Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Alan Ford]

At the link below, I have compiled a few questions for Buell Wesley Frazier. I would like it very much if Buell could some day answer these inquiries:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1349.html

From the link:

"#3. Don't you ever wonder, Buell, why Lee Oswald told you that big fat lie about the "curtain rods"? And he twice told that lie to you—once on Thursday morning (November 21st) and then again on the morning of November 22nd when you and he got into your car at your sister's house.

We know now that Lee's "curtain rods" story was definitely a lie. We know this because....

....No curtain rods were ever found inside the Book Depository after the assassination."

In the light of your calamitously unsuccessful attempts earlier in this thread to offer a convincing explanation of the document below, Mr Von Pein, you need to do the honorable thing and delete the above as an unsafe claim



 

[Martin Weidmann]

A prosecutor [because that's what Ball was in this case] calling something a "conclusive fact" doesn't make it so. But there is no surprise that Ball would say that. He wrote the chapter on Oswald's guilt, so what else was he going to say? He also said that Oswald was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, yet he failed to convince the majority of the American people. So, Ball's opinion is just that; an opinion.

This is the same man who called Helen Markham an "utter screwball" yet at the same time considered her testimony to be reliable. That alone tells you all you need to know about Joseph Ball!

Btw LNs whining about a so-called "impossible standard of proof being applied to evidence of Oswald's guilt" is hilarious and sad at the same time. It's like a prosecutor complaining to the judge about the jury because his arguments (which he himself finds amazingly powerful) fail to convince the jurors. It is in fact an implicit recognition of the weakness of the prosecution's case.

The fact that those highly skilled lawyers of the WC were willing to blindly accept, without any kind of authentication, a couple of photocopies (which even Lyndal Shaneyfelt admitted, during the mock trial, can easilybe tampered with) taken from a microfilm that has since gone missing, as a so-called "conclusive fact" only exposes the desperation they had to wrap the case around Oswald as tight as they could. No competent prosecutor would have dared to present something as pathetic and weak as this in court.

[David Von Pein]

[DVP asked...]

"#3. Don't you ever wonder, Buell, why Lee Oswald told you that big fat lie about the "curtain rods"? And he twice told that lie to you—once on Thursday morning (November 21st) and then again on the morning of November 22nd when you and he got into your car at your sister's house. We know now that Lee's "curtain rods" story was definitely a lie. We know this because....No curtain rods were ever found inside the Book Depository after the assassination."

In the light of your calamitously unsuccessful attempts earlier in this thread to offer a convincing explanation of the document below, Mr Von Pein, you need to do the honorable thing and delete the above as an unsafe claim

----img----

 

Alan,

Please tell us what connection there is between the Ruth Paine curtain rods that you seem to be fixated on and the "curtain rods" that Lee Oswald lied about?

Even with a date discrepancy on the document you've posted many times now, tell us what the connection is.

Do you think Oswald DID take some rods into the TSBD and then the cops took them back to Ruth's garage?

Enlighten us all as you answer the proverbial question that can be asked of nearly all conspiracy theorists whenever they start talking about their murky theories----with that question being:

Where are you going with this?

[David Von Pein]

There's no supporting evidence for the claim that Oswald lied about any curtain rods.

Classic CTer/Beck denial. As always.

[David Von Pein]

Your claim remains unsupported.

It's supported by Buell Frazier.

Next?

[David Von Pein]

How?

Why are you pretending you don't know?

Maybe this will help you....

[David Von Pein]

Frazier, how?

Frazier has repeatedly said over the years, without deviation, that Oswald told him that the paper bag LHO took into the TSBD contained curtain rods. And we know that was a lie.

How do I know it was a lie?

Because if LHO really did carry curtain rods into the Depository Building on 11/22/63, Oswald would have told the police that fact after he was arrested, and Oswald would have certainly produced the curtain rods as well. But he said nothing of the kind. Instead, Oswald told Captain Fritz that he had never said a word to Frazier about any curtain rods and had only carried his lunch into the building on 11/22.

Reasonable inference = Oswald lied (twice). He lied to Buell Frazier when he told Frazier the bag contained curtain rods. And he lied to the police when he said that he (LHO) had never said anything about curtain rods to Frazier.

Otto Beck knows all this, of course. But he has to play his little CT games. I've played this same game with dozens of other CTers in the past.

Next up from Otto? Probably the old standard of: You've only got Frazier's word about the curtain rods. Why should I believe him?