Wednesday, December 9, 2015


Posts: 16

Just to chip in to the discussion about eye-witness testimony. I think it is quite laughable that on the other thread regarding CE 142 that people are jumping on the 'proof' that it was a different bag / didn't contain the rifle because of certain eye-witness testimony that doesn't fit. Think of the literally millions of objects we glance at throughout a single day - each with no more importance than the other at the time that we see them. Then, at a later date, we are asked to recall the exact length of one of those random objects. If it doesn't match (to the inch) we are deemed to be lying / misleading / conspiring.

As mentioned, one of the main difficulties in finding any of the real truth in this case is because weight is so often put on this minutiae, when ti comes down to the fact that the human brain is not the best at recalling the specifics of everyday objects that when viewed, hold little or no importance to the viewer.

Look at the scenarios some of you guys have experienced yourselves. We've all been there. I've been insistent that my partner's dress she wore on our most memorable night out was black, when in-fact it was red. Almost opposite ends of the colour spectrum. But anyway, I'm rambling a bit, hope there's some sense in what I've written. :)

Ralph Cinque:

Matthew, you are making a reasonable point, but it doesn't apply here.

Frazier said that the bag was at most 24 inches, but it had to be at least close to 40. And, it was something that Frazier definitely would have honed in on. It's not as though he passed Oswald on the street carrying it: Oswald had it with him IN FRAZIER'S CAR. So, how's he not going to take a good look at it. Also, Frazier claimed and demonstrated that Oswald perched the object between his armpit and his outstretched hand.

Then, there's the problem that the first bag they showed didn't look like shipping paper that Oswald taped and/or glued into a homemade bag. It looked like a manufactured bag.

Then, when they figured out what they wanted to claim, they replaced it with this, which isn't even consistent with the above:

And, if you look closely, you can see that that's not shipping paper.

The whole idea that Oswald would have the know-how to make a bag out of shipping paper is ridiculous. The most likely thing is that he would have wrapped the paper around the rifle and taped it all up. But, to construct an actual bag in advance? You take out some shipping paper, and let's see you do it. I'd like to see you make a bag out of shipping paper. 

So, despite the general truthfulness of what you said, Matthew, it doesn't apply here. The story is like a bag full of holes. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.