Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)  (Read 13344 times)

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #16 on: May 29, 2019, 10:14:00 PM »
Advertisement
So two times under oath on a witness stand in a court of law he states he never saw Oswald after the shooting and never states he left the stairs.

Steve, can you point out the testimonies where he stated he never saw Oswald after the shooting and where he ever said that he didn't leave the stairs?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #16 on: May 29, 2019, 10:14:00 PM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3588
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #17 on: May 29, 2019, 10:23:24 PM »
Yes.  What makes it "crystal clear" to you?

The "list above" was just a WC conclusion based on a supposition.  What is the evidence that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier saw?  Is there any at all?

I have explained it already. What is your claim otherwise.

The list includes evidence. But you refuse to acknowledge it. Why? Have you reached a different conclusion?

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #18 on: May 29, 2019, 10:47:50 PM »
I have explained it already. What is your claim otherwise.

You haven't explained why it's "crystal clear" to you that Frazier is "blatantly and intentionally lying".

Quote
The list includes evidence. But you refuse to acknowledge it. Why? Have you reached a different conclusion?

No, the WC is doing what you are doing:  assuming that CE 142 must be the bag that Frazier saw because a couple of Oswald's prints were (allegedly) found on it.

Yes, I've come to a different conclusion.  Namely that there is no evidence that CE 142 is the bag that Frazier saw, and that there is no evidence that CE 142 or the bag that Frazier saw ever contained the CE 139 rifle or any other rifle.

Furthermore, the claims in your "list" aren't even accurate.

Quote
(1) the circumstances surrounding Oswald's return to Irving, Tex., on Thursday, November 21, 1963,

A look at all of the circumstances shows that 1) it was not the first time that Oswald came to Irving on a different day of the week, 2) he wasn't able to come the previous weekend because of a birthday party, 3) he tried to make up with Marina and convince her to move to Dallas with him

Quote
(2) the disappearance of the rifle from its normal place of storage,

There is no evidence of this being any rifle's "normal place of storage".

Quote
(3) Oswald's arrival at the Depository Building on November 22, carrying a long and bulky brown paper package,

....which according to the only people who saw it was NOT CE 142.

Quote
(4) the presence of a long handmade brown paper bag near the point from which the shots were fired,

...which appears in no crime scene photographs, and was not seen "near the point from which the shots were fired" (as if that has even been demonstrated) by the first 5 or 6 law enforcement officers on the scene.

Quote
and (5) the palmprint, fiber, and paper analyses linking Oswald and the assassination weapon to this bag.

There is no fiber or paper analysis "linking Oswald and 'the assassination weapon' (as if that has even been demonstrated) to this bag".  At best, all you can say (if the print analysis was accurate -- and it's completely impossible for anyone else to verify) is that Oswald touched the paper that CE142 was made out of at some unspecified time.  How that makes it the same bag Frazier saw is anybody's guess.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #18 on: May 29, 2019, 10:47:50 PM »


Offline Steve Logan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #19 on: May 29, 2019, 10:55:28 PM »
Steve, can you point out the testimonies where he stated he never saw Oswald after the shooting and where he ever said that he didn't leave the stairs?
John,
It's in both his testimonies to the Warren Commission and the Shaw Trail> If you need me to post the testimonies I will.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #20 on: May 29, 2019, 10:57:13 PM »
John,
It's in both his testimonies to the Warren Commission and the Shaw Trail> If you need me to post the testimonies I will.

Yes, please.  I looked them over and don't see these particular statements.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #20 on: May 29, 2019, 10:57:13 PM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3588
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2019, 12:25:42 AM »
You haven't explained why it's "crystal clear" to you that Frazier is "blatantly and intentionally lying".

No, the WC is doing what you are doing:  assuming that CE 142 must be the bag that Frazier saw because a couple of Oswald's prints were (allegedly) found on it.

Yes, I've come to a different conclusion.  Namely that there is no evidence that CE 142 is the bag that Frazier saw, and that there is no evidence that CE 142 or the bag that Frazier saw ever contained the CE 139 rifle or any other rifle.

Furthermore, the claims in your "list" aren't even accurate.

A look at all of the circumstances shows that 1) it was not the first time that Oswald came to Irving on a different day of the week, 2) he wasn't able to come the previous weekend because of a birthday party, 3) he tried to make up with Marina and convince her to move to Dallas with him

There is no evidence of this being any rifle's "normal place of storage".

....which according to the only people who saw it was NOT CE 142.

...which appears in no crime scene photographs, and was not seen "near the point from which the shots were fired" (as if that has even been demonstrated) by the first 5 or 6 law enforcement officers on the scene.

There is no fiber or paper analysis "linking Oswald and 'the assassination weapon' (as if that has even been demonstrated) to this bag".  At best, all you can say (if the print analysis was accurate -- and it's completely impossible for anyone else to verify) is that Oswald touched the paper that CE142 was made out of at some unspecified time.  How that makes it the same bag Frazier saw is anybody's guess.

If you can convince yourself that Buell Frazier isn’t a liar after seeing the evidence that I pointed out, then it isn’t surprising that you could convince yourself that there isn’t any evidence concerning the bag. But your weak excuses for denying the obvious are not convincing to me.

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4236
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2019, 05:27:33 AM »
This isn't difficult.

Fritz and Holmes testified that Oswald told them that he never had curtain rods.
Frazier testified that Oswald said he was carrying curtain rods.

Fritz and Holmes testified that Oswald said he carried his lunch on his lap.
Frazier testified that Oswald's package was on the back seat of his car.

Who had an incentive to lie, the guy with an alibi verified by photographic evidence or the guy with no alibi who owned the rifle on the 6th floor? Hmmmm?

JohnM
« Last Edit: May 30, 2019, 05:35:02 AM by John Mytton »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2019, 05:27:33 AM »


Offline Colin Crow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1860
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #23 on: May 30, 2019, 07:23:46 AM »
This isn't difficult.

Fritz and Holmes testified that Oswald told them that he never had curtain rods.
Frazier testified that Oswald said he was carrying curtain rods.

Fritz and Holmes testified that Oswald said he carried his lunch on his lap.
Frazier testified that Oswald's package was on the back seat of his car.

Who had an incentive to lie, the guy with an alibi verified by photographic evidence or the guy with no alibi who owned the rifle on the 6th floor? Hmmmm?

JohnM

This isn't so easy. Are you repeating the same stuff and expecting a different outcome?

Frazier shown CE142 on the night of the 22nd, undertook polygraph and apparently passed......go figure. Wonder if he said not paying attention then.