Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Ron;

I'm not a street cop. But I'm going to put my two cents worth in as I have worked in Law Enforcement

for close to 14 years.

First, at the time that the Officers entered the Texas Theatre, Oswald was a suspect in the Tippet

killing only. the Dallas PD didn't start looking at Oswald as an assassin of the President till after he arrived at DPD.

McDonald frisked the other two men in the theatre so that he could have more time to observe Oswald.

Remember they were searching for a man who they thought already had no regard for the uniform of a Policeman. McDonald I believe wanted to size up the suspect a little longer and to see if maybe he could see a gun on the subject. I truly believe that was what was going through McDonald's head as he was walking up the aisle.

Mike

Edited by Mike Perez
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

First, at the time that the Officers entered the Texas Theatre, Oswald was a suspect in the Tippet

killing only. the Dallas PD didn't start looking at Oswald as an assassin of the President till after he arrived at DPD.

According to Postal, the ticket lady, when they were taking Oswald out of the theater, one of the officers said, "We have our man on both the counts." She asked him what he meant, and he said, "Officer Tippit as well." This indicates that in the mind of at least one arresting officer Oswald was a suspect in both murders. Moreover, Postal said the officers identified Oswald by name, which indicates that at least some of them knew exactly who they were arresting.

McDonald frisked the other two men in the theatre so that he could have more time to observe Oswald.

Remember they were searching for a man who they thought already had no regard for the uniform of a Policeman. McDonald I believe wanted to size up the suspect a little longer and to see if maybe he could see a gun on the subject. I truly believe that was what was going through McDonald's head as he was walking up the aisle.

Why was McDonald the Lone Ranger in this? What were all the other cops doing while McDonald moseyed around toward Oswald? It's almost as if they had drawn straws to see who would approach the suspect, and McDonald drew the short straw. What I don't understand is that all of these officers, I assume, were armed, they had located a suspect whom they considered armed and dangerous. In the movies the officers would take a crouching stance, all their gun barrels aimed at the suspect, and he knows not to make a move or he's dead. Nobody gets hurt. Then, if the guy turns out to be Joe Schmoe from Plano who is just in town to see a war movie, and who has just messed his pants, the cops can apologize to him and keep on looking for their man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever MacDonald did or didn't do, he was seen as a hero amongst the department. He was awarded with several citations as seen below; Jesse Curry and Marie Tippit in attendance.

BTW, in one of TMWKK episodes, I seem to remember an interview with one of the Dallas cops who admitted that he was the one who punched Oswald in the head during the alleged arrest scuffle.

Does anyone remember this guy's name?

FWIW.

James

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever MacDonald did or didn't do, he was seen as a hero amongst the department. He was awarded with several citations as seen below; Jesse Curry and Marie Tippit in attendance.

BTW, in one of TMWKK episodes, I seem to remember an interview with one of the Dallas cops who admitted that he was the one who punched Oswald in the head during the alleged arrest scuffle.

Does anyone remember this guy's name?

FWIW.

James

hmmm, this seems to be an area where a lot of smoke is gathered.

On one hand we have the WC version patched together from apparently incomplete, inconsistent and varied viewpoint testimonies.

we have a comprehensive take from Gerry (which I can't comment on at the moment as it introduces factors such as tradecraft and code outside my knowledge)

we have various suggestions and questions.

there is Ruby and his suggested role.

there is the 'snap'

there is the issue of flashlights and theatre lights

A neat way by referring to it is as a script in a movie, and trying to create one that makes sense.

I haven't deliberately left things out or imply more weight to some things than others in this partial summary, but I think Gerry is correct about the importance of sorting all this out, putting the pieces together and getting together a complete timeline of that which gels.

Any attempt to do so plus a further gathering of related and unrelated items will in time make it possible to discern the shapes in the smoke.

(In order to simlify things perhaps concentrating mostly on the moment immediatly prior to Lee reaching the theatre and up to where he is put in the police car)

________

One thing that occurs to me is how 'strange' (as Ron is pointing out) the idea of an experienced police force will leave a murder suspect sitting while showing their hand by 'frisking' someone.

It makes me ask: Lee is not blind or stupid, so what can one infer from his reaction to this apparent opportunity to react? His reaction is not that of a desperate person about to have shoot out, but hat of a person willing to be arrested, either he did or did not know/suspect what was coming?

I wonder if this is a reasonable scenario and if so if there is any evidence for it::

"ok boys, he's in there' 'you, McDonald, kind of sidle up to him, take your time and make sure he has an opportunity to make his move, meanwhile you, XXX , take up position over there and keep him in your sight, drop him if he makes a move, remember there are witnesses so lets get it right...

However:: Lee was the one who ended up 'getting it right'...

So, on to plan B. Which has to wait till the transfer as for all the rest of the time Lee is totally in their custody. (Except for a crowded opportunity during the press conference where Ruby also attended(hence one can imply anyone could attend hence not a secure position in which to place Lee::: deliberately so??.)

Perhaps one could tally the number of possible attempts to eliminate Lee?

Baker in the TSBD

Tippit

Theatre

Rifle stock to temple

Press conference

Basement

The last one was critical for after this he was out of 'their' hands and therefore 'they" went all out?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if this is a reasonable scenario and if so if there is any evidence for it::

"ok boys, he's in there' 'you, McDonald, kind of sidle up to him, take your time and make sure he has an opportunity to make his move, meanwhile you, XXX , take up position over there and keep him in your sight, drop him if he makes a move, remember there are witnesses so lets get it right...

However:: Lee was the one who ended up 'getting it right'...

John,

I think you've got it right. That's a reasonable scenario, and the evidence for it is the way they behaved instead of what police would normally do in taking such a suspect. As you say, they moseyed about "showing their hand," giving Oswald the "opportunity to react" so someone could shoot him. But Oswald didn't take the bait, he didn't react till the tussle with McDonald, at which point they could only physically restrain Oswald, deadly force being unnecessary due to witnesses present.

Additional evidence that the intent was to shoot him if possible is the fact that Oswald was going to be eliminated one way or the other. Tippit having failed (if that was his mission), this was the next place to try it.

Ron

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing that occurs to me is how 'strange' (as Ron is pointing out) the idea of an experienced police force will leave a murder suspect sitting while showing their hand by 'frisking' someone [else].

It makes me ask: Lee is not blind or stupid, so what can one infer from his reaction to this apparent opportunity to react? His reaction is not that of a desperate person about to have [a] shoot out, but [t]hat of a person willing to be arrested, either he did or did not know/suspect what was coming?

____________________________________________________

I think LHO must have had at least an "inkling" (as he sat there in the theater watching officer McDonald frisk someone else) that he was going to be frisked too, and arrested (for carrying a concealed gun perhaps?), and at least taken in for questioning. After all, the assassination had happened so close to his place of work, he had left the scene of the crime without permission, he was a former Marine who had tried to defect to Russia, he had lived in Russia for a couple of years, etc, etc, etc. I don't think the issue is whether or not he was willing to be arrested, but the probability that he was resigned to be arrested. I don't think he shot Kennedy. I think the fact that he'd been set up as a patsy started dawning on him as he sat there in the theater watching other people getting frisked.

FWIW, Thomas

____________________________________________________

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest John Gillespie

Gerry,

There is an allegation, and I will leave it at that that 'a couple of months before the assassination the FBI (don't have a name) went to the TSBD and asked them to hire Lee Harvey Oswald for 'national security purposes.' Can you confirm or deny the accuracy of this allegation?

Another example of why the McAdamses and Posners of the world have a following. Allegation? FBI? Can Gerry 'confirm or deny?" Whew! Open the windows.

Oswald supposedly was on the brink of being hired at a different warehouse/depository, also in Dallas, as arranged by the Paines/De Mohrenschildt, but the situation quickly was rectified. I have no proof but do have a VERY good source who says so...and I believe that source as always. They almost botched the handling of the Patsy and ruined the day for Harry ("The Contingency") Power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gerry,

There is an allegation, and I will leave it at that that 'a couple of months before the assassination the FBI (don't have a name) went to the TSBD and asked them to hire Lee Harvey Oswald for 'national security purposes.' Can you confirm or deny the accuracy of this allegation?

Another example of why the McAdamses and Posners of the world have a following. Allegation? FBI? Can Gerry 'confirm or deny?" Whew! Open the windows.

Oswald supposedly was on the brink of being hired at a different warehouse/depository, also in Dallas, as arranged by the Paines/De Mohrenschildt, but the situation quickly was rectified. I have no proof but do have a VERY good source who says so...and I believe that source as always. They almost botched the handling of the Patsy and ruined the day for Harry ("The Contingency") Power.

John, FYI I do not make inquiries based on the opinions of critics, but on what I percieve to be a valid attempt to ascertain information, next time keep your friggin opine to yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gerry,

There is an allegation, and I will leave it at that that 'a couple of months before the assassination the FBI (don't have a name) went to the TSBD and asked them to hire Lee Harvey Oswald for 'national security purposes.' Can you confirm or deny the accuracy of this allegation?

Introducing a provocative tone to a discussion tends to stall things and obviously one would prefer this not to happen. There are many ways of saying 'I think you are wrong'. There are also educational techniques that are 'provocative' in nature. On the whole I don't think it possible to have discussions that entirely avoid these 'negative' influences, but I think an acknowledgement that they exist and an understanding of why they do, helps to avoid 'biting' the bait. For this reason the existence of these influences are instructive. They are part of the 'kitchen' atmosphere.

To keep the temperature down to a productive optimum, it is advisable to pause for a while and not fan the flames. This is probably a topic that could be dealt with separately, and it has to some extent in various 'monologues' and topic side tracks. A perusal of KUBARK, a consideration of 'agents provocateurs', opportunism, wrecking as well as some of the promotional techniques adopted by less scrupulous advertising entities, and similar well documented aspects cover the more seedy 'raisons d'etre'. Perhaps a familiarity with the various educational methods, basic psychology and also cultural differences can help as well. In Australia gross insults to 'familiars' are signs of endearment, in other cultures may very well be a trigger for long feuds.

One way or another it needs to be acknowledged and dealt with.

For my part I find that pausing, and being aware that the infection of negativity is easy to transfer to those not 'guilty' for a period of time following said 'infection', helps.

__________________________________

That said, meanwhile, back at the ranch. A lot is being asked of Gerry at the moment, but I hope he will attend to elaborating here. I wonder how one would go about establishing code when even the process of doing so can be intercepted. I supect it is necessary to consider it WILL be intercepted and therefore would have to be approached with extreme caution. Therefore it would seem that the assassination participants would definitely have had past dealings, not a spurious once off at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gerry,

There is an allegation, and I will leave it at that that 'a couple of months before the assassination the FBI (don't have a name) went to the TSBD and asked them to hire Lee Harvey Oswald for 'national security purposes.' Can you confirm or deny the accuracy of this allegation?

Introducing a provocative tone to a discussion tends to stall things and obviously one would prefer this not to happen. There are many ways of saying 'I think you are wrong'. There are also educational techniques that are 'provocative' in nature. On the whole I don't think it possible to have discussions that entirely avoid these 'negative' influences, but I think an acknowledgement that they exist and an understanding of why they do, helps to avoid 'biting' the bait. For this reason the existence of these influences are instructive. They are part of the 'kitchen' atmosphere.

To keep the temperature down to a productive optimum, it is advisable to pause for a while and not fan the flames. This is probably a topic that could be dealt with separately, and it has to some extent in various 'monologues' and topic side tracks. A perusal of KUBARK, a consideration of 'agents provocateurs', opportunism, wrecking as well as some of the promotional techniques adopted by less scrupulous advertising entities, and similar well documented aspects cover the more seedy 'raisons d'etre'. Perhaps a familiarity with the various educational methods, basic psychology and also cultural differences can help as well. In Australia gross insults to 'familiars' are signs of endearment, in other cultures may very well be a trigger for long feuds.

One way or another it needs to be acknowledged and dealt with.

For my part I find that pausing, and being aware that the infection of negativity is easy to transfer to those not 'guilty' for a period of time following said 'infection', helps.

__________________________________

That said, meanwhile, back at the ranch. A lot is being asked of Gerry at the moment, but I hope he will attend to elaborating here. I wonder how one would go about establishing code when even the process of doing so can be intercepted. I supect it is necessary to consider it WILL be intercepted and therefore would have to be approached with extreme caution. Therefore it would seem that the assassination participants would definitely have had past dealings, not a spurious once off at all?

-----------------------------------

It's been a long night for me !! Russo has just sent out a document with reference to almost two years of work with a prize winning German documentary cinematographer. I was interviewed by this same team about 4 years ago, while I was doing 8 months in the local VA hospital.

The boss, Willi, and his "Kraut Krew", had just come up from Havana 4 days previous. I was amazed at the detail and knowledge of these guys. I made a vague reference to a relatively unknown dissident in Havana [now deceased] and Willi came up with his name in a split second.

Unfortunately, Russo still insists that LHO "dood da deed" and this documentary evidently will show LHO's extensive contacts with Fidel's guys in Mexico, D.F. ??!! And while I agree that all of that might well be true, and that Cuban Intel guys were interviewed [making admissions against interest] while being filmed in Havana.

It still doesn't get to the inside of exactly the WHYs & WHATs of LHO's "Intel Tasks" ??!! Some ex-KGB guys are also interviewed, VIP Cuban exiles also -- and thousands of back-up documents.

ALL OF WHICH tells us exactly -- ZIP !!

The inference that LHO was positioned at the TSBD well in advance, and by folks with inside scoop on the motorcade route is really a stretch !! Was he hired by "The TSBD Company" directly, and by Roy Truly personally ?? The WC says so. Which means absolutely zilch to me.

Having LHO anywhere within 50 miles of Dallas was all that was necessary. Any operator could have fixed up a story that: LHO was seen sneaking inside the building behind everone's back, got to the "Sniper's Nest??" -- and "dood da deed".

"FABRICATION" is the name of the WC game. That they got LHO actually inside and employed at the TSBD was a real stroke of luck; and I often have wondered exactly how well they did with their "Back-Up Patsies??" -- those needed, should the VBIED have been exploded by the Union Corse guys ??

Jacks photo ["shooter's view"] explains the thousand words I raised as to the pipes, the required low shooter's "sitting" [NOT kneeling] firing position, etc. -- but look again and put youself in that window, which in reality, only raises up halfway.

EXACTLY how many seconds would it have taken to view the motorcade head on; then after identifying EXACTLY which Limo contained the target(s) -- then resuming a squatting/sitting firing position, and once again -- being damn sure, which motorcade vehicle was the correct one ??!! What you might call a "snap decision" for an very anxious, and rank amateur !!

How does any shooter use a SCOPE, when is obviously blocked by the bottom edge of the window ??

Later, we can discuss the 25+ mile p/hour gusts of wind blowing down through the streets and buildings at that very moment. The wind was from the "North" [according to aviation WX reports that day]; which means that a slight correction [to the right] for "Windage" was necessary. Otherwise, IF you aimed at Connally, the wind would blow the bullet to the left -- even over that short and downward shot, that is: IF anyone believes the "Sniper's Nest" bullxxxx story ??!!

GPH

___________________-

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron,

Moreover, Postal said the officers identified Oswald by name, which indicates that at least some of them knew exactly who they were arresting.

Why was McDonald the Lone Ranger in this?

I was jsut reading throught the Senate Select Committee interview of FBI Agent Bob Barrett. He was recounting information on his FD-302 Report written on November 22, 1963.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...14&relPageId=20

From the 1975 interview:

"Mr. Wallach stated that in my FD-302 I had stated that I heard Officer M.N. McDonald making a statement from the inside of the darkened portion of the theater, "Here he is, and then observed Officer McDonald lunge towards an individual later identified as Lee Harvey Oswald and that these two individuals started to scuffle."

Steve Thomas

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest John Gillespie

["John, FYI I do not make inquiries based on the opinions of critics, but on what I percieve to be a valid attempt to ascertain information, next time keep your friggin opine to yourself."

I will provide informed commentary each and every time I see this chatroom-like speculation. It's not personal, Robert, only business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron,

Moreover, Postal said the officers identified Oswald by name, which indicates that at least some of them knew exactly who they were arresting.

Why was McDonald the Lone Ranger in this?

I was jsut reading throught the Senate Select Committee interview of FBI Agent Bob Barrett. He was recounting information on his FD-302 Report written on November 22, 1963.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...14&relPageId=20

From the 1975 interview:

"Mr. Wallach stated that in my FD-302 I had stated that I heard Officer M.N. McDonald making a statement from the inside of the darkened portion of the theater, "Here he is, and then observed Officer McDonald lunge towards an individual later identified as Lee Harvey Oswald and that these two individuals started to scuffle."

Steve Thomas

Steve, thank you for bringing this up. While it seems to complicate matters it throws everything into a different light.

In trying to find out more, one comes across other relevant documents.

in no particular order or weight:

Rubys mindset:

"Document # 124-10075-10209 Is a four page document from SAC Houston to SAC, Dallas. It is dated 12/04/63. All four pages are here. Really two copies of two pages. This is about Mary Ann McCall.

HO [ ]-C, contacted by SA Leverette A. Baker on November 26 and December 1 and 4, last advised on last contact he saw Mary Ann McCall in Dallas at which time she did not freely discuss instant matter.

Informant stated McCall reported a number of Dallas officials were taking money from Ruby for various reasons and Ruby was considered a PD pawn. She reportedly stated Ruby probably was "encouraged" to shoot Oswald by some remark such as "if someone did it nothing would happen to him since he could get off on an insanity plea", thus by suggestion and encouragement Ruby did shoot Oswald.

Informant stated McCall has not yet furnished him names of officers taking payoffs from Ruby.

NO FD 302's or insert being submitted.

Dallas should locate and interview Mary Ann McCall without disclosing or compromising informant.

There is important notation on the first page. McCall's home telephone number LA1-3059. Another number which looks like a phone number is RI7-4893, perhaps another number for McCall."

________________________________

FBI:

Date December 31, 1963

STELLA BRAY, nee Kalifia,

She stated that she recalls RUBY to be very calm individual who never seemed to get excited . For this reason she stated that she could hardly believe that RUBY killed LEE HARVEY OSWALD .

She noted that she never discussed politics with RUBY and no information ever came to her attention concerning his political affiliation . She had no reason to believe that he was other than an average American who was solely interested in making a living . She further reflected that she had never seen or heard of LEE HARVEY OSWALD prior to the President's assassination .

________________________________

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/m...estigation.html

…Oswald’s Arrest

There are many unanswered questions as to who pointed Oswald out to the police, who drew a gun, whether Oswald tried to shoot an officer, and what was said by whom. The following witnesses present at the theatre might have thrown light on those matters:

Bob Apple, insurance investigator.

Detective Paul Bentley: He found a forged “Hidell” card on Oswald. Bob Barrett, F.B.I. agent. Jim Ewell, reporter.

Detective E. E. Taylor: he stayed behind at the theatre after the arrest to make a list of the names and addresses of the patrons. The list is not among the Commission’s exhibits.

Police officers Baggett, Buhk, Cunningham, Lyon, Stringer, and Toney.

From dallas boxes: a list of those present at arrest:

WR Westbrook (capt)

Gerald L Hill (sgt)

MN McDonald 1180

KE Lyons 1276

BK Carroll 923

PL Bentley 526

JA Hertson 1146

Ray Hawkins 887

Bob Barrett (FBI) (Robert M. Barrett)

(If the numbers indicate seniority, McDonald may be a interesting man to choose as 'point'. Maybe they liked Lyons, or he was not positioned correctly.)

Barrett seems to be quite certain of his recollection that the lights were not 'up' in the way that McDonald indicates and that he cannot account for why McDonald would say they were.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

Barrett seems to be quite certain of his recollection that the lights were not 'up' in the way that McDonald indicates and that he cannot account for why McDonald would say they were.

From the WC testimony of Hawkins:

Mr. HAWKINS. No; we had walked out onto the stage itself and could see the people sitting in the show--the house lights had been turned on--the show was still going on, but we did walk out onto the stage.

Mr. HAWKINS. I had my Service .38 revolver.

Mr. BALL. Did you have it out or was it in your holster?

Mr. HAWKINS. I believe I had it out.

T. A. Hutson:

Mr. HUTSON. The lights were down. The lights were on in the theatre, but it was dark.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Mr. HUTSON. Visibility was poor.

C.T. Walker:

Mr. WALKER. I had my gun out. I had my gun out when I walked in the back of the theatre.

Mr. BELIN. Did you have your gun drawn?

Mr. WALKER. I had it drawn, and I put it back in my holster.

Mr. BELIN. Why did you do that?

Mr. WALKER. I had to search him. As I got up to him, we had him stand up and we searched him with their hands up, and I had my gun in the holster. (This is another person - not Oswald).

He wasn't asked about the lights.

Sounds like a pretty scary scenario to me - police with gunds drawn and a darkened theater. A lot could have gone wrong

Steve Thomas

Link to post
Share on other sites
John,

Barrett seems to be quite certain of his recollection that the lights were not 'up' in the way that McDonald indicates and that he cannot account for why McDonald would say they were.

From the WC testimony of Hawkins:

Mr. HAWKINS. No; we had walked out onto the stage itself and could see the people sitting in the show--the house lights had been turned on--the show was still going on, but we did walk out onto the stage.

Mr. HAWKINS. I had my Service .38 revolver.

Mr. BALL. Did you have it out or was it in your holster?

Mr. HAWKINS. I believe I had it out.

T. A. Hutson:

Mr. HUTSON. The lights were down. The lights were on in the theatre, but it was dark.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Mr. HUTSON. Visibility was poor.

C.T. Walker:

Mr. WALKER. I had my gun out. I had my gun out when I walked in the back of the theatre.

Mr. BELIN. Did you have your gun drawn?

Mr. WALKER. I had it drawn, and I put it back in my holster.

Mr. BELIN. Why did you do that?

Mr. WALKER. I had to search him. As I got up to him, we had him stand up and we searched him with their hands up, and I had my gun in the holster. (This is another person - not Oswald).

He wasn't asked about the lights.

Sounds like a pretty scary scenario to me - police with gunds drawn and a darkened theater. A lot could have gone wrong

Steve Thomas

Steve, : a suggestion:

An overview:

While one might perhaps like a black and white answer I think the information provided by Steve is clarifying things.

Peoples recollections of events are tinted by a number of factors. How quickly someone has been acclimatising to light conditions is dependent on their individual eyes and age. So the testimony that indicates different light conditions have as a whole a ring of truth becuse that is what one would expect.

It's the testimony that stands out as not quite fitting in that is important as it gives clues to other matters.

Officers arrived on the scene at different times and each one arriving later tells a story that clues to what has been going on before. Then there are those that wasn't in the thick of things that give a wider perspective and those that supply detail.

Then there are those that for one reason or another lagged behind. And then there is the aftermath.

________________________________

The truth seems to be that the lighting conditions were not ideal, otherwise there would have been less variance in testimonies. As well there is McDonald staying behind to find his flashlight. Yet at the same time he says the light were up.

There seems to have been uncertainty about who exactly was Lee H. Oswald.

McDonald, possibly as a relative 'rookie' (indicated by patrolman number), was put in to flush Oswald out and possibly to provoke a reaction to which other officers standing back could 'drop' him.

Steve has put forward a picture that gets the 'snap' into perspective. ("The Snap That Never Was.")

There's clear indication of brutality for which the conflicting accounts of Lees behaviour appear to justify, therefore I'm inclined to believe that Lee didn't put up as much of a struggle as the 'official story' seems to say.

So the whole picture seems all quite simple.

________________________________

Then comes the 'complicating' stuff: codes, meetings, Ruby, multiple Lees, different seating , clothes etc.

That to me seems like 'after the fact' smoke. (I'm not discounting it out of hand, just placing it together as something that seems separate)

In other words there is the easily explained and understood 'smoke' generated by the DPD et al. and there is separately a cloud generated from (an)other source/s

On top of this there are the accounts from the interviews and who said who. Where this doesn't match with the 'script' that makes sense it can be used as a window to these people such as Harry Holmes who claimed that Oswald bragged about trying to kill police at his arrest. Why would such claims be made at the time unless to bolster an officilal picture? And of this was the official picture, why promote something so off beam? One thing that makes sense top me is that it was 'hedging the bets' to justify a possible death in custody... Which is what happened.

Such misstatements can later be 'cleared up' and justified and obfuscated so the 'smoke' has room to move.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...