Here's a graphic from Dr. Tony Fratini - I consider this proof of Oswald not having carried in the rifle that morning.
It is Frazier - the one and only guy in the whole world that saw Lee carry the package from the palm of his hand to his armpit.
Yes, he claimed he wasn't paying much attention to the bag. But he was sure of how Lee carried it. He never said he was mistaken.
So what is Frazier's mistake? The rifle is 34.8" long - it can be no shorter. About the length of a lady's nine iron (golf club).
Are we expected to believe that? At the point that Lee was 50 ft. ahead, Frazier mistakenly did not see the package rise above the shoulder.
And if that was all there was wrong with any connection he might have to the bag, then there should be other evidence to build upon.
Witnesses are questionable. - the first 11 officers never saw the bag. Fingerprints and fiber evidence in the bag are garbage.
All that is left are Nutter excuses of "where are the curtain rods?" "where is the lunch?" as some sort of proof.
But evidence after evidence breaks down and fails. LN makes excuses of, we know he must've because of everything else.
"must-a-done-its", the entire case is filled with them, and every one them is based on nothing, but to fill in the broken evidence.
There is no need for any conspiracy theory. Just look at the completely failed case against the accused time after time.
And look for the Nutters excuses when I say, "...there is no reason to believe that rifle was ever broken down or put into that bag...."
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7400/thread
M Capasse: February 22, 2025 “She also said 28 inches.
Cherry picking conflicting statements isn't conclusive proof of anything.” Nice post except, fortunately, another witness, Linnie Mae Randle, described in detail how LHO carried the package and referenced the package barely clearing the ground. Her description is backed up by fingerprints left by LHO on the package.
The BWF pictures are all very interesting but does not answer the central question about the conflicting statement made by Linnie Mae Randle describing the length of the package and how that would alter the description of how LHO was carrying the bag.
Michael, you must have just missed this piece of information about Linnie Mae's description of how the bag was carried, that was posted earlier. The conflicting statement is Linnie Mae's description of LHO holding the bag with her revised estimate of a 27-to-28-inch package.
A 27- or 28-inch-long bag will not work to match Linnie Mae’s description of how LHO carried the rifle. The top of the package where she described him holding it with his right hand, would be slightly above the knee to about mid-thigh with him actually holding it lower, and additionally LHO also held the package with his left hand closer to the bottom of the package. The bottom of the package also was described as being barely above the ground.
To hold the rifle as Linnie Mae described, LHO would have had to have been bent over at the waist as he walked to the vehicle. The same would be true for Buell’s description of the package being held under the armpit. The bag as estimated is simply not long enough to fit Linnie Mae’s description.
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice.
You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
