Buell Wesley Frazier

[John Mytton]

How bizarre, I don't need a shred of evidence to know that the sun will rise in the morning or will set in the evening, it's a given.

Just how pathetic can you get? A rifle being in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63 is not a given, so, yes, you need to present at least a shred of actual evidence that it was there, instead of trying to weasel out of it!

Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage.

Strike two: you haven't got a clue what Oswald knew or not!

And don't forget the very same blanket with the cord still tied to it, was empty on the afternoon of the assassination.

Wow... that's powerful evidence of just how ignorant you really are. An empty blanket that, according to Micheal Paine, could easily have contained camping equipment was found empty by people who were clueless about how long the blanket had been empty. In the real world, an empty blanket found in a garage is evidence of an empty blanket being in that garage and nothing more

And guess where the rifle was found on the afternoon of the very same day!

What rifle would that be? Once again you are making silly claims that you can not support by actual evidence!

I'm not even going to bother with what Rose, Stovall and Adamcik said, because not one of them actually saw a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage!

When all you have is an empty blanket that, in the opinion of Gus Rose, "had the outline of a rifle", you really haven't got anything at all.

BTW for someone who is vigorously defending Oswald, you haven't been doing a very good job, the mountain of evidence still stands just as tall today as it has for every day for over 60 years.

Thank you for sharing your biased opinion.

Now, let's try to go back to evidence that actually would be accepted in court. What is your evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.
And please try not to display you utter ignorance and duplicity this time around!

Yawn! This is getting tiresome.
Let's put the combined knowledge of CT's 60+ years defence of Oswald to the test.

Q. Is it Oswald's rifle and was it used in the assassination?

Prosecution: Yes. Oswald wrote an order, Oswald paid for the order, Kleins processed the order and Kleins sent the order to Oswald's PO box, Oswald was proven to have been holding the same weapon as sent, the rifle was stored in a blanket, the same blanket was empty the afternoon of the assassination, Oswald was seen carrying a long brown package to work, the long brown package was discovered in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints, the eyewitness to this bag repeatedly says he "never payed attention to the bag", the rifle was found at Oswald's place of employment, 3 expended shells matching the rifle was found in the sniper's nest, the only recovered bullet fragments belonged to Oswald's rifle and Oswald's prints were on the rifle.

CT's: No. Oswald's order was forged, Kleins forged their microfilm records, the money order was forged and planted in the Federal reserve(yes really LOL!), the backyard photos are fake, Oswald's rifle was never at the Paine residence, de Mohrenschildt lied about the rifle at Neely street, Oswald's rifle was planted in the TSBD, the bag was manufactured by the Dallas Police, the prints on the bag were planted, the shells were planted, the bullet fragments were planted, Oswald's dead hand supplied the palm print. Need I go on?

Analysis: the prosecution has a powerful indisputable case whereas the CT's are relying on an unprovable mountain of lies, manipulation and deception from multiple unconnected actors, geez what a bunch of desperate losers!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Yawn! This is getting tiresome.
Let's put the combined knowledge of CT's 60+ years defence of Oswald to the test.

Q. Is it Oswald's rifle and was it used in the assassination?

Prosecution: Yes. Oswald wrote an order, Oswald paid for the order, Kleins processed the order and Kleins sent the order to Oswald's PO box, Oswald was proven to have been holding the same weapon as sent, the rifle was stored in a blanket, the same blanket was empty the afternoon of the assassination, Oswald was seen carrying a long brown package to work, the long brown package was discovered in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints, the eyewitness to this bag repeatedly says he "never payed attention to the bag", the rifle was found at Oswald's place of employment, 3 expended shells matching the rifle was found in the sniper's nest, the only recovered bullet fragments belonged to Oswald's rifle and Oswald's prints were on the rifle.

CT's: No. Oswald's order was forged, Kleins forged their microfilm records, the money order was forged and planted in the Federal reserve(yes really LOL!), the backyard photos are fake, Oswald's rifle was never at the Paine residence, de Mohrenschildt lied about the rifle at Neely street, Oswald's rifle was planted in the TSBD, the bag was manufactured by the Dallas Police, the prints on the bag were planted, the shells were planted, the bullet fragments were planted, Oswald's dead hand supplied the palm print. Need I go on?

Analysis: the prosecution has a powerful indisputable case whereas the CT's are relying on an unprovable mountain of lies, manipulation and deception from multiple unconnected actors, geez what a bunch of desperate losers!

JohnM

Yawn! This is getting tiresome.

I'm sure it must be for you, being utterly unable to convince anybody of the BS you're posting.

What's actually the most important is that all your song and dance routine proves is that you haven't got a shred of evidence that there was a rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.

Q. Is it Oswald's rifle and was it used in the assassination?`

Prosecution: Yes. Oswald wrote an order, Oswald paid for the order, Kleins processed the order and Kleins sent the order to Oswald's PO box, Oswald was proven to have been holding the same weapon as sent, the rifle was stored in a blanket, the same blanket was empty the afternoon of the assassination, Oswald was seen carrying a long brown package to work, the long brown package was discovered in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints, the eyewitness to this bag repeatedly says he "never payed attention to the bag", the rifle was found at Oswald's place of employment, 3 expended shells matching the rifle was found in the sniper's nest, the only recovered bullet fragments belonged to Oswald's rifle and Oswald's prints were on the rifle.

CT's: No. Oswald's order was forged, Kleins forged their microfilm records, the money order was forged and planted in the Federal reserve(yes really LOL!), the backyard photos are fake, Oswald's rifle was never at the Paine residence, de Mohrenschildt lied about the rifle at Neely street, Oswald's rifle was planted in the TSBD, the bag was manufactured by the Dallas Police, the prints on the bag were planted, the shells were planted, the bullet fragments were planted, Oswald's dead hand supplied the palm print. Need I go on?

Analysis: the prosecution has a powerful indisputable case whereas the CT's are relying on an unprovable mountain of lies, manipulation and deception from multiple unconnected actors, geez what a bunch of desperate losers!

None of this concoction of wild and questionable claims actually provides a shred of evidence that a rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.

You are just desperately trying (and failing miserably) to make people believe there must have been a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage. It's LN crap 101!

But it does prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are completely unable to present a shred of evidence for the claim that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.

Perhaps you should do the same as Charles Collins and consult an actual lawyer to find out what real evidence is!

[John Mytton]

Perhaps you should do the same as Charles Collins and consult an actual lawyer to find out what real evidence is!

I think you mean Mitch Todd? But that is neither here or there.

In response to John Iacoletti inane criticisms of Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence, a very real lawyer set Iacoletti straight about what evidence actually is, because what people learn through TV and gossip isn't necessarily correct.

Your concept of evidence is flawed. The threshold question is relevancy. Under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, for example, "Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action."

Every item you label as NE, PW and TQ would be deemed relevant evidence.

Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

Notes
(Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1931; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)

Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules

Problems of relevancy call for an answer to the question whether an item of evidence, when tested by the processes of legal reasoning, possesses sufficient probative value to justify receiving it in evidence. Thus, assessment of the probative value of evidence that a person purchased a revolver shortly prior to a fatal shooting with which he is charged is a matter of analysis and reasoning.

The variety of relevancy problems is coextensive with the ingenuity of counsel in using circumstantial evidence as a means of proof. An enormous number of cases fall in no set pattern, and this rule is designed as a guide for handling them. On the other hand, some situations recur with sufficient frequency to create patterns susceptible of treatment by specific rules. Rule 404 and those following it are of that variety; they also serve as illustrations of the application of the present rule as limited by the exclusionary principles of Rule 403.

Passing mention should be made of so-called “conditional” relevancy. Morgan, Basic Problems of Evidence 45–46 (1962). In this situation, probative value depends not only upon satisfying the basic requirement of relevancy as described above but also upon the existence of some matter of fact. For example, if evidence of a spoken statement is relied upon to prove notice, probative value is lacking unless the person sought to be charged heard the statement. The problem is one of fact, and the only rules needed are for the purpose of determining the respective functions of judge and jury. See Rules 104(b) and 901. The discussion which follows in the present note is concerned with relevancy generally, not with any particular problem of conditional relevancy.

Relevancy is not an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case. Does the item of evidence tend to prove the matter sought to be proved? Whether the relationship exists depends upon principles evolved by experience or science, applied logically to the situation at hand. James, Relevancy, Probability and the Law, 29 Calif.L.Rev. 689, 696, n. 15 (1941), in Selected Writings on Evidence and Trial 610, 615, n. 15 (Fryer ed. 1957). The rule summarizes this relationship as a “tendency to make the existence” of the fact to be proved “more probable or less probable.” Compare Uniform Rule 1(2) which states the crux of relevancy as “a tendency in reason,” thus perhaps emphasizing unduly the logical process and ignoring the need to draw upon experience or science to validate the general principle upon which relevancy in a particular situation depends.

The standard of probability under the rule is “more * * * probable than it would be without the evidence.” Any more stringent requirement is unworkable and unrealistic. As McCormick §152, p. 317, says, “A brick is not a wall,” or, as Falknor, Extrinsic Policies Affecting Admissibility, 10 Rutgers L.Rev. 574, 576 (1956), quotes Professor McBaine, “* * * t is not to be supposed that every witness can make a home run.” Dealing with probability in the language of the rule has the added virtue of avoiding confusion between questions of admissibility and questions of the sufficiency of the evidence.

The rule uses the phrase “fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action” to describe the kind of fact to which proof may properly be directed. The language is that of California Evidence Code §210; it has the advantage of avoiding the loosely used and ambiguous word “material.” Tentative Recommendation and a Study Relating to the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Art. I. General Provisions), Cal. Law Revision Comm'n, Rep., Rec. & Studies, 10–11 (1964). The fact to be proved may be ultimate, intermediate, or evidentiary; it matters not, so long as it is of consequence in the determination of the action. Cf. Uniform Rule 1(2) which requires that the evidence relate to a “material” fact.

The fact to which the evidence is directed need not be in dispute. While situations will arise which call for the exclusion of evidence offered to prove a point conceded by the opponent, the ruling should be made on the basis of such considerations as waste of time and undue prejudice (see Rule 403), rather than under any general requirement that evidence is admissible only if directed to matters in dispute. Evidence which is essentially background in nature can scarcely be said to involve disputed matter, yet it is universally offered and admitted as an aid to understanding. Charts, photographs, views of real estate, murder weapons, and many other items of evidence fall in this category. A rule limiting admissibility to evidence directed to a controversial point would invite the exclusion of this helpful evidence, or at least the raising of endless questions over its admission. Cf. California Evidence Code §210, defining relevant evidence in terms of tendency to prove a disputed fact.

Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment

The language of Rule 401 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

I think you mean Mitch Todd? But that is neither here or there.

In response to John Iacoletti inane criticisms of Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence, a very real lawyer set Iacoletti straight about what evidence actually is, because what people learn through TV and gossip isn't necessarily correct.

Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

Notes
(Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1931; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)

Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules

Problems of relevancy call for an answer to the question whether an item of evidence, when tested by the processes of legal reasoning, possesses sufficient probative value to justify receiving it in evidence. Thus, assessment of the probative value of evidence that a person purchased a revolver shortly prior to a fatal shooting with which he is charged is a matter of analysis and reasoning.

The variety of relevancy problems is coextensive with the ingenuity of counsel in using circumstantial evidence as a means of proof. An enormous number of cases fall in no set pattern, and this rule is designed as a guide for handling them. On the other hand, some situations recur with sufficient frequency to create patterns susceptible of treatment by specific rules. Rule 404 and those following it are of that variety; they also serve as illustrations of the application of the present rule as limited by the exclusionary principles of Rule 403.

Passing mention should be made of so-called “conditional” relevancy. Morgan, Basic Problems of Evidence 45–46 (1962). In this situation, probative value depends not only upon satisfying the basic requirement of relevancy as described above but also upon the existence of some matter of fact. For example, if evidence of a spoken statement is relied upon to prove notice, probative value is lacking unless the person sought to be charged heard the statement. The problem is one of fact, and the only rules needed are for the purpose of determining the respective functions of judge and jury. See Rules 104(b) and 901. The discussion which follows in the present note is concerned with relevancy generally, not with any particular problem of conditional relevancy.

Relevancy is not an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case. Does the item of evidence tend to prove the matter sought to be proved? Whether the relationship exists depends upon principles evolved by experience or science, applied logically to the situation at hand. James, Relevancy, Probability and the Law, 29 Calif.L.Rev. 689, 696, n. 15 (1941), in Selected Writings on Evidence and Trial 610, 615, n. 15 (Fryer ed. 1957). The rule summarizes this relationship as a “tendency to make the existence” of the fact to be proved “more probable or less probable.” Compare Uniform Rule 1(2) which states the crux of relevancy as “a tendency in reason,” thus perhaps emphasizing unduly the logical process and ignoring the need to draw upon experience or science to validate the general principle upon which relevancy in a particular situation depends.

The standard of probability under the rule is “more * * * probable than it would be without the evidence.” Any more stringent requirement is unworkable and unrealistic. As McCormick §152, p. 317, says, “A brick is not a wall,” or, as Falknor, Extrinsic Policies Affecting Admissibility, 10 Rutgers L.Rev. 574, 576 (1956), quotes Professor McBaine, “* * * t is not to be supposed that every witness can make a home run.” Dealing with probability in the language of the rule has the added virtue of avoiding confusion between questions of admissibility and questions of the sufficiency of the evidence.

The rule uses the phrase “fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action” to describe the kind of fact to which proof may properly be directed. The language is that of California Evidence Code §210; it has the advantage of avoiding the loosely used and ambiguous word “material.” Tentative Recommendation and a Study Relating to the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Art. I. General Provisions), Cal. Law Revision Comm'n, Rep., Rec. & Studies, 10–11 (1964). The fact to be proved may be ultimate, intermediate, or evidentiary; it matters not, so long as it is of consequence in the determination of the action. Cf. Uniform Rule 1(2) which requires that the evidence relate to a “material” fact.

The fact to which the evidence is directed need not be in dispute. While situations will arise which call for the exclusion of evidence offered to prove a point conceded by the opponent, the ruling should be made on the basis of such considerations as waste of time and undue prejudice (see Rule 403), rather than under any general requirement that evidence is admissible only if directed to matters in dispute. Evidence which is essentially background in nature can scarcely be said to involve disputed matter, yet it is universally offered and admitted as an aid to understanding. Charts, photographs, views of real estate, murder weapons, and many other items of evidence fall in this category. A rule limiting admissibility to evidence directed to a controversial point would invite the exclusion of this helpful evidence, or at least the raising of endless questions over its admission. Cf. California Evidence Code §210, defining relevant evidence in terms of tendency to prove a disputed fact.

Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment

The language of Rule 401 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401

JohnM

Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

No matter how much you google "arguments" the basic fact still remains that you do not have a shred of evidence to show there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.

So, there is no point in discussing if evidence is relevant, as there is no evidence to begin with.

Care to try again?

[Tom Sorensen]

Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage.

How does dumped on the garage floor become "safely stored"?

ROFL

[Jack Nessan]

Incorrectly based on what a nutter (that is you) told me.  - I wont do that again.
You kicked yourself back to square one. Where did LMR say Lee used his left hand?

based on what a nutter (that is you) told me.

Sure, why would anyone doubt that you did. Actually, that has to be one of the stranger things you have posted.

You are denying LHO walked bent over, good choice LHO was walking erect with a 3 foot 6 inch bag. We all know, nobody would walk bent over with the 27 inch bag. You had the right answer and here you are now you are denying it. I don't know why you would want to do that. You personally have posted all of these. Did you not ever read them? Maybe subconsciously you just did not want to know what she said. She destroys the short bag nonsense and the whole conspiracy tripe that goes along with it.

Where did LMR say Lee used his left hand?

Let us review, Linnie gives two different descriptions of how each hand held the package. “Gripping or grabbing or grab” the top with the right hand and “hugging” the bottom with the other.

Right hand:

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.

 

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.

Left Hand:

Mr. BALL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice.
You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he [i]hugged [/i]it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.


Both Hands:

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.

Linnie shreds BWF testimony. It leaves you with two choices, one he deliberately misleads investigators or two as he said he just did not pay any attention. You should be happy. Your posting made a significant contribution to understanding how Linnie's bag recollections shed light on the question of LHO transporting the rifle to the TSBD.

 

[John Mytton]

Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage.

How does dumped on the garage floor become "safely stored"?

ROFL

Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage.

How does dumped on the garage floor become "safely stored"?

It was safely stored in the confines of a crowded garage as part of a house which was virtually occupied 24/7, that's a safe environment.
It wasn't stored outside behind a tree or leaning against a house.
The rifle itself was stored inconspicuously in a blanket, even Michael who interacted with the blanket numerous times thought that it contained pipes or a shovel. 
Is a thief going to back up a truck and empty the entire contents of the tightly stuffed garage and even if they did, a blanket on the floor wouldn't have a high priority.
BTW, out of the post you replied to, you edit out every other fact and then decide to fall on your sword with a misjudged, misguided easily refuted, assertion! Really?



Mr. LIEBELER - Did you think there was more than one tent pole in the package or just one tent pole?
Mr. PAINE - As I say, I moved it several times, and I think I thought progressively each time. I moved it twice. It had three occasions. And the first one was an iron, thought of an iron pipe and then I have drawn, I drew yesterday, a picture of the thing I had in mind. Then in order to fill out the package I had to add another object to it and there I added again I was thinking of camping equipment, and I added a folding shovel such as I had seen in the Army, a little spade where the blade folds back over the handle. This has the trouble that this blade was too symmetrical I disposed to the handle and to fit the package the blade had to be off center, eccentric to the handle. Also, I had my vision of the pipe. It had an iron pipe about 30 inches long with a short section of pipe going off 45 degrees. No words here, it just happened that I did have this image in my mind of trying to fill up that package in the back burner of my mind.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm

ROFL

For someone who is constantly "rolling on the floor laughing", you don't seem like a very funny guy, in fact you give the impression of an overly paranoid dude, with a permanent scowl on your face!

JohnM