Post by Gil JesusPost by BudPost by Gil JesusNone of the four DPD officers who rode motorcycles to the rear of the President's limousine were interviewed by the FBI in 1963. Why not ?
What reason did the FBI give?
You have a history of asking for speculation and crying when speculation is provided.
Who asked for speculation ?
Unless the FBI outlined why they did this, or didn`t do that then we don`t know their reasons, do we?
Post by Gil JesusIn a normal criminal investigation,
You don`t know anything about anything, let alone how to properly conduct a criminal investigation.
Post by Gil Jesusit seems reasonable to think that the FBI would be interested in interviewing the motorcycle cops behind the limousine.
Perhaps (and this is speculation) the FBI read the police reports and didn`t feel those officers could contribute anything that would give insight into the crime.
See, the problem is you, you insist on looking at everything incorrectly.
The correct way to look at this is as a surprise attack lasting seconds, where the protection detail never saw the attacker. But since you look at nothing correctly you don`t start there, you don`t even acknowledge the reality of the event.
Let`s says Oswald was being led across a parking lot when he was shot be a high powered rifle from a concealed location. Why would you expect James Leavelle to provide any kind of information that would give insight into that shooting at all, even if he was handcuffed to him?
You start with a faulty assumption and proceed from there, that these cops had useful information that could give insight into the shooting. The FBI knew what the good stuff was, the shells and rifle found where people saw a shooter.
Take a look at the Larry Flynt shooting. For years they had little, they had a few shells and nobody saw the shooter. Or you can look at the Beltway Sniper case, and see that witnesses really didn`t provide anything useful, mostly it had a harmful effect on the investigation by causing them to chase red herrings.
Do you really think that if there were no photos or film available from the assassination you could piece together what occurred using witness supplied information?
Now if you want to apply trial standards, look at the shooting of Reagan, or the shooting of Robert Kennedy. They don`t put everybody on the stand, they don`t need testimony from everyone present. The JFK assassination doesn`t suffer from too little information, it suffers from too much, it gives children like yourself too many blocks to play with.
You stand on your head to look at everything, and then you wonder why everything looks strange. For instance, can you show a single murder case where the doctors were interviewed? Every case I`ve ever seen, they go by the autopsy or medical examiner`s report.
This extends to every aspect of the case. You claim is the line-up were handled wrong, but you don`t show they were done any different than any other time the DPD conducted line-up. Same for evidence collection. Same for they way they interviewed Oswald. In order to support that these things were done in an unusual manner, you have to show they were unusually done.
Now, that is probably more reasoning then your brain can process, so I`ll stop there.
Post by Gil JesusFBI file # 62-109060, Section 181, pg. 97 is a document that says that it wasn't done here, giving no reason. Why not ?
Why didn`t they give a reason? Again, you would need to ask them.
Post by Gil JesusIt's YOUR case. YOUR investigators.
Then keep your nose out of MY case.
Post by Gil JesusThe burden is yours.
I have no burden. I even try to help you with yours, by giving you pointers on how to reason properly.
Post by Gil JesusBTW, you have a history of running from a question by answering it with a question.
My question highlighted the flaw in your question.
Post by Gil JesusThank You for not answering the question. ( as usual )
Boy, are you stupid.
I don`t even know why you challenge me with posts like this, it never ends well for you.