Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

David...

I will have to disagree with you that I have not provided support for their NOT being a bag...

There is simply no reliable evidence that the bag was ever in Frazier's car... (Wesley and Randle's word AFTER hours of questions and BEFORE the AFFIDAVITS)

No reliable corroboration that Oswald even came to the Randle house at all... (why not get an affidavit from Wesley's mother who he says asks "who was at the window"... and is told "Lee" - yet no one corroborates THAT story either...)

No one at the Paine residence can support the BAG either coming TO the house or LEAVING it - with or without a rifle

There is no bag with Oswald as he is seen eating lunch... (Wesley tells us he did NOT take lunch that day)

Finally... unless you know of some special type of grocery bags, the bag they describe does not sound "standard" as one would find at the Paine house to put his lunch in...

The BAG on the 6th floor is NEVER shown on the 6th floor - only the small lunch bag of Williams

The BAG in Monty's hands cannot be the one Wesley or Randle describes... that's a given... so THAT BAG must have been created at some point.

BILL RANDLE is involved in a very interesting way... (which may be the reason for the CYA)

No one at the TSBD testifies to seeing Oswald carrying a 2 foot bag*

*Edward Shields tells us that his friends: Williams, Jarman, Norman, Givens (who is incorrectly identified as GIBBONS in his HSCA testimony) told him that Owald was dropped of near the building... that he, Shields did not see Oswald walking up... yet he also stated that he THOUGHT Oswald rode with Frazier every day... yet we know this was only on Monday morning's and Friday nights... He also says that THEY SAID Oswald was carrying a long package...

Yet when we get to the OFFICIAL RECORD... how would these men know no to include this sighting? That Oswald HAD to get out of the car with Welsey according to Wesley... AND that Oswald did NOT take his lunch that day... yet not one of these men give any indication that Shield's testimony is correct.

JIM - does your sourcing of this lead provide any better corroboration?

Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not when Oswald came back with you on any Monday morning or any weekend did he pack his lunch?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.

Mr. BALL - He did?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.

Mr. BALL - But every other day he brought a lunch?

Mr. FRAZIER - Right, when he rode with me.

(Note: Oswald only rode with Wesley Monday mornings and Fridays... on all other days he stayed in Oak Cliff and did his own lunch thing... on Monday's, coming from the Paines, maybe his wife made his lunch... according to Welsey, the bag contained curtain rods as told to him by Oswald - yet another bit of bag evidence that is completely uncorroborated)

Mr. BALL - Now on November 22, what time did you get to work?

Mr. JARMAN - About 5 minutes after 8.

Mr. BALL - Was Oswald there when you got there?

Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Where did you see him the first time?

Mr. JARMAN - Well, he was on the first floor filling orders.

Mr. BALL. Did you see Lee Oswald when you got to work?

Mr. NORMAN. No; I don't recall seeing him when I got to work.

Mr. BALL. Did you remember seeing him at any time that morning?

Mr. NORMAN. Yes; around about 10 or 10:15, somewhere in the neighborhood of that.

(Norman is asked, in his HSCA testimony, if he remembers anyone asking Wesley "something about where his rider was..." ...

Norman replies, "No, I don't remember anybody")

Mr. BALL. Now, this morning, did you see Oswald on the floor at any time?

Mr. WILLIAMS. This morning of November 22d?

Mr. BALL. 22d.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The morning of November 22d Oswald was on the floor. The only time I saw him that morning was a little after eight, after I had started working. As usual, he was walking around with a clipboard in his hands, I believe he was.

Mr. BALL. That is on the first floor?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. He had a clipboard in his hand.

Mr. BALL. That is the only time you saw him that morning?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is the only time I saw him that morning. I saw him again between 11:30 and maybe 10 until 12:00.

Mr. BELIN. Friday; that is the day the President came by.

Mr. GIVENS. Yes, I saw him that day.

Mr. BELIN. Where did you see him first?

Mr. GIVENS. Well, I first saw him on the first floor.

Mr BELIN. About what time was that?

Mr. GIVENS. Well, about 8:30.

So all we really have regarding Shields is that HE CLAIMS that one of his group (Williams, Arce, Norman, Jarman, Givens - he specifically names JARMAN) told him, "he let him out at the building" yet not one of these men retells that portion of the story, in fact, they all state they did not see him until in the TSBD... any of these men in the domino room at the time could have easily seen Oswald let off, come up the stairs and into the back door...

YET... not a single one says so...

"They (Shield's source) asked him (Oswald) what it (the long package) was and he told us it was a venetian blind he was going to have cleaned" -Shields.

(note - Montgomery's oral history states he had a VENETIAN BLIND inthe bag which was holding it up"):

From GMACK:

The Museum never got an oral history from Sawyer, unfortunately, but here’s what L.D. Montgomery said on 11-25-2002

L.D.: It must just have been a little… it seems like that paper, seems like it was a little stiff paper. I’m trying to think and trying to remember. Was there anything in it?

Gary: That was my next question.

L.D.: That’s what I was thinking. Was there a little piece of that white Venetian blind that was in there? That might’ve been what was holding it up. Because you know, he told ‘em that was a Venetian blind, but he had the rifle in there. But he may have had a little piece of that… you know, a long piece of that Venetian blind in there. That’s what I was thinking. Maybe that’s what it was that was in there, and that’s why it held that up.

Gary: You don’t remember looking inside?

L.D.: (nodding) Oh yeah, I remember looking inside. That’s why I was thinking. I was thinking that I remembered now that there was a piece of that in there. Uh-huh.

domino_room_0.jpg

Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door.

Mr. BALL - When he came in the door?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.

Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.

Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.

Mr. BALL - About what time of day was that?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - That was 8 o'clock.

David J :

I think we both agree that there’s all kinds of things wrong with “the bag evidence,” but your idea of what is wrong and mine diverge sharply.

First of all, you cannot—or at least should not (in my opinion)-- cite things that are wrong with “the bag as evidence” in the afternoon and then extrapolate back to the morning, and claim that Linnie Mae Randle and Frazier were not valid witnesses in claiming that Oswald brought a package to work on 11/22/63.

I don’t see the logic in that, at all.

Not valid witnesses? On the basis of what?

Sure, the bag looks ridiculous that the two DPD detectives carried out of the building. I agree. But does that mean that Oswald did not carry a bag work that day?

There we part ways.

Also: I think you underestimate the importance of Oswald’s behaving deceptively.

We both agree Oswald did not carry his lunch to work. (So certainly, his "lunch" is not what was in the bag).

You have pointed out that a witness told the HSCA that Oswald said the package contained a venetian blind. Which is obviously false, but maybe he did say that.

Well, here’s another account. There’s a witness I learned of some ten or fifteen years ago who encountered Oswald on a TSBD elevator that morning, and Oswald was carrying a long package.

What’s that? Asked the witness.

A fishing pole, replied Oswald.

So it was “curtain rods,” in the car; later a venetian blind; and a I’m aware of a witness to whom Oswald said: “fishing pole.”

I want to repeat what I said earlier on this threat: you are free to repeatedly assert that Oswald did not carry a bag in the car.

You are free to assert that the authorities simply pressured Randle and Frazier to say what they did.

But there is no good evidence to believe any of that—and repeatedly asserting it does not make it so.

Yet you keep repeatedly asserting it as if it were a fact.

Also, in your latest post, you say: “No reliable corroboration that Oswald even came to the Randle house at all...”

So: Are you now asserting that Frazier didn’t drive Oswald to work on 11/22/63? (If not, please explain).

Let me remind you again of what Linnie Mae Randle said in her 11/22 affidavit:

"I saw Lee walk up my driveway carrying a long brown package. I saw him put it in Wesley's car."

Here is Frazier’s sworn affidavit:

"Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2 feet long. I asked Lee what was in the sack and he said "curtain rods" and I remembered what he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods." etc.

No, I don't think these witnesses were pressured into telling a completely fictional account.

There is plenty of evidence that Oswald carried “a package” to work, and he told different things to different people as to what was in the package.

DSL

4/15/13; 6:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

DSL - the only evidence that a bag ever existed in Oswald's possession comes from these two. Does ANYONE have Oswald carrying a bag while in the TSBD?

Does anyone see him retreive a bag?, pull lunch from a bag? throw away a bag?

Oswald denies bringing ANY BAG to work..

Please David.. PLEASE post any evidence you have that connects Oswald to ANY bag once Wesley finishes telling his "parking" story....

And yet there is plenty of evidence to suggest the story was a complete fabrication... polygraphs are not "conclusive"... especially in 1963. If it was that strong it would have been added as evidence against Oswald. It was not. The only other person who can corroborate Lee coming to the Randle's was Wesley's mother... Have you ever spoken to her David?

My comment about Oswald not going to the Randle's...

HOW do you jump to "So: Are you now asserting that Frazier didn’t drive Oswald to work on 11/22/63? (If not, please explain)."

This is the conclusion you reach?? On every other trip to Dallas, on MONDAY MORNINGS, Wesley goes by and picks Oswald up. On MONDAY MORNINGs Oswald has with him a lunch bag. What I am saying is the pattern didn't change... Wesley does the same thing... yet after a couple hours of "discussion" at the DPD, Wesley and his sister tell a different story. The BAG has to get from the garage to the TSBD... how else could it get there David?

Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not when Oswald came back with you on any Monday morning or any weekend did he pack his lunch?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.

Mr. BALL - He did?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me (on MONDAY MORNINGS ONLY), I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.

Mr. BALL - But every other day he brought a lunch?

Mr. FRAZIER - Right, when he rode with me.

Representative FORD - When he would go with you on Monday, on any Monday, was this the same procedure for getting to, getting in contact with you?

Mr. FRAZIER - You mean coming in there and looking through the window?

Representative FORD - Yes.

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it wasn't. I say, that is the first time he had ever done that. I say. most times I would usually call him, you know, I was already out in the car fixing to go out the driveway there, and, you know, around to pick him up if he hadn't come down but most times, once in a while I picked him up at the house and another time he was already coming down the sidewalk to the house when I was fixing to pick him up and I usually picked him up around the corner there.

But THIS TIME... WITH A RIFLE IN HIS HANDS Oswald decides to make himself noticed by as many people as possible... Marina doesn't see a package, Ruth, no package... No one sees Oswald waling down the street to the Randle's.

The ONLY PEOPLE claiming to have seen this bag are Wesley and Linnie Mae. and based on all the evetns surrounding them YOU can't see how they could be lying about the incident?

Marina, the night before, was "giving him the silent treatment" which caused him to go to sleep early, 9pm, while she and Ruth stayed up past 11pm. You suppose OSWALD made his lunch for MONDAY MORNINGS or Marina? (fwiw, Marina's testimony is a mess as we both know. She doesn't hear him leave yet tells us he may have had a small bag with him...

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether he rode with Wesley Frazier that morning?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know. I didn't hear him leave.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see a paper bag or cover for the rifle at the Paine's residence or garage?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see a bag at any time?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Where did your husband have his lunch? Did he take a sandwich to the depository, or did he go home to his rooming house for lunch? Do you know?

Mrs. OSWALD. He usually took sandwiches to lunch. But I don't know whether he would go home or not.

.....

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether your husband carried any package with him when he left the house on November 22nd?

Mrs. OSWALD. I think that he had a package with his lunch. But a small package.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether he had any package like a rifle in some container?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

I well aware of what OTHER PEOPLE CLAIM Oswald said about the bag - there will never be a shortage of people who will tell you what Oswald said to them....

But as I showed... Edward Shields tells quite a story - without any corroboration from the men he is talking about.

Do you NOT believe Dougherty?

Do you have any IDEA where Oswald put this bag when he gets to work?

Whether anyone sees him with a bag at lunchtime?

Whether anyone sees him take a bag from the first to second floor?

Mr. BELIN. So you don't feel he came in the domino room before 8 o'clock?

Mr. GIVENS. No, sir; not that morning he didn't.

Mr. JARMAN - About 5 minutes after 8.

Mr. BALL - Was Oswald there when you got there?

Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Where did you see him the first time?

Mr. JARMAN - Well, he was on the first floor filling orders.

David... there are few if any FACTS related to these events. That I claim there was no Frazier/Randle bag (along with a handful of other) does not make it a FACT... only a THEORY for what occurred based on the evidence available. This THEORY takes nothing from you having a conversation about the bag you believe he brought with him... yet all you have to prove he brought it is the word of Wesley and Linnie... those who saw Oswald tell us he did not have a bag when he entered and by 8:05am he was already with a clipboard filling orders.

These are the same people who supposedly saw Oswald being dropped off by Wesley before he goes and parks.... at least according to Shields.

How he supposedly handled the bag, how Linnie sees him do anything with it and the car... and the changes in the descriptions of the bag over time, suggests to me that there is something very wrong with their stories... there never having been a bag explains quite a lot and fits the sinister nature of the "evidence" in this case.

DJ

You think there is any possbility Oswald didn't even go home that evening? That Marina and Ruth ALSO told lies in order to get the rifle from where they THOUGHT it was to the TSBD.... after the work you;ve done to expose the extreme limits the conspirators went to that day and in subsequent years... is this possibility any stranger sounding than "the body was NOT in the casket when they pulled up to Bethesda" ???

All I ask is for the same open mind to possibilities that you expected when you wrote your book.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks Jim...

Curious then... Shields has little corroboration going for him.... Were you thinking of someone else seeing Oswald dropped off... like the PRIMARY SOURCE,

and saying so at some other time?

I also find it interesting that Piper I think says that none of the men were in the domino room eating that day, 11/22, even though the parade was not for a while

These men also BARELY MAKE IT to their spots in time for the limo to pass... on the 5th rather than 6th floor... even though they'd be working on the 6th after the parade and would have an even BETTER VIEW....

You would think if any of these men were in on it, they would have corroborated Shields in their testimony and create even more "guilt" for Oswald.

But they don't.

DJ

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am talking about whether or not Oswald walked to Frazier's house, or as he usually did, he waited for Frazier to pick him up.

As you note, it makes little sense for him to break custom and habit on that day, especially if he has this long package to carry.

Could he have been hoping to place the package in the car without it being seen? He could have reasonably expected or hoped everyone to be sitting and eating. Of course that behavior implies that he was trying to hide something.

Dave

Jim and Dave, Frazier opined that Oswald walked up because he himself was probably running a little late.

Representative FORD - Did this different method of him meeting you raise any questions in your mind?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it didn't. I just thought maybe, you know, he just left a little bit earlier but when I looked up and saw that the clock was. I knew I was the one who was running a little bit late because, as I say, I was talking, sitting there eating breakfast and talking to the little nieces, it was later than I thought it was.

As for possibly not wanting to be seen with the alleged package... he had to walk past several houses to get to the Randle residence. The FBI interviewed the occupants of all those places... not one saw Oswald that morning - let alone Oswald with a package.

Maybe Oswald was a ghost.

Or...

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not talking about the arrival at the TSBD.

I am talking about whether or not Oswald walked to Frazier's house, or as he usually did, he waited for Frazier to pick him up.

As you note, it makes little sense for him to break custom and habit on that day, especially if he has this long package to carry.

And BTW, how does Linnie Randle have credibility on this? How could she have seen Oswald palce the package in the car through the slats in the car port. And didn't Wesley say he locked his car anyway?

Yes Jim... I was following...

I wanted to know your take on Shields and the fact that none of his friends corroborate the story... not one says they were outside and saw Oswald dropped off or even coming in...

I am also looking forward to hearing about this other witness...

Did the FBI ever check with the regular bus that Oswald takes from his apartment? (E. Roberts says that Oswald was not there Thursday night... so it SEEMS that he did go back to Irving with Welsey... DSL did not answer... was Wesley's mother ever questioned? She supposedly saw Oswald thru the window...

DJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not talking about the arrival at the TSBD.

I am talking about whether or not Oswald walked to Frazier's house, or as he usually did, he waited for Frazier to pick him up.

As you note, it makes little sense for him to break custom and habit on that day, especially if he has this long package to carry.

And BTW, how does Linnie Randle have credibility on this? How could she have seen Oswald palce the package in the car through the slats in the car port. And didn't Wesley say he locked his car anyway?

Yes Jim... I was following...

I wanted to know your take on Shields and the fact that none of his friends corroborate the story... not one says they were outside and saw Oswald dropped off or even coming in...

I am also looking forward to hearing about this other witness...

Did the FBI ever check with the regular bus that Oswald takes from his apartment? (E. Roberts says that Oswald was not there Thursday night... so it SEEMS that he did go back to Irving with Welsey... DSL did not answer... was Wesley's mother ever questioned? She supposedly saw Oswald thru the window...

DJ

To answer your last question...yes, David, she was. She remembered seeing Oswald, but didn't recall seeing a package.

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=340920

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Pat....

So now we have two witnesses who saw Oswald that morning yet did not see him carrying anything...

What concerns me is that this is yet another unsigned report of what a witness supposedly says...

If you go back one page you have a report concerning Linnie Mae...

SHE CLAIMS that Oswald had already put the bag in the car by the time he is seen by the window...

and that her kids did not see anyone as the window was too high... and since they know nothing, she prefers they are not interviewed...

FBI Report dated NOV 23, 1963 by James Bookout:

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

Mrs. RANDLE. What I remember seeing is about this long, sir, as I told you it was folded down so it could have been this long.

Mr. BALL. I see. You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?

Mrs. RANDLE. A little bit more.

Mr. BALL. A little more than 2 feet

Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.

Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.

Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work

Mr. BALL - What was he doing?

Mr. FRAZIER - He just looked through the kitchen window.

The Kitchen window is on the WEST side of the house next to the carport... for Linnie to say that Oswald needs to walk all the way around to the front of the house..

this is contradicted by Wesley

Representative FORD - Did this different method of him meeting you raise any questions in your mind?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it didn't. I just thought maybe, you know, he just left a little bit earlier but when I looked up and saw that the clock was. I knew I was the one who was running a little bit late because, as I say, I was talking, sitting there eating breakfast and talking to the little nieces, it was later than I thought it was.

Mr. BALL - When you went out the back door where was Oswald?

Mr. FRAZIER - He was standing just a few feet there outside the back door there

Regarding Linnie Mae's statement... she supposedly sees Oswald thru the wondow and then goes over to the carport door, opens it, watches him put it into the car and walk back around. Except... Wesley does not tell us this occurs, in fact, he states he realizes he is late at 7:15, running out at 7:21 according to his looking at a clock... the FBI report does not jive with the actual timing or events that morning... I venture to say that the sequence of events is anything but solid...

This morning, Friday, November 22, 1963, I got up between 6:00 - 6:30 AM, and got ready to go to work, and then sit down to eat breakfast, about 7:15 AM, me, my mother, and my two little neices [sic] were at the table, and my sister was at the sink. My mother looked up and said, "Who is that looking in the window?" I looked up and said, "That's Lee."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this debate is over “apples and oranges.” I mean that I find it difficult to dismiss the WC out of hand on many issues and then rely on the reported testimony or exhibits presented in the 26 volumes. I for one believe that the “evidence” in this case, be it from the WR or WC, DPD, FBI, HSCA and more is so tainted that all we can do is to identify these frauds for what they are. We are left with attempting to investigate the murder of the President without factually based evidence. Witnesses were threatened, were lied too, ignored, intimidated and murdered. Evidence was tampered with, stolen and manufactured. Experts in ‘63/64 and ‘76/77 worked for the government, the same government that conducted the “official” investigations in this case. The closest we have to a real investigation was that of Jim Garrison and even that effort was riddled with covert agents and an effort by the powerful to derail that case.

Therefore the facts are that the “evidence” of the Frazier story, the testimony as recorded by the WC, DPD, FBI and WC is not just questionable but can be dismissed completely and wholly. We now have a plethora of evidence to question the role of Ruth and Michael Paine. If it was apparently not for Ruth Paine, Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle would never have become part of the fairy tale told by the government entities. The evidence if it does anything, points to the intelligence community. The late night arrest of Frazier and brought back to DPD is very telling. What happened behind closed doors within the DPD that night is guess work. The story of the bag is clearly a manufactured story. The so called testimony of Frazier and his sister is questionable to any impartial observer. Attempting to rely on ANY of this “evidence” is an exercise in futility. I don’t think we can even believe that LHO rode to work with Frazier that morning.

I cannot and will not believe anything produced by the WC or the HSCA for that matter. And I would suggest that any evidence that is tainted is therefore impeachable. If impeachable, it is not valid. If not valid, then it is not true. Regardless of Frazier’s testimony, interviews through the years, or any attempt to present any of this story as factual is p____ing up a rope. The truth is we do not know what effort was made to either threaten or control Frazier and Randle. For those who would say that I am a CT’er suffering from paranoia, I say that the “evidence” is on my side.

IN 50 years of effort researchers have torn apart the government investigations to the point that trying to use any of it in a rational attempt to seek the truth is unreasonable.

We are far better off if we rely on the work of those who have found evidence to support my statements. The "critics" (what a horrible description) are heroes and if not for those men and women, the murder of the President would have been put to bed in '64 with LHO found guilty of a murder I believe he did no commit.

Please forgive me if I offend anyone with other opinions, but these are mine

Link to post
Share on other sites

WF: I usually picked him up around the corner there.

Very good David. This is a key point I am working on now.

Nice post. I don't agree with everything the Young Turks come up with. But I am glad you guys are here. As I said, the first generation of critics did a lot of good work. But they also accepted some things they should not have. Arguing over the length of a bag that may not have even existed is one of them.

I just wish Martin Hay would come back.

Any chance Martin?

Jim,

This is probably the third time I've see you express a desire for me to return to posting on the forum and what can I say? It's very flattering when a genuine expert (something I'd never claim to be) such as yourself believes I have anything valuable to contribute. (Yes, I like having my ego stroked as much as the next guy LOL)

The reason I haven't been posting is because I got tired of the BS that goes along with it. Take the post I made a few days back as an example. All I did was correct Mr. Lifton when he was incorrectly claiming that it was a "fact" that Linnie May Randle had said the package she saw was over 3 feet long. It is not a fact, it is unsigned, uncorroborated hearsay that is contradicted by sworn, corroborative and consistent testimony. So how did Mr. Lifton react? Well, instead of simply admitting his error, he spat out his pacifier, threw his toys out of the pram, and went on a rant about my non-existent "professions of scholarship". He did his very best to belittle me and questioned my motives simply to distract from the obvious fact that he was wrong.

And really, what was the point? How did that help any of us in our research? How does that type of behaviour further our understanding of the case? In short, it's a waste of time and energy to respond to that crap and I just cannot be bothered with it anymore and that's part of the reason I'd stopped posting.

In case anyone should think I'm acting all holier than thou, believe me I know that I've behaved badly in the past and that is the other, probably more important reason that I stopped posting. As I recall, last year I exchanged a few childish attempts at one upmanship with Mr. Lifton, had a silly spat with Pat Speer, and was more than a little rude to Gary Mack when he sent me messages I neither wanted nor asked for. And I don't want to be that person. Ask anyone who knows me, I speak my mind and use way too much "colorful" language but I never like to upset or belittle people. It never leaves me feeling good. So I realised that the best way for me to put an end to it, to improve myself as a human being, was to stay away from the type of folks who do enjoy behaving that way and do get a kick out of disparaging others so that they can feel superior in some way.

All that being said, maybe I just need to suck it up and stop being such a whiny little runt. When the inevitable personal attacks appear, I always have the option of simply closing my laptop.

Martin Hay,

I think you ought to educate yourself about the importance of FBI 302 reports. No, they are not “sworn” statements, but it is a felony to make a false statement to an FBI agent during an interview, and people have gone to jail for doing that.

A striking example occurred in 2004 with Martha Stewart. I happen to like Martha Stewart, and so I don’t want to belabor the point. But if you will simply Google “Martha Stewart conviction story,” you will have hours of reading about how, in connection with an insider trading scandal, Ms. Stewart ended up being convicted not so much because of the charge of “insider trading” but rather because of allegedly making false statements to the FBI. In other words, had she not met with FBI agents and "tried to explain" etc, there would have been no case, and no conviction and she would not have ended up going to jail.

It was a major life changing event for her, and she made quite a comeback after serving time in a Federal correctional facility.

“Making false statements” (you can Google that, too) is a violation of federal law. It is a felony. And such statements—with the FBI reports (and the testimony of the agents who wrote them)—are often the evidence used to convict people of obstruction of justice, another felony.

So for you to come along, at this late date, ascend your high horse, and tell us that we can ignore, or set aside, what Linnie Mae Randle said on Friday night, 11/22/63, to a federal agent investigating the assassination of President Kennedy, because days, weeks, or months later, she gave “sworn” testimony in which she said something different is just absurd.

The change is particularly significant since the underlying issue is whether Oswald brought a rifle to work (or appeared to have done so).

FBI reports cannot be dismissed and belittled in the manner in which you do—and in fact, any historian will tell you that the “earliest recorded recollection” is the better evidence.

Yes, its nice if a stenographer is on hand, and if an oath can be administered, but that is really not the primary point. The primary point is when the statement was made, because what we are dealing with is the freshness of the recollection.

That is true if one is in an auto accident, and a police officer at the scene writes down what you said happened; it is also true if Linnie Mae Randle is questioned about the length of a bag, and an FBI agent makes a written record of what she said on Friday night, November 22, 1963. If Ms. Randle said the package was “over three feet long”—yes, that is significant.

If, in 1963, she had a cell phone camera and could have taken a picture of “the bag,” that would perhaps have been the “best evidence” of all. Unfortunately, no such technology existed at the time.

DSL

4/17/13; 9:40 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this debate is over “apples and oranges.” I mean that I find it difficult to dismiss the WC out of hand on many issues and then rely on the reported testimony or exhibits presented in the 26 volumes. I for one believe that the “evidence” in this case, be it from the WR or WC, DPD, FBI, HSCA and more is so tainted that all we can do is to identify these frauds for what they are. We are left with attempting to investigate the murder of the President without factually based evidence. Witnesses were threatened, were lied too, ignored, intimidated and murdered. Evidence was tampered with, stolen and manufactured. Experts in ‘63/64 and ‘76/77 worked for the government, the same government that conducted the “official” investigations in this case. The closest we have to a real investigation was that of Jim Garrison and even that effort was riddled with covert agents and an effort by the powerful to derail that case.

Therefore the facts are that the “evidence” of the Frazier story, the testimony as recorded by the WC, DPD, FBI and WC is not just questionable but can be dismissed completely and wholly. We now have a plethora of evidence to question the role of Ruth and Michael Paine. If it was apparently not for Ruth Paine, Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle would never have become part of the fairy tale told by the government entities. The evidence if it does anything, points to the intelligence community. The late night arrest of Frazier and brought back to DPD is very telling. What happened behind closed doors within the DPD that night is guess work. The story of the bag is clearly a manufactured story. The so called testimony of Frazier and his sister is questionable to any impartial observer. Attempting to rely on ANY of this “evidence” is an exercise in futility. I don’t think we can even believe that LHO rode to work with Frazier that morning.

I cannot and will not believe anything produced by the WC or the HSCA for that matter. And I would suggest that any evidence that is tainted is therefore impeachable. If impeachable, it is not valid. If not valid, then it is not true. Regardless of Frazier’s testimony, interviews through the years, or any attempt to present any of this story as factual is p____ing up a rope. The truth is we do not know what effort was made to either threaten or control Frazier and Randle. For those who would say that I am a CT’er suffering from paranoia, I say that the “evidence” is on my side.

IN 50 years of effort researchers have torn apart the government investigations to the point that trying to use any of it in a rational attempt to seek the truth is unreasonable.

We are far better off if we rely on the work of those who have found evidence to support my statements. The "critics" (what a horrible description) are heroes and if not for those men and women, the murder of the President would have been put to bed in '64 with LHO found guilty of a murder I believe he did no commit.

Please forgive me if I offend anyone with other opinions, but these are mine

Tom...

I happen to appreciate and agree with your statement... to a point.

Within the volumes and evidence there are surely honest accounts of what happened AS THEY EXPERIENCED IT.

There are surely FBI/SS/CIA lies, red herrings and evidence with dubious, even ridiculous credentials...

There's an old axion that works very well as one examines the case...:

"Don't believe anything until it's been officially denied"

Take a close look at what was denied (first stories that needed "amending") in this case and I believe you have the basis for the real and authenticated facts of the case...

which can indeed be corroborated and authenticated.

Peace

DJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin Hay,

I think you ought to educate yourself about the importance of FBI 302 reports. No, they are not “sworn” statements, but it is a felony to make a false statement to an FBI agent during an interview, and people have gone to jail for doing that.

A striking example occurred in 2004 with Martha Stewart. I happen to like Martha Stewart, and so I don’t want to belabor the point. But if you will simply Google “Martha Stewart conviction story,” you will have hours of reading about how, in connection with an insider trading scandal, Ms. Stewart ended up being convicted not so much because of the charge of “insider trading” but rather because of allegedly making false statements to the FBI. In other words, had she not met with FBI agents and "tried to explain" etc, there would have been no case, and no conviction and she would not have ended up going to jail.

It was a major life changing event for her, and she made quite a comeback after serving time in a Federal correctional facility.

“Making false statements” (you can Google that, too) is a violation of federal law. It is a felony. And such statements—with the FBI reports (and the testimony of the agents who wrote them)—are often the evidence used to convict people of obstruction of justice, another felony.

So for you to come along, at this late date, ascend your high horse, and tell us that we can ignore, or set aside, what Linnie Mae Randle said on Friday night, 11/22/63, to a federal agent investigating the assassination of President Kennedy, because days, weeks, or months later, she gave “sworn” testimony in which she said something different is just absurd.

The change is particularly significant since the underlying issue is whether Oswald brought a rifle to work (or appeared to have done so).

FBI reports cannot be dismissed and belittled in the manner in which you do—and in fact, any historian will tell you that the “earliest recorded recollection” is the better evidence.

Yes, its nice if a stenographer is on hand, and if an oath can be administered, but that is really not the primary point. The primary point is when the statement was made, because what we are dealing with is the freshness of the recollection.

That is true if one is in an auto accident, and a police officer at the scene writes down what you said happened; it is also true if Linnie Mae Randle is questioned about the length of a bag, and an FBI agent makes a written record of what she said on Friday night, November 22, 1963. If Ms. Randle said the package was “over three feet long”—yes, that is significant.

If, in 1963, she had a cell phone camera and could have taken a picture of “the bag,” that would perhaps have been the “best evidence” of all. Unfortunately, no such technology existed at the time.

DSL

4/17/13; 9:40 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Mr. Lifton,

I don't wish to get into a pointless tit-for-tat here but you're still missing the point which is that there exists no proof that Bookhout's report acurately reflects what Randle told him on November 22. Nor does it give an idea under what circumstances any estimate she gave was achieved. The report represents unsigned hearsay and, as I believe Mark Lane pointed out way back in 1966 (or earlier) would have been worthless in court.

That's my only point, Mr. Lifton.

Martin Hay:

You’re “upping the ante” by using the word “proof” in your first sentence, and then linguistically going in the opposite direction in your last three words, in stating that Randle’s statement (as reported by FBI agent Bookhout) “would have been worthless in court.” IMHO: The first sets the bar way too high; and the second is largely irrelevant.

First of all: no, there “exists no proof” that Bookhout’s report accurately reflects what Randle told him, but that can be said about any FBI 302 report (and about a lot of other things in life, as well). But raising the bar that high then precludes accepting as relevant (and potentially important) all the original written reports of any police (or Secret Service or FBI) investigation (unless they were audiotaped or videotaped) not to mention the accounts of journalists who make notes and publish information within 24 hours of receiving it.

Second: Your statement that Randle’s statement that Bookhout’s FBI report “would have been worthless in court” is really way off the point, in judging its importance as evidence to all of us, historically. It’s a written record, and it was made within a day. That's what is most important, and then our analysis can proceed from there.

FWIW: I think I can speak to the competence of some of these FBI agents, since I interviewed a number of them by telephone, and had forma. sit-down interviews, on camera, with at least four of them: Vincent Drain (1990); Doyle Williams (1990) and Robert Barrett (1998). In addition, I spent hours in a detailed in-person audio-taped interview with Richard Rogge (1984), the FBI Supervisor who was flown to Dallas and handled much of the FBI investigation.

I found all of these individuals credible, and certainly competent to take notes and write a proper report.

So, yes, there’s “no proof” that Linnie Mae Randle said what she did, to FBI Agent James Bookhout, nor do we know the exact question that Bookhout put to Randle that elicited the answer which he reports (that the package was “over three feet” etc); and its also possibly true that the FBI 302 Reports would not have been admissable in court. But so what? And, as I have pointed out, Martha Stewart went to jail for “making a false statement” to FBI agents, and I have no reason to be all that skeptical of Bookhout’s report of what Linnie Mae Randle said about the length of the bag.

I think the “problem” posed by Bookhout’s report, to many researchers on this case, is that it supports the notion that Oswald brought a package to work that was big enough to have contained a rifle. Its as simple as that.

In any event, the written record, imperfect though it may be, is what we have. If Bookhout’s report can be relied upon, then Linnie Mae Randle said the package was over three feet long. And within a day or so, she substantially reduced the size of the package, which substantially reduced the odds that he could been carrying a weapon (even a disassembled one) in the package.

Over the years, and as I studied this matter, what has been particularly striking to me is not just the reported package length, but that Oswald appears to have been involved in some kind of deception, because he told three different stories about what was in the package on three different occasions: to Frazier, it was curtain rods; to someone else, it was venetian blinds; and to a secretary at the TSBD, it was a fishing pole.

It is the combination of the varying stories, plus the initial account of Randle (as reported by FBI Agent Bookhout) that makes it all so very relevant, historically, in attempting to decipher this puzzle.

DSL

4/18/13; 11:40 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin Hay,

I think you ought to educate yourself about the importance of FBI 302 reports. No, they are not “sworn” statements, but it is a felony to make a false statement to an FBI agent during an interview, and people have gone to jail for doing that.

A striking example occurred in 2004 with Martha Stewart. I happen to like Martha Stewart, and so I don’t want to belabor the point. But if you will simply Google “Martha Stewart conviction story,” you will have hours of reading about how, in connection with an insider trading scandal, Ms. Stewart ended up being convicted not so much because of the charge of “insider trading” but rather because of allegedly making false statements to the FBI. In other words, had she not met with FBI agents and "tried to explain" etc, there would have been no case, and no conviction and she would not have ended up going to jail.

It was a major life changing event for her, and she made quite a comeback after serving time in a Federal correctional facility.

“Making false statements” (you can Google that, too) is a violation of federal law. It is a felony. And such statements—with the FBI reports (and the testimony of the agents who wrote them)—are often the evidence used to convict people of obstruction of justice, another felony.

So for you to come along, at this late date, ascend your high horse, and tell us that we can ignore, or set aside, what Linnie Mae Randle said on Friday night, 11/22/63, to a federal agent investigating the assassination of President Kennedy, because days, weeks, or months later, she gave “sworn” testimony in which she said something different is just absurd.

The change is particularly significant since the underlying issue is whether Oswald brought a rifle to work (or appeared to have done so).

FBI reports cannot be dismissed and belittled in the manner in which you do—and in fact, any historian will tell you that the “earliest recorded recollection” is the better evidence.

Yes, its nice if a stenographer is on hand, and if an oath can be administered, but that is really not the primary point. The primary point is when the statement was made, because what we are dealing with is the freshness of the recollection.

That is true if one is in an auto accident, and a police officer at the scene writes down what you said happened; it is also true if Linnie Mae Randle is questioned about the length of a bag, and an FBI agent makes a written record of what she said on Friday night, November 22, 1963. If Ms. Randle said the package was “over three feet long”—yes, that is significant.

If, in 1963, she had a cell phone camera and could have taken a picture of “the bag,” that would perhaps have been the “best evidence” of all. Unfortunately, no such technology existed at the time.

DSL

4/17/13; 9:40 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Mr. Lifton,

I don't wish to get into a pointless tit-for-tat here but you're still missing the point which is that there exists no proof that Bookhout's report acurately reflects what Randle told him on November 22. Nor does it give an idea under what circumstances any estimate she gave was achieved. The report represents unsigned hearsay and, as I believe Mark Lane pointed out way back in 1966 (or earlier) would have been worthless in court.

That's my only point, Mr. Lifton.

Martin Hay:

You’re “upping the ante” by using the word “proof” in your first sentence, and then linguistically going in the opposite direction in your last three words, in stating that Randle’s statement (as reported by FBI agent Bookhout) “would have been worthless in court.” IMHO: The first sets the bar way too high; and the second is largely irrelevant.

First of all: no, there “exists no proof” that Bookhout’s report accurately reflects what Randle told him, but that can be said about any FBI 302 report (and about a lot of other things in life, as well). But raising the bar that high then precludes accepting as relevant (and potentially important) all the original written reports of any police (or Secret Service or FBI) investigation (unless they were audiotaped or videotaped) not to mention the accounts of journalists who make notes and publish information within 24 hours of receiving it.

Second: Your statement that Randle’s statement that Bookhout’s FBI report “would have been worthless in court” is really way off the point, in judging its importance as evidence to all of us, historically. It’s a written record, and it was made within a day. That's what is most important, and then our analysis can proceed from there.

FWIW: I think I can speak to the competence of some of these FBI agents, since I interviewed a number of them by telephone, and had forma. sit-down interviews, on camera, with at least four of them: Vincent Drain (1990); Doyle Williams (1990) and Robert Barrett (1998). In addition, I spent hours in a detailed in-person audio-taped interview with Richard Rogge (1984), the FBI Supervisor who was flown to Dallas and handled much of the FBI investigation.

I found all of these individuals credible, and certainly competent to take notes and write a proper report.

So, yes, there’s “no proof” that Linnie Mae Randle said what she did, to FBI Agent James Bookhout, nor do we know the exact question that Bookhout put to Randle that elicited the answer which he reports (that the package was “over three feet” etc); and its also possibly true that the FBI 302 Reports would not have been admissable in court. But so what? And, as I have pointed out, Martha Stewart went to jail for “making a false statement” to FBI agents, and I have no reason to be all that skeptical of Bookhout’s report of what Linnie Mae Randle said about the length of the bag.

I think the “problem” posed by Bookhout’s report, to many researchers on this case, is that it supports the notion that Oswald brought a package to work that was big enough to have contained a rifle. Its as simple as that.

In any event, the written record, imperfect though it may be, is what we have. If Bookhout’s report can be relied upon, then Linnie Mae Randle said the package was over three feet long. And within a day or so, she substantially reduced the size of the package, which substantially reduced the odds that he could been carrying a weapon (even a disassembled one) in the package.

Over the years, and as I studied this matter, what has been particularly striking to me is not just the reported package length, but that Oswald appears to have been involved in some kind of deception, because he told three different stories about what was in the package on three different occasions: to Frazier, it was curtain rods; to someone else, it was venetian blinds; and to a secretary at the TSBD, it was a fishing pole.

It is the combination of the varying stories, plus the initial account of Randle (as reported by FBI Agent Bookhout) that makes it all so very relevant, historically, in attempting to decipher this puzzle.

DSL

4/18/13; 11:40 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Two questions, David.

1. You say you interviewed Vincent Drain. Did you ask him about his report on the bag, and why it was changed after being sent to the Warren Commission?

2. You claimed, once again, that Randle changed her appraisal of the bag length a day or two after the shooting. From what I can gather, she failed to change her appraisal until more than a week later, AFTER being contacted by the FBI, and asked to approximate the bag length while LOOKING at an actual bag. What, then, is your source for her changing her appraisal within days of the shooting? Have I missed a report or interview?

Thanks, Pat

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin Hay,

I think you ought to educate yourself about the importance of FBI 302 reports. No, they are not “sworn” statements, but it is a felony to make a false statement to an FBI agent during an interview, and people have gone to jail for doing that.

A striking example occurred in 2004 with Martha Stewart. I happen to like Martha Stewart, and so I don’t want to belabor the point. But if you will simply Google “Martha Stewart conviction story,” you will have hours of reading about how, in connection with an insider trading scandal, Ms. Stewart ended up being convicted not so much because of the charge of “insider trading” but rather because of allegedly making false statements to the FBI. In other words, had she not met with FBI agents and "tried to explain" etc, there would have been no case, and no conviction and she would not have ended up going to jail.

It was a major life changing event for her, and she made quite a comeback after serving time in a Federal correctional facility.

“Making false statements” (you can Google that, too) is a violation of federal law. It is a felony. And such statements—with the FBI reports (and the testimony of the agents who wrote them)—are often the evidence used to convict people of obstruction of justice, another felony.

So for you to come along, at this late date, ascend your high horse, and tell us that we can ignore, or set aside, what Linnie Mae Randle said on Friday night, 11/22/63, to a federal agent investigating the assassination of President Kennedy, because days, weeks, or months later, she gave “sworn” testimony in which she said something different is just absurd.

The change is particularly significant since the underlying issue is whether Oswald brought a rifle to work (or appeared to have done so).

FBI reports cannot be dismissed and belittled in the manner in which you do—and in fact, any historian will tell you that the “earliest recorded recollection” is the better evidence.

Yes, its nice if a stenographer is on hand, and if an oath can be administered, but that is really not the primary point. The primary point is when the statement was made, because what we are dealing with is the freshness of the recollection.

That is true if one is in an auto accident, and a police officer at the scene writes down what you said happened; it is also true if Linnie Mae Randle is questioned about the length of a bag, and an FBI agent makes a written record of what she said on Friday night, November 22, 1963. If Ms. Randle said the package was “over three feet long”—yes, that is significant.

If, in 1963, she had a cell phone camera and could have taken a picture of “the bag,” that would perhaps have been the “best evidence” of all. Unfortunately, no such technology existed at the time.

DSL

4/17/13; 9:40 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Mr. Lifton,

I don't wish to get into a pointless tit-for-tat here but you're still missing the point which is that there exists no proof that Bookhout's report acurately reflects what Randle told him on November 22. Nor does it give an idea under what circumstances any estimate she gave was achieved. The report represents unsigned hearsay and, as I believe Mark Lane pointed out way back in 1966 (or earlier) would have been worthless in court.

That's my only point, Mr. Lifton.

Martin Hay:

You’re “upping the ante” by using the word “proof” in your first sentence, and then linguistically going in the opposite direction in your last three words, in stating that Randle’s statement (as reported by FBI agent Bookhout) “would have been worthless in court.” IMHO: The first sets the bar way too high; and the second is largely irrelevant.

First of all: no, there “exists no proof” that Bookhout’s report accurately reflects what Randle told him, but that can be said about any FBI 302 report (and about a lot of other things in life, as well). But raising the bar that high then precludes accepting as relevant (and potentially important) all the original written reports of any police (or Secret Service or FBI) investigation (unless they were audiotaped or videotaped) not to mention the accounts of journalists who make notes and publish information within 24 hours of receiving it.

Second: Your statement that Randle’s statement that Bookhout’s FBI report “would have been worthless in court” is really way off the point, in judging its importance as evidence to all of us, historically. It’s a written record, and it was made within a day. That's what is most important, and then our analysis can proceed from there.

FWIW: I think I can speak to the competence of some of these FBI agents, since I interviewed a number of them by telephone, and had forma. sit-down interviews, on camera, with at least four of them: Vincent Drain (1990); Doyle Williams (1990) and Robert Barrett (1998). In addition, I spent hours in a detailed in-person audio-taped interview with Richard Rogge (1984), the FBI Supervisor who was flown to Dallas and handled much of the FBI investigation.

I found all of these individuals credible, and certainly competent to take notes and write a proper report.

So, yes, there’s “no proof” that Linnie Mae Randle said what she did, to FBI Agent James Bookhout, nor do we know the exact question that Bookhout put to Randle that elicited the answer which he reports (that the package was “over three feet” etc); and its also possibly true that the FBI 302 Reports would not have been admissable in court. But so what? And, as I have pointed out, Martha Stewart went to jail for “making a false statement” to FBI agents, and I have no reason to be all that skeptical of Bookhout’s report of what Linnie Mae Randle said about the length of the bag.

I think the “problem” posed by Bookhout’s report, to many researchers on this case, is that it supports the notion that Oswald brought a package to work that was big enough to have contained a rifle. Its as simple as that.

In any event, the written record, imperfect though it may be, is what we have. If Bookhout’s report can be relied upon, then Linnie Mae Randle said the package was over three feet long. And within a day or so, she substantially reduced the size of the package, which substantially reduced the odds that he could been carrying a weapon (even a disassembled one) in the package.

Over the years, and as I studied this matter, what has been particularly striking to me is not just the reported package length, but that Oswald appears to have been involved in some kind of deception, because he told three different stories about what was in the package on three different occasions: to Frazier, it was curtain rods; to someone else, it was venetian blinds; and to a secretary at the TSBD, it was a fishing pole.

It is the combination of the varying stories, plus the initial account of Randle (as reported by FBI Agent Bookhout) that makes it all so very relevant, historically, in attempting to decipher this puzzle.

DSL

4/18/13; 11:40 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Two questions, David.

1. You say you interviewed Vincent Drain. Did you ask him about his report on the bag, and why it was changed after being sent to the Warren Commission?

2. You claimed, once again, that Randle changed her appraisal of the bag length a day or two after the shooting. From what I can gather, she failed to change her appraisal until more than a week later, AFTER being contacted by the FBI, and asked to approximate the bag length while LOOKING at an actual bag. What, then, is your source for her changing her appraisal within days of the shooting? Have I missed a report or interview?

Thanks, Pat

Pat,

I interviewed Drain, for 1-2 hours, in the summer of 1990, in a professionally filmed on-camera interview.

I'd be glad to address your question, but --unfortunately--that was 23 years ago (!).

So I'd have to locate and peruse the transcript.

(Today, I would have scanned it; I had no scanner then; I'm not even sure they existed).

However, having said that, I do not believe I questioned Vince Drain about "the bag." No. As I recall, the focus was on the medical evidence, his flight to Washington with the rifle, etc. But, if I'm in my storage area, I'll check.

Regarding when Linnie Mae changed her story --that is, when she was next interviewed: If you have collected the reports, and if it was a week later, then so be it. In fact, a chronology listing the number of interviews, the dates, what she said, etc., would be useful. I don't know that record by heart. What I do know is what she said on 11/22 to Bookhout (that is, what Bookhout reported she said) and which appears in CD 5. Also, I am aware that Bookhout's 11/22 account then became the source of a memo at the Assistant Director level in Washington, which is the document from which I first learned that Linnie Mae had said the bag was 3 ft plus. (As you know, in her DPD affidavit, she just described it as a "long" bag--again, from recollection).

I should also add that I don't think I would have focused in on any of this, as much as I have (and this was years ago) had it not come to my attention that Oswald (carrying the "long" package) encountered a TSBD employee while on an elevator, and was asked "What's that?" and he responded that it was a fishing pole. Of course, I don't believe Oswald brought a fishing pole to work (and I don't suppose you do, either), so if that account is true, then he was involved in deception that day. But also do note this as to the length: its doubtful that if he was carrying a package that was only 2 ft or even 28" long, he would have responded: "fishing pole." So that "fishing pole" response, in itself, is further evidence that Oswald had brought something that was in a rather long bag to work, something long enough to be reasonably passed off as a "fishing pole."

As I have emphasized, I think the fact that Oswald was engaged in deception is quite pertinent in analysing this situation. And is far more relevant than Martin Hay's constantly harping on the fact that Bookhout's report of his interview with Linnie Mae is "unsigned" and so therefore its not "proof" or that Mark Lane said 40 years ago that it wouldn't be admissible in court, etc etc.

Nobody's on trial; this is a historical puzzle, and the issue is the proper way to analyze it, given the data that we do have.

DSL

4/19/13; 3:50 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have emphasized, I think the fact that Oswald was engaged in deception is quite pertinent in analysing this situation. And is far more relevant than Martin Hay's constantly harping on the fact that Bookhout's report of his interview with Linnie Mae is "unsigned" and so therefore its not "proof" or that Mark Lane said 40 years ago that it wouldn't be admissible in court, etc etc.

Nobody's on trial; this is a historical puzzle, and the issue is the proper way to analyze it, given the data that we do have.

DSL

4/19/13; 3:50 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Mr Lifton,

You may not find the fact that the 302 represents nothing more than hearsay to be a relevant fact, fair enough. But surely you can see some significance in what I wrote in post # 154? Let me repeat:

To go back to your earlier point about how “making false statements” can lead to a conviction for obstruction of justice, I find it telling that after repeated questioning from the FBI and the Warren Commission no one suggested Randle should be confronted with the 302. After all, it was in the best interests of both the Bureau and the commission to have her swear that the package was 3 and half feet long and not a little over 2. To me, this says that everyone who questioned her found Randle to be honest and credible. If they believed otherwise surely she would have been, at the very least, reminded that it was a felony to make false statements.

But this never happened.

Instead they accepted her sworn testimony which included a description of the way in which Oswald carried the bag (with his hand at the top and the bottom not quite reaching the ground) which seems to preclude the possibility that the package was 3 feet 6 inches long.

Martin Hay:

Your commentary belongs in the woulda/coulda/shoulda file.

Apparently, you have this theory about what the Commission “should have done” (my quotes); and because they didn’t do it, you then find that “telling”. From that, you proceed to draw inferences that, imho, are completely unwarranted and unjustifiable.

Specifically, because the FBI (or the WC) did not go back to Linnie Mae Randle and warn her about the possible legal consequences of perjury, why therefore, she is (somehow) credible.

Quoting your post: “To me, this says that everyone who questioned her found Randle to be honest and credible. If they believed otherwise surely she would have been, at the very least, reminded that it was a felony to make false statements.”

I’m sorry to disappoint you, Martin, but the Commission did not rule on the credibility of each and every witness. They did not sit down, meditate, or ponder, or collectively analyze, and then pronounce such judgments. You cannot (and certainly should not) go from the fact that this or that witness wasn’t “warned” about perjury to the notion that the witness is “honest and credible.”

So this theoretical edifice you have postulated has no foundation in reality.

You are entitled to live in that world, and draw such inferences, but they are not reality-based.

Here and there, Norman Redlich (or whoever drafted the WCR chapters) would employ the phrase that “the commission finds” etc. But that was almost literary license.

Having said that, I think you should remember that, in this particular case, “the Commission” indeed found that Randle and Frazier under-estimated the bag length, and here are the words they used.

QUOTE:

“The Commission has weighed the visual recollection of Frazier and Mrs. Randle against the evidence here presented that the bag Oswald carried contained the assassination weapon and has concluded that Frazier and Randle are mistaken as to the length of the bag.” UNQUOTE

The Report here is referring to Randle’s estimate of the bag as about 28 inches .

As you well know, Martin, the Commission believed the bag to have been substantially longer.

I happen to agree (with the Commission Report) on this particular point: The bag Oswald took to work was indeed considerably longer. A possible difference between me and the Commission is that not only do I believe the bag to have been longer, but I believe Linnie Mae Randle said exactly that, when first interviewed by FBI agent Bookhout, and that’s why Bookhout wrote the report he dido--that the bag was 3 feet plus in length.

For some reason, you want the bag to be shorter. And I think I know what the reason is, and its not much of a mystery. If the bag is longer, then you can’t deal with the fact that Oswald may have carried a bag to work that was large enough to carry a rifle.

Poor Martin Hay. . now what is he going to do about that?

It goes against his internal orthodoxy.

Of course, that is just one of many things you can’t deal with in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy.

I notice that you don’t address the fact that Oswald is reported to have said that the package he was carrying contained a fishing pole; or that, to another person, it was venetian blinds; and to Frazier, it was curtain rods.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, this suggests that Oswald was involved in a deception.

You don’t like that, Martin, do you?

And I’m sure you don’t like a litany of other facts that I could lay out here, in connection with the autopsy, with which you would also vehemently disagree.

Methinks you like to live in a nice tidy world in which, at this very late date, you are most comfortable when telling us what we "cannot know," and in pronouncing these judgements: “The Warren Report is wrong! The single bullet theory is wrong!”

Yes, Martin, we know that. We knew that starting back in 1965.

What else do you have to offer?

DSL

4/20/13; 8:45 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...