Buell Wesley Frazier

[John Iacoletti]

Hahahaha! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, Oswald knew he had a rifle wrapped in a blanket on the floor of the Paine garage, therefore he made the trip to Irving to collect it, so;

Once again, cool story bro.  If only you had some actual evidence to support it.

[John Iacoletti]

Wake me up when the bag no longer exists.  The one that was found next to the SN with Oswald's prints that can be measured to avoid the necessity of pedantically analyzing witness estimates of its length and how it was carried.  Witness who had no real opportunity or cause to give the bag much notice.

This ranks right up there with your legendary argument that the best evidence that Oswald went down the stairs after the shooting is that he did.

[John Iacoletti]

Prosecution: Yes. Oswald wrote an order, Oswald paid for the order, Kleins processed the order and Kleins sent the order to Oswald's PO box, Oswald was proven to have been holding the same weapon as sent, the rifle was stored in a blanket, the same blanket was empty the afternoon of the assassination, Oswald was seen carrying a long brown package to work, the long brown package was discovered in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints, the eyewitness to this bag repeatedly says he "never payed attention to the bag", the rifle was found at Oswald's place of employment, 3 expended shells matching the rifle was found in the sniper's nest, the only recovered bullet fragments belonged to Oswald's rifle and Oswald's prints were on the rifle.

Claims aren't evidence.  Try harder.

[John Iacoletti]

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

Oswald not being chatty with a cab driver does not make the claim that Oswald killed Kennedy any more probable than if he was chatty with a cab driver.

Therefore it is not relevant evidence.

Thanks!   

[John Iacoletti]

You are denying LHO walked bent over, good choice LHO was walking erect with a 3 foot 6 inch bag. We all know, nobody would walk bent over with the 27 inch bag.

a) how did you determine what "we all know"?
b) why would a 27 inch bag need to be carried by walking "bent over"?
c) why is "Linnie Mae said" automatically more credible than "Buell Wesley said"?

By the way, Linnie Mae never says in her testimony that he was holding or touching the package with his left hand.  That was something you read into it.

[John Iacoletti]

I told you it's simple human error. Lt. Day made some assumptions which didn't pan out.

Just like you do.  Calling them "deductive reasoning" doesn't make your assumptions any more correct.

[John Iacoletti]

Linnie Mae did not lie about what she saw.

Good, I'm glad that's settled!

Mr. BALL. Fold it to about the size that you think it might be.
Mrs. RANDLE. This is the bottom here, right. This is the bottom, this part down here.
Mr. BALL. I believe so, but I am not sure. But let's say it is.
Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. About this.
Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

 

[Richard Smith]

The CTer/contrarian struggle with logic is painful to behold.  Here is an example.  If Oswald is placed beyond doubt at point A and then sometime later at point B there is no reason to engage in endless pedantic nitpicking to claim he couldn't have made it to point B within the known timeframe.  CTer/contrarians refuse to accept this simple concept.  They cling to pedantic, subjective interpretations of any witness testimony or circumstance that casts any doubt on this conclusion.  Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.  There is no better proof.  If person X is proven beyond doubt to be in Paris on one day and in NYC on the next, there is no need to know which plane he took, who he sat next to on the plane, or his manner of dress to reach the conclusion that he made it to NYC from Paris in that timeframe.  Just because a witness might describe this person as wearing a different colored jacket than the person in NYC is rabbit hole nonsense if the totality of evidence places him there beyond all doubt.