Week 5: Roy Baker
The story of Roy Baker makes one thing clear: All of the action and brains were in Cheyenne. Kate, Pearl, and the other key players from town appear to be in possession of the greatest intelligence. These smart people seem intent on using this intelligence for protecting their businesses, reputations, and livelihoods. The soldiers of the 17th seem just as determined to cover themselves, but are less skilled in doing so. Their efforts come-off more as blanket denials then reasoned argument.
There’s a lot going on in this disposition. The panel seems to go in several directions as it searches for a motive. Once it settles on Parkison as the killer and the conspiracy to steal guns and dessert as the motive, the panel stops asking questions about any other subject.
One wonders whether the panel wasn’t eager to see this matter resolved as a simple murder with no greater complication than a dissertation plot. Would Cheyenne have benefited from a murder scandal that damaged the army’s reputation? Not at all, the army was a principle source of revenue for the town. If the Baker inquest had grown into a larger inquiry, the army might have discovered the shabby state of the 17th. Such a discovery might have resulted in the closing of the base or the tightening of discipline there…which would have reduced the flow of dollars into the town.
So, like the Warren Commission, the Baker Inquest had every reason to find that a lone gunman was responsible for the crime, not so much because that was how it was, but because that’s what they wanted to find. There is however good reason to suspect there were more peas in the pod.
The story of Roy Baker makes one thing clear: All of the action and brains were in Cheyenne. Kate, Pearl, and the other key players from town appear to be in possession of the greatest intelligence. These smart people seem intent on using this intelligence for protecting their businesses, reputations, and livelihoods. The soldiers of the 17th seem just as determined to cover themselves, but are less skilled in doing so. Their efforts come-off more as blanket denials then reasoned argument.
There’s a lot going on in this disposition. The panel seems to go in several directions as it searches for a motive. Once it settles on Parkison as the killer and the conspiracy to steal guns and dessert as the motive, the panel stops asking questions about any other subject.
One wonders whether the panel wasn’t eager to see this matter resolved as a simple murder with no greater complication than a dissertation plot. Would Cheyenne have benefited from a murder scandal that damaged the army’s reputation? Not at all, the army was a principle source of revenue for the town. If the Baker inquest had grown into a larger inquiry, the army might have discovered the shabby state of the 17th. Such a discovery might have resulted in the closing of the base or the tightening of discipline there…which would have reduced the flow of dollars into the town.
So, like the Warren Commission, the Baker Inquest had every reason to find that a lone gunman was responsible for the crime, not so much because that was how it was, but because that’s what they wanted to find. There is however good reason to suspect there were more peas in the pod.
posted by ksturcken at 4:57 AM
2 Comments:
Kent, I think that your use of analogies is very apt, especially the Warren Commission allusion.
Hi Kent. I liked how you threw out all sorts of fresh ideas and angles. I thought your argument was right on: it was a lot less messy to make one man a scapegoat than drag the whole fort down. (And, had the fort been closed, Kate--and many others-- would have had to declare bankruptcy and move on!)
Post a Comment
<< Home