Anatomy of the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter

[Ray Mitcham]

Marion Baker's first day affidavit.

"Friday November 22, 1963 I was riding motorcycle escort for the President of the United States. At approximately 12:30 pm I was on Houston Street and the President's car had made a left turn from Houston onto Elm Street. Just as I approached Elm Street and Houston I heard three shots. I realized those shots were rifle shots and I began to try to figure out where they came from. I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building. As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said, "Let's take the elevator." The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket."

And the description of Oswald in his Warren Testimony.

"he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt."
Note- NOT a brown shirt and a white T shirt.

Assuming your Warren Testimony reference is to the testimony of DPD Officer MarrionLewisBaker to the Warren Commission, are you saying that he testified that the person encountered was not LeeHarveyOswald? And, are you saying that he testified that the encounter did not occur in or near the 2nd floor lunch/snack room? I am just seeking clarification as to what is meant by the post.

In his first day affidavit, he described the person he met as walking away from him on the third or fourth floor.
In his W.C. testimony, he said he saw Oswald through the glass window in a door on the second floor.
In his Warren Commission testimony and his first day affidavit, he said that Oswald was wearing a brown Jacket.

He described the suspect as being about 30 years old, 165 lbs in weight and 5'9", and having dark hair.
Only two of these items are correct in reference to Oswald -- i.e. he was 5'9" and had dark hair.

165lbs? No. Oswald was 30 lbs lighter.
Wearing a brown jacket? No. Oswald had on a shirt with a white t shirt under.
30 years old? No. Oswald was 25 years old.

Conclusion. Baker described somebody other than Oswald. In his Warren Commission testimony, Baker said that he identified him the DPD HQ, but at the time that he saw Oswald in the DPD, he did not. Why didn't he tell Capt Fritz, when he saw Oswald in the DPD, that he was the man he saw on the third or fourth floor?

Conclusion- he changed his story between his first day affidavit and his Warren Commission testimony. Thus his evidence is unreliable.

And again, I ask the question, did DPD Officer MarrionLewisBaker, a motorcycle patrol police officer who likely had not previously attempted to apprehend a POTUS Assassin within 2 minutes of the shooting, ever testify that the encounter did not, and/or could not, happen on the 2nd floor, and that the person encountered was not the then 24 year old LeeHarveyOswald?

In his first day affidavit, he stated he didn't see the alleged killer on the second floor through a glass window, but walking away from him on the third or fourth floor.

I have offered my conclusions in a previous post regarding "his first day affidavit and his Warren Commission testimony", and see no need to repeat said conclusions. Should those conclusions be of interest, they can be easily found among fairly recent posts.

You are welcome to your beliefs, for that's all they are, as you stated in above posts. I prefer to go with good evidence. You believe Baker in one case but not in the other.

Thank you for your conclusions, but AFAIC, they are not worth the time you have wasted on them.