By "less than honest" you claimed he lied about what the suspect said in a homicide investigation. Not just any homicide investigation but the assassination of the president. Why would he do this in your fantasy except to frame Oswald for the crime? Something that folks like yourself and others have claimed was a conspiracy. If you want to back away from that given its absurdity, then do it without trying to have it every possible way. A classic mindset of a CTer is to make a claim but then back away from addressing the issues raised by their claim having any validity. Here it is obvious that Oswald lied about the bag either to Frazier or the police. He told contradictory stories. How to get around this for a CTer? Suggest that the police were not honest about what was said. Even that makes no sense because the police in this situation are indicating that Oswald claimed he was innocent and didn't carry a long bag. If they are lying to frame him, they would have said the opposite (i.e. that he confessed and confirmed that he carried his rifle that morning in a long bag). It's laughable to see the pretzel of logic that you CTers navigate to reach a desired conclusion.
you still have a problem with the LESS THAN HONEST bit dont you ? . whether you want to ignore it or not Fritz was atleast less than honest when it came to THIS CASE , likewise Hosty and likewise Holmes . Bookhout is another matter . and as i said that then colors the opinion of people , it gives them valid reason to doubt their word . after all you would probably say at the least (as an example ) that you have valid reason to doubt the word of Earlene roberts regarding certain claims she made . however you would cite her and rely upon other claims he made . to put it simply if you were to lie , to be less than honest on more than one occasion , would not the members here have a valid reason to be distrustful of you ? .
i cant speak about why a person would do what they did , all i can do is tell you what they did , after that you or others can decide why they did it . and once again A MODICUM OF COMMON SENSE please , how could the DPD say Oswald admitted carrying a rifle when HE at every opportunity ON TV and in front of masses of press vehemently protested his innocence and denied any and all quilt ? .
as has been pointed out here already and it seems ignored is that we were told NO interrogation notes were kept , that was a lie was it not ? . because they exist today . and the notes such as they are now may not even have been written at the time of interrogation but later , perhaps after Oswalds death . when of course they then could never be disputed .
Recent Posts
