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

[John Mytton]

After all if Oswald didn’t bring it to the TSBD that morning who could have?

Huh?, it was only Oswald;

The rifle was his.
He had no alibi.
He immediately left and went berserk trying to get a ride.
He killed a cop.'
He tried to kill more cops.
He lied repeatedly during his interrogation.

The evidence is clear.

JohnM

[Colin Crow]

Huh?, it was only Oswald;

The rifle was his.
He had no alibi.
He immediately left and went berserk trying to get a ride.
He killed a cop.'
He tried to kill more cops.
He lied repeatedly during his interrogation.

The evidence is clear.

JohnM

John, you have the advantage of hindsight. Poor Linnie May did not. She knew nothing of Oswald’s rifle at that time. Only that her brother gave him a lift that morning and now he is accused as thePresidential assassin. Now a detective is questioning her about what she knows.

Maybe he asked her if Oswald carried a package.....seems reasonable. If she says no, will the cops think Wesley was involved in transporting a rifle. He had a .303, I believe one of those was mentioned early on. She's just been talking with her brother, he wasn’t involved, Oswald must have carried a long rifle shaped package, mustn’t he? Of course she saw him with a paper package or box.

[Richard Smith]

Indeed, but you missed the part where Frazier denied that CE142 was the bag he had seen Oswald carry.

At 11.30 pm on 11/22/63 Frazier was being polygraphed by DPD detective R.D. Lewis. During this session, Frazier was shown the paper bag that had been found at the TSBD, which at that time (except for the fact that it had been dusted in vain for prints at the TSBD) was still in its original state. Frazier could not identify the bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry, some 16 / 17 hours earlier and the polygraph did not register an anomaly.

According to a report by FBI agent Vincent Drain, dated December 1, 1963, the polygrapher R.D. Lewis stated that Frazier had told him that the "crickly brown paper sack" Oswald had carried did not resemble the ?home made heavy paper gun case? the DPD officers had shown him. Drain added that Lewis referred to the bag as "paper gun case" because the DPD is of the opinion the brown heavy paper was used by Oswald to carry the rifle into the building?.

A memo from FBI agent James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, reveals the desperation of Lt. Day after Frazier failed to identify the heavy bag found at the TSBD. Anderton writes that, according to Lt Day, Frazier described the bag Oswald had carried as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". The memo then goes on to say;

"Lt. Day states that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald, by dismantling the rifle, could have placed it in the thick brown sack folder over, and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack"

Wow.  A polygraph does not work like a crystal ball discerning what actually happened.  At best, it measures whether an individual knows they are not telling the truth.  If Frazier honestly, but erroneously believed this wasn't the bag then he would be not be lying in his own mind even if he was wrong.  He would be mistaken but not lying because he would believe he was telling the truth.  That doesn't tell us that Oswald did not carry this bag but that Frazier didn't believe it was the same bag.  If I believe someone has blue eyes and given a polygraph and it turns out they have brown eyes, it would not register as a lie if I confirmed they had blue eyes.  That would not, however, change the actual facts.  The "desperation" here is your own and not that of the DPD who had enough evidence to convict Oswald a thousand times over. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Wow.  A polygraph does not work like a crystal ball discerning what actually happened.  At best, it measures whether an individual knows they are not telling the truth.  If Frazier honestly, but erroneously believed this wasn't the bag then he would be not be lying in his own mind even if he was wrong.  He would be mistaken but not lying because he would believe he was telling the truth.  That doesn't tell us that Oswald did not carry this bag but that Frazier didn't believe it was the same bag.  If I believe someone has blue eyes and given a polygraph and it turns out they have brown eyes, it would not register as a lie if I confirmed they had blue eyes.  That would not, however, change the actual facts.  The "desperation" here is your own and not that of the DPD who had enough evidence to convict Oswald a thousand times over.

A polygraph does not work like a crystal ball discerning what actually happened.

True, yet law enforcement still uses it as a way to put pressure on a person of interest.

If Frazier honestly, but erroneously believed this wasn't the bag then he would be not be lying in his own mind even if he was wrong.  He would be mistaken but not lying because he would believe he was telling the truth.

"If"? Fact is Frazier denied that the bag shown to him was the same as the one Oswald carried that morning and you have nothing but supposition to believe he was wrong.


That doesn't tell us that Oswald did not carry this bag but that Frazier didn't believe it was the same bag.

Indeed, witness testimony is always about what somebody believes he or she saw. It doesn't mean that their testimony is wrong.

That would not, however, change the actual facts.

It never does but then again neither does your selfserving speculation

 

[John Iacoletti]

If you can convince yourself that Buell Frazier isn’t a liar after seeing the evidence that I pointed out, then it isn’t surprising that you could convince yourself that there isn’t any evidence concerning the bag. But your weak excuses for denying the obvious are not convincing to me.

So basically you can't explain how you know that Frazier was "blatantly and intentionally lying" -- you just "know" it.

[John Iacoletti]

Huh?, it was only Oswald;

The rifle was his.
He had no alibi.
He immediately left and went berserk trying to get a ride.
He killed a cop.'
He tried to kill more cops.
He lied repeatedly during his interrogation.

The evidence is clear.

I see a bunch of claims here.

Claims aren't evidence.

"went berserk".  LOL.

[John Iacoletti]

Wow.  A polygraph does not work like a crystal ball discerning what actually happened.  At best, it measures whether an individual knows they are not telling the truth.  If Frazier honestly, but erroneously believed this wasn't the bag then he would be not be lying in his own mind even if he was wrong.  He would be mistaken but not lying because he would believe he was telling the truth.  That doesn't tell us that Oswald did not carry this bag but that Frazier didn't believe it was the same bag.

Granted.

Now do you have any evidence at all that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw?

The "desperation" here is your own and not that of the DPD who had enough evidence to convict Oswald a thousand times over.

No, they actually didn't.  What little evidence there is, is circumstantial and tainted.