible for Oswald to get down from the 6th.

DVP is in for a rude shock when my stuff on Truly gets posted."

JD: IMO, the guy that Baker met on the 3rd or 4th floor may have been the guy that Worrell saw running from the back of the TSBD.  And that memory is at least partly corroborated by Carr and Walther.  (See Michael Benson, Who's Who in the JFK Assassination, p.487)

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg Parker said:

Marvin Johnson TOOK Baker's affidavit. I believe that means he wrote it based on Baker responding to questions from Johnson.

I don't think that's the way an affidavit works. (I never thought it was anyway.) The way I have always thought an "affidavit" worked is ---- The person giving the affidavit is given a piece of paper and he writes down his own account (statement) of what happened--in his or her own words (without being grilled or interviewed by anybody)--and then that handwritten version is typed up by a DPD or Sheriff's Department clerk to create the final neat typewritten version. And then it gets notarized by a notary public (e.g., Mary Rattan, et al). (It's possible that the handwritten version gets notarized as well, but I'm not positive about that.)

Yes, Marvin Johnson said he "took" Baker's affidavit at City Hall, but I'm not sure that means that Johnson was questioning Baker at all. It could be that Johnson was just THERE when Baker was filling out his written statement, and then Johnson possibly physically took the affidavit into his physical possession and then it made its way into Mary Rattan's hands (the notary public).

I really don't know what the word "took" means in this case. But here are the three HANDWRITTEN pages of Baker's affidavit (below). Can anybody confirm whose handwriting this is? Is it Baker's or Johnson's? The "B" in "M.L. Baker" at the top of page 1 looks somewhat like Baker's own signature that we find on this 9/23/64 statement that Baker initialled and signed, but I'm not 100% sure. Any handwriting experts out there?....

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0135-001.gif

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0135-002.gif

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0135-003.gif

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg Parker said:

As for his [DVP's] nonsense about why not say they saw him run down from the 6th floor? Why place him on only the second floor? Let's look at it as much as we can through the eyes of the cops at the time.

1. Oswald was still alive and would refute any such 6th floor flight.

And you actually think that anyone is going to believe the word of the alleged assassin? You must be kidding!

This same kind of "Would Oswald Lie?" argument has cropped up when talking about some of Oswald's other statements that he made while in custody -- such as Oswald claiming he never owned a rifle, and his lie about not knowing anything about the alias "Hidell", and his lie about having never been in Mexico City, and his whopper of a lie when he said "I didn't shoot anybody". Many conspiracy believers seem to think Oswald was being TRUTHFUL in every one of those statements. Naturally, I disagree. Oswald was a Lying Machine on November 22nd and 23rd of 1963. He never stopped lying.

Therefore, WHY on Earth would anyone (a jury or anybody else) start BELIEVING this lying machine named Oswald even if he denied something that WAS, indeed, just made up from whole cloth (like the alternate scenario I proposed earlier about Truly and Baker making up a BETTER lie by saying they had seen Oswald on or near the SIXTH floor, vs. the second floor)?

 

Greg Parker said:

2. Oswald had mentioned getting a coke.

So what? Once again (like point #1 above), who cares what the ALLEGED ASSASSIN says? Even in the "Let's Pretend" scenarios that I've been talking about in this discussion, who is going to take ANYTHING uttered by the assassin (or the "alleged" assassin) seriously. An assassin is going to LIE a whole lot of the time. And, as all reasonable people know, Oswald (the Real Assassin) DID lie constantly while he was in custody.

 

Greg Parker said:

3. Oswald had mentioned a cop encounter in or near a vestibule.

Once again --- Who cares what Oswald said?!

If all you're going to do is use OSWALD'S own statements in your arguments, then you've already lost. Because the desperate statements made by the guy charged with the murder aren't going to carry much weight with a jury (or anybody).

 

Greg Parker said:

4. Baker had told a story of encountering someone on the 3rd or 4th floor who did not match Oswald.

But if Marrion Baker was the rotten evil l-i-a-r that you think he was, then (via my alternate scenario) he would have NEVER said he saw anybody on the 3rd or 4th floor at all. He would have said ALL ALONG that he saw Oswald nearer to the sixth floor.

But I guess it depends on exactly WHEN you think Marrion Baker decided to start telling lies. You think he was being completely truthful in his 11/22/63 affidavit, right? It was only LATER that he was strong-armed into telling the "lie" about seeing Oswald on the 2nd floor, correct?

And that's always a nice comfy cop-out for conspiracy theorists to use when they're stuck for something better --- just say the person was "coerced" into changing his or her story. In other words, it couldn't POSSIBLY have been an honest and simple MISTAKE that Marrion L. Baker made in his 11/22/63 affidavit when he said he encountered the man (Oswald) or the "third or fourth floor", instead of saying the correct floor (the second), right? (Even though it couldn't be more obvious that Baker WAS, indeed, unsure as to which floor it was---because he mentioned TWO different floor numbers in his original affidavit. And, quite obviously, he wasn't implying he had an encounter on BOTH of those floors. So at least one of them HAD to be incorrect in the first place.)

Why can't conspiracists accept Marrion Baker's "third or fourth floor" statement for what it so clearly is --- a simple and honest mistake made by a police officer who was in a chaotic and frantic situation within minutes of the President having just been shot, and who was not paying close attention at all to what floor he was standing on when he pointed his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald's stomach in the lunchroom on November 22, 1963?

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg Parker said:

Somehow, the cops had to juggle those elements and come up with a single story to explain it all. Truly did not make his first statement until later that night - and it was to the FBI, not DPD. By that time, they had Oswald's alibi and Baker's statement. It is decided to relocate the 3rd or 4th floor encounter to the second floor lunchroom because that is where the coke machine is. It is also the only location apart from the front entrance, where you have any chance of claiming there is a vestibule. Truly made his statement and wrote the name of his secretary (Mrs. Reid) at the bottom of the otherwise typed document. She gives her statement the next day and "confirms" that she sees Oswald walking through the office with a coke post-assassination. Meanwhile, Baker is put on ice and kept well away from the media and only wheeled out again for [his] WC appearance. By then, he has his story straightened out (kind of). Keeping him on ice also helps deep-six his initial statement. After all, it is an internal document and no one is going to leak the contents to the media and sure as hell, Baker is not being let off his leash until he has his mind right!

So that is why they ended up on the second floor. Not ideal, but it was forced upon them as the best compromise that with some fudging on the timing could still make it theoretically possible for Oswald to get down from the 6th.

DVP is in for a rude shock when my stuff on Truly gets posted.

Oh, brother. What a big load of craptrap that was.

As we can all see, Greg R. Parker has a very active imagination.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2017 at 4:38 AM, David Von Pein said:

And Oswald would never lie.....right Jim?

Yes, Dave, the man never got his day in court. I  know you'll  now say something  along the lines of "Yes he did because the WR proves his guilt."

But because Ruby hushed him forever, the whole case is slanted toward his guilt. Even McVeigh and Simpson got their respective days in court with legal representation and the option to testify  on their own behalf if they chose to.

And though I  don't  agree with everything  that other CTers say was  fixed against  him, there's  certainly enough to go around that a good lawyer would have presented to cause reasonable  doubt.

Edited by Michael Walton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW,

 

It wasn't unusual for the police officers (and probably representatives of other other government agencies like the FBI and Secret Service) to review and correct their statements multiple times before submitting them. As Kenneth Croy told the Warren Commission in his testimony regarding his Report to Curry on his duties on the 24th:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/croy.htm

 

Mr. CROY. No; well, I will put it this way, that it took us 8 hours to get that up. That is how interested they were.
Mr. GRIFFIN. You talked with them for 8 hours?
Mr. CROY. On 2 different occasions. That day and the next day, for 4 hours each day. That is pretty interesting.

Mr. CROY. No; we talked the entire thing over, and after we talked everything over and they brought the stenographer in and we went back over it again, then I left and she typed it up, and I came in the next day and we went back over it again and back over it and so on.

 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, this statement which we have marked, a letter which we have marked Exhibit 5052, which is a copy of a letter that you prepared for Chief Curry, dated November 26, 1963, was that prepared down in the police department, or was that prepared at one of your business offices?
Mr. CROY. That was prepared at the Dallas Police Academy.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Where is that located?
Mr. CROY. On Shorecrest back of the northwest substation.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Was that prepared by hand?
Mr. CROY. Yes, it was.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Were you responsible for getting the typing done?
Mr. CROY. No.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Who did you turn that report over to?
Mr. CROY. Captain Solomon.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Then was it his responsibility to get the typing done?
Mr. CROY. I don't know. I just turned it in. What he did with it, I don't know.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Did it eventually come back to you?
Mr. CROY. No.
Mr. GRIFFIN. The typed copy never came back to you?
Mr. CROY. No.

 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Is there any question in your mind but that the statement that you signed is a complete and accurate copy of the statement that you prepared in your own hand in the police department?
Mr. CROY. Yes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Do you recall what day it was, the day you prepared that statement?
Mr. CROY. The following Tuesday night. I don't know what date it was.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, Mr. Croy, why didn't you mention in this report, dated November 26, your seeing this man you believe to be Ruby?
Mr. CROY. Why didn't I mention that in there?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes.
Mr. CROY. Because at that time Captain Solomon told me that there would be another report made and I would have to go downtown to the city hall before a stenographer, and he told me just to leave that out for the time being, and put this in this other affidavit that you have, that this right here was just basically to find out where we were in the city hall.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Then when you prepared this other statement on December 1, who called you and how did you come to go before Notary Public A. L. Curtis?
Mr. CROY. He is a lieutenant. After I signed it, I took it there to be notarized by him.

Mr. CROY. What it was, the stenographer took it, and then she typed it up. Then the next day I went back down there and they re-read it to me and went over and over and over and over the same thing over and over again. And then I took it into Lieutenant Curtis and signed it and had it notarized.

 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Did they take notes as you talked with them?
Mr. CROY. No; we talked the entire thing over, and after we talked everything over and they brought the stenographer in and we went back over it again, then I left and she typed it up, and I came in the next day and we went back over it again and back over it and so on.

 

Steve Thomas

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
Greg Parker said:

As for his [DVP's] nonsense about why not say they saw him run down from the 6th floor? Why place him on only the second floor? Let's look at it as much as we can through the eyes of the cops at the time.

1. Oswald was still alive and would refute any such 6th floor flight.

And you actually think that anyone is going to believe the word of the alleged assassin? You must be kidding!


Interrogators will most certainly take the words of an alleged criminal seriously. Because anything he says may have been witnessed by other people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And you actually think that anyone is going to believe the word of the alleged assassin? You must be kidding!

David whether it's  a statement by the accused,  a shell  with a dent lip or photos of  the  accused holding a weapon it's  all part of the evidentiary  chain. If statements from the  accused  were deemed unimportant, then why is every alleged criminal  always  allowed  to  give  a statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×