Post by WhisperingBillyBarlow on Oct 25, 2023 4:09:53 GMT -5
I agree this shows Morrison and Sonnichsen was being honest in their investigation, but the information is still second hand information and should be treated as such. There is always the possibility of distortion when you have second handed information about what a person allegedly have spoken. I would agree that the Shafer quote do raise questions about the Jones brothers evidence, though I do not agree it means we have to dismiss the Jones brothers completely.
Feel free to keep it as evidence, but I think àny lawyer or scholar would say it was dubious at best because the nephew was merely reiterating his uncle's opinion, and since Jones never challenged his nephews letter to Morrison it has to be taken as good as Jones word.
It would be no different, from a legal standpoint, than I speaking on behalf of my father in a court of law. It seems to me a lot of alleged evidence pro-Brushy seems to have been either corrupted, exaggerated, or misrepresented over the years.
I blame this in paŕt on Tunstall and in part on WC Jameson over the years, and others like Bret Hall repeating the same narratives from the before mentioned individuals when the evidence was simply either not there or was not represented correctly.
If you choose to still accept it as evidence, then at least file it into different categories: Strongest, Plausible, and Weakest. I'd put it into the last bracket because a case of reasonable doubt can be made that would make one have to discard it.
There's still Gallegos, Able and Montoya to consider and though they have their own flaws or issues it's nowhere near as glaring as a legal representative of the Jones family saying that they felt Brushy wasn't convincing.
Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all