[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Quote:Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.

Funny he did not say that on the TV Ben hey.....?

There's a lot of things he didn't say in that very short T.V. segment... do you really want to argue that if he didn't say it on T.V., it isn't true?

Patrick C Wrote:Does it not strike you as odd that Chaney thought JFK was effectively shot dead and then JC was hit, when we all know this is clearly NOT what happened......

No, we don't know that this is not what happened. You're desperate to twist Chaney's statement into some preconceived mold...

Let's get back to the original claim you made by implication - that James Chaney wouldn't have testified in a manner that would hurt the Warren Commission.

Let's hear you admit that you either knew of Baker's statement, or you're learning of it for the first time.

Patrick C Wrote:So why would THAT conversation with Baker have an evidentiary value Ben......? He was obviously wrong!

Nope.

This is the common tactic... proven wrong, instead of admitting that Chaney's testimony would not have been desired by the Warren Commission for good and valid reasons, you take to arguing that the closest Police eyewitness to the crime was wrong.

Without any ability to order his thoughts, and cross-examination to bring out essential points...

let's get back to the topic...

Here it is again:

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:The critics can easily and credibly explain why the Warren Commission was afraid of James Chaney's testimony... James Chaney would have undercut their SBT - without which would have proven a second shooter.

And how exactly would he have done that Ben...?

Are you willing to admit that I answered your question in a credible and reasonable manner?