Buell Frazier's Book Set For 2020 Release

[Andrej Stancak]

I have no doubts that Mr Frazier is a sincere man not wishing Lee Oswald anything ill and believing in his innocence. 

Buell Wesley Frazier and Lee Oswald appear to have described the same bag. In Lee's version, he carried a lunch in it and the bag was oversized because you do not always find the right size of the bag. In Buell Wesley Frazier's version, the bag was about 5-6 inches wide and 27-28 inches tall. But here comes the problem because a package of this height would not fit the distance between the armpit and a cupped hand which is how allegedly Lee carried that bag. This distance is 21 inches (please see the thread "Curtain rods revisited" for more details) much shorter than what Mr Frazier and his sister told it was. However, a bag of 21'' could be what Lee found in the kitchen at Irving, a used bag from previous grocery shoppings.

Another problem is the entire idea of curtain rods: Lee denied telling Mr Fazier anything about curtain rods, his room at North Beckley did not require any curtain rods, Marina did not mention any curtain rods, no curtain rods were found in Depository. If the package did contain curtain rods, Mr Frazier would be able to see it at once: only three curtain rods were needed for a room in North Beckley, and curtain rods are very light. Lee would not need any bag for them but even if he needed, it would be possible to say that the bag contained something of very light weight and thin. The paper would itself wrap around the rods once the bag was grabbed by the hand. Thus, I wonder what could be the reason for never saying something like: "And I really saw something thin in that bag and the package was really light weight and so I believed that the package indeed contained curtain rods." As it stands, Mr Frazier seems to believe that the package contained curtain rods. Or does he not? If not, what would be Mr Frazier explanation of the content of the package: 1. rifle, 2. lunch. 3. something else? Mr Frazier eliminated (1) and (2), so we are still left in the dark as far as the content of the package is concerned.

Linnie Mae Randle did not shy from describing the package as long (she then also settled with 27-28'' and said she had measured and checked it before coming to the Warren Commission) and bulky and that the package almost touched the ground when Lee was walking with it. However, a package 21'' x 5'' (not 28'' as such package could not fit the distance between the armpit and cupped hand) would only reach to Lee's knees. This is how a package of 21'' would look like on a person having Lee's body height and body proportions:

Yet, Mrs Randle's testimony, even if containing a contradiction, appears to leave room for the interpretation that the package contained a rifle.

So, I hope that Mr Frazier's new book will shed light on these points in credible way.

 

[Larry Hancock]

It would be good for anyone discussing this subject to break down a MC, put it in a sack and simulate carrying it....and have random observers see what they think is in it.  I suspect many don't realize the weight and clumsiness of a broken down rifle of this age and class (not like today's weapons with  composite stocks). 

And of course there is the fundamental problem of reassembly (not to meeting sighting in the scope if you wanted to actually hit anything) - even to some extent with the iron sights of that era.

But lets say the rifle is just there to be there, not to shoot or hit anything.   As Ian Griggs demonstrated long ago there is a small set screw that is required to put the rifle together and you would need a rather small screwdriver (not recovered at the TSBD or from Oswald) - the WC got around that by stating Oswald used a dime...but as Ian showed, if you do that you put scratches on the recessed screw slot....and the MC in evidence has no such scratches.

Its a bit more complicated than just working the issue of the sack size.

 

[Rob Clark]

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

It would be good for anyone discussing this subject to break down a MC, put it in a sack and simulate carrying it....and have random observers see what they think is in it.  I suspect many don't realize the weight and clumsiness of a broken down rifle of this age and class (not like today's weapons with  composite stocks).

No offense Larry, but we need to get away from this myth that Oswald would have had to break down the Carcano to get it closer to the size package Frazier said he saw. As you can see in the exhibit, breaking the rifle down saves a whopping 4 inches. Not hardly worth all the effort. Logic tells us he or someone, took the rifle in to the building in it's entirety.

[Joe Bauer]

Didn't Roy Truly bring in a rifle or two to the TXSBD just days before 11,22,1963?

To show them off?

What a very odd machismo thing to do in a building and business staffed with a fair amount of female employees besides men. And how many of the scores of employees in the building were seriously interested in such things as powerful hunting rifles?

Well, in any case, what a great way to cover bringing in another secret rifle.

And wasn't there an even more bizarre report of someone taking target practice shooting behind the picket fence area days before also?

I have to believe that if Buell Frazier was actually involved in some plot with Oswald...he would have been eliminated a long time ago.

Another question I have pondered for years.

We have Dallas Sheriff Roger Craig stating in Mark Lane's documentary "Two Men In Dallas" that when Constable Seymour Weitzman ( a former sporting goods store owner and gun buff ) was holding and examining the rifle found on the 6th floor, that he ( Craig) was close enough to Weitzman and the gun itself, that he ( Craig )  could see " stamped right on the barrel 7.65 Mauser."

In the Warren Commission transcripts of Craig's testimony, his questioners never ask him about seeing any stamped name such as 7.65 Mauser on the rifle.

Why was Weitzman ( who admitted IDing the rifle the first day or two as a Mauser!) never asked about Craig's statement of seeing the 7.65 Mauser stamp and whether he felt Craig lied about this observation?

Same with Craig's fellow county sheriff officer Gene Boone, who claimed he actually first found the 6th floor hidden rifle in question.

He was right in close to Craig and Weitzman when Weitzman was looking at the rifle and IDed it as a Mauser.

In the televised "Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" mock trial filmed in England, Boone was called to the witness chair and sworn in.

Neither Bugliosi or even Gerry Spence asked Boone about his fellow sheriff officer Roger Craig's widely known "stamped right on the barrel" statement in the Mark Lane documentary and whether Boone felt Craig lied about this as well.

Was Roger Craig telling the truth about clearly seeing the 7.65 Mauser stamp right on the barrel of the found rifle?

If he was, the truth versus lie implications are obvious.

Remember, Weitzman was a "gun buff" and he identified the rifle as a Mauser on the spot, and didn't change his finding until the FBI told him it was a Mannlicher Carcano a day later.

Did Mauser rifles have their name stamped on their barrels back then as Roger Craig described?

Edited March 10, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Larry Hancock]

Rob,  you are welcome to go with logic but for myself a fully assembled rifle with scope is going to look like a rifle in a sack.  Even the way you would hold it would be a clue. Of course it goes back to Frazier, a dissembled rifle might just possibly pass as curtain rods...but I really doubt if anyone around where I live who had any familiarity with rifles (and Frazier did) would mistake a rifle in a sack for curtain rods when it got pitched into the backseat...or for a sandwich lunch.  Purely subjective of course...

My personal view is that either Oswald took a rifle into the building and Frazier knew it....or he didn't take one at all. 

And per Joe's point, you really have to understand this area....on any given day you could have found several hundred pick ups with rifles in gun racks in and around Dallas in 1963, we routinely drove one with one or two rifles in the pick up in towns where I Iive.  People carried them in town to gun stores, to pawn shops,  during hunting season folks routinely drove to work with them to have them for shooting after work.  Taking them to work to show them off, trade or sell them was quite routine.   Even today, were I live students have to be cautioned not to take hunting rifles to school and leave them in the trunk or behind the seat...why...not because of the rifle (Okla has open carry, any weapon, no license for those over 21 or in the military) but because random drug checks on vehicles could get the kids a lot of hassle - taking guns to school is one of the few things that is out of bounds.

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

18 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Rob,  you are welcome to go with logic but for myself a fully assembled rifle with scope is going to look like a rifle in a sack.  Even the way you would hold it would be a clue. Of course it goes back to Frazier, a dissembled rifle might just possibly pass as curtain rods...but I really doubt if anyone around where I live who had any familiarity with rifles (and Frazier did) would mistake a rifle in a sack for curtain rods when it got pitched into the backseat...or for a sandwich lunch.  Purely subjective of course...

My personal view is that either Oswald took a rifle into the building and Frazier knew it....or he didn't take one at all. 

And per Joe's point, you really have to understand this area....on any given day you could have found several hundred pick ups with rifles in gun racks in and around Dallas in 1963, we routinely drove one with one or two rifles in the pick up in towns where I Iive.  People carried them in town to gun stores, to pawn shops,  during hunting season folks routinely drove to work with them to have them for shooting after work.  Taking them to work to show them off, trade or sell them was quite routine.   Even today, were I live students have to be cautioned not to take hunting rifles to school and leave them in the trunk or behind the seat...why...not because of the rifle (Okla has open carry, any weapon, no license for those over 21 or in the military) but because random drug checks on vehicles could get the kids a lot of hassle - taking guns to school is one of the few things that is out of bounds.

 

 

 

I concur, Larry, with your point about guns being everywhere back then. I remember traveling across country in '72. The majority of vehicles you saw on the road in places like Texas, New Mexico, and Wyoming were pick-up trucks, and the vast majority of those had gun racks, with guns. It wasn't unusual, in fact, to see someone stop by the side of the road--a public highway--and take a couple of shots at something in the distance, a coyote, or perhaps even a deer. I have a distinct memory, moreover, of my first trip to Yellowstone, in 1964. People were so brazen back then that they would get out of their cars and hand-feed wild bears. (Thanks, Yogi.)

While all too many, IMO, distrust Frazier, because he won't tell them what they want to hear--that Oswald brought either NO bag to work, or a small lunch sack to work--they miss out on what he has said, and continues to say--that the bag he saw was too small to hold the rifle, and gave no appearance of holding a rifle, and failed to resemble the bag he was shown later that night. This is among the most damning evidence for Oswald's innocence.

When one adds on that Frazier totally dismisses the possibility a bag the size of the one pulled from the building by Montgomery was stuffed up Oswald's shirt when he rode to Irving with Frazier the night before the shooting, the WC's scenario, and conclusions, run into a brick wall--a brick wall named Buell Wesley Frazier.

So this book should prove interesting. Will Frazier's friendship with the likes of Perry, Russo, and Aynesworth lead him to temper his position re the bag? I sure hope not.

But stranger things have happened.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Pat Speer

[Rob Clark]

46 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Rob,  you are welcome to go with logic but for myself a fully assembled rifle with scope is going to look like a rifle in a sack.  Even the way you would hold it would be a clue. Of course it goes back to Frazier, a dissembled rifle might just possibly pass as curtain rods...but I really doubt if anyone around where I live who had any familiarity with rifles (and Frazier did) would mistake a rifle in a sack for curtain rods when it got pitched into the backseat...or for a sandwich lunch.  Purely subjective of course...

My personal view is that either Oswald took a rifle into the building and Frazier knew it....or he didn't take one at all.

I agree 100% Larry!  Frazier was a hunter and rifle owner. Anyone that has handled or owned a rifle knows what one looks like... whether it's in a hardshell case, leather case, cloth case, or wrapped in brown paper.

[Rob Clark]

34 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

While all too many, IMO, distrust Frazier, because he won't tell them what they want to hear--that Oswald brought either NO bag to work, or a small lunch sack to work--they miss out on what he has said, and continues to say--that the bag he saw was too small to hold the rifle, and gave no appearance of holding a rifle, and failed to resemble the bag he was shown later that night. This is among the most damning evidence for Oswald's innocence.

It's not about what we want to hear, unless you are referring to the truth! The facts are that a 38" Mannlicher Carcano does not fit in a 2 foot package and neither does a 4" shorter broken down Carcano. Two feet is way shorter, we're talking a 10 -12" discrepancy. More than a mere misjudgement on Frazier's part. The facts are that no package of Frazier's dimensions were found in the TSBD, but one that could have held an intact Carcano was taken out of the TSBD. So the truth of the matter is that either Oswald brought a full size Carcano into the TSBD and Frazier knew it (see referenced HSCA transcript in post above) and lied about it to distance himself from Oswald, or Oswald didn't have a package at all and Frazier was leveraged to say that he did for fear of being charged as an accomplice.  I think Oswald and Frazier were more buddy buddy than he lets on. Five other TSBD employees say Frazier always gave Oswald a ride to work, not just the days he was going to Irving. Others have placed them at the shooting range together as well. And if Oswald brought the rifle to work, that doesn't mean he was on the 6th floor shooting it. Remember this was Castro supporter A. J. Hidell's rifle, at least in Oswald's eyes. He could have been told to plant it. He likely told Frazier it was a rifle, but that maybe he was selling it, showing it off, or gonna drop it off to have work done. Frazier worried that he had drove Oswald to work with a rifle on the day Kennedy was shot, figured he could be charged with something and kept his mouth shut then and decided to stick with the story ever since.🤷‍♂️

[Andrej Stancak]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

My personal view is that either Oswald took a rifle into the building and Frazier knew it....or he didn't take one at all. 

This is dead correct. I am inclined to believe the former - Lee Oswald took a rifle to work and Frazier witnessed it, however, it may have happened on a different previous occasion, not on Friday, November 22. Mr Frazier then invented curtain rods to conceal his knowledge of Lee's rifle being in the building. Mr Frazier could know even more as they may have had a chat about the rifle while transporting it together to the Depository on some other day.

 

[Pat Speer]

25 minutes ago, Rob Clark said:

I agree 100% Larry!  Frazier was a hunter and rifle owner. Anyone that has handled or owned a rifle knows what one looks like... whether it's in a hardshell case, leather case, cloth case, or wrapped in brown paper.

Is this an actual transcript--an official record approved by Frazier? Having spoken with Frazier on multiple occasions, and having listened to him speak in oral histories and interviews, his story has been that he knew Oswald "had" a rifle--not that he'd "hid" one.

if the tapes to this transcript are available, please post a link.

[Pat Speer]

9 minutes ago, Rob Clark said:

It's not about what we want to hear, unless you are referring to the truth! The facts are that a 38" Mannlicher Carcano does not fit in a 2 foot package and neither does a 4" shorter broken down Carcano. Two feet is way shorter, we're talking a 10 -12" discrepancy. More than a mere misjudgement on Frazier's part. The facts are that no package of Frazier's dimensions were found in the TSBD, but one that could have held an intact Carcano was taken out of the TSBD. So the truth of the matter is that either Oswald brought a full size Carcano into the TSBD and Frazier knew it (see referenced HSCA transcript in post above) and lied about it to distance himself from Oswald, or Oswald didn't have a package at all and Frazier was leveraged to say that he did for fear of being charged as an accomplice.  I think Oswald and Frazier were more buddy buddy than he lets on. Five other TSBD employees say Frazier always gave Oswald a ride to work, not just the days he was going to Irving. Others have placed them at the shooting range together as well. And if Oswald brought the rifle to work, that doesn't mean he was on the 6th floor shooting it. Remember this was Castro supporter A. J. Hidell's rifle, at least in Oswald's eyes. He could have been told to plant it. He likely told Frazier it was a rifle, but that maybe he was selling it, showing it off, or gonna drop it off to have work done. Frazier worried that he had drove Oswald to work with a rifle on the day Kennedy was shot, figured he could be charged with something and kept his mouth shut then and decided to stick with the story ever since.🤷‍♂️

I'm not sure what you mean by the highlighted section. Frazier has maintained from the get-go that the bag he saw was 26 inches or so--which made it too short to hold the rifle. He never said it held a broken-down rifle.

[Rob Clark]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I'm not sure what you mean by the highlighted section. Frazier has maintained from the get-go that the bag he saw was 26 inches or so--which made it too short to hold the rifle. He never said it held a broken-down rifle.

I just mean that it was inferred by the WC and others that the rifle had to broken down to get the dimensions closer to what Frazier said he saw. If not, you're talking about Frazier being "mistaken" by at least 14 inches, which is what I would call waaaaay off, not merely mistaken. As for the HSCA transcript I posted, it was not done by me. I sent Frazier's entire 3-4 hour HSCA audio to someone Stu Wexler found who can hopefully clean it up.

[Ron Bulman]

I've had a hard time wrapping my head around Oswald taking a rifle in that morning for a long time.  Even disassembled it's still a rifle, clunky in two pieces. 36" which doesn't fit into 26'' by a foot.  Assembled, even in a bag it's an eye catcher.  They got to work right at start time, everyone else was out and about getting started.  It's almost like how could someone not notice.  Even in Texas in 1963 carrying a rifle into work would draw attention.  It did a couple of days (?) before, the book salesman or whoever it was brought in his new deer rifle and 22 he'd bought for his son to show off, to Truly wasn't it?  If I remember right one or two co workers did see Oswald fairly quickly that morning, with no rifle.  If he walked in with one where did he quickly hide it to later get it out and take it to the 6th floor, with co workers roaming about the whole time?

If your going to shoot the president do you just walk into work with a rifle for no one to possibly notice on the day he's to drive by?  Wes says Ozzie walked ahead what was it 30-40-50 yards from the parking lot behind the TSBD with the 26' curtain rods tucked in his arm pit while he revved his engine to charge the battery.  I've also read Wes supposedly let Oswald out at the back of the TSBD.  From there it is not impossible to quickly access the dock, the back door next to the freight elevators, then up to the 6th floor to stash the rifle.  But that's still pretty risky regarding being seen if your going to shoot the prez, with no escape plan and you left your pistol at your rooming house Thursday morning.  Plus, that would make Wes an accessory.  He would have had to have waited for Oswald to have taken the assembled rifle out of the back seat and noticed him doing so.  I don't think that happened either.

Then we get to the Fact that Oswald didn't own that rifle.  He never stored or brought it from Ruth Paine's.  She or Michael never remember unloading it when she brought Marina back from New Orleans.  Lee or Hidell ever picked it up from the Post Office.  But I'll defer again on that aspect to David Joseph's articles at Kennedy's and King and his posts on here.

I believe the assassination was a conspiracy.  It was well thought out, planned and orchestrated.  LHO was a patsy as he claimed.  Was fed limited disinformation on purpose beforehand.  As part of that plan someone else purchased The Rifle on behalf of Lee and A J Hidell.  Then they stashed it on the 6th floor of the TSBD, likely the night before.  This required after hours building access from management.  They likely did not know why but would not question the instruction from the owner or his subordinates.

I know, some speculation trying to connect the dots there but reasonable, logical.  DJ?

[Andrej Stancak]

I would question the 26-inch length of the package which seems to be shorter compared to what Mr Frazier and Mrs Randle told the Waren Commission but still miles (5 inch at least) longer compared to the size of object which Lee was supposed to carry in the cupped hand and stuck in his armpit. In my opinion, the size of 27-28 inch was a prepared give-away to law enforcement to allow them to think it was a rifle in the package while providing enough plausible denial for Buell Wesley Frazier (the package was too short to contain a rifle so please do not associate me with any rifle).

The picture below shows how a package 27 x 5 inch would look like if carried by a person of Lee Oswald's body height in a way described by Mr Frazier. I have the mannequin raised his extended arm for better visualisation of the armpit area. The grey rods would be curtain rods of 32'' length.

Of course, I have tried carrying objects of different lengths in  armpit-cupped hand style and could confirm the model prediction.

Either was the package 21'' (or even shorter if Lee wore a jacket) or it was longer than 21'' but carried in a different way than described by Mr Frazier.

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Andrej Stancak

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm skeptical of this idea that Frazier isn't hiding anything. There are a number of reasons for that, but here are three that I can think of now:

1. Isn't it true that Frazier said that he didn't see Oswald leave the building? Yet on at least one occasion he said the he saw Oswald leaving the building from the east side? (Not that he exited the building through an eastern door, but rather walked away from the building on the east side.)
2. Did or does Frazier say the Oswald was not standing on the steps during the shooting? If that is what he says, he is either being flippant with his testimony, is lying, or is not too bright. The only reasonable statements Frazier could make regarding this are 1) yes Oswald was there (if he saw Oswald) or 2) I don't know if Oswald was there (if he didn't see Oswald). Oswald could have been standing behind Frazier for all he knew.
3. Someone wrote here  on he forum that Frazier was shown a Darnell frame and was asked if he knew who the Prayer Man figure was. He replied that he didn't know who it was, but that it wasn't Oswald. Here's the problem with that... virtually everybody believes that PM is standing back in the corner of the stairway's top landing. That's what it looks like. (Andrej has shown that he could be at the front of the landing with one foot down by one step. But that's not what it looks like.) So how could Frazier be so confident in saying that it wasn't Oswald standing back there? Was he being so attentive that he knew where everyone was standing at all times, even behind where he was standing?