Post by Anthony MarshPost by John CorbettPost by John CorbettPost by Steve M. GalbraithPost by Jason BurkePost by Steve M. GalbraithPost by Anthony MarshAnd you guys are OK with that.
You're trying to be difficult (as usual) but Trump couldn't pardon Oswald
because Oswald was charged with violating Texas *state* laws. The
President's pardon powers only extend to federal crimes or "offences
against the United States." He could pardon Oswald for violating federal
statutes against murder but that would be meaningless since Oswald wasn't
charged with violating federal law.
Don't bother Tony with reality. He's never shown that he's been able to
deal with it.
Yes, but in his defense I think most people don't know about those limits.
I didn't until a few years ago. And I imagine (but not really) Trump or a
President could pardon Oswald for violating federal statutes on, for
example, mail fraud when he used an alias to purchase the rifle and
revolver. I believe that was illegal. Or obstruction of justice when he
lied to the FBI during his interrogation.
There is no record of his interrogations. We don't know what he said,
only what the FIB, SS, & DPD said he said.
Would you have been more willing to believe them if there was a transcript
of the interrogation or would you claim that had been manufactured?
Good question. I'm not sure, but I believe the transcripts of the WC
hearings. Actually, I wouldn't believe transcripts of the Oswald
interrogations if they still had him saying that he got right on & off the
bus & took a cab to Oak Cliff. McWatters' original 11/22 affidavit was
believable, but his stint before the Commission resulted in the
destruction of his credibility, by himself or others or both....
So you won't allow someone to correct an erroneous statement when they
realize they were wrong. Once somebody says something, it must be true and
can never be changed no matter what information they later learn.
Silly.
Some witnesses do that right away. Others have to be taken aside and
threatened.
A standard ploy by conspiracy hobbyists to explain away witness testimony
which doesn't conform to what they imagine happened. Witnesses get some
things right and some things wrong. We don't figure out what they got
right and what they got wrong by determining if it fits with our pet
theories. We figure that out by determining if it fits with the body of
evidence. When there are conflicting eyewitness accounts, we need to weigh
those accounts to determine which is more probative. In this case we have
conflicting statements by a bus driver and a cab driver. The cab driver
testified he took Oswald to the Oak Cliff section. The bus driver's
initial statement was that Oswald had stayed on the bus. If we had no
other evidence, the question would be which of those two is more likely to
have made the mistake, a cab driver who transported one passenger or a bus
driver who has lots of people on his bus at any given time and they get on
and off at various places along the route.
If we had only the above information available to us, common sense should
tell us the greater likelihood is that the cab driver is the one that got
it right. But we have another very compelling witness whose account
dovetails with Whaley's. That would be Earlene Roberts who testified that
Oswald had returned to his rooming house about the time Whaley had dropped
him off a short distance away. What is they likelihood she would have
mistakenly said Oswald returned to the rooming house at about 1:00 PM?