remember Wes frazier and the long package ? . LN cite him as credible when he says Oswald carried a package . but when he says that package was around about 24 inches long not 36 inches ? . well a well known LN said that FRAZIER PROBABLY DOES NOT EVEN KNOW THAT 24 INCHES EQUALS TWO FEET . meaning he at best lacks intellect .regarding roberts LN have said she was near blind when it suits , yet they deem her visual observations absolutely credible when it suits . and a well known LN has said she made up the police car story . that should make her unreliable and lacking in credibility , because any witness caught lying has a credibility problem , if a witness has lied one time they could have lied multiple times . yet LN still cite her .
This is a great example of CTer "logic." Refusing to look to the totality of circumstances or applying any analysis to the situation. Frazier - someone with no apparent reason to lie - tells the police that LHO carries a long package to work that morning that Oswald tells Frazier contains curtain rods. Frazier also specifically asks Oswald about his lunch. LHO confirms to him that he is not carrying his lunch that morning. When asked about the bag after his arrest, LHO denies carrying
any long bag along the lines described by Frazier. He denies carrying any curtain rods. In complete contradiction of what he told Frazier that morning, he then claims it was his lunch. Did he carry his lunch to work that morning in a two-foot-long bag? And then for some unknown reason lie to Frazier about his lunch and the curtain rods. That makes absolutely no sense. Obviously, either Frazier or Oswald is lying about this situation. Who has the greater incentive to lie? A random witness or the person accused of murder? What happened to Oswald's two-foot-long bag if it is not the longer bag found on the 6th floor?
What is the most rational way to reconcile these conflicting accounts? Obviously, that Frazier did not estimate the length of the bag correctly. It was an estimate. He repeated over and over that he didn't really take much notice of it. What is the alternative? That Frazier knowingly lied to implicate Oswald but he did so in way that doesn't really do that since he claimed the bag was too short to contain the rife? LOL. In addition to there being zero credible evidence that Frazier was involved in a plot to frame Oswald for the assassination, even if he were involved his "lie" would be to place a bag long enough to contain the rifle in Oswald's hands.
That would be the entire purpose of the lie. He wouldn't insist it was too short for that purpose. There is no way to reconcile Frazier's account in any other way except that Oswald carried a long bag that morning and he simply gave an estimate of its length that was slightly shorter than the actual bag.