The following times were noted by the following people....
And finally, Carolyn Arnold 12:25 - she saw Oswald in the 2nd-floor lunchroom as she was on her way out of the depository
Ralph C. Cinque:
You are not dealing with Carolyn Arnold's testimony correctly. At the time of the assassination, she said NOTHING about seeing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room. She said she saw Oswald between the double doors, that is, at the doorway just inside it, and it was shortly before the shooting. The statement said 12:15, but many believe it was changed to 12:15 from 12:25 by the FBI in order to afford Oswald enough time to get up to the 6th floor.
The other statement, about seeing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room, wasn't made until 15 years later, in 1978, and it wasn't made to authorities but rather to a journalist, Earl Golz.
She said Oswald was alone "and appeared to be having lunch." But, Oswald contradicted that because he told authorities that he had lunch in the first floor lunch room- as he usually did, as he always did, and as witnesses like Charles Givens corroborated.
So, do you really think he ate two lunches that day?
What does it mean to appear to be having lunch? It can only mean that there was food on the table at which he was sitting and that he was eating. But again, if that's what she saw, it means Oswald ate two lunches that day.
Then, she reportedly tried to debunk her own FBI testimony by saying, "Why would I be looking back inside the building?" Well, maybe she heard something. Maybe she was looking for somebody. Maybe something caught her attention at the corner of her eye so she turned around.
But, why believe her revised account? Isn't it far more likely that her original statement, made several days after the assassination, was true? What reason would she have had to lie to the FBI or make up a story? And as far as memory goes, isn't 4 days better than 15 years?
I say you've got two choices here: either you go with her very first and original statement about seeing Oswald just inside the doorway OR you throw out everything she said for having contradicted herself. But, what you don't do and what is not going to happen on my watch is to accept her 15 years revised statement.
You are not dealing with Carolyn Arnold's testimony correctly. At the time of the assassination, she said NOTHING about seeing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room. She said she saw Oswald between the double doors, that is, at the doorway just inside it, and it was shortly before the shooting. The statement said 12:15, but many believe it was changed to 12:15 from 12:25 by the FBI in order to afford Oswald enough time to get up to the 6th floor.
The other statement, about seeing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room, wasn't made until 15 years later, in 1978, and it wasn't made to authorities but rather to a journalist, Earl Golz.
She said Oswald was alone "and appeared to be having lunch." But, Oswald contradicted that because he told authorities that he had lunch in the first floor lunch room- as he usually did, as he always did, and as witnesses like Charles Givens corroborated.
So, do you really think he ate two lunches that day?
What does it mean to appear to be having lunch? It can only mean that there was food on the table at which he was sitting and that he was eating. But again, if that's what she saw, it means Oswald ate two lunches that day.
Then, she reportedly tried to debunk her own FBI testimony by saying, "Why would I be looking back inside the building?" Well, maybe she heard something. Maybe she was looking for somebody. Maybe something caught her attention at the corner of her eye so she turned around.
But, why believe her revised account? Isn't it far more likely that her original statement, made several days after the assassination, was true? What reason would she have had to lie to the FBI or make up a story? And as far as memory goes, isn't 4 days better than 15 years?
I say you've got two choices here: either you go with her very first and original statement about seeing Oswald just inside the doorway OR you throw out everything she said for having contradicted herself. But, what you don't do and what is not going to happen on my watch is to accept her 15 years revised statement.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.