Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened

[LR Trotter]

Do you know how many people put LHO on the first floor?

Including himself?

Admittedly, I am not sure about what exactly is being asked here, or whom is being asked, but for clarification, is the question referencing multiple witnesses, including himself, that place LHO on the 1st floor at or very near 12:32pm CST, on 11/22/'63? I would tend to believe it possible for him to be there at 12:28pm, and/or maybe 12:36pm, but not at or very near 12:32pm.

[Jim DiEugenio]

I am assuming then that you buy the Baker/Truly story and the Reid story?

You understand how Reid is undermined by Hine don't you?

[Albert Doyle]

Jim, you understand how Kamp is undermined by Holmes?



Miller reasonably showed that Piper and West saw Baker and Truly enter right on time.



You can't just cherry-pick...

[Ray Mitcham]

Probably because you are using the testimony of a known Warren Commission perjurer who was 1000 feet away at the Terminal Annex Building and obviously mixed-up his stories after getting them second-hand.



Why would you be asking us to take the word of someone like this?

That's about it. In or within view, in my opinion, does not include anyone in or at the TAB. And, according to an established timeline, DPD Officer ML Baker, accompanied by RS Truly, encountered LH Oswald at about 12:32pm, on the 2nd floor.

According to whose established timeline?

Why would you take the word of a DPD officer, who first said that a man he saw on the third or fourth floor "walking away from the stairs", and then changed his mind to say he saw him through the window of a door in another room on another floor?

[Albert Doyle]

Ray never considers the obvious that Baker had been coerced into hiding the fact Oswald may have been sitting comfortably at the lunchroom table eating just as Carolyn Arnold had seen him 6 1/2 minutes earlier. Even though this is the best evidence the pro-Murphy propagandists always try to ignore it and its significance towards the testimony.


Jim D says how could Baker not recognize the man sitting across from him in the police station? A smarter detective would realize it was exactly because Baker saw the suspect there that he fudged the lunchroom encounter because he knew it vindicated Oswald.


I think the walking away story is the accurate version because Harvey may have been looking out the lunchroom vestibule window because he heard a commotion or Truly calling for the elevator.. Being a CIA double Harvey flinched away from the door window after seeing a cop and Baker, being a cop trained in observing guilt, picked up on this right away. Harvey may have been doing both and even though Baker saw him in the vestibule when they confronted him in the lunchroom they saw his lunch spread out on the table where he had been sitting. The same place Carolyn Arnold saw him 6 minutes earlier.



You guys need to learn how to decipher evidence and do good detective work...Ray ignores me because he knows he's not going to do well if forced to answer my arguments...

[LR Trotter]

Probably because you are using the testimony of a known Warren Commission perjurer who was 1000 feet away at the Terminal Annex Building and obviously mixed-up his stories after getting them second-hand.



Why would you be asking us to take the word of someone like this?

That's about it. In or within view, in my opinion, does not include anyone in or at the TAB. And, according to an established timeline, DPD Officer ML Baker, accompanied by RS Truly, encountered LH Oswald at about 12:32pm, on the 2nd floor.

According to whose established timeline?

Why would you take the word of a DPD officer, who first said that a man he saw on the third or fourth floor "walking away from the stairs", and then changed his mind to say he saw him through the window of a door in another room on another floor?

Is there another reliable evidenced based timeline?

Without going into detail, I'll take DPD Officer ML Baker's word for the timeline, with additional situational events occurring at the time as well.

Why would I not take his word for the event as it occurred? Him being human and all, and having to enter a building that is indicated to be occupied by a person that has just shot at the POTUS, I would think it would be necessary to review the event and gather his thoughts and recollection.

[LR Trotter]

I am assuming then that you buy the Baker/Truly story and the Reid story?

You understand how Reid is undermined by Hine don't you?

Again, I am not sure as to whom the question is directed, but for the record, I am not buying anything, but I continue to believe that DPD Officer ML Baker, accompanied by TSBD Building Superintendent RS Truly, encountered building employee LH Oswald on the 2nd floor of the TSBD Building at or near 12:32pm CST, on 11/22/'63.

Also, if I am being asked if I understand how Reid is undermined by Hine, the answer is no I don't. But assuming that the reference is to Ms G Reid and Ms G Hine, does that mean that Ms Hine stated and/or testified that the 2nd floor encounter did not occur? Just seeking clarification.

[Ray Mitcham]

Probably because you are using the testimony of a known Warren Commission perjurer who was 1000 feet away at the Terminal Annex Building and obviously mixed-up his stories after getting them second-hand.



Why would you be asking us to take the word of someone like this?

That's about it. In or within view, in my opinion, does not include anyone in or at the TAB. And, according to an established timeline, DPD Officer ML Baker, accompanied by RS Truly, encountered LH Oswald at about 12:32pm, on the 2nd floor.

According to whose established timeline?

Why would you take the word of a DPD officer, who first said that a man he saw on the third or fourth floor "walking away from the stairs", and then changed his mind to say he saw him through the window of a door in another room on another floor?

Is there another reliable evidenced based timeline?

Whose established timeline? (With the emphasis on "established".)

Without going into detail, I'll take DPD Officer ML Baker's word for the timeline, with additional situational events occurring at the time as well.

Circular argument. If Baker says it's right then it must be right.

Which "additional situational events" do you mean?

Why would I not take his word for the event as it occurred? Him being human and all, and having to enter a building that is indicated to be occupied by a person that has just shot at the POTUS, I would think it would be necessary to review the event and gather his thoughts and recollection.

If you are to take his word then take his first words.

There was no indication that any shots had been fired from the TSDB except for pigeons, allegedly, flying off the roof, which they would have done, from whichever building the shots had been fired.

Apart from Baker and Truly, there is no confirmation of the second floor encounter, and even Baker's first affidavit disagreed with his subsequent testimony.

[LR Trotter]

That's about it. In or within view, in my opinion, does not include anyone in or at the TAB. And, according to an established timeline, DPD Officer ML Baker, accompanied by RS Truly, encountered LH Oswald at about 12:32pm, on the 2nd floor.

According to whose established timeline?

Why would you take the word of a DPD officer, who first said that a man he saw on the third or fourth floor "walking away from the stairs", and then changed his mind to say he saw him through the window of a door in another room on another floor?

Is there another reliable evidenced based timeline?

Whose established timeline? (With the emphasis on "established".)

Without going into detail, I'll take DPD Officer ML Baker's word for the timeline, with additional situational events occurring at the time as well.

Circular argument. If Baker says it's right then it must be right.

Which "additional situational events" do you mean?

Why would I not take his word for the event as it occurred? Him being human and all, and having to enter a building that is indicated to be occupied by a person that has just shot at the POTUS, I would think it would be necessary to review the event and gather his thoughts and recollection.

If you are to take his word then take his first words.

There was no indication that any shots had been fired from the TSDB except for pigeons, allegedly, flying off the roof, which they would have done, from whichever building the shots had been fired.

Apart from Baker and Truly, there is no confirmation of the second floor encounter, and even Baker's first affidavit disagreed with his subsequent testimony.

While standing by my thoughts as posted, I see no need to explain further .However, if it is believed the encounter did not occur ,instead of questioning the conclusion that it did, maybe some eyewitnesses, on the scene, gave provable testimony that it did not, and those eyewitness accounts can be presented.

[Ray Mitcham]

According to whose established timeline?

Why would you take the word of a DPD officer, who first said that a man he saw on the third or fourth floor "walking away from the stairs", and then changed his mind to say he saw him through the window of a door in another room on another floor?

Is there another reliable evidenced based timeline?

Whose established timeline? (With the emphasis on "established".)

Without going into detail, I'll take DPD Officer ML Baker's word for the timeline, with additional situational events occurring at the time as well.

Circular argument. If Baker says it's right then it must be right.

Which "additional situational events" do you mean?

Why would I not take his word for the event as it occurred? Him being human and all, and having to enter a building that is indicated to be occupied by a person that has just shot at the POTUS, I would think it would be necessary to review the event and gather his thoughts and recollection.

If you are to take his word then take his first words.

There was no indication that any shots had been fired from the TSDB except for pigeons, allegedly, flying off the roof, which they would have done, from whichever building the shots had been fired.

Apart from Baker and Truly, there is no confirmation of the second floor encounter, and even Baker's first affidavit disagreed with his subsequent testimony.

While standing by my thoughts as posted, I see no need to explain further .However, if it is believed the encounter did not occur ,instead of questioning the conclusion that it did, maybe some eyewitnesses, on the scene, gave provable testimony that it did not, and those eyewitness accounts can be presented.

Right. Which means you can't back up what you said. Got it.