Buell Frazier's Book Set For 2020 Release

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

What we do have is  report from an FBI agent who was working the case real time with DPD  He relates that he was briefed on the polygraph and on the non identification of the bag...adamant non identification....amazingly the DPD polygraph disappeared and most officers were hesitant to talk about it at all given how it would have affected the case against Oswald.  And of course his report was not cited in the FBI report on the assassination.

I have written and blogged about the FBI report a number of times but I don't know if it is on line; I had a hard copy from NARA.

I discuss this and other memos regarding the bag in chapter 2 of my website.

 

From chapter 2 (which was written from the perspective of someone seeing all the info as it came in during the FBI's investigation.)

On 11-29-63 we see a Secret Service report on an 11-28 interview of Linnie Mae Randle. Although the FBI's 11-23 report on an 11-22 interview with Randle reflects that she initially believed the bag Oswald took to work on the 22nd was approximately 3 feet long (long enough to have carried the rifle), this new report quotes her directly, and suggests either that the first report was inaccurate or that she'd had a talk with her brother Buell Frazier about the length of the bag he said was about two feet long, and had decided to agree with him. The report quotes her as saying "At about 7:10 A.M., Friday, November 22, 1963, Oswald came by my house. I glanced through the window of the kitchen-dining area and saw him walking across the street, and coming up the driveway. He was carrying a package. It was wrapped in brown paper. The package seemed to be about 2 feet or over in length. It seemed to have some weight to it from the manner in which he, Oswald, was carrying it." (CD 87, p. 186).

We wonder as to why Randle was re-interviewed but not her brother. We then see an FBI memo to file from Dallas SAIC Shanklin regarding a phone call he had with Inspector James Handley this morning. (This memo can be found in the Weisberg Archives.) Shanklin writes "Bureau is going to fly the brown paper sack back to Dallas. Have one of the agents take it out and have him (Note: he must mean Frazier) identify it as the same paper that he (Note: he must mean Oswald) carried out that morning."

We then find out that Frazier has just today been re-interviewed by FBI agent James Anderton, and that his memorandum has just been placed in the files of the FBI's Dallas office. (Strangely, this memorandum was never sent to headquarters, and was never added to the bureau's assassination file. So how do we know about it, then? Well, it was uncovered in a lawsuit by Harold Weisberg, and can be found in his online archives.)

The memo details that Frazier "recalls that on the morning of November 22, when Oswald rode to work in his car, he had something in a brown paper sack, the kind you would obtain in a dime store, specifically that the paper in the sack was of a flimsy, thin consistency. Frazier stated that he could not observe the sack very well since Oswald threw it in the back seat of his car, and upon arriving ...
at work Oswald carried the package in a vertical position under his right arm, appearing to be holding the end of whatever was in the sack, which he recalled was about two feet in length. Mr. Frazier was questioned as to the ends of the sack and if two sacks had been placed together, but he could recall only seeing one sack described above."
 

Anderton's memo then enters virgin territory: "Mr. Frazier stated that between 11:00 PM and midnight, November 22, 1963, he was in the polygraph room of the Dallas Police Department and before taking the polygraph examination a police officer, name unknown to him, brought in a large paper sack, approximately three to four feet in length and the type a grocery store receives their five-pound bags of sugar in, specifically that the paper in the sack was very thick and stiff. He stated that this sack shown to him appeared to actually have been made by someone cutting down a larger sack. He said he told the police officer that this sack had never been seen by him before. He also said that this sack was definitely not the one he had observed in possession of Oswald the morning of November 22, 1963."

 

Uh-oh. That sounds pretty definitive. Frazier has drawn a line---the bag shown Frazier was not the bag he saw in Oswald's possession. Period. Now, this is a problem for a couple of reasons. One is that it leaves us at a loss as to how Oswald got the rifle into the building. Second is that the FBI has already determined that Oswald's prints were on the bag sent the FBI. Well, if he didn't carry the bag into the building, how did his prints get on the bag? Was the paper comprising the bag sent the FBI taken from some other source--perhaps some paper Oswald had touched at work, or while in police custody? Or were the prints simply misidentified?

The Dallas Police have come up with their own explanation. Another 11-29-63 memo from Anderton (similarly not sent to Washington, and similarly found in the Weisberg Archives) reveals: ""Lt. Carl Day, Dallas PD Crime Lab, advised that on 11/22/63, he recovered a heavy brown sack appearing to be homemade and appearing to have been folded together at one time. This sack when laid out was about four feet long but when doubled was about two feet long. Lt. Day recalls that on evening of 11/22/63, about 11:30 p.m., one of Captain Fritz's officers requested that he show this thick, brown sack to a man named Frazier. Lt. Day said that Frazier was unable to identify this sack and told him that a sack he observed in possession of Oswald early that morning was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like one purchased in a dime store. Lt. Day stated that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald by dismantling the rifle could have placed it in the thick, brown sack folded over and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack." Anderton then adds: "however, the entire package would have been longer than two feet since the stock of the rifle alone was over two feet."
 

Curiously, considering Anderton's memo on Frazier was not relayed to headquarters, we discover that the content of Anderton's memo on Day has been immediately relayed to headquarters.

Yes, an 11-29 memo from Inspector J.L. Handley in Dallas to Assistant Director Alex Rosen in Washington relates: "Lieutenant Carl Day, Dallas, Texas, Police Department Crime Laboratory, advised that on November 22, 1963, he recovered a heavy brown sack appearing to be homemade and appearing to have been folded together at one time. This sack when laid out was about four feet long but when doubled was about two feet long. Lt. Day recalls that on the evening of 11-22-63, about 11:30 p.m., one of Capt. Fritz's officers requested that he show this thick, brown sack to a man named Frazier. Lt. Day stated that Frazier was unable to identify this sack and told him that a sack he observed in possession of Oswald early that morning was definitely a thin flimsy sack like one purchased in a dime store. Lt. Day stated that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald by dismantling the rifle could have placed it in the thick, brown sack folded over and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack." This memo then notes: "however, the entire package would have been longer than two feet since the stock of the rifle alone was over two feet." (FBI assassination file 62-109060 section.14 page 123-125)

Hmmm. This shows us that the Dallas police are, at least at this point, ready to accept that the bag found in the sniper's nest was not the bag seen by Frazier or Randle. This in itself is intriguing. Maybe they know something we don't. Such as that the bag--which they did not photograph on the 22nd--was not found in the building at all, but taped together by detectives after they found out Oswald had carried a bag to work that morning...

 

Something very strange is going on. The next day, we see an 11-30-63 report by Vincent Drain on an interview purportedly conducted with Lt. Day, purportedly the day before, the very day Anderton spoke to Day.

"Lt. Carl Day, Dallas Police Department, stated he found the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case near the scene of the shooting on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He stated the manager, Mr. Truly, saw this bag at the time it was taken into possession by Lt. Day. Truly, according to Day, had not seen this bag before. No one else viewed it. Truly furnished similar brown paper from the roll that was used in packing books by the Texas School Book Depository. This paper was examined by the FBI Laboratory and found not to be identical with the paper gun case found at the scene of the shooting. The Dallas Police have not exhibited this to anyone else. It was immediately locked up by Day, kept in his possession until it was turned over to FBI agent Drain for transmittal to the Laboratory. It was examined by the Laboratory, returned to the Dallas Police Department November 24, 1963, locked up in the Crime Laboratory. This bag was returned to Agent Drain on November 26, 1963, and taken back to the FBI Laboratory.

Lt. Day stated no one has identified this bag to the Dallas Police Department." (CD5, p129).

To our surprise, this report on Drain's interview with Lt. Day from 11-29-63 directly contradicts the previous day's memo on Anderton's 11-29-63 phone call with Lt. Day. It appears that Drain is lying. But why?
 

The thought occurs that a decision has been made to claim the paper bag was used by Oswald to smuggle the rifle into the building, no matter what Frazier says, and that Drain (and/or Drain's superiors) are attempting to hide that Frazier viewed the bag on the night of the shooting, and insisted it was not the bag he saw in Oswald's possession.
 

(The FBI would later recognize a mistake in this report and submit a re-written version of this report to both their files and the Warren Commission's files. This mistake was not that the bag was not shown to anyone else, however, but that the "similar brown paper" taken from the depository didn't match the "paper gun case." In 1980, after this switcheroo was discovered by researcher J. Gary Shaw, and discussed in an article by Jack White, for that matter, Dallas newsman Earl Golz contacted Vincent Drain and asked for his response. Author Henry Hurt did so as well. Although Drain acknowledged approving and initialing the second "corrected" version of this report, he told both Golz and Hurt that he was shocked and surprised by the mistake in the original report, and that this report was a "fake" that he had not approved or initialed. Although, unsurprisingly, the FBI maintained that Drain was responsible for the mistake, his claim the original report was a "fake" has some unexpected support. From J. Edgar Hoover, of all people. Although more than a dozen FBI agents, including Drain, received reprimands from the FBI for supposed mistakes regarding Oswald and the assassination, Drain was not reprimanded for writing an incorrect report that, much to the embarrassment of the Bureau, had to be withdrawn and replaced in the files of the Warren Commission. This is hard to fathom, should Drain have truly been responsible.)

An 11-30-63 FBI memo (found in the Weisberg Archives) adds fuel to this fire. It reveals that the FBI is not quite as willing to let go of this seemingly valuable piece of evidence as the Dallas Police. As a response to Inspector Handley's request from the day before, the bag has been flown to Dallas, accompanied by SA Gibbon McNeely.

And this even though the FBI knows Frazier has already been shown the bag, and has already stated he feels certain it was not the bag he saw in Oswald's possession on the 22nd...
 

What on Earth is going on?

 

 

On 12-1-63 we read yet another report about the paper bag roadblock. The FBI still can't figure out how Oswald, or anyone, got the rifle used to kill Kennedy into the building. On 11-29, agent Vincent Drain followed up on agent Anderton's interview of Buell Frazier, in which Frazier mentioned that, oh yeah, he'd taken a lie detector test regarding his refusal to ID the bag. Drain talked to Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz, who confirmed that Frazier had told him on the day of the shooting that the bag he saw was "about two feet in length, and of brown paper." (CD7, p290). Drain then talked to Dallas Detective R.D. Lewis, who confirmed that Frazier, while being given a polygraph test, "was shown what appeared to be a homemade brown heavy paper gun case." Lewis stated further that "Frazier said that it was possible this was the case, but he did not think it resembled it. He stated that the crinkly brown paper sack that Oswald had when he rode to work with him that morning was about two feet long." Detective Lewis also told Drain "that if this was not identical to the sack that was turned over to the Bureau, it is possible that Oswald may have thrown it away." (CD7, p291). Apparently, Lewis believed Frazier.

And that's fine. But how is it that Anderton interviewed Frazier and Day on the 29th and reported Frazier was shown the bag, and Drain interviewed Lewis on the 29th and reported Frazier was shown the bag, while at the same time Drain supposedly interviewed Day on the 29th, and reported no one saw the bag?

Was Drain's report on his interview with Day a fabrication written by someone else, presumably one of his superiors? Did Drain even talk to Day? And, if not, was this phony report written to replace Anderton's report?

The widespread desire to close the case, particularly as it relates to the paper bag and its use by Oswald to bring the rifle into the building, however, is demonstrated by a 12-1 article in the Philadelphia Bulletin, datelined the day before, describing the events of 11-22. This article describes the morning's events as follows: "Oswald picked the blanket roll off the floor and put it on a white leather chair. He was busy with the bundle for perhaps ten minutes, police said. From it, they added, he took the bolt-action rifle which was used to kill the President. Police said he transferred the rifle from the roll to a brown paper bag." Later in the article, Buell Frazier, who gave Oswald a ride to work, further describes the bag: "As they drove off, Frazier said, he glanced to the back seat where he saw a paper-wrapped bundle. 'He said, yes, it was his--and he muttered something about curtain rods,' said Frazier. As a matter of fact, said Frazier, Oswald had told him the day before that he would be bringing some rods to exchange them for other rods he wanted for his room at Mrs. Johnson's. 'It didn't look to me as long as a rifle ought to be,' said Frazier. 'It seemed to me it should have been longer. If it was a rifle, he had taken it apart, to put it together in the warehouse." A few paragraphs later, the article returns to the bag one last time: "Frazier doesn't remember what Oswald did with the paper-wrapped bundle. 'I just lost track of it,' he said, although I guess he took it out of the car because I didn't see it again."

Well, this is quite puzzling, Frazier has signed a statement saying he saw Oswald remove the package from the car, and carry it into the building, and now he says he "guesses" Oswald took it out of the car? Someone's playing games. Either Frazier is lying to the press, for no apparent reason, or the writer of this article is twisting his words to hide that he got a good look at the bag and felt quite sure the "paper-wrapped bundle" was much smaller than a bag holding the rifle. That the article allows Frazier's assertion that the rifle had to have been broken down to fit inside the bag, sack, or bundle, but fails to tell its readers that the bag described by Frazier was a foot shorter than the rifle, even when the rifle was broken down, and that Frazier had refused to ID the bag found near the sniper's nest as the bag he saw in Oswald's possession, suggests that the writers and their sources in the Dallas Police were more concerned with telling a seamless tale than in getting at the truth. 

The New York Times, in an article published the day before, was even worse. The Times avoided the problems with the bag by reporting: "Mr. Frazier noticed that Oswald put a long package wrapped in brown paper sacks into the back seat, saying it was curtain rods. Evidence showed he had removed it from the Paine garage, where he had kept it with his other belongings wrapped in a blanket. Only the blanket was there when the police came to check. Mr. Frazier said Oswald carried the long package into the depository building and that was the last he saw of him before the assassination." This, disturbingly, not only avoids the sticky issue that the "long" package described by Frazier was not nearly long enough to have held the rifle, but completely misinforms its readers by asserting there was any evidence whatsoever that the "long package" had ever been in the garage. That the "long package" had been wrapped in the blanket sitting on the garage floor for almost two months, was either pure speculation, or deliberate misinformation. (The FBI had already tested the paper sack and had (reportedly) found it to match the paper sample taken from the roll in use at the depository on 11-22. They would soon determine that the depository changed rolls every few days, and that, accordingly, the sack or bag had most probably been created within 24 hours of the shooting.)

On 12-2-63, we find out that Dallas FBI agents Odum and McNeely, desperate to get around the problem created by Frazier's refusal to ID the bag, have visited the school book depository, gathered up some paper and some tape, and created a replica sack to show those who knew Oswald. Significantly, the report on their actions of the day before tells us the paper was described as "60 pound paper, 24 inches wide" and that the tape was "gummed, brown paper tape, three inches wide, made on 60 pound paper stock." (CD7, p292). It also tells us that after creating the sack, they took it, along with the original sack, which had been stained by the FBI during testing, over to show Ruth Paine, at whose home Oswald had stayed the night before the shooting. She "advised that she does not recall seeing Lee Oswald in possession of any sack resembling either of these sacks, nor does she recall seeing him in possession of paper or tape of the type used on either of these sacks." (CD7, p293).

Perhaps hoping he would change his mind, they then showed these sacks to Buell Frazier. In their 12-2 report, Odum and McNeeley re-tell Frazier's story. They write: "As he started to drive out of the yard, Frazier glanced back and noticed a long package, light brown in color, lying on the back of the rear seat and extending from approximately the right rear door to about the center of the seat...Frazier designated an approximate spot on the back seat where he felt the package extended to from the right rear door and measurement by Special Agents Bardwell D. Odum and Gibbon E. McNeeley determined that this spot was 27 inches from the inside of the right door, indicating that Frazier estimates that as the length of the package." They then recount Frazier's recollection of how Oswald carried the package into the building: "Oswald had this package under his right arm, one end of this package being under his armpit and the other end apparently held with his right fingers...Frazier stated that when he saw this package under the arm of Oswald, he reached the conclusion that the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores." They then describe showing Frazier the replica sack. Agent Odum held the sack under his arm, and they measured how much of the sack was visible to Frazier, when held under his arm. It was 9" by 1". According to Odum's report, Frazier then advised Odum "that he now realizes that his conclusion that the sack was thin, crinkly paper, of the type used in Five and Ten Cent stores, was based to a considerable extent upon the fact that the color of the sack was a very light brown as compared with the type of dark brown paper used for heavier grocery sacks. He noted that the color of the replica sack was the same color as the package which he had seen in possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963." Odum then shows Frazier the original sack. He writes: "Frazier examined the original 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." This is incredibly disingenuous, and fails to note that Frazier was shown this sack, on the night of the shooting, before it had been discolored by the FBI's tests, and had refused to identify it as the sack or bag brought into work by Oswald. Odum then reports: "Frazier indicated on the replica sack the estimated width of the package in possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, and this was found to be an approximate width of six inches." (CD7, 294-297).

They then showed the sack to Frazier's sister, Linnie Mae Randle. She also has her doubts about the sack. Odum reports: "Mrs. Randle states that at the time she saw Oswald walking across the street, he was carrying a long package wrapped in brown paper or a brown sack in his right hand. It appeared to contain something heavy. She stated that it was long but did not touch the ground as he walked across the street. She examined a replica of the sack...She stated that this was the same kind of paper that made up the sack or package that she saw Oswald carrying, and was the same heavy grade of paper, since she recalls noting that there was something heavy in the sack when she saw it, and it was the same color paper as the sack she had seen on the morning of November 22, 1963. She was shown the original paper sack...She stated that if the original sack was previously the same color as the replica sack, that the original sack could have been the one which she saw Oswald carrying on the morning of November 22, 1963...The action of Oswald walking across Westbrook Street was re-enacted by Special Agent McNeeley, carrying the replica sack...in accordance with Mrs. Randle's observations, Special Agent McNeeley grasped the top of the sack with his hand...When the proper length of the sack was reached according to Mrs. Randle's estimate, it was measured and found to be 27 inches long. She demonstrated the width of the sack as it appeared to her, noting that it did have something bulky in it originally. Her designation on the replica sack was found to be 8 1/2 inches for the width of the original package she had seen Oswald carrying." (CD7, p298-299).

Now here, once again, Odum acts as though the recollection of the witness is consistent with the sack carried by Oswald being the sack found in the sniper's nest. This just isn't true. Two witnesses saw the sack. The FBI performed two tests to determine the length of the sack seen by the witnesses. They put the replica sack in Frazier's back seat. This confirmed for Frazier that the sack he saw was about 27 inches long. They then re-enacted Oswald walking across the street to get Randle's best estimate of the length of the sack. This led her to conclude the sack she saw was...27 inches long. We've seen some evidence photos. The sack photographed by the FBI is about 38 inches long, approximately 40% longer than the sack described by both Frazier and Randle. It also appears to have been slightly tapered from one end to the other--from about 8 1/2 inches wide at the open end to about 9 1/4 inches wide at the closed end, for an average of 8 7/8 inches wide. Frazier, of course, said the bag in Oswald's possession was about 6 inches wide.

Time for math. 27 x 6 = 162 sq. inches. 38 x 8.875 = 337.25 sq. inches. This means the bag shown Frazier--assuming it was the bag sent on to the FBI--was more than twice as large as the bag he recalled seeing in Oswald's possession.

It was also made from a thicker paper. No wonder he'd refused to ID the bag!

 

[Ron Bulman]

10 hours ago, John Iacoletti said:

Depends on what angle the slats are mounted.  The FBI photo seems to show light coming though, but I can't make out any car supposedly sitting on the other side, much less the ability to see somebody putting a package into a particular car door.

I've read they were plastic louvers, likely an early vinyl version I've seen before in the D/FW Area myself in the 60's.  Nailed to the studs supporting the roof to keep out most of the afternoon/evening sun out as well as most rain and wind but allow a slight breeze.  They had a knurled bottom, thus louvers.  Can anyone see the outline of a car through them in this picture?  Much less how you could see someone putting a rifle  or curtain rods in the back seat.

To top that.  Wes said he kept the car locked at night.  But the right rear door handle was messed up  Seems a bit convenient/incredible.  

The other outside picture show's Wes's car backed in outside the carport.  I don't remember it ever being asked if that was his normal procedure.  If so it places the right rear door further away from Linne Mae  and the car in between them, with the louvers still in the way.

We are asked to believe.  She saw Oswald through the kitchen window carrying a 36 then 26" package of some sort in the street, into the driveway.

Lee has been riding with Wes for most of six week on Monday mornings after visiting Marina and the girls on the weekends.

Seeing the package out the kitchen window caused such distress and suspicion Linnie Mae went to the door to the carport to look out and could have seen, absoultely  nothing. 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Ron Bulman

[Ian Lloyd]

Regarding Frazier's and Randle's (or Randall? - seems to have 2 different spellings but I'll stick with Randle as it appears in WCR) statements and testimonies regarding the length of the bag but only one other seems to have questioned, briefly, what they actually say they saw, particularly Randle. I have various concerns with their statements and testimonies:

1. It is not established which kitchen window Oswald was seen looking through – Frazier says “He just looked through the kitchen window. To see from there on the ground outside there. I say you don't have to be any height at all, you don't have to be too tall to be able to look in the kitchen window there…” which seems to indicate the low window on the opposite side of the kitchen from the carport (see CE442)– why would Oswald have walked all the way round to there? Also, if Frazier and his mother were sitting at the kitchen table with Randle at the sink, obscuring the view through that window, how did Frazier’s mother see Oswald at the window, and Frazier also see him to identify him?

2. Then Randle’s description of having seen Oswald only from the waist up seems to indicate that she saw him only from the window in front of the house, in which case, she wouldn’t have seen his lower half which leads to the issue of whether she had actually seen the package at all if she’d only seen Oswald from the waist up.

3. Strange that Frazier was running late that morning and Oswald still got there before Frazier was ready when Oswald himself had also apparently overslept. Both sleeping late on the same, this most important and infamous, of days!?!?

4. Why did Frazier have to “charge the battery” on his car – he’d just driven 15 miles to work?

5. Why did Oswald wait for Frazier to get out of the car before walking ahead of him anyway? If he was waiting for him, why didn’t they walk in together as Frazier testifies they usually did? Frazier testified that they would normally walk in together. Or was it actually the other way round and Frazier was waiting for Oswald to leave for some reason and he only left the car when Oswald got fed up of waiting and started walking in himself?

6. Why is Randle so interested in the package, almost to the exclusion of everything else – I mean, she didn’t even recognise Oswald and could not recall what Oswald was wearing yet she can describe the package in great detail?

7. It is clear that Randle could not possibly have seen Oswald placing any package in Frazier’s car since Frazier’s car was parked outside the carport (CE447) and her view would have been blocked by the car that was in the carport (Randle’s?) and, not forgetting, the side-wall of the carport. Frazier also says in his affidavit to the DPD that “…it was parked backed up at the side of the carport…” so the rear right door to which Randle refers was also on the furthest side of Frazier’s car!

8. Randle described the reason she ‘knew’ it was the right rear door of the car because “…what made me establish the door on Wesley's car, it is an old car and that door, the window is broken and everything and it is hard to close, so that cinched in my mind which door it was, too…” – If she saw Oswald place a package in the car through the rear right door, why does she resort to describing it like this? Perhaps it is because she didn’t actually see it and just heard the noise of somebody trying to close the door by slamming it because it was difficult to close?

9. Randle says of seeing Oswald that she “…just saw him from the waist up…” – if that was the case, how did she manage to see him with the package as he “…carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it…”?

10. Whilst samples of packaging paper were taken from the Paine house, neither Ruth Paine or Marina Oswald were asked whether there was any indication that Oswald had helped himself to the bread, cheese and fruit for his lunch that he said he took with him to work that day nor, indeed, were they asked whether there were any paper sacks or bags in the house that Oswald might have taken from the house that morning? The only thing Marina was asked was whether he had taken anything to work with him that morning, even though she’s already said that she hadn’t seen him leaving. Her reply “I think that he had a package with his lunch. But a small package” seems to indicate that, when staying at the Paine’s house, he would take a lunch with him to work – what did he usually carry it in?

11. Why is Randle being so defensive about mentioning a job in the TSBD? She seems desperate to distance herself from anything to do with this and, in fact throughout her testimony, she never once mentions the words or letters (Texas School Book Depository/TSBD), she just calls it “over there”!?!? Then Ruth Paine is saying in her testimony that Randle volunteered the information…? This leads me on to a few thoughts…

·         Did 2 people appear at the Randle house that morning? One who put something in the car then left and then Oswald who appeared at the window you might have expected him to appear at first if he’d just walked down from the Paine house?

·         Did one person appear there – Oswald? Was he was just carrying a lunch sack with cheese, bread and fruit in it - as he said to Fritz - which would explain Randle’s description of the way the bag was being carried and the fact it appeared heavier and bulkier toward the bottom – as it probably would if it were a brown paper lunch bag containing bread, cheese and fruit? This would probably also explain a bit better the way Frazier described Oswald’s way of carrying the package to the Depository.

It is interesting to note that Frazier was arrested (not sure on what charge at the moment) on the 22nd November and questioned at some length. A .303 Enfield rifle and ammunition rounds were also found after a search of Randle’s house, where he was staying at the time – See DPD Officer G.F. Rose report of officer’s duties in DPD JFK archives, box 1, folder 6, item 21, this is also one of the reports saying that Ruth Paine made the comment as the Dallas Police arrived to search her house “Come on in, we were expecting you…”. As the police were driving Frazier home, they had a radio call to bring him back in for questioning under polygraph – the results are reported as confirming his affidavit in this report (though, Rose's supplementary report says that the polygraph test was carried out first!) – I wonder what questions were asked? Also, Frazier wasn’t arrested until 18:30-18:45 that evening – where had he been since leaving the book depository earlier in the afternoon and going to see his step-father in hospital?

Why is Randle saying that she saw Oswald open the car door and place something in the car when she clearly could not possibly have seen this? In the Paine testimony, it is apparently stated by Jenner that the floor plan drawing, CE441 was not available at the time of Randle’s testimony and she was never asked to look at any pictures, photographs or diagrams to neither confirm nor describe anything during her testimony so I guess it can be fairly safely assumed that the photographs, CEs 442, 443, 446 & 447 either hadn’t been taken or were not available at that point, in which case, did someone realise that when Randle’s testimony was read and compared with the photographs that had been taken with Frazier’s car outside the carport and another white car inside the carport (CE446) that there was a problem in that it became apparent that Randle could not possibly have seen Oswald place anything inside the car?...It was too late by then as Randle had given her testimony, so did someone have the idea that they could perhaps go back and ask Frazier to swap the cars to take another photograph with Frazier’s car inside the carport?

How do Randle and Frazier manage to recall the package in great detail yet are extremely vague about most other things and “…didn’t pay too much attention..” ?

Then there is the photograph of the bag being removed from the Depository – it has clearly been folded horizontally along the length a couple of times (appears to be in half then in half again) yet doesn’t appear to be significantly creased in the way it might have been if carried in the way both Randle and Frazier describe (Frazier described in his affidavit that it had been folded down at the top and folded under along its length – why is there no crease along its length in the photograph?). It appears to be rather large for it to be tucked under the arm as Frazier described Oswald carried it. One more thought on the rifle – if it was disassembled to get it into the depository surely, whilst disassembling, any unnecessary parts would have been removed and left, particularly the strap, to make sure it’s as small as possible, light as possible, easier to conceal and as easy & quick as possible to re-assemble? (If the sniper’s nest “design” was already established for the purpose, the strap would not have been required).

Why did Randle go round to the Paines’ house when the police arrived there on the afternoon of the 22nd and tell them about her brother giving Oswald a lift to work that morning carrying a package that "made her suspicious"???

Also, during an interview on TMWKK, Frazier describes the bag as being made from “…the same type of packing material that you find in any company that packs materials for shipment, just the brown paper and the tape which you normally find…” - Has he now decided to toe the party line?

Another thing is that isn't it a coincidence that Frazier used to work in a store where, he says, he used to unpack curtain rods, the Paines had curtain rods in their garage and Oswald allegedly said that he was picking up curtain rods?

Finally:

Mr. Ball:

How was Lee dressed that morning?

Mrs. Randle:

He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up, I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything, when he was going with the package. I was more interested in that. But he had on a white T-shirt and I remember some sort of brown or tan shirt and he had a gray jacket, I believe.

She only saw him from the waist up? Well, how did she manage to see him carrying a package down at his side that almost touched the floor? Also, has Randle got X-ray vision? She manages to describe that Oswald was wearing a jacket over a shirt, AND managed to see he was also wearing a T-shirt underneath all of this, all the time whilst not paying too much attention and being unable to recognise him!?!?

Mr. Ball:

A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here. First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the jacket he had on?

Mrs. Randle:

Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball:

That morning?

Mrs. Randle:

Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it.

Mr. Ball:

Was it similar in color?

Mrs. Randle:

Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves.

So, even though the jacket had “big sleeves”, she still managed to recognise that he was wearing a shirt & a white T-shirt underneath!?!?

Mr. Ball:

Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color?

Mrs. Randle:

I believe so.

Mr. Ball:

What is the Commission Exhibit on this jacket?

Mrs. Randle:

It was gray, I am not sure of the shade.

Mr. Ball:

I will show you another shirt which is Commission No. 150.

Does this look anything like the shirt he had on?

(CE150 is a long-sleeved shirt...)

Mrs. Randle:

Well now, I don't remember it being that shade of brown. It could have been but I was looking through the screen and out the window but I don't remember it being exactly that. I thought it was a solid color.

Mr. Ball:

Here is another jacket which is a gray jacket, does this look anything like the jacket he had on?

Mrs. Randle:

No, sir; I remember its being gray.

Now she’s beginning to remember?

Mr. Ball:

Well, this one is gray but of these two the jacket I last showed you is Commission Exhibit No. 162, and this blue gray is 163, now if you had to choose between these two?

Mrs. Randle:

I would choose the dark one.

Mr. Ball:

You would choose the dark one?

Mrs. Randle:

Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball:

Which is 163, as being more similar to the jacket he had?

Mrs. Randle:

Yes, sir; that I remember. But I, you know, didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket.

Does she really remember? She didn’t know a few lines ago, now she CAN remember but then ”… didn’t pay much attention”!?!? And THEN remembers the T-shirt and the shirt more than the jacket when the jacket was on top of all of this!!?

CE446 & CE447 purport to show Frazier's car parked as it was on the morning of the 22nd - note in CE447 it's shown outside the carport as mentioned above - how did Linnie Mae Randle see what she said she saw? Note also the car inside the carport - a white car. Now look at CE446 which purports to show the view that Randle had from the kitchen door - is it my imagination or have the 2 cars been swapped round to give the impression that Randle could actually have seen the car from the kitchen door?

[B. A. Copeland]

(Thanks Stan!)

Quote

From the HSCA interview of Shields

SHIELDS: I think Charles Givens hollered out there and asked Frazier where was his rider and he told him: "I dropped him off at the building." Yeah, that was it...Well, I was down on the floor when they hollered out and said and the answer he gave them, I don't know, I think he said: "I dropped him off at the building." Now, whoever it was hollering asked him, I don't know.
DAY: This is the morning of the assassination?
SHIELDS: Mm-hmm.
DAY: Somebody hollered out the window and say: "Where is your rider?" And to your recollection, Frazier says, "I dropped him off at the building."
SHIELDS: Yes.
DAY: Alright. The day of the assassination, did you see Oswald come to work with Frazier?
SHIELDS: No I didn’t.

 

Lets dismantle further shall we?

Edited March 12, 2020 by B. A. Copeland

[James DiEugenio]

Nice by both of you.

And I am glad someone finally pointed this out:

Why did Randle go round to the Paines’ house when the police arrived there on the afternoon of the 22nd and tell them about her brother giving Oswald a lift to work that morning carrying a package that "made her suspicious"???

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

20 hours ago, Ian Lloyd said:

Regarding Frazier's and Randle's (or Randall? - seems to have 2 different spellings but I'll stick with Randle as it appears in WCR) statements and testimonies regarding the length of the bag but only one other seems to have questioned, briefly, what they actually say they saw, particularly Randle. I have various concerns with their statements and testimonies:

1. It is not established which kitchen window Oswald was seen looking through – Frazier says “He just looked through the kitchen window. To see from there on the ground outside there. I say you don't have to be any height at all, you don't have to be too tall to be able to look in the kitchen window there…” which seems to indicate the low window on the opposite side of the kitchen from the carport (see CE442)– why would Oswald have walked all the way round to there? Also, if Frazier and his mother were sitting at the kitchen table with Randle at the sink, obscuring the view through that window, how did Frazier’s mother see Oswald at the window, and Frazier also see him to identify him?

2. Then Randle’s description of having seen Oswald only from the waist up seems to indicate that she saw him only from the window in front of the house, in which case, she wouldn’t have seen his lower half which leads to the issue of whether she had actually seen the package at all if she’d only seen Oswald from the waist up.

3. Strange that Frazier was running late that morning and Oswald still got there before Frazier was ready when Oswald himself had also apparently overslept. Both sleeping late on the same, this most important and infamous, of days!?!?

4. Why did Frazier have to “charge the battery” on his car – he’d just driven 15 miles to work?

5. Why did Oswald wait for Frazier to get out of the car before walking ahead of him anyway? If he was waiting for him, why didn’t they walk in together as Frazier testifies they usually did? Frazier testified that they would normally walk in together. Or was it actually the other way round and Frazier was waiting for Oswald to leave for some reason and he only left the car when Oswald got fed up of waiting and started walking in himself?

6. Why is Randle so interested in the package, almost to the exclusion of everything else – I mean, she didn’t even recognise Oswald and could not recall what Oswald was wearing yet she can describe the package in great detail?

7. It is clear that Randle could not possibly have seen Oswald placing any package in Frazier’s car since Frazier’s car was parked outside the carport (CE447) and her view would have been blocked by the car that was in the carport (Randle’s?) and, not forgetting, the side-wall of the carport. Frazier also says in his affidavit to the DPD that “…it was parked backed up at the side of the carport…” so the rear right door to which Randle refers was also on the furthest side of Frazier’s car!

8. Randle described the reason she ‘knew’ it was the right rear door of the car because “…what made me establish the door on Wesley's car, it is an old car and that door, the window is broken and everything and it is hard to close, so that cinched in my mind which door it was, too…” – If she saw Oswald place a package in the car through the rear right door, why does she resort to describing it like this? Perhaps it is because she didn’t actually see it and just heard the noise of somebody trying to close the door by slamming it because it was difficult to close?

9. Randle says of seeing Oswald that she “…just saw him from the waist up…” – if that was the case, how did she manage to see him with the package as he “…carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it…”?

10. Whilst samples of packaging paper were taken from the Paine house, neither Ruth Paine or Marina Oswald were asked whether there was any indication that Oswald had helped himself to the bread, cheese and fruit for his lunch that he said he took with him to work that day nor, indeed, were they asked whether there were any paper sacks or bags in the house that Oswald might have taken from the house that morning? The only thing Marina was asked was whether he had taken anything to work with him that morning, even though she’s already said that she hadn’t seen him leaving. Her reply “I think that he had a package with his lunch. But a small package” seems to indicate that, when staying at the Paine’s house, he would take a lunch with him to work – what did he usually carry it in?

11. Why is Randle being so defensive about mentioning a job in the TSBD? She seems desperate to distance herself from anything to do with this and, in fact throughout her testimony, she never once mentions the words or letters (Texas School Book Depository/TSBD), she just calls it “over there”!?!? Then Ruth Paine is saying in her testimony that Randle volunteered the information…? This leads me on to a few thoughts…

·         Did 2 people appear at the Randle house that morning? One who put something in the car then left and then Oswald who appeared at the window you might have expected him to appear at first if he’d just walked down from the Paine house?

·         Did one person appear there – Oswald? Was he was just carrying a lunch sack with cheese, bread and fruit in it - as he said to Fritz - which would explain Randle’s description of the way the bag was being carried and the fact it appeared heavier and bulkier toward the bottom – as it probably would if it were a brown paper lunch bag containing bread, cheese and fruit? This would probably also explain a bit better the way Frazier described Oswald’s way of carrying the package to the Depository.

It is interesting to note that Frazier was arrested (not sure on what charge at the moment) on the 22nd November and questioned at some length. A .303 Enfield rifle and ammunition rounds were also found after a search of Randle’s house, where he was staying at the time – See DPD Officer G.F. Rose report of officer’s duties in DPD JFK archives, box 1, folder 6, item 21, this is also one of the reports saying that Ruth Paine made the comment as the Dallas Police arrived to search her house “Come on in, we were expecting you…”. As the police were driving Frazier home, they had a radio call to bring him back in for questioning under polygraph – the results are reported as confirming his affidavit in this report (though, Rose's supplementary report says that the polygraph test was carried out first!) – I wonder what questions were asked? Also, Frazier wasn’t arrested until 18:30-18:45 that evening – where had he been since leaving the book depository earlier in the afternoon and going to see his step-father in hospital?

Why is Randle saying that she saw Oswald open the car door and place something in the car when she clearly could not possibly have seen this? In the Paine testimony, it is apparently stated by Jenner that the floor plan drawing, CE441 was not available at the time of Randle’s testimony and she was never asked to look at any pictures, photographs or diagrams to neither confirm nor describe anything during her testimony so I guess it can be fairly safely assumed that the photographs, CEs 442, 443, 446 & 447 either hadn’t been taken or were not available at that point, in which case, did someone realise that when Randle’s testimony was read and compared with the photographs that had been taken with Frazier’s car outside the carport and another white car inside the carport (CE446) that there was a problem in that it became apparent that Randle could not possibly have seen Oswald place anything inside the car?...It was too late by then as Randle had given her testimony, so did someone have the idea that they could perhaps go back and ask Frazier to swap the cars to take another photograph with Frazier’s car inside the carport?

How do Randle and Frazier manage to recall the package in great detail yet are extremely vague about most other things and “…didn’t pay too much attention..” ?

Then there is the photograph of the bag being removed from the Depository – it has clearly been folded horizontally along the length a couple of times (appears to be in half then in half again) yet doesn’t appear to be significantly creased in the way it might have been if carried in the way both Randle and Frazier describe (Frazier described in his affidavit that it had been folded down at the top and folded under along its length – why is there no crease along its length in the photograph?). It appears to be rather large for it to be tucked under the arm as Frazier described Oswald carried it. One more thought on the rifle – if it was disassembled to get it into the depository surely, whilst disassembling, any unnecessary parts would have been removed and left, particularly the strap, to make sure it’s as small as possible, light as possible, easier to conceal and as easy & quick as possible to re-assemble? (If the sniper’s nest “design” was already established for the purpose, the strap would not have been required).

Why did Randle go round to the Paines’ house when the police arrived there on the afternoon of the 22nd and tell them about her brother giving Oswald a lift to work that morning carrying a package that "made her suspicious"???

Also, during an interview on TMWKK, Frazier describes the bag as being made from “…the same type of packing material that you find in any company that packs materials for shipment, just the brown paper and the tape which you normally find…” - Has he now decided to toe the party line?

Another thing is that isn't it a coincidence that Frazier used to work in a store where, he says, he used to unpack curtain rods, the Paines had curtain rods in their garage and Oswald allegedly said that he was picking up curtain rods?

Finally:

Mr. Ball:

How was Lee dressed that morning?

Mrs. Randle:

He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up, I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything, when he was going with the package. I was more interested in that. But he had on a white T-shirt and I remember some sort of brown or tan shirt and he had a gray jacket, I believe.

She only saw him from the waist up? Well, how did she manage to see him carrying a package down at his side that almost touched the floor? Also, has Randle got X-ray vision? She manages to describe that Oswald was wearing a jacket over a shirt, AND managed to see he was also wearing a T-shirt underneath all of this, all the time whilst not paying too much attention and being unable to recognise him!?!?

Mr. Ball:

A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here. First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the jacket he had on?

Mrs. Randle:

Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball:

That morning?

Mrs. Randle:

Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it.

Mr. Ball:

Was it similar in color?

Mrs. Randle:

Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves.

So, even though the jacket had “big sleeves”, she still managed to recognise that he was wearing a shirt & a white T-shirt underneath!?!?

Mr. Ball:

Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color?

Mrs. Randle:

I believe so.

Mr. Ball:

What is the Commission Exhibit on this jacket?

Mrs. Randle:

It was gray, I am not sure of the shade.

Mr. Ball:

I will show you another shirt which is Commission No. 150.

Does this look anything like the shirt he had on?

(CE150 is a long-sleeved shirt...)

Mrs. Randle:

Well now, I don't remember it being that shade of brown. It could have been but I was looking through the screen and out the window but I don't remember it being exactly that. I thought it was a solid color.

Mr. Ball:

Here is another jacket which is a gray jacket, does this look anything like the jacket he had on?

Mrs. Randle:

No, sir; I remember its being gray.

Now she’s beginning to remember?

Mr. Ball:

Well, this one is gray but of these two the jacket I last showed you is Commission Exhibit No. 162, and this blue gray is 163, now if you had to choose between these two?

Mrs. Randle:

I would choose the dark one.

Mr. Ball:

You would choose the dark one?

Mrs. Randle:

Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball:

Which is 163, as being more similar to the jacket he had?

Mrs. Randle:

Yes, sir; that I remember. But I, you know, didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket.

Does she really remember? She didn’t know a few lines ago, now she CAN remember but then ”… didn’t pay much attention”!?!? And THEN remembers the T-shirt and the shirt more than the jacket when the jacket was on top of all of this!!?

CE446 & CE447 purport to show Frazier's car parked as it was on the morning of the 22nd - note in CE447 it's shown outside the carport as mentioned above - how did Linnie Mae Randle see what she said she saw? Note also the car inside the carport - a white car. Now look at CE446 which purports to show the view that Randle had from the kitchen door - is it my imagination or have the 2 cars been swapped round to give the impression that Randle could actually have seen the car from the kitchen door?

A lot of great points.  Just regarding 1.  There was only one kitchen window, facing the street.  "Frazier says he just looked through the window" regarding Oswald.  Maybe I've read and forgotten this.  Is it from his Warren Omission testimony?  Did Lee come up to the window Over the kitchen sink and look in.  That's important.  Because if he's sitting at the table with his mother Wes can't see Lee through that window in the driveway headed to his car on the other side of the carport.  As Linnie Mae claims happened.

Wouldn't Linnie Mae, in the way, have been startled by this stranger in her face.  So much so to have noticed the rifle in his hand?

Edited March 13, 2020 by Ron Bulman

[Ian Lloyd]

From his WC testimony:

Mr. BALL - As you were having breakfast did your mother say anything to you about
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say--
Mr. BALL - Oswald?
Mr. FRAZIER - I was sitting there eating my breakfast there, so sitting there, I usually talk to my little nieces, you know, they have them cartoons on for a while and we usually talk a little bit back and forth while eating breakfast and I was just finishing my coffee there and my sister, you know, was working over there around, you know the sink there, and she was fixing my lunch so she was somewhere around there over on the cabinets fixing the cabinets and mother just happened to glance up and saw this man, you know, who was Lee looking in the window for me and she said, "Who is that?"
And I said, "That is Lee," and naturally he just walked around and so I thought he just walked around there on the carport right there close to the door and so I told her I had to go, so I went in there and brushed my teeth right quick and come through there and I usually have my coat laying somewhere on the chair and picked it up and put it on and by that time my sister had my lunch, you know, in a sack and sitting over there on the washer where I picked it up right there by the door and I just walked on out and we got in the car.
Mr. BALL - Now, did your sister say anything as you were having breakfast?
Mr. FRAZIER - No; she didn't say anything to me at all.
Mr. BALL - She didn't say anything to you either about Oswald or did she?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; say, she didn't say, you know, when I looked up and saw him I knew who it was.
Mr. BALL - You saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - What was he doing?
Mr. FRAZIER - He just looked through the kitchen window. To see from there on the ground outside there. I say you don't have to be any height at all, you don't have to be too tall to be able to look in the kitchen window there.
I say, if you have the window open you can see in, if you have light on in there.
Mr. BALL - When your mother mentioned, "Who is that," you looked up and saw Lee Oswald in the kitchen window?
Mr. FRAZIER - I just saw him for a split second and when he saw I saw him, I guess he heard me say, "Well, it is time to go," and he walked down by the back door there.
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.
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.
Mr. BALL - He wasn't in the car?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he wasn't.
Mr. BALL - Was he near the car?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he wasn't.
You see, always I keep my car parked outside the carport there, on the other side.
Mr. BALL - He was just a few feet outside your back door when you came out?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - Did you walk together to the car?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; we did.
Mr. BALL - And you got in one side and he got in the other?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. Right in front there.
Mr. BALL - Did you say usually you had to go by and pick him up?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I said I had a couple of times. Most of the time, you know, he was usually walking down the sidewalk as I was driving out of the driveway so, therefore, I didn't have to go up to the house there to pick him up. I just usually picked him up around the corner because he was usually on the sidewalk and I just stopped and picked him up.
Mr. BALL - Were you later than usual that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe we were, because we got to work on time. I say, when I looked at the clock, after I glanced he was there a split second and I just turned around and looked at the clock to see what time it was and it was right amount 7:21 then and I went in and brushed my teeth real quick and running through the house put my coat on and we left.
Mr. BALL - You both got in the car about the same time?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

[Joe Bauer]

Sorry, but every time I read a transcript of Frazier's actual recollection testimony under questioning, my 68 year lifetime common sense tells me he is too unsophisticated to have created some sinister false Oswald story line and kept it going for 57 years.

He's like a true life Gomer Pyle imo. 

Several other unsophisticated or even eccentric JFK witness characters gave ridiculously scattered or contradictory statements in their testimonies. More illogical and suspect than Frazier's.

Puppy dog seeing Jean Hill comes to mind.

Tippit shooting eye-witness Helen Markham was a real prize.

Her testimony was so out there it was laughable.

Acquilla Clemons is another unsophisticated witness.

 

Edited March 13, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Rob Clark]

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Sorry, but every time I read a transcript of Frazier's actual recollection testimony under questioning, my 68 year lifetime common sense tells me he is too unsophisticated to have created some sinister false Oswald story line and kept it going for 57 years.

He's like a true life Gomer Pyle imo.

It's not a sinister false storyline...it's called self preservation. If he knew Oswald brought a rifle to work, and he's the one that brought him to work and dropped him off at he building, and he always gives Oswald a ride to and from work as five of his co-workers state, and he's the one asked by Fritz to sign a confession and undergo a lie detector test...it's enough to scare any 19 year old kid into making up a story. AND AGAIN, I'm not saying Frazier knew that Oswald would supposedly be killing the President with said rifle, or that Oswald was on the 6th floor shooting it. It was technically A.J. Hidell's rifle. A fictional Commie loving PRO-CASTRO supporter. Oswald could have just been told to plant it...he could have just told Frazier he was selling it, getting work done on it, or showing it off, as there had been 2 rifles brought into the TSBD by Warren Castor the day before on the 21st. Which Oswald mentioned seeing in his interrogation.

[Joe Bauer]

On 3/13/2020 at 6:19 AM, Rob Clark said:

It's not a sinister false storyline...it's called self preservation. If he knew Oswald brought a rifle to work, and he's the one that brought him to work and dropped him off at he building, and he always gives Oswald a ride to and from work as five of his co-workers state, and he's the one asked by Fritz to sign a confession and undergo a lie detector test...it's enough to scare any 19 year old kid into making up a story. AND AGAIN, I'm not saying Frazier knew that Oswald would supposedly be killing the President with said rifle, or that Oswald was on the 6th floor shooting it. It was technically A.J. Hidell's rifle. A fictional Commie loving PRO-CASTRO supporter. Oswald could have just been told to plant it...he could have just told Frazier he was selling it, getting work done on it, or showing it off, as there had been 2 rifles brought into the TSBD by Warren Castor the day before on the 21st. Which Oswald mentioned seeing in his interrogation.

According to an affidavit from the first Buell F. interrogation on 11,22,1963 he mentioned the side observation of seeing a paper wrapped item on the back seat of his car as he and Oswald were first getting into it at his sister's home that very morning.

He stated he asked Lee what was in the package and was told it was curtain rods.

Frazier also noted that Oswald had already mentioned getting some curtain rods the day he gave him a ride to Ruth Paine's home after work on Thursday which was not Oswald's regular routine of asking for a ride there. Friday had always been the only day.

Did Frazier concoct this specific item side story ( and discussions of it with Oswald himself on two successive days ) out of his head spontaneously just hours after Lee was arrested? And under hugely stressful intense suspicion questioning by his interrogators?

If so, you instantly see how risky such a specific recounting of the package observation and discussion of it with Oswald could be for Frazier.

Frazier knew Oswald was in police custody and surely being hammered with even more extreme heavy questioning. And Frazier had to have known that his story of his Thursday and Friday morning rides with Oswald, including the curtain rod and back seat package discussion with Oswald would be run by Oswald for dual verification.

Why give so many details to the police about the package, his discussions with Oswald about it and his family members presence and actions right when Oswald came to their house that morning knowing everything he was saying could be so easily disproven upon cross examining them all separately?

I feel Frazier might have stated a few contrary specifics of the whole Friday morning affair as he went along, but for different reason's other than hiding the most serious charge that he knew the package was a rifle.

Most notably stress.

He was actually ordered to sign a confession of complicity guilt by a yelling red faced Will Fritz at some point. Frazier must have been incredibly shook up knowing that the authorities were trying to include him in the JFK murder plot.

I just feel that any discrepancies in Frazier's story were mostly motivated by survival fear which can make one change at least some details upon thinking that everything they are saying could be incriminating.

And Frazier's story was often expressed quite inarticulately which to some may have made it seem even more suspicious, but imo less so.

However, the curtain rod story of Frazier's is just too detailed and consistently and riskily held onto by him for it all to be made up, again imo.

And re-looking through those car port side slats, the bottom third are open enough you could see a person through them in a specific spot and if you hear a car door shut at the same time with only one car next to that person, logically assume they may have placed something inside the car.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[John Iacoletti]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

And relooking through those car port side slats, the bottom third are open enough you could see a person through them in a specific spot and if you hear a car door shut at the same time with only one car next to that person, logically assume they may have placed something inside the car.

Perhaps.  But she said she saw him open the back door and place a package in the car.

[Ron Bulman]

19 hours ago, Ian Lloyd said:

From his WC testimony:

Mr. BALL - As you were having breakfast did your mother say anything to you about
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say--
Mr. BALL - Oswald?
Mr. FRAZIER - I was sitting there eating my breakfast there, so sitting there, I usually talk to my little nieces, you know, they have them cartoons on for a while and we usually talk a little bit back and forth while eating breakfast and I was just finishing my coffee there and my sister, you know, was working over there around, you know the sink there, and she was fixing my lunch so she was somewhere around there over on the cabinets fixing the cabinets and mother just happened to glance up and saw this man, you know, who was Lee looking in the window for me and she said, "Who is that?"
And I said, "That is Lee," and naturally he just walked around and so I thought he just walked around there on the carport right there close to the door and so I told her I had to go, so I went in there and brushed my teeth right quick and come through there and I usually have my coat laying somewhere on the chair and picked it up and put it on and by that time my sister had my lunch, you know, in a sack and sitting over there on the washer where I picked it up right there by the door and I just walked on out and we got in the car.
Mr. BALL - Now, did your sister say anything as you were having breakfast?
Mr. FRAZIER - No; she didn't say anything to me at all.
Mr. BALL - She didn't say anything to you either about Oswald or did she?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; say, she didn't say, you know, when I looked up and saw him I knew who it was.
Mr. BALL - You saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - What was he doing?
Mr. FRAZIER - He just looked through the kitchen window. To see from there on the ground outside there. I say you don't have to be any height at all, you don't have to be too tall to be able to look in the kitchen window there.
I say, if you have the window open you can see in, if you have light on in there.
Mr. BALL - When your mother mentioned, "Who is that," you looked up and saw Lee Oswald in the kitchen window?
Mr. FRAZIER - I just saw him for a split second and when he saw I saw him, I guess he heard me say, "Well, it is time to go," and he walked down by the back door there.
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.
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.
Mr. BALL - He wasn't in the car?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he wasn't.
Mr. BALL - Was he near the car?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he wasn't.
You see, always I keep my car parked outside the carport there, on the other side.
Mr. BALL - He was just a few feet outside your back door when you came out?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - Did you walk together to the car?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; we did.
Mr. BALL - And you got in one side and he got in the other?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. Right in front there.
Mr. BALL - Did you say usually you had to go by and pick him up?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I said I had a couple of times. Most of the time, you know, he was usually walking down the sidewalk as I was driving out of the driveway so, therefore, I didn't have to go up to the house there to pick him up. I just usually picked him up around the corner because he was usually on the sidewalk and I just stopped and picked him up.
Mr. BALL - Were you later than usual that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe we were, because we got to work on time. I say, when I looked at the clock, after I glanced he was there a split second and I just turned around and looked at the clock to see what time it was and it was right amount 7:21 then and I went in and brushed my teeth real quick and running through the house put my coat on and we left.
Mr. BALL - You both got in the car about the same time?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

Thanks.  Looks like Linne Mae and Wes weren't on the same page regarding their WC testimonies.  Actually, diametrically opposed.  She sees someone she doesn't know out the window crossing the driveway towards his car, with at 36 then 26" (after talking to Wes) package.  He sees Lee looking in it.  That's weird.  Someone coming up to your kitchen window peering in

[James DiEugenio]

If Linnie only saw LHO from the waist up how did she know the bag almost scraped the ground?

In her testimony, she never mentions going to the door to look outside.  

Let me add a quote from the valuable Gary Murr.  It shows how totally corrupt the WC was on this issue.

Hi Jim:

Just a brief chronology regarding the background on these specific photographs, and to get the subject matter back on track. The impetus for the photo's came about as a result of a lengthy request from the Commission via a letter composed by J. Lee Rankin dated March 4, 1964.[62-109060-2579] The letter begins with Rankin indicating that "In connection with the proposed examination of Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle by the Commission on March 11, we would like to have the following exhibits available:" Rankin then went on to list eight specific and lengthy requests, numbers 5  and 6 of which dealt specifically with the issue of the Randle residence and its surrounding environs. Hoover [actually the courier service letter was constructed by James Malley, FBI liaison with the Commission] answered Rankin on March 6, 1964, confirming a conversation that the Bureau had with staffer Howard Willens concerning the upcoming testimony sessions of Frazier and Randle at which time Willens was advised that the Commission requests were "very extensive in nature and could possibly require considerable time to obtain the desired information."[62-109060-Unrecorded, but can be found in the same file reference indicated above].

Two days later, March 8, 1964, a two page teletype was issued from the Dallas FO to the attention of the Director regarding the work involved to fulfill the Rankin requests of March 4th.[62-109060-2686] This teletype ends with the following sentence: "Assignment will be completed and available to the Commission by March 16, 1964." This dating is of course five days after Randle and Frazier are scheduled to appear before the Commission. The first question that arises in my mind is if this information regarding the potential date that the exhibits, including the photographs that will be taken of the Randle house, reached the Commission was any effort made to re-schedule the date of the Randle-Frazier testimony sessions? They were scheduled to testify on March 11th [and they did on that date] but the exhibits specifically requested by Rankin were not going to be available until March 16th.

On March 9, 1964, SA Arthur E. Carter of the Bureau's Exhibit's Section took a series of photographs of the Randle residence, the contents of which are described in detail in the FD-302 report prepared by Carter on that same date, March 9th. [Found in Robert Gemberlings  massive FO report dated April 15, 1964, pp. 153-154, designated CD897 by the WC]. As you stated, Jim, because of the timing of the completion of the project by members of the FBI Exhibits Bureau, these photographs were not shown to or introduced into evidence during the Randle-Frazier testimony sessions of March 11th but rather during the testimony session of Ruth Paine on March 19th, 20th, 1964.[3Hp1ff] It is apparent that during the March 9th  Carter exercise of taking the photographs Linnie Mae Randle was home and "aided" her previous statements of where she was and what she observed on the morning of the assassination by positioning herself at various locations within the house, resulting in the images you originally posted. [Bardwell D. Odum was also present; he filed and FD-302 interview report of his contact with Linnie Mae dated March 9, 1964, in which she corrects the direction from which she observed Oswald approach her house]

FWIW

Gary

The WC knew something was up.  They avoided asking her the key question. They did not even wait for the pictures.  It would have made Linnie look foolish.

[Andrej Stancak]

It all happened more than 56 years ago and so many things have changed since. It is difficult to evaluate the witness testimonies through the eyes of someone living in 2020. For instance, what were the usual paper sacks used in grocery stores in 1960'?

This is what Mr Frazier claimed:

Mr. BALL - What did the package look like?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long.
Mr. BALL - It was, what part of the back seat was it in?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was in his side over on his side in the far back.
Mr. BALL - How much of that back seat, how much space did it take up?
Mr. FRAZIER - I would say roughly around 2 feet of the seat.
Mr. BALL - From the side of the seat over to the center, is that the way you would measure it?
Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches.
Mr. BALL - How wide was the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I would say the package was about that wide.
Mr. BALL - How wide would you say that would be?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there. I don't--
Mr. BALL - The paper, was the color of the paper, that you would get in a grocery store, is that it, a bag in a grocery store?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. You have seen, not a real light color but you know normally, the normal color about the same color, you have seen these kinds of heavy duty bags you know like you obtain from the grocery store, something like that, about the same color of that, paper sack you get there.
Mr. BALL - Was there anything more said about the paper sack on the way into town?

And this is what Lee Oswald told the interrogators, via the report of Postal Inspector Harry Holmes:

Mr. BELIN. What was that about curtain rods?
Mr. HOLMES. Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, "Yes."
"What was in the sack?"
"Well, my lunch."
"What size sack did you have?"
He said, "Oh, I don't know what size sack. You don't always get a sack that fits your sandwiches. It might be a big sack."
"Was it a long sack?''
"Well, it could have been"
"What did you do with it?"
"Carried it in my lap."
"You didn't put it over in the back seat?"
"No." He said he wouldn't have done that.
"Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat."
He said, "Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up."
That is all he said about it.

I did some search of contemporary 1960' grocery sacks. They would fit the height of about 2 feet, but perhaps a bit shorter - my estimate of the package carried as described by Mr Frazier was 21'' and it appears entirely possible that the grocery sacks in 1960' actually measured about 20''. Consumers could also have small sacks like the ones placed on the till.

The problem was the width of the package. Mr Frazier had it 5-6'' while the grocery sacks were much wider than this, about 2/3 of a foot. Could Lee carry a grocery sack folded along the height of the sack? 

 

 

[Rob Clark]