Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)

[John Iacoletti]

Huh?, it was only Oswald;

The rifle was his.
He had no alibi.
He immediately left and went berserk trying to get a ride.
He killed a cop.'
He tried to kill more cops.
He lied repeatedly during his interrogation.

The evidence is clear.

I see a bunch of claims here.

Claims aren't evidence.

"went berserk".  LOL.

[John Iacoletti]

Wow.  A polygraph does not work like a crystal ball discerning what actually happened.  At best, it measures whether an individual knows they are not telling the truth.  If Frazier honestly, but erroneously believed this wasn't the bag then he would be not be lying in his own mind even if he was wrong.  He would be mistaken but not lying because he would believe he was telling the truth.  That doesn't tell us that Oswald did not carry this bag but that Frazier didn't believe it was the same bag.

Granted.

Now do you have any evidence at all that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw?

The "desperation" here is your own and not that of the DPD who had enough evidence to convict Oswald a thousand times over.

No, they actually didn't.  What little evidence there is, is circumstantial and tainted.

[Charles Collins]

Frazier never said he saw Oswald come from the rear exit of the Depository.  That's just something you made up.

Watch (and listen) to the specified section of the video interview that I linked to in my original post. He most certainly does.

[Charles Collins]

So basically you can't explain how you know that Frazier was "blatantly and intentionally lying" -- you just "know" it.

I explained it at least twice. Although it requires no explanation. You just refuse to comprehend.

[John Iacoletti]

Watch (and listen) to the specified section of the video interview that I linked to in my original post. He most certainly does.

He most certainly does not.  Provide the actual quote of him saying that he he saw Oswald come from the rear exit of the Depository.  He said he saw Oswald walking alongside the building on the Houston street side.

[John Iacoletti]

I explained it at least twice. Although it requires no explanation. You just refuse to comprehend.

You claimed that it was "crystal clear" that "Buell Frazier is blatantly and intentionally lying", and your only "explanation" is that his 11/22/63 affidavit is seemingly in conflict with his later interviews with Mack and Fagin.

But how do conflicting statements necessarily show "blatant and intentional lying"?

[Charles Collins]

He most certainly does not.  Provide the actual quote of him saying that he he saw Oswald come from the rear exit of the Depository.  He said he saw Oswald walking alongside the building on the Houston street side.

I stand corrected. Coming from the direction of the rear exit is what I was thinking. Thanks for the correction. 

[Charles Collins]

You claimed that it was "crystal clear" that "Buell Frazier is blatantly and intentionally lying", and your only "explanation" is that his 11/22/63 affidavit is seemingly in conflict with his later interviews with Mack and Fagin.

But how do conflicting statements necessarily show "blatant and intentional lying"?

That isn't what I said.