Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE?

[Albert Doyle]

You guys know my opinion about "Oswald body doubles," not going to rehash. My point at this time is "put yourself in Baker's shoes" for a minute. If Baker sees "Oswald doubles" wearing different clothes, what possible reason would Baker have that he not going to put that in his initial report? Or mention it later? To the FBI? To the HSCA? Ever?

I read somewhere that Oswald had an encounter with the Dallas Police at some point prior and they knew he was a spook. When Baker gets back to the police station his report removes all mention of Oswald and simply reports an unknown employee on the 4th floor landing. We know how corrupted the assassination was. At that point it is not impossible that Baker was somehow cognizant of his double problem.

You must ascribe a pre-existing sinister motive to Baker to keep that one under wraps.

DPD is a place where no one took notes of a presidential assassin's statements. I think we can assume a collective understanding of subversion of evidence was present at the police station.

What's really happened here (IMHO) is that Baker wrote in his initial report the most unusual thing he saw (the guy on the fourth floor) and why he didn't shoot him ('cause Truly vouched for him). It was only later, after Oswald's arrest, that Baker (or someone else) decided that the lunchroom encounter with Oswald was the most unusual thing Baker saw, and the affidavit was re-written to reflect that. The second affidavit would have the benefit (from local law enforcement's POV) of putting the shooter inside the building, and the problems it caused would not be recognized until later.

DiEugenio says Oswald was within view of Baker at the station when he wrote his report.


Baker would have no reason to include details on elevators not working but then skip mention of holding his gun on a man who was right there at the station and under arrest when he wrote his report.


Even if they had decided on Oswald being the suspect there's no reason to not ID the man on the 4th floor landing. We know all the employees and we know their rate of disclosure of their doings in the subsequent years and investigations. It just plain doesn't make sense that one of those employees would experience a prime event like being confronted by Baker on his stair climb and not mention it.


The key to this is Carolyn Arnold who places Oswald in the lunch-room close to the known events. This is matched by Fritz's notes that also place Oswald in the lunch-room. Carolyn Arnold is key because she's a non-police source that corroborates Oswald being in the lunch-room where Baker, Fritz, and Oswald claimed.

I think Baker is both being honest (on/about 11/22/63) and not involved with the conspiracy. I think he saw a lot of people he didn't know, and we've heard about 2 of them. (I'm not so trusting when it comes to the "re-enactment" part of Baker's participation.)

If you reverse engineer the scene I think we can safely assume two Oswalds left the Depository. That means you have to account for those two Oswalds inside the building. We have a second example of DPD erasing Oswalds from the Depository with Roger Craig's witnessing and preferring their version. Choosing one of the two witnessings as the preferred plot. So Baker wasn't the only one to do so.


Come to think of it, isn't Fritz's delay of his notes a mirror reflection of Baker's delay? And isn't the release of the Oswald double taken out the back of the Texas Theater a contemporary example of the Dallas Police burying doubles sightings at the same time as Baker?



.