Umbrella Man: Suspicious

[Bill Chapman]

You never stated a case.

The case states itself: You taking a knee at Oswald's grave.... that's it, thats the punch line

[Jerry Freeman]

What I think happened was that one of the FBI men filled out the statement and went to Baker, maybe when Baker was on duty and pressed for time, and got him to review it before signing. The agent was going by some speculative news report (not a "cover-up playbook") that Oswald had the Coke in hand. Roy Truly had a similar handwritten statement that he signed;

You are saying that Burnett wrote by hand.. that Baker affidavit? There are some similarities but look at the 'S' in the text like September and Special and the 'S' in the Burnett signature 'Special Agent' ..totally different.
 But what does that matter? It would be so unusual for FBI to handwrite statements for case witnesses ...they are always typed on official stationary for the record.
That Truly written statement can be found here---
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3121.msg117213.html#msg117213

[Jerry Freeman]

These statements might have been written in the field and were needed on a "rush" basis.

Why?..if the Baker testimony was all that pat? Why was it necessary to compose this hand written statement on the fly? For what purpose?

When Baker signed it, he didn't agree with "drinking a coke".

Well someone didn't. Why was it written then?

Was the Coke issue even a thing in September 1964?

Well Hell yes. Why would someone who just fired a rifle at the parade and then do all this other stuff attributed to his actions ..wiping off that rifle...hiding it between mountains of boxes of books.. choose to do something so casual as run down to the lunchroom and purchase a soda [which took that extra time needed for an alibi]
The Warrenites couldn't have that anomaly around.

[Jerry Freeman]

  Someone on the WC staff was being conscientious and wanted things double-checked. Burnett might have read or heard an over-generalization about the Coke

Mark Lane, in reading media reports, at first thought any shots fired from in front came from the Triple Underpass. It was only later he switched to the Grassy Knoll.

What does that have to do with anything? Some 50+ spectators reported shot or shots fired from that area.
You can have the last word...you always seem to want it. 

[Walt Cakebread]

Why?..if the Baker testimony was all that pat? Why was it necessary to compose this hand written statement on the fly? For what purpose? Well someone didn't. Why was it written then? Well Hell yes. Why would someone who just fired a rifle at the parade and then do all this other stuff attributed to his actions ..wiping off that rifle...hiding it between mountains of boxes of books.. choose to do something so casual as run down to the lunchroom and purchase a soda [which took that extra time needed for an alibi]
The Warrenites couldn't have that anomaly around.

Why would someone who just fired a rifle at the parade and then do all this other stuff attributed to his actions ..wiping off that rifle...hiding it between mountains of boxes of books.. choose to do something so casual as run down to the lunchroom and purchase a soda [which took that extra time needed for an alibi]

You raise a very good point , Mr. Freeman.....  If Lee had just shot the president ....The logical action for him to do after hiding the rifle would have been to simply slip down to the fifth floor and act like he had been watching the parade like the three stooges were, or walk around with his clipboard and act like he was looking for books to fill an order.

Because as Several of the cops stated....  When they arrive at a crime scene they look for a person who is leaving the area while all of the likee-Lew's are gawking and trying to figure out what has happened.  If Lee had ran down those stairs and someone had seen him ....He would have attracted attention and would have became a suspect immediately, whereas if he had been doing normal routine....... 

[Walt Cakebread]

How would I or anyone else know almost 60 years later? I suggested it was for the WC finding that Oswald was alone in the second-floor lunchroom during the encounter. Someone on the WC staff was being conscientious and wanted things double-checked.

Burnett might have read or heard an over-generalization about the Coke (the bottle was seen in the assassin's hand, but by Mrs. Reid, not Baker) in the media. He wouldn't have written it at all if he was following some "cover-up playbook" nor would he have submitted such an "incriminating" (LOL) document.

Mark Lane, in reading media reports, at first thought any shots fired from in front came from the Triple Underpass. It was only later he switched to the Grassy Knoll.

Oh my. Such a drama queen.

So you don't know if it the Coke issue was an matter of debate by Loons in September 1964.

Burnett might have read or heard an over-generalization about the Coke (the bottle was seen in the assassin's hand, but by Mrs. Reid, not Baker) in the media.

If your account was factual, Mr Organ....Then why would Curry tell reporters that Oswald was such an inhuman fiend that just seconds after he shot the president he was encountered in the building by one of his officers, and he was calmly drinking a Coca Cola.

[John Iacoletti]

> Self righteous is what the Bible reference is all about

You accused me of plagiarism.  Besides, you've been caught out representing the words of both Bill Brown and Vince Bugliosi as your own.  What does your holy book say about liars and hypocrites?

> 'Nobody ever responds to'
    18,000 views and counting

And not a single response.  That's gotta sting.

[John Iacoletti]

What I think happened was that one of the FBI men filled out the statement and went to Baker, maybe when Baker was on duty and pressed for time, and got him to review it before signing.

What's an "FBI man" doing writing a statement on behalf of a witness in the first place?