Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

Does everyone know what these pics are about?

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, I hope everyone is aware of the Ed Shields testimony to the HSCA.

He told them that Frazier parked the car by himself. When he asked him about his friend, Wesley replied that he left him at the TSBD. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 209)

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID [IN OCT. 2012]:

Davey, why did Shields say that Frazier told him he dropped off Oswald at the front of the TSBD that day? If so, then Frazier is lying about following him and seeing the sack under his arm.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID [IN OCT. 2012]:

Mr. Shields is obviously wrong, Jimmy. But you want to believe Shields, vs. believing the person (Buell Frazier) who has always stuck to his story from Day 1 about all of the stuff he did on November 22nd, including the manner in which Oswald exited the car and picked up his package out of the back seat while Frazier was charging his battery in the distant employee parking lot.

 

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Frazier's story about following LHO into the TSBD was contradicted by Shields, who said he parked the car by himself that morning and then walked to the building alone.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's a mighty weak argument, Jim.

That scenario of Buell Frazier parking the car "by himself" and walking to the building "alone" is, essentially, correct (when factoring in the fact that Oswald got out of the car first and started to walk ahead of Wesley Frazier toward the TSBD, with Frazier remaining in his car to charge the battery).

Given those circumstances, a person (like Shields) might very well have thought Frazier was "alone" when he walked toward the building, with Oswald walking some 50 feet ahead of Frazier. Because, as mentioned, essentially Frazier WAS "alone" when he walked to the building on that particular day. And Shields could have thought Frazier parked the car "alone", because Frazier did get out of the car ALONE--i.e., not at the same time as Oswald.

Is this the best you've got, Jimbo? If so, it's awfully lousy, because you've also got to get around the testimony of Linnie Randle too. After all, she DID definitely see LHO [with a package!] on the morning of November 22, right? (I assume you don't think she was lying about merely SEEING Oswald that day, do you?)
 

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-111.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one reads back on this thread, Frazier told the SS a modified story about why he walked behind Oswald--welders vs charging the car.

Lee Farley, on that thread at ROKC,  has also pointed out another instance where that story was modified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

If one reads back on this thread, Frazier told the SS a modified story about why he walked behind Oswald--welders vs charging the car.

Lee Farley, on that thread at ROKC,  has also pointed out another instance where that story was modified.

Absolute nonsense, Jim. You're just LOOKING for an excuse--any excuse--to dismiss portions of Buell Frazier's testimony. Frazier always maintained that he walked behind Oswald because OSWALD decided to walk ahead of him by about 50 feet. It wasn't FRAZIER'S decision to walk behind him---it was Oswald's.

And in every interview I've ever seen with Frazier, he's always said that TWO things occurred after he parked his car that morning....

1. He charged his battery.

and

2. He leisurely strolled into work (behind Oswald) and as he was walking he said (in his WC testimony)....

"I just walked along and I just like to watch them switch the cars, so eventually he [LHO] kept getting a little further ahead of me and by that time we got down there pretty close to the Depository Building there, I say, he would be as much as, I would say, roughly 50 feet in front of me but I didn't try to catch up with him because I knew I had plenty of time so I just took my time walking up there. .... I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all."

Now, it's true that Frazier didn't mention anything about watching any "welders" by the railroad tracks in the above testimony, but each version of his story does contain some "watching" on the part of Frazier. And if you ask me, those two "versions" of Buell Frazier's account of his actions are mighty similar in general content --- i.e., he is slowly walking toward the TSBD and is "watching" some activity by some men in the railroad yards.

Now, Jim, you don't REALLY think those two accounts of Frazier's story are a million miles apart, do you? If so, you are hereby awarded this week's "Nitpickers" trophy.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey, look, if you want to discount what I said or what Lee Farley said, fine.  That is your choice to do.

But to say that his story has never varied at all, that is simply not supported by the record.

That last instance which I brought up, Lee Farley dug up another interview which said that Frazier now said that instead of sprinting up in front of him, Oswald waited for him until he got out of the car. 

Now, to you that is nonsense, but Lee actually posted that actual record themselves into the thread.  He did not retype their content--he pasted the reports themselves. 

To those who do not know the capper here, its this:  no one else saw LHO with that package at the TSBD. And recall, if you buy Frazier about that morning, they were late.  So almost everyone was there when Oswald walked in.  Therefore, in addition to Linnie seeing something she should not have, Frazier saw something no one else did.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James DiEugenio said:

BTW, referring to the DVP discussion above, I do not recall any mention in Linnie's testimony about hearing anything.

Therefore, it remains a mystery as to why she would look out that window and beyond that, how she could claim to see LHO through the slats, a car and if the car is pointed in the direction the WC says, another car.

There is an FBI report in which Linnie Mae Randle talks about what she heard when she looked out her kitchen door on the morning of 11/22/63. That statement is in Randle's interview of December 1, 1963 [Warren Commission Document No. 7]....

"...she [Mrs. Randle] turned back to the sink after hearing the car door shut."

Also....

It's worth noting something else that appears in FBI Agent Bardwell D. Odum's 12/1/63 interview of Buell Wesley Frazier. Quoting from Odum's FBI report [also in Commission Document No. 7]:

"Frazier examined the original [brown paper sack] found by the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building on November 22, 1963, and stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the sack or package which he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but that he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack."

BTW, Linnie Mae Randle said the same thing about the original paper bag (see this page of CD7).

The "original" paper bag, with two of Lee Oswald's fingerprints on it, is 38 inches long.

So much for the bag being only "27 inches" or "2 feet" long.
 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, please show us where Linnie Mae said the bag was 38" long.

 

Note- Not what she is reported to have said by the FBI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

David, please show us where Linnie Mae said the bag was 38" long.

Linnie Mae, of course, never said the bag was exactly 38 inches long. But she did come mighty close to it on one occasion [see later discussion regarding the Bookhout report].

In the two filmed interviews I've heard with Mrs. Randle, she once said (in the 1964 David Wolper film) that Oswald's bag was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long" [see the "Linnie Mae" clip linked below]....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/four-days-in-november-re-created-scenes.html

In the other filmed interview (in 1967 for CBS-TV; at the 11:14 mark in this video), Randle said the bag was "about 27 inches long".

Now, both of those estimates are still quite a bit shorter than 38 inches, of course. But the 12/1/63 FBI interview I spoke of earlier is quite revealing and important, in my opinion, because when Mrs. Randle was shown the "original" paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (which is, indeed, a 38-inch bag), she did tell Bardwell Odum and one other FBI agent that the "original" bag could have been the same one she saw Oswald carrying. Now, why would she have said something like that to the FBI if the bag she saw on November 22nd had really been almost a foot shorter than the 38-inch "original" bag she was shown by the FBI?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CD7-Randle.png
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I know you wouldn't trust the FBI any further than you could hurl them, but just "for the record", there's another FBI report from the day of the assassination itself, in which Mrs. Randle told the FBI's James Bookhout that the bag she saw Oswald carrying was "approximately 3 feet" (36 inches) in length. And that's her very first approximation of the bag's size, which, of course, is by far the best estimate she ever gave as to the length of the package (IMO). And if you want to think Jim Bookhout was just making up tall tales in his 11/22/63 interview with Linnie Mae, then go right ahead and think that. It's a free country. But please don't ask me to follow you down that rabbit hole.
 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad you can't show where she said it. and glad to see that you believe the FBI were shining light of truth. 

 

"“The replica was shortened by folding the open top down to reach the desired length. Then in accordance with Mrs Randle's observations. Special Agent MCNeely grasped the top of this sack with his hand, much like a right handed batter would pick up the baseball bat when approaching the plate. When the proper length of the sack was reached according to Mrs Randle's estimate, it was measured and found to be 27” long.

 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=305

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ray.

 

The other part is almost funny.  In that FBI document, you will see that Linnie testified to things she could not have seen.  To much more of an extent than she told the WC.  Davey then excerpted 12 words and cut all the previous stuff that was not possible out.  Which then, of course, would make those 12 words quite dubious in themselves.

As Mark Lane once said, when a nation is forced into accepting a series of absurdities, it will result in tragedy.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2018 at 9:25 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Notice in the last sentence, the two dependent clauses begun with the words "if" and "could".

Thanks for posting that David.

Thanks for totally missing the point, Jim.

That point being:

If the bag that Linnie Mae Randle saw Lee Oswald carrying had REALLY been quite a bit shorter than the "original" bag she was later shown, then there should have been no "ifs" and "coulds" about it in Randle's mind—i.e., the "original" bag (via those conditions) could not possibly have been the bag Linnie Mae saw on Nov. 22, regardless of the bag's COLOR.

But instead of saying to the FBI agents something like this....

Regardless of the color issue, there's no way in the world this "original" bag you are showing me now could be the same one I saw Oswald carrying on Nov. 22nd, because this "original" bag is way too long.

....she, instead, tells the FBI agents that the "original" bag she was being shown is still in the mix of possible bags that Lee Oswald "could have been" carrying on November 22nd.

Do conspiracy theorists think that Mrs. Randle just TOTALLY IGNORED the LENGTH of the "original" bag when she said that the original sack was still a candidate for the one she saw Oswald toting on 11/22? Was she ONLY concerned with the COLOR of the bags at that point in time in her FBI interview? In other words, she knew the original bag was much too long, but she was unable to concentrate on two separate aspects of the bag at the same time (color and length), so she said "could have been" with respect to the color only, all the while totally forgetting that this "original" bag in front of her was entirely too big. Is that what some conspiracists want to contend?

In addition....

There's also the fact that the amount of Oswald's bag that was available to view from Randle's perspective on Nov. 22 was very likely a few inches less than the bag's overall length of 38 inches. It was "folded" in some manner, as Wesley Frazier said in his 11/22/63 affidavit:

"The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under." -- Buell Wesley Frazier
 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frazier actual quote.

"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

Slightly changes the debate when all the info is given.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Frazier actual quote...

"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

Slightly changes the debate when all the info is given.

Well, then, Ray, don't forget to mention the fact that Wesley Frazier said a total of TEN TIMES during his Warren Commission testimony that he wasn't paying much attention to Oswald's paper sack. [Click Here to see all ten "I didn't pay much attention" references.]

But keep pretending that Frazier's "two feet" estimate is a rock-solid fact as far as the actual length of Oswald's bag is concerned. Did Frazier whip out a tape measure the instant he saw the brown bag resting on his back seat?

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Well, then, Ray, don't forget to mention the fact that Wesley Frazier said a total of TEN TIMES during his Warren Commission testimony that he wasn't paying much attention to Oswald's paper sack. [Click Here to see all ten "I didn't pay much attention" references.]

But keep pretending that Frazier's "two feet" estimate is a rock-solid fact as far as the actual length of Oswald's bag is concerned. Did Frazier whip out a tape measure the instant he saw the brown bag resting on his back seat?

 

 

David,

At the risk of being accused of ... gasp ... colluding with you, I would like to point out that Frazier also stated that Oswald was nestling the package between his cupped hand and his armpit, iirc, suggesting that the package was somewhat longer than 24 inches.

--  TG   :sun

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


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...