Buell Wesley Frazier

[Michael Capasse]

CTers try to frame the evidence in this case as to have a similar effect as looking into the wrong end of telescope.  Just because we do not have a time machine that allows us to witness Oswald obtaining the materials and constructing the bag, that does not negate the bags existence, its connection to Oswald, its presence on the 6th floor next to the SN, and the obvious conclusions that can be drawn from this evidence.

It's a shame you can't put two things together to prove that.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

CTers try to frame the evidence in this case as to have a similar effect as looking into the wrong end of telescope.  Just because we do not have a time machine that allows us to witness Oswald obtaining the materials and constructing the bag, that does not negate the bags existence, its connection to Oswald, its presence on the 6th floor next to the SN, and the obvious conclusions that can be drawn from this evidence.

I can't think of any event, any other constroversial incident where we try and reconstruct what happened, where these types of demands are made. At least in good faith. We don't have these standards in a court of law. Historians don't use them. If we did then we'd have to empty our prisons and our libraries.

Meanwhile, every bizarre conspiracy claim in the world - the films were altered, the evidence planted, Oswald impersonated - is thrown out without the slightest examination.

These people are making me root for that asteroid.

[Martin Weidmann]

The little details that will never be known with any certainty are not a part of what the inferences from the totality of the evidence tell us. I was just making a point that there are some alternate possibilities to taking the rifle apart and re-assembling it. That’s all.

Yeah, but calling the inferences from the totality of the evidence "reasonable" is in fact not reasonable at all, as there is not a shred of evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.
All we really know is that Marina said she saw a rifle about a week after her return from New Orleans, which means that nobody saw that rifle for nearly two months before the assassination.

As for the paper bag, all we know is that an FBI expert said there were two prints belonging to Oswald on the bag, which, if you think about it, is by itself already strange, because he is supposed to have made the bag and have taken it to Irving.
His prints should have been all over that bag. Add to this that Frazier was shown the TSBD bag on Friday evening and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen.

What kind of "reasonable inference" can you make from that "evidence"?

[Richard Smith]

It's a shame you can't put two things together to prove that.

This is some type of incomplete sentence fragment.  What are you taking issue with?  The bag exists.  It had Oswald's prints on it.  It was found next to the SN which also had Oswald's prints.  No other person in the TSBD ever explained a work-related purpose for that homemade bag to be left next to the SN or otherwise claimed ownership of it.  Oswald carried a long bag to work that morning.  No such bag other than the one found with his prints on it was ever found in the TSBD.  Oswald's rifle was left on the same floor.  Oswald lied about carrying any long bag and instead said he had his lunch.  Why lie if it contained curtain rods or anything other than the rifle?  And on and on.  The totality of facts and circumstances lends itself to the conclusion that Oswald carried this bag that morning and that it contained his rifle. 

[Michael Capasse]

It had Oswald's prints on it. 

but not consistent with how he carried the bag.

It was found next to the SN which also had Oswald's prints.

No photo of it where it was actually found

It was found next to the SN which also had Oswald's prints.

Oswald's prints are expected on boxes - he picks orders all day

No other person in the TSBD ever explained a work-related purpose for that homemade bag to be left next to the SN or otherwise claimed ownership of it. 

I'm not aware of any TSBD employee that saw the bag.

No such bag other than the one found with his prints on it was ever found in the TSBD.

Still, not proof this was the bag Frazier saw

Oswald's rifle was left on the same floor. 

a rifle was left on the floor

Oswald lied about carrying any long bag and instead said he had his lunch. 

Assumption that cannot be confirmed based on incomplete interrogation notes.

Why lie if it contained curtain rods or anything other than the rifle?

I don't know. Those are the stories you like to make up.

The totality of facts and circumstances lends itself to the conclusion that Oswald carried this bag that morning and that it contained his rifle.

Actually it lends itself to the conclusion that, the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald is broken and inconsistent.

[Jack Nessan]

How do u prove that?

Really? Rifle is 40 inches long - how long is the bag?

Mr. BALL - When you cupped the bottom of your package in the hands, will you stand up, again, please,
and the upper part of the package is not under the armpit, the top of the package extends almost up to the level of your ear.

Mr. FRAZIER - Right

How do u prove that?

Linnie's description of how LHO was held the bag and location of prints on the bag.

Mr. BALL.. What was he carrying? 
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it. 
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he? 
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right. 
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package? 
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that. 
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir. 

Really? Rifle is 40 inches long - how long is the bag?

Tony and Colin had that right.

38" bag and 4" flap. Left open at the bottom. The rifle does not need to be disassembled.

[Michael Capasse]

38" bag and 4" flap. Left open at the bottom. The rifle does not need to be disassembled.

Tony Fratini: The size of the taped flap at one end was approximately 3 inches, meaning the paper was initially long enough (41 inches)
to completely conceal a fully assembled CE 139 with the scope. - Tony's thread is at JFK Boards: https://jfk.boards.net/post/153/thread
Just as it was on this forum 7 years ago. Some of the pictures have fallen down, bit it is still an excellent reference.

The problem is Frazier saw a bag tucked under the arm. The two men had to walk from the auxiliary lot to the building
Frazier said at one point, Lee was about 50 feet ahead of him. How does one carry a 41 inch package (I assume is what you mean)
with a bit of pipe sticking out the top?  >>>and have it tucked under his arm.

He didn't pay attention to the bag? blah blah blah?

Frazier: "Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me
that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word."

...because the size of the package he saw did NOT rise above the shoulder, and gave him no reason to think of anything otherwise.
How about the figure of a soldier carrying what obviously would have looked like a rifle. In the palm of his hand, it would be rested on his shoulder and up to his ear.