Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Jerry Freeman]

Mr. Frazier is also on record as having said the following at the 1986 Oswald Mock Trial in London, England:

A mock trial with a mock judge who mock presided and why was it in England?..another mockery.
Vinso got Frazier to renege on his own sworn WC testimony?
There was no bag and therefore was no rifle in it.
Oswald entered the building and there were no other people around who saw anything noticeable in his hands.
Conclusion...some insider conspirator fabricated that bag on record.
Don't believe it? See if I care.

[Charles Collins]

That is what we call "evidence."

Yes I know, that's what is so sad about it. It shows us all that you confuse opinions, assumptions and speculation with actual evidence.

The bottom line is that Frazier (who actually saw LHO carrying the bag) admits (under oath) that it is possible that it was carried in front of his body and Frazier wouldn’t have seen that aspect. Combine that fact with the physical evidence of the length of the bag and the logical conclusion is that he indeed carried the bag in front of him.

Frazier’s estimate of the length of the bag and his idea that it appeared to Frazier (from his viewpoint behind LHO) that LHO had it tucked under his armpit are questionable. He has repeatedly said that he wasn’t paying much attention to the bag. He admits under oath that it is possible that his idea of it tucked under the armpit could be wrong. But for some unknown reason you insist otherwise. That’s what is sad….

[Charles Collins]

A mock trial with a mock judge who mock presided and why was it in England?..another mockery.
Vinso got Frazier to renege on his own sworn WC testimony?
There was no bag and therefore was no rifle in it.
Oswald entered the building and there were no other people around who saw anything noticeable in his hands.
Conclusion...some insider conspirator fabricated that bag on record.
Don't believe it? See if I care.

The jury was picked from Dallas, Texas folks. Too bad you weren’t picked. You could have potentially hung the jury based on your nonsense ideas. Or, the other jurists could have laughed you out of the jury room.

[Jerry Freeman]

Takeaway du jour: Two nerd heads are not better than one; rather, they are merely twice as dorky

I'm sure that there should be a name for the condition you must have.
They just haven't conceived one yet but it might be a painful description of some psychotic delusion.

  You could have potentially hung the jury based on your nonsense ideas.

That sounds like a challenge. I graciously accept. However, I can guarantee a unanimous verdict. 
Regarding that "trial"...

Asked to consider whether Oswald had acted alone or with others, seven jurors decided he had done so, three said he acted with others and two were undecided.

https://apnews.com/article/5c77f0ddf56a8501410ae81a709adbba

Too bad Gerry Spence didn't know much about the case. Also that he couldn't call Lee Harvey Oswald to the stand to respond to the obviously hand-picked participants.

[Martin Weidmann]

The bottom line is that Frazier (who actually saw LHO carrying the bag) admits (under oath) that it is possible that it was carried in front of his body and Frazier wouldn’t have seen that aspect. Combine that fact with the physical evidence of the length of the bag and the logical conclusion is that he indeed carried the bag in front of him.

Frazier’s estimate of the length of the bag and his idea that it appeared to Frazier (from his viewpoint behind LHO) that LHO had it tucked under his armpit are questionable. He has repeatedly said that he wasn’t paying much attention to the bag. He admits under oath that it is possible that his idea of it tucked under the armpit could be wrong. But for some unknown reason you insist otherwise. That’s what is sad….

The bottom line is that Frazier (who actually saw LHO carrying the bag) admits (under oath) that it is possible that it was carried in front of his body and Frazier wouldn’t have seen that aspect.

No he didn't admit that at all. He answered a hypothetical question truthfully. There is no evidence whatsoever that what Bugs asked him actually happened.

Combine that fact with the physical evidence of the length of the bag and the logical conclusion is that he indeed carried the bag in front of him.

No, that's not the logical conclusion, because Oswald could also have been carrying the flimsy bag Frazier saw that same way. You need to prove that it was the bag that was found on the 6th floor and you can't. You can only assume it was.

He admits under oath that it is possible that his idea of it tucked under the armpit could be wrong.

No he didn't admit that at all. He just agreed with Bugs that if Oswald had carried the bag protruding out he wouldn't have been able to see it. But in fact, just prior to that he reaffirmed that Oswald was carrying the bag in the cup of his hand and under his armpit.

But for some unknown reason you insist otherwise. That’s what is sad….

No, that's not sad. It just means I'm not as gullible as most LNs and can only be persuaded by actual evidence and not wishful thinking, misinterpretations, assumptions and speculation. But somehow I think you will never ever understand that.

[Martin Weidmann]

Too bad Gerry Spence didn't know much about the case. Also that he couldn't call Lee Harvey Oswald to the stand to respond to the obviously hand-picked participants.

That "trial" wasn't a mock trial, it was a mockery. Prosecution and defense agreeing in advance (they call it "stipulation") what should be in the trail and what not. A minor selection of witnesses, some of them I don't understand to this day why they were there, and no possibility to investigate anything brought up during witness testimony. The mere fact that each witness was only on the stand for a couple of minutes, when in the real word sometimes questioning a witness goes on for days. is pathetic by itself. No physical evidence, no objections to a line of questioning, no discovery, no disclosure of exculparty evidence.

Hang on, as I think about it, it was not only a mockery, it was also a badly produced comedy of errors.

[Martin Weidmann]

The jury was picked from Dallas, Texas folks. Too bad you weren’t picked. You could have potentially hung the jury based on your nonsense ideas. Or, the other jurists could have laughed you out of the jury room.

I will give you this. If I had been on that jury and a prosecutor had brought me such a weak, superficial case, the accused would have walked in the same way O.J. did; not because he was guilty or not but simply because the prosecutor failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Charles Collins]

The bottom line is that Frazier (who actually saw LHO carrying the bag) admits (under oath) that it is possible that it was carried in front of his body and Frazier wouldn’t have seen that aspect.

No he didn't admit that at all. He answered a hypothetical question truthfully. There is no evidence whatsoever that what Bugs asked him actually happened.

Combine that fact with the physical evidence of the length of the bag and the logical conclusion is that he indeed carried the bag in front of him.

No, that's not the logical conclusion, because Oswald could also have been carrying the flimsy bag Frazier saw that same way. You need to prove that it was the bag that was found on the 6th floor and you can't. You can only assume it was.

He admits under oath that it is possible that his idea of it tucked under the armpit could be wrong.

No he didn't admit that at all. He just agreed with Bugs that if Oswald had carried the bag protruding out he wouldn't have been able to see it. But in fact, just prior to that he reaffirmed that Oswald was carrying the bag in the cup of his hand and under his armpit.

But for some unknown reason you insist otherwise. That’s what is sad….

No, that's not sad. It just means I'm not as gullible as most LNs and can only be persuaded by actual evidence and not wishful thinking, misinterpretations, assumptions and speculation. But somehow I think you will never ever understand that.

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?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

That is not a hypothetical question. If it was, Jerry would have certainly objected to it being asked of a non-expert witness.