| Subject: Re: Buddy's glasses (prosecuting attorney) |
Author:
sid
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Sat July 04, 2009 20:19:36
In reply to:
Randy Steele
's message, "Re: Buddy's glasses (frames)" on Sat July 04, 2009 12:06:31
The high profile defense attorney, Bill Griggs, has put up one of the greatest iron-clad defenses in music history for his two clients. As the prosecuting attorney in this case things are not looking too good for me. Yet; I would like to put this Sheriff Allen on the witness stand asking him why, with all of the publicity, he didn't recognize the name Charles Hardin Holley as being...Buddy Holly? After Sheriff Allen received the glasses from Albert Juel, who had been plowing the field with a large lumbering tractor, and somehow/someway found a large number of little tiny items buried in the dirt without plowing them under?...I would also want to put this witness, for the defense, under oath on the stand. I feel sure there would have been hundreds of folks snooping around that field hoping to find something during that time. Sheriff Allen claims he put the glasses in an envelope in 1959 marking them as evidence. If they had been evidence for a murder trial it's very possible the sheriff could be charged as being incompetent along with withholding evidence. The defense has gone on record saying that Buddy Holly was wearing these glasses in the pitch black night when the plane plowed into frozen ground? Since there are no serial numbers on glasses it's virtually impossible to say the glasses that ME sold for $90,000.00 cash were actually BH's? If MEH had presented these same stratched glasses to the BH Center out of her deep love for BH, at no charge, might be a different story. MEH showed Bill Griggs, defense atty, the glasses a couple of times in 1980 (Oh, really?) What the defense is basically implying to the jury is...Buddy Holly had these particular glasses specially designed and made just for himself and there were no others out there in 1959 and so...the defense attorney is now asking...What is the problem?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
