Did Roy Truly and/or Marion Baker Lie?

[Jerry Freeman]

Reproduced here [where it belongs] from another thread----

  Was the Coke issue even a thing in September 1964?

I concede that Burnett wrote the [Baker] note. I still don't understand the purpose of the note.
The actual final Report states---

Gun in hand, he [Baker] rushed to the door and saw a man about 20 feet away walking toward the other end of the lunchroom. The man was empty handed. Within about 1 minute after his encounter with Baker and Truly, Oswald was seen passing through the second-floor offices. In his hand was a full "Coke" bottle which he had purchased from a vending machine in the lunchroom. He was walking toward the front of the building where a passenger elevator and a short flight of stairs provided access to the main entrance of the building on the first floor. Approximately 7 minutes later, at about 12:40 p.m, Oswald boarded a bus at a point on Elm Street seven short blocks east of the Depository Building.

Who actually witnessed the encounter between Baker and Truly that establishes this "within 1 minute"?
Is it likely that a desperate assassin would casually spin some coins in the soda machine after such an encounter?
Maybe? Then what did he do...chug it? He would have had to [if he was going to catch a bus in 7 minutes] If he did or didn't... How does anyone know that Oswald had obtained the Coke and that the bottle was full? Furthermore ... I'm not sure of the old layout of the 2nd floor lunchroom but if the Coke and candy machines were at the entry where the super and the cop came in...and Oswald was walking away from that entry [20 ft toward the end of the lunchroom] Why would Oswald have made himself walk beyond the machine and then back again to buy the soda that he seemed to want anyway?
Emphasis was placed on the part that stated that "the man was empty handed". This would certainly negate the time spent on activating a soda machine.
Yet there was some ascribed certainty that Lee did indeed possess a soda...to wit...Coca Cola after the encounter. Why? It should have been moot at that point because he had nothing in his hands [it is declared] during the encounter.
So...was the Coke issue even a thing back in Sept 1964? Well---maybe it was and then again maybe it wasn't

[Walt Cakebread]

Reproduced here [where it belongs] from another thread----
I concede that Burnett wrote the [Baker] note. I still don't understand the purpose of the note.
The actual final Report states---Who actually witnessed the encounter between Baker and Truly that establishes this "within 1 minute"?
Is it likely that a desperate assassin would casually spin some coins in the soda machine after such an encounter?
Maybe? Then what did he do...chug it? He would have had to [if he was going to catch a bus in 7 minutes] If he did or didn't... How does anyone know that Oswald had obtained the Coke and that the bottle was full? Furthermore ... I'm not sure of the old layout of the 2nd floor lunchroom but if the Coke and candy machines were at the entry where the super and the cop came in...and Oswald was walking away from that entry [20 ft toward the end of the lunchroom] Why would Oswald have made himself walk beyond the machine and then back again to buy the soda that he seemed to want anyway?
Emphasis was placed on the part that stated that "the man was empty handed". This would certainly negate the time spent on activating a soda machine.
Yet there was some ascribed certainty that Lee did indeed possess a soda...to wit...Coca Cola after the encounter. Why? It should have been moot at that point because he had nothing in his hands [it is declared] during the encounter.
So...was the Coke issue even a thing back in Sept 1964? Well---maybe it was and then again maybe it wasn't

I concede that Burnett wrote the [Baker] note. I still don't understand the purpose of the note.

The purpose of the revised Baker affidavit was to expunge the Coca Cola from evidence.   It had become obvious to LBJ's special committee that if Lee Oswald had a coke in his hand when Baker and Truly encounteed him in the lunchroom then that fact cleared Lee Oswald because in performing the imagined flight of Lee Oswald
they discovered that Lee would have arrived at the lunchroom just one second before Baker reached the place on the stairs where he could have seen the lunchroom door.  And if Lee had arrived at the lunchroom just one second earlier then he would not have had time enough to purchase a coke.  But the official tale said that Lee was calmly drinking a coke in the lunchroom when Baker burst into the room with his revolver in his hand.

That was the reason for expunging the coke entry in that revised affidavit.   They could easily have simply rewritten the affidavit and omitted the part about Lee having a coke in his hand, but that's not what the shyster lawyers wanted.

[Jerry Freeman]

Almost all of the testimonies were classified as Top Secret. Adams' testimony wasn't bothersome to the WC.

Here's the deal...People can't just arbitrarily decide to classify stuff however they want.
This is primarily a military classification...not to be taken so lightly.
This enhances my suspicion that the Pentagon was more involved in the JFK assassination than one might think.
Top Secret is a classification that means 'Exceptionally grave and possibly irreparable damage to the security of the United States".
So how could this testimony from Ms Adams in particular have resulted in such consequences?
Again ...if it "wasn't bothersome" why was it so summarily classified?

[Jerry Organ]

Here's the deal...People can't just arbitrarily decide to classify stuff however they want.
This is primarily a military classification...not to be taken so lightly.
This enhances my suspicion that the Pentagon was more involved in the JFK assassination than one might think.
Top Secret is a classification that means 'Exceptionally grave and possibly irreparable damage to the security of the United States".
So how could this testimony from Ms Adams in particular have resulted in such consequences?
Again ...if it "wasn't bothersome" why was it so summarily classified?

Right. You're not a "Conspiracy Theorist" (nor a Republican). 

The Adams testimony was declassified and published in 1964 ( Link ). Probably some standard procedure when having closed hearings to initially classify it "Top Secret".

[Jerry Freeman]

Right. You're not a "Conspiracy Theorist" (nor a Republican). 

And you're not a clown huh?

The Adams testimony was declassified and published in 1964. Probably some standard procedure when having closed hearings to initially classify it "Top Secret".

The Adams statement was classified Top Secret and yet George DeMohrenschildt's was only just Secret...
Who was the more case sensitive would we think?

There were two versions of Ms Adams' testimony papers ...one she signed----


and one she didn't---



Reader click on image for full screen.
 

[Jerry Freeman]

 Ray Mitcham -----
   

Why,in his same day affidavit, did your independent witness,  Marion Baker state  "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." ?

Mr. BELIN - Would you state whether or not the man who was shown to you in the police station as Lee Harvey Oswald was or was not the same man that you saw and encountered on the second floor lunchroom of the Texas School Book Depository Building on that day?
Mr. BAKER - He was the same man.
Mr. BELIN - Is there anything else about his clothes that you can remember or his dress that you haven't talked about here?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I can't.
Mr. DULLES - Do you recall whether or not he was wearing the same clothes, did he appear to you the same when you saw him in the police station as when you saw him in the lunchroom?
Mr. BAKER - Actually just looking at him, he looked like he didn't have the same thing on.
Mr. BELIN - He looked as though he did not have the same thing on?
Mr. BAKER - He looked like he did not have the same on.

Q> Why didn't that skunk [Belin] pursue the obvious question...What was different?
A> Because it demonstrates that LHO did change his shirt as he had stated perhaps?

[Jerry Freeman]

Right. You're not a "Conspiracy Theorist" (nor a Republican).

The Adams testimony was declassified and published in 1964 ( Link ). Probably some standard procedure when having closed hearings to initially classify it "Top Secret".

So Victoria Adams' testimony had the same classification as the nuclear launch codes?