Martin has watched too many episodes of CSI. This happened in 1963. Police investigations were a lot different then. But that kind of lazy, defense attorney argument creates no doubt of Oswald's guilt. It's just a way to extend the discussion by distracting from the evidence.
Martin has watched too many episodes of CSI. A fool's argument.
This happened in 1963. Police investigations were a lot different then.I agree... they were far more a rush to judgment then.... especially in Texas
It's just a way to extend the discussion by distracting from the evidence.What evidence?..... There is none, stupid! All you've got is Westbrook's scouts honor!
You've got a half blind woman who was concentrating more on getting the TV to work, claiming Oswald (who she only could have seen in the blink of an eye) left the roominghouse wearing a jacket, but when she is shown CE 162 she says the jacket she saw was darker...... as in darker, like perhaps his shirt? Remember officer Baker making the same mistake in the 2nd floor lunchroom?
Then you've got a jacket allegedly found under a car, described by two officers who saw it in broad daylight as being white.
And you've got a gray jacket suddenly showing up at the police station but nobody can tell us where it came from or who brought it in. What we do know is that it is initialed by two officers who did not find or see it at the car park and did not handle it until it got to the station....