So, Brian Pete is suggesting that Oswald, while innocent of killing Kennedy and Tippit, lied to police about owning the rifle, thinking he could get away with it from having ordered it under an assumed name.
That makes sense to Brian Pete, but note first, that he's not saying that he believes it. Brian Pete likes to argue things he doesn't believe and often does.
But, it does NOT make sense because if Oswald was innocent of killing Kennedy and Tippit, then he was completely innocent. He did NOTHING wrong. He certainly didn't kill anybody. Therefore, what reason did he have to lie to police?
Imagine that YOU went to work, and someone in the street was shot dead from your building, and a weapon that you owned was found hidden inside. And say you had reason to believe the weapon was untraceable. Would you lie to police about owning it? Of course, you wouldn't and for more than one reason. First, even if you thought it was untraceable, you couldn't be sure, and neither could Oswald. But more importantly, there was nothing illegal about Oswald owning a gun. It wasn't a crime. So why lie about it?
IF OSWALD KNEW THAT SOMEBODY MUST HAVE STOLEN HIS GUN AND USED IT TO KILL SOMEBODY, WOULDN'T HE WANT THE POLICE TO KNOW? Wouldn't he want them to have the correct understanding of what happened? What would possibly be in his interest to lie about that?
But, it goes much deeper than that, and I mean to a visceral level. When you are falsely accused of a crime, you want to tell the truth FROM EVERY FIBER OF YOUR BEING. You don't want to make like a criminal and lie. You don't want to hamper the police. You want to help the police. You want to help them understand the crime correctly. You want to help them catch the person who really did it. You want to get them off this false lead of thinking you did it. And the best way that you can do that is to tell the truth.
Why would Oswald lie about owning the rifle if he was innocent? Why would he want to?
You don't think it's ever happened that someone 's rifle was stolen to commit a crime? I'm sure it's happened numerous times. And how hard is it to say,
"Yes, that is my rifle, but I certainly didn't shoot the man with it. Someone must have stolen it from my garage. Look: I was standing outside with my boss, Bill Shelley, when it happened. So, I couldn't possibly have done it. But besides that, what reason did I have to kill him? I didn't even know him! Our paths never crossed. I never had any dealings with him. I had no motive whatsoever. For Christ's sake, I'm not a fucking monster. I don't go around just shooting people for the heck of it. Are you out of your mind?"
Oswald denied owning the rifle. He denied ordering the rifle even after they told him what they claimed to know. He denied posing for the picture, and he denied it was him in the picture. WHY WOULD HE LIE ABOUT ALL THAT IF HE WAS INNOCENT?
When you're innocent, you want to be truthful. When you're innocent, you know the truth is your friend. When you're innocent, you know that lying makes you look guilty.
So, let's see: according to Brian Pete, Oswald lies to police about owning the gun, thinking he could get away with it since he ordered it under an assumed name. But then, he continues to lie about it even after they reveal their knowledge of how he ordered it under an assumed name?
Watch this video of Frank Reynolds, a local Chicago newscaster at the time who went on to national fame. The date was November 23, 1963; so the very next day. He is broadcasting all the details, that Oswald ordered the rifle from Klein's Hardware there in Chicago on March 20 under the name A. Hidell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRi-TYn_uJ0
So, they had that information already, and Oswald was still alive. If Frank Reynolds was informing people in the Windy City, then Dallas Police had to be telling Oswald the same thing.
So, even if Oswald thought he could get away with lying from having purchased the rifle under an assumed name which they didn't know about, once they informed him that they DID know about it, that they knew everything about it, why would he continue to lie? What would be the point?
But, it doesn't even get that far because if he didn't kill anybody, then he has no reason to lie in the first place. He has no desire to lie. He desires only to tell the truth. He has nothing to fear from being truthful. Being innocent, he hasn't the slightest inclination to lie. He is outraged that he is being charged, and he wouldn't stoop to the level of lying because he has no need to lie, and he has nothing to lie about.
Ordering the rifle wasn't a crime. Owning it wasn't a crime. Posing with it for a picture wasn't a crime. Why lie about non-crimes? And why lie at all about anything if you're innocent?
Brian Pete is stupid, and so is Pink O'Blazney who wants to debate me. Debate me? He couldn't win a debate with a paper bag.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.