| Viewing Single Post From: Lincoln Leibner: NoC flighpath? | |
|---|---|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Sep 1 2008, 03:21 PM |
|
You see stink.....you are working off the assumption that all witness accounts should be automatically considered valid unless you have hard proof they were involved. (what that could be I don't know, a notarized document of them admitting it?) But this isn't how it works in crime investigations. People lie during crimes. It is expected and assumed. Investigators know this and it's their job to root out the liars. They do this by gathering data. Independent accounts from eyewitnesses are usually a major part of all crime investigations. They bring people in for questioning and the ones whose stories check out and are independently corroborated, and seem genuine and relaxed to the investigator are typically cleared of being suspects. But the ones whose stories don't add up, or exhibit contradictions, or have curious body language, or are implicated by association or circumstantial evidence, stay suspects whether or not the investigator has proof they were involved. We most certainly have found enough contradictions and dubious details in the various accounts of Walter, McGraw, Sucherman, Wheelhouse, and England to fairly consider them suspects. NoC implicates them as well. There is no way around it. To suggest otherwise is to deny the true implications of NoC. |
 |
|
| Lincoln Leibner: NoC flighpath? · Pentagon | |
4:07 AM Nov 28
