Buell Wesley Frazier

[John Mytton]

I don't post on behalf of others; anyone registered is free to reply to a post. Another LN false claim. Your paranoid theories are actually great fun to read; carry on!

Your history here is an open book and there was nothing false about my observation, the fact that you are here freaking out, is very telling.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

You made the silly challenge not me.

Yes rifle = need for a trip to Irving to collect it.

JohnM

So weak, but thanks for making it abundantly clear that you indeed do not have a shred of evidence to show that a rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63!   

And you still haven't got a clue what Oswald knew or not! Just keep the fairytales coming....

[John Mytton]

Happy to see the problem with the dates finally sunk in, especially since it should be preschool stuff checking with a calendar.

Lt. Day who was not there, either misheard or misinterpreted the date Howlett collected the curtain rods, as being the 15th. A Sunday?

Apart from the 15th possibly being a Sunday (it actually was), can anyone make sense of this?

Happy to see the problem with the dates finally sunk in, especially since it should be preschool stuff checking with a calendar.

Yeah sure, combing through testimony and cross referencing archives is pre-school stuff? Did you discover this or did you rip off other researchers?

Lt. Day who was not there, either misheard or misinterpreted the date Howlett collected the curtain rods, as being the 15th. A Sunday?

Apart from the 15th possibly being a Sunday (it actually was), can anyone make sense of this?

See the problem here Tom, is that you appear to have no experience in the real World, human error out here is so prevalent that it's away of life.
Newspaper articles get locations, facts, times and etc, wrong all the time. Just witness the initial reports in this case alone, different rifles, agents killed, mistaken and/or misrepresented evidence and the list goes on and on.

What I conclude in this Paine curtain rod saga is the WC date of the curtain rod collection is in line with Day's fingerprint analysis and the subsequent Howlett collection, nuff said!
As I said at the start, this is months after the assassination and is a simple exercise in satisfying the public with every potential possibility.

BTW I asked you to "convince me if this is something beyond innocent human error" and where could this possibly be construed as something evil? But as usual you have no answers.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

So weak, but thanks for making it abundantly clear that you indeed do not have a shred of evidence to show that a rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63!   

And you still haven't got a clue what Oswald knew or not! Just keep the fairytales coming....

So weak, but thanks for making it abundantly clear that you indeed do not have a shred of evidence to show that a rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63!   

How bizarre, I don't need a shred of evidence to know that the sun will rise in the morning or will set in the evening, it's a given. Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage. And don't forget the very same blanket with the cord still tied to it, was empty on the afternoon of the assassination. And guess where the rifle was found on the afternoon of the very same day! ROFL! LOL! HAHAHAHA!

Mr. BALL. What part did you take?
Mr. ROSE. Well, I was the senior detective that was there, and so I was sort of the spokesman for the group, I suppose, and Stovall wen into the bedroom of Marina Oswald--Marina Oswald's bedroom, and I don't remember where Adamcik went first, but I talked with Ruth Paine a few minutes and she told me that Marina was there and that she was Lee Oswald's wife and that she was a citizen of Russia, and so I called Captain Fritz on the phone and told him what I had found out there and asked him if there was any special instructions, and he said, "Well, ask her about her husband, ask her if her husband has a rifle." I turned and asked Marina, but she didn't seem to understand. She said she couldn't understand, so Ruth Paine spoke in Russian to her and Ruth Paine also interpreted for me, and she said that Marina said--first she said Marina said "No," and then a minute Marina said, "Yes, he does have." So, then I talked to Captain Fritz for a moment and hung up the phone and I asked Marina if she would show me where his rifle was and Ruth Paine interpreted and Marina pointed to the garage and she took me to the garage and she pointed to a blanket that was rolled up and laying on the floor near the wall of the garage and Ruth Paine said, "Says that that's where his rifle is." Well, at the time I couldn't tell whether there was one in there or not. It appeared to be--it was in sort of an outline of a rifle.
Mr. BALL. You mean the blanket had the outline of a rifle?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it did.
Mr. BALL. Was it tied at one end?
Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; it was sort of rolled up, but it was flattened out from laying down and tied near the middle, I would say, with a cord and so I went on and picked the blanket up, but it was empty--it didn't have the rifle in it.

Mr. STOVALL. Shortly after that, Rose came back in carrying this blanket, as well as I remember, it was tied at one end and the other end was open.
Mr. BALL. It was tied with what kind of material?
Mr. STOVALL. It was tied with a white cord, as well as I remember.
Mr. BALL. A white what?
Mr. STOVALL. A white twine--it was thicker than a kite twine that you see or use on kites--more like this they use for wrapping large packages and tying them and he showed me that end, of course, he told me----
Mr. BALL. What did he tell you?
Mr. STOVALL. He told me that when he went to the garage, Marina had pointed to the blanket there and she said something to Ruth Paine and Ruth Paine told him that that was where Lee kept his rifle.

Mr. BELIN. All right, then what happened?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Well, we went through the house, if I remember correctly, and I believe the other detectives found some property. I know they found this blanket that was rolled up in the garage.
Mr. BELIN. Were you there when they saw the blanket?
Mr. ADAMCIK. No; I wasn't there. I saw the blanket later.
Mr. BELIN. Where was it when you first saw it?
Mr. ADAMCIK. I believe they took it in the house. I am pretty sure.
Mr. BELIN. Had they unrolled the blanket when they took it in the house?
Mr. ADAMCIK. No; they had a string still tied around it. Apparently had two strings, and just one of the strings were cut.
Mr. BELIN. One of the strings was cut?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Yes.

BTW for someone who is vigorously defending Oswald, you haven't been doing a very good job, the mountain of evidence still stands just as tall today as it has for every day for over 60 years. Try harder!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

How bizarre, I don't need a shred of evidence to know that the sun will rise in the morning or will set in the evening, it's a given. Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage. And don't forget the very same blanket with the cord still tied to it, was empty on the afternoon of the assassination. And guess where the rifle was found on the afternoon of the very same day! ROFL! LOL! HAHAHAHA!

Mr. BALL. What part did you take?
Mr. ROSE. Well, I was the senior detective that was there, and so I was sort of the spokesman for the group, I suppose, and Stovall wen into the bedroom of Marina Oswald--Marina Oswald's bedroom, and I don't remember where Adamcik went first, but I talked with Ruth Paine a few minutes and she told me that Marina was there and that she was Lee Oswald's wife and that she was a citizen of Russia, and so I called Captain Fritz on the phone and told him what I had found out there and asked him if there was any special instructions, and he said, "Well, ask her about her husband, ask her if her husband has a rifle." I turned and asked Marina, but she didn't seem to understand. She said she couldn't understand, so Ruth Paine spoke in Russian to her and Ruth Paine also interpreted for me, and she said that Marina said--first she said Marina said "No," and then a minute Marina said, "Yes, he does have." So, then I talked to Captain Fritz for a moment and hung up the phone and I asked Marina if she would show me where his rifle was and Ruth Paine interpreted and Marina pointed to the garage and she took me to the garage and she pointed to a blanket that was rolled up and laying on the floor near the wall of the garage and Ruth Paine said, "Says that that's where his rifle is." Well, at the time I couldn't tell whether there was one in there or not. It appeared to be--it was in sort of an outline of a rifle.
Mr. BALL. You mean the blanket had the outline of a rifle?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it did.
Mr. BALL. Was it tied at one end?
Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; it was sort of rolled up, but it was flattened out from laying down and tied near the middle, I would say, with a cord and so I went on and picked the blanket up, but it was empty--it didn't have the rifle in it.

Mr. STOVALL. Shortly after that, Rose came back in carrying this blanket, as well as I remember, it was tied at one end and the other end was open.
Mr. BALL. It was tied with what kind of material?
Mr. STOVALL. It was tied with a white cord, as well as I remember.
Mr. BALL. A white what?
Mr. STOVALL. A white twine--it was thicker than a kite twine that you see or use on kites--more like this they use for wrapping large packages and tying them and he showed me that end, of course, he told me----
Mr. BALL. What did he tell you?
Mr. STOVALL. He told me that when he went to the garage, Marina had pointed to the blanket there and she said something to Ruth Paine and Ruth Paine told him that that was where Lee kept his rifle.

Mr. BELIN. All right, then what happened?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Well, we went through the house, if I remember correctly, and I believe the other detectives found some property. I know they found this blanket that was rolled up in the garage.
Mr. BELIN. Were you there when they saw the blanket?
Mr. ADAMCIK. No; I wasn't there. I saw the blanket later.
Mr. BELIN. Where was it when you first saw it?
Mr. ADAMCIK. I believe they took it in the house. I am pretty sure.
Mr. BELIN. Had they unrolled the blanket when they took it in the house?
Mr. ADAMCIK. No; they had a string still tied around it. Apparently had two strings, and just one of the strings were cut.
Mr. BELIN. One of the strings was cut?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Yes.

BTW for someone who is vigorously defending Oswald, you haven't been doing a very good job, the mountain of evidence still stands just as tall today as it has for every day for over 60 years. Try harder!

JohnM

How bizarre, I don't need a shred of evidence to know that the sun will rise in the morning or will set in the evening, it's a given.

Just how pathetic can you get? A rifle being in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63 is not a given, so, yes, you need to present at least a shred of actual evidence that it was there, instead of trying to weasel out of it!

Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage.

Strike two: you haven't got a clue what Oswald knew or not!

And don't forget the very same blanket with the cord still tied to it, was empty on the afternoon of the assassination.

Wow... that's powerful evidence of just how ignorant you really are. An empty blanket that, according to Micheal Paine, could easily have contained camping equipment was found empty by people who were clueless about how long the blanket had been empty. In the real world, an empty blanket found in a garage is evidence of an empty blanket being in that garage and nothing more

And guess where the rifle was found on the afternoon of the very same day!

What rifle would that be? Once again you are making silly claims that you can not support by actual evidence!

I'm not even going to bother with what Rose, Stovall and Adamcik said, because not one of them actually saw a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage!

When all you have is an empty blanket that, in the opinion of Gus Rose, "had the outline of a rifle", you really haven't got anything at all.

BTW for someone who is vigorously defending Oswald, you haven't been doing a very good job, the mountain of evidence still stands just as tall today as it has for every day for over 60 years.

Thank you for sharing your biased opinion.

Now, let's try to go back to evidence that actually would be accepted in court. What is your evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.
And please try not to display you utter ignorance and duplicity this time around!

[John Mytton]

How bizarre, I don't need a shred of evidence to know that the sun will rise in the morning or will set in the evening, it's a given.

Just how pathetic can you get? A rifle being in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63 is not a given, so, yes, you need to present at least a shred of actual evidence that it was there, instead of trying to weasel out of it!

Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage.

Strike two: you haven't got a clue what Oswald knew or not!

And don't forget the very same blanket with the cord still tied to it, was empty on the afternoon of the assassination.

Wow... that's powerful evidence of just how ignorant you really are. An empty blanket that, according to Micheal Paine, could easily have contained camping equipment was found empty by people who were clueless about how long the blanket had been empty. In the real world, an empty blanket found in a garage is evidence of an empty blanket being in that garage and nothing more

And guess where the rifle was found on the afternoon of the very same day!

What rifle would that be? Once again you are making silly claims that you can not support by actual evidence!

I'm not even going to bother with what Rose, Stovall and Adamcik said, because not one of them actually saw a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage!

When all you have is an empty blanket that, in the opinion of Gus Rose, "had the outline of a rifle", you really haven't got anything at all.

BTW for someone who is vigorously defending Oswald, you haven't been doing a very good job, the mountain of evidence still stands just as tall today as it has for every day for over 60 years.

Thank you for sharing your biased opinion.

Now, let's try to go back to evidence that actually would be accepted in court. What is your evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.
And please try not to display you utter ignorance and duplicity this time around!

Yawn! This is getting tiresome.
Let's put the combined knowledge of CT's 60+ years defence of Oswald to the test.

Q. Is it Oswald's rifle and was it used in the assassination?

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.

CT's: No. Oswald's order was forged, Kleins forged their microfilm records, the money order was forged and planted in the Federal reserve(yes really LOL!), the backyard photos are fake, Oswald's rifle was never at the Paine residence, de Mohrenschildt lied about the rifle at Neely street, Oswald's rifle was planted in the TSBD, the bag was manufactured by the Dallas Police, the prints on the bag were planted, the shells were planted, the bullet fragments were planted, Oswald's dead hand supplied the palm print. Need I go on?

Analysis: the prosecution has a powerful indisputable case whereas the CT's are relying on an unprovable mountain of lies, manipulation and deception from multiple unconnected actors, geez what a bunch of desperate losers!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Yawn! This is getting tiresome.
Let's put the combined knowledge of CT's 60+ years defence of Oswald to the test.

Q. Is it Oswald's rifle and was it used in the assassination?

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.

CT's: No. Oswald's order was forged, Kleins forged their microfilm records, the money order was forged and planted in the Federal reserve(yes really LOL!), the backyard photos are fake, Oswald's rifle was never at the Paine residence, de Mohrenschildt lied about the rifle at Neely street, Oswald's rifle was planted in the TSBD, the bag was manufactured by the Dallas Police, the prints on the bag were planted, the shells were planted, the bullet fragments were planted, Oswald's dead hand supplied the palm print. Need I go on?

Analysis: the prosecution has a powerful indisputable case whereas the CT's are relying on an unprovable mountain of lies, manipulation and deception from multiple unconnected actors, geez what a bunch of desperate losers!

JohnM

Yawn! This is getting tiresome.

I'm sure it must be for you, being utterly unable to convince anybody of the BS you're posting.

What's actually the most important is that all your song and dance routine proves is that you haven't got a shred of evidence that there was a rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.

Q. Is it Oswald's rifle and was it used in the assassination?`

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.

CT's: No. Oswald's order was forged, Kleins forged their microfilm records, the money order was forged and planted in the Federal reserve(yes really LOL!), the backyard photos are fake, Oswald's rifle was never at the Paine residence, de Mohrenschildt lied about the rifle at Neely street, Oswald's rifle was planted in the TSBD, the bag was manufactured by the Dallas Police, the prints on the bag were planted, the shells were planted, the bullet fragments were planted, Oswald's dead hand supplied the palm print. Need I go on?

Analysis: the prosecution has a powerful indisputable case whereas the CT's are relying on an unprovable mountain of lies, manipulation and deception from multiple unconnected actors, geez what a bunch of desperate losers!

None of this concoction of wild and questionable claims actually provides a shred of evidence that a rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.

You are just desperately trying (and failing miserably) to make people believe there must have been a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage. It's LN crap 101!

But it does prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are completely unable to present a shred of evidence for the claim that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.

Perhaps you should do the same as Charles Collins and consult an actual lawyer to find out what real evidence is!

[John Mytton]

Perhaps you should do the same as Charles Collins and consult an actual lawyer to find out what real evidence is!

I think you mean Mitch Todd? But that is neither here or there.

In response to John Iacoletti inane criticisms of Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence, a very real lawyer set Iacoletti straight about what evidence actually is, because what people learn through TV and gossip isn't necessarily correct.

Your concept of evidence is flawed. The threshold question is relevancy. Under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, for example, "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."

Every item you label as NE, PW and TQ would be deemed relevant evidence.

Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence

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.

Notes
(Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1931; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)

Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules

Problems of relevancy call for an answer to the question whether an item of evidence, when tested by the processes of legal reasoning, possesses sufficient probative value to justify receiving it in evidence. Thus, assessment of the probative value of evidence that a person purchased a revolver shortly prior to a fatal shooting with which he is charged is a matter of analysis and reasoning.

The variety of relevancy problems is coextensive with the ingenuity of counsel in using circumstantial evidence as a means of proof. An enormous number of cases fall in no set pattern, and this rule is designed as a guide for handling them. On the other hand, some situations recur with sufficient frequency to create patterns susceptible of treatment by specific rules. Rule 404 and those following it are of that variety; they also serve as illustrations of the application of the present rule as limited by the exclusionary principles of Rule 403.

Passing mention should be made of so-called “conditional” relevancy. Morgan, Basic Problems of Evidence 45–46 (1962). In this situation, probative value depends not only upon satisfying the basic requirement of relevancy as described above but also upon the existence of some matter of fact. For example, if evidence of a spoken statement is relied upon to prove notice, probative value is lacking unless the person sought to be charged heard the statement. The problem is one of fact, and the only rules needed are for the purpose of determining the respective functions of judge and jury. See Rules 104(b) and 901. The discussion which follows in the present note is concerned with relevancy generally, not with any particular problem of conditional relevancy.

Relevancy is not an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case. Does the item of evidence tend to prove the matter sought to be proved? Whether the relationship exists depends upon principles evolved by experience or science, applied logically to the situation at hand. James, Relevancy, Probability and the Law, 29 Calif.L.Rev. 689, 696, n. 15 (1941), in Selected Writings on Evidence and Trial 610, 615, n. 15 (Fryer ed. 1957). The rule summarizes this relationship as a “tendency to make the existence” of the fact to be proved “more probable or less probable.” Compare Uniform Rule 1(2) which states the crux of relevancy as “a tendency in reason,” thus perhaps emphasizing unduly the logical process and ignoring the need to draw upon experience or science to validate the general principle upon which relevancy in a particular situation depends.

The standard of probability under the rule is “more * * * probable than it would be without the evidence.” Any more stringent requirement is unworkable and unrealistic. As McCormick §152, p. 317, says, “A brick is not a wall,” or, as Falknor, Extrinsic Policies Affecting Admissibility, 10 Rutgers L.Rev. 574, 576 (1956), quotes Professor McBaine, “* * * t is not to be supposed that every witness can make a home run.” Dealing with probability in the language of the rule has the added virtue of avoiding confusion between questions of admissibility and questions of the sufficiency of the evidence.

The rule uses the phrase “fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action” to describe the kind of fact to which proof may properly be directed. The language is that of California Evidence Code §210; it has the advantage of avoiding the loosely used and ambiguous word “material.” Tentative Recommendation and a Study Relating to the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Art. I. General Provisions), Cal. Law Revision Comm'n, Rep., Rec. & Studies, 10–11 (1964). The fact to be proved may be ultimate, intermediate, or evidentiary; it matters not, so long as it is of consequence in the determination of the action. Cf. Uniform Rule 1(2) which requires that the evidence relate to a “material” fact.

The fact to which the evidence is directed need not be in dispute. While situations will arise which call for the exclusion of evidence offered to prove a point conceded by the opponent, the ruling should be made on the basis of such considerations as waste of time and undue prejudice (see Rule 403), rather than under any general requirement that evidence is admissible only if directed to matters in dispute. Evidence which is essentially background in nature can scarcely be said to involve disputed matter, yet it is universally offered and admitted as an aid to understanding. Charts, photographs, views of real estate, murder weapons, and many other items of evidence fall in this category. A rule limiting admissibility to evidence directed to a controversial point would invite the exclusion of this helpful evidence, or at least the raising of endless questions over its admission. Cf. California Evidence Code §210, defining relevant evidence in terms of tendency to prove a disputed fact.

Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment

The language of Rule 401 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401

JohnM