Jump to content
The Education Forum

PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD


Guest Duncan MacRae

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bill Miller said:

 You have referenced me as another Albert Doyle who is a lunatic Holocaust denier. For your information - I totally believe the Holocaust happened. Just sayin' ... the one with the loudest voice doesn't mean that person is right.

 

 

That is incorrect. I didn't make such a reference. I don't know who Albert Doyle is. I think I have seen his name, possibly as a member here, but I have no recollections of his opinions or postings.

Again, I have made no reference to him all, and, of course, no reference to him in relation to you.

Cheers,

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

That is incorrect. I didn't make such a reference. I don't know who Albert Doyle is. I think I have seen his name, possibly as a member here, but I have no recollections of his opinions or postings.

Again, I have made no reference to him all, and, of course, no reference to him in relation to you.

Cheers,

Michael

Sorry about that - it was a reference that Kamp has made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miller.

This just shows how badly you interpret people's writings and evidence. You only wish to see what you want to see, and selectively answer as you please. That is typical of Doyle as well.

I have never mentioned any comparison between you and Doyle being a holocaust denier. Brian Doyle's dad, Albert,  has made some very questionable reviews regarding this thru his Amazon account. Lee Farley and Tom Scully have pointed this out already a few years ago and there is plenty to read about that chapter on the net.

Brian Doyle took over his dad's Amazon account after his passing, and even assumed one under the name Ralph Yates, and even now he even posts under his dad's name from his padded cell a.k.a. Deep Politics Forum. He is lambasting almost everyone (yup you included Miller) even admins about what is happening here. His posting privileges are revoked and he can only lurk and PM here.

He is right about one thing, something I propagated for many moons already. Shelley and Lovelady left those steps and are seen in Couch/Darnell. And that is where you agree upon as well,although that took quite some time to accept from what I remember.

Other than that Doyle just rambles on, posts drivel declared gospel and so on. He is the court jester of the JFK Assassination research community.

Miller, you act tired and are clutching at straws and above all refuse to address your mistakes when caught out. . I find it rather boring and have no interest to confer about your denials any further. The shoddy research you put forward. The lack of will to actually properly dig in and compare. Your 'method' may have been something 20 years ago, but you have been overtaken by a long shot. And in a way there is nothing wrong with that, I expect that to happen to me as well. Part of life I guess. Accepting it is another matter tho.

This is my final reply to you, I wish you well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Miller, you act tired and are clutching at straws and above all refuse to address your mistakes when caught out. . I find it rather boring and have no interest to confer about your denials any further. The shoddy research you put forward. The lack of will to actually properly dig in and compare. Your 'method' may have been something 20 years ago, but you have been overtaken by a long shot. And in a way there is nothing wrong with that, I expect that to happen to me as well. Part of life I guess. Accepting it is another matter tho.

This is my final reply to you, I wish you well.

I find your response to be pure diatribe to which I have come to expect from those who are disturbed when others don't buy into their theory. It's the same thing I witnessed years ago with Fetzer and his gang when it came to the bogus alteration claims they made in a book called - Assassination Science.  I have interviewed witnesses for years and often times from groups who witnessed the same event and there are always things that some of them said that were not exactly how others described an event. It came down to perception. But in the end the truth was somewhere in the middle. For instance some people want to believe that Oswald stood outside with Buell Frazier, Billy Lovelady, Bill Shelley, and others and no one admitted it because they were all afraid to speak up. That the powers that be intimidated them all on the very afternoon of the assassination. I say to that way of thinking - hogwash! The best case scenario that refutes that theory is Buell Frazier. There is no doubt that had Lee been standing next to Buell that Frazier would have said so. I believe that would be true of the other people on the stairs as well for when they gave their affidavits, and five months later when testifying before the Commission they had no way of knowing whether or not there was film or photos taken of them all together standing around the entrance to the Depository. One could only imagine the questions that would arise had there been any images of Lee standing there with them all and each and every person somehow had forgotten that crucial detail.

The fact is that Prayer Man is not Oswald. Not only do I believe PM is too big to be Lee, but whether Baker met Oswald on the second floor or the first floor - Oswald cannot be both inside the building and outside at the same time. And no witness said that when Truly and the Patrolman entered the building did they confront Lee before going up the stairs. The witnesses who say Truly and the Patrolman were the first to enter the building knew they went to the elevator and then raced up the stairs. Again, no mention of a confrontation with Lee on the first floor.

Both Patrolman Baker and Roy Truly mentioned having to take the stairs before the Oswald confrontation. It was after heading up the stairs is when Baker saw Oswald. Here is where some people have thought they found a smoking gun ... Patrolman Baker having not been familiar with the floor plan of the TSBD said in his affidavit taken on 11/22/63 that he ran into Oswald on the third or fourth floor. Truly on the other hand knows the floor plan of the building and he said he had started on his way up the stairs to the third floor when he realized the Patrolman was no longer right behind him. Truly then came back down to the second floor where he found Patrolman Baker confronting Lee Oswald.

In Truly's affidavit of the 22nd - he only references the second floor and the door to the vestibule. While there is no further statement about the second floor - one should ask why was the second floor door mentioned at all?  Had Truly and Patrolman Baker had just ran right by it and never stopped, then why was it mentioned in Truly's 11/22 affidavit. I believe the answer is found in Truly's testimony before the Commission when Roy came back and found the officer confronting Lee in the lunchroom. As far as I know there was no lunchroom on the third floor and this is why on 03/20/64 Patrolman Baker recreated his run to the second floor lunchroom.

 

 

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

I find your response to be pure diatribe to which I have come to expect from those who are disturbed when others don't buy into their theory.

You have not even read my esay. Nor did you read any of the threads when you waltzed in a few months ago, just started to debate and put your beliefs (and that is is really) forward.

It's the same thing I witnessed years ago with Fetzer and his gang when it came to the bogus alteration claims they made in a book called - Assassination Science.  I have interviewed witnesses for years and often times from groups who witnessed the same event and there are always things that some of them said that were not exactly how others described an event. It came down to perception.

Comparing me with James "Everything is fake" Fetzer, well done for another 'brilliant' assessment. Utter failure more like. Shows how shallow your research actually is. I am going to leave it at that.

But in the end the truth was somewhere in the middle. For instance some people want to believe that Oswald stood outside with Buell Frazier, Billy Lovelady, Bill Shelley, and others and no one admitted it because they were all afraid to speak up. That the powers that be intimidated them all on the very afternoon of the assassination. I say to that way of thinking - hogwash! The best case scenario that refutes that theory is Buell Frazier. There is no doubt that had Lee been standing next to Buell that Frazier would have said so. I believe that would be true of the other people on the stairs as well for when they gave their affidavits, and five months later when testifying before the Commission they had no way of knowing whether or not there was film or photos taken of them all together standing around the entrance to the Depository. One could only imagine the questions that would arise had there been any images of Lee standing there with them all and each and every person somehow had forgotten that crucial detail.

Let's see Frazier admitted he was sh*tscared when it all happened, hauled in twice, subjected to a lie detector test which is nowhere to be seen. Many discrepancies in his story. Etc etc.

Then all the other witnesses, such as Molina and R.R. Carr who were 'visited' by several officers of Dallas' finest. And there are quite a few other instances where DPD lent on peoples shoulders, so to speak.

Tell us all what it was like to be black or Hispanic in 63, and even attempting to tell the truth......go on indulge us all where it was all cool and the gang.

6 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

The fact is that Prayer Man is not Oswald.

You do not know that, you think you do. There is a difference.

Not only do I believe PM is too big to be Lee, but whether Baker met Oswald on the second floor or the first floor - Oswald cannot be both inside the building and outside at the same time. And no witness said that when Truly and the Patrolman entered the building did they confront Lee before going up the stairs. The witnesses who say Truly and the Patrolman were the first to enter the building knew they went to the elevator and then raced up the stairs. Again, no mention of a confrontation with Lee on the first floor.

Oh William if only you had read my essay.........don't worry there's an update on its way which crucifies this horse manure even more.....

Both Patrolman Baker and Roy Truly mentioned having to take the stairs before the Oswald confrontation. It was after heading up the stairs is when Baker saw Oswald. Here is where some people have thought they found a smoking gun ... Patrolman Baker having not been familiar with the floor plan of the TSBD said in his affidavit taken on 11/22/63 that he ran into Oswald on the third or fourth floor. Truly on the other hand knows the floor plan of the building and he said he had started on his way up the stairs to the third floor when he realized the Patrolman was no longer right behind him. Truly then came back down to the second floor where he found Patrolman Baker confronting Lee Oswald.

Again only top layer analysis only LNers would produce, you need to dig deeper William. Dig dig dig!!!

In Truly's affidavit of the 22nd - he only references the second floor and the door to the vestibule. While there is no further statement about the second floor - one should ask why was the second floor door mentioned at all?  Had Truly and Patrolman Baker had just ran right by it and never stopped, then why was it mentioned in Truly's 11/22 affidavit. I believe the answer is found in Truly's testimony before the Commission when Roy came back and found the officer confronting Lee in the lunchroom. As far as I know there was no lunchroom on the third floor and this is why on 03/20/64 Patrolman Baker recreated his run to the second floor lunchroom.

See above.

 

One more time then....see above in bold, and then that is really it.

Doyle is foaming at his mouth at DPF and that is because, like you, he is done. It's that deep state denial that only prevents both of you realising that it is over. No point in further debating this, neither of you has any support for your assertions. Do you understand this? Doyle doesn't......

Even if I do not completely agree with Andrej or Ray for that matter, they have dug deep as I have and have come to a much better conclusion than what you two have done. 

Good night and all the best in your future endeavours!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

Let's see Frazier

You are out of the game as you said that your previous post to me was your last. Assuming you  are a man of your word - I will just figure you had forgotten what you previously had said.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 4:42 AM, Bill Miller said:

I have carefully laid out my opinion about the second floor meeting with Oswald and said why he was not on the first floor or standing next to Frazier where PM seems to be. It's archived for your reading pleasure.

Bill,

In my reading of the WC testimony, Truly and Baker met Oswald, Coke in hand, on the 2nd floor of the TSBD.

In my reading of the WC testimony, Shelly and Lovelady were standing at the front steps of the TSBD before the JFK shots, and thought they came from the Grassy Knoll.  They did not see Oswald anywhere near the front steps of the TSBD.

To wish that Prayer Man was Oswald, one must say that Truly, Baker, Shelly and Lovelady were all lying.

Yet nobody has shown any possible motive for all four men to lie about this testimony.  Why would they do so?

No reason that I can see.

Thus -- Prayer Man was not Oswald.  

It's been my experience that the CIA-did-it CTer will willy-nilly accuse any and all WC witnesses of lying -- of being bribed by the CIA -- to justify their cloak-and-dagger mythos.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 10:57 AM, Paul Trejo said:

Bill

Here are the sentences from Buell Frazier's testimony that I had in mind:

Mr. BALL - Did Shelly introduce you to him or did you go up and shake hands with him?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't. I remember, I knew, you know that he was going to be coming to work so naturally I hadn't been there very long, you know, living in Dallas and so I wanted to make friends with everybody I could, because you know yourself friendship is something you can't buy with money and you always need friends, so I went up and introduced and he told me his name was Lee and I said "We are glad to have you."  We got talking back and forth and he come to find out I knew his wife was staying there at the time with this other woman and so I thought he would go out there and I said, "Are you going to be going home this afternoon?" And he told me then, he told me that he didn't have a car, you know, and so I told him. I said, "Well, I live out there in Irving,"- I found out he lived out there and so I said, "Any time you want to go just let me know." So I thought he would go home every day like most men do but he told me no, that he wouldn't go home every day and then he asked me could he ride home say like Friday afternoon on weekends and come back on Monday morning and I told him that would be just fine with me.  I told him if he wanted a ride any other time just let me know before I go off and leave him because when it comes to quitting time some of these guys, you know, some of them mess around the bathroom and some of them quit early, and some of them like that, and some leave at different times than others. But I said from talking to him then, I say, he just wanted to ride home on weekends with me and I said that was fine.

It was this reference to hanging around the bathroom at quitting time that I found non-sequitur, and suggestive of Frazier's state of mind upon his very first meeting of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

BUMPED for Bill Miller's comment.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, let us check Mr. Frazier's credibility. George O'Toole took a training in psychological stress evaluation (PSE) technique which was based on the analysis of voice. The technique is known as voice stress analysis nowadays. There are mixed views about the reliability of this method, however, this research is maybe the only scientifically based approach towards testing the veracity of important players in the JFK assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald in the first place. In his book "The Assassination Tapes. An electronic probe into the murder of John F. Kennedy and the Dallas Coverup" (Penthouse Press Ltd., New York, 1975), O'Toole devoted two full chapters to Wesley Buell Frazier.

In Chapter 10 (The Phantom Polygraph Test), O'Toole describes the circumstances under which the polygraph test has been taken on Wesley Frazier on the night of assassination. Frazier was taken to the headquarters on Friday evening. It was Wesley's own sister who volunteered the information to the Dallas Police detectives that Wesley gave a ride to Lee on that fateful day. The police was finished with Frazier by about 9PM. (The interrogation, apparently, was dramatic as Cpt. Fritz allegedly asked Frazier to sign his admission of Wesley's role in the assassination of President Kennedy. However, this was not mentioned in the book.), and Frazier was sent home. Police officers gave him a ride to Irving, and when they were about mid-way to Irving, a radio call arrived ordering the car to return with Frazier back to the headquarters. The purpose of this second visit to the Dallas Police was Frazier's polygraph test. The test was conducted by Detective Lewis, and it lasted from 11.20 to 12.10. The police report allegedly said that Frazier's affidavit was truthful, and Frazier was eventually sent home. The critical part of the affidavit appeared to be the famous curtain rod story. According to Frazier, Oswald brought a long package to the work on Friday morning, and the parcel contained curtain rods. The Warren Commission also heard the same story from Frazier, and concluded that parcel contained not the curtain rods but the disassembled rifle.  The point was, however, that the curtain rod story was a story such as when someone says he/she is half-dressed and half-undressed. The parcel was too short by a large margin to contain even a disassembled rifle. Linnie, Wesley's sister, backed his brother. 

The polygraph test was most likely ordered by Fritz who was confronted by two testimonies - Oswald's testimony in which he claimed that he only brought a lunch in some kind of a grocery bag, and Wesley's who spoke about the curtain rods. Who was right? The polygraph test might tell. Unfortunately, no one seem to have ever seen the results of the test. It could have either confirm Oswald's assertion or Frazier's assertion.

O'Toole decided to analyse Frazier's voice during Frazier's talk for the CBS. Frazier repeated the curtain rod story. Frazier showed a remarkable level of stress throughout the interview. "It was such a classical example of the smooth, maximum hard stress waveform, maintained throughout almost the entire statement, that a PSE specialist to whom I showed it remarked, "On a scale to ten, this stress is somewhere near eleven" " (p. 172). "Frazier was in a state of sheer terror".

O'Toole decided to acquire direct voice recordings from Frazier, and approached his sister. Linnie declined an interview and became increasingly tense when speaking about Wesley and the possibility of an interview. Wesley was in the army then, and Linnie promised to convey a message about O'Toole's visit to him. However, Linnie was the end of the road, she never facilitated any contact to Frazier. In the meantime, O'Toole called the well-known Paul Bentley to ask about the polygraph test. Since the call was recorder and analysed by O'Toole, it was determined that Bentley was in the maximum hard stress when saying "I don't recall that even occurring". It was then similar with the analysis of voice of Detective R.D. Lewis who allegedly carried out the polygraph test with Frazier. Lewis denied knowing about the polygraph test: "No, uh, uh. Not connected with Oswald" and showed hard stress while pronouncing these words. It was similar with Gerald Hill. Hill showed a hard stress while denying the fact of polygraph test being taken. So, the polygraph test was taken and it is mentioned in one of the Warren Commission volumes, however, no one in the Dallas Police Department remembered, and those supposed to know showed a hard stress.

O'Toole then called Detective Stovall who was actually in the car which returned Frazier to the police station. Stovall told the Commission about the polygraph test. Stovall showed hard stress when talking about the polygraph test, and although he did not deny it, he was very evasive. This contrasts with the fact (possibility?) that Stovall was actually in the room with Lewis when the polygraph test was taken. Further details on Frazier's polygraph test are in another book, quoted by O'Toole, by Jim Bishop (The Day Kennedy Was Shot, Gramercy Books, New York, 1968). I have read almost the whole book just to learn more about the buzz in the Dallas Police and about Frazier, and will quote from this outright lone-nut treasure on a next occasion.

The actual interview with Wesley Frazier was conducted by Detectives Stovall, Adamcik and Rose. O'Toole was not able to get Detective Adamcik (who worked before as a patrolman under no one else than Gery Hill). Rose said that only Lewis was with Frazier, and he and another detective (Stovall?) waited outside. A hard stress appeared when O'Toole asked about the result of the polygraph test: "Yes, he got a very good chart, and it showed that he was telling the com-, he was telling just exactly the truth". Interestingly, Rose wished to convey some information about Frazier during his testimony for the Warren Commission but somehow it all evaporated:

Mr. Rose: Let's see, there was something else I was going to tell you now, I wanted to mention - we did run Wesley Frazier on polygraph, did you know that?

Mr. Ball: I know you did - we know about that.

Mr. Rose: Yes.

Mr. Ball: Thanks.

Since the polygraph test could not be denied anymore, O'Toole returned to Detective Lewis and literally made him to remember. Lewis did remember the test. When asked about the result (if he passed), Lewis said: "I don't offhand remember, but I would say that he did, otherwise it would have stuck with me", and a hard stress appeared in his voice.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 11 describes all attempts to locate and contact Frazier. It was a good piece of detective work, not worse than Barry Ernest had to deliver. Army, Boeing Aircraft Company, and again army, many blind avenues, and a false collaborator. It was getting better by locating Frazier in Fort Polk, Louisiana, then Fort Sill, Oklahoma about 1973, but no cigar. Eventually, O'Toole met a man named Tony Pellicano who was a specialist in searching for missing people. Pellicano located Frazier in - Irving, Texas, the place where it all began. It was Pellicano who took a recorded interview with Wesley Frazier.

Pellicano: He asked you, he said "Wes, I want to go home, and I want to bring out some curtain rods for my room?"

Frazier: That is true. Because, you know, he had an appartment you know, over at Dallas, you know. (The stress hit maximum hard on "That is true" but dropped down to mederate-to-good on the rest of statement).

Pellicano: He said "I want to pick up some curtain rods" and what did you do, drive him on home?

Frazier: No, what he did, you know., Thursday he came out. His wife lives out there in Irving, you know, and so, you know, he told me he wanted a ride home out to Irving to see his wife. I said "Very well". So you know, he did and he said, you know, on the way out, he said the next morning he is going to bring some curtain rods, you know, for his apartment over at Dallas. I said "Very well", you know, so I didn't think anything else about it, you know. (The stress wa nearly at maximum hard during the entire statement).

Pellicano: What happened then? What did you do? You picked him up the next morning?

Frazier: You know, he come down to where I live, you know, and he got out and walked in, you know, sit down in the car, you know, so, you know, when I got in the car, I glanced at the package, and I didn't think anything about it, and asked him, I said , "What is that?"  And he said, you know. "That is some curtain rods I told you I was going to bring", you know, so I just dropped the subject right there, you know, because I didn't think anything more about it, you know. (The statement began at moderate-to-good stress and stayed at that level until "And he said you know, "That's some curtain rods...", at which point in reached maximum hard. The stress then dropped to good-to-hard level and remained there for the rest of statement).

Pellicano: Did he tell you they were curtain rods?

Frazier: Right.

Pellicano: I mean, did it took to you like it was a package of curtain rods?

Frazier: Yes, it did. (There was good-to-hard stress in "Right" and hard stress in "Yes, it did").

After some further talking about Oswald (moderate stress only), Pellicano resumed the topic of curtain rods:

Pellicano: Well, when you went to work, did he take that package up with him into he building?

Frazier: Yes, he did. (There was a maximum hard stress).

Pellicano: Did you see where he put it?

Frazier: No, because he walked on ahead. (There was good-to-hard stress).

Pellicano: Did he tell you he was going to go home with you that night?

Frazier: What night was that?

Pellicano: That is Friday night, you know the day that the president died.

Frazier: No, because he come up with some theory about - I asked him about this. He said he had to go to get his driving licence. (Maximum hard stress appeared).

Pellicano asked about the polygraph test, and Frazier described the procedure, during which time only a moderate stress appeared.

Pellicano: There was nobody else in the room with you?

Frazier: That is correct. (Maximum hard stress appeared).

Pellicano: Well, what did he do, ask you all them questions that he asked you before?

Frazier: Right. That is true. (Moderate stress).

Pellicano: And did he tell you that you have passed the test?

Frazier: Yes, he did. He said I did very well. (There was maximum hard stress).

After further questions, Pellicano changed the subject:

Pellicano: Do you know Paul Bentley?

Frazier: Paul Bentley?

Pellicano: Yes.

Frazier: No, I don't. (There was maximum hard stress in both Frazier's replies).

When asked about Lee owning a rifle:

Frazier: Well, actually, to tell you - I never saw it, you know. They found it in the building, you know, after president was shot, you know. 

Pellicano: You never knew he had his gun, then?

Frazier: That is true. (This produced good-to-hard stress).

Pellicano: Did the police ever ask you did you ever know if he had a gun or nothing?

Frazier: They asked me that, and I told them I did't know, you know, because I told them I never had been over to the man's --

Pellicano: I'm talking about way before this thing ever happened. Did any police ever come up to you and ask you to get this gun?

Frazier: Oh, no.

Pellicano: Never happend?

Frazier: No, never happend. (This produced hard stress).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is everyone's chance to draw conclusions from O'Toole's investigation into Frazier's story. I drew mine: Frazier lied about curtain rods, his voice had failed him. There were no curtain rods in Paine's garage (Michael Pine remembered some two rods?), Oswald did not need any curtain rods in his rooming house, Oswald denied carrying any curtain rods, and no curtain rods were found in the Depository (however, his blue jacket was found - in the first floor lunchroom, where else?). Frazier invented the story to save his skin, most likely with the help of his sister. It would be a speculation at this point to offer further potential scenarios. However, the way I see it, Frazier had been caught by the Dallas Police lying about curtain rods. They let him go, maybe after telling them the truth which could be that horrible for the Dallas Police that they better let the lie live. Frazier saved his skin since he knew about Oswald's framing and who framed him and yet survived, and he survived only because he did not break his silence. This man will never tell the truth who Prayer Man was. His life is at stake.

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

It is everyone's chance to draw conclusions from O'Toole's investigation into Frazier's story. I drew mine: Frazier lied about curtain rods, his voice had failed him.

I think the stress test was as bogus as a polygraph would have been. Forget a Lawyer - a mere Paralegal could have kept that nonsense out of court. Frazier had been gone from home a long time - and he like most of America was quite stressed over the assassination. So here you have a guy who found himself drawn into a historical tragedy - been quite stressed all day as everyone else was - and by evening he was most likely aware that Lee (the guy he drove to work that day) was suspected of shooting the President. And while he believed the package Lee brought to work was too short to be a rifle .... he had to question himself as to could it had been possible that Lee did actually bring a rifle to work that day? That would explain the reason Buell was stressed each time the package Lee placed in the back seat came up.

The proper thing to have done was question Buell at a time other than the day of the assassination and after getting a nights rest and something to eat. I know people who would be freaked out just being questioned by the police just because they would feel intimidated even if they had done nothing wrong. Here was someone who was probably wondering if they were going to try and tie him in with the murder of the President of the United States because he knew Lee brought a sack to work said to be curtain rods.

Geesh - I was audited by the IRS a few years ago and even though I believed I checked and double checked my figures .... I was still nervous as a cat trying to tip-toe through a dog pound with a bell hung around my neck. I would be more suspicious had Buell not shown any stress. I also find the idea that Buell lied about curtain rods a bit self serving. Once again a witness is considered lying to make a theory look possible. That theme seems to have worn itself out.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

BUMPED for Bill Miller's comment.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

It looks to me that it was a part of Frazier's character to offer a fellow worker a ride. The guy (Brian Harper) I mentioned as riding with me to work happened only when I found that he passed through Glasford to get to work. Once I found that out - I offered for him to save his gas and ride along with me if he liked.  I just remembered just now that a school chum named Jack Rudd got on at Unarco Rohn where I worked. I did the same thing with Jack as he only lived a few blocks from me. Just having company during the 30 minute drive was nice - especially when going home at night as we were 2nd shifters.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

It looks to me that it was a part of Frazier's character to offer a fellow worker a ride...

Bill,

We can agree to disagree on the small points.

About Frazier and the lie detector, though, it seems to me that Frazier was under tremendous pressure on the day that JFK was killed.

Firstly, Frazier was being scrutinized as a possible accomplice.  He had allegedly transported the murder weapon.

The DPD was hot to prove a Communist plot, and anybody could be accused of Communism.  Ruth Paine, his close neighbor, would be so suspected, so by proxy so would Frazier.

Frazier's friendship with LHO was another demerit for Frazier.

The essence of the interrogation of Bull Frazier was this: What Role Did You Play with LHO in the assassination of JFK???

Frazier was under tremendous pressure.

At the very least, Frazier had to respond as stern DPD officers demanded to know: Why didn't you know it was the murder weapon?  How could you let this happen?

Regards 

--Paul Trejo 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is important to note that by questioning the veracity of the curtain rod story, I am not questioning Mr. Frazier's profile or personality, or attribute to him any evil role in the assassination  or to his attitudes towards Lee Harvey Oswald. As far as I can judge from the interviews which Mr. Frazier gave over the years, he is a good citizen and a good man. He sincerely believes in Lee Oswald's innocence, and in my view he knows he can be confident on this point knowing more about the Friday morning and noon than he admitted so far. However, he just happened to occur in a situation which overwhelmed him and posed a threat to him and his family severely.

I mentioned in on of my previous posts, no one wants to lie. People prefer speaking the truth unless they are forced to lie. 

However, the question we are trying to answer on this Forum is what happened on the 22nd of November 1963. The pressure to cover up the truth, in my opinion, is very obvious throughout the case. The pressure would be the strongest in the most sensitive points, those which directly matter Lee Harvey Oswald's whereabouts and his rifle. Should Oswald's innocence perspire in any of these explosive aspects of the case, it would have to be suppressed by all means because there would not be any case against Lee Harvey Oswald. 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

It is everyone's chance to draw conclusions from O'Toole's investigation into Frazier's story. I drew mine: Frazier lied about curtain rods, his voice had failed him. There were no curtain rods in Paine's garage (Michael Pine remembered some two rods?), Oswald did not need any curtain rods in his rooming house, Oswald denied carrying any curtain rods, and no curtain rods were found in the Depository (however, his blue jacket was found - in the first floor lunchroom, where else?). Frazier invented the story to save his skin, most likely with the help of his sister. It would be a speculation at this point to offer further potential scenarios. However, the way I see it, Frazier had been caught by the Dallas Police lying about curtain rods. They let him go, maybe after telling them the truth which could be that horrible for the Dallas Police that they better let the lie live. Frazier saved his skin since he knew about Oswald's framing and who framed him and yet survived, and he survived only because he did not break his silence. This man will never tell the truth who Prayer Man was. His life is at stake


Andrej,

So you believe that this lie about the curtain rods just popped into Frazier's brain? I don't understand that. Why wouldn't Frazier just tell the truth?

Furthermore, can you explain why Frazier would at first come up with the lie about curtain rods, making Oswald look guilty, only to lie again, saying the bag was too short for a broken down rifle to fit inside? Making Oswald look not guilty?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...