Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[John Iacoletti]

The authorities were a bit sloppy with some of the evidence in the JFK case, I'll grant you that

Understatement of the year.

But I'm not prepared to accept the common belief that dozens of pieces of evidence in this case were fraudulently manufactured by the DPD (or FBI) in order to frame Mr. Oswald.

Strawman alert.

I just don't think that happened. And no one has ever proved any of the evidence in this case was faked.

The burden is on you (and the police) to prove that the evidence is authentic.  And their "sloppyness" rendered the evidence tainted and unreliable.

[Martin Weidmann]

The answer to that couldn't be more obvious, Mr. Weidmann....

The "investigators" possessed the capability of drawing reasonable and logical inferences and conclusions from the available evidence. In other words, they were capable of adding 2 & 2 together, which is a task that most Internet conspiracy believers seem incapable of performing.

(Can you really not see the logic in my October 2007 comment above regarding the paper bag, Martin? You really can't grasp it?)

You won't get very far talking down to me, Mr. Von Pein.

All you are telling me is that it's a case of 100% circular logic. They believed Oswald was their man so obviously he did bring the bag found at the TSBD into the building.

It's pathetic. It isn't following the evidence where it leads you, it's deciding up front what the outcome should be and looking for the evidence to connect the dots. There is nothing even remotely logical about it.

And your high and mighty attitude doesn't alter one bit of the fact that you have just demonstrated beyond doubt that the case against Oswald was rigged from the beginning. Thank you for playing the game. You just lost!

[John Iacoletti]

The "investigators" possessed the capability of drawing reasonable and logical inferences and conclusions from the available evidence. In other words, they were capable of adding 2 & 2 together, which is a task that most Internet conspiracy believers seem incapable of performing.

You're free to speculate to your heart's content, but don't pretend that your speculations constitute evidence.  The evidence is that CE142 was not the package that Frazier and Randle saw, and there's no evidence that either wrapper contained a rifle, so what difference does it make?

[John Iacoletti]

And your high and mighty attitude doesn't alter one bit of the fact that you have just demonstrated beyond doubt that the case against Oswald was rigged from the beginning. Thank you for playing the game. You just lost!

Why is it that so many of the "Oswald did it" faithful think that arrogance and condescension makes their handwaving arguments more convincing?

[David Von Pein]

You won't get very far talking down to me, Mr. Von Pein.

All you are telling me is that it's a case of 100% circular logic. They believed Oswald was their man so obviously he did bring the bag found at the TSBD into the building.

It's pathetic. It isn't following the evidence where it leads you, it's deciding up front what the outcome should be and looking for the evidence to connect the dots. There is nothing even remotely logical about it.

And your high and mighty attitude doesn't alter one bit of the fact that you have just demonstrated beyond doubt that the case against Oswald was rigged from the beginning. Thank you for playing the game. You just lost!

Just like I said. No ability to add 2 and 2.

And you're dead wrong when you say "It isn't following the evidence where it leads you". That's exactly what I'm doing---following the evidence that exists in this case and applying simple logic and reasonable inferences from that evidence.

You think Oswald took a long-ish bag into the building and then----did what with it? Please tell me your theory on that.

If CE142 isn't the "Oswald bag", then what did Lee do with that 27-inch bag he took into the TSBD?

One thing's for sure --- whatever answer you dream up is not going to be nearly as logical as my October 2007 comment I posted earlier. But good luck trying.

[Martin Weidmann]

Just like I said. No ability to add 2 and 2.

And you're dead wrong when you say "It isn't following the evidence where it leads you". That's exactly what I'm doing---following the evidence that exists in this case and applying simple logic and reasonable inferences from that evidence.

You think Oswald took a long-ish bag into the building and then----did what with it? Please tell me your theory on that.

If CE142 isn't the "Oswald bag", then what did Lee do with that 27-inch bag he took into the TSBD?

One thing's for sure --- whatever answer you dream up is not going to be nearly as logical as my October 2007 comment I posted earlier. But good luck trying.

Your level of arrogance is astounding.

The answer to your pathetic question is that I don't need to have a theory about the bag Oswald brought in. And I couldn't care less what he did with it. I can speculate about it, but I don't play that game. Assumptions and speculation is for people who have no actual evidence to support their claim and then call it more logical than anything I can come up with.

In the real world, you need to prove that the bag found in the TSBD was in fact the same bag that Oswald brought in. And you can't! It really is as simple as that. That's why two eyewitness accounts, who basically said the same thing, were dismissed as "mistaken", because that's the best you can do.

You claim to be following the evidence, but that's not what you are doing at all. In fact, it seems you don't even understand what the meaning of following the evidence actually is. What you do is making assumptions and speculate and you know what, with enough assumptions and speculation you can "prove" anybody guilty of anything.

You childish insults only tell me that you foolishly think you are better and more knowledgeable than everybody else, which in my mind makes you a complete nobody with lots of bravado and nothing of substance to back it up. I'll be more than happy to discuss the details of the case with you, but I will not accept the patronizing BS you are posting right now.

[Colin Crow]

Mr. DAY. There was a scar on the top of or the top side of this box that was sitting there. I noticed that at the time. I thought the recoil of the gun had caused that. I later decided that was in the wrong direction. It was not the recoil of the gun but I did notice this scar on the box.

Translation: upon arrival to the SN the box "scar", arrangement of shells and shooting "logic" would have had the assassin shooting as JFK approached on Houston. Therefore the right strip was removed for analysis. I believe this is the one that broke around the 30 inch mark.

Note the missing strip on the right but not the left in the photo below.



I believe this piece is referenced below.



I am still trying to locate the doc in my files that mentions two pieces indicating that a break occurred around a nail hole.