Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[John Iacoletti]

DVP's "two things that prove Oswald's guilt":

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John Connally.

Not only has he not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that CE139 was "Oswald's rifle", but there is no physical evidence whatsoever that CE139 was "used to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John Connally".

2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63,

Who said it was "bulky"?  And seen by whom?  Jack Dougherty said he was empty handed when he entered the building.  Frazier only saw him enter the north annex area, not the building and Frazier admitted to Tom Meros that he was far enough behind Oswald at the time that he couldn't actually see the package when Oswald entered the annex.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihrdJbwPbaw at timestamp 6:30.

and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents of this package to a co-worker.

   There is no evidence whatsoever that would tell you what was in the package that Frazier saw, and certainly no evidence of it being CE139 or any other rifle.  It's not a "lie" merely because you believe something else was in there.

[John Iacoletti]

Well, most CTers don't seem to think he's holding the CE142 bag.

Really?  Where did you get this idea?

[David Von Pein]

Well, most CTers don't seem to think he's holding the CE142 bag.

Really?  Where did you get this idea?

You're right this time, John. I didn't write that correctly. I should have phrased it this way:

Most CTers think the bag that Det. Montgomery is holding IS, indeed, CE142, but those CTers think that bag is a "fake" bag created by the DPD, with the police deep-sixing the "real" 27-inch bag.

Of course, the above "deep-sixing" comment really doesn't apply to a lot of CTers, because the trend today is to pretend that NO BAG existed at all and to call both Frazier & Randle liars re: the bag. (Silly, isn't it?)

[David Von Pein]

This is a common argument among the "Oswald did it" faithful.  If you disagree with their speculative conclusions (which are designed to make the evidence fit their predetermined narrative), then you just don't know how to "properly" apply "logic" and "reason" (which means agreeing with their assumptions).

It's pure rhetoric in lieu of evidence, which is what their entire argument amounts to.

Another first-rate Pot/Kettle moment from the e-lips of a CT fantasist.

Thanks, John.

[John Iacoletti]

This gets better and better.  No search was ever conducted for the bag on the 6th floor but it was found.  The authorities searched the entire building for suspicious items.

Cite, please.  Or an admission that you just made this up will also suffice.  Have you figured out yet how Norman's lunch bag "vanished into thin air"?  Maybe CE142 was Norman's lunch bag, because nobody ever found another one, so there is "no doubt" that it must be that.  Do you realize how stupid your argument is?

You also want us to believe that someone who worked in that building and could explain the bag found on the 6th floor for was used for a work-related purpose just remained silent about it forever because "they were not asked" about it?

Do you want us to believe that your made-up "explanation" constitutes evidence?  PS. how do you know where CE142 was found?  Do you have any evidence besides "cop said so"?

  The bag the authorities indicated that the assassin used to carry the weapon that killed the President of the United States?

"authorities indicated".  Really?  That's your evidence?   

Wow.   No one would volunteer to say that was just a bag that was used for some work-related purpose?  Unreal.  Even your star witness Frazier to this day, who has been asked about the bag, never said that any such bag had a legitimate purpose for being in the building?

Cite please.  And why does it matter whether CE142 has a "work-related purpose"?  What does that even mean?  Did dominoes have a work-related purpose for being in the building?

And you have no interest in the fact that the bag you claim was carried into the building can't be accounted for in any way?  Nothing to see there.  How about this?  It wasn't found not because no one searched for it, but because it wasn't there.

Argument from ignorance fallacy.  Adding "end of story" to a conjecture doesn't actually turn it into a fact.

You also make a very silly comparison between Oswald denying that he carried a bag along the size estimated by Frazier and denying the one found on the 6th floor.

Where did you get the idea that Oswald "denied carried a bag along the size estimated by Frazier"?  Fritz said nothing in his report written from memory several days after the fact that he said anything to Oswald about Frazier's size estimate.  It's not even clear when Frazier was first asked to estimate the length.

  Can you understand why these are different situations?  Apparently not.  If Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines of the one estimated by Frazier that contained some non-incriminatory item like curtain rods, he would have every incentive to not only admit it but direct the authorities to its location.

First of all, you don't know what he did or did not say during interrogation.  Secondly, what if he didn't know what "its location" was?  Have you found Norman's lunch bag yet?

  It would assist him to tell the truth in that situation.  If, however, he carried a longer bag, such as the one found, and it contained the rifle, then he has every incentive to lie about it.

If, if, if.  Argument from imagination.

[John Iacoletti]

You're right this time, John. I didn't write that correctly. I should have phrased it this way:

Most CTers think the bag that Det. Montgomery is holding IS, indeed, CE142, but that bag is a "fake" bag created by the DPD, with the police deep-sixing the "real" 27-inch bag.

I don't even think that's accurate.  Maybe you should just stick to speaking for yourself.

[John Iacoletti]

Another first-rate Pot/Kettle moment from the e-lips of a CT fantasist.

Wrong on two counts.  I'm not a CT, and I've never based an argument on the arrogant notion that my opinion constitutes evidence of anything, or that disagreeing with my conjectures is somehow a lack of "logic".  It's lazy posturing.  If you have evidence then present it or admit that you are making a rhetorical argument because that's all you have.