James DiEugenio

You left out one thing, as you usually do: More altered first day evidence. Which you said you could not find. The implication being that the critics' made it up. Wrong again Davey.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

Really nice Dave. More evidence of FBI alteration. Look forward to seeing your essay. Soon. It will be in two parts right, the rifle and then the handgun?

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.

Bob: LOL ROTF

Martin: With all due respect to you, those would not account for the radical readings Mantik got. And I also disagree with Speer: If I recall correctly, the HSCA wrote that the onus would be on the prosecution to get the exhibits into evidence. In my view, the 402 hearing would show that there is no real chain of possession for these exhibits. As Tanenbaum once said, a 402 hearing usually concentrates on two things: chain of possession and identification. In my view, there would be serious problems with both of those. The third thing that would be a problem would be the number of photos. Plus, as Ray so notably posted, the witnesses lied about this in the affidavits.

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.

It is not a fake X-ray. It is an altered X-ray. And Mantik proves this scientifically in Assassination Science with optical densitometry readings.

Well, not really. I am just showing how ignorant Davey is of the evidentiary record. And then he calls me dumb and stupid. (BTW, before I get accused of plugging my own work, I think that people should source things as much as possible on forums. And my books are the things I know best, so that is why I do it.)

From RP, p. 196: "Recall, Baker ...was a prosecution witness at the London trial. Spence never confronted him with his first day affidavit to impeach him. But further, who was the man he confronted on the stairwell, and where did he go." In my view, in light of all the above plus the work of Rich Gilbride, and especially the revolutionary work of Sean Murphy, I think the guy on the stairway was probably the guy that 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 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. 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. (BTW, what is taking so long for you to confer with Gary Mack on this one?)

For the next three paragraphs I detail the various witnesses who give Oswald an alibi for not being on the sixth floor. Like Dougherty etc. From RP, p. 196: "Now. let us interconnect this material to explain why Bugliosi leaves it out. With Williams on the sixth floor until 12:25 and Dougherty where he was on the fifth floor at the time of the shooting, Oswald could not have been where the Commission says he was at the time Kenendy was killed. With the Baker incident now dubious, this most likely leaves him on the first floor. When he exactly bought his coke, no one knows. But it was not when Baker said he did. And this is the reason I believe the incident was created after the fact. Getting Oswald from floor six to floor two was improbable enough. Getting him from floor six to floor one would have been impossible. And the weight of this new evidence suggests the DPD, FBI and WC understood that. So they created this phony forty year old argument over Oswald speeding down the stars by altering Baker's first day affidavit." Let me add: as The Girl on the Stairs proves, Oswald was not flying down those stairs anyway.

From RP, p. 195: "In tracing the evolution of this story, it is necessary to follow how Oswald's words were also transmuted. As Anthony Summers writes in Conspiracy , Oswald maintained that he was on the first floor eating his cheese sandwich for lunch at the time of the shooting. (Which, by the way, is the lunch he maintained he brought from home) On November 23rd, James Hosty and Jim Bookhout wrote an FBI report. Based on Oswald's November 22nd questioning, the authors' wrote that Oswald said he ate lunch on the first floor, but went up to the second floor to get a Coke. It is not specified in this report when he went to the second floor. But more importantly, there is no mention of Oswald getting a gun stuck in his stomach by Baker. Which Oswald certainly would have recalled and reported. On the 24th, , after Oswald is shot, Bookhout rewrites this report by himself. Now, Bookhout has Oswald remembering the Baker gun in his stomach. Notably, before the Commission, Hosty had an opportunity to alter this memo also. He chose not to. Another example of this evolution: when postal inspector Harry Holmes wrote a long memorandum recalling what Oswald said in his interviews, there was no mention of Oswald at the soda machine, the Coke in his hand, or of Baker pointing the gun at him. When pressed by the Commission, he could not recall Oswald saying anything about the second floor encounter with Baker. But David Belin later prompted Holmes about the Coke: "Did he say anything about a Coca Cola or anything like that...?" This was clearly a leading question. And then Holmes recalled it five months after he wrote the memo. But he only recalled what Belin prompted him about: the Coke and the machine. There was nothing else about Baker and Truly."

(ibid) "Then, four months later, Baker's testimony was in its final dry-cleaned and altered version for the Warren Commission. Baker ID's Oswald, but now he is a guy in the second floor lunchroom. In other words, the guy in the jacket on the fourth floor stairway was gone, not to be seen again. If you are counting, that is four different versions of this story. But let me add this about Baker's Warren Commission testimony. He still denied that Oswald was dressed like the man he saw. Second, assistant counsel David Belin had to admonish him about his revealing body language--he told him to look at him when he answered questions. Third, Allen Dulles understood the problem Baker's police station non identification of Oswald presented. So he tried to make the time they shared the same room as brief as possible. Finally, Dulles and Belin took this interview off the record no less than five times."

From RP. p. 194: "For me, what certified that Baker is being honest here is that when he went down to the police station to write his affidavit, Oswald was in the same room with him. Which Baker described as a small room, so small that he had to almost fall over Oswald to get out. In other words, he was in the same room with Oswald and he still did not name him in either version of his affidavit. According to the Commission, he had just stuck a gun in this guy's stomach. Toward the end of the evening, the DPD began to realize that Baker's first day testimony could prevent the noose they were preparing from setting around Oswald's neck. So when Det. Marvin Johnson made out an undated report either that evening or the next day, he transmitted Baker's first day information accurately--except for one thing not in the affidavit. He wrote, "Officer Baker later identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man he had seen on the 4th floor.... At the very end of this report, and completely out of chronological order, Johnson adds that Baker identified Oswald at the station in the small room. Yet, Baker told the Commission that he was making out the affidavit at the time in the room,. And Oswald's name is not on it."

From RP, p. 193-94: "On that day, Baker executed an affidavit in which he described this encounter himself. He describes going up the stairs with Truly. Then this startling passage follows: ....as we reached the third or fourth floor, I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back towards me. The manager said I know that man and he works here. I then turned the man loose and went on up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately thirty years old, 5' 9'', 165 lbs. dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket. This affidavit exists in two forms, a handwritten and typed version. Unlike the handwritten one, the typed version has no cross outs and is phrased more grammatically. But they both say the same thing. Baker signed them both on the 22nd. Note the stunning differences between the affidavits and the incident as described in the WR. In the affidavits there is nothing about seeing Oswald through a window in the door. Nothing about the lunchroom. Nothing about a Coke. They weren't even in any room, but near a stairway. And the guy he saw does not appear to be Oswald. He was older, heavier and he was wearing a brown jacket."

Continuing from RP, p. 193: "The first person I ever heard who actually questioned the provenance of this story was David Lifton. He asked whether, on the surface, it made any sense. Because as Truly tells it, Baker hailed Oswald, Oswald walked toward him, and Baker essentially had his gun within three feet of his stomach. As LIfton commented, "Was Baker going to shot him for drinking a Coke?" I smiled at the cleverness, but I didn't actually question the incident." Today I do. Why? Because the final Commission version does not even resemble the incident that Baker described on the day of the assassination. "

Continuing from RP, page 193: "That last discrepancy should have told us something. For how, on the day of the assassination, could Baker have not recalled such a revealing detail? Or how could he have let someone talk him out of it? Because in the version printed in the WR, Truly added that Oswald's hands were empty. Yet, as Sylvia Meagher points out, as late as September of 1964, Baker was still writing about the Coke In Oswald's hands. Someone actually drew a line through that bit of information. What makes this interesting is that Baker wrote this six months after he gave his Commission testimony in which he said there was nothing in Oswald's hands. In other words, Baker never got his story straight. Another indication as to how Baker's testimony was evolving is the version of it in Gary Savage's book, First Day Evidence. In that version, he says he encountered Oswald on the first floor. Truly identified him as an employee, and they left him there as they proceeded into the building.... Yet, this version pretty much coincides with Oswald's own story."

Please note above, Davey never answered my question. Because he likely did not read either of the books. This is the kind of scholar he is. Recall, according to Davey: there was no manufactured evidence, right? And Oswald certainly did order the rifle. Both of those are now exposed as false, and there are threads proving them so. You can't call someone on something if you don't know what they are talking about. Now let us begin to to expose the above as nothing but pure arrogant bluster. And we will now see who is "incredibly stupid". From Reclaiming Parkland, p. 192, where I am describing the scene in Oliver Stone's JFK with Baker confronting Oswald: ​Oliver Stone then memorably depicted it in his 1991 film JFK.. Since the incident has attained iconic status, we all understand what it conveys and what it is supposed to mean. Dallas Patrolman Marrion Baker was traveling in the motorcade. He heard the shots. He drove up to the Texas School Book Depository. He met Oswald's supervisor Roy Truly. They ascended to the second floor. Baker somehow saw a figure through a door window in the lunchroom there. He accosted him with his gun drawn and said to Truly, "Do you know this man, does he work here?" Truly replied that he did and they turned around and continued back up the stairs. ...everyone on both sides accepted it.....the argument centered over whether or not Oswald could have come down from the sixth floor and walked into the lunchroom in time for Baker to see him in front of a soda machine...or as authors like Howard Roffman and Don Thomas argued, whether or not Baker would have seen Oswald through the glass window in the door. If he did not, then he had likely come up to the lunchroom from the first floor. No one questioned whether or not it happened. And in one version Baker told, Oswald had a coke in his hand. In another he did not.

This is what he says: One other typical example among a great many: Jones alleges that one Gary Underhill “was a CIA agent.” Right after the assassination, Jones says, Underhill “begged his friends to keep him out of sight,” telling them “he knew who killed President Kennedy, and he was sure they would soon get him . . . Underhill stated that the CIA had Kennedy killed.” Jones offers no support for his allegation that Underhill was a CIA agent and doesn’t tell his readers from whom he obtained his information or the identity of Underhill’s friends. (Jones, Forgive My Grief, vol.2, pp.23–24) Underhill shot himself to death in Washington, D.C., on May 8, 1964. Or so the coroner’s office in Washington, D.C., ruled. But Jones suggests he was murdered. The CIA says Underhill “served with the Military Intelligence Ser- vice from 8 July 1943 to May 1946 as an expert in photography, enemy weapons, and related technical specialties. He was in infrequent contact with the New York office of the Domestic Contact Service of CIA from late 1949 to the mid-50’s. The contact [was] routine. Mr. Underhill was not an employee of the CIA” (DOJ Record 179-20003-10191, CIA memorandum dated September 28, 1967, p.6). This is bad even for Vince. He does not reference anything from the first edition of Destiny Betrayed in which I had primary documents about Underhill. Those documents were obtained through a private detective service. That PI service was paid by Ramparts Magazine and Warren Hinckle. And the thing Is I know Vince read the book. Man, this tendency of his to deliberately ignore stuff he knew was the best evidence in order to substitute lesser stuff as representative of the critical community, I mean really.

Did you ever read either one of my most recent books? Please, a yes or no answer will suffice for once. If no--too busy reaching out to Mack and Davison right?-- then where do you get the cajones to say something like the above? Especially after what I just did to you on the rifle order? You want some more? It is you who are making stuff up. The worst part is that you don't even know it.

Since you know the page you presumably have the info don't you?

Brennan and Baker never saw Oswald, so what is relevant about that to this?