David Von Pein

More liars....(Roy Truly) More lies.... More phony affidavits.... This is the fantasy world of the fantasist named Jimmy D. Watch the Curry video, Jimmy. (Which I edited and uploaded just for use in this discussion.) It'll do you good to watch it. That way, you'll get to add Chief Curry to your Liars List too (if he's not already on it, which he probably is---along with the rest of Texas and the southwest).... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8rOIfOh-4Y

Yes, of course. Why would I think they were BOTH lying out their asses? That's a ridiculous belief. Plus, as I've pointed out before, Oswald HIMSELF confirmed the encounter with the policeman via Fritz' interview with LHO. Plus, Police Chief Jesse Curry on 11/23 verified the TSBD encounter between LHO and "my police officer" (who we know was Baker; you think Curry could be talking about anyone OTHER than Baker here when he says "my police officer"?). Also see: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-101.html

The "mysterious Sawyer witness" you keep referring to is, of course, very likely Howard Brennan himself. From PatSpeer.com (oops...sorry...just kidding...I meant: From DVP's JFK Archives....) Another theory that CTers seem to like quite a bit is the one that claims it wasn't really Brennan who gave the first description of the Depository sniper to the police just a few minutes after the shooting. Conspiracists want to believe, evidently, that either the police simply made up out of thin air the description of the assailant in the TSBD .... or .... that it was some other (unknown and never identified) person who gave DPD Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer the description of the killer....which was a description that almost perfectly matched the one Brennan gave in his 11/22 affidavit. I don't deny that there was/is some confusion regarding who exactly it was who gave the first description of the assassin to the police (which was the basis for the initial APB broadcast by the DPD at 12:44 PM on 11/22/63). But to believe that it was someone other than Brennan who gave Inspector Sawyer the description of the killer is to also believe that two strange things occurred in relation to this "other" witness (with #2 belonging in a separate "Very Odd And Amazingly Coincidental" category): 1.) It was a witness who was never identified (and never bothered to come forward to be identified), even though he is providing some of the most important info in history. 2.) This unknown witness' physical description of the assassin just happens to perfectly coincide with the info that Brennan supplied the police and the Secret Service and (later) the Warren Commission. Also -- If there WAS, in fact, yet ANOTHER witness who saw the exact same thing that Brennan saw, this would tend to buttress (even more) the notion that Oswald, or someone who looked very similar to Oswald, was firing from just where Brennan said the man was firing from in the Book Depository Building. Herbert Sawyer broadcast the following description of the assassin over the Dallas Police radio just at 12:44 PM, just 14 minutes after President Kennedy was shot: "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30, 5-feet-10, 165, carrying what looks to be a thirty-thirty or some type of Winchester." Now, the "30-30/Winchester" remark indicates that the description put out over the DPD radio by Sawyer probably came from multiple sources, one of which (given the physical description supplied) was almost certainly Brennan. Plus, Sawyer's bulletin also erroneously assumed that the assassin, after fleeing the Depository, was still "carrying" the weapon he had just used to cut down the President of the United States. Obviously, that portion of the bulletin turned out to be incorrect; and common sense would also dictate that the killer (unless he was entirely suicidal) probably wouldn't have had a desire to walk out of Dealey Plaza while holding a rifle for all to see just minutes after the President had been shot. Plus -- Brennan's WC testimony indicates that he thinks he talked to "Mr. Sorrels" right in front of the "Book Store" a mere minutes after the last shot was fired. But we know this cannot be true -- because it was established that Forrest Sorrels of the Secret Service did not return to Dealey Plaza until approximately 12:50 PM to 12:55 PM.

And yet we KNOW from Baker's 11/22 affidavit that Baker DID think Oswald weighed 165. You think Baker lied in his affidavit? What the heck for? Or do you think Baker saw somebody OTHER than Oswald in the lunchroom? In which case, you've now got to think Roy Truly was lying. Which guy do you want to toss under the bus? Baker or Truly? It's gotta be one of them. Unless you think Truly was fooled into thinking the man Baker said weighed 165 pounds was really Lee Oswald (even though it wasn't).

I just don't know. And before I get jumped on by anyone here, I did state in some previous posts that I do think that the weight estimates provided by Baker and Brennan and the Dallas coroner were inaccurate estimates. So you could assume from those remarks that I think Oswald probably weighed less than 150 pounds (and certainly less than 165 or 175). But I never stated any exacting figure because I just don't know. And, as I said, I don't care. It doesn't matter to me. But the fact remains (as I emphasize this point for the umpteenth time)..... Marrion Baker definitely saw LEE OSWALD on 11/22, and Baker said he thought LHO weighed 165 pounds. And even if your poll grows to 1000 to 0 in favor of "131 pounds", it won't change that estimate provided by Baker on 11/22/63. Will it, Tommy? Yes. I think that would be a more accurate figure. (And remember that Gallup is probably watching this thread too. And they strive for accuracy in all polls.)

Tommy, Why have you put quote marks around something I have never once said and then put my initials after that quote as if I had actually uttered those words? I never said those words at all. I don't know exactly what Oswald weighed and I really don't care. The KEY is what those witnesses THOUGHT Oswald weighed. What he ACTUALLY weighed is immaterial. When will that important distinction sink in with CTers?

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: Please note above, Davey never answered my question. Because he likely did not read either of the books. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Of course I haven't read any of your books. None. Nada. I get enough of your nonsense just reading it on the Internet. Why would I torture myself further by actually buying one of your fantasy books? And it appears that Jim has already forgotten this short exchange we had just two days ago on this forum: DiEUGENIO -- "Now if you look through the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, which you will not..." DVP -- "A double root canal would be preferable to reading that book. I mean, a guy who still props up Garrison in the 21st century? Geesh. Incredible." BTW, that was a hint that I had NOT read Jim's book. So, let's continue.... I'm assuming that Jimmy is probably about done spreading his snake oil through the veins of this forum thread (for the moment anyway), so I'll talk again.... Nothing Jim DiEugenio has said in this thread [beginning here] concerning Marrion Baker negates the "second-floor encounter" that Officer Baker had with Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63. That encounter, on the second floor, is even confirmed by Oswald himself in the written report of Dallas Police Homicide Captain J. Will Fritz. Here's what Fritz said on page 2 of his report.... "I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a Coca-Cola when the officer came in." -- Warren Report; Page 600 And the "second floor" encounter between Baker and Oswald is also mentioned in Fritz' handwritten notes as well, right here. And if Jim wants to switch gears and talk about the "Coca-Cola" that Fritz said that Oswald said he was drinking at the time of the lunchroom encounter with Officer Baker, I'm prepared for that argument too. Click here. So, in order for Jim to have a prayer of debunking the second-floor lunchroom encounter between Baker and Oswald, DiEugenio has no choice but to call all three of the following people outright liars when it comes to this particular issue: Marrion Baker. Roy Truly. Lee Harvey Oswald (DiEugenio's resident "patsy" for all 11/22/63 murders). Now, granted, Mr. Oswald was one heck of a l-i-a-r. No doubt about that. He practically turned into a lying machine after he was arrested in the Texas Theater on November 22nd. But in this instance we're discussing here, when he was answering Captain Fritz' question about where he was located when the policeman encountered him within the Depository building, he was not lying. And we can know for an absolute fact he was not lying in this instance due to the fact that his "second floor" version of the event is corroborated by TWO other people---Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. It's kind of a funny switch here, isn't it? The LNer (DVP) is supporting and believing something uttered by Oswald; and the CTer (DiEugenio) has no choice but to think Oswald was lying about this incident. Or maybe Jim thinks Captain Fritz just put the words "second floor" into Oswald's mouth when Fritz wrote up his report. Either way, we can add one more "l-i-a-r" to Jim's growing list of liars, can't we, Jim? Jim DiEugenio is packaging and selling snake oil. He has attempted to dress up his snake oil in a "scholarly" and "well sourced" manner. But it's still snake oil that Jimmy is selling and nothing more. The initial inconsistencies in Marrion Baker's account of what floor he saw Oswald on do not mean that Baker was lying. He simply mixed up the floor numbers in his rush to race up the stairs in a frantic effort to locate the President's assassin. The very same kind of early first-day inconsistencies and innocent errors of fact can be found in several other places within the JFK assassination landscape. For instance, there are the initial news reports of FOUR bullet shells being found on the FIFTH floor of the Book Depository. But when the dust had settled, it became obvious that those early news reports were simply erroneous (and non-sinister) in nature, and that, in reality, only three shells had been found in the building--and on the SIXTH floor, not the fifth. Two more examples that show how people can get things innocently mixed up can be found in the affidavits of two Dealey Plaza witnesses, Ronald Fischer and Robert Edwards. In Fischer's 11/22/63 affidavit, he said he saw a man on the "fifth floor". He later told the Warren Commission that the "white man" he saw was on either the "fifth or sixth floor". And since we know from the picture taken by Tom Dillard that there was no "white man" in any window on the southeast side of the fifth floor, Fischer was simply mistaken when he said "fifth floor" in his initial affidavit. And Edwards, who was standing next to Fischer during the assassination, made the very same mistake Fischer made when Edwards filled out his affidavit on November 22 too. Edwards said the man was on the "fifth floor". But we can know that he really meant to say "sixth floor", because in the same affidavit Edwards said "there was a stack of boxes around him". And there certainly was not a "stack of boxes" surrounding anyone in the fifth-floor windows that day. So, as we can see, it's certainly not unusual for witnesses to be mistaken when it comes to the TSBD's floor numbers. It seems as if a whole new breed of conspiracy theorist is among us. And members of this new breed, in addition to being part of the proverbial "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity, are now also members of the "It Never Happened At All" club too. I can remember not that long ago when CTers would argue in FAVOR of the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter happening just where all sensible people know it happened--in the second-floor lunchroom of the TSBD. With those CTers using that FACT as "proof" (they would say) of conspiracy, because they'd say that Oswald couldn't possibly have made it down to the second floor in time to see Officer Baker in the lunchroom. But now we get INHAA [It Never Happened At All] members (like Mr. DiEugenio) who can never use that other "He Couldn't Have Made It There In Time" argument ever again---because DiEugenio is convinced the encounter never happened at all. And the same with the "paper bag" argument. In past years, that brown paper bag (CE142) that Oswald was seen carrying on the morning of November 22, 1963, was propped up as a "proof of conspiracy" crown jewel by the conspiracy faithful, with the CTers insisting the bag itself was proof that Oswald never carried any rifle into the Depository on November 22 because the bag was way too short. But now, it's a new ballgame with the bag. And people like Jim DiEugenio can never again utilize the "Too Short" argument. Why? Because Jimmy assures the world that Oswald never had a bag at all on November 22. Go figure. Kind of funny, isn't it? I think so. JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: 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. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: And nobody can sell snake oil and a bunch of made-up, imaginary crap like you can, Jimbo. You just might be the new Babe Ruth of snake oil salesmen, Jimmy. Congratulations on that fine achievement in life. My favorite bits of Jimbo made-up fantasy from his recent marathon filibuster regarding Marrion Baker and Lee Harvey Oswald are these gut-busters (which should make the "Fantasy Hall-of-Fame" very soon).... "I believe the incident [i.e., second-floor encounter] was created after the fact. .... I think the guy on the stairway was probably the guy that [James] 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 [Murphy] 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." -- James DiEugenio; July 14, 2015 Only two words need be uttered by me at this point in the proceedings --- Oh brother! And please note that Jim D. totally avoids and/or ignores the affidavit of Depository Superintendent Roy Truly. It is, in fact, Mr. Truly who VERIFIED that Baker was pointing his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald in that second-floor lunchroom on 11/22/63. Mr. Truly is the key to knowing that the man who was seen by Officer Baker on the second floor was, in fact, the one and only Lee H. Oswald --- and that's because Mr. Truly was the man who had hired Oswald at the Depository just one month before the assassination. Ergo, Truly knew Oswald on sight and then Truly cleared Oswald as being just one of the TSBD employees, so Baker let Oswald go on his way (unfortunately for Officer J.D. Tippit). Roy S. Truly filled out this affidavit in his own words on Saturday, November 23, 1963, just one day after President Kennedy was murdered by Lee Oswald. Let's have a look at what Mr. Truly had to say (which DiEugenio completely ignored during his marathon posting session just a little while ago). The added emphasis is my own.... "The officer and I went through the shipping department to the freight elevator. We then started up the stairway. We hit the second floor landing, the officer stuck his head into the lunch room area where there are Coke and candy machines. Lee Oswald was in there. The officer had his gun on Oswald and asked me if he was an employee. I answered yes." -- Roy Truly; 11/23/63 Therefore, on the day after the assassination, the Depository's Superintendent, Roy Truly, is saying that he and Officer Baker definitely did encounter Lee Oswald (and nobody else) on the second floor of the TSBD right after the shooting of the President. I guess Jim DiEugenio didn't think that Mr. Truly's affidavit was important at all. Eh, Jim? Plus, we can also turn to Police Chief Jesse Curry's impromptu press conferences on Saturday (11/23/63) for additional confirmation that an encounter between Lee Harvey Oswald and a Dallas policeman did take place inside the Depository building just minutes after the President was shot. And keep in mind this conversation with Chief Curry occurred only about 24 hours after JFK was killed. That's not much time for any "cover story" about the Baker/Oswald encounter to have developed and evolved. There is no mention of the "second floor" or "lunchroom" during Curry's interview with reporters, but it's quite clear from Curry's comments that an encounter DID take place inside the TSBD between a Dallas police officer and Lee Harvey Oswald... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2oJmFGgfM3zSG5VWjhwaFFIV1U/view REPORTER (BOB CLARK OF ABC) -- "Has he [Oswald] admitted that he was in the building at the time the shots were fired?" DALLAS POLICE CHIEF JESSE CURRY -- "Yes....well, we know...he couldn't deny that. We have witnesses." [...] REPORTER (TOM PETTIT OF NBC) -- "Chief Curry, could you detail for us what led you to Oswald?" CHIEF CURRY -- "Not exactly. Except...when we went to the building, he was observed in the building at the time, but the manager told us that he worked there. And the officers [sic] passed him on up then because the manager said he is an employee." REPORTER -- "Is that before the shooting or after?" CHIEF CURRY -- "After the shooting." [...] REPORTER (TOM PETTIT) -- "Did you say, Chief, that a policeman had seen him in the building, after the shot was fired?" CHIEF CURRY -- "Yes." REPORTER (TOM PETTIT) -- "Why didn't he arrest him then?" CHIEF CURRY -- "Because the manager of the place told us that he was an employee. He said he's alright, he's an employee." REPORTER (BOB CLARK) -- "Did he look suspicious to the policeman at this point?" CHIEF CURRY -- "I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building." [...] REPORTER (TOM PETTIT) -- "And you have the witness who places him there [in the TSBD] after the time of the shooting?" CHIEF CURRY -- "My police officer can place him there after the time of the shooting." Also see: MARRION BAKER VIDEOS INTERVIEWS WITH JESSE CURRY

Pat, I'm still scratching my head about the "Refused To Sign" remark if the prints seen in CE630 were really taken on 11/25/63. And the HSCA doesn't seem to think the CE630 prints were taken on 11/25 either..... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0195a.htm ~big shrug~ And the fingerprint card signed by J.B. Hicks is dated 11-22-63. It is seen in CE627.... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0154b.htm Did Hicks take Oswald's prints twice? He sure as heck never said a word in his Warren Commission testimony about fingerprinting Lee Oswald after he was killed. Hicks said he fingerprinted Oswald in Captain Fritz' office at the DPD.... Mr. BALL -- "Where were you when you took the prints?" Mr. HICKS -- "I was in Captain Fritz' office. In other words, I made those on an inkless pad. That's a pad we use for fingerprinting people without the black ink that they make for the records." ~~~~~~~~~ Hicks also said this..... Mr. BALL -- "Did you do anything else with respect to the investigation?" Mr. HICKS -- "I don't recall anything outstanding that I did in the investigation further there. Now, I know we were all pretty well busy there until about 2 or 2:30 in the morning but most of it was, I would imagine regular office work and just back and forth if someone had asked did we get a picture of this and picture of that; well, I can't recall any other particular item that I might have done." http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hicks.htm ~~~~~~~~~ Why wouldn't Hicks have told the Warren Commission that he had fingerprinted Oswald in the morgue if he really had done so and if it was merely "a routine assignment for the Crime Lab", as it says in the book "First Day Evidence"?

Let's cut to the chase --- You're full of crap, Jimmy. And the worst part is that you don't even know it. (Or maybe you do, but you can't admit it.) The bottom line on this is that you said something that was incredibly stupid and I called you on it. And now you don't like it. Well, that's just tough, Jimbo. And you can't walk it back. So you're stuck with that dumb quote from now until doomsday. You said something that is not supported by the facts in any way, shape, or form--and you damn well know it. And the incredibly stupid thing you said was this.... "Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015 The above quote doesn't come close to resembling the facts and the witness testimony of both Marrion L. Baker and Roy S. Truly, and anyone with the ability to read the testimony (and to watch the video below) knows it. And yet I am being chastised for "making stuff up". The irony is so delicious and thick, we'd need a chainsaw to slice through it. You, Jimmy D., give new meaning to the words POT, KETTLE, and "MAKING STUFF UP". You're a joke, Jimmy. And, yes, you're a clown. (There, I said it again. Cry me a river.) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-rcjDGNFEH_eGtobmZGdmthcW8/view

It's fun just making up total crap out of whole cloth, isn't it Jimmy?

Do you actually have some DOUBT as to whether Oswald was dead on Nov. 25, Glenn? Or are you in "Sarcastic" mode again tonight? ~shrug~

Yeah, as I've mentioned several times now, it would be a little difficult for Oswald to sign the fingerprint card on November 25 seeing as how Lee had been dead for about 24 hours by that time.

Footnote/Addendum: Also see 8 HSCA 385, which indicates that the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald seen in CE630 were taken on "November 22, 1963", and not on November 25. However, author Vincent Bugliosi was of the opinion that the FBI did take Oswald's prints after his death on November 25 at Miller Funeral Home in Fort Worth, Texas. [see pages 413-415 of Endnotes in Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History".] I, however, tend to disagree with Mr. Bugliosi on this particular topic. I think Vince overlooked the date shown at the top of 8 HSCA 385, and Vince also might not have realized the significance of the words "Refused To Sign" that are typed on the fingerprint card seen in CE630 and on page 385 of HSCA Volume 8. Those words -- "Refused To Sign" -- almost assuredly mean that Lee Oswald was ALIVE, and not dead at a funeral home in Fort Worth, when those fingerprints were taken off of Oswald's hands. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html

I agree, Michael Cross. You're exactly right. Every human body is different in many subtle ways. Now, try telling that to Bob "THE BULLET COULDN'T HAVE MISSED JFK'S VERTEBRAE" Prudhomme.

Nobody is suggesting that LHO gained 20 pounds in two days. The three people who estimated his weight simply THOUGHT he looked like he weighed more than he did. That's all. Why on Earth are you playing dumb and pretending like you don't realize the basic point I was making about those three weight estimates? Those THREE people (Baker, Brennan, Dallas coroner) all were looking at LHO....and ALL THREE estimated his weight as being somewhere between 150 and 175 pounds. But Oswald very likely did not weigh that much at all. And yet we have three people in Nov. '63 who thought that he did weigh that much. The actual and TRUE weight of Oswald is totally irrelevant in this discussion. It's what those three witnesses THOUGHT Oswald's true weight was that is relevant. Do you really not understand this, Glenn? I already explained this in my last post. Go read it and find out.

When I said "And btw, Oswald's weight at his autopsy was estimated at "150 pounds". Not 131-132 lbs.", it was a direct response to this comment by Tommy.... "Oswald weighed only 131 or 132 pounds at autopsy." ....which looked to me as if Tommy was incorrectly asserting that THE AUTOPSY REPORT ITSELF said that LHO weighed 131-132, since Tommy used the words "at autopsy" in his comment. But, again, the main point I've been stressing is that MORE THAN ONE PERSON who saw the real Lee Oswald in Nov. '63 incorrectly thought Oswald weighed more than he really weighed. Are you going to deny that fact, Glenn? Even with the autopsy estimate AND Marrion Baker's 11/22 affidavit staring you in the face? Not to mention Brennan, who we all know DID see Lee Oswald shooting at the President (even though no CTer on the Internet would ever have the guts to admit that obvious fact). So that really makes three different people who estimated Oswald's weight at between 150 and 175 pounds. And I have no doubt at all that those three persons were each looking at the real Lee Oswald when they made those estimates.

Yeah, sure, Glenn. That's why I utilized the "wink" and "smiley" icons in my post. Because I knew you must've been dead serious. Good job, Glenn. Nothing slips by you.

And I answered that question when I said: "I really don't know." Why are you acting like I never answered it? Of course not, Glenn. And I have never once suggested anything that silly. LHO's autopsy report (CE1981) estimates his weight at 150 pounds. That figure is very likely not a correct one. But so what? It's just an estimate for the paperwork that was done. Perhaps Oswald looked a little heavier to the coroner who was doing the autopsy. I don't know. And it matters very little (if at all) in the long run. But I will say this.... If Oswald did weigh only 131 pounds on Nov. 22 when he was arrested, then the "150 pounds" estimate we find in the autopsy report would serve as just one additional item to indicate that different people who were looking at the real Lee Oswald were making inaccurate (i.e., too heavy) guesses as to Oswald's weight. We know Marrion Baker guessed incorrectly in a "too heavy" manner. And we can see that the person who estimated LHO's weight at his autopsy did the same thing --- he thought Oswald weighed more than he really did.

Are you sure you meant to say it that way, Glenn? But thanks anyway. yes, i meant to say it that way, David. exactly that way. i wanted it to reek of sarcasm, to smell of sarcasm the way wet dogs smell of "yeck" - thinking you are aware enough to detect it and know what i'm really saying. am i expecting too much, David? Yeah, I figured you were in Sarcasm mode there. I'm used to it. Good job.

Are you sure you meant to say it that way, Glenn? But thanks anyway.

So you're pretty much saying the patsy-framers screwed up pretty badly, huh? They were trying to frame the very skinny, 131-pound Lee Oswald, but they used a 165-pound person as their "Oswald double"? Is that it? And you think BOTH Baker and Brennan were "coached"? And what about Roy Truly? Was he "coached" to say the encounter occurred on the second floor too? Tommy, that's a lot of unprovable and unfounded speculation on your part, don't you think? You have no GOOD reason to think Marrion Baker was "coached". Why would you even suggest such a thing? I'll answer my last question myself --- You NEED to suggest it in order for your conspiracy theory to work. So--voila!--Baker was "coached". Not very persuasive, Tommy.

Glenn, I said Tommy was "mixed up" because he was. And he knows that now too. Tommy was claiming things were happening to the dead body of Lee Oswald on Nov. 25 that could not have been happening to Oswald on Nov. 25, because Lee was inside a casket that whole day. That's what I meant by "mixed up".

As I proved earlier [in another EF thread], it was certainly possible for a person to stare right at Lee Harvey Oswald and guess his AGE and WEIGHT incorrectly. And Marrion L. Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit is the PROOF that that did happen. And, as fate would have it, Howard Brennan said the sixth-floor assassin was around 30 years of age and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds....perfectly matching Baker's inaccurate guesses with respect to the real Lee Harvey Oswald. And Mr. Oswald just happened to be a man whose fingerprints (and bullet shells) littered the exact same place where Brennan saw his "30-year-old, 165- to 175-pound" assassin in the window firing a rifle. How 'bout that for coincidence? Baker's 11/22 Affidavit: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4oxRP0t5ZBM/Tvw52B7FIGI/AAAAAAAABwU/QbBHYHhIM4Q/s1200-h/Marrion-Baker-Affidavit.gif Brennan's 11/22 Affidavit: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jTmnYgFvqzM/Tvw3vTpzhsI/AAAAAAAABuI/QJ__Z34iHho/s1200-h/Howard-Brennan-Affidavit.gif

I really don't know. I'm puzzled by those figures too (69.5 inches and 131 lbs. exactly). I was looking through the WC exhibits relating to the cards that Oswald had on him when he was arrested, and I was thinking that one of those cards might have had that height and weight information on them. But I didn't find any such document or card. But I'm thinking there might be one. But I suppose it's also possible the DPD put Oswald on a scale and also measured his height as part of the routine procedure when booking a suspect who has been arrested. (Is it routine to "weigh in" the suspects after they're arrested? I haven't the foggiest idea. But maybe they did. That info could be in the WC testimony of some DPD personnel, I suppose.) But the whole topic about Marrion Baker seeing somebody OTHER than the real Lee Oswald on the 2nd floor is simply CTer desperation in full-fledged panic mode. Nothing more than that. As I proved earlier, it was certainly possible for a person to stare right at Lee Harvey Oswald and guess his AGE and WEIGHT incorrectly. And Marrion L. Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit is the PROOF that that did happen. And, as fate would have it, Howard Brennan said the sixth-floor assassin was around 30 years of age and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds....perfectly matching Baker's inaccurate guesses with respect to the real Lee Harvey Oswald. And Mr. Oswald just happened to be a man whose fingerprints (and bullet shells) littered the exact same place where Brennan saw his "30-year-old, 165- to 175-pound" assassin in the window firing a rifle. How 'bout that for coincidence?