12-22-2016, 02:51 PM
(27) When approached by police in the Texas Theater, Oswald said "Well, it is all over now." What else could he have possibly meant by these words other than that he knew the police had been in pursuit of him and were there to arrest him?
Sheer speculation. There are, in fact, quite reasonable explanations for such a statement, if indeed he made this exact statement. Only Patrolman M. N. McDonald heard these words, other officers fail to corroborate this statement.
I'll answer that question Bugliosi asks quite reasonably. Oswald knew that his usefulness as an informant working with U.S. intelligence was at an end. Publicity would ensure that.
Bugliosi asserts "what else could he have possibly meant"... and I just gave a perfectly valid, perfectly credible, AND PERFECTLY REASONABLE explanation.
Now, it may at first glance seem ludicrous that a 24 year old former Marine was connected with U.S. intelligence, but no less an expert than Sen. Richard Schweiker, who was a member of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (and thus could be reasonably labeled an expert on this topic) said, "We do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there're fingerprints of intelligence."
So Bugliosi's challenge is easily met. A reason for such a statement on Oswald's part (if he actually did say it) that is just as credible as Bugliosi's reasoning that this showed murderous guilt on Oswald's part.
Was Bugliosi simply too stupid to come up with this explanation? Or was he acting, not as an investigator of a crime, but as a prosecutor?
Sheer speculation. There are, in fact, quite reasonable explanations for such a statement, if indeed he made this exact statement. Only Patrolman M. N. McDonald heard these words, other officers fail to corroborate this statement.
I'll answer that question Bugliosi asks quite reasonably. Oswald knew that his usefulness as an informant working with U.S. intelligence was at an end. Publicity would ensure that.
Bugliosi asserts "what else could he have possibly meant"... and I just gave a perfectly valid, perfectly credible, AND PERFECTLY REASONABLE explanation.
Now, it may at first glance seem ludicrous that a 24 year old former Marine was connected with U.S. intelligence, but no less an expert than Sen. Richard Schweiker, who was a member of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (and thus could be reasonably labeled an expert on this topic) said, "We do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there're fingerprints of intelligence."
So Bugliosi's challenge is easily met. A reason for such a statement on Oswald's part (if he actually did say it) that is just as credible as Bugliosi's reasoning that this showed murderous guilt on Oswald's part.
Was Bugliosi simply too stupid to come up with this explanation? Or was he acting, not as an investigator of a crime, but as a prosecutor?