Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Martin Weidmann]

Marting begging for someone to go through all this again so that he can exercise his compulsion driven mania to dismiss the evidence as the product of "assumptions" or "speculation."  And "chain of custody" nonsense.  That's been done a million times with you.  You reject all the evidence against Oswald.  The Klein's documents because they are "photocopies."  As though someone broke into Klein's and somehow manipulated their records and then forced them to lie about it.  Down the rabbit hole we go. Weeeeee.

Marting begging for someone to go through all this again so that he can exercise his compulsion driven mania to dismiss the evidence as the product of "assumptions" or "speculation."

Translation: I can't give you an example of where you rejected evidence! 

And "chain of custody" nonsense.

Translation: As long as a piece of evidence points to Oswald, I don't care where it came from or who handled it. Who cares about chain of custody rules that are in place to prevent evidence tampering by investigators?

That's been done a million times with you.

Yeah right, but you can't name one time, right?   

You reject all the evidence against Oswald.

More whining....

The Klein's documents because they are "photocopies."

Telling lies is getting you nowhere. I don't reject the Klein's documents, which are indeed photocopies, but I do question your interpretation of them.

As though someone broke into Klein's and somehow manipulated their records and then forced them to lie about it.

Nobody I am aware of has claimed any of this. It's just another pathetic strawman.

Now let's get back to the polygraph matter. Having read what R.D. Lewis told Vincent Drain, do you accept that the polygraph confirms that Frazier believed that the TSBD bag was not the bag Oswald had carried and that it had nothing to do with an estimate?

[Richard Smith]

[

You reject all the evidence against Oswald.

More whining....

The Klein's documents because they are "photocopies."

Telling lies is getting you nowhere. I don't reject the Klein's documents, which are indeed photocopies, but I do question your interpretation of them.

As though someone broke into Klein's and somehow manipulated their records and then forced them to lie about it.

Nobody I am aware of has claimed any of this. It's just another pathetic strawman.

Now let's get back to the polygraph matter. Having read what R.D. Lewis told Vincent Drain, do you accept that the polygraph confirms that Frazier believed that the TSBD bag was not the bag Oswald had carried and that it had nothing to do with an estimate?

My "interpretation" of the Klein's documents is based on contents of those documents.  They confirm that a rifle, with a specific serial number was ordered by an individual using an alias associated with Oswald and requesting that it be sent to his PO Box.  How else can you reconcile the contents of those documents?  That is the same rifle found in the TSBD (Oswald's place of employment) but you reject the conclusion that this evidence proves that the rifle was sent to Oswald or possessed by him.  Why even mention that these documents are photocopies unless you are alleging that they are faked or altered?  If you accept that they are authentic, then whether they are photocopies is meaningless.  If you don't accept that they are authentic, then by implication you are suggesting that they are fake or manipulated by someone.  They can't be both.

In terms of the polygraph, what difference does it make - even assuming that you are correct - that it confirms that Frazier believes the bag was shorter than the one found?  It just means he believes it.  He may honestly but erroneously believe anything.  He did indicate that it was "possible" that the bag he was shown was the bag carried that morning.  He didn't rule it out.  The obvious point, however, is that we do not have to rely on his belief based upon a glance because the bag was found.  It has been measured.  Therefore, there is no doubt that his estimate is incorrect. 

[Martin Weidmann]

My "interpretation" of the Klein's documents is based on contents of those documents.  They confirm that a rifle, with a specific serial number was ordered by an individual using an alias associated with Oswald and requesting that it be sent to his PO Box.  How else can you reconcile the contents of those documents?  That is the same rifle found in the TSBD (Oswald's place of employment) but you reject the conclusion that this evidence proves that the rifle was sent to Oswald or possessed by him.  Why even mention that these documents are photocopies unless you are alleging that they are faked or altered?  If you accept that they are authentic, then whether they are photocopies is meaningless.  If you don't accept that they are authentic, then by implication you are suggesting that they are fake or manipulated by someone.  They can't be both.

In terms of the polygraph, what difference does it make - even assuming that you are correct - that it confirms that Frazier believes the bag was shorter than the one found?  It just means he believes it.  He may honestly but erroneously believe anything.  He did indicate that it was "possible" that the bag he was shown was the bag carried that morning.  He didn't rule it out.  The obvious point, however, is that we do not have to rely on his belief based upon a glance because the bag was found.  It has been measured.  Therefore, there is no doubt that his estimate is incorrect.

My "interpretation" of the Klein's documents is based on contents of those documents.

That's exactly what I mean. A shallow, superficial, at first glance, interpretation.

They confirm that a rifle, with a specific serial number was ordered by an individual using an alias associated with Oswald and requesting that it be sent to his PO Box. 

Wrong. At first glance, they appear to confirm that, but closer inspection raises questions you will never ask.

How else can you reconcile the contents of those documents? 

If you have to ask..... The only documents that have a possible link to Oswald are the photocopies of the Hidell order form, the envelope and the money order. All the other documents in relation to the order are internal documents from Kleins' which are generated automatically when an order is received. The only document of those that provides a possible link to the rifle found at the TSBD is Waldman 7 and the only part of that entire document which provides that possible link is a handwritten serial and control number. So, to reconcile the order form with the alleged shipment of the rifle all that is required is simply to add a serial and control number to Waldman 7 and circle "PP". That's how flimsy the relationship of the various documents is.

Having said that, I'm fairly confident that you will dismiss this out of hand, simply because nobody in law enforcement would ever do such a thing to make sure a suspect already considered guilty (and now dead) would not get away with his crime, right?

That is the same rifle found in the TSBD (Oswald's place of employment) but you reject the conclusion that this evidence proves that the rifle was sent to Oswald or possessed by him. 

It is your conclusion that the same rifle ordered with the Hidell order form is the one found at the TSBD, but there is no evidence to support that conclusion. The Hidell order was for a 36" rifle and the rifle found at the TSBD was 40,2". All you have is a theory that Kleins' simply shipped a 40,2" rifle instead of the 36" rifle that was ordered, but as there is no evidence to support that theory, it's merely an assumption which can not be reconciled with the fact that Kleins' gunsmith Mitchell Westra is on record saying that Kleins' did not sent out a 40,2" rifle with a mounted scope.

It is also an assumption that a 40,2" rifle was ever posted to Oswald's P.O. box. The only document that links the TSBD rifle to the Hidell order is Waldman 7, which is also the only document that is used to claim that the rifle was sent, simply because the letters "PP" were circled. Waldman 7 is an internal Kleins' document and apparently is a type of form which is automatically generated for each order that comes in. The most remarkable feature of the document (of which also only a photocopy is available, despite it being an internal document) is that all the order information on it is printed except for the serial and control number, which are handwritten and could have been written in at any time. As the micro-film itself is now lost, we can't even go back and look if this document was actually on the micro-film to begin with.

Why even mention that these documents are photocopies unless you are alleging that they are faked or altered?

Because it is relevant. I am not alleging that they are faked or altered but I also don't discard the possibility. You can not assume that photocopies have the same evidentiary value as originals. Even FBI expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt admitted during the mock trial that photocopies can be tampered with. Not to consider that possibility is the same as believing whatever you are told without ever asking a critical question.

If you accept that they are authentic, then whether they are photocopies is meaningless.  If you don't accept that they are authentic, then by implication you are suggesting that they are fake or manipulated by someone.  They can't be both.

True, so what's your point? Prove their authenticity to me and I will gladly accept it, which is exactly where the problem lies. You can not prove their authenticity without making a large number of assumptions.

In terms of the polygraph, what difference does it make - even assuming that you are correct - that it confirms that Frazier believes the bag was shorter than the one found?  It just means he believes it.  He may honestly but erroneously believe anything.  He did indicate that it was "possible" that the bag he was shown was the bag carried that morning.  He didn't rule it out.  The obvious point, however, is that we do not have to rely on his belief based upon a glance because the bag was found.  It has been measured.  Therefore, there is no doubt that his estimate is incorrect. 

Total and utter BS.

Frazier didn't say it wasn't the bag because the one he saw Oswald carry was shorter. He said (and he believed it) that the bag shown to him was not the same as flimsy bag he had seen Oswald carry.

It is your opinion that the bag was found. In reality a bag was found. You have no evidence whatsoever that Frazier was (and still is) wrong about the bag. You merely assume it because that fits your narrative. You desperately need that bag, because without it you have no explanation for how the rifle got into the TSBD and the entire "he went to Irving to collect the rifle" goes out of the window with it. You can measure any bag you like. It's meaningless unless you can place that bag between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit and that's something you can never do.

[Richard Smith]

My "interpretation" of the Klein's documents is based on contents of those documents.

That's exactly what I mean. A shallow, superficial, at first glance, interpretation.

They confirm that a rifle, with a specific serial number was ordered by an individual using an alias associated with Oswald and requesting that it be sent to his PO Box. 

Wrong. At first glance, they appear to confirm that, but closer inspection raises questions you will never ask.

How else can you reconcile the contents of those documents? 

If you have to ask..... The only documents that have a possible link to Oswald are the photocopies of the Hidell order form, the envelope and the money order. All the other documents in relation to the order are internal documents from Kleins' which are generated automatically when an order is received. The only document of those that provides a possible link to the rifle found at the TSBD is Waldman 7 and the only part of that entire document which provides that possible link is a handwritten serial and control number. So, to reconcile the order form with the alleged shipment of the rifle all that is required is simply to add a serial and control number to Waldman 7 and circle "PP". That's how flimsy the relationship of the various documents is.

Having said that, I'm fairly confident that you will dismiss this out of hand, simply because nobody in law enforcement would ever do such a thing to make sure a suspect already considered guilty (and now dead) would not get away with his crime, right?

That is the same rifle found in the TSBD (Oswald's place of employment) but you reject the conclusion that this evidence proves that the rifle was sent to Oswald or possessed by him. 

It is your conclusion that the same rifle ordered with the Hidell order form is the one found at the TSBD, but there is no evidence to support that conclusion. The Hidell order was for a 36" rifle and the rifle found at the TSBD was 40,2". All you have is a theory that Kleins' simply shipped a 40,2" rifle instead of the 36" rifle that was ordered, but as there is no evidence to support that theory, it's merely an assumption which can not be reconciled with the fact that Kleins' gunsmith Mitchell Westra is on record saying that Kleins' did not sent out a 40,2" rifle with a mounted scope.

It is also an assumption that a 40,2" rifle was ever posted to Oswald's P.O. box. The only document that links the TSBD rifle to the Hidell order is Waldman 7, which is also the only document that is used to claim that the rifle was sent, simply because the letters "PP" were circled. Waldman 7 is an internal Kleins' document and apparently is a type of form which is automatically generated for each order that comes in. The most remarkable feature of the document (of which also only a photocopy is available, despite it being an internal document) is that all the order information on it is printed except for the serial and control number, which are handwritten and could have been written in at any time. As the micro-film itself is now lost, we can't even go back and look if this document was actually on the micro-film to begin with.

Why even mention that these documents are photocopies unless you are alleging that they are faked or altered?

Because it is relevant. I am not alleging that they are faked or altered but I also don't discard the possibility. You can not assume that photocopies have the same evidentiary value as originals. Even FBI expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt admitted during the mock trial that photocopies can be tampered with. Not to consider that possibility is the same as believing whatever you are told without ever asking a critical question.

If you accept that they are authentic, then whether they are photocopies is meaningless.  If you don't accept that they are authentic, then by implication you are suggesting that they are fake or manipulated by someone.  They can't be both.

True, so what's your point? Prove their authenticity to me and I will gladly accept it, which is exactly where the problem lies. You can not prove their authenticity without making a large number of assumptions.

In terms of the polygraph, what difference does it make - even assuming that you are correct - that it confirms that Frazier believes the bag was shorter than the one found?  It just means he believes it.  He may honestly but erroneously believe anything.  He did indicate that it was "possible" that the bag he was shown was the bag carried that morning.  He didn't rule it out.  The obvious point, however, is that we do not have to rely on his belief based upon a glance because the bag was found.  It has been measured.  Therefore, there is no doubt that his estimate is incorrect. 

Total and utter BS.

Frazier didn't say it wasn't the bag because the one he saw Oswald carry was shorter. He said (and he believed it) that the bag shown to him was not the same as flimsy bag he had seen Oswald carry.

It is your opinion that the bag was found. In reality a bag was found. You have no evidence whatsoever that Frazier was (and still is) wrong about the bag. You merely assume it because that fits your narrative. You desperately need that bag, because without it you have no explanation for how the rifle got into the TSBD and the entire "he went to Irving to collect the rifle" goes out of the window with it. You can measure any bag you like. It's meaningless unless you can place that bag between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit and that's something you can never do.

So just to summarize this long-winded post.  I noted that Martin dismisses the evidence of Oswald's guilt as the product of fakery or alteration.  Martin has a hissy fit denying that he ever does this.  Asks for examples.  I note his dismissal of the documents relating to Oswald's purchase of the rifle because they are photocopies.  Martin not only confirms that this is the case once again but adds the possibility that the police altered the document.  Confirming beyond any doubt that he dismisses evidence of Oswald guilt as the product of fakery or alteration to frame him.   My original point.

[Martin Weidmann]

So just to summarize this long-winded post.  I noted that Martin dismisses the evidence of Oswald's guilt as the product of fakery or alteration.  Martin has a hissy fit denying that he ever does this.  Asks for examples.  I note his dismissal of the documents relating to Oswald's purchase of the rifle because they are photocopies.  Martin not only confirms that this is the case once again but adds the possibility that the police altered the document.  Confirming beyond any doubt that he dismisses evidence of Oswald guilt as the product of fakery or alteration to frame him.   My original point.

It seems you are the one throwing the hissy fit because you can not produce the examples to back up your foolish claims.

If all you can do is misrepresent what I have said, you've only exposed yourself as a liar.

Not that I am surprised. Your "original point" is just as bogus as you are.

[Richard Smith]

Here is an example,  You are alleging that the handwritten serial number linking the rifle sent to Oswald was the potential product of fakery by the police.  As a result, (or as Otto prefers) thus, you dismiss the evidence as conclusive of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  If you don't dismiss the evidence as fake, it proves beyond any doubt that a specific rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.  The same rifle was found in his place of employment with his prints on it.   You do not accept the conclusion that the evidence links Oswald to this rifle.  So you have made a determination that this evidence is fake whether you want to acknowledge it or not.  You are dishonestly suggesting that you are not claiming the evidence is fake but just might be fake.  That is just playing the endless contrarian as any evidence could potentially be faked.  There is no evidence that it was faked.  That approach creates an impossible standard of proof on any issue that you do not want to accept.

And what do you mean by this is the "ONLY" evidence?   Direct handwritten evidence from Oswald ordering a rifle to be sent to his PO Box, and internal documents from Klein's processing that order!!!  You cite an order form, envelope, and money order but diminish the importance of that evidence by characterizing it as the "only" evidence.  Good grief.  That is compelling evidence.  It is a miracle we have that much evidence.  It would be difficult to envision how there even could be any MORE evidence of the matter.  Unreal.

How else can you reconcile the contents of those documents? 

If you have to ask..... The only documents that have a possible link to Oswald are the photocopies of the Hidell order form, the envelope and the money order. All the other documents in relation to the order are internal documents from Kleins' which are generated automatically when an order is received. The only document of those that provides a possible link to the rifle found at the TSBD is Waldman 7 and the only part of that entire document which provides that possible link is a handwritten serial and control number. So, to reconcile the order form with the alleged shipment of the rifle all that is required is simply to add a serial and control number to Waldman 7 and circle "PP". That's how flimsy the relationship of the various documents is.

Having said that, I'm fairly confident that you will dismiss this out of hand, simply because nobody in law enforcement would ever do such a thing to make sure a suspect already considered guilty (and now dead) would not get away with his crime, right?

[Richard Smith]

"fakery by the police".

I don't recall seeing poor Richard so far out.

Does he share a room with Andrew Mason?

I'm having trouble translating your post into a coherent point.  Are you saying that because there are some examples in history of police fakery or manipulation of evidence that it must be given credence in every situation?   Even when there is no evidence of such fakery and, therefore, any evidence produced against a criminal defendant must be rejected simply because of the "possibility" that it was faked?  Martin has produced no evidence that the serial number was written by the police or anyone else for the purpose of framing Oswald. He hasn't even tried.  Instead, he has merely suggested that it was theoretically possible for someone to have done so.  That approach to criminal culpability would come as great news to every criminal in prison.  Not for dead guys like Oswald, though.  His one successful accomplishment in life was pulling off the assassination, and you are trying to rob him even of that dubious credit.

[Martin Weidmann]

Here is an example,  You are alleging that the handwritten serial number linking the rifle sent to Oswald was the potential product of fakery by the police.  As a result, (or as Otto prefers) thus, you dismiss the evidence as conclusive of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  If you don't dismiss the evidence as fake, it proves beyond any doubt that a specific rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.  The same rifle was found in his place of employment with his prints on it.   You do not accept the conclusion that the evidence links Oswald to this rifle.  So you have made a determination that this evidence is fake whether you want to acknowledge it or not.  You are dishonestly suggesting that you are not claiming the evidence is fake but just might be fake.  That is just playing the endless contrarian as any evidence could potentially be faked.  There is no evidence that it was faked.  That approach creates an impossible standard of proof on any issue that you do not want to accept.

And what do you mean by this is the "ONLY" evidence?   Direct handwritten evidence from Oswald ordering a rifle to be sent to his PO Box, and internal documents from Klein's processing that order!!!  You cite an order form, envelope, and money order but diminish the importance of that evidence by characterizing it as the "only" evidence.  Good grief.  That is compelling evidence.  It is a miracle we have that much evidence.  It would be difficult to envision how there even could be any MORE evidence of the matter.  Unreal.

You are alleging that the handwritten serial number linking the rifle sent to Oswald was the potential product of fakery by the police.  As a result, (or as Otto prefers) thus, you dismiss the evidence as conclusive of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.

Complete and utter stupidity, which only demonstrates that you have a reading comprehension problem, resulting in a shallow, superficial interpretation of the evidence, with no critical questions asked.

I am not alleging anything, I am merely pointing out a fact. The serial number is handwritten on Waldman 7. I didn't say it was faked. It simply means that the document must be authenticated if it is to be used as conclusive proof of a link between the rifle and Oswald. And guess what... such an authentication would have been easy to produce. Just let the Kleins' employee who wrote the serial and control number on that form confirm that he wrote it, when he wrote it and when he actually sent out the 40.2" rifle. But the WC did not go that way and used Waldman, a VP of Kleins' who had nothing to do with gun sales, instead. One can only wonder why they did that.....

If you don't dismiss the evidence as fake, it proves beyond any doubt that a specific rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.  The same rifle was found in his place of employment with his prints on it.   You do not accept the conclusion that the evidence links Oswald to this rifle.  So you have made a determination that this evidence is fake whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

The only determination I can make based on this drivel is that you are an even bigger fool than I took you for.

You are dishonestly suggesting that you are not claiming the evidence is fake but just might be fake. That is just playing the endless contrarian as any evidence could potentially be faked. There is no evidence that it was faked. That approach creates an impossible standard of proof on any issue that you do not want to accept.[

And here we go again....more whining. Wash, rinse and repeat. You only got one thing right;

any evidence could potentially be faked.

Which is exactly why authentication of that evidence is needed and important. So, authenticate it and I'll gladly accept it as valid, but don't give me this BS about a handwitten number on a photocopy of a lost microscope film that has to be assumed to be authentic, just because you can not imagine that any law enforcement officer would ever tamper with evidence.

And what do you mean by this is the "ONLY" evidence? Direct handwritten evidence from Oswald ordering a rifle to be sent to his PO Box, and internal documents from Klein's processing that order!!!  You cite an order form, envelope, and money order but diminish the importance of that evidence by characterizing it as the "only" evidence.  Good grief.  That is compelling evidence.  It is a miracle we have that much evidence.  It would be difficult to envision how there even could be any MORE evidence of the matter.  Unreal.

Oh boy, the hissy fit continues. It is not my problem that you don't understand what I have written. Stay stupid and superficial, see if I care. You are behaving like a 5 year old who is stamping his feet because he doesn't get his candy.