Colin,
Funny, that's what I was going to ask you.
-- MWT
128
PPS What do you mean, "we"?
129 ...
It doesn’t. I never claimed it did. Lance postulated in an unsupported claim was that it was somehow behind Oswald's mention of Jarman and Norman under interrogation.
Care to explain why you thought to post this?
You seem to prefer the interpretations which you believe exonerate Oswald ...
I prefer interpretations that are supported by corroborated documented evidence. I have supplied such. Didn't see any by Lance. I am sure he appreciates you championing his cause, even if seemingly abandoned by David.
PS How could I claim full credit Tommy? Would you?