02-04-2013, 05:08 PM
Farley continues to ask questions for which there are easy answers. Frazier, Mercer, and Litchfield all had reasons why they could be side-stepped. Yates, on the other hand, had a witness to a key set of critical Oswald-related evidence 2 days prior that couldn't be so easily explained away. Farley refuses to view this in terms of the overall collective evidence and insists on a myopic piece by piece treatment of the facts. Seeing Oswald with Ruby can be shrugged-off as a mistaken identification. Mercer too. Frazier had pressure put on him as a possible collaborator that may have worked, dispensing the need for more drastic actions. Yates, on the other hand, was too far over the hurdle of seriously incriminating evidence that couldn't be refuted so easily and he wouldn't back-down. His family mental health history made him more vulnerable to mental collapse and FBI exploited it. There's no way Yates would "feign" mental collapse and then escape from the asylum with the claim people were trying to kill him and then return and stick with that "feigning" for 11 years up until his death.
The polygraph decides this. Yates was telling the truth.
The polygraph decides this. Yates was telling the truth.