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

[Greg Parker]

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?

Why? Because both Mrs. Reid and Oswald said so.

But if the FBI agent wrote that statement and not Baker and if Baker made no OTHER reference to a coke, then I take it back about him recalling it was a mirage. In fact, based on this information, I'll go one better and chalk this one up for the LIN side by saying it is now rendered non-suspicious. Yep. The LNs got something right. They just have no clue as to why they are right. I will explain in the paper I'm writing for this joint.

[Sandy Larsen]

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?

I have seen Baker's second-day statement and, of course, noticed the crossed off "drinking a coke." He also crossed off something and replaced it with "[second] floor." I'll bet the crossed off words are "[second] or third floor," judging from what he wrote on his first-day statement.

I studied the statement for a few minutes and I'm certain the the handwriting is SA Burnett's. It was a bit confusing at first because I compared the letters "s" first. Burnett apparently has two different ways of writing S, and that confused me. But after that it became clear that the handwriting is his. The only things Baker wrote were his signature and initials.

The obvious next question is, did Baker dictate what was written, or was it fabricated by Burnett or someone else. Given the corrected floor number, it seems reasonable to conclude that Baker dictated his statement. (Baker approximates floor levels)

So it appears that Baker dictated the phrase "drinking a coke." Later, someone -- presumably Burnett -- crossed the phrase off.

What we could use is a list of every mention of the word "coke" to see if we can figure out who first came up with that. It seems like Oswald may have mentioned coke himself. Didn't he say he ate lunch on the first floor and then went to the 2nd floor to get a coke? If so, someone may have told Baker about the coke when they told him about the lunchroom meeting.

Hey, isn't Oswald on the record saying that Baker stopped him in the lunchroom, gun drawn? If so, that is obviously fabricated

I wish I could check into this right now. But I need to sign out soon.

BTW, do you know the story behind this statement... the reason it was ripped up and then put back together?

EDIT: Oops. I focused on the "M" in the initials thing and not on the following statement of yours:

"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."

I could have just said, "I agree." LOL

Edited December 27, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

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?

Why? Because both Mrs. Reid and Oswald said so.

But if the FBI agent wrote that statement and not Baker and if Baker made no OTHER reference to a coke, then I take it back about him recalling it was a mirage. In fact, based on this information, I'll go one better and chalk this one up for the LIN side by saying it is now rendered non-suspicious. Yep. The LNs got something right. They just have no clue as to why they are right. I will explain in the paper I'm writing for this joint.

I don't understand Greg. What exactly is non-suspicious? Of course it is suspicious that Baker dictated the words "drinking a coke," just like it's suspicious that he dictated the words about the lunchroom encounter.

Right?

[David Von Pein]

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html

Edited December 27, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Greg Parker]

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?

Why? Because both Mrs. Reid and Oswald said so.

But if the FBI agent wrote that statement and not Baker and if Baker made no OTHER reference to a coke, then I take it back about him recalling it was a mirage. In fact, based on this information, I'll go one better and chalk this one up for the LIN side by saying it is now rendered non-suspicious. Yep. The LNs got something right. They just have no clue as to why they are right. I will explain in the paper I'm writing for this joint.

I don't understand Greg. What exactly is non-suspicious? Of course it is suspicious that Baker dictated the words "drinking a coke," just like it's suspicious that he dictated the words about the lunchroom encounter.

Right?

All in due time, Sandy.Two different situations.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html

Like I said, you guys got this right -- you're just completely wrong about why you're right!. Lucky for you there's a CT around to explain it to you. Happy birthday, David.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Ian Lloyd]

I would say that Baker dictated to Burnett who wrote down what he heard. I've been in police situations (in the UK) where that happens almost all the time and I really don't see any difference here; maybe the police think it's more efficient, garners a more truthful account, or whatever. Therefore, quite why the "...drinking a coke..." bit comes into it...well, IMO, it's rather suspicious (and let's not get hung up on the Coke or Dr. Pepper bit, I'm sure Baker didn't also ask, "Oh, by the way, what's that you're drinking there, is it a Coke or a Dr. Pepper? I'd like to make sure I get that bit right in my statement/testimony...").

Another interesting point (IMO) is that Shelley is recorded as a witness on Truly's statement!?!? Did the FBI go to the TSBD to get the statement from Truly? Did Shelley also make a statement that day?

(I also wonder why Truly signed his twice?).

Edited December 27, 2015 by Ian Lloyd

[Greg Parker]

I would say that Baker dictated to Burnett who wrote down what he heard.

Dictated or written post interview from notes.

I've been in police situations (in the UK) where that happens almost all the time and I really don't see any difference here; maybe the police think it's more efficient, garners a more truthful account, or whatever.

Therefore, quite why the "...drinking a coke..." bit comes into it...well, IMO, it's rather suspicious

Looks suspicious - and has looked like it to everyone except WC supporters for a long long time. But it is not suspicious. You'll find out why soonish. What's more, I'm absolutely certain you'll agree with me. Edit to add - it was suspicious to me as well, until I realized Baker was not the author.

That

(and let's not get hung up on the Coke or Dr. Pepper bit, I'm sure Baker didn't also ask, "Oh, by the way, what's that you're drinking there, is it a Coke or a Dr. Pepper? I'd like to make sure I get that bit right in my statement/testimony...").

Another interesting point (IMO) is that Shelley is recorded as a witness on Truly's statement!?!? Did the FBI go to the TSBD to get the statement from Truly? Did Shelley also make a statement that day?

(I also wonder why Truly signed his twice?).

Edited December 27, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Richard Gilbride]

I have to repeat myself, and will confine my remarks to WC 3076 and the 1964 filmed interview. These are two of the stronger items of the aggregate that speak to the lunchroom incident's reality, that have to be contorted in order to be construed as "supporting the hoax".

In every single instance where an item of evidence can be construed as "supports the hoax", it can also be construed as "supports the incident". There is a reasonable explanation, readily available, that say OK, that is a somewhat ambiguous item, but it doesn't necessarily mean there was a hoax.

For example, the ten FBI routes in FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File Section 21 pp. 129-131, five of which omit the lunchroom, can be attributed to Hoover requesting as thorough a job as possible when determining Oswald's possible escape routes, or even the agents taking it on themselves to "take nothing for granted" and so please the Boss. There's no reason, a priori, to "sex up" this item of evidence and look at it as favoring the hoax.

In WC 3076, the Sept. 23rd affidavit (p. 34 of Inside Job), the fifth paragraph initially began "On the second or third floor, where the lunchroom is located..." but ""or third floor" was crossed out, i.e. 6 months after his testimony, which included 2 re-enactments, Baker was still confused about the TSBD floor layout. Just like he was during his 1st-day affidavit.

Alfred Goldberg, the co-author of the Warren Report (which was issued Sept. 26th) contacted the FBI and requested that they get a further statement from Baker about the lunchroom incident.

A hoaxer cannot account for Baker's cross-out, except to conjecture that Baker had a failure of nerve 3 days before the Warren Report was published, i.e. he flubbed up the Truly-Baker mini-conspiracy's cover story. He flubbed up the location of the fabricated lunchroom incident, but he had it down during his testimony.

The face-value common-sense interpretation of WC 3076 says that Baker, who was characterized as being of a modest-ranged intellect by his fellow officers (i.e. nickname: MommaSon, and referred to as "dopey"), was simply confused about the TSBD floor layout. He did not have the benefit of diagrams that we enjoy. He was not going to night school studying to be an architect.

In the filmed 1964 interview, Baker comes across as a modest man with integrity. And it will be to their enduring discredit that the hoaxers cannot recognize this, that they paint Baker as a flagrant xxxx- without proof, with only wishful thinking. This is how deeply the psychosis of their hypothesis pervades.

Not only is Baker, a modest man with integrity, with a modest-ranged intellect, psychologically incapable of telling a whopper such as that the lunchroom incident occurred, if it hadn't. But a whopper such as lying about the location of an event is a philosophically different order of magnitude than, for example, fudging how long it took him to arrive at the lunchroom. This is in league with, as an example, Baker witnessing Sean Murphy emerge from a crowd to shoot Richard Gilbride, and knowingly saying that the assailant was someone who was only standing nearby.

The face-value common-sense interpretation of the filmed interview is that Baker was telling the truth when he described the interaction with Oswald as occurring in the 2nd-floor lunchroom. If he was not telling truth there would be some kind of tangible indication that he was lying.

While the hoaxers have fun attempting to contort these items from the aggregate into their "supports the hoax" column, there is more fun to be had attempting to explain why their hypothesis has produced only the woeful results of Tan Jacket Man, Ira Trantham, Spooky, & Breakfast at Tiffany's.

[Robert Prudhomme]

As I said, Richard, when you find some real evidence.......

[Thomas Graves]

As I said, Richard, when you find some real evidence.......

Dear Robert,

What, specifically, do you not like about the evidence Richard has provided?

Are you able to articulate that?

--Tommy, the Serious

Edited December 27, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Prudhomme]

Already have. *YAWN*

[Thomas Graves]

Already have. *YAWN*

Really?

(Didn't get enough sleep last night? Again?)

[Robert Prudhomme]

Dear Mr. Graves

I don't recall asking for your opinion.

Bob

[Thomas Graves]

As I said, Richard, when you find some real evidence.......

Dear Robert,

What, specifically, do you not like about the evidence Richard has provided?

Are you able to articulate that?

--Tommy, the Serious

bumped for "Sleepy Head" Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

Read the posts.