One Last Thing Before Xmas Eve: 2nd Floor Lunch Room Encounter

[Robert Prudhomme]

Would someone care to refresh my memory on why a SEPTEMBER 23 affidavit would be considered evidence? That would have been 10 months AFTER the assassination...certainly not a FRESH recollection, by ANY stretch of the definition. And September 23 would have been ONE DAY before the WCR was given to the President, and FOUR days before the release of the report to the public. [i'm assuming September 23, 1964 because September 23, 1963 would have been two months PRIOR TO the assassination.]

LOL You're right, Mark. I read that too quickly and saw Nov. 23 (day after assassination) instead of Sept. 23.

[Sandy Larsen]

Would someone care to refresh my memory on why a SEPTEMBER 23 affidavit would be considered evidence? That would have been 10 months AFTER the assassination...certainly not a FRESH recollection, by ANY stretch of the definition. And September 23 would have been ONE DAY before the WCR was given to the President, and FOUR days before the release of the report to the public. [i'm assuming September 23, 1964 because September 23, 1963 would have been two months PRIOR TO the assassination.]

When I read that, my brain processed it as November 23. I suspect Robert's did the same. And I have a feeling that that is what Richard Gilbride meant to write.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Would someone care to refresh my memory on why a SEPTEMBER 23 affidavit would be considered evidence? That would have been 10 months AFTER the assassination...certainly not a FRESH recollection, by ANY stretch of the definition. And September 23 would have been ONE DAY before the WCR was given to the President, and FOUR days before the release of the report to the public. [i'm assuming September 23, 1964 because September 23, 1963 would have been two months PRIOR TO the assassination.]

When I read that, my brain processed it as November 23. I suspect Robert's did the same. And I have a feeling that that is what Richard Gilbride meant to write.

Hi Sandy

No, Richard is referring to the handwritten statement of Marrion Baker, dated 23/09/64.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_3076.pdf

Edit: Did it again. I first wrote the date as 23/11/64 LOL

Edited December 26, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Greg Parker]

Baker supposedly stuck his gun in Oswald's gut for being in a second floor lunchroom. He thought the shots came from much further up. Don't you think if he catches someone on the 6th floor, he is going to hold him?

No. Not unless the person was carrying a gun. Baker very likely would have let him go from the sixth floor (just like he did on the 2nd floor) after Mr. Truly identifies LHO as just another employee. Baker originally thought the gunshots came from the roof, not the 6th floor (or any other floor).

The number one rule of a cop interrogation is to lie through your teeth at every opportunity.

Is that Rule #2A from "The CTer Guide To Make-Believe JFK Conspiracy Theories"?

But such a rule probably is in place for many Internet CTers. Otherwise, outer-fringe conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio and Greg R. Parker wouldn't be able to build up their lists of never-ending liars in the JFK case nearly as easily.

Good imaginary rule, Greg. It keeps you from having to accept the reality of Lee Harvey Oswald's obvious guilt.

"Police routinely lie to and mislead suspects" http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/includes/pdf/CLQ-2.pdf

"interrogation techniques which employ lies" http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1933&context=ulj

[Greg Parker]

It's a Hard Grind Doing the Bump

Mr. BELIN - All right.

Mr. BAKER - And then there are some inner doors and another door you have to go through, a swinging door type.

As I entered this lobby there were people going in as I entered. And I asked, I just spoke out and asked where the stairs or elevator was, and this man, Mr. Truly, spoke up and says, it seems to me like he says, "I am a building manager. Follow me, officer, and I will show you." So we immediately went out through the second set of doors, and we ran into the swinging door.

Mr. BELIN - All right.

Now, during the course of running into the swinging door, did you bump into the back of Mr. Truly?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. BELIN - Then what happened?

Mr. BAKER - We finally backed up and got through that little swinging door there and we kind of all ran, not real fast but, you know, a good trot, to the back of the Building, I was following him.

It just wasn't Truly's day for doors, stairs or elevators...

But here's the thing,,, Baker's 1st day statement...

I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building. As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were.

so "people standing around inside" that he asked directions from morphed into "people going in as I entered" that he asked - and consequently, Truly goes from already being in there to one of those entering.

Baker sure had some short term memory problems. Forgot what floor he stopped a potential suspect on, forgot his description, forgot about the lunchroom altogether, took him until his long term memory kicked in to recall that the coke bottle was a false memory or mirage, forgot that people weren't inside when he got there, they were apparenting pushing past him to get in - and of course - forgot all about the bump and grind he did with Truly until reminded by the ever-helpful Belin.

Thanks God for Truly and Baker - otherwise we'd still be in the dark!

Edited December 26, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Sandy Larsen]

Would someone care to refresh my memory on why a SEPTEMBER 23 affidavit would be considered evidence? That would have been 10 months AFTER the assassination...certainly not a FRESH recollection, by ANY stretch of the definition. And September 23 would have been ONE DAY before the WCR was given to the President, and FOUR days before the release of the report to the public. [i'm assuming September 23, 1964 because September 23, 1963 would have been two months PRIOR TO the assassination.]

When I read that, my brain processed it as November 23. I suspect Robert's did the same. And I have a feeling that that is what Richard Gilbride meant to write.

Hi Sandy

No, Richard is referring to the handwritten statement of Marrion Baker, dated 23/09/64.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_3076.pdf

Edit: Did it again. I first wrote the date as 23/11/64 LOL

Thanks Robert.

11/22/63 and 11/23/63 testimony trumps 11/23/64 testimony. Or 23/11/64 in Robertese.

[Thomas Graves]

Would someone care to refresh my memory on why a SEPTEMBER 23 affidavit would be considered evidence? That would have been 10 months AFTER the assassination...certainly not a FRESH recollection, by ANY stretch of the definition. And September 23 would have been ONE DAY before the WCR was given to the President, and FOUR days before the release of the report to the public. [i'm assuming September 23, 1964 because September 23, 1963 would have been two months PRIOR TO the assassination.]

When I read that, my brain processed it as November 23. I suspect Robert's did the same. And I have a feeling that that is what Richard Gilbride meant to write.

Hi Sandy

No, Richard is referring to the handwritten statement of Marrion Baker, dated 23/09/64.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_3076.pdf

Edit: Did it again. I first wrote the date as 23/11/64 LOL

Thanks Robert.

11/22/63 and 11/23/63 testimony trumps 11/23/64 testimony. Or 23/11/64 in Robertese.

How about 9/23/64's ?

[Sandy Larsen]

Would someone care to refresh my memory on why a SEPTEMBER 23 affidavit would be considered evidence? That would have been 10 months AFTER the assassination...certainly not a FRESH recollection, by ANY stretch of the definition. And September 23 would have been ONE DAY before the WCR was given to the President, and FOUR days before the release of the report to the public. [i'm assuming September 23, 1964 because September 23, 1963 would have been two months PRIOR TO the assassination.]

When I read that, my brain processed it as November 23. I suspect Robert's did the same. And I have a feeling that that is what Richard Gilbride meant to write.

Hi Sandy

No, Richard is referring to the handwritten statement of Marrion Baker, dated 23/09/64.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_3076.pdf

Edit: Did it again. I first wrote the date as 23/11/64 LOL

Thanks Robert.

11/22/63 and 11/23/63 testimony trumps 11/23/64 testimony. Or 23/11/64 in Robertese.

How about 9/23/64's ?

Doh!

Yes Tommy, 9/23/64's too.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Thomas Graves]

Sandy,

What about 23/9/64?

--Tommy

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy,

What about 23/9/64?

--Tommy

The plural 9/23/64's covers all variations of the date.

(Technically speaking, though, the date is possessive not plural.)

[Robert Prudhomme]

I've always wondered which is correct, 22/11/63 or 11/22/63? I see it written both ways and it drives me nuts.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Regardless, I think Mr. Gilbride is asking a lot of us, to put all of our faith in Baker's testimony written almost a year after the assassination; especially when it contradicts his first day statement.

[Sandy Larsen]

I've always wondered which is correct, 22/11/63 or 11/22/63? I see it written both ways and it drives me nuts.

Technically speaking, 22/11/63 is the correct way and 11/22/63 is the American way.

"correct way" = makes more sense

"American way" = we don't care if it makes more sense

[Sandy Larsen]

Regardless, I think Mr. Gilbride is asking a lot of us, to put all of our faith in Baker's testimony written almost a year after the assassination; especially when it contradicts his first day statement.

Yeah. I liked the way Greg Parker described Baker's memory. His short-term memory fades, and later his long-term memory kicks in with a whole new set of facts. LOL, well the way he put it was funny.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Sandy

As you seem to be the studious type, I know that, eventually, you will see something crossed out in this statement. It reads as following:

"I saw a man standing in the lunch room, drinking a Coke."

Many researchers have seen this, and immediately assumed Baker had written "drinking a Coke" and then changed his mind. However, if you look at the handwriting of the initialled "MLB" (Marrion L. Baker) beside this crossing out, you will see the capital "M" differs distinctly from the capital "M" in Marrion at the beginning of the statement.

This is because this statement, given to our old friends the FBI, was taken by SA Richard J. Burnett, and the text of the statement was plainly written by Burnett, and signed by Baker.

Therefore, the correction by Baker was a mistake made by Burnett. The question is, why did so many people think Oswald was holding or drinking a Coke?