When Oswald got to Frazier's house Oswald walked straight past the back door, opened Frazier's car, put his package in and then went back to the back door to wait for Frazier, why?
Wouldn't most people who were just holding their lunch just go to the backdoor and simply wait for Frazier?
Why did Oswald feel the need to hide his package ASAP and then double back to where he started?
Johnm
Why did Oswald feel the need to hide his package ASAP
"Hide the package"?.... On the backseat of a car? LOL
Let me guess where you are going with this..... Oswald placing the package on the backseat of Frazier's car means (1) there was a rifle in it and (2) he shot Kennedy. Am I right?
When you are not being obnoxious, you are sometimes very funny. Thanks for the laugh!
Why did Oswald feel the need to hide his package ASAP
"Hide the package"?.... On the backseat of a car? LOL
Let me guess where you are going with this..... Oswald placing the package on the backseat of Frazier's car means (1) there was a rifle in it and (2) he shot Kennedy. Am I right?
When you are not being obnoxious, you are sometimes very funny. Thanks for the laugh!
So that's the best you got, you don't want to confront Oswald's behaviour so yet again you insult me. Yawn!
JohnM
A few observations.
LMR would not have seen LHO place anything anywhere - she guessed. Look at the angle of the slats on the car port.
A package with two-foot long curtain rods would, I think, be so lightweight it would slide off the back seat when the car slowed.
An apple and sandwich might stay put, but I would carry such a package with me into the front seat.
An apple and sandwich might stay put, but I would carry such a package with me into the front seat.
That's exactly what Oswald said, he wasn't totally stupid he knew admitting putting his lunch on the back seat was not a plausible narrative so Oswald lied and said that Frazier was mistaken and was remembering another time, which as a direct consequence put more Police pressure on Frazier.
JohnM
When Oswald got to Frazier's house Oswald walked straight past the back door, opened Frazier's car, put his package in and then went back to the back door to wait for Frazier, why?
Wouldn't most people who were just holding their lunch just go to the backdoor and simply wait for Frazier?
Why did Oswald feel the need to hide his package ASAP and then double back to where he started?
(https://s17.postimg.org/4r9inqi0f/ce_440_frazier_hse_plan.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iY6CGz9Ehj0/U8NWE_2fQoI/AAAAAAAA1yw/TRsAVOXziCE/s530/CE447.png)
And btw, the partition between Linnie Mae and Frazier's car was made up of slats and was not a solid wall.
(https://s17.postimg.org/zce3aycmn/Slattedwall1.gif)
(https://s17.postimg.org/g7au1633j/Slattedwall2a.gif)
(https://s17.postimg.org/kgfk37167/Slattedwall3.gif)
Johnm
"When Oswald got to Frazier's house Oswald walked straight past the back door, opened Frazier's car, put his package in and then went back to the back door to wait for Frazier, why?"
Duh....To prevent the rain from dissolving the flimsy brown paper sack !
And there is some indication that Lee may have got into the car and then got back out to go to see if Wes was up and coming out to the car.....
Duh....To prevent the rain from dissolving the flimsy brown paper sack !
A little bit of rain wont be an issue for a small paper bag that Lee could tuck under his armpit and cup it in his palm, right? His jacket would have shielded it. Lee may have suspected that BWF was waiting for him in the carport.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it didn't. I just thought maybe, you know, he just left a little bit earlier but when I looked up and saw that the clock was. I knew I was the one who was running a little bit late because, as I say, I was talking, sitting there eating breakfast and talking to the little nieces, it was later than I thought it was.
LMR told us this from her WC testimony.
Mrs. RANDLE. No; because I only opened the door briefly and what made me establish the door on Wesley's car, it is an old car and that door, the window is broken and everything and it is hard to close, so that cinched in my mind which door it was, too. But it was only briefly that I looked.
Which is not what she said here:
Mrs. RANDLE. No; because I only opened the door briefly and what made me establish the door on Wesley's car, it is an old car and that door, the window is broken and everything and it is hard to close, so that cinched in my mind which door it was, too. But it was only briefly that I looked.
LMR didn't see Lee open any door - she assumed that he did.
BIG difference to a direct observation JohnM.
LMR was inside her house, took a brief peek and was not standing next to the angled down slats. Do you know if there was another car in the carport at the time?
She of course had no issues at all with what Lee did - why would she? Who else did she think that person was?
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him arrive with Lee?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Do you recall on a Thursday night, November 21 that you saw Lee get out of Wesley's car?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. Did you talk to Wesley about the fact that he had brought Lee home on this night?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you see Lee?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, I did.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see him?
Mrs. RANDLE. I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport.
Then this:
Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down so I closed the door. I didn't recognize him as he walked across my carport and I at that moment I wondered who was fixing to come to my back door so I opened the door slightly and saw that it--I assumed he was getting in the car but he didn't, so he come back and stood on the driveway.
Suddenly we have a "unknown" person putting in a "long package" in her brother's car yet never says a word to her brother.
Give me a break.
LMR was inside her house, took a brief peek and was not standing next to the angled down slats.
The slats are all angled - just exactly what do you think she saw with a brief view from her limited POV?
A little bit of rain wont be an issue for a small paper bag that Lee could tuck under his armpit and cup it in his palm, right? His jacket would have shielded it. Lee may have suspected that BWF was waiting for him in the carport.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it didn't. I just thought maybe, you know, he just left a little bit earlier but when I looked up and saw that the clock was. I knew I was the one who was running a little bit late because, as I say, I was talking, sitting there eating breakfast and talking to the little nieces, it was later than I thought it was.
LMR told us this from her WC testimony.
Mrs. RANDLE. No; because I only opened the door briefly and what made me establish the door on Wesley's car, it is an old car and that door, the window is broken and everything and it is hard to close, so that cinched in my mind which door it was, too. But it was only briefly that I looked.
6. Solid wooden curtain rods to replace the cheap flimsy metal rods in Oswalds boardnig room.
7. Oswalds freshly washed socks and underwear, that he had washed and dryed thursday at Paines house..
Neither brother nor sister can get their stories straight.
Add to this (LMR):
A stranger, who she recognized the day before as Oswald and was told came to pick up curtain rods, approaches her driveway carrying a long bag. Ring a bell? Apparently not, meaning a stranger carrying a bag gaining access to her brothers car does not prompt her to alert Buell who is right next to her at the kitchen table.
Add to this (BWF):
Buell, giving Oswald a ride home to pick up curtain rods, despite explaining this to his sister has forgotten all about it the next day running late picking up Oswald and has to ask what's in the long bag on the back seat.
Screams fabrication.
Close but no cigar.
"I didn't recognize him" is exactly how she put it. So why did she say that to BALL when there is nothing about not recognizing Oswald in neither her AFFIDAVIT nor in the BOOKHAUT report?
Because even if Oswald was a semi-stranger she would have no reason to move to the back door to check on him since she had been told that Oswald picked up curtain rods, hence the long bag; still trying to improve on the tale as she couldn't have seen Oswald by the car unless she moved to the door.
I seriously doubt Frazier would expect a dime store bag to fit a random set of curtain rods, would you?
Note BTW that BALL carefully avoids asking LMR when and to whom she initially volunteers information about the bag...
So you're speaking for Frazier. And Randle. Got it.
And btw, the partition between Linnie Mae and Frazier's car was made up of slats and was not a solid wall.
Johnm
Oswald was no longer getting his laundry done at Ruth Paine's. He was doing it himself in Oak Cliff.
FRAZIER: "What's happening, Linnie?"
Silence.
Why not?
When Frazier himself speaks you guys claim he islying"mistaken"....
So, what difference does it make?
Who corroborated her peeking out the back door?
I don't recall saying Frazier was mistaken/lying. But I do recall him repeating, multiple times, that he wasn't paying attention to the bag.
Why did Oswald feel the need to hide his package ASAP
"Hide the package"?.... On the backseat of a car? LOL
Let me guess where you are going with this..... Oswald placing the package on the backseat of Frazier's car means (1) there was a rifle in it and (2) he shot Kennedy. Am I right?
When you are not being obnoxious, you are sometimes very funny. Thanks for the laugh!
So, he didn't pay attention to the bag, but he wasn't lying/mistaken when he said how long the bag he had seen was. Got it!
"Hide the package"?.... On the backseat of a car? LOL
That position would reveal less of the package (to an extent), if Oswald that was Oswald's intent.
In fact, Buell testified that he, himself, had the habit of glancing over his shoulder whenever he got into his car.
Possibly not knowing that little quirk, Oswald might have been banking on Buell not looking into the back seat at all.
Oswald placing the package on the backseat of Frazier's car means (1) there was a rifle in it and (2) he shot Kennedy. Am I right?
Are you sure WC supporters are claiming Oswald guilty based solely on a package placed on the back seat of Buell's car?
He only said he didn't pay attention to the bag. Ad nauseum.
'Methinks the lady doth protest too much' perhaps?
Do you think it possible that he (and Randle) had an 'uh, oh' moment when it finally dawned on him that he had driven the prime suspect to the scene, 'mystery' package and all.
Are you sure WC supporters are claiming Oswald guilty based solely on a package placed on the back seat of Buell's car?
Oh, no... not really. And I never said that. There are actually plenty more fantasy driven reasons they use to make that silly claim for which there really isn't solid evidence whatsoever.
'Silly'
So that's all you've got, huh. A drive-by line.
If you have information that proves that anyone other than the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means post it.
He only said he didn't pay attention to the bag. Ad nauseum.
'Methinks the lady doth protest too much' perhaps?
"Ad nauseum"? Lol.... he only said it a few times during his WC testimony.... an easy way of avoiding having to go where they wanted him to go.
Prior to his WC testimony Frazier did not say a word about "not paying attention". In his first day statements he actually described to Lt Day that the bag Oswald carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and he told polygrapher R.D. Lewis that it was a ?crickly brown paper sack?/ A few days later he told FBI agents Odum and McNeely that "the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?. It's all in the record!
About 16 hours after he had seen Oswald carry that bag, he was shown the bag found at the TSBD while being polygraphed and he denied it was the bag he had seen.....
So much for "not paying attention" months later!
'Silly'
Of course, silly... Oswald left his wedding ring in Irving, he did not read the morning paper as usual etc etc.... it is beyong silly!
If you have information that proves that anyone other than the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means post it.
I am sure that the shooter(s) knew it was going to happen, but that's hardly the point now, is it?
"Ad nauseum"? Lol.... he only said it a few times during his WC testimony.... an easy way of avoiding having to go where they wanted him to go.
LOL
I can tell you where he didn't want to go: JAIL.
And what better way to have a chance to cover his butt (as the one chauffeured the prime suspect to the workplace, mind you) than to lie his arse off, claiming a bag length apparently way too small for a rifle?
I am sure that the shooter(s) knew it was going to happen...
Stop misquoting me. I said if anyone else BUT the shooter knew about the attempt in advance
... but that's hardly the point now, is it?
On the contrary: The main point is if Oswald did it alone
Can you prove that Oswald was the shooter or are you just assuming he was?
I've never claimed I could prove anything here.
I am sure that the shooter(s) knew it was going to happen...
Stop misquoting me. I said if anyone else BUT the shooter knew about the attempt in advance
... but that's hardly the point now, is it?
On the contrary: The main point is if Oswald did it alone
Can you prove that Oswald was the shooter or are you just assuming he was?
I've never claimed I could prove anything here.
Agree, shut down the forum (again) ;D
8) MiB Colin?
I think JohnM was on the angry pills! We all lost a huge amount of information.
I think JohnM was on the angry pills! We all lost a huge amount of information.
;D
Well someone didn't like the forum :-[
Too much good CT information on it, Tony. MIB knew they were losing the battle.
Total newbie here, but I would like to know what happened to the curtain rods. He took them to work? Were they found at the TSBD? If not, what was in the brown bag in the back seat? If it wasn't curtain rods, and presuming Frasier wasn't lying, why did he lie and say it was curtain rods? Possibly something embarrasing like a rolled up nude poster to hang at work, who knows. So was anything like curtain rods or that long skinny shape found as they retraced LHO's steps that day? If it looks, walks, quacks like a duck....it's a rifle?
Sorry if this has been asked/answered in the past.
Too much good CT information on it, Tony. MIB knew they were losing the battle.
(https://i.servimg.com/u/f55/18/51/39/20/image152.jpg)
Note slats...
There was some great information on it and it's a loss that it's gone. Before finding this Forum I knew nothing about the case although I had heard of some of the theories suspecting conspiracies. I hadn't even heard of the Warren Commission. The archives allowed me to have a good look at what the doubters of the official narrative were saying, and pointed me in the right places for further reading.
Which is not what she said here:
Mrs. RANDLE. No; because I only opened the door briefly and what made me establish the door on Wesley's car, it is an old car and that door, the window is broken and everything and it is hard to close, so that cinched in my mind which door it was, too. But it was only briefly that I looked.
LMR didn't see Lee open any door - she assumed that he did.
BIG difference to a direct observation JohnM.
That's how witness statements are judged -- is the story corroborated.
Get up to speed.
A few observations.
LMR would not have seen LHO place anything anywhere - she guessed. Look at the angle of the slats on the car port.
Senator COOPER. When he placed the package in there do you remember whether he used one hand or two?
Mrs. RANDLE. No; because I only opened the door briefly and what made me establish the door on Wesley's car, it is an old car and that door, the window is broken and everything and it is hard to close, so that cinched in my mind which door it was, too. But it was only briefly that I looked.
LMR obviously wasnt troubled or disturbed by Lee's actions that morning otherwise she would have asked her brother immediately rather than let him drive off with Lee and his suspicious long package.
LMR alerted the Detectives about what she saw lee do AFTER she heard about the events at the TSBD and VERY likely after she spoke with her brother who himself NEVER alerted the Police while he was at the TSBD after the assassination.
So how did LMR suddenly put two and two together AFTER the assassination event and not her brother?
The final possibility, and in my opinion very likely, was there was no paper bag at all - it was a story concocted by brother and sister to deflect any wrong doing by BWF and to direct all blame to LHO.
BWF obviously didn't know the length of the wooden stock of CE 139.
Marina stated that she thought Lee took his lunch in a small paper bag that morning.
LMR would not have seen LHO place anything anywhere - she guessed. Look at the angle of the slats on the car port.
Marina stated that she thought Lee took his lunch in a small paper bag that morning.
LMR didn't see LHO place anything into the car. She contradicted herself JohnM.
Lee never said he placed a package in the backseat of Buell's car.
The entire paper bag/curtain rod story rests with two people - brother (who drove in the accused assassin and who owned a rifle and ammunition himself) and sister (who pre-empted the suspicious long package before her brother did).
Some big red flags right there JohnM.
JohnM,
I am highly suspicious of the entire bag/curtain rod story because it made no sense, apart from laying the blame squarely onto Lee. After the fact, LMR suddenly becomes "concerned" enough so that she (not her 19 yo brother who goes visiting his step-father at the hospital) goes to the Detectives at the Paines.
Mr. BALL. Did a Mrs. Randle come in the house also?
Mr. STOVALL. No. sir; she didn't. While we were loading this stuff into our car and into the sheriff's deputy's car, we were on the outside, and you know, going in and out, and she had stopped Adamcik and was talking to him and he came over and talked to me and went on back and talked to her and she said that her brother had taken Oswald to work that morning and she said that she had seen him put some kind of a package in the back seat of her brother's car. She told us it could have been a rifle is what she said. She said it was either in a brown paper box or wrapped in brown paper.
Whoops - hindsight is always 20:20 - a rifle? Yet she disclosed none of this to her brother before leaving with Lee?
The Detectives went to the Randles house with BWF and confiscated his rifle and ammunition. BWF was placed under arrest and Fritz wanted him to sign a confession as being a co-conspirator.
Curtain Rods and LMR
Mr. BALL. Do you recall on a Thursday night, November 21 that you saw Lee get out of Wesley's car?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. About what time of night was it?
Mrs. RANDLE. About 5:20, I believe, 5:15 or 5:25 something like that.
Mr. BALL. Where were you when you saw him?
Mrs. RANDLE. I was on my way to the grocery store.
Mr. BALL. Did you talk to Wesley about the fact that he had brought Lee home on this night?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you think it was unusual that he had come home that night?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I knew that he had--Friday is the only time he had ever ridden with him before which was a couple of times, I don't think he rode with him over three times, I am not sure but I never did know of him arriving, you know, except on Friday.
Mr. BALL. Well, did you mention to Wesley that night or did you ask Wesley that night how Lee happened to come home on Thursday?
Mrs. RANDLE. I might have asked him.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember anything about curtain rods?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What do you remember about that?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had told Wesley--
Mr. BALL. Tell me what Wesley told you.
Mrs. RANDLE. What Wesley told me. That Lee had rode home with him to get some curtain rods from Mrs. Paine to fix up his apartment.
Mr. BALL. When did Wesley tell you that?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, that afternoon I suppose I would have had to ask him, he wouldn't have just told me.
Mr. BALL. You mean that night?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. After he came home?
Mrs. RANDLE. I was on my way to the store. So I probably asked him when I got back what he was doing riding home with him on Thursday afternoon.
- a little recap -
Mr. BALL. Did you talk to Wesley about the fact that he had brought Lee home on this night?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You think that was the time that Wesley told you-
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; after I got back home.
Mr. BALL. That Lee had come home to get some curtain rods?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, I am sure he told me that.
LMR can not keep her story straight - why on earth would LMR care about what her brother's driving arrangement was with Lee?
Note the sudden importance of curtain rods.
Mr. BALL - Do you remember the night before, that is after you got home that night, that your sister asked you how it happened that Oswald came home with you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I believe she did or something. We got to talking about something and said, I told her that he had rode home with me and told her he said he was going to come home and pick up some curtain rods or something. I usually don't talk too much to my sister, sometimes she is not there when I am in because she is either at the store or something like that and I am either when she comes in as I say I am playing with the little nieces and we don't talk too much about work or something like that.
Mr. BALL - This night, this evening, do you remember you did talk to her about the fact that Oswald had come home with you?
Mr. FRAZIER - 1 believe I did.
Mr. BALL - Did you tell her what he had told you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. I believe she said why did he come home now and I said, well, he says he was going to get some curtain rods.
- a little recap -
Mr. BALL. Did you talk to Wesley about the fact that he had brought Lee home on this night?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir.
Neither brother nor sister can get their stories straight.
Prior to his WC testimony Frazier did not say a word about "not paying attention". In his first day statements he actually described to Lt Day that the bag Oswald carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and he told polygrapher R.D. Lewis that it was a ?crickly brown paper sack?/ A few days later he told FBI agents Odum and McNeely that "the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?. It's all in the record!
I think JohnM was on the angry pills!
That would be natural for someone who gets knocked on his butt time after time.....
Total newbie here, but I would like to know what happened to the curtain rods. He took them to work? Were they found at the TSBD? If not, what was in the brown bag in the back seat? If it wasn't curtain rods, and presuming Frasier wasn't lying, why did he lie and say it was curtain rods? Possibly something embarrasing like a rolled up nude poster to hang at work, who knows. So was anything like curtain rods or that long skinny shape found as they retraced LHO's steps that day? If it looks, walks, quacks like a duck....it's a rifle?
Sorry if this has been asked/answered in the past.
Total newbie here, but I would like to know what happened to the curtain rods. He took them to work? Were they found at the TSBD?
Don't be shy, tell us what you REALLY think John. ;D
We are, after all, all newbies (again).
The approach I took, was to go to the primary published documents used by the WC and to focus on specific areas of the case.
What I found, since studying this case from 1985, was that the FBI and the WC had an agenda immediately from the get go - to vigorously discredit, discount ("mistaken") or ignore any witness that "hurt" the LNer 3 shot scenario. My main focus was the witnesses inside the TSBD as well as the "evidence" found on the 6th floor - especially the paper bag - CE 142.
The more I dug into the documents - the worse it got. The case against LHO, as being the assassin of JFK, is and remains purely speculative. Some LNers believe that their speculation is somehow more "superior" than anyone else's. Go figure.
I do not know who the trigger man/men were - but someone obviously hated JFK so much that they killed him in front of his wife in a parade in the middle of the day on a public street.
Do you believe the 23 yo Lee Harvey Oswald harbored that much personal hatred towards JFK?
Yes - this case brings out all the "fringe elements" - like "Kitchen Sink" and "Captain Crook", etc, etc - but I believe your are being way too judgmental on those that simply want to know the MO of the FBI and the WC and how they dealt with the evidence and the witnesses.
The nuking of the former forum was a tragedy - the info dug out form all over the place over many years (by both sides) was massively informative.
What I found, since studying this case from 1985, was that the FBI and the WC had an agenda immediately from the get go - to vigorously discredit, discount ("mistaken") or ignore any witness that "hurt" the LNer 3 shot scenario.
Do you believe the 23 yo Lee Harvey Oswald harbored that much personal hatred towards JFK?
I've never seen Walt Cakebread knock John Mytton on his butt. Never.
Marina didn't even get out of bed until after Lee was gone.
Have you ever heard this from anyone other than Frazier himself?
Relevance?
LOL. Have you ever heard that Oswald claimed to be carrying curtain rods from anyone other than Frazier himself?
The relevance is obvious. Since Marina was in bed when Lee left, she could not know for sure what Lee left the house with.
Unrelated to my sincere question put to Tony Fratini.
She certainly could have seen the small lunch package in his hands when he said goodbye before he left the house.
It reflects a sincere double-standard on what you need corroboration for.
Make believe is fun, isn't it?
Marina was in bed. Lee said goodbye to her. Lee left the house. How do you know that whatever Lee left with, he would have taken it into the bedroom with him when he said goodbye to her?
No. You don't know what you're talking about.
I am asking Tony Fratini a legitimate question. For some reason, you feel the need to stick your nose in.
Because my legitimate question points out the double standard in your legitimate question.
You already know the answer to your legitimate question, Socrates. So what if nobody but Frazier said that Fritz told him to sign a confession?
And now you can wait for another hypocritical answer about how the "Fritz confession" story is questionable because only Frazier said it and how the "curtain rods" story is credible because.... wait for it; Frazier said it!
Obviously, because you make believe that Oswald carried a rifle in a bag.
I don't. But you seem to think that it was impossible, or you wouldn't have considered "Marina didn't even get out of bed until after Lee was gone" to be a rebuttal to "Marina stated that she thought Lee took his lunch in a small paper bag that morning".
Obviously, because you make believe that Oswald carried a rifle in a bag.
I don't.
But you seem to think that it was impossible, or you wouldn't have considered "Marina didn't even get out of bed until after Lee was gone" to be a rebuttal to "Marina stated that she thought Lee took his lunch in a small paper bag that morning".
Because my legitimate question points out the double standard in your legitimate question.
You already know the answer to your legitimate question, Socrates. So what if nobody but Frazier said that Fritz told him to sign a confession?
And now you can wait for another hypocritical answer about how the "Fritz confession" story is questionable because only Frazier said it and how the "curtain rods" story is credible because.... wait for it; Frazier said it!
You two are like Dumb and Dumber.
Neither of you have any idea of what the purpose of my question to Tony Fratini was, just as neither of you have any idea what my "answer" will be to any of your posts. It is the two of you who are the predictable ones.
Do you wish to discuss the case or would you rather keep pretending that you know how I am gong to respond to the posts of others?
All I did was point out to you the FACT that you have no way of knowing whether Lee took the sack into the bedroom with him or not
and therefore, your point (like so many times before) is invalid.
Marina stated that she thought Lee took his lunch in a small paper bag that morning.
Marina didn't even get out of bed until after Lee was gone.
Hardly, Linnie initially told the FBI the bag was 3 foot which just happened to be the size of the bag found with Oswald's prints, geez Tony what are the chances?
And as for Frazier he wasn't paying attention yet for you 54 years later this bag is the most important object on this planet but to Frazier on the morning of the 22nd he truly couldn't give a stuff, why do you fail to comprehend this?
Mr. BALL - All right.
When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. 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.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.
Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
JohnM
Actually Frazier did change his story. He went from 'I didn't pay too much attention' and estimating a rough size, to being adamant about the size. A nice guy he may well be but he has embellished his story. He didn't know Oswald contrary to what he says now.
Actually Frazier did change his story. He went from 'I didn't pay too much attention' and estimating a rough size, to being adamant about the size. A nice guy he may well be but he has embellished his story. He didn't know Oswald contrary to what he says now.
On Day 1 Frazier told them exactly what kind of bag he had seen and that it wasn't the one they had found at the TSBD.
Only months later, when he testified, did Frazier say that he had not been paying much attention.... He was probably just sick and tired of all those idiots that did not want to believe him simply because what he said did not fit their pathetic narrative
The fact remains that from day 1 until this day Frazier has never changed his story that the TSBD was not the one he had seen!
Only months later, when he testified, did Frazier say that he had not been paying much attention....
Buell Frazier was just a nineteen year old kid, naive and honest....
He knew without any doubt that CE 142 was NOT the bag that he had seen Lee Oswald carry that rainy morning.
It's a simple as that.....Lee could not have transported that carcano in the bag that Frazier saw.
It's always been a mystery to me WHY the DPD was so insistent in saying that Lee had transported that rifle in a paper sack that morning.....??? WHY????
If it was Lee Oswald's rifle ....why were they desperate to make it appear that he had brought it into the building that morning? There's no reason that he couldn't have brought it into the building at some prior time.
Lee knew how to get around the area by using public transportation....He could have gone to the Paine's garage late at night and took the rifle and then smuggled it into the TSBD prior to 11/22/63....but the DPD was adamant that he had transported the rifle in Frazier's car that morning. WHY?
I strongly suspect that Lee inadvertently screwed up their plans to frame him by going to Irving on Thursday. The DPD and Hoover's "Extra Special" Special Agents were in panic when Lee told the interrogators that he had seen ( this) "rifle and two other rifles outside Mr Truly's office on the first floor of the TSBD the day before yesterday"
That statement put the rifle in the building 48 hours before the murder..... And in the hands of Mr Roy Truly.
They simply could not allow that information to become public....Thus they were desperate to make it appear that Lee had carried the rifle into the building that morning.
The DPD and Hoover's "Extra Special" Special Agents were in panic when Lee told the interrogators that he had seen ( this) "rifle and two other rifles outside Mr Truly's office on the first floor of the TSBD the day before yesterday"
The DPD and Hoover's "Extra Special" Special Agents were in panic when Lee told the interrogators that he had seen ( this) "rifle and two other rifles outside Mr Truly's office on the first floor of the TSBD the day before yesterday"
That statement put the rifle in the building 48 hours before the murder..... And in the hands of Mr Roy Truly.
That is not even close to what was said. You've grossly twisted and misquoted.
maybe someone could explain how Oswald could carry the package at the top with just one hand, with full weight off the ground, and not leave a palm print on that end of package?
And then when placing package on back seat of Fraziers car,. how did Oswald manage only to leave 1 single small finger print at top of package.
And then when Oswald reached for the package to take it from the back seat, how he managed not to leave any more prints other than just the one small finger print at the top, before he finally started to carry the package in palm of his right hand and under his armpit later?
And then Oswald took the package thru the door, and then placed the package down somewhere, didn't leave any other prints but the one small finger print at top and a palm print at bottom
And when Oswald was getting the paper from TSBD, guess he was wearing gloves? Didn't leave any other prints from taking the paper from the roll, or folding up the paper to put into his jacket to take home, or unfolding later, or while actually making it.
Any fingerprints on the tape that he had to remove from the TSBD tape roll dispenser, (without getting tape wet ::), or waiting for it to dry?
As to the thread question: Why is taking something straight to a car 1st right there on the side of the garage, , of any significance, or suggestive of something nefarious, when the APPROACH to that car was NOT from behind, but IN FRONT OF the house, so obviously NOT a path that someone with nefarious intent, would have taken.
so no answers to my questions other than: " you need read more about fingerprints"
Oswalds bare hands gripping with force around the top of the package, since BW Frazier has no WC testimony of Oswald using a rag, or gloves or his shirt hanging out, then the question remains, how is it probable to have carried that package so many times, made that package, touching it with bare hands, folding,unfolding, taping and not leave but 1 small print top and 1 palm print at bottom?
The DPD and Hoover's "Extra Special" Special Agents were in panic when Lee told the interrogators that he had seen
(This) "rifle and two other rifles outside Mr Truly's office on the first floor of the TSBD the day before yesterday"
Here 's the exact quote that FBI Agent James Hosty jotted down during the interrogation of Lee Oswald at 3:15 pm that afternoon....." Day before yesterday Mr Truly had rifle and two others first floor outside office."
At 3:15 Lt JC Day has just brought the carcano in from the TSBD..... They displayed the rifle to Lee and asked him if he'd ever seen it before. ( A routine procedure to watch the reaction of a suspect when he is shown the weapon)
Lee replied...."Yes, I saw this rifle and two other rifles outside Mr Truly's office on the first floor of the TSBD the day before yesterday."
Absolutely none of the above is true.
Unless, of course, you can post what Hosty "jotted down". I'm not asking for your mistaken interpretation of what Hosty "jotted down". I'm asking for a copy of the actual notes.
How else did the rifle get in the building,
Hardly, Linnie initially told the FBI the bag was 3 foot which just happened to be the size of the bag found with Oswald's prints, geez Tony what are the chances?
I strongly suspect that Lee inadvertently screwed up their plans to frame him by going to Irving on Thursday. The DPD and Hoover's "Extra Special" Special Agents were in panic when Lee told the interrogators that he had seen ( this) "rifle and two other rifles outside Mr Truly's office on the first floor of the TSBD the day before yesterday"
Here 's the exact quote that FBI Agent James Hosty jotted down during the interrogation of Lee Oswald at 3:15 pm that afternoon....." Day before yesterday Mr Truly had rifle and two others first floor outside office."
Bookhout:
Oswald stated that he did not own any rifle. He advised that he saw a rifle day before yesterday at the Texas School Book Depository which Mr. truly and two other gentlemen had in their possession and were looking at.
John, You're so damned gullible....Bookhout's report was written on 11/25/63 ... long after the actually interrogation.
The problem is not that I'm gullible, but that you think that your fantasies are reality.
Fritz:
....
Hosty: .....
and Fritz's notes weren't taken during the interrogation either.
The problem is not that I'm gullible, but that you think that your fantasies are reality.
Fritz:
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/029/29103/images/img_29103_3_200.jpg)
Hosty:
(http://jfk.education/images/HostyInterrogationNotes.jpg)
and Fritz's notes weren't taken during the interrogation either.
But let's let others decide if Lee told them that He'd seen the carcano and two other rifles in the possession of Mr Truly on Wednesday November 20......
Bookhaut also said
Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.
By all means, let's have a show of hands. Does anybody else think that Hosty or Fritz meant "two other rifles"?
The front of the house faces south.
Personally I find it hard to believe he even stripped the thing. If I had made the bag a few inches too short as some suggest I'd just improvise. A bag taped over the end for instance. It's possible he stripped it but the notion baffles me.
The front of the house faces south.
"When Oswald got to Frazier's house Oswald walked straight past the back door, opened Frazier's car, put his package in and then went back to the back door to wait for Frazier, why?"
Duh....To prevent the rain from dissolving the flimsy brown paper sack !
And there is some indication that Lee may have got into the car and then got back out to go to see if Wes was up and coming out to the car.....
It's not a matter of voting......Hosty wrote ....." Mr Truly had rifle & 2 others"......
Ask any elementary school student to explain that short sentence to you.......
Personally I find it hard to believe he even stripped the thing. If I had made the bag a few inches too short as some suggest I'd just improvise. A bag taped over the end for instance. It's possible he stripped it but the notion baffles me.
I agree. I also think he had the end (with the improvised bag closing or concealment of the muzzle) of the bag tucked into the gap between the seat cushion and seat back of the backseat of Frazier's car. That would make the bag seem to reach about the mid-line of the seat.
The front of the house faces south.
Did Randle actually say the bag was three feet long or was it also something Bookhaut assumed?
Or maybe she said "2 feet", and Bookhout mistakenly wrote down 3.
Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. About this.
Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Randle speaks to a longer length here:
Thank you for posting the Hosty note that Billy Bob Brown said didn't exist......You clearly are too gullible and afraid to admit that the authorities were the killers..... But let's let others decide if Lee told them that He'd seen the carcano and two other rifles in the possession of Mr Truly on Wednesday November 20......
It's not a matter of voting......Hosty wrote ....." Mr Truly had rifle & 2 others"......
Ask any elementary school student to explain that short sentence to you.......
That's not what he wrote, though. This is what you're wrong about.
Hosty did write that, Bill. There's just no reason to think that "2 others" meant "2 other rifles".
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/Hosty-two-others.jpg)
Thanks, you confirmed what I suspected.
Assumed is probably the right word.
Did Randle actually say the bag was three feet long or was it also something Bookhaut assumed?
Thanks, you confirmed what I suspected.
Assumed is probably the right word.
Did Randle actually say the bag was three feet long or was it also something Bookhaut assumed?
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle2713.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
No. That is not what he wrote, John.
I'm familiar with the use of the caret symbol as a proofreader mark for inserting text, but thank you for Bill-splaining it to me. But as you allude, not only is the symbol going the wrong way for that usage, but it's not even located in the right place to signify the gap between "Truly" and "had".
You resolve this discrepancy by just pulling out the assumption from thin air that he didn't use the symbol correctly, which is no different from Walt assuming that he meant "and" and didn't use the symbol correctly. It also resembles a stylized plus sign which people use to indicate "and". Something like this:
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/stylized-plus.png)
(with the crossbar either faded or missing)
But the bottom line is that neither you or Walt can conclusively determine what Hosty meant by just looking at the note. In the absence of the ability to ask Hosty what he meant or hope that he later expounded upon them (it doesn't appear that he did), you have to consider what the other interrogation reports said as well as Warren Caster's and Roy Truly's testimonies. Walt will just say that they were all "damn liars" (including Hosty) and that his take on the handwritten note is the only legitimate interpretation. But you're not much better.
I think his question is self-explanatory and doesn't require any interpretation. The bag that Stombaugh viewed only had ONE fold on it.
Thanks.
That confirms the level of intelligence one must have to buy into that.
Arrogant. Eisenberg said "any bulges or creases or folds".
More confirmation.
Still arrogant. That's your argument? "I'm right because you're stupid". Really?
Interesting. Wonder what stupid AND arrogant makes you?
I'm familiar with the use of the caret symbol as a proofreader mark for inserting text, but thank you for Bill-splaining it to me. But as you allude, not only is the symbol going the wrong way for that usage, but it's not even located in the right place to signify the gap between "Truly" and "had".
You resolve this discrepancy by just pulling out the assumption from thin air that he didn't use the symbol correctly, which is no different from Walt assuming that he meant "and" and didn't use the symbol correctly. It also resembles a stylized plus sign which people use to indicate "and". Something like this:
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/stylized-plus.png)
(with the crossbar either faded or missing)
But the bottom line is that neither you or Walt can conclusively determine what Hosty meant by just looking at the note. In the absence of the ability to ask Hosty what he meant or hope that he later expounded upon them (it doesn't appear that he did), you have to consider what the other interrogation reports said as well as Warren Caster's and Roy Truly's testimonies. Walt will just say that they were all "damn liars" (including Hosty) and that his take on the handwritten note is the only legitimate interpretation. But you're not much better.
There is no doubt that Hosty intended that the mark was to be a plus sign...
When his son wrote to me to "explain" his father's scribbled note he told me that his dad intended to say that Mr Truly AND two other men had a rifle outside Mr Truly's office....
Of course I don't believe that..... Based on the fact that at 3:15 pm Detective Day had just brought he rifle in from the TSBD and it's standard operating procedure to display the murder weapon to a suspect ( to observe his reaction)
I believe that's exactly what happened .... When they displayed the rifle, Lee told them that he had see (THIS) "rifle + two others" outside Mr Truly's office on the first floor of the TSBD on Wednesday November 20 1963.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/stylized-plus.png)
They displayed that rifle to Marina, and Robert, and Ruth Paine, and Marguerite Oswald and the whole wide world.....
Hosty's note shows an obvious inverted caret, not a plus sign.
Hosty's note shows an obvious inverted caret, not a plus sign.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/Hosty-two-others.jpg)
When his son wrote to me to "explain" his father's scribbled note he told me that his dad intended to say that Mr Truly AND two other men had a rifle outside Mr Truly's office..
Thus Tom Hosty confirmed that the symbol is an ampersand......
When his son wrote to me to "explain" his father's scribbled note he told me that his dad intended to say that Mr Truly AND two other men had a rifle outside Mr Truly's office..
Thus Tom Hosty confirmed that the symbol is an ampersand......
It is not an inverted caret. An inverted caret would not have the horizontal cross. And why do you think Hosty would use an inverted caret? I bet he wouldn't have known a inverted caret if it had hit him on the head. Get over it he meant "and". The only question is whether he meant "and two other rifles" or "and two other men."
It is not an inverted caret. An inverted caret would not have the horizontal cross.
It is not an inverted caret. An inverted caret would not have the horizontal cross. And why do you think Hosty would use an inverted caret? I bet he wouldn't have known a inverted caret if it had hit him on the head. Get over it he meant "and". The only question is whether he meant "and two other rifles" or "and two other men."
Lee was shown the carcano that Lt J.C. Day had just brought to the police station from the TSBD.....
Fritz.....Have you ever seen this rifle before Mr Oswald?
Lee Oswald....Yes,Mr Truly had this rifle and two others outside his office on the first floor of the building the day before yesterday.
Anyone who believes this is an ampersand logo has issues...
(https://i.imgur.com/yZULyKJ.jpg?1)
Anybody who thinks it is an inverted caret has even worse issues.
At least I'm looking at the correct image.
Very weak reply, Bill. Why do you think Hosty would be using an inverted caret?
Sorry, Bill, I didn't know you had to be in from the start of a topic, to pass an opinion. (I'll remember your rule next time you chime in with your late comments).
I've been looking at the image as in my post at 1.30.48. It is not a "caret"- it is shorthand for "and". For some unknown reason you don't want it to read "and" and have dragged up a printing sign to try and show it isn't.
Sorry, Bill, I didn't know you had to be in from the start of a topic, to pass an opinion. (I'll remember your rule next time you chime in with your late comments).
I've been looking at the image as in my post at 1.30.48. It is not a "caret"- it is shorthand for "and".
For some unknown reason you don't want it to read "and" and have dragged up a printing sign to try and show it isn't.
I'm familiar with the use of the caret symbol as a proofreader mark for inserting text, but thank you for Bill-splaining it to me. But as you allude, not only is the symbol going the wrong way for that usage, but it's not even located in the right place to signify the gap between "Truly" and "had".
Look at note, bottom of right column:
1 <thingy> 2nd floors offices. The thingy must mean "and".
I did a high-res scan from Hosty's book. There's definitely a loop and a cross-bar there.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/hosty-note.jpg)
Iacoletti posted a greatly enlarged copy of Hosty note .....There's no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that the character is an ampersand... However a person with his head in a dark cavity probably can't see .....
Saying Iacoletti's image is "greatly enlarged" doesn't mean anything. I think the term you're looking for is that Iacoletti (as he stated) posted a high-resolution scan.
I have no problem admitting I am wrong, when it is shown that I am wrong.
First, I need to study the image of the note from Hosty's book that Iacoletti used. At a quick glance, it doesn't look anything like the image being discussed. The problem is, I don't have Hosty's book.
Well, this topic had just about the mystery and excitement of a used condom.
Featuring the Three Amigos and their Musketeer [Oswald did it] friends.
Surprisingly, there was no rifle photo links supplied [after 21 pages of drivel]
The Randle house pictures....were silly.
The proposed paper sack photos would show the ludicrous concept of smuggling a disassembled rifle through the entry of a workplace -completely unobserved.
Dan Rather demonstrates how a bag containing suspect hardware might appear....
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hIYNYO3zsQo/hqdefault.jpg)
Where is the FBI or Dallas Police demonstration of the presumed packaging of a dismantled rifle?
Of course, a rifle scope would be rendered useless rattling around the package.
Below is 'the paper bag' concealing a dangerous broom handle.
(http://www.patspeer.com/_/rsrc/1518658514330/chapter-4c/paperthingrey.jpg)
Thanks for the bump and I'm sure your CT friends will be really impressed with you describing their contributions as drivel.
JohnM
John, it looks like Dan's bag is sealed at both ends. Care to provide any evidence that both ends of CE142 were ever in that condition? Or maybe Oswald believed gravity would suffice.
John, it looks like Dan's bag is sealed at both ends. Care to provide any evidence that both ends of CE142 were ever in that condition? Or maybe Oswald believed gravity would suffice.
We know from both Linnie and Buell that Oswald carried a long bag which he put on the backseat of Frazier's car but Oswald denied both innocent events, why on Earth would Oswald feel compelled to lie about the purely mundane?
Mr. BALL. When you did ask him about the sack, you did ask him about it, a sack at one time bringing a sack to work that morning?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. And you asked him the size and shape of the sack, didn't you?
Mr. FRITZ. He never admitted bringing the sack. I showed him the size probably in asking him if he brought a sack that size and he denied it. He said he brought his lunch was all he brought.
Mr. BALL. Didn't he say when you asked him the size and shape of the sack that he had with him, he said, "I don't recall, it may have been a small sack or a large sack. You don't always find one that fits your sandwiches," something like that.
Mr. FRITZ. That might be true but he said it was a small sack. He said it was a lunch sack.
Mr. BALL. Didn't you ask him where he usually kept his sacks, how he carried it when he came to work in the car?
Mr. FRITZ. I asked him where he had the sack---his lunch, and he said he had it in the front seat with him.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him if he put any sack in the back seat?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he did not.
Mr. BELIN. What was that about curtain rods?
Mr. HOLMES. Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, "Yes."
"What was in the sack?"
"Well, my lunch."
"What size sack did you have?"
He said, "Oh, I don't know what size sack. You don't always get a sack that fits your sandwiches. It might be a big sack."
"Was it a long sack?''
"Well, it could have been"
"What did you do with it?"
"Carried it in my lap."
"You didn't put it over in the back seat?"
"No." He said he wouldn't have done that.
"Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat."
He said, "Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up."
That is all he said about it.
JohnM
Care to provide any evidence that both ends of CE142 were ever sealed? The pictures I have seen appear otherwise.
A short digression Colin; is that Don Chipp you use in your profile?
Why are you avoiding the most important evidence?
Oswald LIED!
WHY?
JohnM
It's ok if you can't provide any answer to my question. I can't think of how it might have been sealed in a manner fit for purpose either. Then again, if I was going to manufacture a wrapper........I wouldn't need to seal one end.
You're inventing a problem where none exists.
But the basic fundamental evidence of Oswald's lies while in custody seems to be a subject that you people simply won't debate!
JohnM
If it helps you, I think he lied. I know you are good with graphics.....can you show me something that indicates the bag was ever sealed at both ends? Or describe how it might have been?
After reviewing the thread...and the idea that Oswald spirited a disassembled rifle to the car and to the building and through the building without getting quizzed -'Hey whatcha got there?'...by anybody....is comical at best.
Drivel?...Oh I'm guilty too maybe..occasionally (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/Arguing.gif)
Did we not see the video I posted where Wes Frazier renounced his entire testimony [now that he feels safe to do so] ??
Sheep-dipping 101. Oswald was the designated patsy so they had him pose in the backyard with both murder weapons and carry a suspicious bag into the TSBD. But had he smuggled in the MC then he didn't reassemble or fire it because there were no prints on the stalk, barrel, clip, ammo, trigger or scope. How was that possible if he manhandled every part of the rifle disassembling and reassembling it?
Oswald obviously never fired the rifle before because he would have zeroed the wonky scope. Every military marksman knows a scope is useless unless it's sighted in beforehand. There is no way he would have included a useless scope in the paper bag if he intended to use the iron sights instead.
You LNers need to address all this before quibbling over whether the disassembled rifle would even fit in the bag. And even if Oswald did smuggle in the rifle, he didn't reassemble or fire it, otherwise, what happened to his latex gloves?
How about he wiped his prints? Ever considered that?
The bag is only "suspicious" in hindsight.
There is no way he would have included a useless scope in the paper bag if he intended to use the iron sights instead.
Do you have some insight to Oswald's thinking that day? I haven't heard any such definitive statement on his thinking such as your "There is no way ... " comment.
So is a cleaning rag...did they find one? I didn't hear about it.
How about he wiped his prints?
The bag is only "suspicious" in hindsight.
Oswald assassinates the POTUS, then takes the time to wipe his prints from the rifle, ditches it, then races down 4 floors and into the lunch room in 90 seconds? HAHAHAHA!!!
Do you have trouble chewing gum and walking at the same time? Walking whilst wiping the stock and metal parts seems like a very easy task to me
The bag was used to sheep-dip the patsy and link him to the crime.
Yeah, sure it was
I'm just using logic
That's exactly what you're not doing but I understand that thinking logically might hurt your brain so it needs to be avoided
Walking whilst wiping the stock and metal parts seems like a very easy task to me.Walking where? Downs the stairs?
Walking where? Downs the stairs?
Well he didn't head up to the roof.
Not in evidence that the shooter went on a merry little stroll.
It wasn't a merry little stroll. He'd have been spombleprofglidnoctobunsting in his pants.
Again, where is the rifle cleaning cloth?
He was wearing a tee shirt which can easily be used as a cleaning cloth even when still be worn. That would be simple, close to hand and reasonably effective.
Something like that would have been found and placed in evidence.
I suppose it was when his effects were bundled up but it would not have been labelled a rifle cleaning cloth :D
He was wearing a tee shirt which can easily be used as a cleaning cloth even when still be worn. That would be simple, close to hand and reasonably effective.
It would be physically impossible to wipe a rifle down with a shirt you are wearing and then hide it somewhere without leaving prints on it again. An otherwise interesting theory...but it's just plain silly.
... a rough but effective wiping attempt....said the Port-o-Let.
Only in LN world could you forcefully grip a rifle, a strap, a paper bag, multiple times, with bare hands and not leave but one palm print on the bag
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches,
When Randle was shown a sack that was that size ( 3 feet long) she emphatically stated that the sack that Lee Oswald carried was not that long.....She said that the sack that Lee carried was about 27 inches long....
AFTER she had time to think about the potentially dire situation in which the 'bro could find himself embroiled.
Add Linnie Mae Randle to Bill Chapman's lying witnesses list.
What is more likely to be an accurate representation of what a witness thinks: her own direct testimony or a second hand account from somebody who interviewed her and typed up a report the next day? Particularly when several people complained that their words were not transcribed accurately?
And now show us where I said LMR (or the 'bro) actually went ahead with that which would, arguably, be the smart CYA move.
Seems Oswald did NOT try to hide the package
there was no way he could
didn't even tape the open end closed, laid it on back seat in plain sight
where else could he put it?
Didnt go EARLIER in the night and hide it in the trunk.
Was the lock on the trunk broken? Could he be sure that BF wouldn't need something from the trunk?
Waited till daylight,and carried along with one hand like it was an umbrella in bag, apparently not all concerned being seen carrying it, if crossing IN FRONT of the house past open windows with easy LOS to himself.
No one saw him walk the short distance from the garage to the Frazier home and remember, if challenged, he was only carrying curtain rods
Managed to carry it really awkwardly too given that one sideways palm print "found" on the CE 142. ::)
I'm sure it was awkward if carried perpendicular to the ground. The natural way to carry it is as if he was carrying a rifle. Frazier has said that he didn't take much notice of how Oswald carried the bag.
Was not really that concerned about getting the package into TSBD asap, after leaving BW Frazier in the car, cause Oswald just waited there by the fence, while Frazier stayed in the car, running the engine for another few minutes.
Oswald walked ahead of BF the whole way entering the building well ahead of him