David Lifton

Thanks for posting this. I was unaware that the Felde interview (which is in the 26 Volumes as WCE 1962) was Commission Document 1229 ("CD 1229"). Also note: the cover page of the FBI report states that Felde was interviewed by reporter Paul Salsini of the Milwaukee Journal , and that his interview was published on 11/24/63. I have never seen that original interview, and cannot locate it via "NewspaperArchive". If anyone lives near Milwaukee, and can locate it at a local library, which has microfilm records of this newspaper, I'd be interested in obtaining a copy. FWIW: I have tried over the years to locate Allen R. Felde, to no avail. He's an important witness to Oswald's Marine Period, and its too bad he was not called as a witness by the Warren Commission, and questioned in detail. DSL 4/16/13; 4 AM PDT Los Angeles, California For those who wish to read the FBI interview of Felde, it is WCE 1962. I contacted the research staff at the Milwaukee Public Library and was able to obtain a photocopy of the 11/23/63 interview with Oswald's fellow Marine, Donald Felde, which (as noted in the synopsis of the FBI interview (CD 1229, as posted above by Tom Scully [Thank you, Tom!]) appeared in the Milwaukee Journal of 11/24/63 under the headline: Oswald 'Was a Loner,' Milwaukeean Says. The complete text is below, interspersed with a few of my own comments. Also note: Gary Mack sent me a notice that states that Felde lived in Arizona, and died in 2008. (No further details provided). My favorite quote from this 11/23 interview in The Milwaukee Journal: Oswald appeared to be greatly interested in politics. “I was four years away from voting age,” Felde said. “I didn’t know the names of senators or where they were from. But he could rattle them off. . . and he knew their ideals and what they stood for.” Its really a pity this person was not called as a witness, and a very thorough deposition taken. Here is the complete text of the interview, as published on 11/24/63: “He was a loner.” That description was given by a Milwaukee man Saturday night [i.e., 11/23/63] of Lee Harvey Oswald, the 24 year olf former marine who has been charged with slaying President Kennedy. The Milwaukeean is Allen R. Felde, 24, of 3307 N. 22nd St. Felde went through marine boot came and combat training with Oswald in California in the winder of 1956-57. Although they were together for 26 weeks—including one stretch in a tent housing eight recruits—Felde said he never got to know Oswald well. “He was not my friend,” Felde said. “He was pretty hard to understand.” Both Felde and Oswald were 17 at the time. Felde remembers Oswald as a quiet, serious youth “trying to find himself.” “The rest of us were young, too,” Felde said. “We used to wrestle and horse around. But he would have his bunk in the corner and stay there, reading a book. “He didn’t have any friends. On liberty, we would go to Los Angeles or Tijuana, Mexico. He would ride on the bus with us, but when we got off he went his way and we went ours.” What kind of books did Oswald read? “I don’t know,” Felde said. “But he didn’t read any sex magazines or any trash. They looked like good quality books. He must have gotten them in the mail.” Felde went through 16 weeks of boot camp with Oswald at the marine corps recruit depot, San Diego, and through 10 weeks of combat training at Camp Pendleton. They were separated after that. Felde went to a jet squadron in Florida. Oswald later went to Japan, where he got into trouble and was tried twice by summary court martial. He was given an undesirable discharge from the marine reserves in 1960 when he renounced his United States citizenship in Russia. During marine training, Felde said, Oswald appeared to be greatly interested in politics. “I was four years away from voting age,” Felde said. “I didn’t know the names of senators or where they were from. But he could rattle them off. . . and he knew their ideals and what they stood for.” But adjusting to marine life may have been hard. “We called him a yardbird—someone who’s a loner and was always getting latrine duty,” he said. (DSL note: similar to Thornley WC testimony). Felde is now a machine operator for the Pfister & Vogel Tanning Co. He has not seen Oswald since their days at Camp Pendleton. * *DSL note: this contradicts the June, 1964 FBI interview (WCE 1962) in which the FBI reports that Felde said they went to Memphis, Tenn, for training. So either the reporter got this wrong, or the FBI agent got it wrong, or Felde said something different on 11/23/63 than he did six months later. When he dug out his own pictures of marine lie, he found a group shot of his boot camp platoon. Oswald was there. On the back, other recruits had signed their autographs. Oswald had not. # # # END OF STORY # # # A picture of Felde is published along with the story. DSL 4/17/13; 9PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Thanks for posting this. I was unaware that the Felde interview (which is in the 26 Volumes as WCE 1962) was Commission Document 1229 ("CD 1229"). Also note: the cover page of the FBI report states that Felde was interviewed by reporter Paul Salsini of the Milwaukee Journal , and that his interview was published on 11/24/63. I have never seen that original interview, and cannot locate it via "NewspaperArchive". If anyone lives near Milwaukee, and can locate it at a local library, which has microfilm records of this newspaper, I'd be interested in obtaining a copy. FWIW: I have tried over the years to locate Allen R. Felde, to no avail. He's an important witness to Oswald's Marine Period, and its too bad he was not called as a witness by the Warren Commission, and questioned in detail. DSL 4/16/13; 4 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

David J : I think we both agree that there’s all kinds of things wrong with “the bag evidence,” but your idea of what is wrong and mine diverge sharply. First of all, you cannot—or at least should not (in my opinion)-- cite things that are wrong with “the bag as evidence” in the afternoon and then extrapolate back to the morning, and claim that Linnie Mae Randle and Frazier were not valid witnesses in claiming that Oswald brought a package to work on 11/22/63. I don’t see the logic in that, at all. Not valid witnesses? On the basis of what? Sure, the bag looks ridiculous that the two DPD detectives carried out of the building. I agree. But does that mean that Oswald did not carry a bag work that day? There we part ways. Also: I think you underestimate the importance of Oswald’s behaving deceptively. We both agree Oswald did not carry his lunch to work. (So certainly, his "lunch" is not what was in the bag). You have pointed out that a witness told the HSCA that Oswald said the package contained a venetian blind. Which is obviously false, but maybe he did say that. Well, here’s another account. There’s a witness I learned of some ten or fifteen years ago who encountered Oswald on a TSBD elevator that morning, and Oswald was carrying a long package. What’s that? Asked the witness. A fishing pole, replied Oswald. So it was “curtain rods,” in the car; later a venetian blind; and a I’m aware of a witness to whom Oswald said: “fishing pole.” I want to repeat what I said earlier on this threat: you are free to repeatedly assert that Oswald did not carry a bag in the car. You are free to assert that the authorities simply pressured Randle and Frazier to say what they did. But there is no good evidence to believe any of that—and repeatedly asserting it does not make it so. Yet you keep repeatedly asserting it as if it were a fact. Also, in your latest post, you say: “No reliable corroboration that Oswald even came to the Randle house at all...” So: Are you now asserting that Frazier didn’t drive Oswald to work on 11/22/63? (If not, please explain). Let me remind you again of what Linnie Mae Randle said in her 11/22 affidavit: "I saw Lee walk up my driveway carrying a long brown package. I saw him put it in Wesley's car." Here is Frazier’s sworn affidavit: "Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2 feet long. I asked Lee what was in the sack and he said "curtain rods" and I remembered what he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods." etc. No, I don't think these witnesses were pressured into telling a completely fictional account. There is plenty of evidence that Oswald carried “a package” to work, and he told different things to different people as to what was in the package. DSL 4/15/13; 6:30 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

David J: Well, I guess we'll just have to "agree to disagree" on this one. Impeaching the bag, as evidence (or at least, attempting to do that) is not the same as impeaching the accounts of Frazier and Randle. Repeatedly asserting that “there was no bag” is not the same as providing evidence there was no bag. In sum, in response to my question, what you have done is simply assert your opinion that there was no bag in the car--as if it were a fact. You are entitled to your opinion. But where is the evidence for that opinion? Upon what is it based? Apparently, its based on another hypothesis you are (implicitly, at least) propounding: that the accounts of Frazier and Randle can be dismissed because they are fabrications; that they were simply pressured into going along with the authorities, who had a bag, and then needed a story to validate the bag, to make it part of some larger "story" of how the rifle got to the building. Essentially, that’s what you seem to be saying. And its very close to circular reasoning. The Dallas Police had a bag, and so then (and in your opinion) they pressured these two witnesses into fabricating a story about the bag. Asked to present evidence why they testified as they did, you simply assert "there was no bag." Sorry, but that won’t work. That’s not evidence at all. That’s simply your hypothesis, your conjecture. I asked you for an explanation as to why these two people said what they did, and later testified as they did. You have not provided a satisfactory answer to my question. Remember the old saying: The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that applies here. In spades. As I’ve said, I would not be surprised if it was the case that Linnie Mae Randle changed the length of the bag –and that is a different matter, an entirely different matter. But you have presented no evidence that Randle or her brother, Buell Frazier, simply invented the story that Oswald carried a package to work that day on Friday evening; and then swore to it under oath, passed a lie detector test about it; stated it in numerous press interviews, and then repeated it under oath before the Warren Commission. Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt. Based on the earliest statements of Randle and Frazier, Oswald indeed carried a package to work that day. I don't see any evidence that they were pressured to invent such a story. Unless you can come up with evidence that they contrived this story on the evening of November 22—not your opinion that they did so, not your sincere belief that they “must have” done so—but actual evidence, I don’t think there is any validity to this proposition.. The fact that Oswald carried a package to work doesn’t tell us what was in it; and it doesn’t make him an assassin. I want to make those points very clear. But your hypothesis--which is really just an opinion which you repeatedly assert as if it were a fact--lacks an evidentiary foundation. And so I, for one, reject it. DSL 4/12/13; 7:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

DJ: I cannot follow your answer. At all. (Perhaps some text is missing?) Could you please simply address the question I asked? If Oswald did not carry a bag to work (putting aside the issue of its exact length), then how do you explain the testimony of Frazier, and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, whose accounts make it perfectly clear that he did? DSL 4/11/13; 10 pm PDT Los Angeles, California Sorry DSL, I must have gotten lost in my tangent.... I made my edit/add in bold... but I had thought you'd get the sense of my answer with the rest of the post... They, like Bledsoe, Brennen, Whaley and others told the DPD/FBI what they needed to hear... Can you offer any witness testimony that supports Oswald's guilt that rings true to you? I am very interested in your opinion on that.... Their story related to the bag makes no sense if it was anything other than the rifle... the way they describe it, there was something long and solid in that bag... there really is no other inference to be made... The lengths are all approximates... although Randle claims she measured it after she had folded it up to how he was supposedly carrying it.... after being shown ce364 http://www.history-m...Vol16_0492b.htm She is shown a replica of the bag and USING THAT is asked to reproduce what she saw... NOT that the bag was only 28.5" in length... but that the 42" bag was folded down... she simply over folded the relica given her... Wesley's "just over 2 feet" was again, an approximation of a non-existent bag... and was easily brushed aside... once the "ACTUAL" bag was now in evidence... Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches. Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time. Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before? Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir. David... two caskets, three entries... a package with yet another paper bag and bizarre address label was mailed to Oswald... and you have trouble with there being a paper bag made at some point to implicate Oswald? That the Chain of Possession of said bag is - yet again - dubious at best.... and yet this bag is supposed to have contained the stock, the barrel, the clip, 4 rounds... is not wrapped in anything within the bag and leaves no traces, no rips, tears, oil, scuffs etc that would suggest this bag (made that afternoon) ever had rifle parts in it... no one looks inside (unless we believe Johnson) Day does not process the inside and finds no prints outside... it is wisked away that evening by Drain with most if not all the critical evidence. That there was a bag in that corner at any time (ie: was the bag described and drawn into the SE corner the same as the bag Monty is carrying? was it created before and planted there (if so why no photos?) or created after and taken by MONTY).. is the question that needs follow-up... Day's report, written January 8, 1964 makes no mention of a clip or a paper Bag... yet is incredibly detailed regarding the hulls and rifle... he also let's slip that Day returns with the Crime Scene team including Hicks... (as ALYEA STATES) at about 3pm and stays for hours.... he does not return to his desk until 7pm - do you know when the MONTY photos were taken? http://jfk.ci.dallas...26/2616-001.gif http://jfk.ci.dallas...26/2616-002.gif To conclude... Welsey and his sister lied... both of their handwritten statements are unsigned and undated... His states his mother made a comment about Lee, and then he leaves to join Oswald... HERS states she watches Oswald walk up, opens the garage door and sees him place the bag in the car... this does not occur according to his statements... to me the evolution of their statements to conform with the official story is obvious... their stories dont work with each other or any of the evidence presented by anyone outside of he and his sister. Any ideas on why Wesley's mother was not questioned - why she is not asked what he was carrying or what he was wearing? about 7:15 AM, me, my mother, and my two little neices [sic] were at the table, and my sister was at the sink. My mother looked up and said, "Who is that looking in the window?" I looked up and said, "That's Lee." I got up and finished getting ready and got my lunch and went to the door and met Lee on the car port. We then walked to my car, it was parked backed up at the side of the car port. Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods and the FBI report on Linnie Mae: RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work. David J: Your post contains a lot of data that addresses the legitimacy of the bag --let's call it the "found bag"--as evidence. I'm aware of that--or at least, most of it--but that was not my question. My question is not about the "found bag". Nor is my question about when the rather long bag brought fro the TSBD was manufactured; or why that rather long bag does not appear --near the so-called sniper's nest--in any of the DPD crime scene photographs. So let's set those issues aside, please, and focus on the question that I posed. My question is: how do you explain Frazier's statements that Lee placed a bag with him when he took him to work that morning, and his sister's statement that she witnessed Lee approaching the house with that bag. Setting aside the issue of "bag length," these statements were made immediately --by which I mean that night. Linnie Mae Randle's sworn affidavit is on page 53 of the Dallas Police File (WCE 2003). Frazier's sworn affidavit is on page 25. Randle's statement reads, in part: "I saw Lee walk up my driveway carrying a long brown package. I saw him put it in Wesley's car." Frazier's statement reads, in part: "Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2 feet long. I asked Lee what was in the sack and he said "curtain rods" and I remembered what he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods." etc. The DPD detectives report of Rose, Adamcik, Stovall reports these same events, giving the time as 9 pm. (Dallas Police File, CE 2003, p. 167). It also states "Buell Wesley Frazier took a polygraph test and the test showed he was telling the truth. This test was given between 11:20 PM on the 22nd and 12:10 AM on the 23rd of November. (WCE 2003, p. 167). So, I return to my original question: How do you explain these statements by Frazier and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, if Lee Oswald did not carry something in a package to work that morning? As I understand your position, there was no package. --i.e. Lee did not bring a package with him to work that morning. That all that is a fiction. That there was no bag. These witnesses stated quite the opposite--that there was. How do you explain their statements--made that evening (Fri., 11/22) at about 9 PM? DSL 4/12/13; 3:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

I don't pretend to know what Oswald's role was on the day of the shooting. I'm fairly certain he was not a shooter, but beyond that I can't say. I do think it unlikely he was picked at random, whereby he could have called in sick, got another job, or ate lunch on the sidewalk, and the assassination would still have been a go. This leads me to suspect he was involved in some way, and not entirely truthful in his interviews (assuming, that is, that the reports of these interviews are accurate). If I were writing a novel based on the assassination, in which Oswald was an innocent, and in which I was trying to explain the "curtain rods" story, I might offer that Oswald was asked by his CIA case officer to participate in a black op against the pro-Castro community, and was asked to smuggle an offensive banner into the building that would then be hung from an upstairs window. But that's just one of many possibilities... Thanks for replying to my post, and offering a hypothesis. Let me critique your hypothesis: if Oswald brought a politically offensive banner to the building, and if matters actually got to the point where --somehow--it was "hung from an upstairs window," that would cause a small sensation in the Dealey Plaza area, and very likely could cause the motorcade to be diverted and to not drive directly in front of the building. So that's one reason I don't think that would be a satisfactory situation. Of course, another issue would be: how could such a banner be "hung"? Wouldn't more than one man be needed to do that? And, finally, if Oswald was on any floor with such a banner, wouldn't that be evidence that he was simply engaging in a peaceful protest (i.e., and that what he was doing had nothing to do with being an assassin?) Food for thought. DSL 4/11/13; 10:10 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

DJ: I cannot follow your answer. At all. (Perhaps some text is missing?) Could you please simply address the question I asked? If Oswald did not carry a bag to work (putting aside the issue of its exact length), then how do you explain the testimony of Frazier, and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, whose accounts make it perfectly clear that he did? DSL 4/11/13; 10 pm PDT Los Angeles, California

David J: I'm well aware of many of the anomalies connected with the bag. In lectures years ago, I would show the slide of the two detectives exiting the building with that huge bag, and juxtapose it with the photo at the crime scene, showing a dotted line where the bag ought to have been, etc. And I'm glad you have shared your thoughts on the matter. But. . . let me ask you this: regarding your hypothesis, how do you account for the testimony of Frazier and his sister? Pat and I have been debating the length of the bag, and the implications of differing lengths. You are now claiming there was no bag taken to work at all? So: how do you account for the testimony of Frazier and his sister? DSL 4/11/13; 8:05 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Pat: Continuing this discussion (and searching for a bit of common ground here), let me focus on your last paragraph (“Speer Response,” above) and let’s conduct a “thought experiment”. Suppose it was possible to go back in time, and fluoroscope the package, just as Oswald entered the TSBD. What do you think that would show-i.e, what do you think was in the package? Here, I believe, are the main possibilities: (a) a very large sandwich –e.g., a hero sandwich of some sort. (b ) curtain rods (c ) a weapon (d) a garden shovel (or something other piece of hardware, that has nothing to do with a gun) The question I now put to you is this: whatever it was that Oswald was carrying in that package, would you not agree that—if it was not “b”—then Oswald was involved in deception? Let’s go down the list, and examine each possibility: Re (a): Would you not agree that the package did not contain food, or his lunch? But would you also then agree that if it was really "just lunch," then he was involved in a deception? Re (b ): It might be curtain rods, but that is not supported by Ruth Paine’s testimony; and I don’t believe she is lying on this point. (Do we agree on that?) In any event, if he was actually carrying curtain rods, then he was telling the truth to Frazier, and, in that case, he was not involved in any deception. Re (c ) It might be a weapon, but if it was, then Oswald was involved in deception (Agreed?) Re (d) If it was some other piece of hardware—a shovel, or anything else—then (again) Oswald was involved in deception. (Otherwise, why, for example, if he was carrying a small garden shovel, would he say it was “curtain rods”?) So my question to you is very simply this: would you agree that, unless Oswald was in fact carrying curtain rods, then he was involved in a deception of some sort? (Agreed?) Let me stress that I’m not asking whether you think Oswald was the assassin, or anything like that. My question is really much more specific, restrictive, and narrow, and directed to Oswald’s state of mind: Was he involved in deception? (And if so, why?) Your thoughts? DSL 4/10/13l 9:30 PM PDT Los Angeles, Caliornia

Wrong. Totally wrong. 100 % wrong. I don't usually post on forums anymore, but I'm making an exception this once. The 302 in question represents nothing more than unsigned, unproven hearsay. It is NOT, as Mr. Lifton is falsely claiming, an established FACT that Randle told Bookhout the package was 3 feet 6 inches long. It is only a FACT that he typed that in his report. Repeat: It is only a FACT that he typed that in his report. We do not know FOR A FACT that Randle gave him this estimate. We do not know FOR A FACT that it was not (as Pat suggested) simply a case of Randle holding out her hands and Bookhout providing the estimate. We do not know FOR A FACT that, if she did indeed provide an estimate, that Bookhout recorded it correctly. We do not know FOR A FACT whether or not Bookhout made an error when he was typing up his report. That is why this unsigned hearsay account is utterly meaningless and why, from a legal standpoint, Randle's sworn testimony should be given the greater weight. Mr. Lifton, and probably the rest of us too, needs to stop treating these unsigned hearsay reports as if they establish anything. They don't. Every now and then, one comes across someone who fancies himself a “researcher” and but who—if you scratch beneath the surface—is actually propounding the position that nothing is knowable. Such a person is an aggressive agnostic. The position you have taken amounts to just about that—so why bother with the specifics of anything, if its all unknowable? Sign up for some courses in philosophy, and write a thesis that reality is unknowable. Because that, essentially, is what you are propounding. The FBI 302 reports are the backbone of any FBI investigation. No, Martin, they are not sworn No, they are not videotaped. No, they were not even audio-taped. But the agents are trained to take notes, and then dictate reports. That’s what they do. And that’s what they did in 1963. That’s their “day job”—that’s what much of it amounts to: interviewing, and report writing. When you write. . . : It is NOT, as Mr. Lifton is falsely claiming, an established FACT that Randle told Bookhout the package was 3 feet 6 inches long. It is only a FACT that he typed that in his report. . . . I must then inquire: what’s your agenda? What kind of nonsense are you propounding? Are you arguing that the only “facts” are statements sworn under oath? (and perhaps videotaped?) What I see –behind a superficial veneer of “sophistication”—is nothing less than a nihilistic approach to fact-finding, and an attempt to argue that the entire original investigation is meaningless. What an absurd position. In the case of the Warren Commission (and after months had passed, and the original FBI reports could be digested and analyzed), some 552 witnesses were then called to testify---but nobody would know what was relevant, or whom to call, and for what reason, if it wasn’t for the original FBI investigation. Do you think that Joseph Ball and David Belin, the two lawyers who handled “The Assassin” chapter of the Warren Report, just wandered down to Dallas, with a stenographer, and looked people up in the telephone directory? In mathematics, in solving an infinite series, there is a “first approximation” and then a “second” and a “third” and so forth—and gradually, there is a convergence towards a solution. A similar situation exists here. A historical inquiry presupposes the existence of “first responders.” Let me repeat that: in any investigation, there has to be “first responders.” Someone has to be the first to question “the witness.” And then, if the situation requires it, there are additional interviews. Do you seriously think we should ignore the entire FBI investigation because each individual was not sworn, and a stenographer was not present? I think that’s a nonsensical position. No, I’m not disparaging the value of sworn statements. I am stating that, when a president is assassinated, and dozens (if not hundreds) of agents disperse into the field to question witnesses and collect information, then that is a perfectly valid starting point for an investigation. On the other hand, Martin, if you want to argue that nothing can be ascertained, and that Randle’s account to the FBI is “utterly meaningless,” then I strongly suggest that you not attempt to write valid history or properly interpret the record. And by the way: Do you also disparage reports of witnesses in the New York Times because they are not sworn? Do you put down the New York Times, or the London Times and say, “Utterly worthless” because you are reading the product of reporters, and not depositions? Because, you see, given the strictures you seem to be propounding, nothing means anything. And everything is “utterly worthless.” Ultimately, that is where your position leads. Indeed, that appears to be your position: “This unsigned hearsay account is utterly meaningless.” Oh pleez. . . What nonsense. You know where that leads? To one big black hole where nothing can be ascertained, and we all must wallow in a miasma of uncertainty. Now you can go and live in that neighborhood. For those of us who seek the truth, then I say the FBI data base can not be ignored. No, its not the “be all and end all,” but it’s a reasonable starting point. So no, Martin, we don’t know as “an established FACT that Randle told Bookhout the package was 3 feet 6 inches long. It is only a FACT that he typed that in his report.” That’s right. In some perfect world, the FBI agents would be accompanied by a stenographer—and a court officer to swear each and every witness—but that’s not the way an investigation was conducted in 1963, and, for all your professions of scholarship, you are simply issuing an invitation to the gullible and to like-minded cynics to share your space in that black hole. Sorry, not interested. DSL 4/10/13 - 4:20 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Pat: In the old parody on of 60 Minutes on Saturday Night Live (“Weekend Update”), Dan Akyroyd would listen patiently while Jane Curtin would deliver some commentary, and then look at the camera and say, “You ignorant slut!” It would always get a laugh…even though the same line was repeated numerous times. I shall not say any such thing about your post because (a) the metaphor really doesn’t apply to you and (b ) we’re supposed to behave ourselves on this forum. But, regarding your post: It is a silly, superficial, false, and misleading critique of what I have said. You also indulge in erroneous speculation about what I believe, and that’s just plain annoying. So. . . Where shall we start? a) The FBI 302 report of the original Linnie Mae Randle interview records the fact that, on 11/22/63, Randle originally said the bag was 3 feet long. (Even Jane Curtin would probably read that correctly over the air). b ) Frazier was subjected to serious pressure that night for having carried Oswald and (presumably) “his rifle” to the building. (And I’ll bet Jane Curtin would get that right, too). In short, I shouldn’t have to educate you, of all people, about the basics. Certainly, I remember well the late George O’Toole describing Frazier’s situation (predicament?) and how frightened he was on then night of 11/22. Just last week, at a public function (See Bernice Moore's post, above) Frazier was stating that “an angry Dallas Police captain” came to the room where he was being interrogated and “demanding that he sign a confession”. In other words, Frazier says that he was under pressure to confess to being an accomplice. (Is that true? He certainly never said that to the FBI or the WC.) But if there’s any truth to this, then my case is proved. OTOH: If not, then he’s a fabricator—and in that case, why should we believe anything he has to say? I’m not passing judgment here--just pointing to the alternatives. Now let's move on. . . . c) If the bag was really 3 feet long (as his sister said it was on Friday night) then Frazier could easily have been put on the spot: e.g., “Did you know what was in that package?!” (And if he had been put on the spot, he certainly couldn’t have used the rather foolish line of reasoning that you have set forth in your post. Just imagine (and now I’ll quote from your post, paraphrasing just a bit): “So what if I drove this guy to work with a rifle? Is that a crime? I didn’t know what was in the bag! But even if I did, its not a crime to drive around here in Dallas with a rifle in your car. This is Texas. . Surely you know that. You live here! So surely you must have noticed all the gun racks in the pick-up trucks. Guess what? They're designed to hold guns!” Now that, Pat Speer, is the lecture you just delivered to me—and you think that’s a realistic way of looking at Frazier’s situation on the night of November 22, 1963? Oh pleez. . . Now let's return to the reality of the situation. Clearly, subject to the potential pressure of this situation, it would be all too human for Frazier to simply reduce the size of the bag. Not because he was committed to Oswald’s innocence (or because he once took the Boy Scout oath to tell the truth, and that meant always telling the truth about the size of a paper bag, any paper bag); but because, in Dallas that weekend, the name of the game was: “How do I save my own ass?” How do I make sure I am not implicated in this crime? So that’s the dynamic. . . the obvious dynamic and certainly not: “Gee, I love Oswald so much. . I think I’ll reduce the size of the bag!” I’m sorry to rain on your parade, Pat Speer, but I’ve assessed this situation quite accurately; and, imho, its you who are off in la la land. Now, on to another point. d) Frazier’s description of bag length reduced its size to a number that clearly was NOT big enough to carry a rifle—even a disassembled rifle. e) Frazier’s sister, Linnie Mae Randle, starting the next day, provided a (changed) bag length that was consistent with her brother’s description. One doesn't have to be Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots. (So . . .why can’t you see the obvious?) You give away your own bias—perhaps more accurately stated, your stubbornness not to face the facts—by responding to the data I have cited by stating that I have “concocted a fantasy in which Randle lied to the FBI to help her brother evade being prosecuted for a crime that didn’t even exist.” “. . . concocted a fantasy. . .” ? No sir, I’m just following the evidence. First of all, this is not about “being prosecuted for a crime.” This is about the possibility of unbearable pressure being brought to bear on an innocent person (Frazier) who, because of the bag length (if his sister’s description was accurate) could have been (falsely) perceived as some sort of accomplice. He himself said almost as much—just last week (and as I quoted the Dallas News account): Frazier said, as reported: . .an angry police captain came into the room, demanding that he sign a confession. He wanted me to confess to being part of the JFK killing. I’m not saying that I subscribe to that proposition—in fact, I don’t. Not at all. I don’t think BWF had a blessed thing to do with the assassination of JFK. I’m simply stating the problem, as it would have been perceived by Frazier. You’ve got a most peculiar way of interpreting evidence, and evaluating my critique of your analysis, Pat. First, you say I have concocted a fantasy. That is false. I’m not doing that at all. Then, you state that the crime of reducing the bag length was pointless. But that’s also wrong; indeed, that’s absurd. If he (and/or his sister) did anything like that, that’s obstruction of justice (or have you forgotten about that?) As to the Dallas atmosphere that weekend: In 1995, I met with Michael Paine, for several hours, at his home in Boxboro, Mass. The memories he had then of Fritz (I think) or some senior DPD official trying to get him to “talk to” Oswald were so vivid that his mouth started trembling, and he started crying. Right there in front of me. So: One police official was pressuring Paine to “talk to Oswald” and another was bullying Frazier attempting to get him to sign some sort of bogus confession. And you think my interpretation, which focuses on this sort of pressure, is “concocting a fantasy”? Wow. And then you presume to tell me, in 2013, what is “fantasy” –when you have been so careless as to (a) not properly place this FBI report in your chapter 2, in the section where it ought to be (in your discussion of the bag, and not with assassination eyewitnesses); and (b ) when you have cited it, you mis-stated the date of the interview as November 23, not November 22, which (in effect) erases the fact that –overnight—Linnie Mae Randle in fact changed her story. (And that’s provable: just compare what she told Agent Bookhout on Friday evening, with what she said later that weekend!) Then you go on to speculate about my motives. Your last paragraph (the one starting with “Let me guess”) then goes on to falsely conjecture about my motives, and that’s another doozie. Apparently, you’re having trouble figuring out why I’m “raining on your parade,” but clearly you are trying. So you write: “Let me guess. It’s the curtain rods. You don’t want to believe that Oswald told Fraizer he was picking up or bringing curtain rods to his room.” No Pat; you’re wrong (again). I never said that Frazier made up the curtain rod story. I—and other researchers, interested in this case long before you got involved—have gone around the mulberry bush on that one. The story was told “early” and so I believe it. "TO DO" LIST FOR PAT SPEER, TO "GET RIGHT" WITH THIS SITUATION Here’s my suggestion. Before indulging in false conjectures about my motives, clean up your own writing in this area. As I’ve previously stated, that means: (a) Confront the fact that, according to the FBI report of James Bookhout, based on an interview conducted on 11/22/63, Linnie Mae Randle said the package was 3 feet long. That’s just a fact. Cite the Bookhout FBI report, in proper context, and attempt to explain it (if you can). But don’t ignore it, or include it in some irrelevant location in your chapter, and then misstate the date of the interview (as 11/23/63, and not 11/22) which is exactly what you did. (Again, not because you set out to deceive, but, imho, because you are so enamored of your own pet hypothesis about bag substitution that you failed to take into account other relevant data). (b ) This FBI report became the subject of an FBI memo in Washington (sorry, I can’t produce it at this moment, but its in my files, because that’s how I learned about her original statement) (c ) The next day (and the day after) she changed the bag length, to a shorter number which comported with her brother’s description. One other thing: a knowledgeable researcher has informed me that, in some document collection, there is a DPD Frazier interview, from 11/22/63, in which Frazier himself said –on Friday night—that the bag length was 3 feet. If that document can be located, that would only strengthen the case that the “original” bag length, as recollected by these two critical witnesses, was 3 feet, and not 30% shorter. (And that would cast their subsequent statements in a different light now, wouldn’t it?) Right now, it would appear that Linnie Mae Randle changed her story. But if a 11/22 DPD interview with Buell Frazier also stated the bag was 3 feet, then BOTH Frazier and his sister changed their stories, and that would raise the issue of collusion, and cast everything in a new and different light—wouldn’t it? Let me repeat your final statement, because it is totally false, and a testament to your stubbornness in not dealing with the facts, but instead indulging in speculation about my motives. (And that is particularly unbecoming of a moderator on this forum). QUOTE: And so you're pushing that Frazier invented the curtain rod story to save himself from the terrifying reality he knew Oswald was bringing a gun to work. Not bad. UNQUOTE No Pat, I never said that. But having to rebut this nonsense makes me realize why Dan Akyroyd got so irritated with the "pronouncements" of Jane Curtin. So let me repeat, again, what I did say the issue was (and is). Its not whether Oswald brought his lunch to work that day. I think its fairly obvious he did not do that. The question is whether he brought a package out to the car that morning; a package that, when properly described, was big enough (i.e., long enough) to have contained a disassembled rifle. Now that’s the question. And if he did do that, and if he’s innocent, then why did he do that? What “story” was he told? Who said what to Lee Oswald—earlier in the week—that he would go home on Thursday evening, and then return with such a package? DSL 4/10/13; 1:10 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Pat, In your response to my post, you defend yourself by telling me you indeed had the critical quote from Linnie Mae Randle in your Chapter 2, and that I should learn how to use the “find” command. Here’s your defense: “YOU GATHERED WRONG. I QUOTED BOOKHOUT'S REPORT IN CHAPTER 2.” DSL Response: Pat. . you're still playing games, of a sort. Yes, Pat, you quoted Bookhout’s report “in chapter 2”—the problem is, you did not quote Bookhout’s report in the section of your book on “the bag”. Instead, you put that paragraph in a section of chapter two where you are discussing eyewitnesses to the assassination. Now what kind of “organization” is that? How would you like it if I included an account of Paul O’Connor saying the body arrived in a body bag, but put that in the midst of a lengthy writeup of witnesses who thought they saw smoke on the knoll? So, to begin with, you have the quote in the incorrect section of your book--more specifically, of that chapter. But there’s more. Second, and here’s where it gets worse, you make no mention that what makes this report so very important is that the date of the interview was November 22, 1963. Instead, you label the report—where you do quote it (which, as I said, is in an inappropriate section of your on line book)—as a report on November 23, 1963! But that’s just plain incorrect. The reason the date is important is that Linnie Mae Randle stated the bag was three feet long on Friday night—and then changed the length in later interviews. YOUR REASONING. . . Then comes this precious piece of “reasoning”, and I quote: SORRY, IT'S UNLIKELY I'LL DEVOTE MUCH TIME DISCUSSING YOUR CONJECTURE LINNIE MAE RANDLE LIED ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE BAG SHE SAW TO "PROTECT" HER BROTHER. IT'S 100% CLEAR TO ME, AS IT SHOULD BE YOU, THAT FRAZIER AND RANDLE PUT THEMSELVES AT RISK BY DENYING THE BAG THEY SAW WAS BIG ENOUGH TO HOLD THE RIFLE. THAT YOU THINK THEY WERE MORE FRIGHTENED BY THE PROSPECT OSWALD BROUGHT HIS RIFLE TO WORK IN FRAZIER'S CAR THAN THEY WERE BY THE PROSPECT THEIR TESTIMONY WOULD SUGGEST OSWALD WAS FRAMED, IS BIZARRE, IMO. UNQUOTE You are completely wrong if you think that Frazier and Randle “put themselves at risk” by understating the size of the bag. The direct “risk” –which seems to sail right by your radar—was if Frazier and his sister provided the Dallas Police with a solid reason for believing that Wesley Frazier brought Oswald and his rifle—I stress, “and his rifle”—to work that day. That is the hot button; that is the very hot “third rail” in this situation—not your conjecture that Frazier and his sister had any legal risk in providing a description of the bag that was “too short” for the rifle. You are so wrapped up in your thesis of a Dallas Police Department frameup (and I’m no defender of the DPD, fyi) that you are missing the more immediate issue. The Dallas Police could not “arrest Frazier” for underestimating the length of the bag—regardless of whether they personally liked him (and his story) or not. But they could pounce on him, big time, if both he and his sister gave dimensions of the bag that were clearly large enough for it to have contained a rifle. For then the issue would be: "Did you know?" etc. So, to recap, there’s nothing wrong with my chain of inference. But there’s plenty wrong with yours, and with the layout of your chapter 2. So: when (and if) you rewrite the chapter, I have these editorial suggestions: (1) Put the Linnie Mae Randle quote about the bag length in the section on “the bag”, and not intermingled with eyewitness accounts of those who thought a shot came from the grassy knoll. (2) When you cite the Linnie Mae Randle quote, correct the date. The date of the interview was Friday, November 22, 1963, not November 23, as you incorrectly state. Finally, if you are going to treat the subject properly: recognize the fact that her story changed between Friday night, and the days following; and add the memo up at the Assistant FBI Director level where the three foot length of the bag was immediately noted, in Washington, as being significant. And guess what: it is. Especially because: (a) that made it long enough to carry a disassembled rifle (b ) Because she changed her story the next day. By focusing on your own hypothesis (bag substitution, fabrication ,etc. ) you have thrown out the baby with the bath water, and avoided the truly important issue in this case: Did Buell Wesley Frazier take Oswald to work on Friday morning, November 22, 1963, with a bag that was large enough to carry a disassembled rifle? DSL 4/8/13; 2:20 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

It has always seemed implausible to me that, if Edwin Walker were involved in a plot to kill Kennedy, that he would be involved in political machinations in October, 1963 which could have easily led to the White House calling off the trip to Dallas. Planning and executing a plot to murder the President is a very complex affair. The notion that Walker would be involved in that--and then also be involved in the anti-Kennedy events in October is not just implausible: I think its ludicrous. Those who glibly talk of Walker's involvement in the events of 11/22/63 have to answer that question. Glib talk about Walker and his "ground crew" and David Ferrie, etc etc--that just won't do. If you're planning to kill the President of the United States when he visits Dallas, Texas, in November, 1963, you don't undertake actions in October, 1963, which could easily lead to the cancellation of that trip. DSL 4/7/13; 5:50 PM PDT Los Angeles, California In the swirl of data, I do not see an answer to the question I posed. So I am asking it again: If you're planning to kill the President of the United States when he visits Dallas, Texas, in November, 1963, you don't undertake actions in October, 1963, which could easily lead to the cancellation of that trip. How can you possibly reconcile any theory of Walker's involvement in the November assassination of Kennedy, with actions in October that could easily have resulted in the cancellation of the Dallas trip? DSL 4/7/13; 8:10 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Pat: You can play all the games you wish the English language. The fact is that in your chapter--"PatSpeer.com, Chapter 2--you failed to cite or make any mention of the fact that Linnie Mae Randle was interviewed by FBI Agent James Bookhout on the evening of November 22, 1963, and made the statement she did--a statement not published by the Warren Commission in the 26 Volumes but which can be found in Commission Document 5, page 320. TO QUOTE THIS CRITICAL PASSAGE (again): RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work. This interview, in my opinion, qualifies as "first day evidence." Is it to be found anywhere in your lengthy narrative? Answer: "No". Why not? Certainly not because you set out to engage in a cover-up; rather, like many who arrived "on the scene" somewhat later, you failed to appreciate the importance of the original FBI reports, many of which can be found in CD 5. But I ordered that stuff and was immersed in indexing it back in 1969. And it was made available to Mary Ferrell and Sylvia Meagher, who helped finance that rather huge (multi-thousand page) order. So I am quite familiar with CD 5, and most of the other "early" FBI reports. So now, in April, 2013, and having had this rather serious deficiency pointed out, you hurry back to your existing text, quote it at length, and --apparently--attempting to defend your omission of this crucial data, you now focus on the adjective "approximately" and state: "Ms. Randle's initial approximation of the bag being three feet by six inches was just that, an approximation. She was subsequently allowed to give a more considered opinion." ". . approximately. . "? ". .an approximately. . "? ". . .subsequently allowed to give a more considered opinion. . "? In other words, we can then ignore what she originally told FBI Agent Bookhout? Please save us from this belated attempt to salvage some validity from your incomplete and incorrect analysis. Why not own up to what your text (as currently written) says, and what I believe to be much closer to the truth: "Ooops! I never saw that FBI interview before. . . or, if I did, I didn't notice that when she was first interviewed, on Friday, 11/22/63, she described the bag as (a) "a long brown package" and (b ), quoting it at length, "a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches." Instead of admitting to an error, you now assert that my analysis is "silly," return to Randle's original statement (which, I gather, was not mentioned anywhere in your "Chapter 2"), and now attempt to make excuses. So now you write: "David, Ms. Randle's initial approximation of the bag being three feet by six inches was just that, an approximation. She was subsequently allowed to give a more considered opinion." I look forward to someday seeing your "revised Chapter 2" --which no doubt will appear in due course. And no doubt, in that revised narrative, you will properly quote the first interview of Linnie Mae Randle, provided on 11/22; perhaps include the apparent fear that her brother experienced that night (as related to me, in the early 1970's, by George O'Toole, when he was writing his book); and finally attempt to integrate all this into one lucid and sensible account--an account in which the package size was reduced by 30%, but of course (you will probably maintain) that has nothing to do with attempting to protect her brother. (Oh. . perish the thought!). If your final verdict is that "She was subsequently allowed to give a more considered opiniion"--if you really buy into that--then I say you are being an apologist for the official version, rather than facing the rather obvious fact that Linnie Mae Randle gave an account of the length and heft of the package that was in fact accurate; an account that scared the heck out of Frazier, given the magnitude of the crime that Oswald was accused of later that day. So Frazier reduced the size of the package (and she then went along). Yes, that's my opinion of what is gong on here. And you think that his sister helping to get her brother off the hook is "silly"? Oh pleez. . . DSL 4/7/13; 7 pm PDT Los Angeles, California

It has always seemed implausible to me that, if Edwin Walker were involved in a plot to kill Kennedy, that he would be involved in political machinations in October, 1963 which could have easily led to the White House calling off the trip to Dallas. Planning and executing a plot to murder the President is a very complex affair. The notion that Walker would be involved in that--and then also be involved in the anti-Kennedy events in October is not just implausible: I think its ludicrous. Those who glibly talk of Walker's involvement in the events of 11/22/63 have to answer that question. Glib talk about Walker and his "ground crew" and David Ferrie, etc etc--that just won't do. If you're planning to kill the President of the United States when he visits Dallas, Texas, in November, 1963, you don't undertake actions in October, 1963, which could easily lead to the cancellation of that trip. DSL 4/7/13; 5:50 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

David, do you have an exact cite for the part in red? It would be most helpful to establish that such information from Truly's wife was indeed printed so early. Presently, I do not have an exact cite. This information comes from very extensive newspaper archives research which I did between 1969 and 1974 at the UCLA Research Library. On microfilm (and via Interlibrary Loan), I ordered the newspapers from all five cities that Kennedy visited in Texas. Then, expanding on that, I added major cities to the list--regardless of whether they were in Texas. I made hundreds of pages of notes, and collected hundreds of pages of newspaper printouts. In connection with all that, one of the articles that came through was published in either the Philadelphia Bulletin or Inquirer. It was a major article on the assassination (and published that weekend, as were many such articles, in the American press). As I recall the reporter called Truly's residence but wasn't able to reach Truly. But his wife related what her husband had said. It was pretty specific, and so he included that in his story: that her husband commented on how unruffled Oswald was, despite being confronted, at the soda machine, by a police officer with a drawn gun. Today, I would have scanned such an item; back then, I clipped it, and put it into a "Baker-Truly" subject file. But setting that particular item aside--i.e., putting aside what Truly's wife told a newspaper reporter--there are multiple FBI reports of Truly himself being interviewed about the events of that day by FBI agents on Friday November 22, and then again on Saturday, November 23. Those reports essentially say the same thing. As I'm sure you know, Truly testified that he (Truly) was racing up the stairs, was located between the second and third floor when he first realized that the officer was no longer behind him. He then returned to the second floor landing, and saw the scene unfold that he described repeatedly--to newspaper reporters, and, most importantly, to three FBI agents in two separate interviews--one on 11/22, the other on 11/23. Per the two FBI reports: Officer Baker, gun drawn, was inching his way towards the door of a room, in which Oswald was getting a coke. This whole scene reeks of foreknowledge--and that's the key issue. As I wrote in BEST EVIDENCE, I believe that Oswald came very close to getting shot, right in the lunchroom (and that might well have happened, had Truly not been present). And that's what this is really all about. This entire episode reminds me of the statement that Sgt. Hill made to a California radio station at 6:45 P.M. (Dallas time) on the evening of 11/22/63. Referring to the President's murder just hours earlier (and the apprehension of Oswald), he summed it up this way: "It was a tragedy that it ever had to happen, but at the same time, if it did happen and if this man—this man turns out to be the one, we’ll feel that we sort of took the blot our face a little bit by being able to catch him ourselves." (CD 1210) FWIW: I agree with Oswald's mother who publicly stated not just that her son was set up, and (in her opinion) that he was supposed to have been murdered in the building. As the saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words." Officer's Baker's actions--recorded on film as he rushed into building, and then, insofar as what transpired inside the building (as reported by Truly)-- speak very loudly, and I think any reasonable person, reading the entire record, will understand that. If I come across the file containing the clip with the quote from Truly's wife, I of course will post that. DSL 4/7/13; 5:40 PM PST Los Angeles, California

Sorry, but that’s not even close to being true. Dulles was the fifth DCI, not the first, and was installed by Eisenhower, not Truman. The list from the CIA, itself: https://www.cia.gov/.../chronology.htm Rear Adm. Sidney W. Souers, USNR Jan. 23, 1946–June 10, 1946 Lt. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, USA June 10, 1946–May 1, 1947 Rear Adm. Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, USN May 1, 1947–Oct. 7, 1950 Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, USA Oct. 7, 1950–Feb. 9, 1953 Allen W. Dulles Feb. 26, 1953–Nov. 29, 1961 That such an easily-detected falsehood is offered as fact renders suspect all other contentions, such as a few of the following examples: As for the purported abhorrence Dulles had for the Nazis, this did not prevent his law firm from representing Nazi-era German corporate interests, or US interests doing business with the Nazis, nor did it preclude him from using the salutation "Heil Hitler" in his correspondence with those German corporate interests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_%26_Cromwell Anyone wishing to know more about the extent of the Dulles brothers’ collusion with Nazis and the nexus between it and the US corporate sector need only Google the words Dulles and Prescott Bush. Also recommended are two highly underrated books by Charles Higham, "American Swastika" and "Trading With the Enemy." Immediately after the war, Nazis who should have faced the gallows via Nuremberg were covertly exfiltrated to the United States, given military commissions and government jobs, and allowed to escape justice, courtesy of "Operation Paperclip." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip Despite President’s Truman’s explicit stipulation that Nazis were not to be brought Stateside, OSS and CIA nevertheless did an end run around that command. Apologists for this practice often state the necessity of keeping Nazi scientific advances out of Soviet hands required this disobedience of a Presidential order. Perhaps so. But the practice of shielding Nazis from the gallows also included more than mere scientists. To wit, the likes of Reinhard Gehlen, Alois Brunner and Otto Von Bolshwing, among many others, who were used by OSS/CIA until long after the war’s end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Gehlen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Brunner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bolschwing Dulles’ opinion of utilizing Nazis during the post-war period is perhaps found in his pithy patrician characterization of Gehlen: "I don't know if he's a rascal. There are few archbishops in espionage.... Besides, one needn't ask him to one's club." Yes, those pesky Nazis were possibly such "rascals," eh, wot? Hardly the sort with whom an Ivy League gentleman would wish to be seen breaking bread at the gentlemen’s club. More to the point of this Forum, Dulles was fully witting of CIA plots to assassinate foreign leaders, most pertinently Castro. In that Cuban escapade, the murder plots were undertaken not merely without the knowledge of Eisenhower (and then Kennedy), but against the expressed order by Kennedy forbidding it, once he became witting of it. Does that constitute a "great American?" What makes Dulles singular among Warren Commissioners was his knowledge of such CIA executive action attempts, and the implications they may have held for the solution of the Kennedy assassination mystery. Subsequently, the Rockefeller, Church, HSCA and Pike panels - all plumbing to some extent the JFK morass - thought those implications worthy of further probing. An honest broker would have disclosed this, in camera, to his fellow commissioners in 1963... 　 Robert, I'm impressed by your advanced historical perspective. I will revisit my sources. As for Allen Dulles using the Nazi salute in his communications to Nazis during World War Two, however, that is, IMHO, easily explained by the probability that he was operating as an underground agent, seeking further information. That is a logical way to obtain further information from the enemy. Many prominent American businessmen placed their bets with Nazi Germany before it was illegal to do so. Ford comes to mind, even Joe Kennedy. So John Foster Dulles was one among many, and Allen Dulles was the one who set him straight. As for salvaging Nazi scientists for the West, keeping them out of the USSR orbit -- that sounds perfectly logical to me. As for Dulles' secrecy during the Warren Commission and the HSCA -- since the Cold War was still raging hot, it makes sense (IMHO) that if there really was a National Security issue of revealing the truth about the JFK assassination during the Cold War, then Dulles would be perfectly justified. Best regards, --Paul Trejo So you think it would have been OK for Allen Dulles to hide the truth about the Kennedy assassination from his fellow Commissioners? And the investigation in general? As for your assertion: "As for Dulles' secrecy during the Warren Commission and the HSCA -- since the Cold War was still raging hot, it makes sense (IMHO) that if there really was a National Security issue of revealing the truth about the JFK assassination during the Cold War, then Dulles would be perfectly justified." FYI: Allen Dulles died in 1969. The HSCA was not created until the fall of 1976. DSL 4/7/13; 12:50 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Jim DiEugenio, Once again, we are treated --now on this discussion group--to some of your absurd ideas, treated as "fact". Your sentence--"one begins to see that the first generation of critics accepted something they should not have. Like, for example, Oswald ordering the rifle, the Marion Baker confrontation, and Oswald in Mexico CIty"--provides a perfect example." Oh, I see. . suddenly we have a group of facts that are suddenly "non-facts" (according to you, that is). Yes, Oswald ordered a rifle. The postal money order evidence proves he did that. (You want to debate whether the rifle shipped is exactly the one ordered? . . .fine, then do that. But please don't spread the nonsense that he didn't order a rifle). Or that Marina didn't see him with a rifle--repeatedly, in Dallas, in the spring of 1963; and then in New Orleans, after he moved to that city. This is in the same vein as one researcher who claimed--loudly, on this forum, a year or more ago--that Marina was a xxxx because Oswald didn't "possess" a rifle. The evidence is fairly obvious that Oswald possessed a rifle, starting with the date it arrived at his PO Box, then in New Orleans, then in the fall of 1963 after his return from Mexico City. (Or do you think Marina made all of that up?) Now, I see that you have added to your revisionist catalog the notion that there was no Marrion Baker confrontation? (Oh really? And what about all the FBI reports to the contrary. . or is that all made up? And what about the fact that Truly told his wife about it, and that was in the Philadelphia newspapers, within 24 -36 hours? Or was that made up too?) Finally, of course, there is Mexico City. . putting aside the matter of whether he was impersonated on the phone (and that is a possibility), are you also of the opinion he never went down there? Never met with Kostikov, Nechiporenko, Yatskov--in the two -day period, 9/27 an 9/28/63? Jim: If you want to turn everything into a "non-fact," then why not just write a novel? Like those movies we see that are titled "Inspired by True Events," perhaps you can include a similar opening page; and subtitle it "Jim DiEugenio's Fictional Take on the Kennedy Assassination". But stop parading around as an "expert" on the Kennedy case, and as a proponent of valid history. The existing record cannot be swept away because it is inconvenient. DSL 4/6/13; 6:25 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Duncan, Thanks much for posting this. An excellent filmed summary of the issue. For those who believe Oswald was innocent, the choice is simple: either Oswald carried "something else" to work that morning (either innocently, or through trickery). . . OR. . . he carried a 36" bulky package to work, and within 24 hours, Frazier--who did not wish to be implicated in the crime--reduced the size of the package, and his sister then provided corroboration for this "side reduction." As for myself, I'm sick and tired of people who put their narrow self interest ahead of truth in history. At the very least--and returning now to 1964 and the Warren Commission investigation--we could have had a properly conducted investigation in which these witnesses were placed under oath, reminded of the consequences of perjury, and confronted with what this report stated. In the same vein, I would like to have seen FBI Agent Bookhout questioned, under oath, about just when it was on Friday evening that he questioned Randle, how she behaved during the interview, what additional data she may have provided as to why she said the package was 36 inches long etc. And, to round it out, I think the FBI interoffice memorandum that I have seen (in which one top official communicates with another about the length of the package, based on this FBI interview) was made a part of the record. It is critically important to know the true size of the package that Oswald placed in the back of Frazier's car, in order to understand not only what was in the package, but what his own state of mind may have been as to why he brought a package of that size to work on Friday morning, November 22, 1963. DSL 4/6/13; 6:10 PM PDT Los Angeles, Californina

David, do you believe the MC rifle was in the bag Oswald brought to work that morning? And if so, do you believe he was tricked into bringing it? I don't know (i.e., as in "know," for a fact) what was in the bag. But whether it was curtain rods, a garden shovel, or a rifle, there obviously must have been trickery and deception involved for Oswald to return home on Thursday evening, and return with that package. This would be an interesting topic for a panel discussion, to discuss all the possibilities and ramifications. DSL 4/6/13; 5:55 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Bernice: Thanks for taking the time to type in the entire text of this FBI report. It is a well known dictum of any police investigation that the "earliest recorded recollection" is of particular importance, and that applies not ust to wounds on a body (i.e., the Dallas doctors' observations) but also, and in this particular case, the length and nature of the bag placed in the rear of Frazier's car. For reasons I have never understood, the existence of Linnie Mae Randle's first account has been ignored by many students of this case, despite the fact that this interview was conducted on November 22, 1963. To anyone reading the FBI reports--and particularly if one "begins at the beginning" (which means starting with the first FBI Field Report (dated 11/30/63) presented to headquarters, and then forwarded to the WC (as "CD 5")--Randles' first FBI interview is critically important. It was never properly pursued and, if true, it contains the answer to this particular puzzle: Oswald brought a bag to work that was sufficiently big to contain a rifle. If this report is accurate, Randle knows that, Frazier knows that, and, as I said in a previous post, a "family decision" was made early on to avoid the appearance that, on November 22, 1963, Frazier transported "Oswald and his rifle" to work at the TSBD. Unfortunately (for Randle) FBI Agent Bookhout interviewed her before she got "the word," and provided corroboration for what--if this report is true--was her brother's false story. DSL 4/6/13; 5:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Not a near miss, Jim. Not even close. Frazier claimed to see the bag on the back seat of the car, and spent some time with the FBI trying to estimate how much of the back seat was covered by the bag. His estimate was that the bag was 27 by 6 (or 162 sq. inches). The bag in the archives photos is 38 by 8 1/2 (323 sq. inches), basically TWICE as big. But Pat, that is different. In my opinion the pouch, wrapper, bag, etc, whatever you want to call it, that the DPD brought down, this has no relation to the Frazier story. Having gone over this material several times, I just do not buy the story that Studebaker would not take a photo of it lying in situ. ANd the DPD could never get their story about this. Secondly, if you look at that photo of the DPD out front of the TSBD, well I just do not think that that partiucular wrapper matches up with Frazier's testimony. Then there is the Troy West testimony. Which in view is pretty devastating tot he WC. I do not understand why more attention is not paid to what Linnie Mae Randle first told the FBI when interviewed on Friday evening, November 22. The interviewing agent was James Bookhout, and his report --not published by the Warren Commission in the 26 volumes--can be found on page 320 of Commission Document 5 (CD 5). Here's the quote: Randle stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out a window of her residence and observed Lee Harvey Oswald walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of Wesley Frazier’s 154 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed Oswald walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for Frazier to come out of the house and give him a ride to work. I first became aware of this quote when I found it in an FBI internal memo, from one top official to another. But CD 5, p. 320, is the original source. Subsequent to this interview, the bag (in Randle's story) got shorter. It always seemed to me that Frazier did not wish to be in the position of being responsible for having transported "Oswald and his rifle" to the TSBD that day, and his sister didn't want to support an account of the bag length which would imply that was so. For whatever reason, Linnie Mae Randle was never confronted with her original statement, nor was FBI Agent Bookhout questioned in detail about this particular report. (And I doubt very much that Bookhout would have said he made an error of that magnitude). What lesson should we draw from this? There are certain "secrets" in this case that people seem determined to carry to the grave; and I'm afraid that the length of the bag that Oswald brought out to Frazier's car falls into that category. DSL 4/5/13; 7:50 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Hi David, Do you believe that the limo was stationary at the moment of the headshot, and that the Zapruder film was altered to conceal that? And therefore do you believe that the other films that show the limo in motion at the moment of the headshot were also altered? Paul. According to the 5 witnesses I interviewed back in 1971, the car stopped (momentarily), and some said that was to permit Clint Hill to climb on board. As I'm sure you know, 15 mph ~ a four minute mile. Even if you knock off 25%, none of the witnesses I interviewed perceived the assassination to have occurred that way. FYI: I interviewed both Newmans, John Chism, Jack Franzen, and Mary Moorman. I'm relating what I was told, which sparked my original interest in this area. Ultimately, the film will be impeached because of other evidence--i.e., optical evidence and/or credible accounts of where the work was done, and by whom. Film alteration and autopsy fraud are the keys to the truth about the Kennedy assassination. DSL 4/5/13; 7:30 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

EYE WITNESSES! roflmao. That's a losing hand to be sure. What arrogant stupidity. I interviewed those people, in person, with a tape recorder in November 1971. The Newman's were particularly impressive--Bill Newman in particular. "I don't care what the film at the Archives shows," he told me. "I was there. The car stopped." And his wife agreed. I asked him how certain he was--and he invoked the Ivory Soap ad: "99%". Yeah, I know. . .you think you can type in some acronym which substitutes for reasoning, and the witness' account will disappear. But that's not how it works. DSL 4/5/12; 3:30 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Poor davie, Still stuck on that tired old song and dance, and you are still a hypocrite. Can you prove the film in storage is NOT the in camera original daive? Opps, there you are stuck.. again. I'll wait for you to offer up yet more recycled garbage.... you got no game...never did.