Andrej Stancak

Hello Tommy: You are most welcome. I have seen your comments on Hungarian and other languages in one of the Harvey and Lee threads, and appreciated your deep knowledge. Your personal message turned my attention to what I wrote when joining the Forum. I made some progress with the reconstruction of the doorway and all the occupants, however, would only post my work when I feel it is finished. If there are imperfections in my work, they would be used to discredit whatever the results suggest. In the current atmosphere around Prayer Man, I just do not feel like wanting it. Please keep doing your good job in the Forum, I will keep reading your messages. Best Andrej

As per Mr. Veciana's memory recall, it would be still useful to show him some contemporary 1963 pictures of various hotels and buildings from Dallas and other cities, and to tape record this small experiment. Maybe this is what Mr. Fonzi did? Mr. Wynne Johnson is now a member of the Forum, and has all chances to address your points. I am aware of the risk that old autobiographic memories can be tainted by subsequent information and experiences, and agree that at least some objective, third-party corroboration is necessary for every testimony, including Wynne's late testimony. The difference in our standpoints is that I am willing to give Mr. Johnson the time he needs to gather some evidence, and am not attributing any dishonest motives for coming out with his testimony so late. My original post was meant to have Mr. Johnson's remarkable testimony recorded for the history, and if no further corroborating evidence is found to support Wynne's testimony, his testimony will remain as an interesting but unproven part of the JFK assassination history.

It is possible that Veciana did not remember the name of the building during the interviews made by Gaeton Fonzi. Even if Mr. Veciana himself did not give the name of the building in any of his public appearances or interviews, this does not exclude this building as the venue. As Chris pointed out, Mr. Veciana offered enough clues to Mr. Fonzi, so that Mr. Fonzi was able to identify the name building from different clues. Mr. Johnson can perhaps add more details about Mr. Veciana's memories of the building because they met and discussed this encounter few years ago. In this recording, Mr. Fonzi says that the building was later determined to be the Southland building. The relevant section is at 38 min 30 sec.

Welcome to the Forum, Wynne. It is an excellent and rare occasion to have on board the witness of such an important encounter as was the encounter between Phillips, Veciana, and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Hello, Wynne, I wish you a lot of fruitful discussions and knowledge exchanges in the Forum.

Dan: You certainly raised an interesting issue. Is it normal to see a conspiracy in the case which the government concluded was not a conspiracy? It means to go against the leaders of own country. What a despicable thing is to question the legitimacy of the post-assassination governments. Why would anyone do this? My point is that it is not easy to be a conspiracy researcher because some residual feelings of guilt and fear are always invoked by the conspiracy standpoint. To this, we have the paranoia view of the world which appears to be heavily represented among the conspiracy researchers. However, paranoia is actually an evolutionary device helping to anticipate potentially threatening actions of potential enemies. Paranoia type of thinking was behind the arm race during the Cold war - each side suspected that the other party might attack them and increased its investments into weapons. I am sure that many outstanding scientist have quite a good endowment for paranoia thinking. This helps them to see subtle, sub-threshold cues which cues are otherwise deemed inconspicuous by the less paranoia thinking people. The paranoia type of thinking among the conspiracy researchers varies and it is important to be aware of its consequences. A too eager paranoia thinker will consider every testimony and every photograph as false or altered. In more serious cases, a "researcher" would design his/her own story which appears completely plausible but it just cannot be supported by one single piece of evidence. The JFK researchers appear to be prone to be addicted to their research. It is interesting to see how Jim Garrison in the JFK movie stopped to attend the family events and steered all his activities towards one goal, costing him his family life. It would be a serious blow to some JFK researchers if the case was suddenly solved e.g., by the soon to occur release of new documents, because it appears that the case has absorbed their entire lives. A detachment from the case and periods of abstinence are important to avoid the risk to be swallowed by the JFK case. So, where does the truth start and where does our paranoia thinking alter the reality? Sticking to the facts, verifying the facts, being aware of own conspiracy thinking, checking "natural" explanations in the first place, being moderate in expressions, always allow a space for doubt or error, some level of detachment, and tolerance to opposing views, are maybe the tools to use.

Michael: I found the paragraph in Mr. Kelly's blog essay you refer to: "Later that very day I met with former Congressional investigator Gaeton Fonzi, and asked him in which building lobby in Dallas did Antonio Vechina meet with his CIA case officer “Maurice Bishop” and find him meeting with Oswald? Fonzi said, “The Southland Building,” thus presenting another possible destination for the fleeing Oswald, though one that he apparently had a change of mind about before getting there." The idea that Lee originally thought to go where possibly his handler(s) may have been is very interesting indeed.

Thanks, Sandy, for expressing very clearly the impact of Mr. Frazier's altered version of important parts of the case. I see it the same way.

I would appreciate your personal view on any Prayer Man issue as I can see the tremendous progress you made over a short period of time. I was born in East Slovakia, close to Hungarian and Ukrainian border, and moved to the Czech Republic to complete my studies, and ended up having a Czech citizenship. However, my third and current home is Liverpool, UK, for more than ten years now. I also lived in Minnesota as a Fulbright fellow for about six months. I had a chance to know the US and the American people, and I like the US very much. The state of affairs in the USA is of importance for the whole world, and it certainly matters to me. However, my motivation to find out the truth about the assassination of President Kennedy dates further back, to my childhood years.

Alistair: I have opinions about the locations of Mr. Saunders and Mr. Stanton but no proof. I would post my views if I am certain and have some proof. Their locations are important to the whole research community

Paul: Mr. Frazier might have told the truth under oath as you suggest. All what Mr. Frazier was did after the shooting was to remain clean, and it was certainly his interest not to lie under oath. The exact wording of the questions can certainly help to answer without committing a perjury. We agree on this point. In his testimony he was asked about his exact movements after the shooting, and about his last sighting of Lee Oswald. The answers to these questions were clear and definite. They could not be "amended" later. I also agree that Mr. Frazier would more likely allow himself to say a changed story in his later interviews. Unfortunately, one cannot have both sets of his statements (one for Warren Commission, another set in his interviews). A witness cannot "amend" story in such a way that s/he changes a sworn testimony - this certainly poses a big question about the credibility of the witness. Mr. Frazier did just this - he changes his original testimony. His credibility, if it depends on future offers for interview as you suggest, is in ruins. Back to the length of the package: Mr. Frazier described a precise way how Lee Harvey Oswald carried the parcel. This specific style of carrying the parcel also defines accurately the length of the parcel. The parcel could only have the length of the arm of a man 5'9'' minus about 3 inches as the fingers were flexed to create a cup on which the parcel rested. There is no wiggle room here. I may be wrong but his curtain rods in a parcel of about 27'' x 5'' was designed to allow for both the curtain rods and a disassembled rifle. Maybe, Mr. Frazier though that Lee's disassembled rifle would be about 2 feet long. Then saying the curtain rods story would exonerate him as the accessory to the fact since even if it would have been a rifle, Mr. Frazier could have been justly unaware about the true content of the parcel. Unfortunately, the disassembled rifle measured some 36'' ... Mr. Frazier could only continue maintaining his original curtain rod story even if could not account for the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. It is very likely that both the DPD and the Commission knew that the parcel actually contained a rifle but let Frazier get along with his false curtain rod story.

Paul: an interesting interpretation of yours that Mr. Frazier constructed the new route and the late sighting of Lee by not differentiating between his dream and reality. I wonder if his conversation about Lee's not carrying a lunch to work on Friday morning could also be based on a dream. It would be a pretty bad dream as this dream denies Lee the possibility to carry his lunch e.g., in his jacket. This no-lunch-for-Lee dream plays into the cards of the official version placing Lee Oswald to the six floor as the shooter. He would be neither in the second nor first floor lunchroom after 12noon since he did not bring or buy any lunch - what would he then do in any of the lunchrooms. So, it seems Wesley uses to dream along the notes of the Warren Commission. Or, it was not a dream at all... Dream or not, how can Mr. Frazier be trusted e.g., in the question of Prayer Man's identity after providing a false information of this scale?

Thanks for the new link. So, Frazier's first mention of his new route was not during his Living History interview but 11 years earlier. I did not know that the 2002 interview also contained about the same information as he then described with more details in his 2013 interview. However, this does not change the discrepancy between information given during his Warren Commission testimony and in his two late interviews. The problem is whether he did describe his movements truthfully and gave a correct time of his last sighting of Oswald during his Warren Commission testimony. It is the question of Mr. Frazier's credibility. Your opinion?

Alistair: thanks for amending the transcript. However, do you see the obvious conflict between Mr. Frazier's interview for the Sixth Floor Museum in 2013 and his Warren Commission testimony? One of the conflicts is how he described his movements after the shooting (adding a whole new route to the east corner of the building to his original description), and the other conflict being his sighting of Lee Oswald as late as after 12.30 compared to "after 10". In which case did he say the truth, in his Warren Commission testimony or in his late interview? Would you agree that he did not speak the truth in one of these two sets of statements?

The post awaited by you is just above. It compares a Living History interview with Mr. Frazier with his testimony for the Warren Commission. Mr. Frazier apparently lied to the commission about when he saw Oswald for the last time, and about his movements after the shooting. Mr. Frazier did not report his updated movements and his late sighting of Lee Oswald for 50 years. He either concealed the true course of events and lied in his sworn testimony, or he concocted his new route towards the east corner of the building and seeing Oswald on Houston/Elm only now (fifty years after the fact). In either case, Mr. Frazier lost his credibility. The question on him would be: Did you lie under oath when you said that your last sighting of Oswald was after 10AM? I hope this helps.

Let us look at some details in Mr. Frazier's testimonies. Below is a transcript from the "Living History with Buell Wesley Frazier" interview recorded by the Sixth Floor Museum and posted on August 27, 2013. Mr. Fagin led the interview. The interview can be found on YouTube.com by typing the title of the video broadcast. The relevant section of the interview starts at 33 min 50 s: Mr. Fagin: In the chaos that followed the shooting, did you see Oswald at all? Mr. Frazier: (pause) I did. This was all... I do not know how many minutes later … (noisy recording), but the lady I stand next to. Some of the people, Bill Shelley and Mr. Billy Lovelady, they went down towards the Triple Underpass because before they went down there, a lady came by, a woman came by, she was crying and she said "Somebody has shot the President". So we looked ...(unintelligible). And I turned to Sarah: "She said somebody shot the President", I said I doubt what she said. She said that she did say that. So we stayed there for few minutes, and, and I walked down to the first step where Billy was standing there by myself so to look around it. And it was just total chaos there. And then forbear I started to go down If can see Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady, and it was so much chaos down there. And I said, well, I better go back to work, go back to the steps, so now, and I did, I walked back to the bottom of the steps, and then I walked out to the corner of the building right there where Houston comes side of the building. And I was talking to someone, it was a lady, and I looked to my left, and come walking alone the side of the Texas School Book building was Lee Oswald. Mr. Fagin: walking along this side of the building? Mr. Frazier: Yes. Mr. Fagin: Houston Street. Mr. Frazier. Yes, Houston Street. So, he'd come around after the dock there. So, he walks up and I talked to this lady. He didn't say anything. And he crosses Houston. I watch him crossing Houston as I talked to this little lady. and as he gets over to the other side of Houston, and then he crosses Elm. And somebody said something to me and I turned, and he was about half-way across the street, and when I turned back he was gone in the crowd, and I don’t know what happened to him. But I did not worry too much about that because there were several places around there where you can go when you need a sandwich, and I never asked him that morning when he and I were riding to work, and I says: Where is your lunch? He said: Oh, I will buy off the truck today. I said: “OK”, Well, I didn’t think anything when he told me about buying off the truck. He said, buy his lunch, “I will buy my lunch today”, and … I did not like … (unintelligible) so, but I though he was talking about "Cader Crock" (I not sure I have transcribed this name correctly) , but … Mr. Fagin: There is no doubt in your mind that this was Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. Frazier: This (They?, AS) was. Mr.Fagin: Could you see the expression of his face, or anything you can tell us about the way he looked? Mr. Frazier: There was nothing different about Lee. Expression on his face was … He looked perfectly normal. And that’s the last time I remember seeing him. End of transcript. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are at least two points in this interview which contradict Mr. Frazier's testimony for the Warren Commission which statements were made under oath: 1. The point of his whereabouts and moves immediately after the shooting. This is what Mr. Frazier had to say in his testimony: Mr. FRAZIER - I believe Billy and them walked down toward that direction but I didn't. I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all. Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there? Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there? Mr. BALL - A police officer. Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worked there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we stared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there. Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - And before you went back into the Building no police officer came up the steps and into the building? Mr. FRAZIER - Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it. Mr. BALL - Did anybody say anything about what had happened, did you hear anybody say anything about the President had been shot? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; right before I went back, some girl who had walked down a little bit further where I was standing on the steps, and somebody come back and said somebody had shot President Kennedy. Mr. BALL - Do you know who it was who told you that? Mr. FRAZIER - Sir? Mr. BALL - Do you know who the girl was who told you that? Mr. FRAZIER - She didn't tell me right directly but she just came back and more or less in a low kind of hollering she just told several people. Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - And police officers came in there? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I would say by the time, you know some of us went back in, and it wasn't just a few minutes, I say there were several. Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the first floor? Mr. FRAZIER - Well, stayed on the first floor there for a few minutes and I hadn't eaten my lunch so I had my lunch down there in the basement and I went down there to get my lunch and eat it and I walked back up on the first floor there. Mr. BALL - When you came back into the Building, you came in the front door, didn't you? Mr. FRAZIER - Right Mr. BALL - Did you go down to the basement immediately or did you stand around on the first floor? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood around for several minutes there, you know, and then, you know, eventually the ones who hadn't eaten their lunch, some of them had taken their lunch outside. According to Mr. Frazier's testimony, he stayed on the spot where he was during the shooting, and after a girl (Calvary?) came in and told about the shooting on President Kennedy he went into the building, stayed in the first floor, and went to the basement alone. There is no mention of him going down the steps, walking outside in direction of Shelly and Lovelady, then back to steps and then still to the east corner of the building. 2. The point of when Mr. Frazier saw Lee Oswald for the last time. His Warren Commission statements were this: Mr. BALL - When was the last time you can remember you saw Lee? Mr. FRAZIER - You mean on the 22d? Mr. BALL - On the 22d, that day. Mr. FRAZIER - Somewhere between it was after 10 and somewhere before noon, because I remember I was walking down to the first floor that day, that was the only time I went up on the elevator was, like I say, for a few minutes and, I put that box of books up and put it down, and I was on the first floor putting up books all day and I seen him back and forth and he would be walking and getting books and put on the order. Mr. BALL - That was the last time you saw him all day? Mr. FRAZIER - Right Mr. BALL - You didn't talk to him again? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I didn't. In his testimony for the Warren Commission, Mr. Frazier asserted that he has seen Lee after 10AM for the last time. Now, in his Living History interview, he describes a full knew story in which he saw him leaving the depository from the back of the building, not from the front as the official version had it for fifty years. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The details about his lunch conversation with Lee in "Living History" appears new to me. It cannot be classified as a lie because no one asked Mr. Frazier about Lee's lunch during the testimony, however, it certainly provides further damning evidence against Lee Oswald because it disputes Lee's defense that he had a lunch in the first floor before the shooting. How could he have a lunch if he did not bring any lunch with him, and there is no evidence or sighting of Oswald going out of the building to buy it and coming back? An accused assassin was not supposed to go out of the building to buy lunch anyway, he was supposed to wait on the sixth floor for his chance to shoot the President. So, Mr. Frazier with his details about Lee not bringing his lunch that morning says that the package Lee Oswald brought to work this morning was: 1) not a lunch, 2) not a rifle as you cannot carry a Mannlicher Carcano rifle this way: Mr. BALL - One end of it was under the armpit and the other he had to hold it in his right hand. Did the package extend beyond the right hand? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Like I say if you put it under your armpits and put it down normal to the side. Mr. BALL - But the right hand on, was it on the end or the side of the package? Mr. FRAZIER - No; he had it cupped in his hand. Mr. BALL - Cupped in his hand? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, even if disassembled, would be much too long to carry it this particular way. Mr. Frazier was always consistent about the way how the parcel was worn in his subsequent interviews. ======================================================================================================================================= Where does all this lead to? Mr. Frazier either lied under oath in his Warren Commission testimony, or he lied in his "Living History" interview. His sudden recall of the important details of his Friday are not a recall problem - he adds vivid details. He does not shrink the story which one would expect as a result of forgetting, he expands it. Mr. Frazier, sorry to say, lied in important parts of the event. No one would wish to lie. There is no evil motive in Mr. Frazier's heart making him to lie against Lee Oswald. My interpretation is that he is being led, even now, more than fifty years after the fact. The interview not only contains information proving that Mr. Frazier lied either to the Warren Commission or in "Living History", but this information is also a message that we can forget to learn anything useful about the case because not even the information in the Warren Report might be truthful. In my view, the Living History interview with Wesley Frazier is a part of ongoing cover-up. Mr. Frazier's interview also suggests that he might have other trumps in his sleeve as he was able to produce a brand new and never heard information after fifty years. Maybe, his ultimate card will be Prayer Man's identity. Late edit: It is a sort of curiosity that the original Prayer Man thread "Oswald leaving ..." started on August 14, and the first Prayer Man post by Sean Murphy dates August 15, 2013. The interview with Mr. Frazier was posted (not sure when it was recorded though) on August 27, 2013. An interview that pushes Lee away from the first floor, in particular from the first floor vestibule, by having him exiting the building from the back of the building. Mr. Frazier did not see a Coke in Lee's hand (or did he?), so did Lee drink the alleged full bottle of Coke before leaving? Should we believe that he descended from the second floor via the front stairs, drank the Coke somewhere on the first floor as he was moving to the north side of the building, did not take his jacket from the first floor lunchroom, and then left whilst appearing perfectly normal to Mr. Frazier. And no one saw Oswald on the first floor while he was leaving even if he had to walk through the whole first floor to get to the back door.

Paul: I have commented on reasons for which those seeing Oswald in the doorway in a number of my previous posts. For instance, I pointed to the treatment which witnesses opposing the official line received (e.g., Serrano's interview in the RFK case, The Thin Blue Line which actually relates to Dallas) unless they agreed to keep silence. Only the people on the top landing were in position to see Prayer Man. Other people, such as Carl Jones standing at the lower west corner of the doorway, would not know who stood behind him. Oswald stood in the doorway for a short period of time, maybe 120 seconds, and it was the time of pandemonium; Prayer Man would not be a conspicuous person to remember even if someone would glance on the doorway. He would only be seen from certain view angles, excluding a large number of potential random observers. The lack of information about Oswald's whereabouts, especially at the time of shooting and shortly later as he was leaving the Depository, equals the lack of information related to his possible short stay in the doorway. He allegedly left three minutes after the shooting, and there were already people around on his way out in the doorway and the vestibule. No one from the employees remembered seeing him leaving? How comes? The reason for covering up Lee's whereabouts after 12.00noon was the necessity to place him to the sixth floor. Any testimony about Lee's whereabouts would lead to further questions and to a likely dismantling of the cover-up. I will come to Mr. Frazier's credibility in one of my next posts. I am on travel at the moment and have no access to my notes and to original sources.

Jim: I admit my ignorance for not reading your book. It is on my reading list now. You clearly went through these important aspects of the case in detail, and I should have known. The gun sack is an additional problem to the rifle, and how the rifle ended up on the sixth floor. It demonstrates how poorly was the investigation of the crime scene carried out, or maybe how evidence was tampered with. I apologise to everyone for dragging the discussion to curtain rod story but the question asked repeatedly and understandably by fellow researchers is why would Mr. Frazier not say whether Prayer Man was or was not Lee Oswald, and the answer would be that he may not volunteer any information about who stood next to him (if it were Oswald) since he was compromised from the very beginning.

I appreciate, Sandy. I do not claim to know the answers, I only see questions.

Folded hand, since it carried a parcel - subtract some 3-4 inches from the maximum arm length.

Yes, there is something illogical in the curtain rod story. Mr. Frazier insisted he saw a package two feet long which he saw Lee holding between his hand and armpit. For a person of Lee' height, the arm length would be 22-24 inches, which would be what Mr. Frazier reported. The size of the parcel was later specified to be some 27-28 inches, however, Lee would not be able to carry a parcel of this length in the style described by Mr. Frazier. Scenario 1: Lee gave a false reason for his travel to Irving on Thursday since he actually wanted to get his rifle to the Depository. Wesley believed the story, and the package appeared to him as curtain rods. Wesley Frazier has repeatedly described the style with which Lee carried the parcel (tucked in hand, stuck in the armpit). Such parcel could not be the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, even not a disassembled rifle. So, Lee could not give a misleading information about the curtain rods because Wesley claimed seeing Oswald to carry a parcel which could maybe be curtain rods but not the rifle. The problem here is the observation of a parcel of 2 feet length and especially the style how Lee carried that parcel. There is no explanation to this mess unless one starts to look at the veracity of initial assumptions. Scenario 2: Lee got an offer to sell his unused and unusable rifle which he may have bought as a part of his minor role in the investigation of advert type gun sales, which was ongoing in spring 1963 (details in Deep Politics... by Peter Scott-Dale). He told Frazier about the purchase offer and who was the would-be buyer, and so they both knew that the reason for their travel to Irving was to bring the rifle to the Depository next day (neither of them had any sinister intention). And so they did. It rained, and Wesley dropped off Lee with the rifle in front of the main entrance, and went on alone to park his car. Lee placed the rifle into the storage room, went out and re-entered the building via the back entrance. That would be all to it unless the shooting occurred. Right after the shooting, they both stood in the doorway as in Darnell's film, frozen and pondering if the shooting had anything to do with the rifle they brought to work that morning. Lee entered the vestibule and went to the storage room only to find out that the rifle was missing. Wesley hung around in the vestibule for tens of seconds to learn about the rifle. Then their ways split but their common trouble stayed. Lee started to flee since he knew he has been framed and was a marked man - he knew who the would-be buyer was. Wesley went into the basement and contemplated his options: he used to give lifts to Lee, they were friendly, and they brought a rifle which was now missing and which, who knows (at that time he could not know) was used in the shooting. Once it became clear that there is a search for Oswald, he knew he was also in trouble. Wesley returned to Irving and had a chat with his sister. In one interview which Mr. Frazier gave some years ago, Mr. Frazier mentioned that he actually has worked, before coming to Irving, in a shop which also sold curtain rods. The idea which popped up was to claim that there was a long package but since that would connect Wesley with the assassination as an accessory, the package actually could not be a rifle because it was too short. The shortness of the package was the safety break to which he sticks until today. Wesley could always deny that any rifle was mentioned on Thursday or Friday because he only heard about curtain rods, and the package was indeed too short to be a rifle. Naturally, scenario 2 contains some details which cannot be proven without having more information. However, unlike scenario 1 which obviously does not hold, scenario 2 appears to me logical. Late edit: Wesley could also assume that a two feet parcel actually could also contain a disassembled rifle. He did not know how long a disassambled rifle would measure. The curtain rods would accommodate also this case - Wesley could not know only by looking at the size that there were no curtain rods in the parcel. Only, it turned later that this Mannlicher-Carcano was still some 36 inch long if disassembled.

It is important to note that by questioning the veracity of the curtain rod story, I am not questioning Mr. Frazier's profile or personality, or attribute to him any evil role in the assassination or to his attitudes towards Lee Harvey Oswald. As far as I can judge from the interviews which Mr. Frazier gave over the years, he is a good citizen and a good man. He sincerely believes in Lee Oswald's innocence, and in my view he knows he can be confident on this point knowing more about the Friday morning and noon than he admitted so far. However, he just happened to occur in a situation which overwhelmed him and posed a threat to him and his family severely. I mentioned in on of my previous posts, no one wants to lie. People prefer speaking the truth unless they are forced to lie. However, the question we are trying to answer on this Forum is what happened on the 22nd of November 1963. The pressure to cover up the truth, in my opinion, is very obvious throughout the case. The pressure would be the strongest in the most sensitive points, those which directly matter Lee Harvey Oswald's whereabouts and his rifle. Should Oswald's innocence perspire in any of these explosive aspects of the case, it would have to be suppressed by all means because there would not be any case against Lee Harvey Oswald.

Right, let us check Mr. Frazier's credibility. George O'Toole took a training in psychological stress evaluation (PSE) technique which was based on the analysis of voice. The technique is known as voice stress analysis nowadays. There are mixed views about the reliability of this method, however, this research is maybe the only scientifically based approach towards testing the veracity of important players in the JFK assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald in the first place. In his book "The Assassination Tapes. An electronic probe into the murder of John F. Kennedy and the Dallas Coverup" (Penthouse Press Ltd., New York, 1975), O'Toole devoted two full chapters to Wesley Buell Frazier. In Chapter 10 (The Phantom Polygraph Test), O'Toole describes the circumstances under which the polygraph test has been taken on Wesley Frazier on the night of assassination. Frazier was taken to the headquarters on Friday evening. It was Wesley's own sister who volunteered the information to the Dallas Police detectives that Wesley gave a ride to Lee on that fateful day. The police was finished with Frazier by about 9PM. (The interrogation, apparently, was dramatic as Cpt. Fritz allegedly asked Frazier to sign his admission of Wesley's role in the assassination of President Kennedy. However, this was not mentioned in the book.), and Frazier was sent home. Police officers gave him a ride to Irving, and when they were about mid-way to Irving, a radio call arrived ordering the car to return with Frazier back to the headquarters. The purpose of this second visit to the Dallas Police was Frazier's polygraph test. The test was conducted by Detective Lewis, and it lasted from 11.20 to 12.10. The police report allegedly said that Frazier's affidavit was truthful, and Frazier was eventually sent home. The critical part of the affidavit appeared to be the famous curtain rod story. According to Frazier, Oswald brought a long package to the work on Friday morning, and the parcel contained curtain rods. The Warren Commission also heard the same story from Frazier, and concluded that parcel contained not the curtain rods but the disassembled rifle. The point was, however, that the curtain rod story was a story such as when someone says he/she is half-dressed and half-undressed. The parcel was too short by a large margin to contain even a disassembled rifle. Linnie, Wesley's sister, backed his brother. The polygraph test was most likely ordered by Fritz who was confronted by two testimonies - Oswald's testimony in which he claimed that he only brought a lunch in some kind of a grocery bag, and Wesley's who spoke about the curtain rods. Who was right? The polygraph test might tell. Unfortunately, no one seem to have ever seen the results of the test. It could have either confirm Oswald's assertion or Frazier's assertion. O'Toole decided to analyse Frazier's voice during Frazier's talk for the CBS. Frazier repeated the curtain rod story. Frazier showed a remarkable level of stress throughout the interview. "It was such a classical example of the smooth, maximum hard stress waveform, maintained throughout almost the entire statement, that a PSE specialist to whom I showed it remarked, "On a scale to ten, this stress is somewhere near eleven" " (p. 172). "Frazier was in a state of sheer terror". O'Toole decided to acquire direct voice recordings from Frazier, and approached his sister. Linnie declined an interview and became increasingly tense when speaking about Wesley and the possibility of an interview. Wesley was in the army then, and Linnie promised to convey a message about O'Toole's visit to him. However, Linnie was the end of the road, she never facilitated any contact to Frazier. In the meantime, O'Toole called the well-known Paul Bentley to ask about the polygraph test. Since the call was recorder and analysed by O'Toole, it was determined that Bentley was in the maximum hard stress when saying "I don't recall that even occurring". It was then similar with the analysis of voice of Detective R.D. Lewis who allegedly carried out the polygraph test with Frazier. Lewis denied knowing about the polygraph test: "No, uh, uh. Not connected with Oswald" and showed hard stress while pronouncing these words. It was similar with Gerald Hill. Hill showed a hard stress while denying the fact of polygraph test being taken. So, the polygraph test was taken and it is mentioned in one of the Warren Commission volumes, however, no one in the Dallas Police Department remembered, and those supposed to know showed a hard stress. O'Toole then called Detective Stovall who was actually in the car which returned Frazier to the police station. Stovall told the Commission about the polygraph test. Stovall showed hard stress when talking about the polygraph test, and although he did not deny it, he was very evasive. This contrasts with the fact (possibility?) that Stovall was actually in the room with Lewis when the polygraph test was taken. Further details on Frazier's polygraph test are in another book, quoted by O'Toole, by Jim Bishop (The Day Kennedy Was Shot, Gramercy Books, New York, 1968). I have read almost the whole book just to learn more about the buzz in the Dallas Police and about Frazier, and will quote from this outright lone-nut treasure on a next occasion. The actual interview with Wesley Frazier was conducted by Detectives Stovall, Adamcik and Rose. O'Toole was not able to get Detective Adamcik (who worked before as a patrolman under no one else than Gery Hill). Rose said that only Lewis was with Frazier, and he and another detective (Stovall?) waited outside. A hard stress appeared when O'Toole asked about the result of the polygraph test: "Yes, he got a very good chart, and it showed that he was telling the com-, he was telling just exactly the truth". Interestingly, Rose wished to convey some information about Frazier during his testimony for the Warren Commission but somehow it all evaporated: Mr. Rose: Let's see, there was something else I was going to tell you now, I wanted to mention - we did run Wesley Frazier on polygraph, did you know that? Mr. Ball: I know you did - we know about that. Mr. Rose: Yes. Mr. Ball: Thanks. Since the polygraph test could not be denied anymore, O'Toole returned to Detective Lewis and literally made him to remember. Lewis did remember the test. When asked about the result (if he passed), Lewis said: "I don't offhand remember, but I would say that he did, otherwise it would have stuck with me", and a hard stress appeared in his voice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 11 describes all attempts to locate and contact Frazier. It was a good piece of detective work, not worse than Barry Ernest had to deliver. Army, Boeing Aircraft Company, and again army, many blind avenues, and a false collaborator. It was getting better by locating Frazier in Fort Polk, Louisiana, then Fort Sill, Oklahoma about 1973, but no cigar. Eventually, O'Toole met a man named Tony Pellicano who was a specialist in searching for missing people. Pellicano located Frazier in - Irving, Texas, the place where it all began. It was Pellicano who took a recorded interview with Wesley Frazier. Pellicano: He asked you, he said "Wes, I want to go home, and I want to bring out some curtain rods for my room?" Frazier: That is true. Because, you know, he had an appartment you know, over at Dallas, you know. (The stress hit maximum hard on "That is true" but dropped down to mederate-to-good on the rest of statement). Pellicano: He said "I want to pick up some curtain rods" and what did you do, drive him on home? Frazier: No, what he did, you know., Thursday he came out. His wife lives out there in Irving, you know, and so, you know, he told me he wanted a ride home out to Irving to see his wife. I said "Very well". So you know, he did and he said, you know, on the way out, he said the next morning he is going to bring some curtain rods, you know, for his apartment over at Dallas. I said "Very well", you know, so I didn't think anything else about it, you know. (The stress wa nearly at maximum hard during the entire statement). Pellicano: What happened then? What did you do? You picked him up the next morning? Frazier: You know, he come down to where I live, you know, and he got out and walked in, you know, sit down in the car, you know, so, you know, when I got in the car, I glanced at the package, and I didn't think anything about it, and asked him, I said , "What is that?" And he said, you know. "That is some curtain rods I told you I was going to bring", you know, so I just dropped the subject right there, you know, because I didn't think anything more about it, you know. (The statement began at moderate-to-good stress and stayed at that level until "And he said you know, "That's some curtain rods...", at which point in reached maximum hard. The stress then dropped to good-to-hard level and remained there for the rest of statement). Pellicano: Did he tell you they were curtain rods? Frazier: Right. Pellicano: I mean, did it took to you like it was a package of curtain rods? Frazier: Yes, it did. (There was good-to-hard stress in "Right" and hard stress in "Yes, it did"). After some further talking about Oswald (moderate stress only), Pellicano resumed the topic of curtain rods: Pellicano: Well, when you went to work, did he take that package up with him into he building? Frazier: Yes, he did. (There was a maximum hard stress). Pellicano: Did you see where he put it? Frazier: No, because he walked on ahead. (There was good-to-hard stress). Pellicano: Did he tell you he was going to go home with you that night? Frazier: What night was that? Pellicano: That is Friday night, you know the day that the president died. Frazier: No, because he come up with some theory about - I asked him about this. He said he had to go to get his driving licence. (Maximum hard stress appeared). Pellicano asked about the polygraph test, and Frazier described the procedure, during which time only a moderate stress appeared. Pellicano: There was nobody else in the room with you? Frazier: That is correct. (Maximum hard stress appeared). Pellicano: Well, what did he do, ask you all them questions that he asked you before? Frazier: Right. That is true. (Moderate stress). Pellicano: And did he tell you that you have passed the test? Frazier: Yes, he did. He said I did very well. (There was maximum hard stress). After further questions, Pellicano changed the subject: Pellicano: Do you know Paul Bentley? Frazier: Paul Bentley? Pellicano: Yes. Frazier: No, I don't. (There was maximum hard stress in both Frazier's replies). When asked about Lee owning a rifle: Frazier: Well, actually, to tell you - I never saw it, you know. They found it in the building, you know, after president was shot, you know. Pellicano: You never knew he had his gun, then? Frazier: That is true. (This produced good-to-hard stress). Pellicano: Did the police ever ask you did you ever know if he had a gun or nothing? Frazier: They asked me that, and I told them I did't know, you know, because I told them I never had been over to the man's -- Pellicano: I'm talking about way before this thing ever happened. Did any police ever come up to you and ask you to get this gun? Frazier: Oh, no. Pellicano: Never happend? Frazier: No, never happend. (This produced hard stress). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is everyone's chance to draw conclusions from O'Toole's investigation into Frazier's story. I drew mine: Frazier lied about curtain rods, his voice had failed him. There were no curtain rods in Paine's garage (Michael Pine remembered some two rods?), Oswald did not need any curtain rods in his rooming house, Oswald denied carrying any curtain rods, and no curtain rods were found in the Depository (however, his blue jacket was found - in the first floor lunchroom, where else?). Frazier invented the story to save his skin, most likely with the help of his sister. It would be a speculation at this point to offer further potential scenarios. However, the way I see it, Frazier had been caught by the Dallas Police lying about curtain rods. They let him go, maybe after telling them the truth which could be that horrible for the Dallas Police that they better let the lie live. Frazier saved his skin since he knew about Oswald's framing and who framed him and yet survived, and he survived only because he did not break his silence. This man will never tell the truth who Prayer Man was. His life is at stake.

Pat: In a way, both sides could be right about whether the right occipital cortex was present or absent in President's brain. In the drawing in David Lifton's book (p. 471 in my paperback edition), which was also the part of the House Committee exhibits, there is a residual occipital cortex in the right hemisphere, just above the cerebellum. However, the largest part of the occipital cortex is certainly gone in this brain. The situation in such macerated brain may look differently while the brain is still in the skull (and the skull still support and lifts the tissue) compared to when this damaged brain is placed on the flat surface. It would be a mistake to claim that the right occipital cortex was in place (as if it would be an intact brain) but also that it was missing completely (since some residuals can indeed be seen in the drawing in David Lifton's book). I hope this helps. Late edit 1: On a different note, the shape of the brain injury in the drawing of President's brain does not make too much sense. The injury looks basically of equal width along the line crossing the frontal and occipital poles of the right hemisphere. The whole right medial wall is missing which prevents an estimate of the entry/exit of the projectile along the sagittal plane (a plane visible as if from the side view but defined by its position along the left to right axis). The brain damage after a thru-and-thru gun shot would still show a conic shape with a slightly narrower diameter of injury at the entry site and a larger diameter wound at the exit site. The brain in the drawing does not allow to determine neither the direction of the projectile nor the plane connecting the entry and exit. Was this a result of a surgery to conceal the direction of the projectile? Late edit 2: The more I look at the drawing the more I am convinced that the whole medial wall of the right hemisphere has been excised post mortem. It is just not possible that every bit of tissue over the entire medial wall would disappear that cleanly.

The would-be Oswald in Mr. Blevins's enhancement would obviously be too tall compared to what could be expected if a real 5'9'' man stood at the western half of the sniper's window. Here is a 3D reconstruction of the sniper's nest window from Dillard's perspective. The manikin is as close to the window as possible. Please note that the top of his head does not reach the third horizontal grille in that window. Whoever created the fake figure forgot that this particular picture was shot at a sharp bottom-up angle. However, the fake human figure appears as if shot with zero elevation. Besides the lack of appropriate shadows on the man's face, there are no details corresponding to the trunk and lower body. Final verdict: an obvious fake.