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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Hilarious! Common sense is just another word for assumption and wishful thinking, and that's exactly all you will ever have. Your opinions are not fact, evidence or proof!
Oh, so now you find forensic evidence to be dubious. What you assume isn't forensic evidence! You claiming that it is, is what is dubious.
You put absolute faith in the uncorroborated memories of a single witness and you find forensic evidence to be unreliable. When you begin to misrepresent what I actually said, you've already lost the argument. The fact that you clearly have an inability to understand what is written doesn't alter that fact.
Because his memory conflicts with the forensic evidence.Wrong! His memory about how Oswald carried the bag is clearly correct but conflicts with your opinion which you incorrectly call "forensic evidence"
Here is Frazier's initial affidavit:
https://jfk-online.com/frazier.html
If you have another source, by all means post it.Why would I need to post another source? In his affidavit, on 11/22/63 Frazier says;
"I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package."He repeated it when he talked to FBI agent Odum on 12/02/63 and he is still saying it to this day.
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. Just how much earlier than on the same day of the events should Frazier have made his statement?
In your opinion nothing will ever raise to the level of an established fact, because you simply don't want it to be.
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. Does this also apply to Earlene Roberts' statements about Oswald leaving the rooming house wearing a jacket? Or is it only limited to witnesses who say things you don't like?
