The Brown Paper Bag

[Michael Capasse]

Only Frazier said the package did fit under his arm. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable and do not establish anything as a fact. At the time he observed it, he had no reason to make a mental note whether the package fit under Oswald's arm or if it was up above his shoulder. It wouldn't have seemed the least bit important to him at the time. Why do you put so much faith in Frazier's accoun?

 
He doesn't need to pay attention to the bag to having had missed about 1 ft above the shoulder.
He knows what he saw:

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, like I say now, now I couldn't see much of the bag from him walking in front of me. Now he could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because I didn't see it from the front, The only time I did see it was from the back, just a little strip running down from your arm and so therefore, like that, I say, I know that the bag wouldn't be that long.

[John Corbett]

He doesn't need to pay attention to the bag to having had missed about 1 ft above the shoulder.
He knows what he saw:

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, like I say now, now I couldn't see much of the bag from him walking in front of me. Now he could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because I didn't see it from the front, The only time I did see it was from the back, just a little strip running down from your arm and so therefore, like that, I say, I know that the bag wouldn't be that long.

It is truly remarkable that you put 100% faith in Frazier perfectly remembering such a mundane detail and then turn around and treat the fiber evidence as if it is not probative at all. This is a perfect example of what I said earlier about you being really, really bad at weighing evidence. This is exactly the kind of detail an eyewitness would get wrong. People just aren't that observant about mundane details such as this. Our minds are not equipped with a DVR. We just don't take in every detail, especially something that at the time wouldn't have seemed the least bit important. Then you turnaround and act as if the matching fiber evidence isn't probative at all. It would be a truly remarkable coincidence if the fibers that were in the bag matched the fibers in Oswald's blanket if they had come from another source. Ditto for the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched his shirt. To argue for Oswald's innocence, it is necessary to believe the least likely explanation for dozens of pieces of evidence and disregard the most likely one.

If you don't believe me regarding how unreliable eyewitness testimony is, maybe you will believe people have actually studied this subject:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9451081/
https://legalclarity.org/what-percent-of-eyewitness-testimony-is-accurate/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661325000270

Here are some quotes from the above articles which pretty much says all that needs to be said about the reliability of witnesses:
"These numbers mean that eyewitness identification is useful but nowhere near the gold standard that jurors tend to treat it as."

"Work by Elizabeth Loftus and her colleagues in the 1970s showed that eyewitness memory, like any type of forensic evidence, can be contaminated [1]. For example, a true memory of a stop sign can be replaced by a false memory of a yield sign based on nothing more than a passing suggestion [2]. Later, in the 1990s, it became clear that it is even possible for someone to acquire detailed and emotional false memories of traumatic events that never happened"

One of the factors in witness reliability is how much time passes between the event and the testimony. Frazier was interviewed by the WC on July 23, 1964, a full 8 months after the assassination. The pictures you posted are not dated but based on Frazier's gray hair and the fact he was only 19 at the time of the assassination, I would gladly wager they were taken at least 50 years after the assassination. That gives a lot of time for memories to fade and false memories to take hold.

I have served on two juries in criminal trials. We convicted one person without relying on any eyewitness testimony at all, using only the forensic evidence to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The other was a murder trial in which the accused admit to the killing but claimed self defense. There was some eyewitness testimony but it wasn't crucial to our finding of guilt. We simply didn't believe the killer's claim of self defense.

If I again were to find myself on a jury in a criminal trial and the prosecution's case hinged on eyewitness testimony, I would vote to acquit unless there was compelling evidence to corroborate the eyewitness account. I simply do not have enough faith in eyewitness accounts to remove reasonable doubt without corroboration.

But you go on treating Frazier's memory as if it is gospel. It will continue to prevent you from knowing the truth of the JFKA.

You are certainly among the people who treat an eyewitness account as a gold standard of evidence.

[Michael Capasse]

It is truly remarkable that you put 100% faith in Frazier perfectly remembering such a mundane detail and then turn around and treat the fiber evidence as if it is not probative at all. This is a perfect example of what I said earlier about you being really, really bad at weighing evidence. This is exactly the kind of detail an eyewitness would get wrong. People just aren't that observant about mundane details such as this. Our minds are not equipped with a DVR. We just don't take in every detail, especially something that at the time wouldn't have seemed the least bit important. Then you turnaround and act as if the matching fiber evidence isn't probative at all. It would be a truly remarkable coincidence if the fibers that were in the bag matched the fibers in Oswald's blanket if they had come from another source. Ditto for the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched his shirt. To argue for Oswald's innocence, it is necessary to believe the least likely explanation for dozens of pieces of evidence and disregard the most likely one.

If you don't believe me regarding how unreliable eyewitness testimony is, maybe you will believe people have actually studied this subject:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9451081/
https://legalclarity.org/what-percent-of-eyewitness-testimony-is-accurate/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661325000270

Here are some quotes from the above articles which pretty much says all that needs to be said about the reliability of witnesses:
"These numbers mean that eyewitness identification is useful but nowhere near the gold standard that jurors tend to treat it as."

"Work by Elizabeth Loftus and her colleagues in the 1970s showed that eyewitness memory, like any type of forensic evidence, can be contaminated [1]. For example, a true memory of a stop sign can be replaced by a false memory of a yield sign based on nothing more than a passing suggestion [2]. Later, in the 1990s, it became clear that it is even possible for someone to acquire detailed and emotional false memories of traumatic events that never happened"

One of the factors in witness reliability is how much time passes between the event and the testimony. Frazier was interviewed by the WC on July 23, 1964, a full 8 months after the assassination. The pictures you posted are not dated but based on Frazier's gray hair and the fact he was only 19 at the time of the assassination, I would gladly wager they were taken at least 50 years after the assassination. That gives a lot of time for memories to fade and false memories to take hold.

I have served on two juries in criminal trials. We convicted one person without relying on any eyewitness testimony at all, using only the forensic evidence to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The other was a murder trial in which the accused admit to the killing but claimed self defense. There was some eyewitness testimony but it wasn't crucial to our finding of guilt. We simply didn't believe the killer's claim of self defense.

If I again were to find myself on a jury in a criminal trial and the prosecution's case hinged on eyewitness testimony, I would vote to acquit unless there was compelling evidence to corroborate the eyewitness account. I simply do not have enough faith in eyewitness accounts to remove reasonable doubt without corroboration.

But you go on treating Frazier's memory as if it is gospel. It will continue to prevent you from knowing the truth of the JFKA.

You are certainly among the people who treat an eyewitness account as a gold standard of evidence.

There is no need to respond to any of this.
Buell Wesley Frazier knew exactly what he saw and refused to identify the bag allegedly found upstairs.

[Martin Weidmann]

Roberts was obviously wrong about the shade of the jacket, but she was undoubtedly correct when she said Oswald was zipping it up when he left the rooming house.

Two men who saw a man walking towards the Tippit murder scene shortly before it happened said the man was wearing a light-colored jacket.

ME: Did anyone say that the man who was seen walking in the direction of the Tippit murder before it happened was wearing a jacket?

GROK: Yes, at least two witnesses—Jimmy Earl Burt (also referred to as Jimmy Burke in some accounts) and William Arthur Smith—described seeing a man walking west on East 10th Street toward Patton Avenue shortly before the Tippit shooting, and both noted he was wearing a jacket.

Jimmy Earl Burt (interviewed by FBI on December 16, 1963): He saw a white male, approximately 5'8", walking west on 10th Street. The man was wearing a light-colored short jacket. Burt observed him continue toward Patton, approach Tippit’s car, and later flee after the shooting. He was 50–60 yards away at the closest point.

William Arthur Smith (interviewed by FBI on December 13, 1963; with Burt at the time on a porch at ~505 E. 10th): He described the same man as a white male, about 5'7"–5'8", 20–25 years old, 150–160 lbs., wearing a white shirt, light brown jacket, and dark pants. Smith also saw the interaction with Tippit and the shooting.

These accounts place the man walking west (opposite the Warren Commission’s preferred eastbound narrative, which relied heavily on Helen Markham). Both men withheld initial statements from police due to personal legal issues (Burt was AWOL from the Army; Smith on probation), but their FBI interviews provide consistent pre-shooting clothing details matching the general description of the light/grayish zipper-style Eisenhower jacket later found and linked to the case.

Context with Other Witnesses

Helen Markham (the main Warren Commission witness for the shooting itself) saw the man walking and described a light short jacket, open in front, grayish tan during the incident.

Domingo Benavides (closest witness) saw the shooter post-incident wearing a light-beige, lightweight zipper-type jacket similar to the one recovered (CE 162).

These pre- and immediate post-shooting jacket descriptions align with the gray zipper jacket found in a parking lot along the escape route (linked via fibers to Oswald’s shirt), though debates persist over exact color, fit, origin, and whether it definitively belonged to the shooter or Oswald. Witnesses like Burt and Smith provide direct evidence of a jacket on the walking man before the confrontation.

This comes from FBI interviews, Warren Commission materials, and analyses of Tippit case evidence. Discrepancies in direction, timing, and descriptions have fueled ongoing discussion.

ME: How does researcher Bill Brown, who believes Oswald was the man that Earl Burt and Jimmy Burke saw, explain the fact that they saw him walking in a direction that contradicted the Warren Commission's determination?

GROK: Bill Brown (a prominent lone-assassin researcher and frequent poster on JFK assassination forums like The Education Forum) reconciles the westbound sighting by Jimmy Earl Burt (aka Jimmy Burke) and William Arthur Smith with Oswald as the shooter through a detailed timeline reconstruction involving a brief reversal of direction by Oswald.

Brown accepts Burt and Smith’s FBI interviews and later statements (e.g., Burt’s 1968 interview with Al Chapman) as credible: from their porch at the northeast corner of 10th and Denver (~two blocks east of Patton), they saw a man (whom Brown identifies as Oswald) walking west on East 10th Street, crossing Denver, and continuing west toward Patton shortly before Tippit’s car pulled alongside him. Gunshots followed moments later.

To explain why this westbound observation contradicts the Warren Commission’s eastbound narrative (primarily based on Helen Markham’s account of the man approaching from the west/east on 10th before the stop), Brown proposes—and supports with on-site time trials (conducted May 4, 2024, with researchers Frank Badalson and Dave Ledbetter)—that Oswald did not walk a straight east-to-west path the entire way:

Oswald reached the 10th Street area and continued east past Denver toward the curve in 10th Street near Jefferson.

Near 10th and Jefferson, he spotted Sheriff’s Deputy Unit 109 (or another law-enforcement vehicle) and reversed direction, turning around and walking west back toward Patton.

Burt and Smith observed this westbound leg (after the U-turn).

Tippit, driving west on 10th, then pulled over and confronted him near 10th and Patton while Oswald was still heading west.

Brown’s time trials demonstrate this fits the overall timeline: e.g., walking east from the shooting site (10th/Patton) to the curve beyond Denver and back takes ~4 minutes 16 seconds total, placing Oswald at the confrontation around 1:15:16 p.m. (consistent with other evidence). It also aligns with Burt/Smith’s post-shooting movements (running to the scene then pursuing south on Patton and west into the alley, seeing the fleeing man near the Texaco station where the jacket was found).

In Brown’s view, this minor adjustment (a short east-then-west jog prompted by spotting police) explains the pre-shooting westbound descriptions from Burt, Smith, and others (e.g., bricklayers at 500 E. 10th) without requiring Oswald to have originated from farther east (like Marsalis, which would break the timing). It preserves Oswald as the man they saw and the shooter, while treating the Warren Commission’s eastbound emphasis as an oversimplification based on incomplete witness weighting rather than a fatal contradiction.

Brown has elaborated on these points across multiple Education Forum threads (often in response to conspiracy-oriented critiques), emphasizing witness consistency on the westbound sighting when paired with his reconstructed timeline. He contrasts this with what he sees as flawed conspiracy arguments that treat the direction discrepancy as proof of a second gunman or frame-up.

Question: When Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater, why wasn't he wearing the jacket that Roberts saw him zipping up about half-an-hour earlier?

Answer: He tossed it under 1954 Oldsmobile about two blocks from where he'd murdered Tippit.

All of the evidence that you think (sic) were either really weird coincidences or fabricated and planted by the evil, evil bad guys.

Roberts was obviously wrong about the shade of the jacket, but she was undoubtedly correct when she said Oswald was zipping it up when he left the rooming house.

This is just about the most pathetic way to try and solve the problems with Roberts' statements about the jacket.

Without any kind of sound explanation you simple say she was wrong about the color of the jacket but right about Oswald leaving the rooming house wearing a jacket.

You are making those determinations based on absolutely nothing and for self-serving purposes. This is classic LN BS. Rather than dealing with the evidence honestly, you just twist and turn to make it fit the preferred narrative. It's exactly what the WC did time after time!

Two men who saw a man walking towards the Tippit murder scene shortly before it happened said the man was wearing a light-colored jacket.

Oh no, you don't! You don't get to work backwards and assume that the man who was seen wearing a light-colored jacket must have been Oswald. If Oswald didn't leave the rooming house wearing a jacket then the two men must have seen somebody else and not Oswald.

There is no reason for me to reply to anything else in your post and it simply is more of the same silly "working backward" reasoning.

All of the evidence that you think (sic) were either really weird coincidences or fabricated and planted by the evil, evil bad guys.

So, because the defenders of the faith have created their own narrative, in which evidence is misrepresented, not authenticated and problems are resolved by simply picking the explanation that works the best for the narrative, any unpleasant questions asked about evidence must be about fabricated and planted evidence.

All you have shown with your post is that you are completely unable to honestly deal with the actual evidence and clearly live in an alternative reality!

[Tom Graves]

Roberts was obviously wrong about the shade of the jacket, but she was undoubtedly correct when she said Oswald was zipping it up when he left the rooming house.

This is just about the most pathetic way to try and solve the problems with Roberts' statements about the jacket.

Without any kind of sound explanation you simple say she was wrong about the color of the jacket but right about Oswald leaving the rooming house wearing a jacket.

You are making those determinations based on absolutely nothing and for self-serving purposes. This is classic LN BS. Rather than dealing with the evidence honestly, you just twist and turn to make it fit the preferred narrative. It's exactly what the WC did time after time!

Two men who saw a man walking towards the Tippit murder scene shortly before it happened said the man was wearing a light-colored jacket.

Oh no, you don't! You don't get to work backwards and assume that the man who was seen wearing a light-colored jacket must have been Oswald. If Oswald didn't leave the rooming house wearing a jacket then the two men must have seen somebody else and not Oswald.

There is no reason for me to reply to anything else in your post and it simply is more of the same silly "working backward" reasoning.

All of the evidence that you think (sic) were either really weird coincidences or fabricated and planted by the evil, evil bad guys.

So, because the defenders of the faith have created their own narrative, in which evidence is misrepresented, not authenticated and problems are resolved by simply picking the explanation that works the best for the narrative, any unpleasant questions asked about evidence must be about fabricated and planted evidence.

All you have shown with your post is that you are completely unable to honestly deal with the actual evidence and clearly live in an alternative reality!

She correctly remembered that he was not wearing a jacket when he arrived at the rooming house, and that he was wearing a jacket and was in the act of zipping it up when he left the rooming house.

Get over it.

[John Corbett]

There is no need to respond to any of this.
Buell Wesley Frazier knew exactly what he saw and refused to identify the bag allegedly found upstairs.

You can't refute what I've written about the unreliability of eyewitnesses, so you just decide to take your ball and go home.

Probably your best move given the circumstances.

[Martin Weidmann]

You complete misstate the issue with fibers. Fibers can be matched to an item. They cannot prove with absolute certainty that a fiber can from a particular item because it is theoretically possible it came from an item with the same type of fibers. it would be a truly amazing coincidence if the fibers in the bag came from a different item with the same kind of fibers. The match is highly probative that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket.

Ditto for the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched Oswald's shirt. What are the odds that there would be a match to both Oswald's shirt and blanket if the fibers hadn't come from those items.

This is where the concept of probative comes into play for conspiracy hobbyists. As long as there is a theoretical chance of an alternative explanation that does not incriminate Oswald, no matter how remote the likelihood, that's gives them the excuse they need to completely dismiss a piece of evidence. If it isn't 100% conclusive, it doesn't mean a thing to them.

You complete misstate the issue with fibers. Fibers can be matched to an item.

Utter BS. At best fibers can be deemed to be similar.

They cannot prove with absolute certainty that a fiber can from a particular item because it is theoretically possible it came from an item with the same type of fibers.

Hilarious! So, now you confirm that fibers can indeed not be matched to a specific item with any kind of certainty.

it would be a truly amazing coincidence if the fibers in the bag came from a different item with the same kind of fibers.

So, now we are reduced to a conclusion based on your opinion that it would be a truly amazing concidence if the fibers came from elsewhere.

This is what FBI fiber expert Stombaugh had to say on the subject of fibers;

Mr. DULLES. Or the paper bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Or the paper bag; no, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just one further question. You said something like, "It was possible the fibers could have come from the shirt." Could you estimate the degree of probability that the fibers came from the shirt, the fibers in the butt plate?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, this is difficult because we don't know how many different shirts were made out of this same type of fabric, or for that matter how many identical shirts are in existence.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I gather that, and correct me if I am wrong, that in your area as opposed to the fingerprint area, you prefer to present the facts rather than draw conclusions as to probabilities, is that correct?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. I have been asked this question many times. There are some experts who will say well, the chances are 1 in 1,000, this, that, and the other, and everyone who had said that and been brought to our attention we have been able to prove them wrong, insofar as application to our fiber problems is concerned.
Mr. EISENBERG. You mean prove them wrong in terms of their mathematics?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."

And yet, here you are disagreeing with Stombaugh and making up your own reality!

The match is highly probative that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket.

And now we are back to the beginning again. There is nothing probative about fibers. Any claim about a positive match in a court of law would be destroyed by a fibers expert like Stombaugh.

But even if you are right and the fibers did come from the blanket, there's still the matter of evidence photos showing the bag and the blanket next to eachother at the DPD evidence room and at the FBI lab. Even worse, in the night after the assassination, FBI agent Vincent Drain carried the evidence from Dallas to Washington in a paper bag! Now, if you want to speculate about fibers, just how big is the possibility of cross contamination?

A honest person would instantly agree that the possibility of cross contamination alone maked the fiber evidence worthless. A dishonest biased LN with an agenda would of course disagree.