08-02-2018, 10:22 PM
Jim,
I highly recommend that you first read carefully through my essay before responding. Please extend me that common courtesy.
Your response tells me that you have not paused to consider the complaints I've detailed at the end of this Filmed Interviews section.
You tell me "We know that CBS rehearsed witnesses..." but offer not one shred of evidence that these particular Baker & Truly interviews were rehearsed. And even if they were, what of that? Wouldn't it be simply to get people prepared to be on film- in the studio- and hopefully not waste on-air time?
The burden of proof is on you hoaxers- to present some kind of evidence that these particular Baker & Truly interviews were confabulations.
If you are so personally convinced that Baker & Truly were confabulating their stories, why don't you make a Voice Stress Analysis to give your suspicions some oomph? Just because you are suspicious doesn't automatically make your suspicions transmutate into truth. Just because a whole bunch of people are suspicious doesn't make their suspicions automatically transmutate into truth.
What on earth does Spence's ill-prepared defense have to do with what Baker described to Bugliosi as regards the lunchroom encounter? Nothing! This is your regressive m.o. kicking in, of guilt-by-association- i.e. Spence was sloppy, therefore Baker lied.
Why don't you seize the opportunity and bring this film evidence to one of Baker's children
or a Dallas police detective, even a Long Beach police detective, and present your lunchroom hoax spin to them?
What are you afraid of?
Discovering that your precious hoax theory is a delusion?
I highly recommend that you first read carefully through my essay before responding. Please extend me that common courtesy.
Your response tells me that you have not paused to consider the complaints I've detailed at the end of this Filmed Interviews section.
You tell me "We know that CBS rehearsed witnesses..." but offer not one shred of evidence that these particular Baker & Truly interviews were rehearsed. And even if they were, what of that? Wouldn't it be simply to get people prepared to be on film- in the studio- and hopefully not waste on-air time?
The burden of proof is on you hoaxers- to present some kind of evidence that these particular Baker & Truly interviews were confabulations.
If you are so personally convinced that Baker & Truly were confabulating their stories, why don't you make a Voice Stress Analysis to give your suspicions some oomph? Just because you are suspicious doesn't automatically make your suspicions transmutate into truth. Just because a whole bunch of people are suspicious doesn't make their suspicions automatically transmutate into truth.
What on earth does Spence's ill-prepared defense have to do with what Baker described to Bugliosi as regards the lunchroom encounter? Nothing! This is your regressive m.o. kicking in, of guilt-by-association- i.e. Spence was sloppy, therefore Baker lied.
Why don't you seize the opportunity and bring this film evidence to one of Baker's children
or a Dallas police detective, even a Long Beach police detective, and present your lunchroom hoax spin to them?
What are you afraid of?
Discovering that your precious hoax theory is a delusion?