30-10-2009, 11:16 PM
Bernice Moore Wrote:paul all that info i am quite positive originally comes from rich's from a thread..it has been posted down through the years manys a time...most originally came from jack white...if you go to the f...and do a search you may find it.....also look for the info i posted on vivian castleberry and her niece...i cannot find it of course...on this so and so lap if you cannot i will get some of the cds out and look up the info...for all.........:hmpf:..best b..
You're doubtless right, B., and I'll have a look over at Rich's forum tomorrow. Thanks for the tip.
Meantime, however, a question that's long detained me but one which I've never broached publicly: Is there anywhere in the literature of the assassination, be it official, quasi-official, oppositional, or merely pseudo-oppositional, an honest, sustained examination of the principle(s) of witness selection?
I mean by that, something which does more than say "the Government ignored grassy knoll witnesses - here is a list of them." That's old hat, and dodges as many questions as it answers. No, what I have in mind is something which elaborates on why, for example, Woodward was ignored, but, say, Holland not etc.