Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)

[Charles Collins]

Really?  Do you define "lie" as any statement that is untrue, regardless of the person's intent?  That would be interesting...

What circumstantial evidence tends to show that CE 142 is the bag that Frazier saw?  Just your supposition that it must be?

Really?  Do you define "lie" as any statement that is untrue, regardless of the person's intent?  That would be interesting...

No. But it is crystal clear that Buell Frazier is blatantly and intentionally lying. Do you claim otherwise?

What circumstantial evidence tends to show that CE 142 is the bag that Frazier saw?  Just your supposition that it must be?

See the list above. Like I said earlier, you can choose to believe Buell Frazier if you wish.

[John Iacoletti]

No. But it is crystal clear that Buell Frazier is blatantly and intentionally lying. Do you claim otherwise?

Yes.  What makes it "crystal clear" to you?

See the list above. Like I said earlier, you can choose to believe Buell Frazier if you wish.

The "list above" was just a WC conclusion based on a supposition.  What is the evidence that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier saw?  Is there any at all?

[John Iacoletti]

So two times under oath on a witness stand in a court of law he states he never saw Oswald after the shooting and never states he left the stairs.

Steve, can you point out the testimonies where he stated he never saw Oswald after the shooting and where he ever said that he didn't leave the stairs?

[Charles Collins]

Yes.  What makes it "crystal clear" to you?

The "list above" was just a WC conclusion based on a supposition.  What is the evidence that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier saw?  Is there any at all?

I have explained it already. What is your claim otherwise.

The list includes evidence. But you refuse to acknowledge it. Why? Have you reached a different conclusion?

[John Iacoletti]

I have explained it already. What is your claim otherwise.

You haven't explained why it's "crystal clear" to you that Frazier is "blatantly and intentionally lying".

The list includes evidence. But you refuse to acknowledge it. Why? Have you reached a different conclusion?

No, the WC is doing what you are doing:  assuming that CE 142 must be the bag that Frazier saw because a couple of Oswald's prints were (allegedly) found on it.

Yes, I've come to a different conclusion.  Namely that there is no evidence that CE 142 is the bag that Frazier saw, and that there is no evidence that CE 142 or the bag that Frazier saw ever contained the CE 139 rifle or any other rifle.

Furthermore, the claims in your "list" aren't even accurate.

(1) the circumstances surrounding Oswald's return to Irving, Tex., on Thursday, November 21, 1963,

A look at all of the circumstances shows that 1) it was not the first time that Oswald came to Irving on a different day of the week, 2) he wasn't able to come the previous weekend because of a birthday party, 3) he tried to make up with Marina and convince her to move to Dallas with him

(2) the disappearance of the rifle from its normal place of storage,

There is no evidence of this being any rifle's "normal place of storage".

(3) Oswald's arrival at the Depository Building on November 22, carrying a long and bulky brown paper package,

....which according to the only people who saw it was NOT CE 142.

(4) the presence of a long handmade brown paper bag near the point from which the shots were fired,

...which appears in no crime scene photographs, and was not seen "near the point from which the shots were fired" (as if that has even been demonstrated) by the first 5 or 6 law enforcement officers on the scene.

and (5) the palmprint, fiber, and paper analyses linking Oswald and the assassination weapon to this bag.

There is no fiber or paper analysis "linking Oswald and 'the assassination weapon' (as if that has even been demonstrated) to this bag".  At best, all you can say (if the print analysis was accurate -- and it's completely impossible for anyone else to verify) is that Oswald touched the paper that CE142 was made out of at some unspecified time.  How that makes it the same bag Frazier saw is anybody's guess.

[Steve Logan]

Steve, can you point out the testimonies where he stated he never saw Oswald after the shooting and where he ever said that he didn't leave the stairs?

John,
It's in both his testimonies to the Warren Commission and the Shaw Trail> If you need me to post the testimonies I will.

[John Iacoletti]

John,
It's in both his testimonies to the Warren Commission and the Shaw Trail> If you need me to post the testimonies I will.

Yes, please.  I looked them over and don't see these particular statements.