"Mr. BAKER - I never did have a chance to see him in the lineup. I saw
him when I went to give the affidavit, the statement that I saw him
down there, of the actions of myself and Mr. Truly as we went into
the building and on up what we are discussing now."
Since the details of the encounter takes about 15% of the affidavit, I doubt Baker was mainly going to give his affidavit about the encounter. Hardly the "chief point". And in his testimony, Baker says he saw the man mentioned in the only encounter in the affidavit, Oswald.
Unfortunately for you, Mr Organ, he says no such thing in the affidavit, which makes a nonsense of your scenario. You re-lose!
Nah. You lose because Baker says nothing about your fantasy encounter with Oswald at the entrance. Instead he sees Oswald and then makes his affidavit describing the encounter inside the building. Direct linkage.
"Direct linkage", lol. The fact that the affidavit makes no linkage whatsoever between the man caught walking away from the rear stairway on the third or fourth floor and the man now in custody makes a nonsense of your scenario
"I saw him when I went to give the affidavit."
How does this substantiate your wild claim that in his testimony Officer Baker says that upon seeing Mr Oswald he was compelled to add detail about the encounter? Looks like you made it up. Tsk tsk!
He's ruled out because Truly vouched for him. Should Baker have let the man go, or shoot the man and Truly? No error in judgment at all. BTW, why would Baker and Truly lie about a second-floor with Oswald when they supposedly had a fourth-floor encounter that would put Oswald nearer the sixth floor?
Already explained, Mr Organ, as you well know:
---------there was every possibility that unimpeachable proof (photographic or otherwise) would yet emerge that Mr Oswald was at the front entrance at the time of the assassination
---------therefore the relocation of the encounter away from the front entrance was fraught with risk
---------said fictional encounter would have to be somewhere that Mr Oswald
could conceivably have gotten to after being out front at the time of the assassination
---------hence the second-floor lunchroom encounter was chosen as the location of a fictional encounter
A location higher up would have been incompatible with LHO-Out-Front, thus risking the exposure of Mr Truly and Officer Baker as rank liars
For the same reason, both Mr Truly and Officer Baker were at pains to describe Mr Oswald in the (fictional) lunchroom encounter as not sweating, not out of breath, not agitated------------this needed to be an Oswald who
could have come straight from out front and not the sixth floor.
Why would Oswald go along with the encounter with Baker and Truly at the back of the building?
He didn't----------and his claim in interrogation to have gone outside to watch P. Parade was buried by your 'investigating' heroes (it only saw the light of day, to your and your Warren Gullible pals' horror, in 2019!)
You're good at gas-lighting. I suggested to you that early press reports aren't reliable. That's why inquires are conducted.
The encounter happened at the front entrance, as Mr Oswald claimed, as Mr Billy Lovelady saw, and as DPD told the press 11/22. Then, on the evening/night of 11/22, the encounter was moved to the second-floor lunchroom. The following day, the press were fed the fiction about a second-floor lunchroom encounter.
This is why you can't find a single press reference to a second-floor lunchroom encounter prior to DPD's change of tune 11/23!
All we have from you is semantics and showing your gullibility by citing early press reports. Yawn.
You're losing the debate, Mr Organ!
