How Could LHO Walk Seven Blocks Shortly After The Assassination & Not Be Seen?

[John Mytton]

I found the use of the word "matched" without a proper explanation somewhat controversial.

Stombaugh's testimony clearly shows that with the word "matched" he merely means (and I paraphrase) "common fibers that are similar to those used in the blanket" and not a match to the exclusion of all other possible sources. Set in that context I have no problem with the word "matched" although I am sure in my mind that Mytton and Chapman did not want to convey that message by using the word.

although I am sure in my mind...

 

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Have you lost what little remains of your faculties?  How do you get from "package on the back seat" (which Linnie Mae allegedly saw through a carport wall) to "rifle inside bag"?

Have you lost what little remains of your faculties?

No.

How do you get from "package on the back seat" (which Linnie Mae allegedly saw through a carport wall) to "rifle inside bag"?

Seriously, this is typical Kook logic where you set some unattainable unknown standard and whenever this perceived level of proof isn't delivered then you seem to claim some sort of hollow victory. Very strange.

1. Nobody had X-Ray vision and could see through the bag.
2. Linnie describes the bag and contents as appearing heavy and bulky towards one end.
3. The bag was crumpled and while a hard unknown object perhaps a rifle caused scratches the origin couldn't be determined.
4. Either Oswald or Frazier and his sister lied about where Oswald put the package.
5. Either Oswald or Frazier lied about the contents of the package.
6. Either Frazier or Oswald lied about where Oswald was getting his lunch.
7. Oswald's prints were on the bag.
8. The bag was found in the same window that multiple eyewitnesses saw a man with a rifle, Brennan testified that the man was Oswald.

Btw Frazier had no reason to lie.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Have you lost what little remains of your faculties? 

No.

So, you agree only a little remains of your faculties and you just disagree you've lost those?

Seriously, this is typical Kook logic where you set some unattainable unknown standard and whenever this perceived level of proof isn't delivered then you seem to claim some sort of hollow victory. Very strange.

1. Nobody had X-Ray vision and could see through the bag.
2. Linnie describes the bag and contents as appearing heavy and bulky towards one end.
3. The bag was crumpled and while a hard unknown object perhaps a rifle caused scratches the origin couldn't be determined.
4. Either Oswald or Frazier and his sister lied about where Oswald put the package.
5. Either Oswald or Frazier lied about the contents of the package.
6. Either Frazier or Oswald lied about where Oswald was getting his lunch.
7. Oswald's prints were on the bag.
8. The bag was found in the same window that multiple eyewitnesses saw a man with a rifle, Brennan testified that the man was Oswald.

Btw Frazier had no reason to lie.

JohnM

1. Nobody had X-Ray vision and could see through the bag.

True, so why are you claiming the bag contained a rifle?

2. Linnie describes the bag and contents as appearing heavy and bulky towards one end.

So what?

3. The bag was crumpled and while a hard unknown object perhaps a rifle caused scratches the origin couldn't be determined.


Is this you trying in vain to explain away why no scratchmarks caused by metal objects were not found in the bag?

4. Either Oswald or Frazier and his sister lied about where Oswald put the package.

Really, so there is no way they could have simply misrembered or be confused?

5. Either Oswald or Frazier lied about the contents of the package.

Frazier did not know what was in the package, so he could not have lied about that. All he knew is what (he said) Oswald told him.

6. Either Frazier or Oswald lied about where Oswald was getting his lunch.

Or somebody just made a wrong assumption.

7. Oswald's prints were on the bag.

Other prints, that could not be identified, were also on the bag. They could have belonged to other persons than Oswald which means it can't be ruled out other people also touched the bag.

8. The bag was found in the same window that multiple eyewitnesses saw a man with a rifle,

Too bad there is just no conclusive evidence to support that claim

Brennan testified that the man was Oswald.

After failing completely to identify him at a line up

[Martin Weidmann]

I realized that mistake when I revisited the interview. I hadn't seen the interview in some time.

However, although Buell's 'starting to cross Elm' statement doesn't prove to a certainty that Oswald actually walked along that particular street at that particular time, it also does not rule out the possibility.

I realized that mistake when I revisited the interview

You seem to be so involved in the LN narrative that you make a lot of those mistakes lately!

However, although Buell's 'starting to cross Elm' statement doesn't prove to a certainty that Oswald actually walked along that particular street at that particular time, it also does not rule out the possibility.

Neither does it compute with the official narrative of Oswald leaving the building through the front door and within 3 minutes of the shooting to get on a bus.....

[John Mytton]

So, you agree only a little remains of your faculties and you just disagree you've lost those?


1. Nobody had X-Ray vision and could see through the bag.

True, so why are you claiming the bag contained a rifle?

2. Linnie describes the bag and contents as appearing heavy and bulky towards one end.

So what?

3. The bag was crumpled and while a hard unknown object perhaps a rifle caused scratches the origin couldn't be determined.


Is this you trying in vain to explain away why no scratchmarks caused by metal objects were not found in the bag?

4. Either Oswald or Frazier and his sister lied about where Oswald put the package.

Really, so there is no way they could have simply misrembered or be confused?

5. Either Oswald or Frazier lied about the contents of the package.

Frazier did not know what was in the package, so he could not have lied about that. All he knew is what (he said) Oswald told him.

6. Either Frazier or Oswald lied about where Oswald was getting his lunch.

Or somebody just made a wrong assumption.

7. Oswald's prints were on the bag.

Other prints, that could not be identified, were also on the bag. They could have belonged to other persons than Oswald which means it can't be ruled out other people also touched the bag.

8. The bag was found in the same window that multiple eyewitnesses saw a man with a rifle,

Too bad there is just no conclusive evidence to support that claim

Brennan testified that the man was Oswald.

After failing completely to identify him at a line up

Yawn, your entire case seems to rely on mistaken eyewitnesses, forged evidence, planted evidence, crooked cops, crooked officials and the list goes on, but still not one shred of proof to support any of your self serving allegations. Go figure.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Yawn, your entire case seems to rely on mistaken eyewitnesses, forged evidence, planted evidence, crooked cops, crooked officials and the list goes on, but still not one shred of proof to support any of your self serving allegations. Go figure.

JohnM

Stop being such a drama queen!

I'm not making any allegations. I'm just showing your claims for what they really are; assumptions!

Btw, talk about "mistaken witnesses"... who is the one who claims Frazier and Randle were mistaken/wrong about the bag?

Who is the one who can not show where the paper bag was allegedly found, because there is no in situ photo?

[Bill Brown]

Frazier never admitted that he could have been mistaken about the manner in which Oswald carried the package.

At the mock trial, Bugs asked him a hypothetical question. He wanted to know (and I am paraphrazing) whether Frazier, walking behind Oswald, would have been able to see the package if it had protruded out. Frazier answered honestly that he could not have seen that, which is a far cry from admitting that he could have been mistaken about the way Oswald carried the package!

Vince Bugliosi:  So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it.  Is that correct?

Buell Frazier:  That is true.


Do we really need to play the word games?  Frazier admitted that the bag could have been carried by Oswald in a manner different than he (Frazier) previously described.

[Bill Brown]

Sure, I should do more research

Indeed.