Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Well, ha, granted the guy is not that big a wheel. But the situation is totally different from Kennedy's driver, because it wasn't an assassination, it was a coverup. Which he helped blow the lid off of. And it's not the 60s. And people who go around cable news doing interviews seem to make money somehow. I'll admit I doubt that guy could write a book about it if the phone interview was the extent of his involvement ... which I doubt it would be.
What about the rest of it? You know, my direct rebuttal to what you said earlier ... that you completely ignored? |
I ignored it, because it's just not true. At all. It's already been proven.
That's basically what happened, anwyay. McRae thought he had a confession and stopped there and didn't pay for the stone cold documents. You think with an even more solid reason he'd be more likely to get more evidence? Doesn't really fit. Heck, once you get that confession on paper DA's stop looking for evidence, because it's a lock. Sure you take more evidence if it's easy, but you don't go out of the way to get it via paying money.
There is no book deal to be made for the guy because he was such a small part. There is literally no story for him to tell. (I was called to do this then I was in the room.)
He doesn't even have TV movie potential.
As for the guys that go from cable show to cable show. They do that for the publicity. You get a small fee for showing up, and get a gift basket in studio. Even with lots of shows, it'd be less then the 2,000 he was offered.
|
And just how the hell do you know he didn't fork over the money to the guy?
And I doubt a vocal admission followed immediately by a retraction and claim of confusing the question would be considered a slam dunk. A signed confession would be pretty damning, even if later retracted; however that is totally not the case here.
And there would be more of a story for a book if he also uncovered the documents, more so in an exciting way like bribing some guy involved in the coverup, but this part of the discussion is getting a little silly.
P.S. What $2000 are you talking about? I think you're confused here.
|
You said he was offered 2,000 dollar from some white guy who was deported right? He'd stand to make at most that.
How do we know he didn't fork over the money? If he did we would of heard about it. Would be fairly easy to tell if he had the money.
|
Wrong and wrong.
He said the white guy offered some conspirator $2000 to produce incriminating evidence, which he refused, but later told our hero he would part with it for (IIRC) "five times that amount".
And no, why would we know if McRae forked over the cash? AFAIK, we would only have definitely been told if he produced positive results, or gave McRae a forgery that he failed to detect before going to the press. That neither happened does NOT prove that McRae didn't pay this guy. Why would McRae tell us about a failed attempt, especially an embarrassing one, that didn't really prove anything? [edit: As for knowing by virtue of whether Brother Tom in fact came into that amount of money, I seriously doubt such investigation has been conducted, much less made public.]
|
