The Brown Paper Bag

[John Corbett]

The presence of the fibers on the bag that matched his rifle blanket are prima facie evidence that the bag was used to hold the rifle.

This is probably the best reason to not engage any further with this guy. Recently he has been schooled several times about the fact that it is not possible to match fibers with a particular item. Even worse, he has been shown an evidence photo showing the bag and the blanket next to each other with a high risk of cross contamination. And yet, still here he is again spewing the same old crap again.

I get it! I really do! His bible, the WC report tells him that fibers found on or in the bag matched the blanket from Ruth Paine's garage, so he has no choice. He has to blindly accept and follow what the cult book tells him. No sign of an independent or original thought, no critical thinking, just regurgitating the same BS over and over again.

Trying to have a normal conversation with this guy is a complete waste of time.

You complete misstate the issue with fibers. Fibers can be matched to an item. They cannot prove with absolute certainty that a fiber can from a particular item because it is theoretically possible it came from an item with the same type of fibers. it would be a truly amazing coincidence if the fibers in the bag came from a different item with the same kind of fibers. The match is highly probative that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket.

Ditto for the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched Oswald's shirt. What are the odds that there would be a match to both Oswald's shirt and blanket if the fibers hadn't come from those items.

This is where the concept of probative comes into play for conspiracy hobbyists. As long as there is a theoretical chance of an alternative explanation that does not incriminate Oswald, no matter how remote the likelihood, that's gives them the excuse they need to completely dismiss a piece of evidence. If it isn't 100% conclusive, it doesn't mean a thing to them.

[Michael Capasse]

Only Frazier said the package did fit under his arm. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable and do not establish anything as a fact. At the time he observed it, he had no reason to make a mental note whether the package fit under Oswald's arm or if it was up above his shoulder. It wouldn't have seemed the least bit important to him at the time. Why do you put so much faith in Frazier's accoun?

 
He doesn't need to pay attention to the bag to having had missed about 1 ft above the shoulder.
He knows what he saw:

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, like I say now, now I couldn't see much of the bag from him walking in front of me. Now he could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because I didn't see it from the front, The only time I did see it was from the back, just a little strip running down from your arm and so therefore, like that, I say, I know that the bag wouldn't be that long.

[John Corbett]

He doesn't need to pay attention to the bag to having had missed about 1 ft above the shoulder.
He knows what he saw:

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, like I say now, now I couldn't see much of the bag from him walking in front of me. Now he could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because I didn't see it from the front, The only time I did see it was from the back, just a little strip running down from your arm and so therefore, like that, I say, I know that the bag wouldn't be that long.

It is truly remarkable that you put 100% faith in Frazier perfectly remembering such a mundane detail and then turn around and treat the fiber evidence as if it is not probative at all. This is a perfect example of what I said earlier about you being really, really bad at weighing evidence. This is exactly the kind of detail an eyewitness would get wrong. People just aren't that observant about mundane details such as this. Our minds are not equipped with a DVR. We just don't take in every detail, especially something that at the time wouldn't have seemed the least bit important. Then you turnaround and act as if the matching fiber evidence isn't probative at all. It would be a truly remarkable coincidence if the fibers that were in the bag matched the fibers in Oswald's blanket if they had come from another source. Ditto for the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched his shirt. To argue for Oswald's innocence, it is necessary to believe the least likely explanation for dozens of pieces of evidence and disregard the most likely one.

If you don't believe me regarding how unreliable eyewitness testimony is, maybe you will believe people have actually studied this subject:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9451081/
https://legalclarity.org/what-percent-of-eyewitness-testimony-is-accurate/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661325000270

Here are some quotes from the above articles which pretty much says all that needs to be said about the reliability of witnesses:
"These numbers mean that eyewitness identification is useful but nowhere near the gold standard that jurors tend to treat it as."

"Work by Elizabeth Loftus and her colleagues in the 1970s showed that eyewitness memory, like any type of forensic evidence, can be contaminated [1]. For example, a true memory of a stop sign can be replaced by a false memory of a yield sign based on nothing more than a passing suggestion [2]. Later, in the 1990s, it became clear that it is even possible for someone to acquire detailed and emotional false memories of traumatic events that never happened"

One of the factors in witness reliability is how much time passes between the event and the testimony. Frazier was interviewed by the WC on July 23, 1964, a full 8 months after the assassination. The pictures you posted are not dated but based on Frazier's gray hair and the fact he was only 19 at the time of the assassination, I would gladly wager they were taken at least 50 years after the assassination. That gives a lot of time for memories to fade and false memories to take hold.

I have served on two juries in criminal trials. We convicted one person without relying on any eyewitness testimony at all, using only the forensic evidence to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The other was a murder trial in which the accused admit to the killing but claimed self defense. There was some eyewitness testimony but it wasn't crucial to our finding of guilt. We simply didn't believe the killer's claim of self defense.

If I again were to find myself on a jury in a criminal trial and the prosecution's case hinged on eyewitness testimony, I would vote to acquit unless there was compelling evidence to corroborate the eyewitness account. I simply do not have enough faith in eyewitness accounts to remove reasonable doubt without corroboration.

But you go on treating Frazier's memory as if it is gospel. It will continue to prevent you from knowing the truth of the JFKA.

You are certainly among the people who treat an eyewitness account as a gold standard of evidence.

[Michael Capasse]

It is truly remarkable that you put 100% faith in Frazier perfectly remembering such a mundane detail and then turn around and treat the fiber evidence as if it is not probative at all. This is a perfect example of what I said earlier about you being really, really bad at weighing evidence. This is exactly the kind of detail an eyewitness would get wrong. People just aren't that observant about mundane details such as this. Our minds are not equipped with a DVR. We just don't take in every detail, especially something that at the time wouldn't have seemed the least bit important. Then you turnaround and act as if the matching fiber evidence isn't probative at all. It would be a truly remarkable coincidence if the fibers that were in the bag matched the fibers in Oswald's blanket if they had come from another source. Ditto for the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched his shirt. To argue for Oswald's innocence, it is necessary to believe the least likely explanation for dozens of pieces of evidence and disregard the most likely one.

If you don't believe me regarding how unreliable eyewitness testimony is, maybe you will believe people have actually studied this subject:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9451081/
https://legalclarity.org/what-percent-of-eyewitness-testimony-is-accurate/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661325000270

Here are some quotes from the above articles which pretty much says all that needs to be said about the reliability of witnesses:
"These numbers mean that eyewitness identification is useful but nowhere near the gold standard that jurors tend to treat it as."

"Work by Elizabeth Loftus and her colleagues in the 1970s showed that eyewitness memory, like any type of forensic evidence, can be contaminated [1]. For example, a true memory of a stop sign can be replaced by a false memory of a yield sign based on nothing more than a passing suggestion [2]. Later, in the 1990s, it became clear that it is even possible for someone to acquire detailed and emotional false memories of traumatic events that never happened"

One of the factors in witness reliability is how much time passes between the event and the testimony. Frazier was interviewed by the WC on July 23, 1964, a full 8 months after the assassination. The pictures you posted are not dated but based on Frazier's gray hair and the fact he was only 19 at the time of the assassination, I would gladly wager they were taken at least 50 years after the assassination. That gives a lot of time for memories to fade and false memories to take hold.

I have served on two juries in criminal trials. We convicted one person without relying on any eyewitness testimony at all, using only the forensic evidence to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The other was a murder trial in which the accused admit to the killing but claimed self defense. There was some eyewitness testimony but it wasn't crucial to our finding of guilt. We simply didn't believe the killer's claim of self defense.

If I again were to find myself on a jury in a criminal trial and the prosecution's case hinged on eyewitness testimony, I would vote to acquit unless there was compelling evidence to corroborate the eyewitness account. I simply do not have enough faith in eyewitness accounts to remove reasonable doubt without corroboration.

But you go on treating Frazier's memory as if it is gospel. It will continue to prevent you from knowing the truth of the JFKA.

You are certainly among the people who treat an eyewitness account as a gold standard of evidence.

There is no need to respond to any of this.
Buell Wesley Frazier knew exactly what he saw and refused to identify the bag allegedly found upstairs.