The Brown Paper Bag

[Martin Weidmann]

You seem to operate under the delusion that eyewitnesses perfectly remember every detail, especially mundane details that wouldn't have seemed the least bit important at the time they were observed.

You seem to operate under the delusion that eyewitnesses perfectly remember every detail

Actually, eye witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence. So, why are LNs constantly quoting from eye witness testimony?

Could it be that eye witness testimony is correct when they say something the LNs like and unreliable when they say something the LNs don't like.

In this case, I didn't bring up Frazier's testimony.... that was Mytton. I understand why he did it, though, because without it he has even less than a case against Oswald when it comes to the paper bag.

especially mundane details that wouldn't have seemed the least bit important at the time they were observed.

I agree... and even worse, eye witness testimony gets worse as time goes by as people forget and remember things wrong. So whatever Frazier said months later shouldn't be given the same consideration as what he told DPD officers on the evening after the assassination when he was shown the bag allegedly found at the 6th floor and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen only hours earlier.

[John Mytton]

If he told Frazier a white lie, the bag probably didn't contain curtain rods so it's no surprise that he said that to Fritz.

You seem to be finally getting it, but the lie was a bit more significant than a simple white lie. If it was anything else besides a rifle then Oswald would just tell it like it was, but as you agreed Oswald lied.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

There was something in the long paper bag and if wasn't curtain rods then it was something else. Funnily enough a bag with Oswald's prints was found on the 6th floor and this bag just happened to fit Oswald's rifle. 

I agree that Oswald was trying to save his marriage but there was no need to go on a Thursday, when if he just waited 1 day he would have a whole weekend to convince her and also give him much more time with his children. Also a big problem was that this unusual visit was in direct violation of his agreement with Ruth Paine, Ruth was already going above and beyond in housing Marina and her children.
The reason was obviously two fold if he could convince Marina he might have not killed Kennedy but after his rejection and filled with rage he assassinated Kennedy and then while in flight he killed Tippit. Oswald was a double murderer!

JohnM

There was something in the long paper bag and if wasn't curtain rods then it was something else.

Indeed.... so, without speculation or assumption, how can you be certain what was actually in that bag, and for that matter how long the bag really was?

Funnily enough a bag with Oswald's prints was found on the 6th floor and this bag just happened to fit Oswald's rifle. 

Too bad that you can't place it in Frazier's car and even worse, when shown to Frazier only hours after the assassination, he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry.

I agree that Oswald was trying to save his marriage but there was no need to go on a Thursday, when if he just waited 1 day he would have a whole weekend to convince her and also give him much more time with his children. Also a big problem was that this unusual visit was in direct violation of his agreement with Ruth Paine, Ruth was already going above and beyond in housing Marina and her children.

And what makes it even remotely important what you believe about Oswald need to go to Irving on Thursday? Perhaps Oswald didn't want to wait any longer to see his children?

The reason was obviously two fold if he could convince Marina he might have not killed Kennedy but after his rejection and filled with rage he assassinated Kennedy and then while in flight he killed Tippit. Oswald was a double murderer!

The only thing that is obvious about this is that it is a self-serving argument based on a flawed opinion.

[Martin Weidmann]

You seem to be finally getting it, but the lie was a bit more significant than a simple white lie. If it was anything else besides a rifle then Oswald would just tell it like it was, but as you agreed Oswald lied.

JohnM

You seem to be finally getting it, but the lie was a bit more significant than a simple white lie.

The only reason why you feel the white lie (if Oswald told it) was more significant is that you want it to be.

If it was anything else besides a rifle then Oswald would just tell it like it was, but as you agreed Oswald lied.

BS... Nobody knows what Fritz actually said to Oswald and how Oswald replied.
All we have is what Fritz said about it. Trying to build a case on that is like building a house on quicksand.

[John Mytton]

You seem to operate under the delusion that eyewitnesses perfectly remember every detail

Actually, eye witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence.

Fair enough, then we are left with the physical evidence which is a bag with Oswald's prints which was manufactured to precisely fit Oswald's rifle.



Case closed!

[John Mytton]

BS... Nobody knows what Fritz actually said to Oswald and how Oswald replied.
All we have is what Fritz said about it. Trying to build a case on that is like building a house on quicksand.

Sorry Martin, not just Fritz!

Mr. BELIN. What was that about curtain rods?
Mr. HOLMES. Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, "Yes."
"What was in the sack?"
"Well, my lunch."
"What size sack did you have?"
He said, "Oh, I don't know what size sack. You don't always get a sack that fits your sandwiches. It might be a big sack."
"Was it a long sack?''
"Well, it could have been"
"What did you do with it?"
"Carried it in my lap."
"You didn't put it over in the back seat?"
"No." He said he wouldn't have done that.
"Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat."
He said, "Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up."
That is all he said about it.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Fair enough, then we are left with the physical evidence which is a bag with Oswald's prints which was manufactured to precisely fit Oswald's rifle.



Case closed!

So, what exactly does a bag made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD, which can not be placed in Frazier's car,  is too large to fit between Oswald's shoulder and the cup of his hand (as seen by Frazier) and which Frazier, only hours after the assassination, denied it was the bag he had seen actually prove?

Sorry, but I'm just not superficial enough to buy the BS you are trying to sell.

[Martin Weidmann]

Sorry Martin, not just Fritz!

Mr. BELIN. What was that about curtain rods?
Mr. HOLMES. Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, "Yes."
"What was in the sack?"
"Well, my lunch."
"What size sack did you have?"
He said, "Oh, I don't know what size sack. You don't always get a sack that fits your sandwiches. It might be a big sack."
"Was it a long sack?''
"Well, it could have been"
"What did you do with it?"
"Carried it in my lap."
"You didn't put it over in the back seat?"
"No." He said he wouldn't have done that.
"Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat."
He said, "Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up."
That is all he said about it.

JohnM

So it's what Fritz and Holmes claimed he said.... not much difference there.

Let's not forget that Fritz and Holmes were testifying months after the fact when they already knew there would never be a trial. They could have said anything they liked.