Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)

[John Iacoletti]

No, Buell Frazier's credibility has been damaged by his clear and blatant lie is all I am saying.

I'm trying to determine if you are special pleading where Frazier is concerned, because a lot of witnesses made conflicting statements:  Marina, Givens, Brennan, Poe, Euins, Markham just to name a few.

What did Frazier claim that is contrary to the physical and circumstantial evidence?

The length of the package that LHO brought into the TSBD on 11/22/63.

What "physical and circumstantial evidence" is contrary?

[Charles Collins]

I'm trying to determine if you are special pleading where Frazier is concerned, because a lot of witnesses made conflicting statements:  Marina, Givens, Brennan, Poe, Euins, Markham just to name a few.

What "physical and circumstantial evidence" is contrary?

I'm trying to determine if you are special pleading where Frazier is concerned, because a lot of witnesses made conflicting statements:  Marina, Givens, Brennan, Poe, Euins, Markham just to name a few.


Each one has to be taken as a unique instance and analyzed in context.

What "physical and circumstantial evidence" is contrary?

here are a few:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html

The Commission has evaluated the evidence tending to show how Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial number C2766, was brought into the Depository Building, where it was found on the sixth floor shortly after the assassination. In this connection the Commission considered (1) the circumstances surrounding Oswald's return to Irving, Tex., on Thursday, November 21, 1963, (2) the disappearance of the rifle from its normal place of storage, (3) Oswald's arrival at the Depository Building on November 22, carrying a long and bulky brown paper package, (4) the presence of a long handmade brown paper bag near the point from which the shots were fired, and (5) the palmprint, fiber, and paper analyses linking Oswald and the assassination weapon to this bag.

[Steve Logan]

Brian I've asked these questions multiple times and you have yet to answer them:

1. Where and when did Frazier state that he left the front steps?

2. If Frazier did not leave the front steps how did he "witness" Oswald walking on the side of the TSBD?

[John Iacoletti]

Each one has to be taken as a unique instance and analyzed in context.

What is the "context" for assuming that Frazier was lying (intentionally stating something he knew to be untrue) either time?  And why doesn't the same standard apply to say Marina?  Or do you also think Marina was a liar with no credibility?

What "physical and circumstantial evidence" is contrary?

here are a few:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html

The WC didn't know that CE 142 was the same bag that Frazier saw, and neither do you.

[Charles Collins]

What is the "context" for assuming that Frazier was lying (intentionally stating something he knew to be untrue) either time?  And why doesn't the same standard apply to say Marina?  Or do you also think Marina was a liar with no credibility?

The WC didn't know that CE 142 was the same bag that Frazier saw, and neither do you.

What is the "context" for assuming that Frazier was lying (intentionally stating something he knew to be untrue) either time?  And why doesn't the same standard apply to say Marina?  Or do you also think Marina was a liar with no credibility?

The context is a sworn affidavit of 11/22/63 stating clearly that he "did not see LHO after about 11:00 AM today." That is either true or a lie. If it is true then his statement in the 7/13/2013 interview is a lie. And if the affidavit is not true, then it is a lie. Either way he is a liar.

The WC didn't know that CE 142 was the same bag that Frazier saw, and neither do you.

Frazier claims that it isn't. His claim is at odds with the circumstantial evidence that tends to show that it is. You can believe Buell Frazier if you wish. I am just pointing out that he is a liar. And that fact should be considered when deciding what evidence you choose to believe.

[John Iacoletti]

The context is a sworn affidavit of 11/22/63 stating clearly that he "did not see LHO after about 11:00 AM today." That is either true or a lie. If it is true then his statement in the 7/13/2013 interview is a lie.

Really?  Do you define "lie" as any statement that is untrue, regardless of the person's intent?  That would be interesting...

Frazier claims that it isn't. His claim is at odds with the circumstantial evidence that tends to show that it is.

What circumstantial evidence tends to show that CE 142 is the bag that Frazier saw?  Just your supposition that it must be?

[Charles Collins]

Really?  Do you define "lie" as any statement that is untrue, regardless of the person's intent?  That would be interesting...

What circumstantial evidence tends to show that CE 142 is the bag that Frazier saw?  Just your supposition that it must be?

Really?  Do you define "lie" as any statement that is untrue, regardless of the person's intent?  That would be interesting...

No. But it is crystal clear that Buell Frazier is blatantly and intentionally lying. Do you claim otherwise?

What circumstantial evidence tends to show that CE 142 is the bag that Frazier saw?  Just your supposition that it must be?

See the list above. Like I said earlier, you can choose to believe Buell Frazier if you wish.

[John Iacoletti]

No. But it is crystal clear that Buell Frazier is blatantly and intentionally lying. Do you claim otherwise?

Yes.  What makes it "crystal clear" to you?

See the list above. Like I said earlier, you can choose to believe Buell Frazier if you wish.

The "list above" was just a WC conclusion based on a supposition.  What is the evidence that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier saw?  Is there any at all?