Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[David Von Pein]

...but I do recall reading a report about the removal of the window sill.

Removed (by the police) prior to sundown on Nov. 22?

[Martin Weidmann]

If you can't score a point, why shoot?

Perhaps this shouldn't be about scoring point?

You do understand that selecting those parts of the conversation you want to continue, you actually admit defeat on all the other topics, right?

And there will always be contradictions in many of the witness statements. CTers will always choose the statements that help their cause, and LNers will prop up the stuff that helps the LN cause. And we'll all stay on the JFK merry-go-round for another day.

Fair enough, at least to some extent. It's the proscution vs defense game, which is exactly why the LN case is just as much a theory than the one for the defense. However, having said that, witness statements very often are subject to corrections and alterations because the initial statement isn't complete or accurate. So, it follows that a witness statement that is not only consistent but also can not be debunked with actual facts in 58 years can normally be considered to have been correct.

I wanted to make sure that Linnie's "Heavier than a grocery sack" testimony was placed on the table too. (Fair is fair, right?) You post the "flimsy" testimony; I post the "heavy sack" testimony. It's pick-&-choose heaven....just like always at JFK forums.

Actually, I just quoted from an airtel from James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, the content of which was basically confirmed by the statement Detective Lewis (who conducted Frazier's polygraph) gave to FBI Vincent Drain on 12/01/63

But the key difference is: I can "pick & choose" all day long (and every single forum member does it all the time; can't be helped; it's human nature to do that, and it will always be that way),

I agree. Everybody who is looking for a predetermined outcome will cherry pick the pieces of evidence that support their narrative. That's the way the WC and the FBI worked and things haven't changed since. Unfortunately, there is no guarentee whatsoever that that particular narritive is the right one. It's only the selected one.

but at the end of today, like every other day since 1963, I'll still have every scrap of physical evidence to back up my LN beliefs, vs. your collection of zero pieces of physical evidence to support your make-believe conspiracy.

Still desperate to score a point, I see. Like a child (or Chappy) who always needs to have the last word. Very disappointing.

I don't have a conspiracy theory, make believe or otherwise. I couldn't care less if there was a conspiracy or if Oswald did it alone. What I am only interested in is finding out if the case against Oswald is strong enough to withstand scrutiny. Those pieces of physical evidence are only as good as the interpretation of them. A correct investigation is one of considering all the possible explanations and eliminating theories. That's not what happened here.

How do I know? That's an easy question to answer. In a proper investigation more physical evidence is collected than will ever be used in a subsequent prosecution, because there will always be dead ends in an investigation. As that evidence is nevertheless part of the investigation, it should be stored at the National Archives along with everything else. And guess what, it isn't. All you will find by way of physical evidence are those items that are part of the case against Oswald, which either means that the investigators got everything right from day one or there is/was more to this case than what we know now.

[David Von Pein]

Perhaps this shouldn't be about scoring point?

I agree. It should be more about making good points, evaluating ALL the evidence and witness testimony, and then discarding the parts that can reasonably be deemed invalid or unworthy of serious consideration. (IOW, wheat over chaff.)

IMO, the CTers retain way too much chaff and discard virtually all of the wheat (i.e., the actual physical evidence in the case, which all points to Mr. Oswald, of course). That's certainly not the way to solve this (or any) case.

All you will find by way of physical evidence are those items that are part of the case against Oswald, which either means that the investigators got everything right from day one or there is/was more to this case than what we know now.

And the reason for that is simple (IMO) --- There is no physical evidence other than the stuff that leads directly to Oswald. No such "non-Oswald" physical evidence was found. It doesn't exist, and never did.

But you don't believe that, do you Martin?

[Charles Collins]

One thing that Buell said in the video just (before the 14-minute mark) from the Sixth Floor Museum from 11/22/21 is that LHO told him that Marina made him some curtains for his room. And that he wanted a ride on Thursday in order to pick up some curtain rods from Ruth Paine's house. My question is: Has Buell said that part about LHO saying that Marina made some curtains for him before this interview, or is this a new revelation? I just don't recall seeing anything about any curtains made by Marina before now.

[Martin Weidmann]

I agree. It should be more about making good points, evaluating ALL the evidence and witness testimony, and then discarding the parts that can reasonably be deemed invalid or unworthy of serious consideration. (IOW, wheat over chaff.)

IMO, the CTers retain way too much chaff and discard virtually all of the wheat (i.e., the actual physical evidence in the case, which all points to Mr. Oswald, of course). That's certainly not the way to solve this (or any) case.

And the reason for that is simple (IMO) --- There is no physical evidence other than the stuff that leads directly to Oswald. No such "non-Oswald" physical evidence was found. It doesn't exist, and never did.

But you don't believe that, do you Martin?

I agree. It should be more about making good points, evaluating ALL the evidence and witness testimony, and then discarding the parts that can reasonably be deemed invalid or unworthy of serious consideration. (IOW, wheat over chaff.)

As long as those parts are discarded are the result of actual investigation and not just because they don't fit the narrative you're    trying to build. And, as far as I can tell, the latter happened far more in this "investigation", in which Hoover himself had declared Oswald guilty before the evidence was in.

And the reason for that is simple (IMO) --- There is no physical evidence other than the stuff that leads directly to Oswald. No such "non-Oswald" physical evidence was found. It doesn't exist, and never did.

So this was the most perfect and to the point investigation ever conducted in the country?

And you actually believe that, do you David?

Btw, you do understand that you are contradicting yourself, right?

You can not claim at the same time that there was no such "non-Oswald" physical evidence and also say that some parts of the evidence were discarded because they can reasonably be deemed invalid or unworthy of serious consideration.

[David Von Pein]

Has Buell said that part about LHO saying that Marina made some curtains for him before this interview, or is this a new revelation?

That's not a new revelation, Charles. Buell said the same thing in his interview with Gary Mack 20 years ago in 2002. Go to 29:45 in this video to hear it:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-979.html

[Alan Ford]

So, Mr Von Pein, you believe the curtain rods were submitted at 9.45 a.m. on March 23?

Bumped for Mr Von Pein! 

[David Von Pein]

Btw, you do understand that you are contradicting yourself, right?

You can not claim at the same time that there was no such "non-Oswald" physical evidence and also say that some parts of the evidence were discarded because they can reasonably be deemed invalid or unworthy of serious consideration.

I was talking about the need to discard some things relating to the case (e.g., witness testimony that is obviously inaccurate), not necessarily physical evidence. Since there is no "non-Oswald" physical evidence, then there is none of that material to discard -- although most CTers have decided to discard all of it by way of calling all of it fake. But, then too, that's the only way they can pretend Oswald was a patsy. So they're pretty much forced to toss all the evidence in the dumpster.