Ralph Yates

[Albert Doyle]

As for Tom here, I'd advise you be a bit more understanding of his POV and effort involved. Technically the polygraph was NOT "passed" - what raises red flags for me is the repeated need to reinterview him... for a "crazy person" he sure is consistent with the story told.





If Tom could substantiate this report with the original WCD, as well the "original" interview of JR Gilpin as well as the Charlie Meat Market employee signed statement about the check, then we can have a conversation...

Tom is in denial of the evidence and doesn't give due recognition to the other incriminating evidence. Sorry, but I don't think I'm the one needing to make the adjustment here. He also champions denial of Mary Pinchot Meyer's CIA assassination against Janney. David, I'm not sure many others would be allowed to get away with such a Lone Nutter stance on this site. Especially when it is supported with such form-based weak stuff.


What is very clear, and deniers avoid like the devil, is that both Yates and SH Landesberg could not have performed the degree of higher social functions attributed to them by FBI and have been as mentally ill as they claimed. That mental illness smear is a double-edged sword that is accompanied by a necessary accountability that never seems to be done by the denier side. Landesberg could not have had the social profile he did and been the stuttering schizo at the same time and Yates could not have been such a lunatic to have hallucinated an Oswald doubles witnessing while passing a polygraph at the same time.


I disagree with your assessment about Yates' polygraph. What is most important is that the FBI agent who pulled Dorothy Yates aside said the machine showed he was telling the truth. You really have to treat those who deny this in a way that is equal to the egregious violation they commit against these victims. There's a fine line between devil's advocacy and denial. The evidence is clearly weighing towards these necessary responsible conclusions and not towards their obvious equivocations.