Buell Wesley Frazier

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Buell Wesley Frazier  (Read 517316 times)

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8172
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2018, 10:15:06 PM »

She lied to protect her brother. Then she lied for the rest of her life to protect her integrity.


Really?  And you know this how? You wouldn't just be giving us your biased opinion, would you?

And what about Buell Frazier.... he still stands by his first day testimony to this day. Is he lying also?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 10:17:29 PM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline John Anderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2018, 10:25:38 PM »
Call it biased opinion. Call it logic. Whatever. Makes no odds anyway. Unless one chooses to believe Oswald didn't take a rifle into the TSBD.

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8172
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2018, 10:37:08 PM »
Call it biased opinion. Call it logic. Whatever. Makes no odds anyway. Unless one chooses to believe Oswald didn't take a rifle into the TSBD.

Oh but it makes odds. This is some logic for you;

Without the paper bag being big enough you have no way to demonstrate that Oswald ever took a rifle into the TSBD.

So I guess you just choose to believe that Oswald brought the rifle into the TSBD regardless of the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence for it...

Offline Bob Prudhomme

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2018, 10:42:27 PM »
Oh but it makes odds. This is some logic for you;

Without the paper bag being big enough you have no way to demonstrate that Oswald ever took a rifle into the TSBD.

So I guess you just choose to believe that Oswald brought the rifle into the TSBD regardless of the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence for it...

They're not allowed to believe otherwise, Martin. Haven't you figured them out yet?

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8172
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2018, 10:57:31 PM »
They're not allowed to believe otherwise, Martin. Haven't you figured them out yet?

Well, it's surely remarkable how they "deal" with known facts.....

Offline John Anderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2018, 10:57:54 PM »
Oh but it makes odds. This is some logic for you;

Without the paper bag being big enough you have no way to demonstrate that Oswald ever took a rifle into the TSBD.

So I guess you just choose to believe that Oswald brought the rifle into the TSBD regardless of the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence for it...

I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and  he used it. Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.
OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.

Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. If there ever was any evidence of that it was destroyed years ago but anyone still claiming Oswald was a Patsy after all these years has a screw loose or they are just misinformed.

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8172
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2018, 11:07:55 PM »
I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and  he used it. Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.
OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.

Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. If there ever was any evidence of that it was destroyed years ago but anyone still claiming Oswald was a Patsy after all these years has a screw loose or they are just misinformed.

I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and  he used it.

Really?

Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.

It is of course far easier to just make unsubstantiated claims based on bias....

OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.

I agree with you. I too think he was guilty but I nevertheless agreed with the verdict of the jury because the prosecution failed to make it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The problem for you is that the Simpson case has nothing to do with the JFK murder, except of course for the comparison that the WC also failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit.

There is the biased opinion again.... Making such a claim without being able to back it up with even a shred of evidence makes you completely insignificant for this forum.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 11:16:06 PM by Martin Weidmann »