16-12-2015, 08:04 PM
Drew Phipps Wrote:Bob, there are two factors of which I am quite familiar which might play into the calculus of why the cops didn't document evidence of a conversation between witnesses: A) it's hearsay and as such isn't directly admissible as evidence in a US court of law (hah hah, please forgive the implied second "cross 49th parallel" humorous dig in as many days, but I really don't know if Canada follows the English common law), and B) cops' primary investigative focus is on first hand information, who and what they perceived, not what other witnesses told them. ("Just the facts, ma'am," to borrow a phrase)
I've had innumerable occasions in the last 25 years where an actual post-police-statement interview with a witness yielded a wealth of extra details not in the report, including inconsistent statements, prior consistent statements, bias, gossip, family history, reputation, etc., which is what makes those interviews so valuable.
Well, perhaps you should read the last part of Pauline Sanders' "statement", which contains nothing but hearsay.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce1434.htm
When giving their testimony to the WC, I would assume everything Molina and Frazier said would have gone into the record, be it hearsay or not. Are you suggesting anything that was hearsay would have been erased from their testimony?
Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.
Warren Commission testimony of Secret Service Agent Clinton J. Hill, 1964
Warren Commission testimony of Secret Service Agent Clinton J. Hill, 1964