Help me out here so I can fairly reevaluate my position in this case. Maybe I have the bar too low or too high.
I am looking for a consensus on what would be reasonable grounds to suspect someone was being framed for a crime. I am not talking about hindsight, where evidence has already proven someone was framed...
I am talking about identifying it as a possibility where it has not necessarily been considered already by the authorities.
In addition to helping me reevaluate my position by having an agreed upon benchmark or standard, it may also help explain the stats as at last year:violence or threats of violence."
--------------
"Witness tampering is committed primarily by police officers. It happened in 42% of murder exonerations with Black defendants, but only 25% of those with white defendants. In 17% of Black defendant murder exonerations the witness tampering included
----------------- https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race%20Report%20Preview.pdf
In considering the circumstances of this case, are any of the following factors relevant?
-It was in the south
-it was in the middle of a Cold War
-the suspect was falsely labeled a communist
-Dallas DA Henry Wade is now known for his office having a convict at all costs mentality
-Chief Investigator Will Fritz had a terrible reputation for not cooperating with his own detectives or the FBI. He also had a reputation for seeking media attention
-Henry Wade testified that Fritz was terrible with gathering evidence but great at at getting confessions
-key witnesses were black and the records show some of these witnesses changed their stories over time
-Buell Frazier claims Fritz tried to threaten him into signing a confession that he was an accomplice
-the chain of custody of much of the evidence does not meet court standards -Oswald did not live long enough to get legal assistance
-His interrogations were not recorded (as was the norm in the day, but it is nevertheless a possible factor in any frame)
Okay. That's it. Give me a benchmark at which point, suspicion of a frame becomes reasonable - as opposed to proven - which can't be done without a proper and thorough audit of evidence and witness statements.
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7:28:32 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
Help me out here so I can fairly reevaluate my position in this case. Maybe I have the bar too low or too high.
I am looking for a consensus on what would be reasonable grounds to suspect someone was being framed for a crime. I am not talking about hindsight, where evidence has already proven someone was framed...Simplicity. A small number of people involved, a small amount of evidence tampered with. Two cops throwing down a bag of drugs, that sort of thing.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:59:44 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7:28:32 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
Help me out here so I can fairly reevaluate my position in this case. Maybe I have the bar too low or too high.
Okay That's good as far as it goes.I am looking for a consensus on what would be reasonable grounds to suspect someone was being framed for a crime. I am not talking about hindsight, where evidence has already proven someone was framed...Simplicity. A small number of people involved, a small amount of evidence tampered with. Two cops throwing down a bag of drugs, that sort of thing.
let's run with the drug example.
You are not simply going to take my word that the cops planted drugs.
What I need and what I am looking for is what would become grounds for a reasonable person to reasonably suspect that the police MAY have panted those drugs.
Help me out here so I can fairly reevaluate my position in this case. Maybe I have the bar too low or too high.violence or threats of violence."
I am looking for a consensus on what would be reasonable grounds to suspect someone was being framed for a crime. I am not talking about hindsight, where evidence has already proven someone was framed...
I am talking about identifying it as a possibility where it has not necessarily been considered already by the authorities.
In addition to helping me reevaluate my position by having an agreed upon benchmark or standard, it may also help explain the stats as at last year:
--------------
"Witness tampering is committed primarily by police officers. It happened in 42% of murder exonerations with Black defendants, but only 25% of those with white defendants. In 17% of Black defendant murder exonerations the witness tampering included
----------------- https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race%20Report%20Preview.pdf
In considering the circumstances of this case, are any of the following factors relevant?
-It was in the south
-it was in the middle of a Cold War
-the suspect was falsely labeled a communist
-Dallas DA Henry Wade is now known for his office having a convict at all costs mentality
-Chief Investigator Will Fritz had a terrible reputation for not cooperating with his own detectives or the FBI. He also had a reputation for seeking media attention
-Henry Wade testified that Fritz was terrible with gathering evidence but great at at getting confessions
-key witnesses were black and the records show some of these witnesses changed their stories over time
-Buell Frazier claims Fritz tried to threaten him into signing a confession that he was an accomplice
-the chain of custody of much of the evidence does not meet court standards -Oswald did not live long enough to get legal assistance
-His interrogations were not recorded (as was the norm in the day, but it is nevertheless a possible factor in any frame)
Okay. That's it. Give me a benchmark at which point, suspicion of a frame becomes reasonable - as opposed to proven - which can't be done without a proper and thorough audit of evidence and witness statements.
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 6:28:32 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:violence or threats of violence."
Help me out here so I can fairly reevaluate my position in this case. Maybe I have the bar too low or too high.
I am looking for a consensus on what would be reasonable grounds to suspect someone was being framed for a crime. I am not talking about hindsight, where evidence has already proven someone was framed...
I am talking about identifying it as a possibility where it has not necessarily been considered already by the authorities.
In addition to helping me reevaluate my position by having an agreed upon benchmark or standard, it may also help explain the stats as at last year:
--------------
"Witness tampering is committed primarily by police officers. It happened in 42% of murder exonerations with Black defendants, but only 25% of those with white defendants. In 17% of Black defendant murder exonerations the witness tampering included
and be ready to change your own opinion if the case you've produced has more holes in it than the WC case (Oswald alone, no known help) you criticize.----------------- https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race%20Report%20Preview.pdf
In considering the circumstances of this case, are any of the following factors relevant?
-It was in the south
-it was in the middle of a Cold War
-the suspect was falsely labeled a communist
-Dallas DA Henry Wade is now known for his office having a convict at all costs mentality
-Chief Investigator Will Fritz had a terrible reputation for not cooperating with his own detectives or the FBI. He also had a reputation for seeking media attention
-Henry Wade testified that Fritz was terrible with gathering evidence but great at at getting confessions
-key witnesses were black and the records show some of these witnesses changed their stories over time
-Buell Frazier claims Fritz tried to threaten him into signing a confession that he was an accomplice
-the chain of custody of much of the evidence does not meet court standards
-Oswald did not live long enough to get legal assistance
-His interrogations were not recorded (as was the norm in the day, but it is nevertheless a possible factor in any frame)
Okay. That's it. Give me a benchmark at which point, suspicion of a frame becomes reasonable - as opposed to proven - which can't be done without a proper and thorough audit of evidence and witness statements.Suspicion of a frame-up (Oswald in this case) becomes reasonable to consider when you can lay out a positive case for what you think occurred in Dealey Plaza that doesn't involve Oswald as the shooter. Produce your case, invite your critics to weigh in,
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 8:19:51 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:59:44 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7:28:32 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
Help me out here so I can fairly reevaluate my position in this case. Maybe I have the bar too low or too high.
Okay That's good as far as it goes.I am looking for a consensus on what would be reasonable grounds to suspect someone was being framed for a crime. I am not talking about hindsight, where evidence has already proven someone was framed...Simplicity. A small number of people involved, a small amount of evidence tampered with. Two cops throwing down a bag of drugs, that sort of thing.
let's run with the drug example.
You are not simply going to take my word that the cops planted drugs.And you aren`t going to take the cops word that they didn`t.
What I need and what I am looking for is what would become grounds for a reasonable person to reasonably suspect that the police MAY have panted those drugs.Evidence like this might help....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XMdJWhDfMs
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7:28:32 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
It is amazing how much bullshit Greg Parker needs to build up in order to promote his bullshit...
It is pseudo-scholarship that doesn't really consist of anything except Greg's long-winded bullshit...
Suspicion of a frame-up (Oswald in this case) becomes reasonable to
consider when you can lay out a positive case for what you think
ccurred in Dealey Plaza that doesn't involve Oswald as the shooter.
Produce your case, invite your critics to weigh in, and be ready to
change your own opinion if the case you've produced has more holes
in it than the WC case (Oswald alone, no known help) you criticize.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:51:27 PM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:violence or threats of violence."
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 6:28:32 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
Help me out here so I can fairly reevaluate my position in this case. Maybe I have the bar too low or too high.
I am looking for a consensus on what would be reasonable grounds to suspect someone was being framed for a crime. I am not talking about hindsight, where evidence has already proven someone was framed...
I am talking about identifying it as a possibility where it has not necessarily been considered already by the authorities.
In addition to helping me reevaluate my position by having an agreed upon benchmark or standard, it may also help explain the stats as at last year:
--------------
"Witness tampering is committed primarily by police officers. It happened in 42% of murder exonerations with Black defendants, but only 25% of those with white defendants. In 17% of Black defendant murder exonerations the witness tampering included
in, and be ready to change your own opinion if the case you've produced has more holes in it than the WC case (Oswald alone, no known help) you criticize.----------------- https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race%20Report%20Preview.pdf
In considering the circumstances of this case, are any of the following factors relevant?
-It was in the south
-it was in the middle of a Cold War
-the suspect was falsely labeled a communist
-Dallas DA Henry Wade is now known for his office having a convict at all costs mentality
-Chief Investigator Will Fritz had a terrible reputation for not cooperating with his own detectives or the FBI. He also had a reputation for seeking media attention
-Henry Wade testified that Fritz was terrible with gathering evidence but great at at getting confessions
-key witnesses were black and the records show some of these witnesses changed their stories over time
-Buell Frazier claims Fritz tried to threaten him into signing a confession that he was an accomplice
-the chain of custody of much of the evidence does not meet court standards
-Oswald did not live long enough to get legal assistance
-His interrogations were not recorded (as was the norm in the day, but it is nevertheless a possible factor in any frame)
Okay. That's it. Give me a benchmark at which point, suspicion of a frame becomes reasonable - as opposed to proven - which can't be done without a proper and thorough audit of evidence and witness statements.
Suspicion of a frame-up (Oswald in this case) becomes reasonable to consider when you can lay out a positive case for what you think occurred in Dealey Plaza that doesn't involve Oswald as the shooter. Produce your case, invite your critics to weigh
Okay. That sounds reasonable on the surface, but it won't work. It turns on the wide-open word "reasonable".
I am looking for a line in the sand, Bud set it by suggesting he "may" accept actual footage of police planting evidence. That of course, is an impossible line to cross for a 60 year old case and therefore an unreasonable one - especially when addingin I am not asking what you accept as proof - only what you would accept as grounds for suspicion.
Help me out here so I can fairly reevaluate my position in this case. Maybe I have the bar too low or too high.
I am looking for a consensus on what would be reasonable grounds to suspect someone was being framed for a crime. I am not talking about hindsight, where evidence has already proven someone was framed...
As it pertains to Oswald, there is no evidence he was framed. It is not even reasonable to think he could have been framed.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:14:44 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
As it pertains to Oswald, there is no evidence he was framed. It is not even reasonable to think he could have been framed.https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:44:52 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:would be your grounds for suspicion in a historical case where bodycams were not even yet in use.
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 8:19:51 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:59:44 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7:28:32 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
Help me out here so I can fairly reevaluate my position in this case. Maybe I have the bar too low or too high.
Okay That's good as far as it goes.I am looking for a consensus on what would be reasonable grounds to suspect someone was being framed for a crime. I am not talking about hindsight, where evidence has already proven someone was framed...Simplicity. A small number of people involved, a small amount of evidence tampered with. Two cops throwing down a bag of drugs, that sort of thing.
let's run with the drug example.
You are not simply going to take my word that the cops planted drugs.And you aren`t going to take the cops word that they didn`t.
What I need and what I am looking for is what would become grounds for a reasonable person to reasonably suspect that the police MAY have panted those drugs.Evidence like this might help....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XMdJWhDfMsThat would seem to suggest that you will not entertain the possibility of a frame without incontrovertible proof such as this - film of the planting of drugs. That is a very high bar - and an impossible one to meet given I am only looking for what
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 7:56:09 AM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:included violence or threats of violence."
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:51:27 PM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 6:28:32 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
Help me out here so I can fairly reevaluate my position in this case. Maybe I have the bar too low or too high.
I am looking for a consensus on what would be reasonable grounds to suspect someone was being framed for a crime. I am not talking about hindsight, where evidence has already proven someone was framed...
I am talking about identifying it as a possibility where it has not necessarily been considered already by the authorities.
In addition to helping me reevaluate my position by having an agreed upon benchmark or standard, it may also help explain the stats as at last year:
--------------
"Witness tampering is committed primarily by police officers. It happened in 42% of murder exonerations with Black defendants, but only 25% of those with white defendants. In 17% of Black defendant murder exonerations the witness tampering
weigh in, and be ready to change your own opinion if the case you've produced has more holes in it than the WC case (Oswald alone, no known help) you criticize.----------------- https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race%20Report%20Preview.pdf
In considering the circumstances of this case, are any of the following factors relevant?
-It was in the south
-it was in the middle of a Cold War
-the suspect was falsely labeled a communist
-Dallas DA Henry Wade is now known for his office having a convict at all costs mentality
-Chief Investigator Will Fritz had a terrible reputation for not cooperating with his own detectives or the FBI. He also had a reputation for seeking media attention
-Henry Wade testified that Fritz was terrible with gathering evidence but great at at getting confessions
-key witnesses were black and the records show some of these witnesses changed their stories over time
-Buell Frazier claims Fritz tried to threaten him into signing a confession that he was an accomplice
-the chain of custody of much of the evidence does not meet court standards
-Oswald did not live long enough to get legal assistance
-His interrogations were not recorded (as was the norm in the day, but it is nevertheless a possible factor in any frame)
Okay. That's it. Give me a benchmark at which point, suspicion of a frame becomes reasonable - as opposed to proven - which can't be done without a proper and thorough audit of evidence and witness statements.
Suspicion of a frame-up (Oswald in this case) becomes reasonable to consider when you can lay out a positive case for what you think occurred in Dealey Plaza that doesn't involve Oswald as the shooter. Produce your case, invite your critics to
statements.Okay. That sounds reasonable on the surface, but it won't work. It turns on the wide-open word "reasonable".You used the word "reasonable" and I responded. Parker: "Give me a benchmark at which point, suspicion of a frame becomes REASONABLE [my emphasis] - as opposed to proven - which can't be done without a proper and thorough audit of evidence and witness
You, bud, sky turd and doyle no doubt have different views on what is reasonable. I suspect the bar would be very high, perhaps even always just out of reach...
You haven't shown a conspiracy yet. You stand on third base and pretend you hit a triple. You haven't.
in I am not asking what you accept as proof - only what you would accept as grounds for suspicion.I am looking for a line in the sand, Bud set it by suggesting he "may" accept actual footage of police planting evidence. That of course, is an impossible line to cross for a 60 year old case and therefore an unreasonable one - especially when adding
When you can show a conspiracy that didn't involve Oswald, we can look at your claim of a frame-up. It's that simple. You're shifting the burden and simultaneously begging the question.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 8:48:55 AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:would be your grounds for suspicion in a historical case where bodycams were not even yet in use.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:44:52 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 8:19:51 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:59:44 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7:28:32 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
Help me out here so I can fairly reevaluate my position in this case. Maybe I have the bar too low or too high.
Okay That's good as far as it goes.I am looking for a consensus on what would be reasonable grounds to suspect someone was being framed for a crime. I am not talking about hindsight, where evidence has already proven someone was framed...Simplicity. A small number of people involved, a small amount of evidence tampered with. Two cops throwing down a bag of drugs, that sort of thing.
let's run with the drug example.
You are not simply going to take my word that the cops planted drugs.And you aren`t going to take the cops word that they didn`t.
What I need and what I am looking for is what would become grounds for a reasonable person to reasonably suspect that the police MAY have panted those drugs.Evidence like this might help....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XMdJWhDfMsThat would seem to suggest that you will not entertain the possibility of a frame without incontrovertible proof such as this - film of the planting of drugs. That is a very high bar - and an impossible one to meet given I am only looking for what
I was sort of joking, I saw that years ago and this discussion led me to hunt it down.bring something to the table because of course every drug dealer is going to claim "planted" if you just accept that claim at face value.
For a simple case like the police throwing down some drugs, you would have to raise some sort of doubt. Did the cop have a grudge against this alleged dealer? Was he looking to get enough arrests to get a promotion? That sort of thing, you have to
But here is where reality parts company with your ideas. If the alleged drum dealer`s fingerprint are on the bag, then you are getting into a more complex frame-up. And if drugs are also found in the suspect`s car, then you need more involvement by theauthorities. And if drugs are also found in the suspect`s home, you need even more. And if there is a storage unit in the suspect`s name with drugs in it, you might need to make claims like the authorities opened the storage unit in his name and put
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:15:04 AM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:included violence or threats of violence."
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 7:56:09 AM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:51:27 PM UTC+11, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 6:28:32 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
Help me out here so I can fairly reevaluate my position in this case. Maybe I have the bar too low or too high.
I am looking for a consensus on what would be reasonable grounds to suspect someone was being framed for a crime. I am not talking about hindsight, where evidence has already proven someone was framed...
I am talking about identifying it as a possibility where it has not necessarily been considered already by the authorities.
In addition to helping me reevaluate my position by having an agreed upon benchmark or standard, it may also help explain the stats as at last year:
--------------
"Witness tampering is committed primarily by police officers. It happened in 42% of murder exonerations with Black defendants, but only 25% of those with white defendants. In 17% of Black defendant murder exonerations the witness tampering
weigh in, and be ready to change your own opinion if the case you've produced has more holes in it than the WC case (Oswald alone, no known help) you criticize.----------------- https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race%20Report%20Preview.pdf
In considering the circumstances of this case, are any of the following factors relevant?
-It was in the south
-it was in the middle of a Cold War
-the suspect was falsely labeled a communist
-Dallas DA Henry Wade is now known for his office having a convict at all costs mentality
-Chief Investigator Will Fritz had a terrible reputation for not cooperating with his own detectives or the FBI. He also had a reputation for seeking media attention
-Henry Wade testified that Fritz was terrible with gathering evidence but great at at getting confessions
-key witnesses were black and the records show some of these witnesses changed their stories over time
-Buell Frazier claims Fritz tried to threaten him into signing a confession that he was an accomplice
-the chain of custody of much of the evidence does not meet court standards
-Oswald did not live long enough to get legal assistance
-His interrogations were not recorded (as was the norm in the day, but it is nevertheless a possible factor in any frame)
Okay. That's it. Give me a benchmark at which point, suspicion of a frame becomes reasonable - as opposed to proven - which can't be done without a proper and thorough audit of evidence and witness statements.
Suspicion of a frame-up (Oswald in this case) becomes reasonable to consider when you can lay out a positive case for what you think occurred in Dealey Plaza that doesn't involve Oswald as the shooter. Produce your case, invite your critics to
witness statements.Okay. That sounds reasonable on the surface, but it won't work. It turns on the wide-open word "reasonable".You used the word "reasonable" and I responded. Parker: "Give me a benchmark at which point, suspicion of a frame becomes REASONABLE [my emphasis] - as opposed to proven - which can't be done without a proper and thorough audit of evidence and
And I am asking you what you consider "reasonable, not just to repeat the word back to me.adding in I am not asking what you accept as proof - only what you would accept as grounds for suspicion.
You, bud, sky turd and doyle no doubt have different views on what is reasonable. I suspect the bar would be very high, perhaps even always just out of reach...The question about a frame was hypothetical.
You haven't shown a conspiracy yet. You stand on third base and pretend you hit a triple. You haven't.
I am looking for a line in the sand, Bud set it by suggesting he "may" accept actual footage of police planting evidence. That of course, is an impossible line to cross for a 60 year old case and therefore an unreasonable one - especially when
When you can show a conspiracy that didn't involve Oswald, we can look at your claim of a frame-up. It's that simple. You're shifting the burden and simultaneously begging the question.This is not about the assassination per se. It is a general question about what you consider reasonable grounds to suspect a frame would be.
Can you answer that, or not? If not, that's fine, just step out of the thread
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 6:09:38 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:would be your grounds for suspicion in a historical case where bodycams were not even yet in use.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 8:48:55 AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:44:52 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 8:19:51 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:59:44 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7:28:32 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
Help me out here so I can fairly reevaluate my position in this case. Maybe I have the bar too low or too high.
Okay That's good as far as it goes.I am looking for a consensus on what would be reasonable grounds to suspect someone was being framed for a crime. I am not talking about hindsight, where evidence has already proven someone was framed...Simplicity. A small number of people involved, a small amount of evidence tampered with. Two cops throwing down a bag of drugs, that sort of thing.
let's run with the drug example.
You are not simply going to take my word that the cops planted drugs.And you aren`t going to take the cops word that they didn`t.
What I need and what I am looking for is what would become grounds for a reasonable person to reasonably suspect that the police MAY have panted those drugs.Evidence like this might help....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XMdJWhDfMsThat would seem to suggest that you will not entertain the possibility of a frame without incontrovertible proof such as this - film of the planting of drugs. That is a very high bar - and an impossible one to meet given I am only looking for what
bring something to the table because of course every drug dealer is going to claim "planted" if you just accept that claim at face value.I was sort of joking, I saw that years ago and this discussion led me to hunt it down.
For a simple case like the police throwing down some drugs, you would have to raise some sort of doubt. Did the cop have a grudge against this alleged dealer? Was he looking to get enough arrests to get a promotion? That sort of thing, you have to
the authorities. And if drugs are also found in the suspect`s home, you need even more. And if there is a storage unit in the suspect`s name with drugs in it, you might need to make claims like the authorities opened the storage unit in his name and putBut here is where reality parts company with your ideas. If the alleged drum dealer`s fingerprint are on the bag, then you are getting into a more complex frame-up. And if drugs are also found in the suspect`s car, then you need more involvement by
Thank you. This is helpful. So your list of things that would cause you suspicion are:
-known grudges by the police against the accused
-if the cops were using the arrest as a means of potential promotion
--------to accompany police in searches. The cop just needs to have the drugs on him or her at the time of the search.
Your examples of planted drugs in cars/homes/storage units becoming far more complex because it requires police breaking in and planting the drugs, loses me though. They don't need to do that. They just need a search warrant. The owners are not allowed
Back to your list. It is not what I would call a lot to base suspicion on. But maybe enough to look at it more widely. Is the perp adamant he was framed?
Has this particular police force (not necessarily the arresting officers here) been proven to have framed others in the past?
Is there a lack of forensic evidence tying the suspect to the drugs?
Anyhow, based on your list, you actually seem to have a fairly low bar for suspicion.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 6:09:38 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 8:48:55 AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
We both know it's about Oswald.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:14:44?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
As it pertains to Oswald, there is no evidence he was framed. It is not even reasonable to think he could have been framed.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:42:07?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:14:44?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
As it pertains to Oswald, there is no evidence he was framed. It is not even reasonable to think he could have been framed.https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/
You've never established...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 101:57:40 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,975 |