In article <email@example.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now you've done it. I am once again entertaining the notion that it isSorry, I just have to say that I burst out cackling when I read that.
> actually Hargis in the Cabluck photo.
No offense meant. ;-)
> First, it is absolutely clear from theFull stop. I'm sorry, but you claim people to have lied far too often.
> photographic evidence that this cop is the same cop in the Bell film parking
> his bike. No doubt at all about that. Could that be Hargis? If it is, it
> means that he got back on his bike across the street and then rode over there
> to go up to the bridge, when just running straight to the bridge would have
> been quicker. Why would he do that? Maybe he heard something on his radio
> after he got back on his bike that made him decide to do this, or maybe he
> saw something. In Bond5, while Hargis is going back to his bike and looking
> up to that very spot on the bridge the cop does go to, it looks as if he has
> interrupted his stride, as if he had seen something that had changed his
> plans. It's possible he got back on his bike, since he was there already, and
> rode it across the street. It means his testimony and Haygood's have some
> serious lies,
You almost never seem to even briefly consider any other possibility
whatsoever. It seems to me as if nearly every time you see the slightest
imaginable inconsistency in anything a person said, you unhesitatingly
jump to the conclusion that they lied, i.e., that it was a purposeful
falsehood. There indeed *can* sometimes be other explanations. There
really are such things as honest mistakes, where people are wrong without
realizing that they are wrong. And no human has a perfect memory.
Anyone can recall certain details incorrectly later without realizing that
they are incorrect.
> but it's possible. Why would they change the story like that?Has it yet been conclusively established that they changed *any* story?
A few days ago I quoted Hargis's testimony where he said he ran up to get
"Yes, sir; I ran to the light post, and I ran up to this kind of a little
Ok, I was mistaken before. I thought he said he ran to the light post and
Are you suggesting he was purposefully lying when he said that? If so,
I submit to you that if it's even *possible* that he was telling the
You could at least admit that that is *possible*, even if you don't
> It would blunt the idea that Hargis had run to the spot where he thought theHow on earth would it blunt that? He plainly said that his initial
> shots had come from,
belief was that the shots had come from the overpass:
"Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me.
So if that's him in the Cabluck photo, he ran up to the bridge to check.
And apparently saw nothing suspicious.
Unless he was lying purposefully.
Was he? Can that really be proven, or not?
> and make it easier not to scrutinize with bothersomeAgain I am honestly not following your logic. He plainly, clearly told
> questioning what he saw when he got there.
the Commission that he initially thought the shots might have been fired
from the bridge. He said he ran up there to take a look. He was then
asked quite clearly if he had observed anything out of the ordinary on the
overpass, and elsewhere as well, aside from bystanders running, and he
said he didn't. How does this make it easier not to scrutinize with
bothersome questioning? He was asked point blank if he saw anything out
of the ordinary and he said he didn't. Period. What questions do you
think he should have been asked about the overpass that weren't asked
after he already said he didn't see anything suspicious on the overpass?
> If Hargis didn't run up there, youHargis is the one who said he ran up to take a look on the bridge.
> can't ask him what he saw at the spot he thought the shots had originated.
Haygood said nothing even remotely like that. So I am getting more and
more convinced that that is Hargis in the Cabluck photo.
> Haygood being the cop means that the questioning can be more vague, and itAs I've said to you several times before, that appears to be simply
> was, considering they didn't even mention the bridge.
because Haygood himself never said he looked on the bridge at all.
Possibly because it might really be true? Possibly because it really is
true that that isn't him in the Cabluck photo?
> If it had been Hargis,LOL!!! They DID acknowledge the existence of the bridge in Hargis's
> they would have to have acknowledged the existence of the bridge in his
> questioning, and that might get messy.
testimony. You've quoted it and I've quoted it. Hargis said, plainly
and unequivocally that he took a look *on* the bridge. He and Stern
talked quite *openly* about the bridge. Stern asked him point blank if
he saw anything suspicious on the bridge. Hargis firmly and without the
slightest equivocation answered in the negative. Where on earth is the
"messy" part? I don't see it. I see very plain questions and answers.
> This might explain why Haygood had toSigh...I do not agree that he was "prompted" to do any such thing, as I
> be prompted to remember his encounter with the "presumed railroad detective."
told you yesterday, and I gave you what I honestly feel to be a
perfectly reasonable argument to support my opinion. To repeat a bit of
it, Haygood initially said that he went back to the railroad yards,
looked around, and then went back to his cycle. Since he had not
mentioned talking to anyone back there, Belin asked him if he had. Then
Haygood said yes, and brought up this supposed "railroad detective."
You seem to be suggesting that Belin knew in advance that Haygood would
say the exact words "railroad detective" if "prompted," but I do not see
any evidence of that. The only "prompting" I see is simply that Belin
seemed surprised that Haygood had not yet mentioned having talked to
anyone before returning to his cycle, so Belin simply asked him if he
had talking to *anyone*, not any specific person necessarily.
> This might also explain why Haygood didn't mention Buddy Walthers who wasOr, an alternate explanation: Haygood and Walthers simply didn't think
> present when he supposedly talked to Tague, and why Walthers didn't mention
it was important to mention that they both talked to Tague at the same
time. Why would it be important, necessarily? So they both talked to
Tague. He told them both that something had struck his cheek. They
both got the same information from him. I see nothing that is
necessarily any more significant than that.
> Tague, the most reliable witness involved here, never knew their names,If you're talking about the portions of the radio transcript quoted in
> but he knew that they were both there. This would mean that the radio log
> transcript has to incorrectly identify Hargis as Haygood, since it would be
> Hargis calling in.
Haygood's testimony, I'm again not following your logic. Haygood
himself said that that was him when reading from two different parts of
Mr. BELIN. I have here a Sawyer Deposition Exhibit A, which appears to
Mr. BELIN. I notice on there another transmission at 12:37 p.m. Could
Or are you talking about some other portion of the transcript?
> Also, the odd literary similarity between two statementsYou are picking away at the strangest trivialities.
> made, one in each cop's testimony, might also be explained by such a
> re-wroking of the story. It's possible.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.