FWIW, I also noticed at the mock trial that Frazier agreed with Bugliosi that the rifle "could have" extended beyond Oswald's hand because he "only glanced" at it. Spence treated him as a hostile witness, trying to get him to say that the FBI had tried to twist his arm for a longer package and that Bugliosi had extensively prepped him, but Frazier didn't take the bait. He did acknowledge saying the package was under the armpit and cupped in the hand, whereupon Spence let the matter drop. Later, of course, he said that he and Randle had been extensively pressured to change their stories - which, if true, makes it seem odd that they were questioned so extensively about the package at the WC, no?
Pat Speer made a slightly comical remark (I thought) in regard to the 30" M14. Pat emphasized that, regarding the package, Frazier was talking about something he had recently seen, whereas his experience with the M14 had been long ago. But wait - he repeatedly said he had not paid much attention to the package, whereas he "quite frequently" and "many times" BROKE DOWN an M14. Moreover, my understanding is that both of his stints in the Army were after the JFKA (the second ending in 1977), so the 1969 Shaw trial testimony would scarcely qualify as long ago.
I'm a bit disappointed that JFKA threads always turn into "evidentiary" threads and that the "epistemological" questions fall by the wayside. There has been 62 years of he said, she said, what about this, what about this over here, etc., etc. I just don't think they go anywhere anymore and that this aspect of the JFKA is dying on the vine. (Look at the Ed Forum these days - it's a pathetic shadow of its former self.) It seems to me that the more interesting discussions, on specific issues and the JFKA as a whole, would be more in the vein of "OK, explain how, at least in your mind, what you are saying makes logical sense and is at least reasonably plausible."
