Message from discussion Officer Haygood's call in at 12:34-12:35
Received: by 10.180.84.74 with SMTP id w10mr1947471wiy.4.1349114177728;
Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Officer Haygood's call in at 12:34-12:35
Date: 1 Oct 2012 13:56:17 -0400
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <caeruleo-89E2EB.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
X-Original-Trace: 1 Oct 2012 11:33:46 -0500, 22.214.171.124
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1349114177 126.96.36.199 (1 Oct 2012 12:56:17 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 1 Oct 2012 12:56:17 -0500, 188.8.131.52
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, September 29, 2012 9:31:36 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <email@example.com>,
> > fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > He also had told them that the only spectator activity
> > > he saw that indicated anybody knew where the shots had come from was on
> > > the overpass. On the day of the assassination, Haygood ran up to the
> > > overpass. We have the Cabluck photo to show it. And yet, in Haygood's
> > > session, Belin and Stern and Haygood do not once mention the overpass.
> > > DON'T YOU THINK THIS IS WEIRD?
> > No, because I know of no evidence that Belin had the Cabluck photo in
> > front of him during the testimony, or that he even knew of the photo's
> > existence at that time, or if he did that he even knew Haygood appeared
> > in it.
> Maybe he didn't have the photo, but he certainly had some version of the
> police radio log, he knew that Chief Curry thought somebody was shooting
> from the overpass. He knew that Chief Curry ordered "somebody" to get up
> there and see what happened.
And "somebody" is not one particular officer, correct?
> And, if he didn't know that Haygood had run
> up there, then he was just too stupid for his job.
If it's really true that Haygood had run up there.
> > I'm also not at all convinced that that isn't Hargis instead of
> > Haygood. In another article you said this:
> > "Everybody says it is Haygood and Hargis did not testify to going up
> > there."
> > "Everybody" says it is Haygood? Strange then that in the past several
> > minutes I have just seen several webpages saying it is Hargis. And
> > Hargis did not testify to going up there? I'm looking right at where he
> > said he went up there.
> I should never say "everybody." You have a point there. You misunderstand
> Hargis's testimony. If you quote it here, I will set you straight.
Yes, I think you're right. I had been looking at this part:
Mr. HARGIS - Yes, sir; I ran to the light post, and I ran up to this
kind of a little wall, brick wall up there to see if I could get a
better look on the bridge, and, of course. I was looking all around that
place by that time. I knew it couldn't have come from the county
courthouse because that place was swarming with deputy sheriffs over
He said he ran up to the light post, up to a little wall, to get a
better look on the bridge, and I had been thinking he meant the little
wall that connects to the concrete railing on the bridge, but now I see
from the full context that he was running up to a light post farther up
Elm, closer to the Newmans on the ground with their children, to look at
the bridge from there. And of course the only light post visible in the
Cabluck photo is in the foreground, and nowhere close to the bridge. ;-)
> If you
> could see anything in photographs, I would upload a dozen of them to show
> you that Hargis was back on his bike before that picture was taken. For
> that to be Hargis, he would have to be blatantly lying to the WC. I do not
> say that is impossible, but since Haygood says that he is the one who
> tried to jump the curb, and it is clear from the Bell film, which you
> wouldn't be able to see anything in, that the cop who tried to jump the
> curb is the cop who ran up to the bridge, then I would have to be a crazy
> conspiracy theorist to think that that is not Haygood in the Cabluck
I think you may well be right. My apologies.