Ian Griggs: Coke Bottle Myth
John McAdams
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/25th_Issue/myth.html
<quote on>
The myth of the Oswald 'Coke' bottle
It now seems almost an unchallenged part of Lee Harvey Oswald folklore
that he was holding a bottle of Coca-Cola when confronted by DPD
Patrolman Marrion Baker and Building Operations Supervisor Roy Truly
on the second floor of the TSBD shortly after the shots in Dealey
Plaza. Indeed, there have been published comments and discussions
claiming that this was somewhat odd since Oswald preferred Dr Pepper
to Coca-Cola.
If those researchers who have written that Oswald was holding a bottle
of Coca-Cola when challenged by Baker had taken the trouble to go back
to the primary sources they would have learnt that this is yet another
myth.
Consider the following brief exchange during Baker's Warren Commission
testimony as he describes that meeting:
MR BELIN: "Was he carrying anything in his hands?"
MR BAKER: "He had nothing at that time." (3H 251)
Roy Truly confirms this in his own testimony:
MR BELIN: "Could you see whether of not Lee Harvey Oswald had anything
in either hand?"
MR TRULY: "I noticed nothing in either hand."
MR BELIN: "Did you see both of his hands?"
MR TRULY: "I am sure I did, I could be wrong, but I am almost sure I
did." (3H 225)
We have some added confusion here in Marrion Baker's FBI statement of
23rd September 1964 (CE 3076). This was apparently written down at
Baker's dictation and includes the words 'I saw a man standing in the
lunch room drinking a coke.' Those last three words, however, have
been crossed through and initialled by Baker.
Lee Harvey Oswald, as far as I am aware, was never asked any similar
question and there were no other eyewitnesses to this.
The origin of this widely-believed myth may come from the testimony of
Mrs Robert A Reid, a TSBD Clerical Supervisor who occupied an office
on the second floor. In her testimony, she describes that she ate an
early and hurried lunch in the second floor lunchroom at around noon
and then went downstairs to street level where she watched the passing
motorcade. She does not describe what she saw but she mentions hearing
three shots. She stated that she thought 'they came from our building'
but then ran into the building to 'get out of this line of shots.' She
ran up the front stairs to her second floor office.
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4b467118....@news.supernews.com...
Anthony Marsh
> From:
>
> http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/25th_Issue/myth.html
>
> <quote on>
>
> The myth of the Oswald 'Coke' bottle
>
> It now seems almost an unchallenged part of Lee Harvey Oswald folklore
> that he was holding a bottle of Coca-Cola when confronted by DPD
> Patrolman Marrion Baker and Building Operations Supervisor Roy Truly
> on the second floor of the TSBD shortly after the shots in Dealey
> Plaza. Indeed, there have been published comments and discussions
> claiming that this was somewhat odd since Oswald preferred Dr Pepper
> to Coca-Cola.
>
> If those researchers who have written that Oswald was holding a bottle
> of Coca-Cola when challenged by Baker had taken the trouble to go back
> to the primary sources they would have learnt that this is yet another
> myth.
>
You're a little bit early. April Fool's Day jokes don't come until April
1.
> Consider the following brief exchange during Baker's Warren Commission
> testimony as he describes that meeting:
>
> MR BELIN: "Was he carrying anything in his hands?"
> MR BAKER: "He had nothing at that time." (3H 251)
>
Again, go ahead and ignore Loftus and only look at testimony months later
rather than the earliest statements of a winess. And pull a Harris and
claim that if a witness says something it must be true.
> Roy Truly confirms this in his own testimony:
>
> MR BELIN: "Could you see whether of not Lee Harvey Oswald had anything
> in either hand?"
> MR TRULY: "I noticed nothing in either hand."
> MR BELIN: "Did you see both of his hands?"
> MR TRULY: "I am sure I did, I could be wrong, but I am almost sure I
> did." (3H 225)
>
> We have some added confusion here in Marrion Baker's FBI statement of
> 23rd September 1964 (CE 3076). This was apparently written down at
> Baker's dictation and includes the words 'I saw a man standing in the
> lunch room drinking a coke.' Those last three words, however, have
> been crossed through and initialled by Baker.
>
Please explain how those words got there if Baker didn't say them? Did the
FBI just make up words from his own imagination and insert them? Such as,
"I saw a UFO hovering overhead and that it what me look up at the
Depository building."
> Lee Harvey Oswald, as far as I am aware, was never asked any similar
> question and there were no other eyewitnesses to this.
>
> The origin of this widely-believed myth may come from the testimony of
> Mrs Robert A Reid, a TSBD Clerical Supervisor who occupied an office
> on the second floor. In her testimony, she describes that she ate an
> early and hurried lunch in the second floor lunchroom at around noon
> and then went downstairs to street level where she watched the passing
> motorcade. She does not describe what she saw but she mentions hearing
> three shots. She stated that she thought 'they came from our building'
> but then ran into the building to 'get out of this line of shots.' She
> ran up the front stairs to her second floor office.
>
Ok, so you're saying that the FBI agent overheard Reid mention the Coke
bottle in her statement and decided to included it in Baker's affidavit?
jbarge
> On 1/7/2010 6:42 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> > We have some added confusion here in Marrion Baker's FBI statement of
> > 23rd September 1964 (CE 3076). This was apparently written down at
> > Baker's dictation and includes the words 'I saw a man standing in the
> > lunch room drinking a coke.' Those last three words, however, have
> > been crossed through and initialled by Baker.
>
> Please explain how those words got there if Baker didn't say them? \
Obviously - to me at least - Baker said them.
The question is, did he spontaneously say, "Oh, no, actually he wasn't
drinking anything. Cross that out."
Though I do believe that coke bottle story was in the media while
Ozzie was still alive.
I will have to dig through some previous posts, but my memory (fickle
thing) tells me that Will Fitz or somebody said to the media
"Apparently he was drinking a soda when the patrol officer confronted
him." or some such.
I will have to get back to you on that.
Personally I take the Baker Truly Warren testimony about this with a
grain of salt- they've had plenty of time to get their stories
straight.
Don't forget that WC staffers liked to "prep" witnesses before going
live - see Humes's testimony about the multiple meetings he had with
Spector previous to his Warren apprearance.
jbarge
Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I couldn't find my source of the early news media mention of the coke
bottle story, but here's a few snippets of others discussing the soda
story:
Why did Oswald buy a Coca-Cola? According to the joint Bookhout-Hosty
interrogation report of 11/22, Oswald's own answer was simple: he
bought a Coca-Cola "for his lunch".
>>>Here's what else Oswald told James Bookhout on Nov. 22: "OSWALD stated
that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had
lunch in the employees lunchroom. He thereafter went outside and stood
around for five or ten minutes with foreman BILL TRULY, and thereafter
went home."<<<
"Oswald told Bookhout"?? "BILL TRULY"???
Bookhout sat in on Oswald's first interrogation session along with James
Hosty. Both Agents put their name to an interrogation report. That *first*
report contains none of this nonsense, which is patently designed to
distort what Oswald actually said - namely: I broke for lunch around noon;
I went to the second-floor lunchroom where I bought a Coke for my lunch; I
took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around for several
minutes having lunch in the domino room; I was still on the first floor
when the motorcade passed. Was Oswald lying about a pre-assassination
visit to the second-floor lunchroom? It seemed so, until Carolyn Arnold
set the record straight in 1978.
Sean
Here's where you are relying on the FBI/Bookhout report as accurate:
Since Day 1 there was a coke in Oswald's hand.
ALL the way up to Sept. 23, 1964.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
Even the FBI Report said it.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/FBI.htm
Obviously, the interrogation reports are accurate and reliable when
they suit your purposes.
> (1) If Baker saw Oswald moving away from the window of the stairway door
> toward the lunchroom, that is evidence that suggests Oswald did *not* yet
> have a Coke in his hand.
Precisely my point: it's ludicrous to suggest that a guilty Oswald
could have bought a Coke just *before* being spotted by Baker. Either
he bought it before the assassination or after the Baker encounter.
> (1) If Baker saw Oswald moving away from the window of the stairway door
> toward the lunchroom, that is evidence that suggests Oswald did *not* yet
> have a Coke in his hand.
Precisely my point: it's ludicrous to suggest that a guilty Oswald could
have bought a Coke just *before* being spotted by Baker. Either he bought
it before the assassination or after the Baker encounter. James Bookhout
was present at the same interrogation on Nov. 22. His report dictated on
Nov. 24:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the
Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on
the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola from
the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room
with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there.
MR. TRULY was present and verified that he was an employee and the police
officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building."
You need to read Holmes's WC testimony. And the *first* FBI interrogation
report, which was co-written by Bookhout & Hosty. The latter never signed
off on the claim that Oswald talked about an incident in the second-floor
lunchroom. Oswald merely told Fritz he went to the second floor lunchroom
for a coke "for his lunch". He took the coke downstairs, which is where he
was when the assassination happened. Bookhout's solo report takes these
details and distorts them out of recognition.
David Von Pein
FROM A 2007 DISCUSSION:
>>> "Why would Burnett even mention a coke if it was not what Baker had
said?" <<<
I then said:
Like I said in an earlier post..."merged" evidence that shouldn't be
merged at all. By the time that document was written (09/23/64), it was
surely common knowledge at the Dallas FBI offices that Lee Oswald was
carrying a Coke bottle in the TSBD at some point just after President
Kennedy's assassination.
Perhaps Burnett, like other people who I think have done the same bit
of incorrect "merging", thought that Baker did see LHO with a Coke,
and wrote it down as such (and he got the floor number wrong too
remember...strange, indeed, if Baker was sitting right there beside
him...and stranger still is the question of WHY Baker couldn't pick up
a pen and write the whole damn thing himself if he was right there).
MORE SODA CHATTER:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/61f644cfaeee6415
Jean
Hi David,
Good point. If Baker was there, why didn't *he* write out
the statement? Without a doubt, the document is in the FBI agent's
handwriting. Here's my take on this, fwiw...
Baker's affidavit of Sept 23,1964 and a similar one from
Truly were dated only one day before the Warren Report was officially
released, and both their statements were, unlike all the other FBI
documents I'm aware of, *handwritten*. IOW, they were prepared in a
big hurry. Their statements are footnoted to a WR paragraph on the
"rumor" that there was someone else in the lunchroom when Baker
confronted Oswald. (Neither Baker or Truly had been specifically
asked this in their testimony. Their 9/64 affidavits supplied the
explicit answer: no one else was in the lunchroom.) I surmise that
someone at the WC realized at the last minute that they needed a
"cite" for this statement.
So I figure it went something like this -- the Dallas FBI
agent got the word that he needed this question answered ASAP, so he
got on the phone, located Baker and Truly, asked them a few questions,
and arranged to meet them at their workplaces with a written statement
for their signatures. (Each men's statement was witnessed by one of
his co-workers.) The agent imo included the Coke not because Baker
said it, but because it was "established myth" by 9/64 and the agent
included it as part of the narrative. He probably didn't give it a
second thought and neither did Baker when he crossed it out. It
wasn't important to them.
I'm speculating, sure. But is it more plausible that the
coverup crew wanted to hide the Coke story and yet left this document
in the record?
Jean
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 9, 10:45 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> FROM A 2007 DISCUSSION:
>>
>>>>> "Why would Burnett even mention a coke if it was not what Baker had
>>
>> said?"<<<
>>
>> I then said:
>>
>> Like I said in an earlier post..."merged" evidence that shouldn't be
>> merged at all. By the time that document was written (09/23/64), it was
>> surely common knowledge at the Dallas FBI offices that Lee Oswald was
>> carrying a Coke bottle in the TSBD at some point just after President
>> Kennedy's assassination.
>>
>> Perhaps Burnett, like other people who I think have done the same bit
>> of incorrect "merging", thought that Baker did see LHO with a Coke,
>> and wrote it down as such (and he got the floor number wrong too
>> remember...strange, indeed, if Baker was sitting right there beside
>> him...and stranger still is the question of WHY Baker couldn't pick up
>> a pen and write the whole damn thing himself if he was right there).
>>
>> MORE SODA CHATTER:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/61f644cfaeee6415
>
> Hi David,
>
> Good point. If Baker was there, why didn't *he* write out
> the statement? Without a doubt, the document is in the FBI agent's
> handwriting. Here's my take on this, fwiw...
>
Maybe he didn't know how to write. These were country boys after all. ;]>
But seriously that is not how a report can be submitted. It must be
dictated to an agent or stenographer who then types it up. Usually an FBI
agent destroys his notes after he has submitted his 302. This allows the
FBI agent to filter out data.
> Baker's affidavit of Sept 23,1964 and a similar one from
> Truly were dated only one day before the Warren Report was officially
> released, and both their statements were, unlike all the other FBI
> documents I'm aware of, *handwritten*. IOW, they were prepared in a
> big hurry. Their statements are footnoted to a WR paragraph on the
> "rumor" that there was someone else in the lunchroom when Baker
> confronted Oswald. (Neither Baker or Truly had been specifically
> asked this in their testimony. Their 9/64 affidavits supplied the
> explicit answer: no one else was in the lunchroom.) I surmise that
> someone at the WC realized at the last minute that they needed a
> "cite" for this statement.
>
> So I figure it went something like this -- the Dallas FBI
> agent got the word that he needed this question answered ASAP, so he
> got on the phone, located Baker and Truly, asked them a few questions,
> and arranged to meet them at their workplaces with a written statement
> for their signatures. (Each men's statement was witnessed by one of
> his co-workers.) The agent imo included the Coke not because Baker
> said it, but because it was "established myth" by 9/64 and the agent
> included it as part of the narrative. He probably didn't give it a
> second thought and neither did Baker when he crossed it out. It
> wasn't important to them.
>
Ok, great. So your only way out of this is to accuse the FBI agent of
perjury. Interesting how you guys are so quick to thrown one of your own
under the bus.
jbarge
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeeeowza - so the FBI would just be making up stuff that witnesses
would say?
That doesn't exactly engender confidence in their investigation.
But let's look at it from the other side - the "cover up crew" (I call
them FBI agents and Warren Commission staffers but I will defer) knows
very well that Oswald claimed drinking a coke prior to the
assassination, from the FBI interviews.
If he's drinking a half filled coke when Baker & Truly talk to him,
he's about 3/4 of the way to alibi land, not withstanding one of my
personal fave LN theories, the LHO-grabbing-an-old-coke-bottle- off-of-
a-table-and-pretending-it-is-his.
(For some reason that one reminds me of the Gene Wilder scene in Young
Frankenstein where he's pretending the corpse's arm is his.)
So the dreaded words come out of Baker's mouth and very quickly they
realize that can't be an established fact.
So one way or another they get it scratched out and Baker initials it.
Inconveniant truth eliminated.
And the "cover up crew" doesn't really sweat what the original
document shows for 3 simple reasons.
1: As Allen Dulles accidentially said out loud, they think "nobody
really reads in this country." (How arrogant and thankfully wrong!)
2: Oswald's dead. There's no trial. The Warren Commission will
dissolve, leaving any questions directed to the ever helpful FBI. So
what if some random obnoxious critic manages to dig up the report?
What - he'll write a letter to his congressman? So what?
3: They're in a hurry. Mistakes happen.
Hey, FBI agents told J. Edger that they listened to a tape recording
of a LHO imposter at the Mexican embassy, which Hoover then passed
along, to the President no less. The next day the agents were, like,
whoah, J. Edger --- that was no recording. That was a transcript!
That left the old crime fighting bulldog in the humiliating position
of admitting his agents can't tell the difference between a recording
and a transcript.
One pictures the scene, two agents sitting side by side at the office.
Fred the FBI agent: "You know, Ralph, I listened to that recording of
Oswald at the Communist embassy. It's weird, but it doesn't sound like
Oswald at all!"
Ralph the FBI agent: "Fred, I've told you a hundred times, that's a
transcript you're reading."
Fred: "Oh, right, I keep forgetting. Anyway, I was reading the
transcript, and I could hear the voices in my head. And, like, the
voice for Oswald - it doesn't sound like Oswald at all!"
Ralph: "Who does it sound like?"
Fred: "Oh, I don't know. Maybe Paul Newman?"
Ralph: "You're weird, Fred."
So if agents could have J. Edger feed a whopper to LBJ, they could
make another mistake.
Jean
I accused no one of perjury. Don't you ever get tired of
building straw men?
Jean
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Amazing the stuff you will invent to bolster your already goofy
theories.
David Von Pein
>>> "So your only way out of this is to accuse the FBI agent of perjury."
<<<
And tell us, Tony, just exactly how Agent Burnett committed "perjury"
here.
The INCORRECT information (two pieces of it) was crossed out and initialed
by Marrion Baker in the 9/23/64 FBI document, and then the corrected
document was signed by Baker.
Does that add up to "perjury" on the part of Burnett?
Anthony Marsh
My comment was intended for whoever wrote:
The agent imo included the Coke not because Baker
said it, but because it was "established myth" by 9/64 and the agent
included it as part of the narrative.
That's perjury.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "So your only way out of this is to accuse the FBI agent of perjury."
> <<<
>
> And tell us, Tony, just exactly how Agent Burnett committed "perjury"
> here.
>
> The INCORRECT information (two pieces of it) was crossed out and initialed
> by Marrion Baker in the 9/23/64 FBI document, and then the corrected
> document was signed by Baker.
>
> Does that add up to "perjury" on the part of Burnett?
>
When you guys claim that he add that on his own.
When you constantly snip out the context you deliberately prevent
lurkers from seeing what you said earlier.
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/images/altgen9.jpg
>
David Von Pein
>>> "My comment was intended for whoever wrote: The agent imo included the
Coke not because Baker said it, but because it was "established myth" by
9/64 and the agent included it as part of the narrative. That's perjury."
<<<
LOL. Tony thinks that an FBI saying something that the agent THOUGHT WAS
ACCURATE & TRUE AT THE TIME HE WROTE IT indicates perjury.
Hilarious.
claviger
jbarge,
So this is what you call an airtight alibi! A Coke bottle?! Did anyone
conduct a paraffin caffeine test on Oswald's cheek to see if he was in
close proximity to a Coke bottle when the cap went off? What if it had
actually been a Dr Pepper bottle? CTs would be yelling "Baker lied! Baker
lied!" And yes it would have been quick thinking by LHO to grab an empty
Coke bottle the minute he walked into the room just in case. Therefore,
the Coke bottle is basically irrelevant.
Jean
No. I'm not saying that Burnett *lied*. That would be silly.
I'm suggesting that he mistakenly included a detail about Baker's story
that he'd picked up somewhere else, e.g., from a media account. This is
such a common human error that memory researchers frequently write papers
about it. They call it "misattribution" or a failure of "source
monitoring." Google that with the word "memory"!
For instance, this is from a UK psychology website.
QUOTE:
Daily misattributions
While misattributions can have disastrous consequences, most are not so
dramatic in everyday circumstances. Like the other sins of memory,
misattributions are probably a daily occurrence for most people. Some
examples that have been studied in the lab are:
Misattributing the source of memories. People regularly say they read
something in the newspaper, when actually a friend told them or they saw
it in an advert. In one study participants with 'normal' memories
regularly made the mistake of thinking they had acquired a trivial fact
from a newspaper, when actually the experimenters had supplied it
(Schacter, Harbluk, & McLachlan, 1984). ................
UNQUOTE
http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/02/how-memories-are-distorted-and-invented.php
Jean
Anthony Marsh
Perjury is more than just simple lying. It is also claiming that someone
said something which he didn't say.
You now claim that Baker never uttered the word Coke in his life and
that Burnett thought it would be fun to add it to Baker's story.
That's perjury. You approve of perjury. Especially by law enforcement.
> I'm suggesting that he mistakenly included a detail about Baker's story
> that he'd picked up somewhere else, e.g., from a media account. This is
You are trying to think up excuses for misconduct. Why am I not
surprised that a leading WC defender would try to cover-up official
misconduct?
> such a common human error that memory researchers frequently write papers
> about it. They call it "misattribution" or a failure of "source
> monitoring." Google that with the word "memory"!
>
See Loftus. Telescoping memory.
> For instance, this is from a UK psychology website.
>
> QUOTE:
>
> Daily misattributions
>
> While misattributions can have disastrous consequences, most are not so
> dramatic in everyday circumstances. Like the other sins of memory,
> misattributions are probably a daily occurrence for most people. Some
> examples that have been studied in the lab are:
>
> Misattributing the source of memories. People regularly say they read
> something in the newspaper, when actually a friend told them or they saw
> it in an advert. In one study participants with 'normal' memories
> regularly made the mistake of thinking they had acquired a trivial fact
> from a newspaper, when actually the experimenters had supplied it
> (Schacter, Harbluk,& McLachlan, 1984). ................
>
> UNQUOTE
>
> http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/02/how-memories-are-distorted-and-invented.php
>
All of your fancy arguments are only nonsense, because all Burnett did
was write down WHAT HE HEARD. He did not make up anything from his own
memory.
> Jean
Anthony Marsh
Jeez, where ya been, living under a rock? We've had heated arguments
about whether the word Coke has to mean Coca-Cola or if it is a generic
term they use in the South for ANY soft drink.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "My comment was intended for whoever wrote: The agent imo included the
> Coke not because Baker said it, but because it was "established myth" by
> 9/64 and the agent included it as part of the narrative. That's perjury."
> <<<
>
> LOL. Tony thinks that an FBI saying something that the agent THOUGHT WAS
>
Yes, it is perjury. It is misrepresenting what the witness said.
> Hilarious.
>
claviger
Either way it's irrelevant. LHO could have picked up a bottle off a table
when he heard footsteps in the stairwell. The bottle is in not proof of
anything. And the point is Baker said LHO had nothing in his hands. Truly
didn't see anything in his hands either. That means two corroborating
witnesses did not see anything in his hands in the lunchroom. The coke
bottle alibi is a non starter.
David Von Pein
>>> "You [JEAN DAVISON] now claim that [MARRION] Baker never uttered the
word Coke in his life [OF COURSE, JEAN NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE KIND]
and that Burnett thought it would be fun to add it to Baker's story.
That's perjury. You approve of perjury. Especially by law enforcement."
<<<
I see that Anthony Marsh has not lost his amazing ability to completely
mangle and misrepresent the things that another person has said.
>>> "You [JEAN DAVISON] are trying to think up excuses for misconduct. Why
am I not surprised that a leading WC defender would try to cover-up
official misconduct?" <<<
Jean Davison never even hinted at any kind of "misconduct" on the part of
FBI Special Agent Richard J. Burnett. That's your own interpretation only,
Tony.
Jean merely said that Burnett had possibly heard some incorrect
through-the-grapevine information about Oswald's "Coke", and he (Burnett)
incorporated that incorrect information into the statement he wrote up for
Officer Marrion L. Baker to sign on September 23, 1964.
Please tell us, Anthony, how an innocent MISTAKE can somehow equal
"perjury" (especially when the mistake was fully CORRECTED prior to the
document being signed by M.L. Baker)?
Or can you, Tony Marsh, prove that Burnett's "Coke" notation in CE3076 was
a deliberate attempt to deceive and/or alter the official record in the
JFK murder case? But even if that were so, it evidently didn't
work--because Baker crossed out the "Coke" reference and initialed the
cross-out!
>>> "All of your fancy arguments are only nonsense, because all Burnett
did was write down WHAT HE HEARD. He did not make up anything from his own
memory." <<<
Huh?
Are you saying that Marrion Baker was, indeed, right there in the room
with FBI Agent Richard Burnett on 9/23/64 when Burnett (or at least
somebody other than Baker) wrote down the words we see in this document?:
But if Burnett merely wrote down "WHAT HE HEARD" Baker saying on the same
day the statement was written, then why wouldn't Baker have simply written
the document HIMSELF?
But it's obvious by looking at the document that it is not in Baker's
handwriting (except for his initials and signature).
Or -- Are you saying, Tony, that Burnett "HEARD" the rumor about Oswald
possibly having a Coke in his hands in the TSBD lunchroom (and Burnett
heard this rumor many days, weeks, or even months prior to 9/23/64), but
somehow that doesn't constitute something that has come from Burnett's
"OWN MEMORY"?
I can't see a third alternative that could explain your "WHAT HE HEARD"
comment. But I'm guessing that Tony probably does have a third alternative
in his own mind, because the above two choices make no sense at all.
Anyway, I'm enjoying the following bit of "like-mindedness" that exists
between Jean Davison and myself:
"I've slightly revised my opinion on "It Was Obviously Burnett's
Writing". I still think it is probably Burnett's...but I can't prove that
100%. But it's positively NOT Marrion L. Baker's handwriting. THAT is
obvious. It is to me anyway...unless Baker was good at possessing two
entirely-different writing styles. ....
"By the time that document was written (09/23/64), it was surely
common knowledge at the Dallas FBI offices that Lee Oswald was carrying a
Coke bottle in the TSBD at some point just after President Kennedy's
assassination.
"Perhaps Burnett, like other people who I think have done the same
bit of incorrect "merging", thought that Baker did see LHO with a Coke,
and wrote it down as such (and he got the floor number wrong too
remember...strange, indeed, if Baker was sitting right there beside
him...and stranger still is the question of WHY Baker couldn't pick up a
pen and write the whole damn thing himself if he was right there)." --
DVP; May 4, 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cac5d85cd2b3677c
------------
"Hi David, Good point. If Baker was there, why didn't *he* write out
the statement? Without a doubt, the document is in the FBI agent's
handwriting. ....
"The agent imo included the Coke not because Baker said it, but
because it was "established myth" by 9/64 and the agent included it as
part of the narrative. He probably didn't give it a second thought and
neither did Baker when he crossed it out. It wasn't important to them." --
Jean Davison; January 10, 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/de175721a8e9602d
------------
ADDENDUM:
After reading Jean Davison's 1/10/10 post regarding this matter, I decided
to dig into it a little further, with the thought in my mind that there is
probably a "cover letter" from the FBI associated with those Baker and
Truly affidavits from September of 1964.
And, sure enough, there is. I found the cover letter in question at the
Mary Ferrell website. It's located in Warren Commission Document #1526
[linked below]:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11921&relPageId=2
CD1526 includes a letter that was sent from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover
to J. Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission (dated September 25, 1964):
"Reference is made to a telephone conversation between Mr. Alfred
Goldberg of your [Warren Commission] staff and Mr. J. R. Malley of the
Bureau [FBI] on September 23, 1964. During this conversation Mr. Goldberg
requested that signed statements be obtained from Mr. Roy S. Truly and
Officer Marrion L. Baker of the Dallas Police Department. Enclosed are the
original signed statements obtained from these individuals and a Xerox of
each. Sincerely yours, /s/ J. Edgar Hoover"
----------
So, it appears that Jean Davison could very well be correct when she
said this in an earlier Internet message:
"[Marrion] Baker's affidavit of Sept 23,1964 and a similar one from
Truly were dated only one day before the Warren Report was officially
released, and both their statements were, unlike all the other FBI
documents I'm aware of, *handwritten*. IOW, they were prepared in a big
hurry. Their statements are footnoted to a WR paragraph on the "rumor"
that there was someone else in the lunchroom when Baker confronted Oswald.
(Neither Baker or Truly had been specifically asked this in their
testimony. Their 9/64 affidavits supplied the explicit answer: no one else
was in the lunchroom.) I surmise that someone at the WC realized at the
last minute that they needed a "cite" for this statement." -- Jean
Davison; 01/10/10
The 9/25/64 letter from Hoover to Rankin doesn't mention anything about
the specific reason(s) as to WHY Goldberg and the Warren Commission wanted
the additional statements from Baker and Truly, but Hoover's letter
certainly DOES tell us that the Baker/Truly statements were taken because
of a direct request by the Warren Commission itself.
But Jean is definitely correct about these three things:
1.) Both of the 9/23/64 statements mention the fact that Oswald was ALONE
in the second-floor lunchroom when Baker and Truly saw LHO on 11/22/63.
2.) The 9/23/64 statements obtained from Baker and Truly "were prepared in
a big hurry" [Jean Davison; 1/10/10]. This is fairly obvious because of
the date of the telephone call from Alfred Goldberg to the FBI--September
23, 1964--the exact same date when the statements were signed by both
Marrion Baker and Roy Truly.
3.) "Their [Baker's & Truly's] statements are footnoted to a WR paragraph
on the "rumor" that there was someone else in the lunchroom when Baker
confronted Oswald" [Jean Davison; 1/10/10]. Jean, once again, is 100%
correct. In Appendix XII of the Warren Commission Report (entitled
"Speculations and Rumors"), the following text can be found on page 648:
"Speculation. -- There were other people present in the lunchroom at
the time that Baker and Truly saw Oswald there.
"Commission finding. -- Baker and Truly have both stated that there
was no one in the lunchroom other than Oswald at the time that they
entered. No other witness to this incident has been found."
WR; PAGE 648:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0336b.htm
In my opinion, the most amazing thing about the above text from page 648
of the WR is the information that is found in the source note that is
connected to it. The source note is Note #42, which leads to page 857,
which cites "CE 3035, 3076".
WR; PAGE 857:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0441a.htm
The "amazing" part isn't Commission Exhibits 3035 and 3076 themselves
(which I've linked at the end of this post). What's amazing to me is the
fact that references to those two exhibits could have possibly been
included in the Warren Report at all, because the two FBI documents that
comprise those WC exhibits didn't even exist prior to September 23, 1964!
And it stands to reason that the Warren Report surely must have gone to
press many days (maybe even weeks) prior to its release to the general
public at 6:30 PM EDT on Sunday, September 27, 1964 (which was three days
after President Johnson was given a copy by Chief Justice Earl Warren;
plus, some members of the news media also had advance copies provided to
them on that same day, 9/24/64).
So, it seems somewhat remarkable to me to have references to documents
that were dated 9/23/64 contained within a Government report that was
released to the President on 9/24/64 and to the general public just three
days after that.
Anyway, regardless of how it happened, I think Jean Davison hit the nail
on the head when she said that the Baker/Truly FBI statements "were
prepared in a big hurry".
Also:
It's easy to see that both of those statements were written by the same
person (probably FBI Special Agent Richard J. Burnett). The writing is
identical on both statements (including Truly's statement, which I didn't
even realize existed until Jean pointed out that info the other day; I
then did some additional digging and found CD1526, which has good-quality
copies of both the Baker and Truly FBI documents, linked below):
MARRION BAKER STATEMENT (AS SEEN IN CD1526)(2 PAGES):
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11921&relPageId=3
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11921&relPageId=4
ROY TRULY STATEMENT (AS SEEN IN CD1526)(2 PAGES):
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11921&relPageId=5
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11921&relPageId=6
----------
The versions of Baker's and Truly's 9/64 statements that appear as
"Commission Exhibits" in the Warren Commission volumes are not nearly
as pristine or readable as the versions in CD1526, but here they are
anyway (for reference):
CE3076 (MARRION BAKER):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0358a.htm
CE3035 (ROY TRULY):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0308b.htm
=================================
http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
http://www.Oswalds-Game.blogspot.com
=================================
yeuhd
You need to familiarize yourself with the legal definition of
"perjury". Because that is not it.
Anthony Marsh
Are you a legal scholar? NO, so I don't need to accept anything you say. A
law enforcement officer misrepresenting what a witness said is perjury. If
he testifies in court that the suspect confessed to the crime when that
never happened he would be guilty of perjury. Jean condones perjury.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>>>> "You [JEAN DAVISON] now claim that [MARRION] Baker never uttered the
> word Coke in his life [OF COURSE, JEAN NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE KIND]
> and that Burnett thought it would be fun to add it to Baker's story.
> That's perjury. You approve of perjury. Especially by law enforcement."
> <<<
>
> I see that Anthony Marsh has not lost his amazing ability to completely
> mangle and misrepresent the things that another person has said.
>
>
>
>>>> "You [JEAN DAVISON] are trying to think up excuses for misconduct. Why
> am I not surprised that a leading WC defender would try to cover-up
> official misconduct?"<<<
>
>
> Jean Davison never even hinted at any kind of "misconduct" on the part of
> FBI Special Agent Richard J. Burnett. That's your own interpretation only,
> Tony.
I said that she condoned it.
>
> Jean merely said that Burnett had possibly heard some incorrect
> through-the-grapevine information about Oswald's "Coke", and he (Burnett)
> incorporated that incorrect information into the statement he wrote up for
> Officer Marrion L. Baker to sign on September 23, 1964.
>
Then that is perjury. He is there to write down ONLY what the witness says.
> Please tell us, Anthony, how an innocent MISTAKE can somehow equal
> "perjury" (especially when the mistake was fully CORRECTED prior to the
> document being signed by M.L. Baker)?
>
Because it wasn't an innocent mistake if Jean's theory is right that
Burnett added on his own to push an agenda of his own.
> Or can you, Tony Marsh, prove that Burnett's "Coke" notation in CE3076 was
> a deliberate attempt to deceive and/or alter the official record in the
> JFK murder case? But even if that were so, it evidently didn't
> work--because Baker crossed out the "Coke" reference and initialed the
> cross-out!
>
Perjury can be obviated by admitting in court that he was just guessing.
>
>>>> "All of your fancy arguments are only nonsense, because all Burnett
> did was write down WHAT HE HEARD. He did not make up anything from his own
> memory."<<<
>
> Huh?
>
> Are you saying that Marrion Baker was, indeed, right there in the room
> with FBI Agent Richard Burnett on 9/23/64 when Burnett (or at least
> somebody other than Baker) wrote down the words we see in this document?:
>
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/PortionsOfCE30769-23-64FBIStatement.jpg?t=1263330079
>
>
> But if Burnett merely wrote down "WHAT HE HEARD" Baker saying on the same
> day the statement was written, then why wouldn't Baker have simply written
> the document HIMSELF?
>
Because legally that is not how the statement can be made out.
> But it's obvious by looking at the document that it is not in Baker's
> handwriting (except for his initials and signature).
>
> Or -- Are you saying, Tony, that Burnett "HEARD" the rumor about Oswald
> possibly having a Coke in his hands in the TSBD lunchroom (and Burnett
> heard this rumor many days, weeks, or even months prior to 9/23/64), but
> somehow that doesn't constitute something that has come from Burnett's
> "OWN MEMORY"?
>
Jean's theory is that Burnett add the bit about the Coke.
> I can't see a third alternative that could explain your "WHAT HE HEARD"
> comment. But I'm guessing that Tony probably does have a third alternative
> in his own mind, because the above two choices make no sense at all.
>
>
> Anyway, I'm enjoying the following bit of "like-mindedness" that exists
> between Jean Davison and myself:
>
>
>
> "I've slightly revised my opinion on "It Was Obviously Burnett's
> Writing". I still think it is probably Burnett's...but I can't prove that
> 100%. But it's positively NOT Marrion L. Baker's handwriting. THAT is
> obvious. It is to me anyway...unless Baker was good at possessing two
> entirely-different writing styles. ....
>
> "By the time that document was written (09/23/64), it was surely
> common knowledge at the Dallas FBI offices that Lee Oswald was carrying a
> Coke bottle in the TSBD at some point just after President Kennedy's
> assassination.
>
How can it be common knowledge if it never happened?
> "Perhaps Burnett, like other people who I think have done the same
> bit of incorrect "merging", thought that Baker did see LHO with a Coke,
> and wrote it down as such (and he got the floor number wrong too
> remember...strange, indeed, if Baker was sitting right there beside
> him...and stranger still is the question of WHY Baker couldn't pick up a
> pen and write the whole damn thing himself if he was right there)." --
> DVP; May 4, 2007
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cac5d85cd2b3677c
>
> ------------
>
> "Hi David, Good point. If Baker was there, why didn't *he* write out
> the statement? Without a doubt, the document is in the FBI agent's
> handwriting. ....
>
Because legally that is not how a statement is taken.
> 3.) "Their [Baker's& Truly's] statements are footnoted to a WR paragraph
yeuhd
> On 1/13/2010 12:33 AM, yeuhd wrote:
> > You need to familiarize yourself with the legal definition of
> > "perjury". Because that is not it.
>
> Are you a legal scholar?
Yes.
David Von Pein
If it had been an actual COURT proceeding, perhaps the FBI (Burnett)
would have treated the Baker & Truly statements differently.
But this was not a court trial.
And the END RESULT is: Baker signed a corrected statement and crossed
out and initialed the incorrect parts that Burnett incorrectly put in.
It was probably a case of being in a hurry (as Jean pointed out).
Jean
Good work gathering all these links, David. Thank you!
> >>> "You [JEAN DAVISON] now claim that [MARRION] Baker never uttered the
>
> word Coke in his life [OF COURSE, JEAN NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE KIND]
> and that Burnett thought it would be fun to add it to Baker's story.
> That's perjury. You approve of perjury. Especially by law enforcement."
> <<<
>
> I see that Anthony Marsh has not lost his amazing ability to completely
> mangle and misrepresent the things that another person has said.
Amen to that, too.
Jean
Jean
> On 1/12/2010 11:05 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> "You [JEAN DAVISON] now claim that [MARRION] Baker never uttered the
> > word Coke in his life [OF COURSE, JEAN NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE KIND]
> > and that Burnett thought it would be fun to add it to Baker's story.
> > That's perjury. You approve of perjury. Especially by law enforcement."
> > <<<
>
> > I see that Anthony Marsh has not lost his amazing ability to completely
> > mangle and misrepresent the things that another person has said.
>
> >>>> "You [JEAN DAVISON] are trying to think up excuses for misconduct. Why
> > am I not surprised that a leading WC defender would try to cover-up
> > official misconduct?"<<<
>
> > Jean Davison never even hinted at any kind of "misconduct" on the part of
> > FBI Special Agent Richard J. Burnett. That's your own interpretation only,
> > Tony.
>
> I said that she condoned it.
You're talking nonsense, Tony. I'm saying that Burnett made a
mistake which Baker corrected, just as he corrected the handwritten
"second or third floor" to read "second floor." If you doubt that this is
in Burnett's handwriting, compare his name in the second line here with
his signature at the bottom, especially the capital "B"s:
>
>
>
> > Jean merely said that Burnett had possibly heard some incorrect
> > through-the-grapevine information about Oswald's "Coke", and he (Burnett)
> > incorporated that incorrect information into the statement he wrote up for
> > Officer Marrion L. Baker to sign on September 23, 1964.
>
> Then that is perjury. He is there to write down ONLY what the witness says.
If that ALWAYS happened, there'd ordinarily be no need for
witnesses to make corrections and initial them, as Baker did, would there?
FBI agents are fallible like everyone else, or haven't you heard?
>
> > Please tell us, Anthony, how an innocent MISTAKE can somehow equal
> > "perjury" (especially when the mistake was fully CORRECTED prior to the
> > document being signed by M.L. Baker)?
>
> Because it wasn't an innocent mistake if Jean's theory is right that
> Burnett added on his own to push an agenda of his own.
NO! I said no such thing, Tony. That doesn't even make sense.
What agenda would Burnett be pushing by mentioning a Coke?!
>
> > Or can you, Tony Marsh, prove that Burnett's "Coke" notation in CE3076 was
> > a deliberate attempt to deceive and/or alter the official record in the
> > JFK murder case? But even if that were so, it evidently didn't
> > work--because Baker crossed out the "Coke" reference and initialed the
> > cross-out!
>
> Perjury can be obviated by admitting in court that he was just guessing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> "All of your fancy arguments are only nonsense, because all Burnett
> > did was write down WHAT HE HEARD. He did not make up anything from his own
> > memory."<<<
>
> > Huh?
>
> > Are you saying that Marrion Baker was, indeed, right there in the room
> > with FBI Agent Richard Burnett on 9/23/64 when Burnett (or at least
> > somebody other than Baker) wrote down the words we see in this document?:
>
> >http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
Same way it could be "common knowledge" that a Mauser was
found or other misinformation that appeared in the media.
Jean
yeuhd
From Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.):
perjury : The act or an instance of a person's DELIBERATELY making
material false or misleading statements WHILE UNDER OATH.
Anthony Marsh
No. Baker said Oswald had a Coke in his hand. What difference does it
make whether he did or not?
> didn't see anything in his hands either. That means two corroborating
> witnesses did not see anything in his hands in the lunchroom. The coke
> bottle alibi is a non starter.
Why is it an alibi? What possible difference does it make?
David Von Pein
TONY MARSH SAID:
>>> "How can it be common knowledge if it never happened?" <<<
JEAN DAVISON THEN SAID:
>>> "Same way it could be "common knowledge" that a Mauser was found or other misinformation that appeared in the media." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
True, Jean.
But, as usual, Tony has misrepresented what I said when I said this:
"By the time that document was written (09/23/64), it was surely
common knowledge at the Dallas FBI offices that Lee Oswald was
carrying a Coke bottle in the TSBD at some point just after President
Kennedy's assassination."
In the "Coke" incident I referenced in the quote above, I wasn't
talking about the mythical "Marrion Baker Saw A Coke In Oswald's
Hands" tale. I was talking about the FACTUAL "Coke" story told by Mrs.
Robert A. Reid.
Mrs. Reid certainly DID see Oswald with a Coke shortly after the
assassination. (Or does Tony Marsh think Reid was a liar or mistaken
in this regard?)
So, when I said "it was common knowledge", I was talking about the
"common knowledge" of the Reid/Oswald Coke incident--not the Baker/
Oswald mythical Coke incident.
I sometimes think Tony just likes to see if people will go to the
trouble of unraveling his misrepresentations. It's an enjoyable game
to him. But to everyone else, it's mighty annoying and tiresome.
Anthony Marsh
>
> If it had been an actual COURT proceeding, perhaps the FBI (Burnett)
>
> But this was not a court trial.
>
> And the END RESULT is: Baker signed a corrected statement and crossed
> out and initialed the incorrect parts that Burnett incorrectly put in.
>
> It was probably a case of being in a hurry (as Jean pointed out).
>
Jean didn't say in a hurry. You are making excuses for her. She said
maybe Burnett added it on his own.
Now you reinforce that by saying Burnett put in incorrect parts. I think
that's what Furhman said in HIS perjury trial. Maybe he misquoted
himself because he was "in a hurry." Maybe Bush lied about the WMD
because he was "in a hurry." Do you guys know how ridiculous you sound?
Anthony Marsh
Yeah right, show us your credentials. Is that why you post anonymously,
so that you can bluff people?
Jean
You're right. I didn't read that carefully enough. Sorry.
Jean
claviger
My question exactly. Some people think the coke bottle proves he was in
the lunch room when the shots were fired, the idea being he barely had
time to run down the stairs. He would not have time to buy a coke if that
were true. So if he was casually drinking a coke when Baker walked in then
he couldn't possibly be the sniper on the 6th floor. In the first place he
was not holding a coke bottle when they walked in, but even if he was that
in no way proves how long he had been in the lunchroom. He could have
grabbed an empty bottle on the way down as a prop to appear nonchalant if
met anyone coming up the stairwell.
Anthony Marsh
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "How can it be common knowledge if it never happened?"<<<
>
> JEAN DAVISON THEN SAID:
>
>>>> "Same way it could be "common knowledge" that a Mauser was found or
other misinformation that appeared in the media."<<<
>
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
>
> True, Jean.
>
> But, as usual, Tony has misrepresented what I said when I said this:
>
> "By the time that document was written (09/23/64), it was surely
> common knowledge at the Dallas FBI offices that Lee Oswald was
> carrying a Coke bottle in the TSBD at some point just after President
> Kennedy's assassination."
>
> In the "Coke" incident I referenced in the quote above, I wasn't
> talking about the mythical "Marrion Baker Saw A Coke In Oswald's
> Hands" tale. I was talking about the FACTUAL "Coke" story told by Mrs.
> Robert A. Reid.
>
> Mrs. Reid certainly DID see Oswald with a Coke shortly after the
> assassination. (Or does Tony Marsh think Reid was a liar or mistaken
> in this regard?)
>
No, and neither do I think Baker was a liar or mistaken. Neither do I
claim as you and Jean do that Burnett made it up.
> So, when I said "it was common knowledge", I was talking about the
> "common knowledge" of the Reid/Oswald Coke incident--not the Baker/
> Oswald mythical Coke incident.
>
> I sometimes think Tony just likes to see if people will go to the
> trouble of unraveling his misrepresentations. It's an enjoyable game
> to him. But to everyone else, it's mighty annoying and tiresome.
>
>
I'm not the one accusing Burnett of making up things.
Anthony Marsh
You're not trying hard enough, slacker. You could come up with a counter
argument that he bought the Coke before the shooting to prepare his alibi
and appear indifferent and then ran down the stairs with the Coke.
> were true. So if he was casually drinking a coke when Baker walked in then
> he couldn't possibly be the sniper on the 6th floor. In the first place he
But he didn't need the Coke as his alibi. He worked in that building so he
could not possibly be the sniper and his boss Truly vouched for him so
Baker let him go and kept looking for a stranger.
> was not holding a coke bottle when they walked in, but even if he was that
> in no way proves how long he had been in the lunchroom. He could have
> grabbed an empty bottle on the way down as a prop to appear nonchalant if
> met anyone coming up the stairwell.
Nah, it wasn't empty and empties were not not kept on the stairs. You are
right that the Coke does not prove how long he was in the lunch room. He
could have been there for a half hour.
claviger
> You're not trying hard enough, slacker. You could come up with a counter
> argument that he bought the Coke before the shooting to prepare his alibi
> and appear indifferent and then ran down the stairs with the Coke.
Yes, and we know there was an empty Dr Pepper bottle on the 6th floor
so there could have been others sitting around.
> > were true. So if he was casually drinking a coke when Baker walked in then
> > he couldn't possibly be the sniper on the 6th floor. In the first place he
> But he didn't need the Coke as his alibi. He worked in that building so he
> could not possibly be the sniper and his boss Truly vouched for him so
> Baker let him go and kept looking for a stranger.
Of course, but why is the coke bottle story important enough to
discuss? Some people think it somehow proves he was not on the 6th
floor shooting at the President.
> > was not holding a coke bottle when they walked in, but even if he was that
> > in no way proves how long he had been in the lunchroom. He could have
> > grabbed an empty bottle on the way down as a prop to appear nonchalant if
> > met anyone coming up the stairwell.
> Nah, it wasn't empty and empties were not not kept on the stairs. You are
> right that the Coke does not prove how long he was in the lunch room. He
> could have been there for a half hour.
Exactly, after all he did bring a huge lunch that day. It took a 38"
handmade paper sack to fit his extra long sandwich. It would take
several cokes to wash down that much baloney.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
>> You're not trying hard enough, slacker. You could come up with a counter
>> argument that he bought the Coke before the shooting to prepare his alibi
>> and appear indifferent and then ran down the stairs with the Coke.
> Yes, and we know there was an empty Dr Pepper bottle on the 6th floor
> so there could have been others sitting around.
>
Then why didn't you have Oswald pick that up and run downstairs with it
for his alibi?
>>> were true. So if he was casually drinking a coke when Baker walked in then
>>> he couldn't possibly be the sniper on the 6th floor. In the first place he
>> But he didn't need the Coke as his alibi. He worked in that building so he
>> could not possibly be the sniper and his boss Truly vouched for him so
>> Baker let him go and kept looking for a stranger.
> Of course, but why is the coke bottle story important enough to
> discuss? Some people think it somehow proves he was not on the 6th
> floor shooting at the President.
>
Why are you even bothering to discuss it?
>>> was not holding a coke bottle when they walked in, but even if he was that
>>> in no way proves how long he had been in the lunchroom. He could have
>>> grabbed an empty bottle on the way down as a prop to appear nonchalant if
>>> met anyone coming up the stairwell.
>> Nah, it wasn't empty and empties were not not kept on the stairs. You are
>> right that the Coke does not prove how long he was in the lunch room. He
>> could have been there for a half hour.
> Exactly, after all he did bring a huge lunch that day. It took a 38"
> handmade paper sack to fit his extra long sandwich. It would take
> several cokes to wash down that much baloney.
>
>
Prove that he took a lunch to work that day.
>
>
>
>
>
dcwi...@yahoo.com
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
> >>> "How can it be common knowledge if it never happened?" <<<
>
> JEAN DAVISON THEN SAID:
>
> >>> "Same way it could be "common knowledge" that a Mauser was found or other misinformation that appeared in the media." <<<
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> True, Jean.
>
> But, as usual, Tony has misrepresented what I said when I said this:
>
> "By the time that document was written (09/23/64), it was surely
> common knowledge at the Dallas FBI offices that Lee Oswald was
> carrying a Coke bottle in the TSBD at some point just after President
> Kennedy's assassination."
>
> In the "Coke" incident I referenced in the quote above, I wasn't
> talking about the mythical "Marrion Baker Saw A Coke In Oswald's
> Hands" tale. I was talking about the FACTUAL "Coke" story told by Mrs.
> Robert A. Reid.
>
> Mrs. Reid certainly DID see Oswald with a Coke shortly after the
> assassination.
And saw him wearing only a T shirt, no overshirt or jacket....
jbarge
> On Jan 10, 10:34 pm, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 11:47 am, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > FROM A 2007 DISCUSSION:
>
> > > > >>> "Why would Burnett even mention a coke if it was not what Baker had
>
> > > > said?" <<<
>
> > > > I then said:
>
> > > > Like I said in an earlier post..."merged" evidence that shouldn't be
> > > > surely common knowledge at the Dallas FBI offices that Lee Oswald was
> > > > carrying a Coke bottle in the TSBD at some point just after President
> > > > Kennedy's assassination.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> theories
Amazing that the FBI can't tell the difference between a recording and
a transcript.
jbarge
God, I love that theory.
There's LHO shooting the prez, hiding the rifle (no LN-er ever
explains why, if he thought he would be killed or captured he bothered
to hide the rifle - why not throw it on the ground?), dashing
downstairs and then in a split second decision, he grabs that
coneniant bottle off a table and pretends to drink it.
"Yes, officer? What? M-m-m-m, good drink. Okay, good luck!"
Gawd, I luv that idea......
And so the Nawlins Boy Wonder later tells the cops he was drinking a
sody pop when it all went down, cunningly thinking about his so-cool
improv.
Then, in this a-m-a-z--i-n-g coincidence, months later.....the same
cops say he WAS drinking a soda!
Mind-boggling, and hilarious all at once.
jbarge
Well, I wondered with all the quick quotes on legal definitions you
would provide.
I always doff my fedora to a scholar.
jbarge
Pointing out yet again why the FBI investigation had aspects that were
less than stellar.
jbarge
Yes, yes, the old grab-a-bottle-from-somewhere-because-he's-so-
diabolical-even-though-he-thought-he-would-die-in-a-shootout theory.
More, please!
And of course people leave half full bottles of coke lying around in a
work place break room, well, just in case a presidential assassin
would need one.
In my new job nobody has left an empty bottle in the break room yet,
but there's no need to provide an alibi for anyone.
Of course, if it isn't evidence of an alibi one wonders why the
diabolical Oswald would make the effort to bring it to the attention
of the FBI - surely he couldn't be telling the truth, after all.
Why not just say he got a bottle of coke at 11 am and hid it until the
moment it was needed?
Why not?
But in the ultimate mind-bend....they said months later....he DID have
one!
But then they crossed it out because, eh, well, he didn't have one!
Or he did, but he really didn't, but it didn't matter if he did
because he got it from a table, but cross that out because he didn't.
I love how the FBI is just going to make up what witnesses say but
then get it wrong, maybe cause they're so busy burning up "anonymous"
notes from the assassin.
Eh - did you get that?
Hosty said that the note from Oswald saying to leave his wife alone
wasn't signed!
Hyuk hyuk - yes, yes, of course, the note wasn't signed!
It is much more efficent to make anonymous requests.
That way.....well, it saves the effort of trying to figure out who
made the request!
Obviously Hosty's lying about the note being anonymous, eh?
Wunnerful, wunnerful!
I love this case.
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/nannie_fenner.htm
"jbarge" <anjb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c11971a6-7394-421f...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...