RE.: Wesley Frazier And The Brown Paper Bag
David Von Pein
Oswald's....................
James K. Olmstead earlier wrote:
>>> "It's called backpeddling..." <<<
It's not backpeddling in the slightest degree.
Why?
Because there's CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE that tells us that Frazier was
correct when he says that Oswald carried the paper bag in his RIGHT
HAND (palm).
That corroborative evidence being: Oswald's RIGHT PALMPRINT on the
closed end of an empty paper sack found in the SN (which is where
additional and plentiful "Oswald Was Here" evidence was located...not
even counting the "I Saw Oswald Or A Facsimile Of Same In The Window"
witnesses).
The combined, corroborative evidence of Frazier saying that Oswald
carried a brown bag into the building "cupped in his RIGHT HAND" and a
RIGHT PALMPRINT of LHO's being found on a very similar object in the SN
on the very same day is devastating evidence that tells any reasonable
person that OSWALD WAS IN THAT NEST AT SOME POINT ON 11/22/63.
The above hunk of corroborative Frazier testimony doesn't include the
"armpit" reference...and I never claimed it did (quite
obviously....because that part is NOT corroborated by any other
evidence and certainly has to be an incorrect observation by BWF,
especially in light of the OTHER part of Frazier's testimony re. the
"Cupped Right Hand", which is something that HAS been corroborated via
the bag itself).
Unless you want to believe in the incredible coincidence of TWO
different "brown paper bags" being taken to work by Oswald, neither of
which can possibly be considered a "lunch sack".
Even though CTers want to do so, the "RIGHT CUPPED HAND" evidence
cannot be dismissed, because Frazier has, in effect, been proven
CORRECT re. that particular point by way of other evidence....i.e., the
paper bag itself.
Tell me...do CTers think that Wes Frazier KNEW, in advance of his WC
testimony, that a bag with LHO's right palmprint was found in the SN of
the TSBD?
Because if he didn't know such a thing, then Frazier's "cupped in his
right hand" remark to the WC is hugely-incriminating evidence against
Oswald.
And even if he did know about the palmprint, Wesley's remark would
still be hugely-incriminating....because to think otherwise is to call
Frazier an outright liar and a fabricator of testimony to suit a
pre-arranged LN scenario.
And does anyone want to accuse Mr. Frazier of going THAT far? And if
so...please provide some proof that this 19-year-old kid would have had
a desire to taint his testimony to make a man he said he liked quite a
bit look guilty as hell.
Also (re. the bag) --- Is it "reasonable" to assume that Oswald handed
off the bag to somebody else that day, instead of Oswald HIMSELF
hauling it up to the 6th-Floor Nest?
If that's a reasonable argument...why is it reasonable?
That same question needs to be asked re. the rifle too. Is it
reasonable (at all) to think that Oswald's rifle was inside that
building, but he himself didn't use it on 11/22/63....but somebody else
did?
Many people think Oswald was stupid....but, come on! Was he THAT
stupid?
And given the evidence in the Nest which was SURROUNDING that empty
paper bag (with Oz's prints on it), well, I think Vince Bugliosi maybe
said it best....
"Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent,
would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow speaking the
Spanish language." -- VB
cdddraftsman
that . So maybe you can tell us what ever happened to those menacing
looking curtain rods LHO said he brought into the TSBD , the day of the
Assassination , if in fact they were curtain rods ? Did they ever show
up ? Any inkling as to whether he had a reciept for them ? If in fact
he did buy them where could he have bought them ? What stores that he
had access to , stocked curtain rods ? Did he mail order them ? Any
records there ? There has to be a certain radius of action that's
containable , that would prove one way or another whether it is in the
realm of possibility that he did in fact buy curtain rods or didn't .
If he did , to cover for saying he did , are there any photo's of
recovered curtain rods from anywhere near any of the crime scenes ?
Lots of questions , that if narrowed down I think might conclusively
prove another lie on his behalf and against conspiracy . Your thoughts
on this Christmas Day ..........TL
PS : I think we've all seen enough spagetti movies and Wide World of
Sports weight lifting competition to know when Hercules picks up a two
ton boulder , that the way he handles it , is a dead give away that
it's nothing more than , what is at best , a 40 Ib. mass of paper masha
. How , when LHO cupped this bag , that had either a very heavy
disassembled rifle in it or a very light set of curtain rods , was he
carrying and handling it ? How did it look to the observers ? Like
something was heavy in the bag or light in the bag ? I never hear
anyone talk about this very obvious aspect of this portion of the case
and the nearly obvious questions or lack of questions that could clear
up this issue .
David Von Pein
sack near the Sniper's Nest is THE most important print of LHO's
connected with the entire case (even more so than his palmprint on the
rifle....because, as CTers enjoy pointing out, it WAS his own rifle, so
it's likely his prints would be on C2766 even if he hadn't actually
killed JFK with it).
But that verifiable right palmprint of Oswald's on that bag comes as
close as humanly possible to PLACING OSWALD IN THAT SNIPER'S NEST on
the day of the assassination (by way of a PHYSICAL piece of evidence
that can lead to ONLY him...his palmprint/fingerprint).
Logically-speaking (given the prints on that empty bag, including the
one additional fingerprint he left on it near the top portion of the
sack), one of two things had to have occurred on 11/22/63 re. that bag
(not counting the CTer-created idea of the bag being a DPD "planted"
item, which is nearly impossible given Wes Frazier's testimony re. how
LHO carried a bag to work in his RIGHT CUPPED HAND, matching the print
on the SN bag):
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald himself took that bag to the Sniper's Nest at
some point on 11/22/63 (and, logically, this also would mean that
Oswald removed whatever was inside that bag before leaving the empty
bag on the floor near the SN window).
-- or: --
2.) Oswald carried the bag into the TSBD (per Wesley Frazier's
testimony), but LHO didn't carry it up to the 6th-Floor Nest....which
means that someone ELSE moved the bag to the Nest (and was careful not
to leave their identifiable prints on the bag). .....
MR. EISENBERG -- "Did you find any other prints {on the paper bag}?"
MR. LATONA -- No; no other prints that we term of value in the sense
that I felt that they could be identified or that a conclusion could be
reached that they were not identical with the fingerprints or
palmprints of some other person.
Now, given the two above choices, which is most likely to be correct?
And then when we ADD IN other evidence that tells a reasonable
researcher that Oswald himself WAS present at that SN window at approx.
12:30 PM on November 22 -- now which of the above choices is most
likely to be accurate?*
* = Other evidence like: LHO's prints on two boxes DEEP within the Nest
itself .... witnesses seeing an Oswald-like human in the window at
12:30 or just seconds earlier .... and bullet shells from a rifle that
was owned by Oswald found beneath the SN window.
When the totality of the evidence in the case is weighed and
considered, is it truly reasonable to choose my #2 option above re. the
paper bag?
If #2 is NOT a reasonable option, I'd like to know HOW on this Earth of
ours that ANY conspiracy theorist can possibly purport (with a straight
face) that that empty brown paper sack in the SN was not left there by
Lee Harvey Oswald himself on 11/22/63?
Re. the "curtain rods".....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7a460183ae4c6c41
cdddraftsman
the issue once and for all :
I think we've all seen enough spagetti movies and Wide World of Sports
weight lifting competition to know when Hercules picks up a two ton
boulder , that the way he handles it , is a dead give away that it's
nothing more than , what is at best , a 40 Ib. mass of paper masha .
How , when LHO cupped this bag , that had either a very heavy
disassembled rifle in it or a very light set of curtain rods , was he
carrying and handling it ? How did it look to the observers ? Like
something was heavy in the bag or light in the bag ? I never hear
anyone talk about this very obvious aspect of this portion of the case
and the nearly obvious questions or lack of questions that could clear
up this issue .