From: sirslick@fast.net   
      
   On Saturday, December 30, 2023 at 11:47:08 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Saturday, December 30, 2023 at 7:59:21 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:    
   > > On Saturday, December 30, 2023 at 7:20:05 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:    
   > > > None of the four DPD officers who rode motorcycles to the rear of the   
   President's limousine were interviewed by the FBI in 1963. Why not ?    
   > > What reason did the FBI give?    
   > > You have a history of asking for speculation and crying when speculation   
   is provided.   
   > Who asked for speculation ?    
      
     Unless the FBI outlined why they did this, or didn`t do that then we don`t   
   know their reasons, do we?   
      
   > In a normal criminal investigation,   
      
     You don`t know anything about anything, let alone how to properly conduct a   
   criminal investigation.   
      
   > it seems reasonable to think that the FBI would be interested in   
   interviewing the motorcycle cops behind the limousine.    
      
     Perhaps (and this is speculation) the FBI read the police reports and didn`t   
   feel those officers could contribute anything that would give insight into the   
   crime.   
      
     See, the problem is you, you insist on looking at everything incorrectly.   
      
     The correct way to look at this is as a surprise attack lasting seconds,   
   where the protection detail never saw the attacker. But since you look at   
   nothing correctly you don`t start there, you don`t even acknowledge the   
   reality of the event.    
      
    Let`s says Oswald was being led across a parking lot when he was shot be a   
   high powered rifle from a concealed location. Why would you expect James   
   Leavelle to provide any kind of information that would give insight into that   
   shooting at all, even if he    
   was handcuffed to him?   
      
     You start with a faulty assumption and proceed from there, that these cops   
   had useful information that could give insight into the shooting. The FBI knew   
   what the good stuff was, the shells and rifle found where people saw a shooter.   
      
     Take a look at the Larry Flynt shooting. For years they had little, they had   
   a few shells and nobody saw the shooter. Or you can look at the Beltway Sniper   
   case, and see that witnesses really didn`t provide anything useful, mostly it   
   had a harmful    
   effect on the investigation by causing them to chase red herrings.   
      
     Do you really think that if there were no photos or film available from the   
   assassination you could piece together what occurred using witness supplied   
   information?   
      
    Now if you want to apply trial standards, look at the shooting of Reagan, or   
   the shooting of Robert Kennedy. They don`t put everybody on the stand, they   
   don`t need testimony from everyone present. The JFK assassination doesn`t   
   suffer from too little    
   information, it suffers from too much, it gives children like yourself too   
   many blocks to play with.   
      
     You stand on your head to look at everything, and then you wonder why   
   everything looks strange. For instance, can you show a single murder case   
   where the doctors were interviewed? Every case I`ve ever seen, they go by the   
   autopsy or medical examiner`s    
   report.   
      
     This extends to every aspect of the case. You claim is the line-up were   
   handled wrong, but you don`t show they were done any different than any other   
   time the DPD conducted line-up. Same for evidence collection. Same for they   
   way they interviewed    
   Oswald. In order to support that these things were done in an unusual manner,   
   you have to show they were unusually done.   
      
     Now, that is probably more reasoning then your brain can process, so I`ll   
   stop there.   
      
   > FBI file # 62-109060, Section 181, pg. 97 is a document that says that it   
   wasn't done here, giving no reason. Why not ?    
      
     Why didn`t they give a reason? Again, you would need to ask them.   
       
   > It's YOUR case. YOUR investigators.   
      
     Then keep your nose out of MY case.   
      
   > The burden is yours.    
      
     I have no burden.  I even try to help you with yours, by giving you pointers   
   on how to reason properly.   
      
   > BTW, you have a history of running from a question by answering it with a   
   question.    
      
     My question highlighted the flaw in your question.   
      
   > Thank You for not answering the question. ( as usual )    
   >    
   > Boy, are you stupid.   
      
     I don`t even know why you challenge me with posts like this, it never ends   
   well for you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)