When eyewitness accounts conflict with each other, the accounts that agree with the physical evidence should have greater weight. And accounts given immediately after an event are often the more accurate accounts.
The
Oswald did its want to butter their bread on both sides. Allegedly Oswald did it--- guilt by accusation ...so anything or anyone that contradicts that conclusion must be in error. The Whaley affidavit was made fairly immediately after the event but by the time he went to testimony..Whaley had been razzed to no end. The Feds had him re-drive the route [until he "got it right"]
From Oswald's Jacket....
Here's where you knuckle heads don't get it. Oswald wasn't convicted of anything. He never went to trial. He never even got to talk to a lawyer before being lynched.
Hitler never went to trial, was he also innocent? Hahaha!
Mental.
