Author Topic: DiEugenio: Stop O'reilly's book from being made into a film!  (Read 14897 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline James Gordon

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
Re: DiEugenio: Stop O'reilly's book from being made into a film!
« Reply #49 on: January 13, 2013, 05:19:22 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did Baker just forget what he told the WC months earlier?

I do not think anyone is suggesting that. Yes there is a contradiction between his testimony and this statement. What I feel s being suggested is that, during his testimony, Baker was expeditious with the truth. He would not have been the first or last witness to have done so.

Specter's narrative of questioning was clearly geared to a line of thought and argument that was not necessarily aimed at elicitating the whole truth. Is it not also a truth that many witnesses were clearly aware of what was expected from them as well as what was not expected from them?

What I suggest is that maybe what we get in this statement is the truth and that Baker was later  required to excise and sign.

James.

Offline Bill Brown

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17340
Re: DiEugenio: Stop O'reilly's book from being made into a film!
« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2013, 12:04:11 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Therefore, you believe that Marrion Baker said the words "second or third floor" when he was giving his statement to Burnett.....even though we know via his WC testimony months earlier that Baker knew it was the second floor and not the third. Correct?

And you also think Baker uttered the words "drinking a Coke"....even though we know from his WC testimony months earlier that Baker said he didn't see Oswald with any Coke on November 22nd.

Did Baker just forget what he told the WC months earlier?

Yeah, I suppose there's a remote possibility that Baker's memory failed him and he forgot which floor the lunchroom was on, and he also forgot the stuff about "no Coke", and then he suddenly re-remembered those details a few seconds later when he scratched out the errors in CE3076. But is that a reasonable or likely possibility?

I wonder if Richard J. Burnett is still alive?

David, you've done a great job in this thread (as always).  Everything you've posted in this thread makes perfect sense.  Sometimes, no matter how much common sense and logic you throw at some people, they're just not going to catch it.  The truth is just too boring for some.

Roger Collins

  • Guest
Re: DiEugenio: Stop O'reilly's book from being made into a film!
« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2013, 01:48:17 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Therefore, you believe that Marrion Baker said the words "second or third floor" when he was giving his statement to Burnett.....even though we know via his WC testimony months earlier that Baker knew it was the second floor and not the third. Correct?

And you also think Baker uttered the words "drinking a Coke"....even though we know from his WC testimony months earlier that Baker said he didn't see Oswald with any Coke on November 22nd.

Did Baker just forget what he told the WC months earlier?

Yeah, I suppose there's a remote possibility that Baker's memory failed him and he forgot which floor the lunchroom was on, and he also forgot the stuff about "no Coke", and then he suddenly re-remembered those details a few seconds later when he scratched out the errors in CE3076. But is that a reasonable or likely possibility?

I wonder if Richard J. Burnett is still alive?


Did Baker just forget what he told the WC months earlier?

Yeah, I suppose there's a remote possibility that Baker's memory failed him and he forgot which floor the lunchroom was on, and he also forgot the stuff about "no Coke", and then he suddenly re-remembered those details a few seconds later when he scratched out the errors in CE3076. But is that a reasonable or likely possibility?  



Its a far more reasonable and likely scenario than the silly assertion that an FBI agent would have pre-written a statement for a witness who isn't present. People make slips of the tongue all the time. It could very well be that Baker remembered at the last moment what he had told the WC.

Had the statement been pre-written by Burnett; how do you explain the original inclusion of the two comments? Where did that information come from? Did Burnett make that up?. And if he subsequently understood he had made the mistake why did he not simply destroy the first version and write a second one? I mean, if it was written in advance he would have time for that, wouldn't he? After all, it only takes a couple of minutes to write those two pages.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

David, you've done a great job in this thread (as always).  Everything you've posted in this thread makes perfect sense.  Sometimes, no matter how much common sense and logic you throw at some people, they're just not going to catch it.  The truth is just too boring for some.


It's common sense and logic for you to assume that an FBI agent would prepare a statement in advance for a witness to sign? That's what you call "the truth"? Earlier you said;

But, does that mean, as a fact, that Burnett didn't write the statement (without Baker present) and then the FBI had Baker read over the statement and sign it?  Of course not.

and now all of a sudden it is "the truth"?     :rofl3:
 
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 01:57:00 PM
by Roger Collins
»

Offline Bill Brown

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17340
Re: DiEugenio: Stop O'reilly's book from being made into a film!
« Reply #52 on: January 13, 2013, 01:51:14 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did Baker just forget what he told the WC months earlier?

Yeah, I suppose there's a remote possibility that Baker's memory failed him and he forgot which floor the lunchroom was on, and he also forgot the stuff about "no Coke", and then he suddenly re-remembered those details a few seconds later when he scratched out the errors in CE3076. But is that a reasonable or likely possibility? 



Its a far more reasonable likely scenario than the silly assertion that an FBI agent would have pre-written a statement for a witness who isn't present. People make slips of the tongue all the time. It could very be that Baker remembered at the last moment what he had told the WC.

Had the statement been pre-written by Burnett; how do you explain the original inclusion of the two comments? Where did that information come from? Did Burnett make that up?. And if he understoond he had made it mistake why did he not simply destroy the first version and write a second one? I mean, if it was written in advance he would have time for that, wouldn't he? After all, it only takes a couple of minutes to write those two pages.


It's common sense and logic for you to assume that an FBI agent would prepare a statement in advance for a witness to sign? That's what you call "the truth"? Earlier you said;

But, does that mean, as a fact, that Burnett didn't write the statement (without Baker present) and then the FBI had Baker read over the statement and sign it?  Of course not.

and now all of a sudden it is "the truth"?     :rofl3:
 


Roger, a perfectly reasonable explanation has been provided.  You don't have to accept it, but your reluctance to accept it does not mean that it is not a perfectly reasonable explanation, nevertheless.

Roger Collins

  • Guest
Re: DiEugenio: Stop O'reilly's book from being made into a film!
« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2013, 02:01:05 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Roger, a perfectly reasonable explanation has been provided.  You don't have to accept it, but your reluctance to accept it does not mean that it is not a perfectly reasonable explanation, nevertheless.


Its only reasonable in your mind, Bill. 

Offline Bill Brown

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17340
Re: DiEugenio: Stop O'reilly's book from being made into a film!
« Reply #54 on: January 13, 2013, 02:06:35 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Its only reasonable in your mind, Bill. 

Then why not address the question of why wouldn't the FBI simply rewrite the statement (minus the Coke) so that Baker could sign it without having to mark through it and initial the correction?  All you really said about it was "Baker then for some reason decided to alter those two parts of the statement."

"For some reason"?

Offline David Von Pein

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2398
    • THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY: A LONE-GUNMAN VIEWPOINT
Re: DiEugenio: Stop O'reilly's book from being made into a film!
« Reply #55 on: January 13, 2013, 02:45:15 PM »
Quote from: Colin Crow
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.

Quote from: David Von Pein
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.

After reading Roy Truly's 9/23/64 statement again, which is also almost assuredly in Agent Burnett's handwriting as well, my above quote about Burnett possibly not knowing where the lunchroom was located in the TSBD at the time Officer Baker's 9/23/64 affidavit was prepared might require further examination (see my explanation later in this post).

And the reason it would seem to need further scrutiny is because of the words we find written in Roy Truly's statement, which is a statement, unlike Officer Baker's, that contains no cross-outs or corrections at all. In Truly's statement we find these words:

"The police officer was talking to someone in the lunch room located on the second floor."

So it would seem as though Agent Burnett had no problem remembering where the lunchroom was located when he wrote out the statement that Roy S. Truly would ultimately be signing -- and that was written out on the very same day as Baker's statement.





Of course, we don't know the exact chronology of those two FBI statements. We don't know whether Baker's was written out first, followed by Truly's, or vice versa.

But when reading BOTH of the affidavits together, there's another hint which indicates BOTH statements (or at least a portion thereof) were written in the words of one single individual (probably Richard Burnett). That hint being these identical words that appear in both the Baker and Truly documents:

"No one else in the vicinity of the lunch room."





Do conspiracy theorists think that those exact verbatim words were spoken individually by both Baker and Truly when they each gave their statements? That would be a remarkable coincidence indeed. Those were very likely Burnett's words, and he utilized those very same words in both statements.

Here's a thought regarding the "second/third floor" confusion:

It could be that Burnett wrote out Officer Baker's statement first, and at the time he wrote it out, he wasn't certain about the floor number of the Depository lunchroom. Baker then met with Burnett, the mistake was corrected by Baker, and then Burnett (after having completed Baker's affidavit) wrote out the statement for Roy Truly to sign.

By the time Burnett wrote out Truly's document, he of course now had confirmation from Marrion Baker as to exactly which floor the lunchroom was on. Therefore, there are no cross-outs or errors regarding the floor number in Truly's statement (and no mention of any Coke either, since that error was also corrected a short time earlier by Officer Baker, via this proposed timeline for the written affidavits).

Am I speculating? You bet I am. But given the fact we can easily see that BOTH the Baker and Truly statements of 9/23/64 were certainly written by one single person (and it wasn't Baker or Truly themselves), I think my above speculation is reasonable, rational, and sensible.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 03:46:48 PM
by David Von Pein
»