Why does there need to be an "explanation", and what makes your unsupported statement " more likely" ?
The library books were turned in on October 3rd. Seems to be accepted by the Warren Commission.
Why does there need to be an "explanation", and what makes your unsupported statement " more likely" ?The claim that I responded to WAS an (unlikely) explanation. Here it is again:
Someone then returned them to the New Orleans library on Oct 3rd (at a time when LHO was on his way to Dallas from Mexico). This has to be proof LHO was not on his own in Mexico. Presumably, whoever he was with, he gave that person his library books to return to New Orleans once LHO realized he would not be getting in to Cuba.Margaret’s explanation states that “someone returned them...on Oct 3rd.” The SS report (CE 2650) only states that “card shows return date [10/3/63].” It most definitely does not state that “someone returned them on 10/3/63.”
Margaret’s explanation states that “This HAS to be proof LHO was not on his own in Mexico.” My contention is that it doesn’t HAVE to be proof of that. She is jumping to an ad hoc conclusion. She doesn’t allow for ANY other possible explanations.
There are several possible scenarios in which the library could have processed the books a few days after they were actually returned. Here is one: The books were placed in an after-hours return (because LHO left town in a hurry). Consequently, the books were simply not processed until 10/3/63 because they were separate from others (that were returned to the desk during operating hours) and were neglected or forgotten about until 10/3/63. This type of scenario happens quite often in libraries and offices everywhere. Therefore this scenario is much more likely than Margaret’s contention that “someone” was helping LHO. Why aren’t you asking for corroborating evidence of a “helper”?
