3 ms·
And if those transcripts don’t have incriminating evidence, should they still be released? If they interviewed everyone at that parade, what they were doing et
by yardstick 2y ago
And if those transcripts don’t have incriminating evidence, should they still be released?
If they interviewed everyone at that parade, what they were doing etc, and some of those people were completely uninvolved but maybe having affairs, or doing something immoral (whatever that is), then shouldn’t they be afforded privacy? Eg Imagine one would be mortified to have what sex toy was in their pocket at the time documented in public transcript.
- nepthar 2y agoI think a simple redacted name would address that concern
- yardstick 2y agoI’d mostly agree with that. After sufficient years have passed. Name isn’t the only way to identify someone.
- Someone 2y agoFor people taking part in the parade, I doubt that. Extreme example is Jackie Kennedy. “I was sitting next to the president” identifies her pretty well. There were people in the crowd who can easily be identified, too. For example, Zapruder’s testimony would have to leave out that he shot a movie and was life on television that day, and quite a few other details to anonymize it.