Et tu, Bonnie?

[John Iacoletti]

I don't know what you're getting at John. Frazier says he goes back into the TSBD after a few minutes.

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I would say by the time, you know some of us went back in, and it wasn't just a few minutes,

But that's not the point. The post you responded to was this:

"In his affidavit or WC testimony, it is clear Frazier doesn't leave the front steps.
What is it in these statements that makes you believe he does?"

There is nothing in his affidavit or WC testimony that suggests he left the front steps at any point. You can have Frazier standing there all day if you want but he doesn't leave the steps.

If there's something to suggest he did leave the steps please point it out.

No, you're asking me to prove a negative.  There is nothing is his statements that say that he remained on the steps the entire time.  That's just an assumption you're making because he didn't specifically mention leaving the steps.  But he did in later interviews.  What I'm saying is that his initial statements do not directly contradict his later statements.

[Dan O'meara]

Oswald's seemingly random observation of Jarman and Norman entering the TSBD places him in the Domino room almost 10 minutes after Rowland witnesses the man with the rifle on the 6th floor and a black male in the SN window (it is independently corroborated that Williams is eating his lunch in the SN at the same time)

This is supported by multiple interlocking witness testimonies and physical evidence.

Has there ever been a more important chicken sandwich? 

[John Iacoletti]

In this thread I've learned that a 34.8 inch long object will not fit into a 38 inch long bag, that estimates of an objects length are more reliable than confirming that someone was seen at a certain location by a person who knew them,

Really, "Richard"?  Please provide evidence that Bledsoe knew Oswald (beyond her say-so, that is).

[Dan O'meara]

No, you're asking me to prove a negative.  There is nothing is his statements that say that he remained on the steps the entire time.  That's just an assumption you're making because he didn't specifically mention leaving the steps.  But he did in later interviews.  What I'm saying is that his initial statements do not directly contradict his later statements.

"No, you're asking me to prove a negative."

What negative am I asking you to prove?

"There is nothing is his statements that say that he remained on the steps the entire time."

When asked if he moved from where he was standing he specifically answers that he did not:

Mr. BALL - You didn't see the President's car at the time you heard the sound?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - But you stood right there, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Stood right where I was.
Mr. BALL - And Mr. Shelley was still standing there?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And also Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - The three of you didn't go any place?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe Billy and them walked down toward that direction but I didn't. I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all.
Frazier makes numerous statements that he stayed where he was standing. He even goes so far as to explain that he'd been taught to stand still if anything serious happened.
To read anything else into his testimony is on you.
It must be noted that you have failed to provide anything from his early statements that supports your position.

Frazier not only constnatly refers to staying where he was, when asked if he moved he testifies that he didn't.

[Dan O'meara]

Dan, some time back I researched the chicken lunch issue. This was independent of Don Thomas. You would have noticed the snide remarks about my research from Richard the regurgitator and Bill the comic relief in this thread. The following officers described remnants on the lunch in the SN prior to the arrival of Fritz, Mooney, McCurley, Boone, Faulkner, Craig, Hill, Brewer, Haywood and Weatherford.

Jim Ewell, a news reporter who had travelled to the TSBD with Jerry Hill, later related in No More Silence that Hill held up the chicken bone and hollered to those below that the fried chicken was what the assassin had been eating.

Richard and Bill won’t engage in discussion of the evidence because they know where it leads.

The Jim Ewell story highlights something in the early investigation that I find difficult to discern from more 'sinister' motives - genuine incompetence.
I think the investigation is rife with it (particularly if we try to compare it with more modern standards).
And, as Tom Scully has pointed out elsewhere, the Oswald-Did-It narrative was in place amazingly quickly.
Something like Fritz's handling and pocketing (according to Tom Alyea) of the shells before they are tested for prints smacks of something beyond incompetence (IMO)
Ignoring the fingerprint results of the soda bottle found in the SN because they weren't Oswald's is also dodgy but might reflect nothing more than the word coming from on high that Oswald alone was in the frame. A nice blend of incompetence and corruption.

[John Iacoletti]

"No, you're asking me to prove a negative."

What negative am I asking you to prove?

That Frazier did not remain on the steps the entire time.

"There is nothing is his statements that say that he remained on the steps the entire time."

When asked if he moved from where he was standing he specifically answers that he did not:

Mr. BALL - You didn't see the President's car at the time you heard the sound?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - But you stood right there, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Stood right where I was.
Mr. BALL - And Mr. Shelley was still standing there?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And also Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - The three of you didn't go any place?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe Billy and them walked down toward that direction but I didn't. I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all.

What he doesn't say (and what you're reading into it) is that he stood where he was until he re-entered the building.  All he is saying here is that he didn't go anywhere when Shelley and Lovelady did.

It must be noted that you have failed to provide anything from his early statements that supports your position.

Frazier's later interviews support the idea that he walked around before re-entering the building.  Your position that he remained on the steps until he re-entered the building is merely an assumption.

[Dan O'meara]

That Frazier did not remain on the steps the entire time.

What he doesn't say (and what you're reading into it) is that he stood where he was until he re-entered the building.  All he is saying here is that he didn't go anywhere when Shelley and Lovelady did.

Frazier's later interviews support the idea that he walked around before re-entering the building.  Your position that he remained on the steps until he re-entered the building is merely an assumption.

"That Frazier did not remain on the steps the entire time."

Incorrect.
Firstly, I've not asked you to 'prove' anything, negative or otherwise.
But let's imagine I did.
I certainly didn't ask you to prove that Frazier did not remain on the steps. What I actually asked was this:

"If there's something to suggest he did leave the steps please point it out."

It's a subtle difference but I asked you about something Frazier did do, not something he didn't do.
As I say, I wasn't asking you to 'prove' anything. Simply to point out anything he said in his early statements that suggested he left the steps. You were not able to provide anything so, rather than admit this, you've tried to turn it into a semantic argument.


"What he doesn't say (and what you're reading into it) is that he stood where he was until he re-entered the building."

Once again, you are incorrect. This is from Frazier's WC testimony:

"I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worked there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we started back into the Building..."

"I stood there a few minutes" and "started back into the Building". It could hardly be more clear.
Are you engaging in this argument without actually having read his testimony?


"All he is saying here is that he didn't go anywhere when Shelley and Lovelady did."

And yet again you are incorrect.
Frazier is asked if "three of you didn't go any place?"
He answers that others did but he did not. He wasn't asked if he went anywhere when the others did. You've made that up.
He was simply asked if he went anywhere and he replied that he didn't.

"Frazier's later interviews support the idea that he walked around before re-entering the building."

That's what this whole discussion is about.
Frazier is quite specific he wandered around and saw some quite eye-popping things in his later interviews.
My position is that, in stark contrast to his later interviews, Frazier testified that he went nowhere and that he stayed on the steps until he went back inside. He actually says these things.
Your position, that his early statements in no way contradict his later statements, has been thoroughly refuted but I don't expect you to throw up your hands and accept that. Not a chance.


"Your position that he remained on the steps until he re-entered the building is merely an assumption."

My position is a common sense interpretation of what Frazier actually said.
Your position isn't even an assumption. It's far closer to complete fabrication.