You have cited Frazier's account of how Oswald carried the rifle on hundreds of occasions as a fact without any of the "corroboration" that you suggest is necessary in any instance in which a witness provided evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt. That is the obvious point. And you did stupidly suggest that Randle's account somehow corroborated Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the package into the TSBD. A falsehood since she described Oswald carrying his package in an entirely different way than Frazier when she saw him that morning. You are a lazy contrarian playing defense attorney. In contrast, Bill is an intelligent and honest researcher who deals in the facts and evidence. If you need a hanky to deal with this, then have a good cry.
You have cited Frazier's account of how Oswald carried the rifle on hundreds of occasions as a fact without any of the "corroboration" that you suggest is necessary in any instance in which a witness provided evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt. That is the obvious point. No it isn't the obvious point. Corroboration is always useful, but it is necessary
when the credibility of the witness is in question. And the obvious difference between Frazier and Roberts is that Roberts was accused by her employer as being somebody who makes up things and accused by the LN crowd for telling lies about a police car which justifies the conclusion that she is an unreliable witness.
Oswald had only one gray jacket and that's (CE 162). When Roberts says she saw Oswald leaving the house zipping up a jacket (which could only have been CE 162) and Frazier says that Oswald was wearing a gray jacket (which could only have been CE 162), to Irving on the evening of the day before, there is a major discrepancy between the two witness statements and only one can be correct. Hence the need for corroboration. Even more so as Roberts testified that the jacket she had seen was darker that CE 162, which is impossible as Oswald's only other jacket (CE 163) was found at the TSBD. In other words; there is plenty of doubt about what Roberts has actually seen!
In Frazier's case, there is no other witness who claims that Oswald was wearing the package differently and nobody has said anything about Frazier that would make you question his credibility. With Randle backing Frazier up about the size of the package (Frazier: between armpit and cupped hand and Randle; no longer than his leg) there is no reason for to question Frazier's testimony except of course by those who do not like what he is saying.
But hey, if you want to go down that path, I'll play along. Let's start with; where is the corrobortion for Bledsoe's claim that Oswald was on the bus?
And you did stupidly suggest that Randle's account somehow corroborated Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the package into the TSBD. No, you rather stupidly keep on lying about this, but I never said that Randle's account corroborated Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the package. You really need to stop making stuff up.
You are a lazy contrarian playing defense attorney. In contrast, Bill is an intelligent and honest researcher who deals in the facts and evidence. 
Thanks for the laugh.....
Oh btw where did McWatters testify that "Oswald got on the bus mid-block" as this "intelligent and honest researcher" claimed at the beginning of the interview?
