09-02-2018, 08:48 PM
Richard:
Can you please calm down a moment and think of what I am really saying. Its obvious you did not read my book about that London trial
If Spence would have been really prepared do you not think he would have done what any good defense lawyer would have?
For instance after Bugliosi asked Norman about forever hearing the sound of the cartridges ejecting above him, should not have Spence said "Mr. Norman, forget about the rest of your life. You couldn't remember that noise for four days!" (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 55)
Spence then should have read him his first statement to the FBI on November 26th. Where there is no mention of those sounds. And further there is nothing in the record prior to that about them. His new story did not emerge until December 2nd, under the influence of Elmer Moore of the Secret Service, who we know today was putting together the cover up in Dallas, at Dealey Plaza, the TSBD and at Parkland Hospital. (ibid, pgs. 166-69)
And so with Baker. After Bugliosi put him through his paces about his WC testimony, should not Spence have read Baker his first day affidavit which contradicts it? Its the wrong floor, there is no mention of a lunchroom or a coke, and its the wrong description.
Should not Spence then have asked him, "Now Mr. Baker, when you made out this affidavit you were in a witness room with Oswald. Why did you not lean over and say words to the effect: I am the guy who stuck that gun in your stomach this morning. Can you tell me your name so I can fill out this affidavit more accurately?"
That is what defense lawyers who know the evidence do. Spence did not do it and we never got to see how Baker would have answered under cross examination.
Also I do not see how it benefits your argument to use smearing type terms like hoaxsters etc. I also do not understand your argument about who bears the burden of proof. When you have the original statements and the later statements contradict those earlier ones, then its on the witness to explain why he changed his story. But that never happened of course since we know what the WC was up to.
Can you please calm down a moment and think of what I am really saying. Its obvious you did not read my book about that London trial
If Spence would have been really prepared do you not think he would have done what any good defense lawyer would have?
For instance after Bugliosi asked Norman about forever hearing the sound of the cartridges ejecting above him, should not have Spence said "Mr. Norman, forget about the rest of your life. You couldn't remember that noise for four days!" (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 55)
Spence then should have read him his first statement to the FBI on November 26th. Where there is no mention of those sounds. And further there is nothing in the record prior to that about them. His new story did not emerge until December 2nd, under the influence of Elmer Moore of the Secret Service, who we know today was putting together the cover up in Dallas, at Dealey Plaza, the TSBD and at Parkland Hospital. (ibid, pgs. 166-69)
And so with Baker. After Bugliosi put him through his paces about his WC testimony, should not Spence have read Baker his first day affidavit which contradicts it? Its the wrong floor, there is no mention of a lunchroom or a coke, and its the wrong description.
Should not Spence then have asked him, "Now Mr. Baker, when you made out this affidavit you were in a witness room with Oswald. Why did you not lean over and say words to the effect: I am the guy who stuck that gun in your stomach this morning. Can you tell me your name so I can fill out this affidavit more accurately?"
That is what defense lawyers who know the evidence do. Spence did not do it and we never got to see how Baker would have answered under cross examination.
Also I do not see how it benefits your argument to use smearing type terms like hoaxsters etc. I also do not understand your argument about who bears the burden of proof. When you have the original statements and the later statements contradict those earlier ones, then its on the witness to explain why he changed his story. But that never happened of course since we know what the WC was up to.