Jump to content
The Education Forum

Andrej Stancak

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andrej Stancak

  1. Dallas Police were in control of all three crime scenes: the Grassy Knoll area, the Texas School Book Depository and the Tippit's murder scene. Dallas Police were able to supervise all three scenes (not necessarily act as killers) and manipulate evidence early on to mount all guilt on Lee Oswald. James Hosty mentioned in his book "Assignment Oswald" calling Sgt. H.M. Hart from the intelligence unit, naming him his counterpart in the Dallas Police, after 1:25 PM to compare their lists of right-wingers in Dallas area who were the initial suspects (per Edgar Hoover's initial assessment). Thus, there were contacts between James Hosty and Dallas Police prior to assassination. I also remember reading not very well documented bits of information about a Dallas police officer accompanying Hosty to Irving during his visits of Paine's house. Unfortunately, no hard data on such collaboration between Dallas Police and the FBI seem to exist.
  2. Gayle: many thanks for sharing your story here. Fingers crossed for you in your quest to find the original film recorded by your grandfather. That film is not the only one sorely missed - researchers cannot get access to Wiegman or Couch/Darnell films either, albeit for a different reason. I am not sure about the original Hughes film, however, the copies floating around on the Internet are very poor and may have even been edited. The primary visual evidence is essential for cracking the JFK assassination case. I hope you will let us know about what happened to the Nix film.
  3. Gil: I posted on your other recent thread on the topic of the 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter. Can you have a look? It is related to this thread and it may be useful to keep the posts related to the same topic under one thread. Anyway, the truth about the second-floor lunchroom encounter appears to be blurred by inaccuracies in witness testimonies, e.g. those of officer Baker, and by an intentional lack of interest in mapping Lee Oswald's movements during the critical time (11:50-12:35 and later). My view is that Baker did see Lee Oswald for a very brief moment when Baker was just stepping on the second-floor platform and Lee was about to cross from the vestibule to the second floor lunchroom. Barry Ernest wrote a very good piece on the second-floor encounter relying on early witness reports: https://thegirlonthestairs.wordpress.com/2021/03/29/the-lunchroom-encounter/ The scenario which does not require anyone lying is that Lee Oswald was eating his lunch in Domino room and heard the wave of excitement as the motorcade just turned from Main to Houston street. He walked the distance from Domino room to the front glass door, exited through the door and found a spot on the first/second step close to the western wall of the doorway. This would match Lee Oswald's statements given during his Friday 2:15PM interrogation as recorded by the FBI agent James Hosty. Hosty scribbled down Lee's words that clearly informed that he went out to watch "P. parade" and that he had his lunch on the first floor; he went briefly to the second floor to buy Coke to have it with his lunch but returned to the first floor (credit to Mr. Bart Kamp): Lee stayed in the doorway for about 40-50 seconds, and his presence there is indicated by the Wiegman and Darnell films. He left the doorway just seconds before or after Baker and Truly entered the doorway and walked up to the second floor via the second-floor hallway. As he was passing throuh the vestibule in front of the lunchroom, Baker was able to take a brief glimpse of him, and this motivated Baker to enter the lunchroom and contront Lee Oswald. It is unlikely that Baker would enter the second-floor lunchroom without seeing someone passing through the vestibule. Therefore, the idea that Lee was in the second floor lunchroom and quitely ate his lunch there until he was suddenly challenged by officer Baker does not sound possible. Of course, questions arise when considering this scenario, such as why would Lee Oswald go to the second floor lunchroom again after being there some minutes before. I can only offer a speculation - Lee went to the second floor to either check the location of his rifle (if he brought his rifle into the building) or to walk up to the upper floors to find out what happened as the shooting was not something he was told would happen on that day (in case he did not bring his rifle to the building). He may have realised that he would not be able to continue his search in the presence of Baker and Truly and decided to take a different path. I guess the timing of Lee Oswald's movements leading to the second floor lunchroom encounter while assuming Lee's starting location in the first floor needs to be examined throughly.
  4. Gil: This is a great post and a thorough analysis of the circumstances of the alleged second floor lunchroom encounter. I remember reading it from a PDF retrieved by Bart Kamp couple years ago. In my opinion, the timing problems can still be addressed using a computer reconstruction in which movement of actors (Officer Baker, Superintendant Truly, Lee Oswald, Vicki Adams and Sandra Styles, Mrs. Garner) can be estimated using different velocities and trajectories of each actor. The critical time point would be when Baker was just stepping on the platform of the second floor and Lee would just be a second before entering the lunchroom - this was the only time instant at which Baker could have spotted Lee Oswald. From that time point, the movements of each actor need to be reconstructed backwards. Of course, we do not know the timing of each action and this can affect the total movement time. For instance, how many seconds did elapse while Truly and Baker were probing the elevator before deciding to use the stairs? Five, ten? Every time segment can add to the final time estimate, and therefore, we work with a probability estimate of the movements of Lee Oswald and Baker intesecting at the critical point. I hope you would be able to check my preliminary analyses when they are available. Your analysis of the events occurring in the vestibule are spot-on and corroborate Barry Ernest's investigation. It took 4 seconds for the door leading from the platform to the vestibule would stop moving before closing completely; Baker would have to see the doors still moving if Lee entered the vestibule from the platform which he did not. Thus, Lee Oswald could only enter the vestibule from the hallway to be seen by Baker in the way Baker had described. The Depository floor plan does show a door at the transition between the hallway corridor and the vestibule, however, the door was actually opened permanently. This is seen in the video of the FBI reenactment of Lee Oswald's movements, and it was also confirmed by Barry Ernest who was able to examine the vestibule during his visit of the Depository in the sixties of the last century. Thus, if Baker saw Lee Oswald and challenged him in the second-floor lunchroom, it only could happen if Lee Oswald came to the lunchroom from the hallway, and this would imply that Lee has come not from the sixth floor (and via the door from the platform on the north side of the floor) but from the first floor (via the stairs in the front of the building). The timeline to examine is not the one assuming Lee coming from from the sixth floor to the second floor lunchroom but rather from the Domino room in the first floor to the steps in the doorway and then via the front stairs to the second floor lunchroom. The advantage of the computer analysis is that it allows for testing multiple alterative scenarios, including the first-to-second floor scenario. Interestingly, the first-to-second floor scenario has been briefly discussed by Bill Kelly and Sean Murphy early on in the thread "Oswald leaving the TSBD?" in 2013, however, it has not been elaborated since. There is one more problem with the second-floor lunchroom encounter as presented by the Warren Commission, as if proving Lee's decsending from the sixth floor. It took about 5-6 seconds to walk the distance from the exit of the stairwell leading to the second floor platform (from the third floor) and the door leading to the vestibule. As Roy Truly was several steps ahead of Baker, he would have to either see Lee Oswald entering the door to the vestibule or see him manipulating the door. As both men entered the stairwell on the first floor, they would have to hear Lee's steps as Lee would be descending the steps one floor above them. Both men would have to hear Lee Oswald's steps when he was walked down the stairs because the steps produced loud noises that could be heard on floors above and below. However, neither Truly nor Baker mentioned hearing any noises coming from the stairwell above while they started their ascend.
  5. Ben: I will prepare some images related to Connaly's injury behaviour later on (too much marking at the moment...). I think Connally was hit twice. Once around the time when Kennedy was shot (manifested in Kennedy lifting his hand toward his neck) and than again, into his wrist, around frame 328. This latter event is described in the latest Josiah Thompson's book Last Second in Dallas.
  6. Yes, the rotation of Connally's body to his right is a part of the process of falling down toward his wife after being shot. The frame 276 does not show what Connally had described as trying to view Kennedy by turning to his right. Connally told he has not been able to see Kennedy after turning to his right; he would be able to see him in frame 276 though. At least, this is what I read in Z-film.
  7. Ben: my visual analysis of Z-film tells me that John Connally showed signs of distress possibly from being shot around frames 239-241. While I agree that the President was hit earlier than Connally, it may be that the shot that had hit Connally came before frame 284. Frame 284 shows him turned toward the President, however, this was not how he described the shot. He was in the process of turning to his left (i.e., facing the front of car) when he registered being shot. Of course, I may be wrong as my is just an observation from Z-frames.
  8. Chris: is there any link to Part 1 to the The South Knoll Gunman? I only found a link to Part 2. I would be grateful for posting the link to Part 1, if possible. Thank you.
  9. Do I miss something? The switched-on microphone was supposed to be on Officer McClain's motorbike, not Hargis's motorbike.
  10. Well, I read this lengthy article and it turned out that the crictics cannot account for "I'll check it" being synchronous in both channels (as per James Barger's novel analysis, Appendix A). Ramsey panel in their report attempted to suppress this event. The digital analyses under the auspices of Ramsey panel used a too along time window to compute the pattern cross-correlation (PCC) and failed to detect it. Now, Richard Mullen in Appendix B accomplished it by using an appropriately short window and here the PCC shoots high when "I'll check it" pops up. Mr. Nalli wanted to weaken this finding by claiming the background noise was higher for "Check" than for "Hold" event, however, the level of noise will always be larger (or signal-to-noise ratio smaller) if the spectral window is reduced because less averaging is used to estimate the power spectra. As "I'll check it" event cannot be refuted (and it excludes "Hold" as being a genuine cross-talk), the critics aim on every possible aspect of Thompson's work. Their own acoustic analyses refrain to what they could hear with their own ears in the recordings, like that "I'll check it" is actually a completely different statement. Sure, Sgt. Bowles who was tasked with the trancripts of original audio recordings clealy heard "I'll check it" and assigned an ID of "4" (Deputy Fisher) just by mishearing it. The Ramsey panel report reproduced Bowles's transcription by replacing "4" with "?" and added "(discounted by sound spectrogram)" (the wrong spectrogram though, the one with a long spectral window which could not detect this short phrase"). That says it all.
  11. Larry: many thanks for reminding me your 2010 book. Of course, I read it, but it was some three years ago and I could not remember that January's stody was also mentioned in your previous JFKA book. I will consult it immediately. It is a sheer pleasure to read your and other researchers' posts in this thread that reveal both deep research and in-person investigations. Tipping Point is on myreading list. Will a Kindle version of your book be also available and is it reasonable to wait for it? Would you know or be able to guess who was the woman that came to negotiate with Wayne January on Wednesday, November 20? There were not many women associated with the case as potential co-conspirators and her identity could tell a lot about who were Lee's handlers in Dallas during this very sentitive period of the assassination plot.
  12. Thanks for reminding me, James Douglas had indeed described Wayne January's story in his book. Your memory serves you well. The possibility of two parallel plots, one to send Oswald to Cuba in the immediate aftermath of assassination and one to kill the President looks very logical and coherent to me. Lee Oswald played his spy games, he was led to believe he was in a plot against Castro, and he did not know anything about the other plot. This explains why he was genuinely surprised of being arreigned for killing the President when paraded in front of newsmen in Dallas Police headquarters. There is one more interesting aspect to the other plot. Lee Oswald likely issued a clue during 12 hours of his interrogation of him being associated with one or more intelligence agencies - those that handled him during the summer. This may have been the reason for not having taken any notes, or stenographic or audio recordings during the interrogations. If Captain Fritz gave a call to Langley to check up on Lee Oswlad, he would hear a clear denial but also a strict order not to take any records during the interrogations.
  13. I have not read Tipping Point yet, however, the close association between anti-Castro Cuban intelligence activities and Lee Oswald and the lack of understanding of his own role has been elaborated in "JFK The Second Plot" by Matthew Smith in 1992, and it kind of matches the discussions here. Lee Oswald was led through a labyrinth of anti-Cuban operations that summer 1963 and after his attempt to get to Cuba in September 1963 failed (it was never really planned to succeed but Lee did not know), he was sent to Dallas to wait for the opportunity to be flawn to Cuba directly using a small aircraft. He was told that this clandestine operation would best take off when the President is in Dallas as nobody will pay any attention to what aaircraft departs from the Red Bird airport. Contrary to my working hypothesis of Oswald involvement (Lee taking part in a mock shooting attempt by bringing his rifle), Lee Oswald hurried from the Depository only because he had a randevous to make, with J.D. Tippitt supposed to provide a transfer to the airport. In the meantime, there was a an APB roughly matching Lee Oswald, and Tippitt became suspicious of possible Lee Oswald's involement in Presindent's killing. The person who lured Tippitt to tranfering Lee Oswald to the airport (Roscoe White?) was at the scene (possibly even brought Lee from North Beckley in a car) and it was that person who shot Tippitt. He had to do it because Tippitt would get to know too much about both plots and who was behind and could point directly to the person who asked for the transfer. Miss Acquilla Clemons's account would match this scenario quite well. The scenario rests on the author's interview with Wayne January who described in great detail the visit of three persons (Oswald sitting in the car and not present during the talking) at Red Bird airport aimed to rent a small plane with a pilot for flight; the two people told January enough for him to understand that this plane would be hijacked on route, and he declined the contract. However, people in Red Bird airport area complained about an aircraft revving its engine the whole afternoon as if waiting for a hasty departure. Thus, Lee Oswald, according to "The Second Plot" , did not know anything about the plot to kill the President, however, he knew a lot about the second plot and that would be enough to expose the assassination plot. Also, the second plot was based totally on the intelligence operations involving the CIA and the anti-Castro Cuband during summer of 1963. The whole purpose of the second plot was to fly Oswald to Cuba right after the assassination and then pin all guilt on him. The result would be a request of the public to attack Cuba.
  14. Steven: I guess the wound of the size of a baseball in the right parietal region of the head described by Parkland doctors cannot be seen in Marry Moorman picture; that wound would be on the right side of the head as a part of the blown-off bone flap. I guess what happend was that a large amount of brain tissue has been torn off from the rest of the brain, basically the whole of the right parietal lobe and a part of the occipital cortex. Therefore, it would have been possible to see the remaining brain tissue through the large wound, and that would be the cerebellum. Unfortunately,we lack a proper 3D reconstruction of President's head and the head wound in Z-film or Mary Moorman picture which would be of great help.
  15. Paul: As far as I can see, the Z-film shows very clearly a flap of bone hanging over the right ear. I may be wrong, however, my interpretation is that a part of this flap, the back portion of this flap, separated from the skin and fell onto the backseat. The remaining flap of bone was turned back, it could even be Jackie who did that, basically closing the enormous wound on the right side of the head. However, since the back portion of the flap was already on the backseat, the Parkland staff saw the back part of the wound; the wound was in reality much larger than the wound that Parkland doctors and nurses saw. It is a speculation on my part, however, I can envisage that the portion of the flap of bone seen in Z-film that was found on the back seat was retrieved by the SS agents and brought to Bethesda. The flap of bone hanging over the right ear can only be the result of a tangential shot (if this flap was pushed out by a radial force, there would be an entry wound above the left ear) and such a shot most likely had an entry in the right front temple and exit in the parietal region slightly medial relative to the large flap of bone seen in Z-film. I guess this is what Tom Wilson and I were able to reconstruct from Mary Moorman photograph. Detail of the exit wound in Mary Moorman photogaph: Location of the exit wound in Mary Moorman picture: Could the whole purpose of the apparent surgery to the head mentioned by agents Sibert and O'Neill be adding the missing part of the bone to cover up the tangential shot which would cast doubts on a shot from the back?
  16. Mark: I am not sure if you have read Josiah Thompson's book. The book would address your points better than I can. The microphone on a motorbike was certainly switched on as it recorded engine sound (this would not be case if the motorcycle were parked somewhere miles away from Dealey Plaza). I was satisfied that it captured "I'll check it" (which occurred only seconds before the shooting) and the motor slowed down right after this message for about three seconds, possibly because the motorcycle was doing the sharp turn to Elm Street. The shots rang out just after "I'll check it" and after about 3 seconds of the motorcycle slowing down. The clue "I'll check it" occurred on both channels due to the crosstalk and there was zero lag (or perfect synchrony) between the channels if simulcast, voice-independent impulses were used to synchronise both channels. This was demonstrated by James Barger in 2018, and he has a chapter describing his analysis in Josiah Thompson's book. The array of microphone was capturing the sounds of shots along the path of the motorcade which could not occur just by chance. The sounds of shots were modelled to match the test shots fired at Dealey Plaza with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. The specific architecture of buildings in Dealey Plaza offered several reflecting surfaces which affected the shape of the sound waves produces by a rifle shot. It would not be possible to take the sound wave template, run it through the dictabelt recording and receive statistically significant verifications of the shots by chance (false positives), for instance by falsely detecting electrostatic spikes or other abrupt sounds; the false positives are prevented by implementing statistical analysis which was indeed the case. I have registered the criticism of acoustic evidence that no picture or film showed officer McLain and his bike at an appropriate location where he would be expected if his microphone registered the shots. Frustrating as it is, the absence of a picture or film showing officer McClain at a certain location is not enough to refute the acoustic evidence. To refute the acoustic evidence, there should be a positive evidence, a picture or film, of officer McLain being somewhere else, e.g., in Parkland area or far ahead of the motorcade.
  17. I have completed my reading of "Last second of Dallas" and am very impressed by this book. I will read it again more slowly, however, there are a couple of points which immediately caught my attention: 1. The analysis of post-Z313 frames pointing to a head shot coming from the rear was new to me. This shot seemed to have occurred in frame Z328, about 0.71 s after the earlier head shot from the front. In all fairness, even Josiah Thompson could not identify this shot for some 30 years. It was discovered by Keith Fitzgerald around 2005. The shot from the rear explains the forward and downward slump of Kennedy after being thrown earlier to the left and back by the frontal shot. The occurrence and latency of this shot fits with the acoustic evidence. 2. The novel details and analyses of the acoustic data are extremely valuable and add to the strength of the visual evidence. This includes in the first place a new proof of a synchronising event "I'll check it" which occurred simultaneously in both channel 1 and 2 just seconds before the shooting. (Interestingly, the noise caused by the motorcycle engine showed a drop for about 3 seconds just before the shooting, consistent with slowing down during the hairpin turn to Elm street). However, the book, thanks to contributions of James Barger and Richard Mullen (BBN Technologies), also shows that the previous criticism of acoustic evidence based on a almost 1-minute delay in occurrence of "Hold everything" between channel 1 and 2, used by the Ramsey panel to discredit the HSCA conclusions, was wrong: this mismatch was due to copying "Hold" from one channel onto another at a later stage, possibly by mistake. This overdub of "Hold" at a later stage was demonstrated by examining the presence of multiple frequencies of the humming sound in channel 1 which could only happen by copying "Hold" from the other channel including its unique noise frequency (the recordings and copies were made on the Audograph machines each having a unique speed which shifted the 60 Hz noise frequency in a specific manner).
  18. I understand the acoustic and acceleration arguments for two head shots occurring in rapid succession, however, what the Z-film and the MM picture both tell point to only one head shot with an entry probably on the right temple behind the eye and exit probably in the parietal region of the skull, as reconstructed in Mary Moorman's picture. This shot was tangential and caused a large flap of bone to detach from the rest of cranium and hang by the skin. The brain matter including blood and cerebrovascular fluid was discharged upward in various directions - directly upward, slightly to the front and also to the back, creating a wedge. The left-riding motorcycle officers were hit as they arrived at a spot to receive the brain matter and bone particles falling down. I just cannot see evidence in terms of the head wounds (on the autopsy pictures or in Z-film) proving another head shot while I admit there may be another shot around the time of the fatal head shot that missed. The flap of bone hanging over the President's right ear in Z-film suggests a large gaping wound in the right parietal region of the head and this could be the wound that all Parkland medical staff had witnessed. I wonder if the bone loosened from the flap and remained in the limousine, was retrieved by the SS agents, brought to the Bethesda hospital, and was crudely mounted back in what was later seen as "apparent surgery to the head" by the FBI agents Sibert and O'Neil.
  19. Steven: I was thinking a lot about your comment about the timing of Mary Moorman's picture. If Mary Moorman snapped her famous picture before the head shot, the photographic analysis shown in this thread would hang in the air. I am currently reading Josiah Thompson' Last second in Dallas, and the book claims the picture was shot 1/9 second after the head shot (presumably Z313). This would justify seeing the two holes in the right parietal area of the scalp in Moorman's picture. My current working hypothesis would be that the two small holes seen in Moorman's picture would be the exit holes from the frontal head shot to the right temple, and this tangential shot would cause flipping of a large portion of the skull that would hang by the skin over the right ear. I guess, this is seen in Z film frames after Z313. Could this flap have separated from from the head and remained in the limousine?
  20. Hello Jim:

    do you know about David Josephs? I miss his presence on the Forum, and have checked his last access. It was January 4. I hope David is all right. I would be grateful for letting me know if you know.

    Best wishes




  21. I can confirm that the delay in response to a noxious impact to the skin (not mentioning the impact of a gunshot) of 2 seconds is an order longer than the electrophysiological data in healthy humans. A noxious stimulus impacting the skin will cause a brain response within 200 ms (actually the first cortical response can be seen as early as 140-160 ms) and an involuntary motor response to noxious impact occurs in about the same latency (around 200 ms or shorter). This early response is called the motor withdrawal reaction and it is mediated by the spinal cord. Thus, if there was an abrupt motion artefact in Zapruder film and a visible motor response occurred only 2 seconds later, we speak about two shots of which the first perhaps missed.
  22. The problem with the official version is that it is sufficient to identify just one glaring problem and the whole theory crumbles. For me this problem is that Lee Oswald could not enter the second floor lunchroom by a route involving the stairwell on the north of the building. First, he could be seen through the narrow door window on the door leading to the lunchroom from the stairwell platform from one location, and that location was just in front of the last step on the stairs exiting to the second floor. While this was possible, there is always a history to any action: Roy Truly was steps ahead of Officer Baker and Truly would have to see Lee crossing the door and the door would still be open. However, Truly did not see any movements of the doors or anyone on the platform or in the door. Second, it takes about 3-4 seconds to cross the distance of the platform between the door at the exit from the stairs and the door leading to the lunchroom vestibule. Lee Oswald would be still on the final steps of those stairs when Baker and Truly would just start ascending through the stairs leading from the first floor; this means these two men had to hear Lee's steps either on the stairs or on the platform, or both. However, they did not. The stairs were old and creaky. Even Buell Wesley Frazier flagged up the problem of no one hearing Lee's steps in his recent interview on Quorum Radio. Vicki Adams confirmed the noise problem to Barry Ernest, and Barry was able to test the stairs himself back in 1969. Third, Miss Garner placed herself very close to the stairwell on the fourth floor during the critical moments after the shooting. Miss Garner took this post within seconds after Vicki Adams and Sandra Styles disappeared in the stairwell. Thus, not only there was a brief overlap of the time when the girls were on stairs and Lee was allegedly starting his descend (Lee could be at the stairwell around 30 seconds after the last shot), but Miss Garner covered the remaining time of Lee Oswald's alleged descent. It is even worst than that: to connect the exit from stairs leading from the fifth to the fourth floor with the entrance to the stairs leading from the fourth to the third floor, Lee would have to walk on the fourth-floor platform and could therefore be seen by anyone on the fourth floor, especially by Miss Garner who monitored that space. Lee Oswald could enter the second floor lunchroom and be seen by Officer Baker at one specific time point while he was in the small vestibule leading to the lunchroom, however, he would have to arrive from the hallway of the second floor. And that space is connected with the first floor via the front stairs. The timing problem was never properly addressed in official investigations and so the timing problem as if did not exist for those believing in the official version. And those who wonder how could the timing problem be resolved are considered to be fools.
  23. Denis: my point was that Mr. Frazier did not even mention his HSCA interview in his autobiography, while he did mention Clay Shaw trial (and of course, his Warren Commission testimony). It certainly could be the case that he did not receive either the tape or the transcript, however, he still could at least mention it and give some details.
  24. Vince: But this is also the strength of this book in the sense of deterring the assassination researchers to ask questions and seek answers from Mr. Frazier. It is just an autobiography after all. As I understand from the silence on his Facebook page, Mr. Frazier has no intention to answer questions. And there are so many. On page 52, Mr. Frazier writes about being invited by his coworkers in the Depository to go for a beer together to the Carousel Club. Who were these coworkers? No answer, unfortunately. As I mentioned before, Buell Wesley Frazier was interviewed for the House Select Committee on Assassination in 1977. However, there is just no mention of this 4-hour long interview. Why? How it is possible not to mention sighting of Lee Oswald just minutes after the shooting,while testifying for the Warren Commission that he had not seen him any longer that day because he went down to basement to have lunch? Why could he not say to any law enforcement officer about seeing a man with a rifle in an area between Depository and railroad tracks within a minute of shooting? He could have said this to any ranking officers in the Depository and instead of the inaccurate bulletin about a man of 30 years age, Police could have issued a quite an accurate description of the man and his car. Why instead assuring that suspicious person about not seeing anything? Did he really know Charles Harrelson and members of Dixie mafia at the time when he was about to leave for Dallas in 1963? Could there be a plan to place Mr. Frazier into Texas School Book Depository in summer 1963? Could it be that Mr. Frazier associated that unknown man whom he encountered after the shooting with those people? Could it be that it was the moment when he decided to steer truth to oblivion? Did he ever had any suspicion about the content of the elongated package? The package clearly could not contain any curtain rods - the room at North Beckley only required three rods (or one very long which obviously was not a rod carried by Lee Oswald) and the rods would be lightweight - they would certainly not provide for a bulky package described by his sister. One does not need a package 5-6 inches wide to carry three rods each of a diameter of a finger. What is the reason of not having any memory recollections of people standing near him during or immediately after the shooting (except mentioning a heavy set lady names Sara as standing to the left of him). How could he not recall Officer Baker and Roy Truly storming into the building and shuffling people on steps away? These memory lapses are not due to the long period of time elapsing since the event; Mr. Frazier never described in detail who was with him in the doorway. Why would Mr. Frazier describe Lee's hair as blonde?
  25. I am not the judge here, and never was in a situation even remotely resembling Buell Wesley Frazier's experience during the day of assassination, however, it is a fact that he chopped off from his relevant testimonies (such as the one for the Warren Commission) both his encounter with a man with a rifle who was leaving the assassination scene and his sighting of Lee Oswald who clearly had to leave from the back of the building, not via the main entrance a few minutes after the assassination. Had he mentioned the presence of a man with a rifle in that critical area and so close to the shooting, Lee Oswald's fate could have been different because the Police would have a reason to think of somebody else's than Lee Oswald's involvement.
  • Create New...