The filmed interviews

[Richard Gilbride]

David,

Show me one substantive, tangible result that derives from the hypothesis that the lunchroom encounter was a hoax. It's had 10+ years. It's been utterly useless as an investigative lead, and contributed absolute zero to the crime scene reconstruction, as per what happened inside the Depository after the assassination.

Yet you all hang onto it like your momma's apron. Are you hinging your hopes on the release of the next "Ira Trantham document", which doesn't have a chance in a zillion to exist? How about Murphy's Tan Jacket Man- that super investigative lead that led to nowheresville since he was only an innocent bystander who never turned up in any other photos?

Please read pp. 87-88 of Death of the Lunchroom Hoax- as regards John Armstrong's disassembly of the bus & taxi hoaxes. Sorry, I don't drink Farley's Cloud Cuckoo-Land Koolaid. It's the parallax sophistry to the lunchroom hoax.

What justifies extending all the other instances of evidence-fabrication to the lunchroom encounter?

Nothing. This is your wishful thinking at work.

[Richard Gilbride]

Jim,

I forgot to mention that the burden of proof is on you hoaxers, the same way that someone is innocent until proven guilty, to establish that a hoax actually happened.

Thus far, not one scintilla of documentary evidence has been presented that speaks in favor of your case. Every last innuendo commonly understood in this community as favoring a hoax has been given a prosaic, everyday common-sense explanation in my essay.

All you've got is a bunch of people believing a bunch of mullarkey that's easily refuted. I don't care if I'm the most unpopular guy at this party- what I say to you is true. And you are being very hypocritical if on the one hand you insist on fact-checking and footnotes, and on the other hand endorse a load of baloney like Kamp published.

[Jim 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 proffered to him during his questioning of Baker.

I also do not agree about the guy in the jacket, due to Worrell.

And My God, you really do not see the importance to the case if Oswald was not on the second floor getting a soda?

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?

[LR Trotter]

RichardGillbride said: "I don't care if I am the most unpopular guy at this party".
Maybe so, at this party, but across the forum, maybe top five. I don't consider myself among the top ten, but likely out there somewhere.

Worth consideration, is the fact that the fatal shooting of USP JohnKennedySr, critical wounding of TG JohnConnallyJr, fatal shooting of DPD Officer JD Tippit, not far from DealyPlaza, and the fatal shooting of shooting suspect, TSBD Employee LeeOswald, two days later, while in police custody at DPD Headquarters, were actual real life events, not a made for TV Movie, nor a Crime Drama episode, where a police officer gets involved in a shooting incident, and reacts by attempting to apprehend an unknown gunman or unknown gunmen inside or on top of a multi story building. And, in a crime drama episode, the officer, although quite excited, enters a ground level first floor, and sees quite visible floor number signs while conducting a search. Although he encounters a building employee that later becomes a shooter suspect on an upper floor, that person was not yet a suspect, but was confirmed to be an employee at work. And, in the crime drama episode, the officer noticed a floor number sign just as the encounter occurs. But, after a quick search, no confirmed or indicated shooter was found, and the music starts just before a commercial break.

After a commercial break, the officer is back at headquarters, all of the exited condition is gone, blood pressure is normal. And, as he is recounting his reaction to the shooting incident, second by second exactly as it occurred, low and behold, the not yet a suspect building employee he had encountered, is now a suspect, primarily for a separate shooting incident, is at headquarters under arrest. Immediately, in the crime drama episode, the officer recognizes the now shooting suspect building employee, beyond doubt, and concludes, also immediately, that it is very likely that the shooting suspect he had encountered, had also fired the shots from the building. Now the music starts, and then a commercial break begins.

However, movies and crime drama episodes are not actual, and as they occurred, real life events. DPD SoloMotorcycleOfficer ML Baker, while escorting the PresidentKennedy Motorcade, reacted with expected excitement and without confirmed law enforcement officer backup, followed his instincts regarding the origin of the shots, parked his motorcycle, entered the closest to him entrance to the TSBD Building, which he was not familiar with, and he had to take steps up to the mid-level landing first floor entrance. Did he know he was entering the first floor, and not the second floor? Although as he entered the TSBD, he was then accompanied by BuildingSuperintendent RS Truly as an escort for direction, he was still without known law enforcement officer backup. So, unfamiliar with the TSBD, after going up steps to enter the mid-level first floor, and dealing with expected human excitement/apprehension, OfficerBaker's initial statement about an encounter on the "third or fourth floor", has to be within the realm of human memory expectation, especially considering the situation in DealyPlaza at 12:30pm CST on November 22, 1963, and the enormous possibilities of physical injury done by a shooter there, at that time. After thorough review, and much better understanding of the TSBD Building layout and flooring construction, and action/reaction reenactment, he was able to confirm the encounter as it occurred at the lunchroom on the second floor.

Real life occurrences are real, as they occur, with real people. They are not TV Crime Dramas, are not with actors for characters, are not with commercial breaks, and especially are not filmed scenes that can be discarded and re-filmed for audience entertainment. And quite disturbing, is that there are those that were not there, were not eyewitnesses, some possibly not yet born before 11/22/'63, yet can be so critical of known eyewitnesses, including OfficerBaker and his actions/reactions. Especially disturbing, is that there are some that declare that now deceased known eyewitnesses are "liars", simply because said eyewitnesses' accounts do not match their own "decided" account of the assassination and/or accompanying events.

[Richard Gilbride]

Larry,

Very perceptive, really enjoyed especially your last paragraph there. Keep talking.

[Richard Gilbride]

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.

[Jim DiEugenio]

To take up the points by you:

In rereading it, its actually Baker who bright up the excuse for too many people being there under Dulles' questioning, as you can see from your own quote. Dulles brought up the time factor excuse as you can also see from your own quote.

We disagree about Worrell.

The point about second versus first floor is one that I think you are (deliberately?) confusing. Its not vague at all from an evidentiary point of view.

Your point about Spence misses the point. You assume Spence knew about it, and ignored it because somehow he agreed with you. What on earth do you base that on? Did you see the uncut version of the trial? Have you seen the full transcript? Did you cal him? Please let us know if you did any of these.

But if you did not do any of them, then it seems pretty clear that Spence did not know about either Norman or Baker's first statements. Any defense lawyer would have used them to cross examine the witnesses. Its something you learn the first year in law school in Evidence 101.

[LR Trotter]

Larry,

Very perceptive, really enjoyed especially your last paragraph there. Keep talking.

Thanks Richard. I suppose to some degree, a mock trial produced 20+ years after the assassination, trying a suspect that has been deceased 20+ years, even though real characters were involved, is still not quite reality. Worth consideration, all of the evidence might have faced scrutiny with an alive accused suspect to cause a trial to be avoided.

Undoubtedly, OfficerBaker knew the potential injury that could result from the shots he heard, and how vulnerable the UnitedStates Government could be as PresidentKennedy and MrsKennedy, GovernorConnally and MrsConnally, VicePresidentJohnson and MrsJohnson, and SenatorYarborough were all well within range and could very well be victims of the shooting. I am confident his world began turning quite fast, but off center and out of balance. And, I would not at all be surprised to review tapes of the radio broadcast reports of the shooting that afternoon, and find numerous inaccurate reports, especially early on.

I wasn't riding OfficerBaker's motorcycle, and I make no claim to have been able to have worn his boots that day, whether they fit or not.

[Richard Gilbride]

Jim,

You don't seem to be aware that the moderators here have been telling lies about Albert Doyle's posting privileges. Have you seen anything from him since last spring? Just because he posts something doesn't mean it has to be responded to or even read. But it's criminal to deprive him of his fundamental 1st amendment privilege. That's still on you, mister, as far as I can see.

DiEugenio: "In rereading it, it's actually Baker who brought up the excuse for too many people being there under Dulles' questioning, as you can see from your own quote. Dulles brought up the time factor excuse as you can see from your own quote."

Jim wants to transpose this topic discussion into an intellectual tennis match on his home court. The overcrowded interrogation room affected Baker's sense of recall, plain and simple. All Dulles did was redundantly clarify that Baker saw Oswald "for a moment" while in that interrogation room.

Jim wants to lump me in with the ex-CIA chief & archconspirator because I embarrassed him by pointing out that Baker had no rhyme or reason to drop his pen and tell the other lawmen how impolite they were for disturbing his affidavit-composition. How clever of you, Jim. You finally understand that I'm more of an evil genius than Big Al, the kiddie's pal.

DiEugenio: "We disagree about Worrell."

And we're still hoping you can pass freshman philosophy and Kriminology.

DiEugenio: "The point about the second versus first floor is one that I think you are (deliberately?) confusing. It's not vague at all from an evidentiary point of view."

Another vague accusation, which I assume is in regard to the Coke problem, which doesn't have a darn thing to do with whether or not the lunchroom incident happened.

DiEugenio: "Your point about Spence misses the point. You assume Spence knew about it, and ignored it because somehow he agreed with you. What on earth do you base that on? Did you see the uncut version of the trial? Have you seen the full transcript? Did you call him? Please let us know if you did any of these."
"But if you did not do any of them, then it seems pretty clear that Spence did not know about either Norman's or Baker's first statements. Any defense lawyer would have used them to cross examine the witnesses. It's something you learn the first year in law school in Evidence 101."

Jim is daydreaming again, about Spence grilling Baker regarding his affidavit inaccuracies, and Jim once again fails to take into account that Spence had nothing to go on.

But Jim wants to pontificate his conclusions about Spence's sloppiness- that cinches Jim's case that Baker was perpetrating a lunchroom hoax, while composing the last page of his affidavit.

More baloney from DiEugenio.

***********************

I won't be responding to your next post here. I have a small business to manage and other commitments. My opinion is that you are overworked- after 30+ years of assassination rigors- and are not seeing things clearly right now.

And you have painted yourself into a corner with your lunchroom hoax endorsement.

It is dying an ugly death, since it was fostered by people who were deceitful and who do not understand the graces of sportsmanship.