A Rock Solid Alibi.....

[Rick Plant]

Craig. He testified that he ran away from home when he was 12 and had no subsequent schooling. He worked on some ranches, went into the army and worked in the motor pool, then was a dishwasher, a cook, a construction worker, and a packager, then went to work for the Sheriff’s Dept. in October of 1959. No apparent aptitude for, or experience in, crime scene investigation.

So, are you trying to make the claim that a person who didn't have the greatest childhood is incapable of being trained to do a successful job later in life?   

The simple fact is nobody has experience in crime scene investigations until they gain that experience.

Are you saying that Craig was incapable of gaining that experience when he entered law enforcement?         

[Charles Collins]

So, are you trying to make the claim that a person who didn't have the greatest childhood is incapable of being trained to do a successful job later in life?   

The simple fact is nobody has experience in crime scene investigations until they gain that experience.

Are you saying that Craig was incapable of gaining that experience when he entered law enforcement?         

Definition:

Aptitude: capability; ability; innate or acquired capacity for something; talent:


The context in which I used the word aptitude included his education and work experience. None of that (with the possible exception of his claim of passing a high school equivalency test) included anything that I consider a prerequisite to be able to comprehend the math and science involved in the crime scene investigation processes. I don’t know what his capacity for learning what was required to be able to do that work properly might have been. He might have been able to acquire enough knowledge. But I just don’t see any evidence that he had (at that point in time) an aptitude or ambition for that particular job.

[Jerry Freeman]

The context in which I used the word aptitude included his education and work experience. None of that (with the possible exception of his claim of passing a high school equivalency test) included anything that I consider a prerequisite to be able to comprehend the math and science involved in the crime scene investigation processes. I don’t know what his capacity for learning what was required to be able to do that work properly might have been. He might have been able to acquire enough knowledge. But I just don’t see any evidence that he had (at that point in time) an aptitude or ambition for that particular job.

He was named Man of the Year by the sheriff's office in 1960 for his work in aid in helping to capture an international jewel chief. He had a successful career in the DPD and was promoted four times.

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcraigR.htm
Craig was a county deputy sheriff..I don't know why it says "DPD".

Charles immediately responded to Mr Plant's statement but yet he, nor anyone else has responded to my post #584 which should establish [taken at face value] an alibi for LHO.
 

[John Iacoletti]

I asked how many of them had actual crime scene investigation experience.

I don’t see what difference it makes, given that the guys who allegedly *did* have crime scene experience completely screwed up the crime scenes and the evidence handling.

You can attempt to smear all of the officers who saw something you don’t like as an excuse to disregard what they said, but it doesn’t change what they saw. You don’t need any specialized knowledge to know what a chicken bone is.

Yes, Haygood. Autocorrect got me there.

Faulkner’s account of the chicken bones is in “No More Silence”.

Time and time again you claim that there is no evidence that tends to incriminate your idol.

There’s that “idol” crap again. And, no, I never claimed anything like this.

But when it comes to evidence that you think tends to exonotate your idol, the sketchiest testimony will do just fine.   

Bull, because the lunch remains don’t tend to exonerate anybody. At best they illustrate that BRW was less than honest about where he was as what he saw (or could see).

None of the officers in your list were there to document the evidence. They were searching for the assassin and the weapon, etc. The actual crime scene investigators who were assigned to this scene provide the real answers.

“Real answers”. LOL.

[Charles Collins]

I don’t see what difference it makes, given that the guys who allegedly *did* have crime scene experience completely screwed up the crime scenes and the evidence handling.

You can attempt to smear all of the officers who saw something you don’t like as an excuse to disregard what they said, but it doesn’t change what they saw. You don’t need any specialized knowledge to know what a chicken bone is.

Yes, Haygood. Autocorrect got me there.

Faulkner’s account of the chicken bones is in “No More Silence”.

There’s that “idol” crap again. And, no, I never claimed anything like this.

Bull, because the lunch remains don’t tend to exonerate anybody. At best they illustrate that BRW was less than honest about where he was as what he saw (or could see).

“Real answers”. LOL.

I don’t see what difference it makes, given that the guys who allegedly *did* have crime scene experience completely screwed up the crime scenes and the evidence handling.


Well then, perhaps the next time you go to the doctor to get a diagnosis you should ask for some second opinions from the receptionists (be sure to request the ones with no medical experience). They could walk by the examination room and take a quick glance at you and give you their opinions. You’ll probably get the diagnosis of “He looks like he doesn’t feel good.” Then you can go home “just knowing” that the receptionists were right. And ignore the doctor’s diagnosis just because you somehow “know” that he completely screwed it up.



You can attempt to smear all of the officers who saw something you don’t like as an excuse to disregard what they said, but it doesn’t change what they saw. You don’t need any specialized knowledge to know what a chicken bone is.


No smear job was intended. None of the ones you have listed gave a specific location. It is you who is trying to interpret their descriptions to fit your nonsensical theory. You are being dishonest and trying to mislead the gullible.



Faulkner’s account of the chicken bones is in “No More Silence”.

Thank you. He doesn’t have any apparent crime scene investigation experience either. Neither does he give a specific location.


Bull, because the lunch remains don’t tend to exonerate anybody. At best they illustrate that BRW was less than honest about where he was as what he saw (or could see).

You were trying to use your idea of the location of the lunch remains to suggest that BRW was eating his lunch at the sniper’s nest. And therefore it was “unlikely” that he wouldn’t have seen LHO hiding there. However, your list is only of people who give no specific location of the chicken bone, etc.

[Bill Chapman]

Bill Chapman

[John Iacoletti]

Well then, perhaps the next time you go to the doctor to get a diagnosis you should ask for some second opinions from the receptionists (be sure to request the ones with no medical experience).

That’s a silly analogy, given that there’s no “diagnosis” involved here. The doctor, the nurse, the receptionist, and the building janitor would all be just as capable of seeing that a patient left her purse in the exam room.

And ignore the doctor’s diagnosis just because you somehow “know” that he completely screwed it up.

I don’t “somehow ‘know’” they screwed up the crime scenes and the evidence handling. They did screw them up. Crime scenes weren’t secured. Things were moved around or picked up before photos were taken. Prints weren’t photographed and covered. Probable cause wasn’t followed for searches and arrests. Chains of custody were not maintained. Evidence was not properly secured and stored. Lineups were egregiously unfair and biased. Relevant reports were either never written or written as an afterthought long after the events. Etc, etc, etc.

No smear job was intended. None of the ones you have listed gave a specific location.

That’s not correct. They all talked about the lunch bag and the chicken bones in the context of what they saw where the shells were found or on top of boxes by the SE window.

You were trying to use your idea of the location of the lunch remains to suggest that BRW was eating his lunch at the sniper’s nest. And therefore it was “unlikely” that he wouldn’t have seen LHO hiding there.

That’s true, but it still doesn’t exonerate anybody. There’s just no evidence whatsoever that LHO was “hiding there”.