The Brown Paper Bag

[Tom Graves]

Don't know and don't care.

Now, can you present evidence that shows Oswald's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? If not, we're done talking.

You can take your conspiracy obsessions elsewhere!

Okay, oodles and gobs of bad guys it is!

[Tom Graves]

What I don't understand is why you and some other LNs are so desperate to paint me a conspiracy theorist when all I am asking for is the evidence that actually shows Oswald is guilty.

Because there's a plethora of circumstantial evidence that would prove Oswald guilty in a court of law, and because if you don't believe Oswald killed JFK, you are, by definition, a conspiracy theorist / conspiracy believer.

D'oh!

[Martin Weidmann]

Okay, oodles and gobs of bad guys it is!

At least you are confirming that you are unable to present a "beyond reasonable doubt" case against Oswald, because if you could you would have done it by now.

It's always good to know where people actually stand! 

[Martin Weidmann]

Because there's a plethora of circumstantial evidence that would prove Oswald guilty in a court of law, and because if you don't believe Oswald killed JFK, you are, by definition, a conspiracy theorist / conspiracy believer.

D'oh!

Because there's a plethora of circumstantial evidence that would prove Oswald guilty in a court of law

The beauty of circumstantial evidence is that a prosecutor can basically claim anything he wants until the defence destroys it.

if you don't believe Oswald killed JFK, you are, by definition, a conspiracy theorist / conspiracy believer.

Said the zealot!

Now what if I simply don't know if Oswald killed JFK or not and am merely asking for the evidence that proves he did?

Let me guess; I'm a conspiracy theorist / conspiracy believer too, right?

You've just shown how unreasonable and far removed from reality you truly are.

[John Mytton]

1. Oswald took what looked to be a heavy looking long brown paper package to work.

Oswald took a paper bag to work. Just how "heavy looking long" was never determined or proven

2. Oswald lied about taking a long brown paper package to work.

Depends on what Oswald considered to be a "long paper package". Why didn't they show the actual 6th floor bag to him?

3. Oswald put the unwieldly long brown paper package on the back seat of Frazier's car.

Do you think that you keep using the term "long brown paper package" makes your argument less pathetic?

4. Oswald lied about putting his brown paper package on the back seat of Frazier's car.

Really? Where exactly did he say that?

5. Oswald's prints were on the brown paper package.

Even if there was a print from Oswald on that bag, what does that prove? The bag was made from TSBD materials and was found at the TSBD at a place where Oswald worked.

6. Oswald's rifle was on the 6th floor.

"Oswald's rifle" LOL

7. Oswald prints were on the rifle on the 6th floor.

The FBI examined the rifle in the night following the assassination and found no prints

8. Oswald's "fresh" prints were on the recently moved sniper's nest rifle rest box.
9. Oswald's prints were on the top box orientated down Elm street, the location Kennedy was when struck.

Oh well, you've got me there. He must be guilty, right? But wait... where was Oswald working that morning? And his job was moving boxes, right..... 

10. Oswald fled the building immediately and therefore was in flight from the scene of his crime.
11. Oswald got on and off a bus within a couple of minutes, another example of flight.
12. Oswald got a cab and got out way past his rooming house.

If true (nobody saw him leave, right?), how does this prove that he went to Irving to collect a rifle from Ruth Paine's garage?

13. Oswald killed a cop, why on Earth would an innocent Oswald need to kill a cop?

Why would Oswald even be at 10th and Patton if he was on the run. And claiming he killed a cop is just that: a claim.

14. Oswald when arrested tried to kill more cops, a innocent man has no need to kill a cop.

So, now you know his mindset when he was arrested at the Texas Theater

15. Oswald lied about owning a rifle. Consciousness of guilt

Unless he did not own a rifle to begin with

16. Oswald lied about living on Neely Street. Place of incriminating photographic evidence

Did he? But if he did, perhaps he understood by then that he was being set up.
Did you ever find out how the FBI was able to show a BY photo to Michael Paine on Friday evening to find out where the photo was taken, when the BY photos were not found until Saturday afternoon? And how did Fritz manage to show Oswald a blow up of a BY photo on Saturday morning?

17. Oswald lied about authenticated backyard photos which show him holding the murder weapon.

There is nothing authenticated about the BY photos. All you have is opinions...

Obviously, nothing of any of this provides support for the claim that Oswald went to Irving to collect a rifle from the Paine garage, took that rifle to the TSBD in a bag that was too small for the rifle to find in (a bag that is disputed by the main witness who actually saw it) and used that rifle to shoot Kennedy.

So Mr Defence how do you refute this tiny slice of the MOUNTAIN of Evidence?? Or will you go back to your conspiracy theorist roots and say everyone lied! LOL!

Where exactly is that so-called "Mountain of Evidence"?

Like I said you haven't got a clue!



Any idiot who thinks that a jury will only get the prosecution side to consider and come up with a "beyond reasonable doubt" conclusion, is just that: An idiot!

Sorry Martin but Frazier repeatedly says he didn't pay much attention to Oswald's bag. Try again.

Mr. BALL - All right. When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.

Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.

Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.

Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.

Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--

•Just because Oswald worked in the building doesn't mean he has to touch every single surface, I don't believe that was a job requirement. But anyway out of the thousands of things Oswald could have touched he touched a brown paper rifle sized bag and in addition he placed fresh prints, which the FBI concluded were within a couple of days, on the recently moved rifle rest boxes. Try convincing a jury that it was just a random coincidence. Good luck with that.

• And it's not Oswald's rifle, really? The rifle he ordered, purchased, was sent and possessed?





• The FBI determined that the print that Lt. Day took on the 22nd came from the rifle, and thus proves that Oswald's print was on the rifle.

Any idiot who thinks that a jury will only get the prosecution side to consider and come up with a "beyond reasonable doubt" conclusion, is just that: An idiot!

OMG, what a coward, you were wrong and I proved you are wrong! Just be a Man and own up to your lack of legal knowledge.

JohnM

[Tom Graves]

At least you are confirming that you are unable to present a "beyond reasonable doubt" case against Oswald, because if you could you would have done it by now.

I already have, in dribs and drabs, over the years at this fine forum.

Start with Roselle's and Scearce's 2020 determination -- based on their analysis of the conscious reactions, as viewable in the Zapruder film, of seven prime witnesses to the sounds of the first, missing everything, shot -- i.e., that it was fired half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133.

https://d7922adf-f499-4a26-96d4-8ab2d521fa35.usrfiles.com/ugd/d7922a_e280e26982b44f2c97c6e6e27026e385.pdf

Then watch the Zapruder film as it's being played cropped, enlarged, and in slow motion and notice the nearly simultaneous (but different, of course) reactions of JFK and JBC to their being hit by the same bullet at approximately Z-222, and how JBC's tie and coat lapel flip outward at Z-223 and Z-224, respectively.

That should be enough to finally get you on the right track.

[John Mytton]

Because there's a plethora of circumstantial evidence that would prove Oswald guilty in a court of law

The beauty of circumstantial evidence is that a prosecutor can basically claim anything he wants until the defence destroys it.

So says the Legal layman, a couple of posts ago you completely embarrassed yourself with your clear lack of knowledge regarding the law, so why stop there, eh?

BTW exactly what "circumstantial evidence" in this case do you think you can destroy?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Sorry Martin but Frazier repeatedly says he didn't pay much attention to Oswald's bag. Try again.

Mr. BALL - All right. When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.

Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.

Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.

Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.

Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--

•Just because Oswald worked in the building doesn't mean he has to touch every single surface, I don't believe that was a job requirement. But anyway out of the thousands of things Oswald could have touched he touched a brown paper rifle sized bag and in addition he placed fresh prints, which the FBI concluded were within a couple of days, on the recently moved rifle rest boxes. Try convincing a jury that it was just a random coincidence. Good luck with that.

• And it's not Oswald's rifle, really? The rifle he ordered, purchased, was sent and possessed?





• The FBI determined that the print that Lt. Day took on the 22nd came from the rifle, and thus proves that Oswald's print was on the rifle.



OMG, what a coward, you were wrong and I proved you are wrong! Just be a Man and own up to your lack of legal knowledge.

JohnM

Sorry Martin but Frazier repeatedly says he didn't pay much attention to Oswald's bag.

And still he maintains after all these years that Oswald carried the bag in the cup of his hand and under his shoulder. Deal with it!

•Just because Oswald worked in the building doesn't mean he has to touch every single surface, I don't believe that was a job requirement. But anyway out of the thousands of things Oswald could have touched he touched a brown paper rifle sized bag and in addition he placed fresh prints, which the FBI concluded were within a couple of days, on the recently moved rifle rest boxes. Try convincing a jury that it was just a random coincidence. Good luck with that.

Who said Oswald had to touch every surfice?

Oswald was working on the 6th floor. The bag was made from TSBD materials and found on the sixth floor. There are all sorts of ways his print could have gotten on that bag. The evidentiary value is strongly reduced because of this fact. What I find more interesting is that Oswald is supposed the have folded the bag before leaving it at the sniper's nest. So why are there not more of his prints on that bag? Ever thought about that?   

• And it's not Oswald's rifle, really? The rifle he ordered, purchased, was sent and possessed?

I'm sure you believe it was Oswald's rifle. Until you come up with something more that the known propaganda, I'm not wasting my time on this BS

• The FBI determined that the print that Lt. Day took on the 22nd came from the rifle, and thus proves that Oswald's print was on the rifle.

Is that the print the FBI couldn't find on the rifle in the night after the assassination or the one Day claimed days later that he took from the rifle?