You are doubling down on the idea that what is discussed on a telephone call is somehow dependent on who initiated the call? LOL. That is truly bizarre. In the course of that call, Sanders indicated that Reid told her about the Oswald/Truly lunchroom encounter. How would Reid know about this since she was not present in the lunchroom unless she had been told about it (i.e. discussed it or overheard someone with knowledge of the event discussing it)? Good grief. The point has gone way over your head. Regardless of how the topic arose on the call, Reid could not have had knowledge of the Oswald/Truly encounter on her floor unless someone told her. She was not present in the lunchroom. She was not psychic. The ONLY conclusion that can be drawn from her having this knowledge is that it was imparted to her by someone else. We don't know who told her but that doesn't mean she wasn't told since it the only way she could have known about it. Once she knows that Oswald was on her floor, her encounter with a person (real or imagined) lends itself in her mind to it being Oswald although she barely knows him and describes him being in a white t-shirt even though we know that is not how he was dressed moments before. Again, though, you seemingly agree with me on the only point being made in this context. That there is doubt about whether it was Oswald she saw or not. Why you so strenuously object to the application of reasonable doubt in this context while embracing outlandish impossible standards of proof in other contexts is particularly ironic and humorous.
You are doubling down on the idea that what is discussed on a telephone call is somehow dependent on who initiated the call? It seems there is indeed no fixing stupid. You either truly don't understand what I said or you are purposely misrepresenting it, in which case you already have lost the argument.
Once she knows that Oswald was on her floor, her encounter with a person (real or imagined) lends itself in her mind to it being Oswald although she barely knows him and describes him being in a white t-shirt even though we know that is not how he was dressed moments before. Again, though, you seemingly agree with me on the only point being made in this context. That there is doubt about whether it was Oswald she saw or not. You keep on implying that she either made it up or that she saw somebody else and made a mistake. So, I'll ask again, if you doubt it was Oswald, then who was it?
So, just to play devil's advocate here, let's examine what we have; Oswald was seen in the lunchroom with a bottle of coke (yeah I know, Baker later changed his story) and shortly thereafter he is allegedly seen leaving the building through the front door, after showing a reporter where the telephone was. It's a minimal distance between the lunchroom and the front door and Reid said she entered the building directly after the shooting. Add it all up and one must conclude that there couldn't have been anybody else in that office area, carrying a coke and walking away from the lunchroom to the front door, than Oswald. So, if you want to doubt Reid's statement, you are going to have to explain not only who else it could have been that she saw but also where Oswald was and what he did at that exact time. You can't do neither!
You only want to doubt Reid's statement because you can't explain the white T shirt and you're using something that Sanders may have said to an FBI agent to make your flawed argument. Even if somebody told Reid about the lunchroom encounter between Oswald, Baker and Truly, that still doesn't mean Reid imagined her encounter with Oswald!
Why you so strenuously object to the application of reasonable doubt in this context while embracing outlandish impossible standards of proof in other contexts is particularly ironic and humorous. This coming from the guy who only selectively wants to see doubt, when the entire case is cause for nothing but doubt is particularly ironic and humorous.
