If you can't prove Givens lied, there is no issue to deal with.
I have no reason not to. You certainly haven't provided one.
Even if you could establish that Givens made up this story, which you haven't, it doesn't negate all the other evidence that positively establishes Oswald was the one who fired the shots from the sniper's nest. The WC scenario doesn't require that it be proven Oswald was on the 6th floor 35 minutes before the shooting because there is ample proof he was in the sniper's nest at the time of the shooting.
Do you guys ever bother to apply even a modicum of logic to your arguments.
"Even if you could establish that Givens made up this story, which you haven't, it doesn't negate all the other evidence that positively establishes Oswald was the one who fired the shots from the sniper's nest."I've not said it negates any other evidence. How could it negate any other evidence? What a stupid point to make.
But what
does it mean?
If it can be established that the Givens story is a fiction, what does that mean?
I have to note that there have been 91 views of this thread so far.
I reckon a chunk of that number are LNers who have decided to keep their opinion to themselves on this matter.
But don't be shy, let's hear what you have to say.
Do you, like Corbett here, accept Givens' account of returning to the 6th floor?
Do you accept the WC's conclusion that Givens was the last TSBD employee to see Oswald prior to the assassination?
Here's some context as far as Givens is concerned:
On the day of the assassination Givens was a Wanted man. An APB was put out on him at 1:46pm by Sawyer:
We have a man we would like to have you pass this up on to the CID to see if we can pick this man up. Charles Douglas Givens, G-I-V-E-N-S. He's a colored male, thirty-seven, six foot three, a hundred sixty-five pounds. He has an ID number in the Sheriff's Department, 37954. He's a porter that worked on this floor up here. He has a police record and he left.
The search for the killer was still on. Two men had left the TSBD and were unaccounted for - Givens and Oswald (isn't it odd an APB wasn't put out for Oswald).
The interest in Givens wasn't just because he was missing. One of the first pro-active decisions Fritz made as part of his investigation was to round up everyone who had worked on the 6th floor that day and Givens was one of these men - the shots had been taken from the 6th floor, Givens worked on the 6th floor and he was missing.
When Fritz returned to the DPD he his first task was to get someone out to Oswald's house only to find Oswald was already in custody for Tippit's murder - one of the men who worked on the floor from where the shots were taken and who had 'fled the scene', was in custody for the murder of a police officer less than an hour after the assassination.
Meanwhile, Givens had returned to the TSBD to collect his coat only to be gripped by a police officer and taken down to DPDHQ. When he arrived there he was grilled for 45 minutes
by Captain Fritz!!During this extensive questioning Givens failed to mention his little trip back up to the 6th floor and seeing Oswald near the southeast corner.
Let that sink in for a minute...
The President had been assassinated.
A Dallas cop had been killed.
A prime suspect for the murders sat in the cells.
Now Fritz had in front of him one of the men who worked on the 6th floor that day.
It's safe to say Givens was grilled about his own actions, what he knew about Oswald and what he knew that might be useful to the investigation.
And he failed to mention that he had seen Oswald moving around near the crime scene!Who, in their right mind, would think this was possible?
What logic could be applied to make this work?
Common Sense, Logic, Reason and Occam's Razor are pointing to one possibility, and one alone - Givens never mentioned going back up to the 6th floor and seeing Oswald because it never happened. There was no need to mention something that had not occurred.
Recent Posts
