James DiEugenio

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?

No reply about Otepka i almost three days eh. How could Bugliosi have not even mentioned him in his mammoth book, that is what I want to know. And in a bio of Oswald, Jean Davison ignores him. The guy who was trying to find out if Oswald was a fake defector or not? I thin that is kind of important.

Since he has not answered this in almost two days, I will take that as "No, its not on my site Jim." I didn't think so Davey. Even though its true and goes to the heart of the case.

Can I ask a question: What does Vince Foster and all that Chris Ruddy baloney about his death have to do with Vince Bugliosi? I started this thread and that is what I titled it.

Glenn: What I am referring to with "the above" is the title of the thread. Davey says this did not happen.

Reaching out to Blaine, Myers, Mack, McAdams,Davison. OK, see in the real world of people who do original research, these are not what one would call "original". Communication with published authors who you know are going to tell you what you want to hear, that is not original research. Doing original research is digging through documents for witnesses or information no one has seen before. Or finding information from witnesses who have been talked to before, but had not divulged certain information. You didn't do any of that. Which is what I thought. Now if you look through the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, which you will not, you will see that kind of thing a lot. Because, unlike you and Vince, I actually did travel around the country talking to people in their homes, or on their porch, or at the local coffee house. That's because the WC missed a lot of these people, since they conducted a (deliberately) incomplete inquiry. But since you answered the question, I will now let you know about the face sheet. The man who actually wrote up the original face sheet was James Jenkins, in consultation with Boswell. It does not look like the one we have today since it is double sided. It is still around today somewhere. We know that because when HSCA investigator Andy Purdy interviewed Jenkins, he had it with him. Did you talk to Jenkins, or did you think say, Sturdivan, would tell you something new like that?

Davey, this is nutty even for you: Hoover would have loved to have found a conspiracy in the JFK case? The only problem with this is a familiar one with you: all the evidence says the opposite. Let use use just four examples: 1. What did Hoover do on the Saturday after the assassination? Did he go into his office and ride herd on all the agents in Dallas and New Orleans to try and find out who the real killers were? That is what he would have done if he was intent on finding out a about a conspiracy, right? And he would have surfaced all those leads about people like Banister, and Ferrie and Clay Shaw and Clinton and Jackson ad 544 Camp Street. But he didn't do that did he? As I noted on the thread about evidence alteration, the FBI covered up the evidence of Oswlald's pamphlets with the 544 Camp Street address. But further, Hoover did not go to the office on Saturday anyway, he went to the race track with Tolson. (RP, p. 216) That's how much he wanted to find the real killers. Davey doesn't tell you that though does he? Neither does his hero VB. 2. Predating the Katzenbach memo, Hoover told LBJ, "The thing I am most concerned about is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin." (ibid p. 221) Hmm. This is how one finds conspirators? 3. Even former FBI employees admit the Kennedy inquiry was a joke. Men like Harry Whidbee, Laurence Keenan, William Walter, Don Edwards, William Sullivan, Don Adams, they all say the FBI inquiry was either half hearted or worse. Some of them even say that FBI HQ rewrote reports from the field. (ibid, pgs. 220-21) 4. Finally, we have Hoover's own private thoughts. Twice. In the privacy of his office, months into the case, but while it was ongoing, he admitted the case was just a bunch of loose ends. Then while on vacation in the late summer of 1964, an acquaintance of the Director's asked him if Oswald was the actual killer. Hoover replied with: "If I told you what I really know, it would be very dangerous to this country. Our political system would be disrupted." (ibid p. 222) Hmm. That does not sound like Oswald did it to me. But it does sound like he knew it was a conspiracy but didn't care to uncover it because it would bring down the government. (Maybe because he now knew the CIA had snookered him on Mexico City?) Davey, is any of this on your site?

What a bunch of baloney. Davey wants us to think he does not know the difference between a primary source and an original source. So what does he do in order to make his little stage play possible? He eliminates the following sentence: How many sit down interviews did you conduct for your book? I wonder why he does this little diversion? But I think we know. He does not to answer the question. Because that tells us what kind of researcher he really is. Just recycles discredited WC baloney. So I will ask the questions again: How many sit down interviews did you conduct for your book Davey? Let us see how long it will take to get an answer. (BTW, I am still holding my cards on the actual face sheet and how I know about it. )

The HSCA Ida Dox illustration of the rear of the skull photo is a false representation. In order to make the so called "cowlick" head wound look more like an actual bullet perforation, not just a drop of blood, Baden instructed "Ida Dox" (I put her name in quotes because that is a pseudonym) to raise the edges around the outside to give it a more cratered look. We actually have this in his own words. Randy Robertson found the memo at NARA in which he tells her, "You can do better than this." (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 133) Attached to that note was a photo of an actual wound. Doctors who have seen the actual photos, like Gary Aguilar, agree that this illustration was altered. This is how intent the HSCA was to sell the public on this new raised head wound in the back of the skull. And this is why Baden cannot be trusted with the medical evidence in this case. VInce Bugliosi prints the Dox drawing in his book in order to represent this new position of the head wound, without telling the reader about this embellishment. BTW, VInce was invited to the conference where Randy announced the discovery about Baden, but did not show up.

How about the FBI rigging Ruby's polygraph test. FBI polygraph technician Bell Herndon told the WC that Ruby passed his polygraph. Well, not really. The WC did not independently cross check his work. The HSCA did. In their report, they scored him for about ten violations of professional procedure in this test, from having too many men in the room to having Ruby answer way too many questions, like over a hundred. I mean the test lasted over four hours. These were serious violations. For example, the panel noted that when one gets asked too many questions, liars become test tired, therefore the physiological indications don't show up. If there are too many people in the room, it could lead to false readings, since one can be surprised by a tap on the shoulder. But the worst part was this, Bell turned down the GSR machine. GSR means Galvanic Skin Response. Its a very sensitive machine and is one of the three key measurements in the test, the other two being breathing pattern and blood pressure. Herndon turned the machine to only a quarter of its power at the start and then TURNED IT DOWN! This is the opposite of what should have been done. The panel thought this reading was so bad that the machine was defective. They thought Herndon should have had a back up and should have used it. Now let me quote the killer part of the report as I use it in Reclaiming Parkland to impeach Bugliosi, since he does not mention this part, but had to know about it since he read the report: "The strongest indication that Herndon's violations were deliberate was in his use of a faulty control question to map out a patterned response. When Ruby was asked, "Have you ever been arrested?" Herndon testified that the response resulted in a "noticeable rise in blood pressure." The panel disagreed with this because the rise was seven seconds after the answer. Which is at least three times longer than a normal reaction. They believed the reaction was due to a physical movement at the seven second point, which Herndon had actually recorded. The panel then applied the clincher. They wrote that Ruby's reaction to the preceding question--"Did you assist Oswald in the assassination?" to which he replied in the negative--recorded the largest valid GSR reaction in the first test series. Plus there was a constant suppression of breathing and a rise in the blood pressure at the time." (pgs. 245-46, emphasis added) That makes six.

What about the Commission tricking its own members and falsifying their own executive session transcript? That is what the controlling members and Rankin--what I call the Troika-- did to Cooper, Boggs and Russell, what I call the Southern Wing, at the last meeting. They knew Russell wanted to get into the record his objections to the Single Bullet Fantasy. So they tricked him. They placed a female secretary there and made it look like she was recording things. But she was not from the stenographic agency they had hired. That contract had run out the previous week. So when Russell objected, his objections were not in the record as he thought they were. In fact, he told LBJ that he did get them in. But he did not. They aren't there since there is no stenographic record of this meeting. And btw, Cooper also thought it was in the record. Several years later he talked about it in a British documentary. He said, yep there were disagreements about the Magic Bullet. He specifically said, "I heard Connally testify he was not struck by the same bullet. I could not convince myself the same bullet struck both of them." (Reclaiming Parkland, pgs 258-59) They were tricked by their own colleagues. The record was eliminated. Does it get any worse than that? That makes five.

How about the myth of Oswald in Mexico City. As most of us know today, the CIA sent a tape up to the Texas border. They said it was Oswald in MC. This was listened to by FBI agents in Dallas who had interviewed Oswald in detention. The wrote a memo that was forwarded to Washington saying the tapes were not of Oswald. And Hoover communicated this to the White House. After this, on the 25th, the cover up about this serious problem began. The CIA began a BS story that the tapes had been destroyed prior to the assassination. This appears to have been started by David Phillips' Girl Friday Anne Goodpasture. This is all baloney of course, as several sources heard the tape in addition to the FBI agents in Dallas. And I name three of them in Destiny Betrayed. (p. 358) Let us not forget, Hoover understood it was BS also. As he wrote in the marginalia of a memo, "OK, but I hope you are not being taken in. I can't forget the CIA withholding the French espionage activities in the USA, nor the false story re Oswald's trip to Mexico, only to mention two instances of their double dealing." (RP, p. 242-43, isn't it great when the lying gets so bad and they turn on each other?) That makes four.

Here is a third instance. "Not long after the assassination, New Orleans special agent Harry Maynor drafted a message that was changed before it arrived at FBI HQ. This message was directed to Director Hoover, Scratched out, but still visible were the words, "Several Fair Play for Cuba pamphlets contained the address 544 Camp Street." " (Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition p. 102) Does anyone think that something like that kind of evidence alteration could happen unless the word came down from above that it was OK to do it? The FBI rigorously tried not to use the 544 Camp Street address in its inquiry and what it gave to the WC. (ibid) In other words, they mislead the Commission on this point so as not to connect the pamphlets and Oswald to 544 Camp Street.

Hey nice footnote Greg, you actually reproduced the book. Bob, I agree. Its very hard to understand why the FBI did not know about the rifle shipment way back in March or April. Why did they have to scramble around in Chicago, and why did Holmes have to do all the skullduggery?