12-02-2018, 01:53 AM
Jim,
What are you talking about??
DiEugenio: "I hate to tell you Richard but your excuse for Baker not asking Oswald his name in the witness room is the same excuse Allen Dulles proferred to him during his questioning of Baker."
III p. 257
BELIN: Officer Baker-
DULLES: I didn't get clearly in my mind, I am trying to check up, as to whether you saw Oswald maybe in the same costume later in the day. Did you see Oswald later in the day of November 22nd?
BAKER: Yes, sir; I did.
DULLES: Under what circumstances? Don't go into detail, I just want to tie up these two situations.
BAKER: As I was in the homicide office there writing this, giving this affidavit, I got hung in one of those little small offices back there, while the Secret Service took Mr. Oswald in there and questioned him and I couldn't get out by him while they were questioning him, and I did get to him him at that time.
DULLES: You saw him for a moment at that time?
BAKER: Yes, sir.
It sure seems to me you are offering up another nothing-burger. Just what excuse does Dulles proffer to Baker, Jim? How does what I said about the interrogation room being overcrowded, affecting Baker's sense of recall, how does that tie into Dulles?
DiEugenio: "I also do not agree about the guy in the jacket, due to Worrell."
I wrote p. 19, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 in Death of the Lunchroom Hoax in response to your perceived Worrell connection, which I also responded about to you in your Second Floor Lunchroom thread last year on this forum, which you did not offer any reply to. This connection is on very shaky grounds, legally and philosophically, do you think it could stand up in court? That would take more than you simply "not agreeing" with my stance on that.
DiEugenio: "And My God, you really do not see the importance to the case if Oswald was not on the 2nd floor getting a Coke?"
What a vague accusation. You know full well that not only does my essay argue that Oswald obtained a Coke on the 2nd floor, but that the entire Coke situation does absolutely not pertain to ascertaining whether or not the 2nd-floor lunchroom occurred.
DiEugenio: "And you actually condone Spence not challenging witnesses with their original statements? You assume somehow that he knew about it. What do you base that on?"
I told you that Spence had nothing to gripe about. You are the one assuming that Spence was too stupid to realize that small interrogation room was suddenly overcrowded while Baker was composing the last page of his affidavit (which contained his inaccuracies), and too stupid to understand that Baker told Johnson, once he handed him his affidavit, that he'd recognized Oswald.
So you daydream about Spence grilling Baker regarding his affidavit inaccuracies, and fail to take into account that he had nothing to go on.
Bugliosi probably would have embarrassed the dickens out of Spence if he'd attempted such an ill-considered defense tack.
What are you talking about??
DiEugenio: "I hate to tell you Richard but your excuse for Baker not asking Oswald his name in the witness room is the same excuse Allen Dulles proferred to him during his questioning of Baker."
III p. 257
BELIN: Officer Baker-
DULLES: I didn't get clearly in my mind, I am trying to check up, as to whether you saw Oswald maybe in the same costume later in the day. Did you see Oswald later in the day of November 22nd?
BAKER: Yes, sir; I did.
DULLES: Under what circumstances? Don't go into detail, I just want to tie up these two situations.
BAKER: As I was in the homicide office there writing this, giving this affidavit, I got hung in one of those little small offices back there, while the Secret Service took Mr. Oswald in there and questioned him and I couldn't get out by him while they were questioning him, and I did get to him him at that time.
DULLES: You saw him for a moment at that time?
BAKER: Yes, sir.
It sure seems to me you are offering up another nothing-burger. Just what excuse does Dulles proffer to Baker, Jim? How does what I said about the interrogation room being overcrowded, affecting Baker's sense of recall, how does that tie into Dulles?
DiEugenio: "I also do not agree about the guy in the jacket, due to Worrell."
I wrote p. 19, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 in Death of the Lunchroom Hoax in response to your perceived Worrell connection, which I also responded about to you in your Second Floor Lunchroom thread last year on this forum, which you did not offer any reply to. This connection is on very shaky grounds, legally and philosophically, do you think it could stand up in court? That would take more than you simply "not agreeing" with my stance on that.
DiEugenio: "And My God, you really do not see the importance to the case if Oswald was not on the 2nd floor getting a Coke?"
What a vague accusation. You know full well that not only does my essay argue that Oswald obtained a Coke on the 2nd floor, but that the entire Coke situation does absolutely not pertain to ascertaining whether or not the 2nd-floor lunchroom occurred.
DiEugenio: "And you actually condone Spence not challenging witnesses with their original statements? You assume somehow that he knew about it. What do you base that on?"
I told you that Spence had nothing to gripe about. You are the one assuming that Spence was too stupid to realize that small interrogation room was suddenly overcrowded while Baker was composing the last page of his affidavit (which contained his inaccuracies), and too stupid to understand that Baker told Johnson, once he handed him his affidavit, that he'd recognized Oswald.
So you daydream about Spence grilling Baker regarding his affidavit inaccuracies, and fail to take into account that he had nothing to go on.
Bugliosi probably would have embarrassed the dickens out of Spence if he'd attempted such an ill-considered defense tack.