The Brown Paper Bag

[Michael Capasse]

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

Here's Frazier on 11/22 and for the next 60+ years:
"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."   https://jfk-online.com/frazier.html

He doesn't need to be a "super witness" to know exactly what he saw and it is not every detail.
It is very specific and consistent. You're the one that continues to deny that.

[Martin Weidmann]

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?

[John Corbett]

Here's Frazier on 11/22 and for the next 60+ years:
"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."   https://jfk-online.com/frazier.html

He doesn't need to be a "super witness" to know exactly what he saw and it is not every detail.
It is very specific and consistent. You're the one that continues to deny that.

You are reading more into his statement that is there. Carrying the package under his arm does not preclude the top end sticking up above his shoulder. Frazier was non-specific about what parts of the package you could or couldn't see.

[Martin Weidmann]

You are reading more into his statement that is there. Carrying the package under his arm does not preclude the top end sticking up above his shoulder. Frazier was non-specific about what parts of the package you could or couldn't see.

You do understand that if the bag contained a broken down rifle and the package was held by Oswald in the cup of his hand, the top of the package would have reached higher than Oswald's head?

Frazier said he couldn't see "much of the package". Go figure...

The desperate way that you try to exclude Frazier's statements is a clear indication that you already know that you've lost the argument. Now all you need to do is accept it!

[Michael Capasse]

You are reading more into his statement that is there. Carrying the package under his arm does not preclude the top end sticking up above his shoulder.

WHAT ??

[Jack Nessan]

Here's Frazier on 11/22 and for the next 60+ years:
"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."   https://jfk-online.com/frazier.html

He doesn't need to be a "super witness" to know exactly what he saw and it is not every detail.
It is very specific and consistent. You're the one that continues to deny that.

What about Linnie Mae Randle or doesn't her statement and testimony count?

[Michael Capasse]

What about Linnie Mae Randle or doesn't her statement and testimony count?

What about it?
Her statements conflict with her testimony.

[John Corbett]

What about Linnie Mae Randle or doesn't her statement and testimony count?

If one witness can be wrong, two can be wrong. There is also the very reel possibility that Frazier and his sister discussed the bag between themselves which could have influenced their recollections.

The simple reality is neither of the two had any reason to estimate the length of the package at the time they observed it. They were only asked to estimate the length of the package from memory some time later.