Buell Wesley Frazier

[Martin Weidmann]

Isn’t it nice that you can make up your own story?

Of course, but, unlike you, I would never claim that my story (= assumptions) are "Reasonable inferences from the totality of the evidence" that "tell us what happened".

[Charles Collins]

Of course, but, unlike you, I would never claim that my story (= assumptions) are "Reasonable inferences from the totality of the evidence" that "tell us what happened".

The little details that will never be known with any certainty are not a part of what the inferences from the totality of the evidence tell us. I was just making a point that there are some alternate possibilities to taking the rifle apart and re-assembling it. That’s all.

[Richard Smith]

I agree with everything you said. Reasonable inferences from the totality of the evidence tell us what happened. Discussing the possibilities for all the little details (that will never be known with any certainty) is about all there is left.

CTers try to frame the evidence in this case as to have a similar effect as looking into the wrong end of telescope.  Just because we do not have a time machine that allows us to witness Oswald obtaining the materials and constructing the bag, that does not negate the bags existence, its connection to Oswald, its presence on the 6th floor next to the SN, and the obvious conclusions that can be drawn from this evidence. 

[Michael Capasse]

The prints match with Linnie May’s description of how LHO carried the bag...

How do u prove that?

...the rifle did not have to be broken down to be carried in the bag without being seen. 

Really? Rifle is 40 inches long - how long is the bag?

Mr. BALL - When you cupped the bottom of your package in the hands, will you stand up, again, please,
and the upper part of the package is not under the armpit, the top of the package extends almost up to the level of your ear.

Mr. FRAZIER - Right

[Michael Capasse]

CTers try to frame the evidence in this case as to have a similar effect as looking into the wrong end of telescope.  Just because we do not have a time machine that allows us to witness Oswald obtaining the materials and constructing the bag, that does not negate the bags existence, its connection to Oswald, its presence on the 6th floor next to the SN, and the obvious conclusions that can be drawn from this evidence.

It's a shame you can't put two things together to prove that.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

CTers try to frame the evidence in this case as to have a similar effect as looking into the wrong end of telescope.  Just because we do not have a time machine that allows us to witness Oswald obtaining the materials and constructing the bag, that does not negate the bags existence, its connection to Oswald, its presence on the 6th floor next to the SN, and the obvious conclusions that can be drawn from this evidence.

I can't think of any event, any other constroversial incident where we try and reconstruct what happened, where these types of demands are made. At least in good faith. We don't have these standards in a court of law. Historians don't use them. If we did then we'd have to empty our prisons and our libraries.

Meanwhile, every bizarre conspiracy claim in the world - the films were altered, the evidence planted, Oswald impersonated - is thrown out without the slightest examination.

These people are making me root for that asteroid.

[Martin Weidmann]

The little details that will never be known with any certainty are not a part of what the inferences from the totality of the evidence tell us. I was just making a point that there are some alternate possibilities to taking the rifle apart and re-assembling it. That’s all.

Yeah, but calling the inferences from the totality of the evidence "reasonable" is in fact not reasonable at all, as there is not a shred of evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.
All we really know is that Marina said she saw a rifle about a week after her return from New Orleans, which means that nobody saw that rifle for nearly two months before the assassination.

As for the paper bag, all we know is that an FBI expert said there were two prints belonging to Oswald on the bag, which, if you think about it, is by itself already strange, because he is supposed to have made the bag and have taken it to Irving.
His prints should have been all over that bag. Add to this that Frazier was shown the TSBD bag on Friday evening and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen.

What kind of "reasonable inference" can you make from that "evidence"?

[Richard Smith]

It's a shame you can't put two things together to prove that.

This is some type of incomplete sentence fragment.  What are you taking issue with?  The bag exists.  It had Oswald's prints on it.  It was found next to the SN which also had Oswald's prints.  No other person in the TSBD ever explained a work-related purpose for that homemade bag to be left next to the SN or otherwise claimed ownership of it.  Oswald carried a long bag to work that morning.  No such bag other than the one found with his prints on it was ever found in the TSBD.  Oswald's rifle was left on the same floor.  Oswald lied about carrying any long bag and instead said he had his lunch.  Why lie if it contained curtain rods or anything other than the rifle?  And on and on.  The totality of facts and circumstances lends itself to the conclusion that Oswald carried this bag that morning and that it contained his rifle.