Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Martin Weidmann]

So, I guess all this is leading to the suggestion that the "Hidell" I.D. card was somehow faked by the DPD, is that it?

Boy, those DPD boys were sure busy faking & framing that weekend, weren't they?

The authorities were a bit sloppy with some of the evidence in the JFK case, I'll grant you that -- e.g., the careless way that SS Agent Richard Johnsen handled CE399 at Parkland on 11/22. Instead of putting it in some kind of container (which the hospital certainly could have provided), he just sticks it in his pocket.

And I'm sure that the DPD officers could have done a better job when it comes to some areas (like keeping the damn basement doors shut and locked until their famous prisoner made it out of City Hall alive).

But I'm not prepared to accept the common belief that dozens of pieces of evidence in this case were fraudulently manufactured by the DPD (or FBI) in order to frame Mr. Oswald. I just don't think that happened. And no one has ever proved any of the evidence in this case was faked.

So, I guess all this is leading to the suggestion that the "Hidell" I.D. card was somehow faked by the DPD, is that it?

No. I don't think the DPD faked the Hidell ID card

Boy, those DPD boys were sure busy faking & framing that weekend, weren't they?

Irony doesn't enhance your case one bit

The authorities were a bit sloppy with some of the evidence in the JFK case, I'll grant you that -- e.g., the careless way that SS Agent Richard Johnsen handled CE399 at Parkland on 11/22. Instead of putting it in some kind of container (which the hospital certainly could have provided), he just sticks it in his pocket.

A bit sloppy? That's the understatement of the century!

Let's not get into CE399 and it's authenticity here. I'll be glad to discuss that and the bullet fragments allegedly found in the limo in another thread, if you're interested, but not here.

And I'm sure that the DPD officers could have done a better job when it comes to some areas (like keeping the damn basement doors shut and locked until their famous prisoner made it out of City Hall alive).

And not walk around for some two hours with a revolver and then claim it was Oswald's, as Hill did. Or have unidentified officers handle the jacket found under a car (which in radio traffic was repeately refered to as being white) as Captain Westbrook did, and then ending up handing it into the evidence room with initials of officers on it who were not even present when the jacket was found. And the list goes on....

But I'm not prepared to accept the common belief that dozens of pieces of evidence in this case were fraudulently manufactured by the DPD (or FBI) in order to frame Mr. Oswald. I just don't think that happened.

I never claimed the DPD manufactured evidence, although I do believe they did manipulate some of it (not unusual at the time), but as far as the FBI goes, I am absolutely convinced there was some dodgy stuff going on. Perhaps not with the intention to frame an innocent man (which IMO Oswald could not be. He must have been involved in something somehow) but more likely in an effort to wrap the case more tightly around the already dead Oswald.

The shenanigans of Shanklin's airtel re Odum allegedly showing the bullet CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright, which by now I am convinced never happened, comes to mind.

And no one has ever proved any of the evidence in this case was faked.

It's a bit difficult to prove anything when the evidence is locked away and classified top secret for decades, don't you think?

I'll grant you this. For a large part of the population all this stuff about evidence tampering is way out there. They simply don't come across it in their every day life and can't even begin to imagine what really goes on. Not only in Goverment, but also in business. Sure, once in a while they see a crime show, but they don't take it seriously because they've seen multiple crime shows and movies about the same thing and that's just the movies, right? Only a few people see through it and understand that fraud in all shapes and forms is part of every day life and law enforcement is no exemption. From false police reports to drop guns to prosecutorial misconduct, it's a matter of every day life. That's why chain of custody is so massively important and when I see just how many "honest mistakes" were allegedly made in the investigation into the assassination of a President my BS meter automatically explodes. A first year prosecutor prosecuting a low life criminal would be ashamed to take such a pathetic case to court, but here we have the Government asking us to believe this is what happened. It's sad.

[John Iacoletti]

The authorities were a bit sloppy with some of the evidence in the JFK case, I'll grant you that

Understatement of the year.

But I'm not prepared to accept the common belief that dozens of pieces of evidence in this case were fraudulently manufactured by the DPD (or FBI) in order to frame Mr. Oswald.

Strawman alert.

I just don't think that happened. And no one has ever proved any of the evidence in this case was faked.

The burden is on you (and the police) to prove that the evidence is authentic.  And their "sloppyness" rendered the evidence tainted and unreliable.

[Martin Weidmann]

The answer to that couldn't be more obvious, Mr. Weidmann....

The "investigators" possessed the capability of drawing reasonable and logical inferences and conclusions from the available evidence. In other words, they were capable of adding 2 & 2 together, which is a task that most Internet conspiracy believers seem incapable of performing.

(Can you really not see the logic in my October 2007 comment above regarding the paper bag, Martin? You really can't grasp it?)

You won't get very far talking down to me, Mr. Von Pein.

All you are telling me is that it's a case of 100% circular logic. They believed Oswald was their man so obviously he did bring the bag found at the TSBD into the building.

It's pathetic. It isn't following the evidence where it leads you, it's deciding up front what the outcome should be and looking for the evidence to connect the dots. There is nothing even remotely logical about it.

And your high and mighty attitude doesn't alter one bit of the fact that you have just demonstrated beyond doubt that the case against Oswald was rigged from the beginning. Thank you for playing the game. You just lost!

[John Iacoletti]

The "investigators" possessed the capability of drawing reasonable and logical inferences and conclusions from the available evidence. In other words, they were capable of adding 2 & 2 together, which is a task that most Internet conspiracy believers seem incapable of performing.

You're free to speculate to your heart's content, but don't pretend that your speculations constitute evidence.  The evidence is that CE142 was not the package that Frazier and Randle saw, and there's no evidence that either wrapper contained a rifle, so what difference does it make?

[John Iacoletti]

And your high and mighty attitude doesn't alter one bit of the fact that you have just demonstrated beyond doubt that the case against Oswald was rigged from the beginning. Thank you for playing the game. You just lost!

Why is it that so many of the "Oswald did it" faithful think that arrogance and condescension makes their handwaving arguments more convincing?

[David Von Pein]

You won't get very far talking down to me, Mr. Von Pein.

All you are telling me is that it's a case of 100% circular logic. They believed Oswald was their man so obviously he did bring the bag found at the TSBD into the building.

It's pathetic. It isn't following the evidence where it leads you, it's deciding up front what the outcome should be and looking for the evidence to connect the dots. There is nothing even remotely logical about it.

And your high and mighty attitude doesn't alter one bit of the fact that you have just demonstrated beyond doubt that the case against Oswald was rigged from the beginning. Thank you for playing the game. You just lost!

Just like I said. No ability to add 2 and 2.

And you're dead wrong when you say "It isn't following the evidence where it leads you". That's exactly what I'm doing---following the evidence that exists in this case and applying simple logic and reasonable inferences from that evidence.

You think Oswald took a long-ish bag into the building and then----did what with it? Please tell me your theory on that.

If CE142 isn't the "Oswald bag", then what did Lee do with that 27-inch bag he took into the TSBD?

One thing's for sure --- whatever answer you dream up is not going to be nearly as logical as my October 2007 comment I posted earlier. But good luck trying.

[Martin Weidmann]

Just like I said. No ability to add 2 and 2.

And you're dead wrong when you say "It isn't following the evidence where it leads you". That's exactly what I'm doing---following the evidence that exists in this case and applying simple logic and reasonable inferences from that evidence.

You think Oswald took a long-ish bag into the building and then----did what with it? Please tell me your theory on that.

If CE142 isn't the "Oswald bag", then what did Lee do with that 27-inch bag he took into the TSBD?

One thing's for sure --- whatever answer you dream up is not going to be nearly as logical as my October 2007 comment I posted earlier. But good luck trying.

Your level of arrogance is astounding.

The answer to your pathetic question is that I don't need to have a theory about the bag Oswald brought in. And I couldn't care less what he did with it. I can speculate about it, but I don't play that game. Assumptions and speculation is for people who have no actual evidence to support their claim and then call it more logical than anything I can come up with.

In the real world, you need to prove that the bag found in the TSBD was in fact the same bag that Oswald brought in. And you can't! It really is as simple as that. That's why two eyewitness accounts, who basically said the same thing, were dismissed as "mistaken", because that's the best you can do.

You claim to be following the evidence, but that's not what you are doing at all. In fact, it seems you don't even understand what the meaning of following the evidence actually is. What you do is making assumptions and speculate and you know what, with enough assumptions and speculation you can "prove" anybody guilty of anything.

You childish insults only tell me that you foolishly think you are better and more knowledgeable than everybody else, which in my mind makes you a complete nobody with lots of bravado and nothing of substance to back it up. I'll be more than happy to discuss the details of the case with you, but I will not accept the patronizing BS you are posting right now.

[Colin Crow]

Mr. DAY. There was a scar on the top of or the top side of this box that was sitting there. I noticed that at the time. I thought the recoil of the gun had caused that. I later decided that was in the wrong direction. It was not the recoil of the gun but I did notice this scar on the box.

Translation: upon arrival to the SN the box "scar", arrangement of shells and shooting "logic" would have had the assassin shooting as JFK approached on Houston. Therefore the right strip was removed for analysis. I believe this is the one that broke around the 30 inch mark.

Note the missing strip on the right but not the left in the photo below.



I believe this piece is referenced below.



I am still trying to locate the doc in my files that mentions two pieces indicating that a break occurred around a nail hole.