David Von Pein

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Who's Fred Littwin?

Beats me. But I know who Fred Litwin is.

4 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

[It's] not a fact that Oswald shot Tippit. [It's] just speculation.

It's far from being "just speculation".

For heaven's sake, Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon still on him when he fought with the police just half-an-hour after Tippit was shot. (And please don't try and tell me that the gun Oswald had on him when he was arrested was planted on him, or that the bullet shells that littered Tenth Street were later "switched". Because that type of crap is really "just speculation" and every reasonable person knows it.)

.......

My congratulations go out to Fred Litwin for writing a very good book ("Oliver Stone's Film-Flam" ), which IMO successfully rips to shreds virtually every conspiracy theory put forth in the Stone/DiEugenio 2021 documentary film, "JFK: Destiny Betrayed". Nice job, Fred.

My favorite quote in "Oliver Stone's Film-Flam" is the one below. Heck, I could almost swear that I was the author of this spot-on excerpt:

30 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

If only I could see [this] picture from the side and front to know whose head it was.   

Oh for Pete sake, Cory. You must be kidding with such nonsense.

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA Volume 7, Page 41 [Emphasis added by DVP.]

50 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Now what did we do that clearly the MSM did not want to do?

The following:

Proved with clear evidence that there was a baseball sized hole in the rear of Kennedy's skull... 

It's incredible how you can actually believe that you "proved" there was ANY large-sized hole in the back of Kennedy's head. You "proved" no such thing and everybody here knows it. You're simply bloviating, big-time.

3 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

The photo showing Elmer Todd's initials. That would have been handy.

But, to be fair to Stone & DiEugenio, that piece of info didn't come out until June 2022, which was well after the Stone film was released.

It would be nice, however, if the information about Todd's initials would at least be mentioned in passing during one of the many recent interviews done by Jim D. and Oliver Stone. But, to date, I've yet to hear either one of them acknowledge the fact that Todd's initials are on the bullet.

James R. Gordon said:

Quote

The entire SBT hinges on the bullet successfully passing through JFK's upper chest. If that can be proved to be impossible - and I believe it can - then you have no single bullet theory.
I do not expect you to agree, but I do not doubt for one moment you do not also see the danger this issue presents.
I am happy, for the moment, to agree to disagree. But I will be back with this issue later.

Bump....coincidentally, six years later (to the very day)....

I'm wondering how James R. Gordon is coming along with proving the SBT "to be impossible"  based on his belief that CE399 could not possibly have successfully passed through JFK's upper chest without striking various internal structures?

Any progress on that during these last 6 to 9 years, James?

----------------

Archived Discussion:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-714.html

On 1/26/2023 at 8:29 AM, Michael Griffith said:

You ignore the fact that, according to the lone-gunman theory, the rifle was disassembled before being placed and carried in the bag. So, according to you, you have the several parts of the disassembled well-oiled rifle wrapped and carried in a bag for at least half an hour, yet not one speck of oil was found inside or outside the bag. Anyone who has any experience with guns knows this is an extremely far-fetched scenario.

Here's some of the late Vincent Bugliosi's always-insightful logic regarding the topic of "The Well-Oiled Rifle":

Commission Exhibit No. 2974 can be seen HERE.

12 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Geez. Holmes' report is almost worthless. He wrote it what? two weeks after the shooting, apparently from memory. Oswald said he didn't go the week before because of the birthday and Holmes thought he meant that was why he didn't wait till Friday. Obviously. 

It's possible you could be right on this. But it's certainly far from being "obvious". It's just as likely, IMO, that it occurred just as Holmes wrote it in his Dec. 17 report.

19 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

And why is Holmes’ belated report the only report to mention that Oswald’s explanation for going out to Irving was that there was going to be a party full of children that weekend? Wouldn’t the DPD have questioned Marina and Ruth Paine about that? Did they? It seems like this would be another great opportunity to paint Oswald as a li@r. 

Ruth talks about the birthday party in her WC testimony, and she confirms the party was on Sat., Nov. 16, proving that Oswald lied when he said (within earshot of Harry Holmes) that the party occurred the weekend of the 22nd. (Go to nearly the bottom of this page....)

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/paine_r1.htm

1 hour ago, Steve Roe said:

Earth to DiEugenio. Hello, anybody there? 

Linnie Randle saw your Patsy Boy Oswald walking with the package out her kitchen window before he entered the carport. 

Indeed she did. And that's something I mentioned to DiEugenio when we engaged in a debate on this very subject more than ten years ago.

Let's get into my Time Machine and have a gander at the very silly things Jim D. said back in 2012:

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

More Blah blah blah from DVP.

You never answered my question, did you?

Wonder why?

As per [sic] throwing words back at me, isn't everyone a bit tired of this shopworn technique from a guy who is so imbalanced he cannot even understand what is on his own site? [DVP Interjection -- Huh? I can only shake my head and wonder why on Earth Jimmy made such a goofy utterance.]

Read the testimony DVP quotes by Randle.

Then go to WC VOL 2 p. 248 at History Matters.

Tell me if Linnie said this with [Joseph] Ball questioning her:

WC: Did you see him go to the car?

LMR: Yes.

WC: What did he do?

LMR: He opened the right back door and I just saw he was laying the package down. ...

Now go to CE 446 and CE 447 in the volumes. Then explain to me how LMR could see through two walls of a carport to Wesley's car which WAS PARKED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CARPORT! [Jimmy's wrong; there was only one wall, not two, between the kitchen door and Frazier's car.]

Davey, the chicken man, leaves that testimony out since it proves she was lying.

Now, in the real world--which you have little relation to--who would be disbarred, Davey?

What is so sick about you is that you know all this. I went through it before. But you never get tired of being exposed as a cheap flim flam man, do you?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jimbo, once again, wants to pretend that the ONLY time Linnie Mae saw Oswald with a package was after she looked into the carport from her kitchen door. It's obvious that DiEugenio, in the quote below, wants people to believe that Randle NEVER saw LHO walking across the street:

"Linnie could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision." -- Jim DiEugenio; October 3, 2012

And Jim also now wants to pretend that I have never addressed Linnie Mae's testimony regarding her supposed "X-ray vision" as she looked into the carport. But Jim knows (or should) that I have addressed that testimony. I wrote a post about that very subject more than three years ago, on October 21, 2009. And I even linked to that 2009 post (below) when I put together Part 79 of my DVP Vs. Jim D. series in October of this year:

WHAT COULD LINNIE MAE RANDLE HAVE SEEN FROM HER KITCHEN DOOR?

So, as we can see via the above post from back in 2009, I haven't left out anything. But James sure did when he said this in 2012:

"Linnie [Randle] could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision."

The above quote is just a blatant misrepresentation of Linnie Randle's observations, because Randle saw Oswald as he CROSSED THE STREET heading to the Randle carport area. Was she lying about seeing LHO crossing the street too, Jim? And, of course, Jim needs to paint Wesley Frazier as a big fat L-word too, because Frazier has always said he saw Oswald with a package.

So who is really the flimflam man when it comes to the topic of Oswald's package? The answer is obvious, because James DiEugenio of Los Angeles will do and say ANYTHING to take that package (rifle) out of Oswald's hands. Anything at all. And Jimmy doesn't care how many people he has to call li@rs in order to accomplish his ludicrous "There Was No Package At All" goal.

--DVP; November 2012

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/11/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-80.html

56 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

David, do you (or anyone else) have a list or something of any other statements in FBI reports, DPD reports, WC testimony, etc. about what Oswald allegedly said in his interrogations about why he went out to Irving that day?

Yes. In Harry Holmes' report, we're treated to yet another lie told by Lee Oswald (which Oswald had to know was a big crock, because he knew the children's birthday party had been the previous weekend, not the weekend of Nov. 22):

"To an inquiry as to why he [LHO] went to visit his wife on Thursday night, November 21, whereas he normally visited her over the weekend, he stated that on this particular weekend he had learned that his wife and Mrs. Payne [sic] were giving a party for the children and that they were having a "houseful" of neighborhood children and that he just didn't want to be around at such a time. Therefore, he made his weekly visit on Thursday night." -- Harry D. Holmes; 12/17/63 Report

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0330a.htm

And more lies from Oswald are featured on page 4 of Holmes' report:

"When asked if he [Lee Oswald] didn't bring a sack with him the next morning to work, he stated that he did, and when asked as to the contents of the sack, he stated that it contained his lunch.

Then, when asked as to the size or shape of the sack, he said "Oh, I don't recall, it may have a small sack or a large sack, you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches."

When asked as to where he placed the sack when he got in the car, he said in his lap, or possibly the front seat beside him, as he always did because he didn't want to get it crushed. He denied that he placed any package in the back seat.

When advised that the driver stated that he had brought out a long parcel and placed it in the back seat, he stated "Oh, he must be mistaken or else thinking about some other time when he picked me up."

When asked as to his whereabouts at the time of the shooting, he stated that when lunch time came, and he didn't say which floor he was on, he said one of the Negro employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he stated "You go on down and send the elevator back up and I will join you in a few minutes."

Before he could finish whatever he was doing, he stated, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he went down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that "he is one of our employees" whereupon the policeman had him step aside momentarily. Following this, he simply walked out the front door of the building." --H. Holmes

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0330b.htm

Plus, Thomas Kelley of the USSS also mentions in his written report the fact that Oswald denied that he had brought any large package to work on 11/22 and Kelley also heard Oswald deny the curtain rod story:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0325b.htm

So that makes a minimum of four people (Fritz, Bookhout, Holmes, and Kelley) who personally witnessed (and documented on paper) those two key LHO denials.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I can think of an entirely logical, innocent reason that Oswald would have falsely denied bringing curtain rods to work that day: He knew it would look bad if he admitted to carrying a sizable package into work that day, even if the package had merely contained curtain rods, since it was already obvious to him that the police were using phony evidence to falsely blame him for JFK's death. Recall that Oswald told his brother not to believe "the so-called evidence" against him.

Yeah, typical conspiracy-slanted views. Always blame the evil cops. Never blame the guy who told all the lies and owned the assassination murder weapon and killed a cop in flight.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

And, are you ever going to explain how the well-oiled rifle could have failed to leave a single trace of oil on the paper bag or on the blanket, given the claim that the bag supposedly carried the disassembled rifle, and given the claim that the rifle was allegedly stored in the blanket for many weeks? 

Why on Earth CTers still cling to this worn-out canard is another mystery. A "well-oiled" gun indicates that the INTERNAL PARTS are "well-oiled". Why would you think the OUTSIDE of the gun would necessarily have to be dripping with oil?

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Its a good question David. I do not have a good answer to it. I do not know why Lee denied in interrogation what he told Frazier. No, I don't think Fritz lied about the denial of the curtain rods in interrogation. I accept Lee denied. I don't know why. It is a weak point in the counternarrative I outlined. I could speculate one or two things but they would be justly criticized by you and others as without evidence. You know how the LN explanations account for a lot of evidence but there are always loose ends. Well, this is a loose end in the counternarrative.

Did Lee know he was being suspected of having brought the rifle in that morning when he was asked the question? It is easy to assume that but is that known?   

You know the questions about the Dallas map that Ruth Paine had given him and Oswald had made marks on it? Police thought he had the parade route and even Dealey Plaza shooting locations marked on it. Lots of investigation of that map, but in the end I believe the Warren Commission accepted that it really was innocuous job application locations, bus stops etc. markings, nothing to do with Oswald planning to assassinate with that map. What if the curtain rods is a parallel example, of something police hone in on as suspicious.

Just suppose--as a thought experiment David!--that Lee was in the role of framed patsy and realizes it. He sees every move he's made interpreted in terms of his guilt (and he has a few things vulnerable himself he's covering up but not killing JFK). Suppose he does figure out, whether or not he is told, that his curtain rods are now suspected as being the means of transmission of the rifle into the TSBD that he had sold Nov 12. Rather than admit the curtain rod package he just denies, because he can see where they are going with that. I don't know. An innocent person is always better off sticking to the truth in police interrogation, is the conventional wisdom. But do innocent people who are egregiously falsely accused and believe they are being railroaded follow policies of sticking to the truth in such situations, in real life? I don't know. Are there studies addressing this answerable question? Did Jews or leftists arrested by the Gestapo who were innocent of, say, a charge of terrorism always stick rigorously to the truth when answering questions which would look bad if they told the truth?

Thanks for your post above, Greg. It's refreshing to hear a conspiracy believer utter the words "I do not have a good answer to it" when talking about a particular sub-topic associated with JFK's assassination. Thank you for admitting that.

In putting myself in the shoes of the CTers who believe in Oswald's innocence, I've been straining my brain today trying to come up with some kind of at least halfway logical and semi-sensible reason for why an innocent Lee Harvey Oswald, if he really had brought some curtain rods with him to work on Nov. 22 (instead of bringing his Carcano rifle to work with him that morning), would have had any desire at all to want to tell the police after his arrest that he hadn't brought any curtain rods into the TSBD Building on that day.

And I'm coming up blank. Because I can't understand why Oswald (via the scenario in which he really did take curtain rods to work instead of his rifle) would have thought it was actually better for him to tell a lie to the cops about the curtain rods instead of simply telling Fritz & Company the truth about the rods (and the associated reason for why Oswald decided to not take those rods with him when he left the building at approximately 12:33 PM on 11/22, which seems to me would be another sticky problem for conspiracists to reconcile in a scenario which has Oswald totally innocent of shooting the President).

The chronology of Captain Fritz' interrogations of Oswald, per Fritz' written report, indicates that the "curtain rod" subject (and Oswald's denial of all knowledge of that topic) occurred during the interrogation session on Saturday (November 23) at 10:25 AM. And by that time on Saturday, of course, Oswald had already been officially charged with JFK's murder and Officer Tippit's slaying.

So when Oswald denied all knowledge of the curtain rods, he certainly knew the full reasons for why he was being held in custody by the DPD, which makes any "curtain rods" denial coming from an innocent Lee Oswald all the more perplexing. For Lee certainly didn't think that possession of an innocuous and harmless item like curtain rods on the day of the President's visit to Dallas would (or could) be looked upon as something suspicious that he would want to hide from the authorities. Right? Right. So what would be his incentive for denying any knowledge of the curtain rods story?

The answer to my last question is, in my opinion, very simple and very logical (after weighing the sum total of evidence in the JFK case). But the answer comes from my perspective as a "Lone Assassin" advocate, instead of coming from an "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody" point-of-view:

Oswald's incentive for denying that he said anything to Wesley Frazier about "curtain rods" was:

Mr. Oswald was (quite obviously, IMO) attempting to distance himself from that large paper package as much as he could because he knew that that package contained the rifle that he used to shoot President Kennedy.
 

9 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

And it's what Lee told Frazier all along they were. Because it's what they were [i.e., curtain rods]. 

Then why did Lee tell this lie to Fritz? ....

"I asked him [Lee Oswald] if he had told Buell Wesley Frazier why he had gone home a different night, and if he had told him anything about bringing back some curtain rods. He denied it." -- Captain Will Fritz' written report [WCR; pg. 604]

So, you're going to try to convince people that LHO really did have curtain rods in that package on 11/22, but he then deliberately LIES to the police after he's arrested concerning that very thing---whether he did or did not bring curtain rods into the building?!

Come on! Let's not allow all common sense to go sliding down the drain here!

Or am I supposed to believe that Captain Fritz was the real li@r in the above quote from his report?

And if you think that Fritz was actually the person telling tall tales about the curtain rods, instead of Mr. Oswald being the li@r, then you also have no choice but to add FBI agent James Bookhout to your Li@rs List in this regard as well. Because Bookhout, in this 11/23/63 FBI report, said he also heard Oswald denying all knowledge of any curtain rods:

"He [LHO] denied telling Wesley Frazier that the purpose of his visit to Irving, Texas, on the night of November 21, 1963, was to obtain some curtain rods from Mrs. Ruth Paine." -- James W. Bookhout; Warren Report; Page 621
 

33 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

We know they were fudging, moreover, because that report failed to acknowledge that Frazier had been shown the original sack, in its original color, while attached to a lie detector on the night of the shooting, and not only refused to ID the sack, but convinced the DPD the sack he saw was another sack. 

Where did you come by that info, Pat? I thought Frazier's polygraph results were lost forever.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I have talked with Frazier on several occasions. He knows the evidence against Oswald.

Does he think Oswald killed Tippit?

And does he think Oswald shot at Walker?

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

He also knows what he knows. And what he knows--for a fact, in his mind--...that the bag he saw in Oswald's possession was much smaller than the bag later put into evidence. He knows this for a fact. He has no doubt.

Then why do you think he would say this on 12/1/63?:

"Frazier examined the original [brown paper sack] found by the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building on November 22, 1963, and stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the sack or package which he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but that he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack." [CD 7]

Regardless of the color issue, Frazier should have had NO DOUBT on 12/1/63 that the original bag could not possibly have been the bag he saw in Oswald's hands (based on its length alone). And yet Frazier expressed obvious doubts to the FBI in that Dec. 1 interview. Why do you suppose that was?

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

He has also stated--as a fact--that Oswald did not have the bag in his possession on the 21st. He knows this for a fact. 

If only we knew how big those pockets were in Oswald's blue jacket (and how many pockets it contained; were there any on the inside of the coat perhaps?). That might be the answer to this part of the story right there.

Some Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier....

This one-hour interview with JFK assassination witness Buell Wesley Frazier took place on November 22, 2021, at the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza. It is one of several interviews and public appearances that Mr. Frazier has done in the last few years. (Others can be found at my Buell Frazier webpage here.)

I've always been very fond of Buell Wesley Frazier. I've enjoyed listening to him tell his story over the years about how he and his 1963 co-worker, Lee Harvey Oswald, would ride to work together to the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas.

And despite the fact that Buell has added a few hard-to-believe chapters to his assassination story in the last 20 years or so (such as the episodes talked about here and here and here), I must admit, I am still quite fond of Mr. Buell Wesley Frazier. That doesn't mean that I accept as fact all of the things that Buell has tacked on to his story since about 2002. Not at all. In fact, I think he's done a bit of—shall we say—embellishing of his story during these last twenty years.

Frazier's latest "embellishment", which was added for the first time to his account of the events of 11/22/63 in the pages of Buell's new 2021 book, "Steering Truth: My Eternal Connection To JFK And Lee Harvey Oswald", is a tale about how Buell allegedly encountered a man with a rifle on the Elm Street extension road just outside the Book Depository Building within minutes of the shooting of President Kennedy.

This impeccably-dressed rifleman, wearing clothes and shoes that apparently (per Frazier) only a "professional" could afford, threw his weapon into the trunk of his car and then drove off, never to be seen or heard from again.

I could be wrong, but Buell's new late-arriving tale about a dapper gun-toting assassin (?), who was evidently displaying his rifle out in the open in front of the Depository for everybody to potentially see, is very likely an addendum to Mr. Frazier's story that even most hardened conspiracy theorists will have a hard time swallowing.

The above 2021 interview with Mr. Frazier prompted me to create this post, but not mainly for the purpose of scoffing at the latest addition to his November 22nd story (although scoff I must), but instead I wanted to take the opportunity to ask Buell Wesley Frazier a few questions (on paper only) that I do not think have ever been asked of him during any of the several interviews he has participated in since the assassination occurred in 1963. I'm very curious as to what Buell's reactions and responses might be if he were to ever be confronted with questions put to him in the following manner....

#1. Buell, you do realize, don't you, that the rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the Depository on 11/22/63 was a rifle that was proven by the totality of the evidence in this case to have been owned and possessed by Lee Harvey Oswald?

#1a. And you also realize that that exact rifle was proven to have been the weapon that murdered President Kennedy, don't you?

#2. And you also realize, don't you, that the empty brown paper bag that was found near the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor had the fingerprints of Lee Oswald on it?

#2a. Plus, that same paper bag had fibers inside of it that generally matched fibers from the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage, which is a blanket that was known to have been the place where Oswald's rifle was kept in storage in the weeks just before the assassination. You know that fact too, don't you Buell?

#3. Don't you ever wonder, Buell, why Lee Oswald told you that big fat lie about the "curtain rods"? And he twice told that lie to you—once on Thursday morning (November 21st) and then again on the morning of November 22nd when you and he got into your car at your sister's house.

We know now that Lee's "curtain rods" story was definitely a lie. We know this because....

....No curtain rods were ever found inside the Book Depository after the assassination.

....No curtain rods were found among Oswald's possessions at his roominghouse at 1026 North Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff.

....No curtain rods were found on the bus or in the taxicab that Oswald rode in on 11/22/63.

....And no curtain rods were found on Oswald himself after the assassination.

#3a. So, why do you think Lee would feel the need to tell such a lie about "curtain rods"? And if the item that was inside Oswald's package on 11/22/63 had really been curtain rods, then where did those rods disappear to? Did Lee ditch them in a trash dumpster on Elm Street after he left the Depository?

Those questions about the "rods" are very important ones, wouldn't you agree Buell?

#4. And what about the murder of policeman J.D. Tippit? Do you think Lee was innocent of killing Officer Tippit too? I don't think any interviewer has ever asked you that question, have they?

The evidence against Oswald in the Tippit shooting couldn't be any more powerful and concrete (as my next question clearly illustrates).

#5. If you are of the opinion that Lee Oswald did not kill J.D. Tippit, then how can you explain the fact that Lee was arrested in the Texas Theater with the Tippit murder weapon in his very own hands just 35 minutes after Officer Tippit was gunned down nearby?

Given this fact concerning the Tippit murder weapon, about the only way for Lee Harvey Oswald to be innocent is to believe silliness like this.

#6. And if Lee Oswald was innocent of shooting both John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit, then why did Lee pull a gun on a police officer in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63?

And why did Lee fight like a wild man with Dallas Patrolman M.N. McDonald in the theater?

Are those the actions of a person who had done nothing wrong on November 22, 1963?

#7. And then there's the attempted murder of General Edwin Walker on April 10, 1963. Do you think Lee Oswald took that shot at General Walker, Buell? If not, then how do you explain what Lee wrote to his wife, Marina, in Warren Commission Exhibit No. 1 (which is in Oswald's own handwriting)?

#7a. And if you do accept the fact that Lee took that shot at Walker (and the evidence clearly indicates that he did), then wouldn't you agree with me that Lee Harvey Oswald definitely had murder running through his veins just seven months before President Kennedy went to Dallas? And wouldn't you agree with me that if a person is willing to take a gun and shoot at another human being in April, then it's quite possible that that same person (namely Lee Oswald) might have a similar desire to aim that same gun at another political figure in November?

#8. With all of the above individual facts piled up against the door (plus these additional pieces of evidence), which are facts that are just dying to be strung together to form a cohesive whole known as "The Totality Of Evidence In The JFK Murder Case", can you, Buell Wesley Frazier, possibly still cling to the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald, merely because he was kind to you and the children who lived near you in Irving, was innocent of killing President John F. Kennedy?

I truly wonder if Mr. Frazier has ever once examined the evidence against Oswald in an objective way in which his friendship with the accused assassin was set aside in order to let the evidence speak for itself. I doubt that he has.

David Von Pein
January 12, 2022

============================

RELATED COMMENTS....

It could be that Buell Frazier has deliberately avoided becoming well-schooled on the evidence so that he can continue to maintain a (false) rosy picture of his friend and co-worker Lee Oswald for as long as he lives.

But I really have no idea as to how much Buell knows about the details of the JFK case. As I asked above, I'm wondering if Frazier even believes Oswald shot and killed J.D. Tippit. I have a feeling he doesn't believe Lee took a shot at anyone in 1963---including Walker.

But for that matter, is Buell even aware of the Walker shooting at all? You'd never know by looking at any of his interviews. That topic never comes up. Nor does the topic of Tippit's murder. It's as if those things never even happened -- which is one of the reasons I wanted to write out the above list of questions for Buell Frazier. If he were ever to study those questions, perhaps he would be inclined to accept the fact that Lee Harvey wasn't always the perfect co-worker after all.

[...]

What I wonder is this: Is Buell Wesley Frazier's opinion a truly informed opinion? Is Buell even fully aware of all the evidence against Oswald? I wonder. And it's evidence which proves for all time that Lee Harvey Oswald was a double-murderer.

The Paper Bag Facts....

1. Lee Oswald carried one large-ish brown paper bag into the TSBD on 11/22/63.

2. One large-ish EMPTY brown paper bag was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD after the assassination (in the precise location where an assassin was located). And that bag has LHO's prints on it.

3. No other large-ish paper bag was located anywhere in the TSBD.

4. So, if Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle were right about the length of Oswald's package, then the question needs to be asked: What happened to the shorter 27-inch bag that Frazier and Randle said Oswald had with him on Nov. 22nd? Did that bag (plus its contents, whatever the contents might have been) just disappear into a puff of smoke?

5. Final conclusion: Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Wesley Frazier were simply mistaken about the length of the package they each saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on 11/22/63.

But instead of logically adding up #1 thru #4 above and accepting the obvious truth about the discrepancy concerning the length of Oswald's paper bag, many conspiracy theorists here in the 21st century have decided to abandon their previous "The Bag Was Too Short To Hold The Rifle" argument (which most CTers have embraced to their bosoms for decades) and have decided it would be a good idea to come out and call Frazier and Randle bald-faced XXXXX, with those 21st-century conspiracy fantasists inventing the fantastically idiotic theory that has BOTH Frazier and Randle getting together and just making up a story about Oswald carrying a large-ish paper bag on the morning of the assassination.

These new 21st-century conspiracy innovators couldn't care less, of course, about the fact that they haven't produced a single shred of solid evidence or proof to show that their goofy "There Was No Bag At All" theory is true.

Here's something I said about the paper bag back in 2007:

"I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?

Care to guess at what those odds might be? They must be close to "O.J. DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22, 1963).

I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), which was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63.

I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it." -- DVP; October 2007

Most Internet conspiracy theorists seem to have a difficult time with simple math. They can't seem to ever add 2 and 2 together. And I think they are failing to properly "add up" the sum total of the evidence when it comes to the topic of "The Paper Bag".

When a conspiracist tells me I'm not really "following the evidence to where it leads", I have to vigorously disagree. Because I think I'm doing precisely that very thing---following the evidence that exists in this case and applying simple logic and reasonable inferences from that evidence.

And to those conspiracy believers who think Oswald took a shorter (27-inch-long) package into the TSBD on November 22, I ask:

What did Oswald do with that 27-inch paper bag and its contents after entering the Depository on 11/22?

If Commission Exhibit 142 isn't the "Oswald bag", then what did Lee do with that other bag?

One thing's for sure --- whatever answer a conspiracy theorist dreams up to try and answer my above question is not going to be nearly as logical as my October 2007 comment I posted earlier.

More of my comments in this discussion, along with the posts of some conspiracy theorists who are in a fairly large state of denial regarding Lee Harvey Oswald's 38-inch-long paper gun sack, can be found here.

David Von Pein
January 2022



 

15 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

That just shows he is not a good witness to this part of the day's events.

I agree. He's not. At the '86 mock trial, Buell admits that the bag could have been "protruding" out in front of LHO's body, but in other interviews he insists that the package HAD to be under Lee's armpit AND cupped in his right hand.

So, you're right, he's not a good (or reliable) witness to that part of the day's events. He has, in effect, admitted that he really has no idea just how Oswald was carrying the package as he walked toward the TSBD on 11/22.

1 hour ago, Charles Blackmon said:

...I will look to someone else to kindly prove to me little Lee could carry a 36" bag [sic] the way the WC describes while not stumbling.

Buell wasn't the only witness. Linnie was as well. No idea why he would say anything that stupid unless pressure got to him (very likely).

Buell didn't say anything that stupid. He said these words, which I quoted previously and which are forever ignored by JFK conspiracy believers:

VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true."

BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his [Oswald's] body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

15 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

It says "Video unavailable".

The video plays just fine for me. It is definitely not "unavailable".

26 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

There is no way a person can hold a 36" bag [sic] under their arm and cup it underneath, which is another of the amazing feats being attributed to Oswald.

VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true."

BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his [Oswald's] body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

1 hour ago, Charles Blackmon said:

I don't know what that is circled in yellow in the commission exhibit photo. It obviously is paper of some kind, but it looks way bigger in length than the bag Frazier and Randall [sic] claimed they saw Oswald carrying that morning. 

Of course it looks bigger that the estimates provided by Frazier and Randle. That's because it IS bigger than those incorrect 24-to-27-inch estimates.* It's really a 38-inch bag (when unfolded and fully extended).

* Linnie Mae Randle, however, did provide this "36-inch" estimate to the FBI on the very same day of the assassination [also available to view in Commission Document No. 5]. She apparently revised that "3 feet" estimate later on and decided the bag was only about 27 inches in length.