Guest Duncan MacRae

PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

1,094 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2016 at 5:41 AM, Greg Parker said:

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


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?

 

Precisely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


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?

 

Yes, there is something illogical in the curtain rod story. Mr. Frazier insisted he saw a package two feet long which he saw Lee holding between his hand and armpit. For a person of Lee' height, the arm length would be 22-24 inches, which would be what Mr. Frazier reported. The size of the parcel was later specified to be some 27-28 inches, however, Lee would not be able to carry a parcel of this length in the style described by Mr. Frazier. 

Scenario 1: Lee  gave a false reason for his travel to Irving on Thursday since he actually wanted to get his rifle to the Depository. Wesley believed the story, and the package appeared to him as curtain rods. Wesley Frazier has repeatedly described the style with which Lee carried the parcel (tucked in hand, stuck in the armpit). Such parcel could not be the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, even not a disassembled rifle. So, Lee could not give a misleading information about the curtain rods because Wesley claimed  seeing Oswald to carry a parcel which could maybe be curtain rods but not the rifle. The problem here is the observation of a parcel of 2 feet length and especially the style how Lee carried that parcel. There is no explanation to this mess unless one starts to look at the veracity of initial assumptions.

Scenario 2: Lee got an offer to sell his unused and unusable rifle which he may have bought as a part of his minor role in the investigation of advert type gun sales, which was ongoing in spring 1963 (details in Deep Politics... by Peter Scott-Dale). He told Frazier about the purchase offer and who was the would-be buyer, and so they both knew that the reason for their travel to Irving was to bring the rifle to the Depository next day (neither of them had any sinister intention). And so they did. It rained, and Wesley dropped off Lee with the rifle in front of the main entrance, and went on alone to park his car. Lee placed the rifle into the storage room, went out and re-entered the building via the back entrance. 

That would be all to it unless the shooting occurred. Right after the shooting, they both stood in the doorway as in Darnell's film, frozen and pondering if the shooting had anything to do with the rifle they brought to work that morning.  Lee entered the vestibule and went to the storage room only to find out that the rifle was missing. Wesley hung around in the vestibule for tens of seconds to learn about the rifle. Then their ways split but their common trouble stayed. Lee started to flee since he knew he has been framed and was a marked man - he knew who the would-be buyer was. Wesley went into the basement and contemplated his options: he used to give lifts to Lee, they were friendly, and they brought a rifle which was now missing and which, who knows (at that time he could not know) was used in the shooting. Once  it became clear that there is a search for Oswald, he knew he was also in trouble.

Wesley returned to Irving and had a chat with his sister. In one interview which Mr. Frazier gave some years ago, Mr. Frazier mentioned that he actually has worked, before coming to Irving,  in a shop which also sold  curtain rods. The idea which popped up was to claim that there was a long package but since that would connect Wesley with the assassination as an accessory, the package actually could not be a rifle because it was too short. The shortness of the package was the safety break to which he sticks until today. Wesley could always deny that any rifle was mentioned on Thursday or Friday because he only heard about curtain rods, and the package was indeed too short to be a rifle.

Naturally, scenario 2 contains some details which cannot be proven without having more information. However, unlike scenario 1 which obviously does not hold, scenario 2 appears to me logical.

Late edit: Wesley could also assume that a two feet parcel actually could also contain a disassembled rifle. He did not know how long a disassambled rifle would measure. The curtain rods would accommodate also this case - Wesley could not know only by looking at the size that there were no curtain rods in the parcel. Only, it turned later that this Mannlicher-Carcano was still some 36 inch long if disassembled.

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Yes, there is something illogical in the curtain rod story. Mr. Frazier insisted he saw a package two feet long which he saw Lee holding between his hand and armpit. For a person of Lee' height, the arm length would be 22-24 inches, which would be what Mr. Frazier reported. The size of the parcel was later specified to be some 27-28 inches, however, Lee would not be able to carry a parcel of this length in the style described by Mr. Frazier.

You must be joking!

For one thing - which is it - 27" or 28"?  No need to guess when it could be measured with a ruler or tape.

Secondly, did Lee have the top of the package folded over by a few inches?  One wouldn't want the end of a rifle barrel sticking out of the sack while trying to sell the idea that the bag contains curtain rods - now would they.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

You must be joking!

For one thing - which is it - 27" or 28"?  No need to guess when it could be measured with a ruler or tape.

Secondly, did Lee have the top of the package folded over by a few inches?  One wouldn't want the end of a rifle barrel sticking out of the sack while trying to sell the idea that the bag contains curtain rods - now would they.

Folded hand, since it carried a parcel - subtract some 3-4 inches from the maximum arm length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your explanation Andrej. I'll give it some thought. This is one of those hard-to-explain parts of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thanks for your explanation Andrej. I'll give it some thought. This is one of those hard-to-explain parts of the story.

I appreciate, Sandy. I do not claim to know the answers, I only see questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sandy, I tend to agree with Andrej on this issue.  But let me say that I understand that there can be no firm conclusions drawn. 

I have talked before about the  first generation critics' shibboleths about the Warren Report.  That is, points they would not really challenge e.g. the second floor lunch encounter or the MC rifle they said was Oswald's. Well here is another sentence attributed to Oswald pretty much as fact: "Oswald told Frazier that he would like to drive to Irving to pick up some curtain rods for an apartment in Dallas."  Except that Oswald never admitted saying this.  He , in fact, denied it.

In Reclaiming Parkland, which I guess no one here has read, I spent 12 pages on this issue.  And as Andrej noted, a good jumping off point is O'toole's book, since he was the first to draw attention to the importance of Wesley Frazier and his sister in the riddle of Oswald and how the DPD made their case.

But to answer your question about what you term to be two lies.  I approach this question on two levels in RP.  First, the problems with the so called gun sack.  Both Gil Jesus and Pat Speer have brought up some very serious questions about this piece of evidence.  As Sylvia Meagher and Roger Feinman insisted until their dying days:  why did the DPD not photograph it in situ?  It would have gone a long way toward making their case, and OTOH, they photographed pretty much the whole floor.  But somehow, they did not shoot a pic of this key piece of evidence.

To my knowledge, the first time we see this gun sack is outside the building.  And as both Gil and Pat demonstrate in spades, it is very hard to imagine that this is the bag that Frazier and his sister are talking about.  I won't go through all the problems inherent in the paradoxes of those pictures.  You can go to each of their sites and read them.  I will say that, for me, its almost ludicrous to say that that is the gun sack Oswald stuck under his arm. And then there is, as there always is, the problem of corroboration and chain of possession. Why did no one else see Oswald with the gun package inside the TSBD?  Most notably Jack Dougherty?  And I don't have to add the indelible testimony of Troy West who Harold Weisberg immortalized in Whitewash. How does one get around his testimony if Oswald himself made the gun sack?  (Harold did for West what Thompson did for S. M. Holland.)  Cadigan said he found no oil or grease marks on the sack, yet the MC rifle was wiped with Cosmoline before it was transported. Further, no one ever said they saw this paper sack on Oswald's person or in his possessions did they?   I could go on and on, but I think the weight of the evidence implies that the origins of the gun sack pictured outside the TSBD with the cops is dubious. In a court of law, it would have been under sustained and effective attack.  And as Gil Jesus shows with convincing evidence, the FBI was almost surely covering up for the DPD on the issue.  (Reclaiming Parkland, pgs 204-05)  

The problem, as the late Roger Feinman so simply stated was this: if the police found a rifle on the sixth floor, then how did the suspect get it there? For if they could show he clandestinely carried it in, that would be pretty incriminating.  So to make that case, they needed Frazier.  Very conveniently for the DPD, Frazier owned an Enfield rifle, which in Walt Brown's chronology is the first rifle the DPD reported as being the weapon used.  And herein comes one of the most interesting parts of O'toole's book: the midnight polygraph of Frazier that O'toole had such a hard time verifying since none of the police wanted to talk about it. As described in Jim Bishop's volume, The Day Kennedy was Shot, Frazier was emotionally distraught to the point he could not compose himself. Bishop called the scene "controlled hysteria". (ibid, p. 207)  It was so bad, the  technician could not get legitimate readings.  Now, that technician did not sign the report and did not testify before the Commission.  And that report is nowhere to be found today, but somehow Frazier passed the test. 

As per Linnie Mae, I won't belabor the story about her seeing LHO come up the street as pictured in the WC.  We have been through that whole thing and to me it simply is not credible, what with her position at the window, and then the garage slats, which she does not mention in her testimony etc etc.  And the person who did see Oswald approach the house, mother Esther Williams, said nothing about any guns sack. (p. 208)

Let me add two other evidentiary points.  First, Wesley told the HSCA that he always locked his car at night since it was positioned outside.  Naturally they then asked him, well how did Oswald open the door to deposit his bag?  Wesley said that particular door was broken. To which the questioner said, "You figure that one out OK?"  Finally, the WR states, with the help of Jerry Ford, that Frazier followed Oswald into the TSBD that morning, with LHO walking ahead at a brisk pace. But yet there is co-worker Edward Shields who testified  to the HSCA differently.  He worked at the warehouse building north of the TSBD.  He said that he saw Frazier park his car that morning and someone asked him where his friend was.  Frazier replied, "I dropped him off at the building."

In my view, the Frazier/Randle guns sack poses some very serious questions.  And as I note above, if Frazier was threatened with being a suspect or accomplice, would that not be a reason for him to go along with the dog and pony show.  But yet, to shove it back at them he would disagree with the length.  

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

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. 

Andrej,

Without changing my own CT about Frazier's relative innocence in the JFK saga, I had to think twice about your post today.

What other source for the "curtain rods" story do we have other than Buell Frazier?   None!   (Even Linnie Mae got her story from Frazier!)

Let's review that for a minute.   Sandy rightly argues that Frazier would not have claimed that LHO had a package large enough to be a rifle that morning, and then changed that claim to say that the package was too short to contain a rifle. 

So -- what's going on?  Did the CIA "force" Frazier to say that LHO took a "package" to work that day, but then Frazier betrayed the CIA by saying that the package was too short to be a rifle?    No -- I don't favor those cloak-and-dagger CT's.

A more likely scenario, IMHO, is that LHO did bring a package with him that day, and that Frazier saw it and testified about it.  

By the way, Frazier's sister also saw the package from her kitchen window, and she testified about it.  Unless they coordinated their lies that LHO had a package, but the package was too short to have a rifle (which is unlikely) then we should accept the testimony that LHO had a package.

Now -- the existence of a package is easy to see.  The LENGTH of the package, however, is not easy to see.  One could be mistaken about it.   The angle at which the package is carried could make it appear much longer or shorter.  So, we cannot verify the LENGTH by mere memory -- only the EXISTENCE.

So -- I'm brought back to my original guess.   The package existed -- and LHO was bringing his rifle to the TSBD to hand it over to a friend of Gerry Patrick Hemming (who told Weberman he asked LHO to bring the rifle that day).   Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Frazier saw the package and testified about it.

The main question pertains to the size of the package, and the chance of guessing that it contained a rifle.   The pressure on Randle and Frazier was just this -- Why Didn't They Call the FBI as soon as They Saw the JFK Murder Weapon?   Were they Accomplices?

Randle and Frazier had to wiggle out of this.  The most likely reply would be that "it couldn't be a rifle because it was too short."   This wasn't exactly a lie -- because in fact there was no Measurement made at all that morning, and so it COULD have been too short.  But this is also open to an interpretation about the Curtain Rod Story. 

We have two options at this point: (1) that LHO told Frazier the lie about Curtain Rods; or (2) Frazier and Randle coordinated the lie about Curtain Rods to protect themselves from charges that they should have called the FBI right away, and saved the USA an ocean of pain.

Of course, it's ridiculous to imagine that Frazier/Randle could have guessed that the package contained the JFK murder weapon -- but the WC and the FBI were not being rational during those days.  A witch hunt for Accomplices of Oswald was underway.  Ruth Paine would answer more than five thousand questions for the WC, wiggling out of suspicions that she was a Communist Accomplice of Lee Harvey Oswald.

It is an intriguing question -- did Frazier and Randle invent the fib about the curtain rods, or did Lee Harvey Oswald?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

PT evidently never examined any of the evidence I mention above.  

For example the pictures in the WC volumes about Linnie Mae at the window, her testimony about this and how it does not refer to looking through the slats of the carport.  Or the testimony of the mother.  Or how LInnie could have seen the bottom of the sack is she said she only saw Oswald form the waist up. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 208)

As noted above, these are all serious questions that go to the heart of the case.  The first generation of researchers tended to ignore them.  So it became enshrined on both sides.  Like the MC rifle that Oswald did not order, like the second floor lunchroom incident, it should not have been.  

We surrendered something that was never earned.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an intriguing question -- did Frazier and Randle invent the fib about the curtain rods, or did Lee Harvey Oswald?

Paul, as you tend to do, you stay on topic (your topic and yours alone) and completely ignore other researchers' work.  Pat Speer, Gil, and Jim above, post many great points about Frazier, the bag, Oswald bringing it in, and so forth. We're talking three researchers who actually worked on these issues extensively and back it up with graphics and diagrams and yet, we might as well just throw it out the window.

Instead of ignoring this, you might want to parallel your version of the story with theirs because right now, if your theory is tied back to the "Oswald and Edwin Walker" deal, it won't stand up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.