Author Topic: DiEugenio: Stop O'reilly's book from being made into a film!  (Read 14116 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online David Von Pein

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
    • THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY: A LONE-GUNMAN VIEWPOINT
Re: DiEugenio: Stop O'reilly's book from being made into a film!
« Reply #35 on: January 11, 2013, 02:29:46 PM »
Quote
Surely if the coke was common knowledge by the FBI so was the fact that the lunchroom was on the second floor not the third.

Obviously that's not the case in this instance. Because if it was the case, BOTH of the floors would not have been mentioned in Baker's statement at all. Burnett, who almost certainly wrote the words we find in CE3076, quite obviously must have still been uncertain as to exactly where the lunchroom was located within the Depository as of September 23, 1964.

Because if Baker had been right there when the statement was filled out (and, for whatever reason, Agent Burnett did the writing and not Baker), then we certainly wouldn't have had any confusion about the floor numbers as of 9/23/64, because no CTer can possibly believe something like the following scenario took place on 9/23/64, can they? .....

Officer Baker sits down with Agent Burnett of the FBI to write a statement on Sep. 23, with Baker telling Burnett that he encountered Oswald on the "second or third floor". (Baker, of course, months earlier, had already testified in front of the Warren Commission, and had verified that the encounter with Oswald took place on the SECOND floor, with no ambiguity at all arising as to what floor it occurred on.) And then, after saying "second or third floor" to Burnett, Baker then decides it was the second floor and corrects the error in the statement.

A much more logical scenario is the one I talk about in my 2010 post linked earlier -- i.e.,  Without Baker present, Agent Burnett wrote out a statement for Baker to sign. Baker looked it over, found two errors, corrected those mistakes, initialled the corrections and placed his signature (twice) on the completed document which became CE3076.

BTW, a clue that indicates Baker's statement was likely written outside the presence of Officer Baker entirely can be found on Page 2 of CE3076, where it says:

"I have read this statement consisting of this page and one other page and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I have initialled each page and each correction." -- /s/ Marrion L. Baker

In my opinion, the above words would not have been written in that document if Marrion L. Baker had been right there in the same room with Richard J. Burnett when the statement was being written. The key words being "I have READ this statement" and "I have initialled each correction".

I.E., Burnett wrote it outside the presence of Baker. Baker then read it, corrected it, and signed it.

Plus: 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?



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 03:08:44 PM
by David Von Pein
»

Roger Collins

  • Guest
Re: DiEugenio: Stop O'reilly's book from being made into a film!
« Reply #36 on: January 11, 2013, 02:50:47 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

LEE HARVEY OSWALD, MARRION BAKER, ROY TRULY, AND THE COKE:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


David, I don't find it a persuasive argument to say that Burnett perpared the document in advance for Baker to sign. It simply does not work that way. The suggestion is self-serving and preposterous. A witness statement needs to contain what the witness said and not what somebody else may have heard elsewhere and/or believed should be included! The fact that the statements were written by hand instead of typed up may well be explained with your suggestion that both statements (from Baker and Truly) were obtained in a hurry, but even in a hurry a law enforcement can not take it upon himself to pre-write a witness statement.

In my experience, a witness will make a statement and the interviewer will write it down, in the presence of the witness, who will subsequently read the statement and sign it. I have never seen a case where a witness wrote his own statement.
  

Offline Colin Crow

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6402
Re: DiEugenio: Stop O'reilly's book from being made into a film!
« Reply #37 on: January 11, 2013, 03:10:17 PM »
If we take on face value the requirement to have statements that need to satisfy the single issue of an isolated Oswald in the lunchroom why the embellishment by Burnett of unneccesary details at all? Baker was required to sign the thing, why not get him to write at the time of the encounter Oswald was alone. Takes just a minute. Compare this with the Baker affidavit about the reenactment that simply states 15 seconds to get to the doorway after the shots, no more.

Online David Von Pein

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
    • THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY: A LONE-GUNMAN VIEWPOINT
Re: DiEugenio: Stop O'reilly's book from being made into a film!
« Reply #38 on: January 11, 2013, 03:19:21 PM »
The Baker 9/23 statement IS weird, I'll grant you that. 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.

Offline Colin Crow

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6402
Re: DiEugenio: Stop O'reilly's book from being made into a film!
« Reply #39 on: January 11, 2013, 03:26:29 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Baker 9/23 statement IS weird, I'll grant you that. 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.


I don't disagree with your points David. Perhaps it give us better insight into the FBI MO of preparing material to,stitch up the LN case.

Online David Von Pein

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
    • THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY: A LONE-GUNMAN VIEWPOINT
Re: DiEugenio: Stop O'reilly's book from being made into a film!
« Reply #40 on: January 11, 2013, 03:29:56 PM »
It's quite likely that the 9/23 Baker & Truly statements would have been prepared differently if Lee Oswald had still been alive at the time. But he was dead, and the FBI knew there would be no trial. Those statements were taken at the direct request of  J. Lee Rankin and the Warren Commission (see Hoover's cover letter attached to those statements, dated 9/25/64 [CD1526]):

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Bill Brown

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17157
Re: DiEugenio: Stop O'reilly's book from being made into a film!
« Reply #41 on: January 11, 2013, 04:16:28 PM »
Below is a thread which addresses this issue of Baker, Burnett, Coke, etc. (as well as making Bob Prudhomme look like a fool).  The discussion of Baker's signed statement begins at the bottom of page 11:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login