The Brown Paper Bag

[John Mytton]

What medication are you on?

 




JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

JohnM

So it includes hallucinogens....  Good to know 

[John Corbett]

You're right, I can't refute what you've written about the unreliability of eyewitnesses
But in Frazier's case he knew exactly what he saw and was very clear and specific about it

You have failed to make your point.  I don't know what that means.

Being specific is not the same as being accurate. Our minds remember some things and not others so we try to fill in the blanks as best we can which leads to inaccurate memories. There is no reason to believe Frazier had greater powers of perception than the rest of us. I'm sure in his mind he was being truthful about what he testified to but like the rest of us, he didn't remember every detail exactly. He got the part about Oswald cupping the bottom of the bag in his palm. We know that because that's where his palm print was. He didn't notice the bag extended several inches above Oswald's shoulder. We know that because the bag was found with Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it and its measured length of 38 inches would not have allowed him to tuck the top end under his armpit.

As the articles I posted pointed out, over time we develop false memories about an event. We get parts of it right and parts of it wrong. You have given us no reason to believe Frazier was any more reliable than any other witnesses. You choose to believe him because you want to believe Oswald was innocent and accepting Frazier's testimony as 100% accurate provides you with the excuse to dismiss a very damning piece of evidence of his guilt. Using unreliable eyewitness testimony to trump very reliable forensic evidence is a very dubious practice.

[Martin Weidmann]

Being specific is not the same as being accurate. Our minds remember some things and not others so we try to fill in the blanks as best we can which leads to inaccurate memories. There is no reason to believe Frazier had greater powers of perception than the rest of us. I'm sure in his mind he was being truthful about what he testified to but like the rest of us, he didn't remember every detail exactly. He got the part about Oswald cupping the bottom of the bag in his palm. We know that because that's where his palm print was. He didn't notice the bag extended several inches above Oswald's shoulder. We know that because the bag was found with Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it and its measured length of 38 inches would not have allowed him to tuck the top end under his armpit.

As the articles I posted pointed out, over time we develop false memories about an event. We get parts of it right and parts of it wrong. You have given us no reason to believe Frazier was any more reliable than any other witnesses. You choose to believe him because you want to believe Oswald was innocent and accepting Frazier's testimony as 100% accurate provides you with the excuse to dismiss a very damning piece of evidence of his guilt. Using unreliable eyewitness testimony to trump very reliable forensic evidence is a very dubious practice.

You will never understand or accept that you can not put the bag allegedly found on the 6th floor in Oswald's hand on Friday morning. You just assume it is and call it "very reliable forensic evidence".
If you want to talk about a very dubious practice, this is it!

There is no reason to believe Frazier had greater powers of perception than the rest of us. I'm sure in his mind he was being truthful about what he testified to but like the rest of us, he didn't remember every detail exactly.

How do you know for a fact that he didn't remember every detail exactly? Or is it just wishful thinking?

As the articles I posted pointed out, over time we develop false memories about an event.

Frazier told FBI agent Odum on 12/02/63 that he "observed that Oswald had his package under his right arm, one end of the package being under his armpit and the other end apparently held with his right fingers". You are of course aware of this, right?

[Martin Weidmann]

Duplicate

[Michael Capasse]

Being specific is not the same as being accurate. Our minds remember some things and not others so we try to fill in the blanks as best we can which leads to inaccurate memories. There is no reason to believe Frazier had greater powers of perception than the rest of us. I'm sure in his mind he was being truthful about what he testified to but like the rest of us, he didn't remember every detail exactly. He got the part about Oswald cupping the bottom of the bag in his palm. We know that because that's where his palm print was. He didn't notice the bag extended several inches above Oswald's shoulder. We know that because the bag was found with Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it and its measured length of 38 inches would not have allowed him to tuck the top end under his armpit.

As the articles I posted pointed out, over time we develop false memories about an event. We get parts of it right and parts of it wrong. You have given us no reason to believe Frazier was any more reliable than any other witnesses. You choose to believe him because you want to believe Oswald was innocent and accepting Frazier's testimony as 100% accurate provides you with the excuse to dismiss a very damning piece of evidence of his guilt. Using unreliable eyewitness testimony to trump very reliable forensic evidence is a very dubious practice.

Too bad it just doesn't apply to Frazier in this case.
  He knew exactly what he saw. You misrepresent that to match your preset conclusions.

[John Corbett]

You will never understand or accept that you can not put the bag allegedly found on the 6th floor in Oswald's hand on Friday morning.

To put the bag in Oswald's hands you need two things. Common sense and the ability to compute the answer to 2 +2. I have that cability.

You just assume it is and call it "very reliable forensic evidence".
If you want to talk about a very dubious practice, this is it!

Oh, so now you find forensic evidence to be dubious. You put absolute faith in the uncorroborated memories of a single witness and you find forensic evidence to be unreliable. Now wonder you can't figure out a double murder case that was so open and shut that the DPD had solved in the first 12 hours.

There is no reason to believe Frazier had greater powers of perception than the rest of us. I'm sure in his mind he was being truthful about what he testified to but like the rest of us, he didn't remember every detail exactly.

How do you know for a fact that he didn't remember every detail exactly? Or is it just wishful thinking?

Because his memory conflicts with the forensic evidence. Your inability to weigh evidence causes you to put complete faith in eyewitness recollections and reject forensic evidence which has long been accepted by the courts as admissable.

As the articles I posted pointed out, over time we develop false memories about an event.

Frazier told FBI agent Odum on 12/02/63 that he "observed that Oswald had his package under his right arm, one end of the package being under his armpit and the other end apparently held with his right fingers". You are of course aware of this, right?

Here is Frazier's initial affidavit:
https://jfk-online.com/frazier.html

If you have another source, by all means post it.

If Frazier did make his statement about how Oswald carried the bag earlier, that would give it a bit more weight than his WC testimony but that still doesn't raise it to the level of established fact. Even eyewitness accounts taken in the immediate aftermath of an event can be less than accurate and they just get even more inaccurate over the course of time.

[John Corbett]

Too bad it just doesn't apply to Frazier in this case.
  He knew exactly what he saw. You misrepresent that to match your preset conclusions.

Why would these findings about eyewitnesses in general not apply to Frazier. What reason do you have to believe Frazier is some kind of super witness who remembers every detail with absolute accuracy?