Robert Prudhomme

"YES" to all of the above.

So the conspiracy now also involves Marina, the Warren Commission, and the HSCA?

Boy, that's a lot of people.

Whatever it takes, I guess.

"A "gaping wound in the back of the head means a shot from in front"...says who?"

A gaping wound in the back of the head means the autopsy photos are fake.

Robert, you also believe that the Parkland docs were correct, and couldn't have possibly just been wrong?

What causes me some difficulty is that we're picking and choosing - one set of doctors (Parkland) is infallible, and the others (Bethesda) are rejected outright. Why the disparity, if not simply because it reenforces a belief in a conspiracy?

And finally, why do the tasks of each respective group not weigh more strongly on behalf of the Bethesda physicians, instead. Of the two, the Parkland doctors singular focus was on saving the life of the President - they had no need to figure out the how / why / where of it all, and as such, seem to be the less likely of the two to be unilaterally supported in their recollection.

Conversely, the Bethesda physician's singular goal was exactly to figure out the how / why / where of the wounds, so as to determine what happened, and had the significant benefit of their examination conducted post mortem, when the President's life had already been lost (eg no life-saving techniques were required, and as a result, they simply had more time to give a closer examination).

Twenty-six Bethesda witnesses were interviewed by the HSCA and all agreed with the doctors at Parkland that a large exit wound existed on the back of JFK's head. The precise location they described may not have been exactly where the Parkland doctors stated however, their observations certainly contradicted the Back of Head autopsy photo.

Can you explain why the observations of these twenty-six witnesses were repressed, and why the HSCA in fact lied about their interviews, and, in fact, falsely stated the witnesses agreed with the autopsy photos? Was the HSCA, in fact, covering up the contents of the interviews?

bump

bump

Posted before on this forum, but well worth seeing again.

Posted on this forum before, but well worth sharing again.

Marina was coerced into going along. Once in a lie, it's hard to get out.

"YES" to all of the above.

"A "gaping wound in the back of the head means a shot from in front"...says who?"

A gaping wound in the back of the head means the autopsy photos are fake.

Nice try, little guy, but that information was contained in one of the FBI "reports". You know the ones, they were written in the third person by FBI agents, often without the subject of the report present, and the majority of them were neither seen nor signed by the person that supposedly gave the evidence.

In other words, they were lies, Dave, and most of this case is built on them.

An FBI report is whatever the agent wants it to be. Facts are irrelevant.

If you really believe the things you wrote in the two quotes shown above, Bob, I can only have pity for you. Because those two quotes are--let's face it--just plain rubbish.

And what's with this "little guy" put-down of yours? Care to explain?

Perhaps you would like to explain to everyone why Linnie Mae Randle would tell the FBI that the bag was 3.5 feet long, and tell the Warren Commission it was 2 feet long.

Robert Prudhome,

The FBI report you quote at #37 would be hearsay in a trial court and therefore inadmissible as evidence.

I say this because some here assert they have evidence. What they have are mere facts. What is the difference? A fact is what it is. Evidence is that which gets to a jury via a court order.

And an FBI report is whatever the agent wants it to be, Facts are irrelevant.

Here is the FBI report on Linnie Mae Randle, unsigned, of course:

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date 11/23/63

LINNIE MAE RANDLE, 2439 West Fifth Street, Irving, Texas, phone Blackburn 3-8965, was interviewed at the Dallas Police Department.

RANDLE advised that she is the sister of BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, who is employed by the Texas School Book Depository and resides at her residence, stated that she met LEE HARVEY OSWALD through her brother, and has known OSWALD and his wife for about six weeks. RANDLE advised that OSWALD's wife is MARINA OSWALD, who resides at 2515 W. Fifth, Irving, Texas, and that OSWALD spends the weekends with his wife at the above mentioned address. Her brother, WESLEY FRAZIER, customarily drives LEE HARVEY OSWALD to 2515 West Fifth, Irving, Texas, on Friday night, and takes him back to work on Monday morning. He stated that OSWALD is also employed at the Texas School Book Depository.

On the night of November 21, 1963, she observed FRAZIER letting LEE HARVEY OSWALD out of FRAZIER's car at 2515 West Fifth. Subsequently, she asked FRAZIER why OSWALD was visiting his wife on Thursday evening, as he usually did not visit her until Friday evening each week. FRAZIER told her that OSWALD claimed he was visiting his wife the night of November 21, 1963, because he is fixing up his apartment and RUTH PAINE, with whom his wife resides at 2515 West Fifth, Irving, was going to give him some curtain rods.

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.

RANDLE stated while at the Dallas Police Department on the evening of November 22, 1963, officers of the Dallas Police Department had exhibited to her some brown package paper, however she had not been able to positively identify it as being identical with the above-mentioned brown package, due to the fact she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance.

on 11/22/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43

by Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT/cah/tjd

Date dictated 11/23/63

Here is an excerpt from her WC testimony:

"Mr. BALL. About how long would you think the package would be, just measure it right on there.

Mrs. RANDLE. I would say about like this.
Mr. BALL. You mean from here to here?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; with that folded down with this much for him to grip in his hand.
Mr. BALL. This package is about the span of my hand, say 8 inches, is that right? He would have about this much to grip?
Mrs. RANDLE. What I remember seeing is about this long, sir, as I told you it was folded down so it could have been this long.
Mr. BALL. I see. You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?
Mrs. RANDLE. A little bit more.
Mr. BALL. A little more than 2 feet."

Now Dave, we have to get something straight here. Was she mistaken on the day she gave her testimony, or was she mistaken when she gave information to Bookhout?

Or was Bookhout merely a filthy rat bag lying little snake who should have been strung up from a light post?

"Linnie Mae Randle wasn't always saying the package was 24-27 inches long. On the day of the assassination, in fact,

Linnie Mae told FBI agent James Bookhout that the length of Oswald's package was "approximately 3 feet"...."

Nice try, little guy, but that information was contained in one of the FBI "reports". You know the ones, they were written in the third person by FBI agents, often without the subject of the report present, and the majority of them were neither seen nor signed by the person that supposedly gave the evidence.

In other words, they were lies, Dave, and most of this case is built on them.

Tell me something, Dave. Wesley Frazier testified that the package LHO was carrying was a mere 2 feet long, far too short to conceal a disassembled M91/38 short rifle, and at least a foot shorter than the paper bag in evidence.

Do you think Frazier was lying when he testified about the length of the bag and, if you believe he was lying, why would he lie about the length of the bag?

No, of course Frazier wasn't lying. He truly thinks that the 38-inch bag he saw Oswald carrying was only about 24 to 27 inches in length. He was simply wrong about his estimate. He wasn't lying. He was just---wrong.

Here's what I said about it six years ago, in October of 2009.....

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

Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle were obviously "mistaken" as to the precise length of Oswald's paper bag.

To believe otherwise is to believe that the brown paper bag Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63 was a different brown paper bag from the EMPTY brown paper bag that was found in the TSBD which had OSWALD'S PRINTS ON IT.

Is a reasonable and sensible person supposed to actually believe that Oswald took a large-ish bag with him into work on November 22 that was 27 inches long, with that bag then disappearing without a trace between 8:00 AM and early- to mid-afternoon on the same day (November 22)?

And then are we supposed to believe that a similar-looking BROWN PAPER BAG (EMPTY!) turned up in the exact place from which a gunman fired shots at JFK, with this coincidence occurring (incredibly) on the very same day that Oswald carried a 27-inch BROWN PAPER BAG into the very same building where a 38-inch BROWN PAPER BAG was discovered WITH OSWALD'S PALMPRINT AND FINGERPRINT on it?

A reasonable person can arrive at only one reasonable conclusion here:

The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on the morning of the assassination was the very same paper bag that was seen lying (empty!) in the Sniper's Nest by Lt. Carl Day and Robert Studebaker of the DPD on November 22, 1963.

Accepting any other scenario other than the scenario I just mentioned in the above paragraph is to accept a scenario that lacks all fundamental logic and common sense.

Plus, any alternate "two bags" scenario raises more questions than it answers, e.g.:

1.) Where did this so-called 27-inch brown paper bag disappear to? Where is it? If Oswald really took some innocuous, innocent object(s) into the Book Depository that Friday, then why wasn't this innocuous item (curtain rods?) ever discovered by anybody after the assassination? (And if some conspiracists want to speculate that the DPD or the FBI deep-sixed the curtain rods, it would be nice to see some proof to back up such a vile allegation. To date, no such evidence has emerged from the speculation-ridden CT brigade.)

2.) How did Lee Harvey Oswald's palmprint and fingerprint manage to get on the 38-inch paper bag that is now in evidence in the National Archives (CE142)? Are we really to believe that the DPD "planted" two of Oswald's prints on that paper bag sometime after the assassination? (That's an extraordinary accusation that requires an equally extraordinary amount of proof to substantiate it, don't you agree?)

3.) If the bag that Oswald carried into the building had really merely contained curtain rods (or some other item that wasn't a gun), then why did Oswald deny ever taking such an innocent item into work on November 22nd? Did Oswald think that CURTAIN RODS could be considered a suspicious or dangerous item? Maybe he thought that the cops would accuse him of plotting to kill the President by the odd method of stabbing him to death with his curtain rods, eh?

Of course, conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio has decided to create a different scenario altogether (although this silly theory has probably been postulated by other CTers in the past as well, but I personally don't know of anyone else besides Jim D. who has gone on record as being this idiotic and paranoid):

DiEugenio has decided that Lee Oswald carried NO LARGE-ISH BAG INTO THE DEPOSITORY AT ALL on November 22nd. No bag at all!*

* DiEugenio might have suggested in the past that Oswald had a small lunch sack with him that Friday, but Jim is now pretty sure that Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Randle were part of Jim's almost-endless list of scheming liars and cover-up operatives who were attempting to frame and railroad poor schnook Oswald in November of '63, because DiEugenio thinks that Oswald carried NO BIG BAG into work at all on the morning of the President's murder.

So, Jim D. thinks that these two ordinary Irving, Texas, citizens (housewife Linnie Mae Randle and 19-year-old stock boy Buell Wesley Frazier) were lying when they each repeatedly claimed that Lee Oswald was carrying a large-ish brown bag with him on November 22.

Mr. DiEugenio evidently has never asked himself the following logical question regarding these two supposed liars:

If Frazier and Randle were really telling lies about Oswald having a large bag, then why on Earth did those two liars contend that the bag that each of them just MADE UP FROM WHOLE CLOTH was too short to hold Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?!

If Frazier and Randle were liars (as Jim DiEugenio now claims), they were pretty crappy liars, weren't they? Because if they were really telling falsehoods about LHO carrying a large bag, then those two liars would certainly have wanted to continue the deception by saying to the authorities that the bag they created out of thin air was big enough to hold the weapon that was obviously supposed to be inside that make-believe paper bag.

So many (stupid) conspiracy theories.

So little (common) sense do any of them make.

David Von Pein

October 16, 2009

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

More....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html

Seriously, Dave, both brother and sister make separate and independent estimations of the length of the bag, both are mistaken and, incredibly, both estimate the length to be 24-27" inches? Not sure I'd be calling anyone else's theories stupid, little man.

Tell me something, Dave. Wesley Frazier testified that the package LHO was carrying was a mere 2 feet long, far too short to conceal a disassembled M91/38 short rifle, and at least a foot shorter than the paper bag in evidence.

Do you think Frazier was lying when he testified about the length of the bag and, if you believe he was lying, why would he lie about the length of the bag?

You're right about one thing. There's not a scintilla of evidence. Of anything. Evidence is put through the screen of the Rules of evidence and in the case of witness testimony is tested by cross-examination. All that exists in the JFK assassination realm are facts, allegations of fact, lies, misrepresentations, and opinions.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy. Enough for any "reasonable" person to conclude there was more than one shooter. To deny this IMO has nothing to do with evidence or reason. It's almost like denying the theory of evolution for religious reasons or because one doesn't like it.

As an alcoholic in recovery for the past 30+ years, this is a form of denial very similar to what I've experienced in the realm of addiction. It's like seeing someone suffer needlessly, knowing that they won't stop suffering until they're ready, thinking "you poor soul"...

Hey, brother, I also am a friend of Bill W. Thirty-five years at the end of this month.

This is a favourite LN tactic. Whenever things get a bit sticky, a "new" member chimes in to lend some support.

More hilarity from Bob Prudhomme. Now he sees a conspiracy (of sorts) connected with the "new" Edu. Forum member, Curtis Berkley. Bob's use of quotation marks around the word "new" means, of course, that Bobby doesn't believe for a second that Curtis Berkley is using his real identity. Such paranoid behavior is, of course, par for the course among Internet CTers. (It's behavior that should certainly be frowned on by the owners of this moderated forum, however. Bob might as well just come out and call Curtis a xxxx. And on Curtis' first day here too. Isn't that special?

Plus, Bob thinks things have gotten "a bit sticky" with respect to the preposterous "fake backyard photos" topic in this thread. Again, hilarious.

It comes from experience, Dave.

What welcome?

Praise the Lord. a convert!

Just what we need, another born again LN.

Sure, Dave, whatever you say.

I have been wondering something. No matter what time of day or night I check this forum, you are here watching your threads. Can you honestly say this is a hobby, Dave?

Ah, I see. Who is the person the riddle is all about?

One of your disciples, Dave?

This is a favourite LN tactic. Whenever things get a bit sticky, a "new" member chimes in to lend some support. Check out Curtis's profile; "Member since Today 1:33 A.M."

Some day, DVP's funding will dry up, and we will finally get the last word in.

If it is so easy to stand, leaning over 20° to the right, and bending only at the ankles, why not reproduce this photo for us, Dave?

The CBS/Schiller photo you posted failed dismally at this, and only proved to everyone how impossible this pose is. That man had to keep his legs vertical, and bend at the hip.

P.S.

Note that the man in the CBS/Schiller photo had to place his right foot further back than LHO, presumably to keep him from falling on his butt.

I was just teasing you about the way you spelled "traveler". A good "son of the Commonwealth" would have spelled it "traveller", wouldn't he?

We have been hanging around these American forums for too long, I think.