CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?

[Thomas Graves]

The package that Frazier described was never found. The point is that nobody saw Oswald carry a package into the building ...

Correct, a package, consisting of a homemade paper bag full of curtain rods was not found after the assassination, nor was a package comprised of a homemade paper bag and a broken-down rifle found.

Question: Was a group of un-packaged curtain rods found in the TSBD? How about a rifle, still broken-down or ... otherwise?

Question: Was a homemade paper bag that could have contained either of those things found in the sixth floor "sniper's nest" after the assassination?

If you say "no," on what grounds do you say "no"?

Because you just don't trust the DPD and/or the FBI?

Question:  Does the fact that neither did Frazier see (from some distance away and from behind) a longish package in one of Oswald's hands when he (Oswald) entered the building, nor did Jack "I Got A Real Sketchy Memory When I'm Nervous" Dougherty remember seeing Oswald with a package, somehow prove (to your satisfaction, anyway) that Oswald did not enter the building with said package --

-- of curtain rods or "otherwise"?

-- MWT 

[Bill Chapman]

Frazier said to Mary Rattan LOL.

But note that he didn't say he saw the package under Oswald's arm at that time.  He merely assumed it, because it was under Oswald's arm when he walked away from the car.  Of course, none of this has anything to do with Oswald entering the TSBD building itself.

It has everything to do with you playing your semantic seesaw game.

[Thomas Graves]

It has everything to do with your playing your semantic seesaw game.

Bill,

I totally agree with your assessment.

John may be willing to (grudgingly?) agree that Frazier claimed to have seen Oswald walking through the parking lot with the package, but getting him to admit that Frazier was probably right in assuming (i.e., by not noticing Oswald kick the package under a car on the way, etc) that Oswald entered the TSBD with said package is ... well ... the mother of all fools' errands, IMHO ... i.e., it ain't gonna happen.

He's pulled the same kind of hair-splitting, deflecting and/or obfuscating "semantic shenanigans" on me on other threads of this forum.

One that comes to mind is his insisting that the seven young ladies comprising two different groups of TSBD work colleagues (three in one group, and four in the other) did not necessarily stand close enough (i.e., within fifty feet or so) to the other members of their respective group to be caught on film with all of them while watching the motorcade, even though they all said in their FBI statements that they had, in so many words, walked to their respective group's viewing spot on Elm Street together, and had watched the motorcade from their group's viewing spot together.

In short, I find Iacoletti impossible to debate on a common "horse sense," shared-understanding-of-the-common-meanings-and-significations-of-words-and-phrases level.

He seems to be on an "Exoneration Of Oswald At All Costs" mission, and therefore seems to be more than willing to ignore the common meanings of words and phrases used by certain witnesses in their testimonies and FBI statements when he shortsightedly THINKS it suits his purpose to do so.

All my humble opinion, of course ...

-- MWT 

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

It has everything to do with you playing your semantic seesaw game.

You are 100% sure Oswald probably did it but of course, each day that goes by you can't come to terms with smallest bits of evidence. Here, an eyewitness account fails to support what you want to believe. Remember, you think Oswald probably did it and here Frazier's account shows everything you don't want to believe. You can't even follow your own fly by night rules, which is not easy when you keep changing them as you go along

[Thomas Graves]

You are 100% sure Oswald probably did it but of course, each day that goes by you can't come to terms with smallest bits of evidence. Here, an eyewitness account fails to support what you want to believe. Remember, you think Oswald probably did it and here Frazier's account shows everything you don't want to believe. You can't even follow your own fly by night rules, which is not easy when you keep changing them as you go along

Dear Peter,

You mean Buell Wesley Frazier didn't say (under penalty of perjury) that he saw, with his very own 20/20 eyeballs, Lee Harvey Oswald not only carry that long package into the building that morning, but assemble the rifle up there in the sniper's nest, as well?

Gosh darn it, I guess Oswald was innocent, after all, huh.

-- MWT

[John Mytton]

Dear Peter,

You mean Buell Wesley Frazier didn't say (under penalty of perjury) that he saw, with his very own 20/20 eyeballs, Lee Harvey Oswald not only carry that long package into the building that morning, but assemble the rifle up there in the sniper's nest, as well?

Gosh darn it, I guess Oswald was innocent, after all, huh.

-- MWT

I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package. When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he kept waking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm



JohnM

[Thomas Graves]

I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package. When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he kept walking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm



JohnM

John,

Dang-nabbit, I guess it was curtain rods, after all.

-- MWT