19-01-2011, 03:09 PM
Thanks, Dawn. As an attorney, I'm sure you know that the foundation of the case against Oswald depends on the credibility of the evidence, which is itself founded on the credibility of those who HANDLED the evidence.
If those who handled the evidence were less than honest, then the evidence itself becomes questionable. The fact that the FBI intentionally omitted details, distorted facts and flat out lied about what the witnesses told them, serves as measurement of just how "solid" the case against Oswald was.
And just one instance of such mishandling of the evidence is enough to get the case thrown out of any criminal court.
Had the case against Oswald been that solid, there would have been no reason why the FBI or the Dallas Police would have had to omit, distort or lie about the facts.
A few opposing viewpoints would have made no difference. The case would have stood on its own merit.
IOW---the truth never needs lies to support it.
If those who handled the evidence were less than honest, then the evidence itself becomes questionable. The fact that the FBI intentionally omitted details, distorted facts and flat out lied about what the witnesses told them, serves as measurement of just how "solid" the case against Oswald was.
And just one instance of such mishandling of the evidence is enough to get the case thrown out of any criminal court.
Had the case against Oswald been that solid, there would have been no reason why the FBI or the Dallas Police would have had to omit, distort or lie about the facts.
A few opposing viewpoints would have made no difference. The case would have stood on its own merit.
IOW---the truth never needs lies to support it.