| Subject: Re: Buddy's glasses (prosecuting attorney) |
Author:
Peter Gibson
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Mon July 06, 2009 04:32:48
In reply to:
sid
's message, "Re: Buddy's glasses (prosecuting attorney)" on Sat July 04, 2009 20:19:36
Sid,
I’m late to this thread, but I’d like to comment on your message.
The case: The glass-frames on show in the BHC in Lubbock did not belong to Buddy Holly.
Prosecution attorney – sid.
Defense attorney – Whomever et al.
As we all know, or most of us know, I’m sure, it is the prosecution who must submit information and proof to justify their arguments and prove their case. I contend that the attorney hasn’t done that.
But, no matter, as current defense attorney I will respond to the insinuations and accusations made by the prosecution.
Sheriff Allen – portrayed as incompetent; ignorant; unobservant.
Sheriff Allen has made a statement about the glasses, and the other items found, and how they were found, handed to him and then mislaid. He also states how he passed them on. Is the prosecution saying he lied? Why would he not tell the truth?
Albert Juel, farm owner – portrayed as another liar.
Albert Juel has made a statement about how the items were found. The tractor has nothing to do with it, it is the plough and the line taken that is crucial. Many items, older and more fragile than the items in question, are found during ploughing – ask an archeologist. Whether by luck or divine intervention, they are found in one piece.
Why would Mr. Juel not tell the truth?
Maria Elena Holly. I will not comment on the observations made by the prosecution, other than the case seems to be based on the payment involved, more than the glasses.
(Showing prejudice, Mr. Prosecution Attorney??)
Bill Griggs – rock ‘n’ roll historian.
What to say? We all know Bill and the way he works. He is scrupulous in his investigation of all matters and items etc related to Buddy Holly. To my knowledge, he has made only one big mistake. As soon as he realized he’d been misled and given out incorrect information, he put his hand up, apologized and admitted his mistake. So, in this case, I do not doubt this man for a moment.
Why would he not tell the truth?
Doesn’t this whole thing come down to trusting others? We can’t all follow the trail of an item, and so we have to rely on the integrity of others, and the statements they make.
The prosecution infers that there has been a great conspiracy, and perhaps money was involved. But, all rumour and conjecture – nothing proven, at all!
Peter Gibson,
Harrow, UK.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
