That's easy. Will these get harder as we go?
If it is so easy, why can't you answer the question?
You didn't ask a question. You stated an obvious fact.
{quote]
It could have been anytime that week but Thursday seems the most likely. He could have made it during the lunch break or any time he knew the wrapping station would be unattended.The bag had creases in it so we know it was folded. It could easily have been tucked in his jacket without Frazier seeing it. Had it been discovered, he could have just told Frazier it was for the curtain rods he was going to get.I'm guessing you meant to say until the next morning. We don't know what time he put the rifle in the bag but if it was me, I wouldn't have waited until the last minute. I would have done it the night before after everyone went to bed.
None of that would have been difficult Yup. [/quote]
You are deliberately missing the point. The question was how anybody could handle that bag in the way described and only leave one partial print?
[/quote]
"Longevity on Porous Surfaces
Porous materials, such as paper, cardboard, untreated wood, and fabric, absorb the oils and sweat from fingerprints, which can make the prints less visible initially but sometimes more stable within the material itself. On such surfaces, fingerprints may fade within hours or days under normal conditions, especially if exposed to moisture, heat, or physical handling."
If you don't like my source, you are free to provide your own.
It's never been established the top of the bag was tucked under his armpit.
Except for the fact that the only witness who actually saw it said so. You just don't like it. On the other hand you have not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the 6th floor bag instead, and there you are instantly accepting that as "fact" when it clearly is anything but!
If only you could prove that one witness accurately remembered what he saw.
Oswald on the other hand did leave prints on the bag on the 6th floor so we know he handled it.
So?
A killer leaving evidence behind at the crime scene when he easily could have disposed of it and made it disappear, actually makes sense to you?
Since he left his rifle behind, I see no reason he would be concerned about doing the same with the bag.
[quote
A polygraph can indicate if a person is saying something he knows to be untrue. It measures stress through blood pressure, breathing rate, and a galvanic skit response. If he person believes he is telling the truth, even if he is wrong, there's no reason to think he will show stress.Oh boy. Polygraphs are far from perfect,
[/quote]
So why did you cite it as evidence Frazier was accurate in his description of the bag.
I'll grant you that. But in this case we're dealing with a 19 years old kid who was arrested as a possible suspect in the murder of the President.
If that didn't produce stress, nothing would. Frazier doesn't have to believe he is telling the truth. He just has to tell the truth and when he did he had Lt Day in a massive panic.
That's why the people doing the polygraph test establish a baseline for how nervous the person is to begin with. They look for spikes in the three measurements for indications of deceit.
See above. For Frazier to pass the polygraph, he only had to fool himself which he apparently did.
And you have of course evidence that Frazier fooled himself? Either that or you're full of it!
I know he got the description of the bag wrong and still passed the polygraph which indicates to me he believed his mistaken recollection about the size of the bag.
Exactly which is why we wouldn't expect Frazier to show any stress if he BELIEVED he was telling the truth.
So, a 19 year old arrested innocently as a suspect for killing the President is somebody you wouldn't expect to show stress. What planet do you live on?
I've already explained that to you. The subject is started off with mundane questions to establish a base line for his stress level. It's when there are spikes in the stress level that indicate willful deceit.
Again, all Frazier had to do is tell the truth and that's what he did.
As best he remembered it. That doesn't establish he remembered what he saw correctly. It's very common for eyewitnesses to get details wrong, especially when the detail wouldn't have seemed important at the time it was observed.
And that's why he passed the polygraph. You seem to imply that he was lying but somehow believed he told the truth about a paper bag? Really?
A lie is when you knowingly tell a falsehood. I'm sure Frazier honestly believes what he said he saw. He just didn't accurately remember what he saw. Very common for eyewitnesses to do that. That's been explained to you many times but you refuse to accept that.
I took a polygraph as a condition for employment once. I was asked a number of mundane questions to establish a baseline for my anxiety level. A polygraph shows spikes in the stress level when a person knowingly lies.
This tells me nothing of any significance. But if I understand your argument it is that Frazier lied without knowing that he was lying? What a crock! All this really shows is that you are completely unable to weigh evidence honestly, because your massive bias gets in the way!
[/quote]
You still don't get it. Being honestly mistaken about something is not the same as lying. I never accused Frazier of lying. Why do you keep insisting that I have.
Still relying on Frazier to establish the characteristics of a bag he only glance at.
Of course. And you rely on the fact that he was wrong without actually any evidence for it, except of course your "opinion"
And the bag that was actually found on the 6th floor that was significantly longer than Frazier remembered.
Whoever handled that makeshift bag managed to do so while only puting a partial finger print and palm print on the bag. Why couldn't that someone have been the guy who left the prints.
No. If Oswald didn't make the bag, it was made by somebody else who did not leave any prints on the bag that were ever found, possibly because he wore gloves.
I've already cited a source that indicates prints on a porous surface can disappear in a matter of hours. Oswald would likely have taken the rifle out of the bag sometime around noon. That is the last time he was known to have handled it.
Have you ever read the reports about how Lt Day freaked out after Frazier passed the polygraph and confimed that the bag he had seen was a flimsy supermarket bag?
No I haven't. Do you have a reliable source for those reports?
As yourself why Day freaked out like that and when you come up with an answer, let me know.
I will as soon as you establish Day freaked out.
It has always amazed me how LNs have the audacity to think they know more about events they never witnessed than the people who were actually there.
Because the accounts of people who were there often conflict with the forensic evidence. I place far more faith in the latter.
