Just the opposite, we know Lovelady telling Jarman that he saw Oswald being stopped by a cop at the front door is NOT hearsay because it is accompanied by an unaccountable, suspicious lack of interest by the authorities that can't be explained in any other way accept avoidance of guilt...
The above is a perfect example of how illogically your mind works. You arbitrarily claim "that can't be explained in any other way accept avoidance of guilt..." when there are any number of plausible explanations, the most likely being that the investigators were not interested in chasing rumors unsupported by actual evidence.
Hearsay is evidence that only relies on the spoken word...We have just the opposite here and there is no way an honestly-investigating FBI and HSCA would NOT inquire of Lovelady why he with-held that witnessing back in 1963...
]
Your argument relies ENTIRELY on the spoken word of Jarman. There is no corroboration that Lovelady ever said that to Jarman.
]You need to come up with some other response than trying to dismiss everything with claims of hearsay when what is really going on here is you are badly failing to give an adequate response to what is being shown...You are pretending that unaccountable void of non-investigation isn't there when in fact it is the most visible thing involved in all this that, once unexplained by yourself, becomes the reason why it isn't hearsay...You have badly lost this debate...
I need to do no such thing. I don't have any burden to refute your unsubstantiated claims.
No kidding?...The reason I'm typing this is exactly because there is no record of Lovelady ever bringing this explosive witnessing before the FBI or Commission...
Which means it is hearsay from Jarman.
All you are doing is showing in a backwards way that Lovelady held back his seeing Oswald stopped by a cop at the front door...Not having any curiosity over this displays a lack of credibility on your behalf in my opinion...The only failure here is your persistent inability to explain why Lovelady never spoke of it in 1963...
There is no proof that Lovelady ever said what Jarman claimed he had said. Jarman was not even under oath when he supposedly made this statement. Using my AI app, the only reference to Jarman having said such a thing is from the Ed Forum which indicates it is probably something you dreamed up and posted there. If you have a more credible source for Jarman's supposed statement, please provide your cite for this claim.
Another thing that proves this isn't hearsay is the fact Holmes heard of Oswald being stopped by a cop from Oswald's own mouth on Sunday at the Police Station...
So you think Oswald is a credible source. Damn, you are gullible.
While you are fishing for excuses to deny this, credible researchers would realize, once it was corroborated by Oswald and confirmed, that the fact this too had no follow-through done on it gives it a quality that makes it just the opposite of hearsay and makes it hot, incriminating evidence that exposes the most dangerous aspects of the conspiracy...While you are shouting "hearsay" to everything you see, what is the most outstanding thing here is your abject failure to respond to and recognize the complete lack of interest by the authorities to these highly revelatory statements...
The investigators had figured out Oswald was lying his a** off because they had caught him in so many lies. Oswald's statements don't corroborate anything.
Again, you are badly losing this debate...
As I have already noted, you're good for at least one good laugh a day and this one is hilarious. You are so clueless, you don't even know how clueless you are.
.
Every time I mention how Frazier's seeing Oswald exit the Loading Dock affects this you ignore it and hide behind your hearsay excuse...
I ignore it because I know it is not true.
The Education Forum prefers to keep this cracking of the case off its website so we can be bored by the regular space hogs...
The only cracking appears to be in your skull.
