Doesn't it bother you that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way?
No... because there is no record of anybody ever looking for such a bag or that Oswald was even asked where he left the bag he had brought his lunch in. And absence of evidence is no evidence of absence! All there is, is a comment by R.D. Lewis, who took Frazier's polygraph, that Oswald could simply have thrown away such a flimsy bag and he was right.
Doesn't it bother you that Fritz told Detective Montgomery to guard the sniper's nest until the Crime Scene officers (Day and Studebaker) arrived, yet when these men got there the bag was not in the position it allegedly was found in? It was never photographed in situ and according to Montgomery the paper bag was actually sitting on a box in folded up condition?
And that your hero Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag?
Oswald is not my hero, so cut the pathetic dramatics. And we don't know what Oswald really said, do we now?
Why would a polygraph matter if Frazier was honestly answering the question but got it wrong?
What did Frazier get wrong? That the heavy bag shown to him was not the "thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" he had seen Oswald carry?
Good grief. You can't possibly be that dense. I was trying to have some mercy on you but you are too stupid to understand.Frazier was being honest but got it wrong. He did not lie. Whew. This goes back to the CTer inability to distinguish a lie from an honest mistake. Very humorous. Of course if the polygraph had suggested that Frazier was lying then you would be lecturing us on how they are unreliable. Like handwriting analysis or any evidence that links Oswald to this crime.
.
Ah... here come the usual insults and more hand waving.... Always a sign of weakness!
What exactly did Frazier get wrong?
Frazier saw Oswald carry a thin, flimsy dime store bag and when he was shown a heavy bag made from wrapping materials he denied that this was Oswald's bag.
Can you imagine how this would play out in a court with Frazier on the stand as a witness?
Prosecutor: Mr. Frazier I show you a paper bag found at the TSBD. Do you recognize this bag?
Frazier: No, I had never seen it before until DPD officers showed it to me on 11/22/63
Prosecutor: Are you absolutely sure you have never seen this bag before?
Frazier: Yes
Prosecutor: Let me ask you in a different way; Did you see Lee Harvey Oswald carry this bag at any time?
Frazier: No
Prosecutor: How can you be so sure?
Frazier: Well, for one, this bag is too large to be the bag I saw Oswald carry. His bag was much smaller. It was so small that he could carry it in the palm of his hand and tucked under his armpit. But that's not all. The bag I saw Oswald carry was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store. The bag you show me is made of heavy duty wrapping paper. There is no way this is the bag I saw Oswald carry....
Prosecutor: No further questions....
Ugh. So many wasted words. You have suggested that Frazier must be correct in his estimate of the bag's length citing the polygraph that he did not indicate lie. As though the polygraph is the hand of God determining the truth. This is simple. Pay attention for once. If Frazier truly believed the bag he was shown was not the bag, then the polygraph would indicate he was not lying EVEN if he was wrong. It determines - when accurate - whether a person is lying not whether what they are saying is accurate. Thus, if Frazier believed it, then it would not register as a "lie" in the polygraph even if he was wrong. A person can testify honestly but erroneously. So if you believe that little green men are visiting you and take a polygraph test to that effect it will show that you are not lying. That does not mean that little green mean are visiting you though. Can you comprehend that obvious distinction? I have never disputed that Frazier believed it was a shorter bag. That is his testimony. But the totality of evidence proves he is wrong.
