This at least gives me pause about the LN narrative

[John Corbett]

I don't think that quite works. Encountering the presidential assassin would have to have been among the more significant events in Baker's and Reid's dull lives.

The problem with that line of thinking is that neither of them knew Oswald was the assassin. Reid had no idea and Baker was suspicious at first but let Oswald go when Truly vouched for him. No reason for him to pay close attention to what Oswald was wearing.

The difference between a light brown jacket and a white v-neck t-shirt is pretty stark. Baker said "lt. brown jacket" the day of the JFKA and didn't waver at the WC -

That was his impression based on trying to remember what he saw, even though at the time he had no reason to take note of it.

he even suggested it was over some sort of white shirt. Reid said "white t-shirt" the day after the assassination and "not wearing or carrying a jacket" two days later. This is a far cry from the Amazon delivery guy or even me hunting for my wife in Walmart and having no answer other than "clothes" when some employee asks me what she is wearing.

If people don't take note of something at the time they observe it, they are not likely to have a vivid memory of it later. Do you think Oswald was wearing a light brown jacket? Do you think he was wearing a regular white shirt or do you think Oswald was wearing a t-shirt. Do you think Reid was accurate when she said Oswald was wearing just a t-shirt. Reiid and Baker's memories conflict with what Oswald was wearing when arrested. There is ample evidence that he was wearing the same tan shirt and white t-shirt when he left the TSBD that he was when arrested. The link is he was wearing that when  he got on McWatters' bus. We know that because he had McWatters' transfer in his pocket when arrested. He was also observed by his former landlady on McWatters' bus. She remembered seeing a hole in the elbow and there was a hole in the elbow of the shirt he was wearing when arrested. There is one more piece of evidence that tells us Oswald was wearing his tan shirt when he shot JFK. Fivers matching that shirt were found on the butt plate of the  rifle indicating he was wearing that shirt when he fired the shots that killed JFK. He was wearing that shirt when he was arrested. It requires some really bizarre thinking to believe he was not wearing the same tan shirt and white shirt at every place he was seen in between the shots and his arrest.

[Lance Payette]

The problem with that line of thinking is that neither of them knew Oswald was the assassin. Reid had no idea and Baker was suspicious at first but let Oswald go when Truly vouched for him. No reason for him to pay close attention to what Oswald was wearing.

I understand your zeal for the LN narrative, but I think you're grasping here. Reid (she says) encountered Oswald after she came back from watching the horrific JFKA. She was surprised to encounter Oswald (and only Oswald) on her floor and addressed him about the assassination. These were not ordinary circumstances. Unlike you, I have a difficult time believing she would not have recalled what Oswald was wearing by the time of her first (handwritten) statement THE NEXT DAY and her second one a couple of days later. Recalling an Oswald who was wearing a brownish jacket (or shirt) as wearing only a white t-shirt and specifically as neither wearing nor carrying a jacket would be a remarkably faulty memory.

That was his impression based on trying to remember what he saw, even though at the time he had no reason to take note of it.

"Wearing a lt. brown jacket" was one of the few details Baker noted in his handwritten affidavit that was apparently written THE DAY OF THE EVENT: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338819/m1/5/. He was not having to do much in the way of "trying to remember."

If we're honest, LNers and CTers alike "have a problem" with the reliability of eyewitness and earwitness testimony when it doesn't mesh with what they want to hear and "have no problem" when it fits what they want to hear. There is no reason to think that either Baker or Reid would be unable to remember accurately in these circumstances, yet there is a definite disconnect.

[David Von Pein]

Still, only in the JFKA, where nothing goes smoothly, would the "holding a coke" statement "just happen" to find its way into a draft affidavit and create havoc.

Excerpts from my "Oswald And The Coke" webpage:

DVP SAID: If some conspiracy theorists think that the FBI was covering up something relating to CE3076 (and a lot of CTers do believe that very thing, of course), then why on Earth wouldn't they have simply torn up the original statement with the crossed-out words "drinking a Coke" and the other cross-out and simply re-write the statement without any reference to the Coke at all? They can fake all kinds of evidence, per the conspiracy theorists, but they're unwilling to toss a piece of paper in the trash and re-write a two-page witness statement?

Seems kinda silly, doesn't it?

Officer Baker's 9/23/64 statement is weird, I'll grant the conspiracy theorists that much. It's obviously not Baker's handwriting. It's someone else's. But Baker DID sign it and initial the cross-outs. There's no doubt about that either. If CTers want to think Baker was coerced into crossing out the "Coke" reference, I'll ask again -- Why didn't the FBI simply re-write the whole thing--sans any "Coke" reference--and then have Baker sign the revised statement? That would have taken--what?--an extra 5 minutes?

The fact that CROSS-OUTS exist in that document at all is pretty good proof that the FBI wasn't hiding anything concerning that document.

Heck, they could also have just as easily crossed out the word "Coke" entirely. But they didn't even do that. The word "Coke" can still easily be read underneath Baker's cross-out.

Some cover-up there.

[...]

DVP SAID: The Sept. '64 affidavits were obviously prepared in a rush. And there's no typed version of either (AFAIK). Plus: They aren't notarized by an official Notary Public, which isn't normal for an affidavit either. Instead of a notary, it seems the FBI merely used a "witness" (Shelley and Hargis).

So, quite obviously, the 9/23/64 statements were not "normal" affidavits. And it's just as obvious that those statements were prepared, as Jean Davison suggested in 2010, for the exclusive purpose of confirming that there was nobody else in the lunchroom when Baker and Truly confronted Oswald. That fact becomes obvious [And I later confirmed it via this FBI document] because I think the only place you'll find those documents used as source material in the Warren Report is with respect to the rumor of others being in the lunchroom with Oswald.

[...]

[FBI Agent] Burnett could have been using Captain Will Fritz' report as a reference for the "drinking a Coke" notation that we see in CE3076. In Fritz' notes detailing his interrogations of Lee Harvey Oswald, Fritz wrote this [which can be found in Commission Exhibit 2003, at 24 H 265, and also in the Warren Report on Page 600]:

"He [Oswald] said he was on the second floor drinking a Coca-Cola when the officer came in."

I think it's possible that the Dallas Police Department could have shared this information with the FBI regarding Fritz' notes.

[...]

IN JANUARY 2024, DVP (that'd be me 😀) ADDED:

It's interesting to note that the late Vincent T. Bugliosi, who wrote the book excerpt pictured below, evidently had no idea at all that today's 21st Century Conspiracy Theorists have invented a brand-new theory regarding the "Second-Floor Lunchroom Encounter". With that ridiculous "new" fantasy theory being, of course: The Lunchroom Encounter Never Happened At All.

[And it also seems as though Mr. Bugliosi, in the book excerpt below, thought that Marrion Baker himself wrote out the Sept. 23rd affidavit. But if Vince had studied the Truly & Baker Sep. '64 statements more closely, he would have easily been able to come to the same conclusion about those documents that I (and many others) have reached---i.e., they were written by an FBI agent, probably Richard J. Burnett.] ....

[Lance Payette]

DVP -

Yes, it certainly occurred to me that allowing the "holding a coke" affidavit to see the light of day, even with the crossing-out by Baker, cuts against it having any dark significance. Still, considering how critical the issue is, it would have been wonderful if someone had grilled Baker and the FBI agent who (apparently) prepared it about the circumstances of its preparation and what (if anything) was said when Baker crossed it out. My point was more in the vein of how almost spooky it is that the JFKA is plagued with this sort of weirdness at every twist and turn; pretty much nothing is ever clean and simple.

And Bugliosi is certainly correct that Baker's and Truly's emphasis on how calm and collected Oswald was cuts against them having been coached to say the "right" thing. My puzzlement is strictly with this calm and collected behavior.

[Jarrett Smith]

DVP -

Yes, it certainly occurred to me that allowing the "holding a coke" affidavit to see the light of day, even with the crossing-out by Baker, cuts against it having any dark significance. Still, considering how critical the issue is, it would have been wonderful if someone had grilled Baker and the FBI agent who (apparently) prepared it about the circumstances of its preparation and what (if anything) was said when Baker crossed it out. My point was more in the vein of how almost spooky it is that the JFKA is plagued with this sort of weirdness at every twist and turn; pretty much nothing is ever clean and simple.

And Bugliosi is certainly correct that Baker's and Truly's emphasis on how calm and collected Oswald was cuts against them having been coached to say the "right" thing. My puzzlement is strictly with this calm and collected behavior.

Compare Oswald's behavior to Rubys.

[John Corbett]

I understand your zeal for the LN narrative, but I think you're grasping here. Reid (she says) encountered Oswald after she came back from watching the horrific JFKA. She was surprised to encounter Oswald (and only Oswald) on her floor and addressed him about the assassination. These were not ordinary circumstances. Unlike you, I have a difficult time believing she would not have recalled what Oswald was wearing by the time of her first (handwritten) statement THE NEXT DAY and her second one a couple of days later. Recalling an Oswald who was wearing a brownish jacket (or shirt) as wearing only a white t-shirt and specifically as neither wearing nor carrying a jacket would be a remarkably faulty memory.
"Wearing a lt. brown jacket" was one of the few details Baker noted in his handwritten affidavit that was apparently written THE DAY OF THE EVENT: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338819/m1/5/. He was not having to do much in the way of "trying to remember."

If we're honest, LNers and CTers alike "have a problem" with the reliability of eyewitness and earwitness testimony when it doesn't mesh with what they want to hear and "have no problem" when it fits what they want to hear. There is no reason to think that either Baker or Reid would be unable to remember accurately in these circumstances, yet there is a definite disconnect.

This episode illustrates why I have little faith in eyewitness accounts. Minutes apart Baker said Oswald was wearing a light brown jacket over some type of white shirt, then Reid said he was wearing a white t-shirt with no jacket or shirt over it. Both were partially right but got important details wrong because they simply didn't take note of what Oswald was wearing at the time. Why would they? This is typical of eyewitnesses. Are we supposed to believe that after his encounter with Baker, Oswald took his tan shirt off, walked past Reid with just the white t-shirt, then put it back on when he got on the bus and was spotted wearing the tan shirt by his former landlady. Or does it make more sense that Baker and Reid sort of got it right and sort of got it wrong. Putting it ALL the evidence together I conclude that Oswald was wearing both the tan shirt and white t-shirt when he shot JFK, with the tan shirt either partially or completely unbuttoned and that is what he was wearing when arrested and at all points in between. I also know that conflicts with what several witnesses along the way said and I don't care.

I will never understand why people put so much faith in eyewitnesses and accept what they tell us as established facts. When I see somebody start and argument with "So-and-so said that......", my reaction is STFU. Prove to me that what so-and-so said was accurate. Without corroboration, preferably by hard evidence and not another so-and-so, I'm just not going to buy it.

[Lance Payette]

This episode illustrates why I have little faith in eyewitness accounts. Minutes apart Baker said Oswald was wearing a light brown jacket over some type of white shirt, then Reid said he was wearing a white t-shirt with no jacket or shirt over it.

Is it astounding unreliability "minutes apart" or is it something more mysterious or even sinister? If two eyewitnesses describe an Airbus and a Huey, is witness unreliability a plausible explanation? Lest we forget, these accounts are bookended by Truly saying a white t-shirt with nothing in his hands and Bledsoe saying a brown shirt with a hole in the elbow. "Witness unreliability" is always an easy way out, but sometimes it just isn't plausible. I don't see it as plausible here. One plausible explanation is that Reid fabricated her account, but this would not eliminate Truly. Surely, we would expect Baker to remember the encounter more clearly than Truly. Just one of them genuine Harvey and Lee mysteries, it seems to me (Lee was in the white t-shirt, in case you're keeping score).

But wait, my fellow CTers: I put on my tinfoil thinking cap while outside feeding my menagerie of feral kitties and had the following epiphany. WHAT IF Reid was not off on WHAT she saw but WHEN she saw it? What if she saw Oswald, coke in hand and clad in the white t-shirt he typically wore while working, exiting the lunchroom BEFORE the JFKA! She either conflated the time or fabricated to make the encounter after the JFKA! Pure speculation, except that it might bolster Oswald's alibi and would solve the evidential mystery as to why Baker and Reid seemingly saw two differently clad Oswalds. Nice, no? You're welcome.