Said he in an ad hom kinda way
You reap what you sow; especially you.
And you keep on not providing it or saying you don't need to provide it because it's not a court of law. You want to have your cake and eat it to.... Ain't gonna happen
No need to prove anything on my part. Or eat cake, for that matter:
Bill Chapman
Actually, no you don't know that. What you know is that some Parkland doctors were once taken into a room, where no camera or witness was allowed, and were shown photos that matched the wound they had seen. You can only believe that those photos were indeed those taken at the autopsy because there is no way you can know for sure.
Actually, I do know that you are assuming/suggesting that those doctors are liars.
And In 1988, Public Broadcasting's NOVA got permission to show the Parkland doctors the original autopsy photos and x-rays in the National Archives. They were allowed as much time as they wished to view the materials, and then their reactions were filmed.
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm
Really? Is this just denial or simply an outright lie?
Really? Are suggesting that I'm a liar?
And to you that means that they had a good enough look of this man running passed their front door. It would never ever tell you something might not be quite right with the line up, right?
To me that means the sisters gave a positive ID regarding Oswald and that you are suggesting they are liars
You're so forgiving.... He had identified Oswald in a line up a day earlier and Oswald's picture was all over the media by then and he still couldn't pick him out.... It's pathetic!
He picked it out it made the final two. Now tell us that the photograph of Oswald was taken at the exact same angle as Scoggins saw him, and under the exact same lighting conditions present near Scoggins. And tell us that you are not suggesting, hinting or otherwise calling him an outright liar.
Actually, I do know that you are assuming/suggesting that those doctors are liars. Which only shows how shallow and narrowminded you are, because I assume nor suggest anything of the kind
And In 1988, Public Broadcasting's NOVA got permission to show the Parkland doctors the original autopsy photos and x-rays in the National Archives. They were allowed as much time as they wished to view the materials, and then their reactions were filmed.And that's exactly what I was saying. They were taken into a separate room with no camera or witness present. Why the cloak and dagger stuff? Why not show them the photos and X-rays in the open and show us their reaction? Their reactions were filmed after they came back out of the room and I have no doubt that they were shown the photos and X-rays that showed the wound they had seen. What nobody knows, however, is if those were the same photos and X-rays that are now in the public domain. I have good reason to believe that they were not, but I have no intention to betray a confidence for somebody like you.
You are too easily fooled!
Really? Is this just denial or simply an outright lie?
Really? Are suggesting that I'm a liar?
What makes you think I am suggesting anything. Anybody who reads this forum knows that what you said simply isn't true. Does that make you a liar or just mere ignorant?
And to you that means that they had a good enough look of this man running passed their front door. It would never ever tell you something might not be quite right with the line up, right?
To me that means the sisters gave a positive ID regarding Oswald and that you are suggesting they are liars
If you want to qualify it that way, have at it. To me they are just two very young, and impressionable, women who believed they did the right thing. It's lucky for those girls that the case never went to trial because I am sure they would have been destroyed on the stand.
You're so forgiving.... He had identified Oswald in a line up a day earlier and Oswald's picture was all over the media by then and he still couldn't pick him out.... It's pathetic!
He picked it out it made the final two. Now tell us that the photograph of Oswald was taken at the exact same angle as Scoggins saw him, and under the exact same lighting conditions present near Scoggins. And tell us that you are not suggesting, hinting or otherwise calling him an outright liar.
Funny.... Just how long does it take a normal fit person to jump over a hedge and run down a street, his back turned to a witness? That's how long Scoggins saw the man, as he was ducked behind his taxi for most of the time. What I am saying os what I have always said; eye-witness accounts are the least reliable evidence and a bogus line up can persuade well willing but intimidated witnesses to turn into police pleasing facilitators.
If there was any part of the Kennedy case I wish could be done in a mock-trial version, it is a defense lawyer questioning the actual Tippit witnesses (those who identified Oswald) on re-direct. The outcome, I believe, would be utter devastation for the entire case!
