Et tu, Bonnie?

[John Iacoletti]

Was this before or after he saw Mr Brown walking down the street with his rifle clearly on display?

Man with rifle, then Lee, then sandwich.

[Dan O'meara]

Man with rifle, then Lee, then sandwich.

 

Given the choice i think I'll go with his earliest statements where he stays put at the top of the steps for a few minutes then goes back inside to have lunch with Jimmy Hoffa.

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm not sure what you are babbling about.  Talk about straw man.   I accept Frazier's testimony that Oswald carried a long bag that morning.  I think he is being truthful about his estimate of its length.  He is just wrong which is entirely understandable because it is an estimate of the length of an object that he had little cause to notice at the time.  In contrast, there is no such subjective qualifier to his answer as to when he last saw Oswald.  He either saw him after the assassination or he did not.  He doesn't have to make an estimate to answer that question.  He says in his WC testimony that he did not.  That is about as clear as it gets.  And yet contrarian loons such as yourself are suggesting that Oswald hung around the building until 12:45.  By implication that means anyone who puts him on the bus, cab, or boardinghouse (various random citizens) all lied for some inexplicable reason.  And on and on that fantasy goes.  That is just rabbit hole nonsense.  Even humorous.

And yet contrarian loons such as yourself are suggesting that Oswald hung around the building until 12:45.

You just can't help yourself, can you? You always need to misrepresent what was actually said. I never suggested anything of the kind. I merely stated what Frazier said about seeing Oswald walking down Houston. And btw "around 12:45" is actually an estimate.

By implication that means anyone who puts him on the bus, cab, or boardinghouse (various random citizens) all lied for some inexplicable reason.

"Various random citizens" LOL.... There are only two. There's Bledsoe, who was an even bigger screwball than Markham, and whose "identification" of Oswald was completely pathetic. And there's Whaley, who had such a good look at his passenger, that he "saw" the man wearing two jackets, when Oswald left the TSBD without a jacket.

But isn't it amazing that witnesses you don't like are all liars and those you do like are only mistaken on details.

As for the roominghouse, Roberts is another fine example of the "high quality"  witnesses this entire case is build on. Having said that, my question still stands; how do we know that Oswald was at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff prior to 1PM?

[John Iacoletti]

Given the choice i think I'll go with his earliest statements where he stays put at the top of the steps for a few minutes then goes back inside to have lunch with Jimmy Hoffa.

His original affidavit doesn't say how much time passed before he ate his lunch.  In his WC testimony he indicated that he stood around for several minutes (he didn't say at the top of the steps) before going down to the basement.

[John Iacoletti]

As for the roominghouse, Roberts is another fine example of the "high quality"  witnesses this entire case is build on. Having said that, my question still stands; how do we know that Oswald was at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff prior to 1PM?

Not only will "Richard" never answer the question, but he will trot out the same claim again the next time the subject comes up.

[Dan O'meara]

His original affidavit doesn't say how much time passed before he ate his lunch.  In his WC testimony he indicated that he stood around for several minutes (he didn't say at the top of the steps) before going down to the basement.

Obviously I was being slightly frivolous in my post, hence the inclusion of Jimmy Hoffa.
I didn't realise it was going to be subject to rigorous analysis (I should've known better)
So allow me to clarify -

As I understand it from your post and what Alan has posted about Frazier's new book, Frazier is saying that after the shots he left the front entrance steps, walked towards the railroad yard, encountered Mr Brown and his rifle, walked back to the corner of Houston and Elm, saw Oswald, made his way back to the front entrance steps, went back in the TSBD and had his sandwiches.

In his affidavit he states that he "was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by", after the shots he "stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it".

In his WC testimony he states he is stood on the front steps, "one step down from the top"" by the rail." After the shots he " just stood still". As he clearly states - "I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all." He stood there for a few minutes before going back in the building. He is very clear about staying exactly where he was after the shots -  "I have always been taught when something like that happened or anywhere as far as that it is always best to stand still because if you run that makes you look guilty sure enough."

The point I was making was this - In his affidavit and WC testimony Frazier:
Does not leave the steps
Does not walk towards the railroad yard.
Does not see Mr Brown and his rifle.
Does not walk to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Does not see Oswald.
Does not return to the steps.

Frazier stays on the front steps then goes back inside the building.
He is back inside within a few minutes.

And he has two sandwiches.

[John Iacoletti]

I think you're reading stuff into it that isn't there.  He stood still after the shots.  That doesn't mean he stood still right up to the time he went back into the building.  He never said that he stayed on the top step the entire time.

[Martin Weidmann]

Obviously I was being slightly frivolous in my post, hence the inclusion of Jimmy Hoffa.
I didn't realise it was going to be subject to rigorous analysis (I should've known better)
So allow me to clarify -

As I understand it from your post and what Alan has posted about Frazier's new book, Frazier is saying that after the shots he left the front entrance steps, walked towards the railroad yard, encountered Mr Brown and his rifle, walked back to the corner of Houston and Elm, saw Oswald, made his way back to the front entrance steps, went back in the TSBD and had his sandwiches.

In his affidavit he states that he "was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by", after the shots he "stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it".

In his WC testimony he states he is stood on the front steps, "one step down from the top"" by the rail." After the shots he " just stood still". As he clearly states - "I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all." He stood there for a few minutes before going back in the building. He is very clear about staying exactly where he was after the shots -  "I have always been taught when something like that happened or anywhere as far as that it is always best to stand still because if you run that makes you look guilty sure enough."

The point I was making was this - In his affidavit and WC testimony Frazier:
Does not leave the steps
Does not walk towards the railroad yard.
Does not see Mr Brown and his rifle.
Does not walk to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Does not see Oswald.
Does not return to the steps.

Frazier stays on the front steps then goes back inside the building.
He is back inside within a few minutes.

And he has two sandwiches.

The point I was making was this - In his affidavit and WC testimony Frazier:
Does not leave the steps
Does not walk towards the railroad yard.
Does not see Mr Brown and his rifle.
Does not walk to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Does not see Oswald.
Does not return to the steps.

That's the wrong point to make. In his testimony did not say that he didn't see/do these things. He just doesn't mention them, partly because he wasn't asked. That doesn't mean it did not happen. It only means he did not mention it.