David Von Pein

On 12/23/2017 at 5:43 PM, Micah Mileto said:

Joseph Nicol (the only expert out of 7 to claim the Tippit slugs matched the revolver in evidence)...

You're overstating Nicol's testimony. Nicol only said that ONE of the 4 Tippit bullets could be matched to Oswald's revolver. Not all four.

But the thing that CTers never like to admit is that Tippit was killed by bullets that each exhibited unique and different characteristics. And OSWALD owned a revolver that fired such erratic bullets.

That's kind of interesting, don't you think?

It's only a circumstantial thing, but it certainly goes in the direction of OSWALD'S revolver being in the mix of potential weapons that could have killed Tippit. And then when you add in the ballistics PROOF that it was Oswald's gun (which he was holding 35 minutes after the murder)--namely the 4 bullet shells--then LHO's guilt becomes ironclad.

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What test proved that those fragments came from the Carcano?

The same type of "striation" test the FBI has always used. Both fragments came from the C2766 rifle without a doubt....

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

David, is there a document stating that the latent palm print had finally been photographed? That's what we need.

CE637 is a picture of the palmprint. I can't see any distinct print there either, but do you really think the DPD & WC just introduced a BLANK CARD and then just SAID it had LHO's palmprint on it? The print is on that card---it's just very hard to see because the detail in the picture is not very good.

Plus....

Latona positively IDed CE637 as the palmprint of Oswald. Was Latona lying here too?....

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to identify this print which shows on the lift Exhibit 637?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you succeed in making identification?

Mr. LATONA. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.

Mr. EISENBERG. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

SANDY LARSEN SAID:

That wasn't in your list [about "Fort Worth" and the revolver].


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, it was. It's in Part 2 of my "Oswald's Lies" series.


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

He [Lee Harvey Oswald] was obviously a patsy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

My thoughts on the matter....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The "Patsy Plot" Silliness (Part 1)
 

Sandy Larsen said:

In summary,

....Shelley and Lovelady's 1963 statements and the Darnell film are all consistent with each other. None of them mention the walk down to the railroad yard and entering the TSBD by way of the west entrance.

....Only in 1964 do their statements 1) mention the railroad yard, 2) mention waiting somewhere for several minutes, and 3) mention entering the west entrance of the TSBD. Those three elements were concocted to discredit Victoria Adams' timing.

....And so it's no big surprise that it's only the 1964 statements where all the irreconcilable inconsistencies are introduced.

Sandy,

I think you're assigning assumed levels of accuracy that are way too high when it comes to your interpretation of all of those various witness statements. Via such statements, given over a period of time (and which vary to some degree in their details, including adding more details [TRUE details, mind you, not made-up details] to subsequent tellings of their story which they had not previously mentioned, which is a very normal thing to have happen when someone tells a story over and over again), there's no way to pinpoint a perfect timeline with spot-on accuracy. Can't be done.

And the reason it can't be done is mainly because none of those witnesses was specifically TIMING anything that they did on November 22nd. Therefore, when they told their stories later on, they were providing ESTIMATES (i.e., their BEST GUESSES) concerning how long it took them to do this or that. To think we could possibly nail with detailed precision (practically right down to the minute) the type of exact timeline that the conspiracy theorists require would be akin to believing in miracles.

In short, there was absolutely no need for Billy Lovelady or Bill Shelley to "lie" about anything that happened on 11/22/63. And I see no "proof" that either one of them did.

You, Sandy, obviously strongly disagree with me. But to think that someone within "Officialdom" somehow got all of these various people (Lovelady, Shelley, Baker, Truly, and maybe more?) to tell a bunch of lies just so the official "patsy framers" could say the second-floor lunchroom encounter took place is something that I think all reasonable people would consider to be a totally FANTASTIC idea. And it's a fantastic idea that I don't think the conspiracy theorists have nearly enough support for.

Also....

Why is it that so many people who weren't charged with committing two murders (e.g., Billy Lovelady, Bill Shelley, Marrion Baker, et al) are accused of being liars in the JFK case, and the person who was charged with two murders is treated with kid gloves by so many conspiracists? Isn't that also a rather "fantastic" idea? (I think it is.)

But thanks, Sandy, for providing your detailed response in this thread. This discussion has made a good addition to my JFK Archives.

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Every one of those things that you claim is a lie sounds like the truth to me.

So, you think Oswald DIDN'T own a rifle?

You think Oswald bought his revolver in Fort Worth?

You think Oswald was telling the TRUTH when he said he had never used the alias "Hidell" in his life?

You think Oswald was telling the truth when he said he had never said anything at all about "curtain rods" to Wes Frazier?

You think Oswald was being truthful when he said he didn't carry any large-ish bag into the TSBD on Nov. 22?

You think Oswald was being truthful when he said "I didn't shoot anybody" (not even J.D. Tippit)?!

And on and on....

Come now, Sandy, you're wayyyyy too smart to fall for such obvious lies.......aren't you?

Sandy,

I think it just goes to show that if someone (such as a conspiracy believer) tries hard enough, they will probably be able to scour the records and statements and find something that they feel verifies the thing they are trying to prove.

Take the "Greer Shot JFK" theory. If you look at a particular frame of the Zapruder Film, the sunlight on Roy Kellerman's head does somewhat resemble a "gun". So, for some CTers, that frame(s) of the Z-Film--alone--is enough for them to advance their ludicrous theory.

And I have no doubt that a good researcher who has access to all the documents and various witness and FBI statements and reports can probably come up with a pretty decent argument for why that researcher believes the second-floor encounter is a fake. There's always SOMETHING that doesn't quite "ADD UP", isn't there? Somebody's statement, for example, will almost always be in conflict with this other person's statement. But I think you, Sandy, said it well in your last post when you said this:

"The point is that there is no incentive for trying to make the encounter fake."

I agree with that sentiment, too.

And I'd like to see your "proof" to back up these three bold declarations (I, of course, don't think any of these things are correct at all):

"We have proof that Lovelady lied, and Shelley lied, and we know from Victoria Adams that the WC altered her testimony." -- S. Larsen

Oh, come now, Sandy. You must be kidding.

The evidence is telling us that Oswald was a Mega L-i-a-r.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/Oswald's Lies (Part 1)

24 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Yeh, go ahead and believe those statements  which suit your stance, David. 

Everybody does that, Ray. Picking and choosing is human nature and always will be. I've yet to meet a single person who doesn't "pick & choose" to a certain extent. CTers certainly do it too. They love the part about Oswald telling Fritz that he (LHO) was on the "first floor" eating lunch when JFK was shot (WCR, p.600), but many Internet CTers have decided to just ignore the part when Oswald told Fritz he was on the "second floor" when the officer came in.

4 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

So according to Fritz, Oswald said he was having lunch on the first floor when the president was shot.

Then he went upstairs and got a coke.

So if you want to believe everything that Fritz said was true then Oswald couldn't have been on the sixth floor when the President was shot. 

Only if I choose to believe the word of the alleged assassin. (Duh!)

And given Lee's track record for telling lies (and lots of them), why in the world would anyone believe most of the things Oswald told Fritz?

But in one of the rare instances when he actually told the truth, we CAN believe him when he told Fritz that the encounter with Baker happened on the SECOND FLOOR. We KNOW that part of Oswald's statement to Fritz was true because we've got Baker AND Truly to corroborate it.

Many CTers here, however, seem to feel that FRITZ was the l-i-a-r when he said LHO said it was the second floor. Some CTers are desperate to keep that encounter from occurring on the second floor, which is kind of funny and ironic, because I can recall arguing with some conspiracy theorists not that long ago who were using the "Second-Floor Encounter" as absolute PROOF (in their minds) that Oswald was innocent. Because they'd always tell me that there was no way in the world Oswald could have possibly made it down to the lunchroom from the sixth floor in about 90 seconds (despite the fact that a Secret Service agent did it [twice] in less than 80 seconds).

But nowadays, it seems to be in vogue for conspiracists to believe the 2nd-floor encounter never took place AT ALL. Funny, huh? It's similar to the transformation that has occurred with the "paper bag" theory too. In the past, CTers would always say "That bag Oswald took to work is too short to hold the rifle" (and many CTers still do use that argument, of course). But it's now becoming more popular among CTers to just pretend that the bag never existed in the first place. Poof! It's gone! Oswald never had ANY paper bag with him at all on November 22! Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Randle lied their butts off! That's how silly and fantastic some of the conspiracy theories have become.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

DVP will do anything except admit that Oswald's story--told when he was alive--...aligns with Baker's first day story.

Oh, so you think Oswald told somebody that he was on the "THIRD OR FOURTH FLOOR" when Officer Baker stopped him, eh? Please point me to THAT interesting statement made by Oswald.

No such statement by LHO exists, of course, since we all know---via Page 600 of the Warren Report---that Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was on the "second floor" when the officer came into the room. But you think Fritz just MADE UP the "second floor" part, don't you?

2 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Oswald could easily have run down the stairs in 90 seconds.

But, I'm sorry. I must have missed something. Could you please provide me the name of the eyewitness who saw him running down the stairs?

And since Oswald wasn't seen by anyone running down the stairs, you think that means it was IMPOSSIBLE for him to have done so?

Did Adams and Styles see Baker and Truly coming up the same stairs they were on?

Answer: No.

Does that mean that Baker & Truly never went up those stairs?

Answer: No.

Quote

Don't you think it's odd that you have the only eyewitness to the man committing the greatest crime of the 20th Century, and neither the Chief of Police, or the Captain of the Homicide Bureau could bother to be at the lineup where the perpetrator is identified?

So I assume the above comment, Steve, means that you now believe that Howard Brennan never even attended a lineup at the Dallas Police Department at all, is that right?

If so, you must think this testimony is just a bunch of made-up crap invented by Mr. Brennan, correct?....

DAVID BELIN -- "Now, taking you down to the Dallas Police Station, I believe you said you talked to Captain Fritz. And then what happened?"

HOWARD BRENNAN -- "Well, I was just more or less introduced to him in Mr. Sorrels' room, and they told me they were going to conduct a lineup and wanted me to view it, which I did."

Quote

Again, I'm sorry, but were Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints found anywhere else on the sixth floor?

Yes, indeed, his prints most certainly were found in various places on the sixth floor---on two different boxes which were located DEEP INSIDE the assassin's Sniper's Nest. Plus, two LHO prints on the 38-inch brown paper bag that several police officers said they saw in the corner of the Nest before it was picked up. And, of course, Oswald's prints were, as already mentioned, on the Carcano rifle that Oswald ditched between some boxes in the northwest corner of the sixth floor.

And, IMO, the reason there weren't more of LHO's prints on the rifle is because he very likely utilized his brown shirt as a fingerprint-wiping rag right after the assassination, wiping as many prints from the rifle as he could as he ran across the sixth floor. He then ditched the rifle near the stairwell and then put the brown shirt back on as he ran down the stairs, leaving it untucked and unbuttoned (hence the reason Marrion Baker thought the brown SHIRT resembled a JACKET).

All that stuff I just mentioned is my own opinion, and needs to be identified as just that--my OPINION--but it fits very nicely with some of the physical evidence in the case, and it fits fairly well with some of the witnesses who said the shooter was wearing only a "light-colored" or a "white" shirt (which would have been Oswald's white T-shirt, of course). He probably had the brown shirt resting on the floor (or on a box) as he pulled the trigger at 12:30. Plus, my "Used The Shirt To Wipe Fingerprints" theory fits nicely with the evidence of similar shirt fibers being wedged in the butt plate of the rifle. As he was wiping off prints, fibers from the shirt could have easily found their way under the butt plate.

Quote

Please show me the fingerprints taken off the rifle. I'd like to see the actual prints please.

Check out Commission Exhibit No. 637 (which is Oswald's palmprint, taken off the rifle by Lt. J.C. Day on 11/22/63). Also see this important (often overlooked) document.

Now, if you were referring to the FINGERprints on the trigger guard of the rifle....well, those prints were definitely photographed and were examined in detail by many fingerprint experts---one of whom (Vincent Scalice) said:

"We're able for the first time to actually say that these are definitely the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald, and that they are on the rifle. There is no doubt about it." -- Vincent J. Scalice; 1993 [See the first video on this page.]

And although I myself have never seen the photos of the trigger guard fingerprints, some of the pictures of those prints are shown on camera in the 1993 PBS program "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" (during the Scalice segment linked above).

5 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

If you don't have any eyewitnesses, "We can't place Oswald at that window with a gun in his hand." (Jesse Curry)

and you don't have Oswald's prints on the rifle that was found in the TSBD, even if you could prove it was his rifle,

and he's got an alibi by being seen on the second floor within 90 seconds of the shooting, and nobody saw him coming down the stairs...

there's no court in the land that would convict him beyond a reasonable doubt of being the shooter .

Hogwash!

There's tons of evidence to show that Lee Harvey Oswald (and nobody else!) was the shooter:

...OSWALD'S rifle was the murder weapon without doubt -- with CE567 & CE569, the front-seat bullet fragments, providing the proof that Oswald's C2766 rifle was definitely being used by SOMEONE to fire bullets at Kennedy's car on November 22. No reasonable person can possibly deny this fact. Plus, there are the three spent bullet shells (which were tied to Oswald's rifle as well) lying on the floor below the assassin's window, providing additional proof that OSWALD'S RIFLE was being used to shoot at President Kennedy on 11/22/63.

And as I've asked conspiracy theorists in the past --- Who is MORE likely to use Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle on any day of the week (11/22/63 or any other day)---the rifle's owner himself or someone else? That simple and basic observation, all by itself, makes OSWALD much more likely to be JFK's murderer than any other person on the planet.

...OSWALD'S prints are on various things in the exact same tiny area where we know JFK's killer was located--in the Sniper's Nest.

...OSWALD is identified as the assassin by a witness. (Yes, CTers despise Howard L. Brennan, but his testimony is still part of the official record in this case and it always will be, despite the persistent and noisy protests from the conspiracy crowd--and despite that famous quote from Jesse Curry, which is a quote that is just flat-out wrong, to boot.)

...OSWALD is the only Book Depository employee who fits into this very incriminating category --- He was the only employee who is known to have been INSIDE the TSBD Building at the time of the assassination who left the building immediately after the shooting and did not return.

...OSWALD kills J.D. Tippit, which is a crime that is irrevocably linked to the JFK murder, with Oswald killing Tippit while in full flight from his Dealey Plaza murder.

All reasonable people realize that the last sentence I just wrote is 100% accurate and sensible.

...OSWALD lies repeatedly to the police after his arrest.

...And, despite what Steve Thomas said above, OSWALD'S prints were most definitely found on the C2766 Carcano rifle. More on that here.

...And why you, Steve, are saying that Oswald has "an alibi by being seen on the second floor within 90 seconds of the shooting" is a real mystery to me --- because you surely have got to know that anybody who wasn't walking on crutches could easily descend those Depository stairs and travel from the sixth floor to the second floor in under 90 seconds. The Secret Service man who performed such a test (twice) for the Warren Commission managed to travel that distance--at merely a "NORMAL WALKING PACE"--in just 78 seconds [Warren Report, p.152]. So to say that a "90-second" timeline provides Oswald with an "alibi" is just not accurate at all.

More about Oswald's very doable journey from the Sniper's Nest to the 2nd-floor lunchroom can be found here.

...And the reason why "nobody saw him [Oswald] coming down the stairs" isn't very difficult to figure out at all (whether you're referring to Victoria Adams, Sandra Styles, Dorothy Garner, Jack Dougherty, or all four of those people). More about that here.

And so much more here....

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

Twelve jurors who would acquit Oswald must also be related (mentally) to all 12 O.J. jurors.

9 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

If statements from the accused were deemed unimportant, then why is every alleged criminal always allowed to give a statement?

[Deleted duplicate post. Sorry.]

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.

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?

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

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.

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.?

Jim Hargrove said:

By all means chalk it up to clerical errors, call us all the names you can conjure, but that doesn't explain why there is no 5'10" "Lee Harvey Oswald" in the records. Instead, the H&L critics will just talk endlessly about DJ's mistake indicating the shorter Oswald was 5'7" instead of the correct 5'9".  Pay no attention to the 5'11" Oswald, men.  Maybe the evidence will just disappear!

Any idea, Jim, as to WHY the people involved in the "Dual Oswalds" scheme/charade decided to use a guy for their duplicate Oswald who was TWO INCHES TALLER than the real Lee Oswald?

Was it stupidity?

Or were BOTH "Oswalds" really only 5-feet-9 when the ruse began---and then one of them grew another 2 inches later on? (Was he still a growing boy?)

@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.

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.

1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

You think murder is worth joking about, David?

No, but joking about what CTers think happened sure is.

37 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

What happened to Marrion Baker subsequently?

He was murdered by the Assassination Goon Squad. (What else?)

:-)