Jump to content
The Education Forum
Guest Duncan MacRae

PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

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.  

 

 

Jim:

I admit my ignorance for not reading your book. It is on my reading list now. You clearly went through these important aspects of the case in detail, and I should have known. 

The gun sack is an additional problem to the rifle, and how  the rifle ended up on the sixth floor.  It demonstrates how poorly was the investigation of the crime scene carried out, or maybe how evidence was tampered with.

I apologise to everyone for dragging the discussion to curtain rod story but the question asked repeatedly and understandably by fellow researchers is why would Mr. Frazier not say whether Prayer Man was or was not Lee Oswald, and the answer would be that he may not volunteer any information about who stood next to him (if it were Oswald) since he was compromised from the very beginning.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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.  


Thanks Jim.

Your conclusion (or current belief) pretty much matches my own, uneasy, conclusion.

I think that these days it should go without saying that the sack the authorities had was self-fabricated. And that the only question remaining is whether what Frazier and his sister said about a shorter sack is true. I'm inclined to believe the whole story was fabricated. The only things keeping me from settling on that conclusion are 1) Frazier's insistence that the sack was too short for a rifle -- a young Frazier strikes me as one who would have submitted entirely to the insistence of authority figures; and 2) that Frazier hasn't in his later years admitted that he was coerced into testifying there was a sack -- an old Frazier strikes me as one who would want the truth to be known.

But personalities are complex. Frazier may have insisted upon the short length in order to ease his conscience for the lies he was pressured into making. And now, in his later years, he may feel there is no point in changing his story.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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.


Jim, could you clarify this for me?

I thought a Mouser was the first rifle the DPD reported. (Which turned into a Carcano.)

This is first time I've heard of Frazier's Enfield.

Share this post


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


Thanks Jim.

Your conclusion (or current belief) pretty much matches my own, uneasy, conclusion.

I think that these days it should go without saying that the sack the authorities had was self-fabricated. And that the only question remaining is whether what Frazier and his sister said about a shorter sack is true. I'm inclined to believe the whole story was fabricated. The only things keeping me from settling on that conclusion are 1) Frazier's insistence that the sack was too short for a rifle -- a young Frazier strikes me as one who would have submitted entirely to the insistence of authority figures; and 2) that Frazier hasn't in his later years admitted that he was coerced into testifying there was a sack -- an old Frazier strikes me as one who would want the truth to be known.

But personalities are complex. Frazier may have insisted upon the short length in order to ease his conscience for the lies he was pressured into making. And now, in his later years, he may feel there is no point in changing his story.

 

I think he would be torn apart in the media and in his community. The prosperity of his children would be threatened. I don't think that, at this point, he would be killed or suicided. The bad guys may also have some irrelevant dirt on him that they were able to, at some point, drag him through.

Cheers,

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I think he would be torn apart in the media and in his community. The prosperity of his children would be threatened. I don't think that, at this point, he would be killed or suicided. The bad guys may also have some irrelevant dirt on him that they were able to, at some point, drag him through.

Cheers,

Michael


Maybe so. I was thinking he'd be ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Frazier was arrested that evening, the police did  a search of his home and found a .303 Enfield rifle with clip and ammo.

This was the very first rifle reported to have been found that day, even before the Mauser.  There is no official police report on  this but two media reports, NBC TV and WBAP radio per Walt's chronology and the article The Gun that Didn't Smoke by Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 9:57 AM, James DiEugenio said:

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.  

James,

Evidently you want me to review your "evidence" for your CIA-did-it CT yet again.   OK.

1.  You wish to challenge the 2nd floor Oswald encounter with Truly and Baker?  On what rational grounds?

2.  You wish to challenge Oswald's ownership of a Manlicher-Carnano rifle?   On what rational grounds?

3.  You say that Oswald "denied" the curtain rod story.   Yet your only basis for that claim is Captain Fritz & Co., in whose custody Oswald was murdered -- surrounded by Dallas police.

4.  You spent 12 pages in "Reclaiming Parkland" on this issue?  Well, you spent 12 pages in DB2 accusing Ruth Paine of being a CIA agent, too, and we've seen what a waste that was.

5.  As for the gun sack -- the most likely scenario is that Oswald handed his MC rifle to somebody outside of the TSBD (per A.J. Weberman.  (Also, the handoff may have been to Roscoe White, who was Oswald's body double for the Backyard Photographs, according to Jack White, as well as a DPD cop on 11/22/1963).  So, that sack will *never* be found, and the DPD and FBI knew that very well.

6.  Nobody else saw Oswald with the gun sack inside the TSBD, most likely because Oswald handed it off outside the TSBD.

7.  The problem with the gun sack is the handoff, and the problem with the handoff is that it comes closer to a DPD handoff.

8.  On this point we agree -- the FBI (James Hosty) was certainly covering up for the DPD (Captain Fritz).   

9.  It is quite correct to recognize that the DPD cops were eager to find scapegoats, and Buell Wesley Frazier was low-hanging fruit.  He transported the murder weapon, and he lived close to Ruth Paine, a Communist.  Case closed, according to Buddy Walthers and his "six or seven metal filing cabinets full of names of Cuba sympathizers (which nobody ever photographed, logged or found).  No wonder Frazier was terrified. 

10. Linnie Mae Randle is believable -- but she also wanted to keep her brother out of the electric chair for something he didn't do.  She saw the package, all right -- but she had no clue in the world how long it was.  It was a mind game between the WC attorneys, Frazier and Randle to guess, double-guess, triple-guess, quadruple-guess the length of that paper sack.  Who in the world measures a random paper sack?

11. IMHO, the best answer to the MC paper sack is still given by A.J. Weberman's interviews with Gerry Patrick Hemming.  Oswald brought it to the TSBD building to hand it over to a trusted underworld colleague.  It was either Loran Hall, Roscoe White, or the lying Hemming himself.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the above with Frazier qualifies as a CIA did it CT escapes me, and I think, everyone else.

If you can show me where I said that or even implied that, I think it would say more about you than it would me.  Because I did not.

But it shows once more, as if we needed more, the blinkers you have on about the evidence.

Everything I wrote above is nestled in the record.  And you probably did not know the half of it.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly Jim, Paul just sucks stuff out of his thumb and declares it to be gospel.

This is no different from the dross on page 65, 2nd post from the top.

If there is one person who fails miserably it is PT

Pure make believe, without the backing of any evidence whatsoever, no different like Doyle and Miller.

And when they do they hammer on about one little thing, pushing their beliefs up to the hilt, yet what neither of these three understand is that no one is buying it.

Don't just peel the onion, cut it half and remove all the layers of the evidence, then come back to us.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Exactly Jim, Paul just sucks stuff out of his thumb and declares it to be gospel.

This is no different from the dross on page 65, 2nd post from the top.

If there is one person who fails miserably it is PT

Pure make believe, without the backing of any evidence whatsoever, no different like Doyle and Miller.

And when they do they hammer on about one little thing, pushing their beliefs up to the hilt, yet what neither of these three understand is that no one is buying it.

Don't just peel the onion, cut it half and remove all the layers of the evidence, then come back to us.

Bart,

What is your CT?   Who do you think was behind the JFK conspiracy?

BTW, my CT has the backing and evidence of select witnesses for the WC, for the HSCA, writings from Jim Garrison, from Mark Lane, from Dick Russell, from David Lifton, from Jack White, from Gaeton Fonzi, from Larry Hancock, from Hardway-Lopez, from Bill Simpich and from Jeff Caufield, as well as the 90 boxes of General Walker's personal papers in Austin, and personal interviews with Priscilla Johnson McMillan, Ron Lewis, Harry Dean, Larrie Schmidt, Duncan Gray and Ruth Paine.  I do have evidence.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2017 at 10:55 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

I apologise to everyone for dragging the discussion to curtain rod story but the question asked repeatedly and understandably by fellow researchers is why would Mr. Frazier not say whether Prayer Man was or was not Lee Oswald, and the answer would be that he may not volunteer any information about who stood next to him (if it were Oswald) since he was compromised from the very beginning.

Huh?   If Frazier had said Lee was standing there with him and the others - there would have been no need to fear anything for Oswald could not have been on the 6th floor and next to Frazier at the top of the stairs in front of the TSBD at the same time.

Edited by Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 10:55 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

I apologise to everyone for dragging the discussion to curtain rod story but the question asked repeatedly and understandably by fellow researchers is why would Mr. Frazier not say whether Prayer Man was or was not Lee Oswald, and the answer would be that he may not volunteer any information about who stood next to him (if it were Oswald) since he was compromised from the very beginning.

Andrej,

Are you saying that Buell Wesley Frazier was "forced" to remain silent about who stood next to him?

Are also saying that the same conspirators who obliged the medical staff at Bethesda Naval Hospital to alter the results of their autopsy were the same people who "forced" Frazier to remain silent?

Are you saying that if Frazier had not been "forced" to remain silent, then he "would have" testified that Lee Harvey Oswald was "Prayer Man?"

Then, are you also saying that Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady were also "forced" to remain silent about it?   And all other TSBD workers on the steps of the TSBD who also testified for the Warren Commission?

If so, Andrej, then IMHO you are simply making stuff up.  You have no evidence for such a claim.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill:

I think what Andrej is saying is that from his ordeal on the first day where he was detained and arrested and his house was searched and he was brought in for a polygraph etc., that he knew that the police were honed in on Oswald as the perp.

Therefore, if he said anything that violated that belief, they would go after him any way they could.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...