Andrej Stancak

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. 

5 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Here Bill Kelly says that Gaeton Fonzi said that the meeting happened in the Southland Center

"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,”

http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.com/2012_05_01_archive.html?m=1

 

Michael:

I found the paragraph in Mr. Kelly's blog essay you refer to:

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

There is talk in this thread that Frazier didn't commit perjury.

If Frazier has been telling the truth since the early 2000s, claiming to have see Oswald outside after the shooting, then of course he committed perjury. If he used a qualifier like "to the best of my recollection" before the WC, then he still perjured himself. Because 40 and 50 years later he still remember what happened.

If Frazier didn't lie in 1964, then he has been lying lately.

I'm not saying Frazier is an evil person. Only that he has lied.

One person here asks what difference the lie makes. It makes a lot of difference. It tells us that we can't trust Frazier's testimony. Don't make excuses for Frazier, by saying we all make mistakes or leave things out. Frazier's was a colossal mistake. Colossal because it was about the accused assassin... about his whereabouts.

 

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.

Just now, Alistair Briggs said:

I understand. Hopefully there may be someone out there who could act as a 'sounding board' privately and help you gather the proof you need.

P.S. if you don't mind me asking, what country do you orginiate from? (I'm just being a bit nosey. lol)

Regards

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. 

59 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

There is only a finite amount of space on the steps to accommodate all the people who said they were there... we have 3 different images (Altgens 6, Weigman Frame, Darnell frame) that shows some of the people some of the time... surely those can be used to place the known ones in the known places, then surely it is about 'filling in the gaps'... it's only a finite space after all... If I had the 'techincal abilities' I would have a go a it... perhaps Andrej you may be able to help me out?

 

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

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Andrej,

In my opinion, people change when they take the Sacred Oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God."

They actually tell the truth.  The presence of the Judge helps to keep this oath -- as does the presence of the bailiff, who is ready to escort the witness directly to jail in case he is charged with perjury on the spot.

So -- in my opinion -- Frazier told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, when he was under oath.  The great limitation in every case, of course, is that the witness is often strictly instructed to only answer the question, and nothing else -- or sometimes just to answer "yes or no" without any elaboration.   This often confuses witnesses who have long stories to tell, and when the whole story is complex, with nuances that really rest beyond a simple, either/or, yes or no.

Frazier answered the questions he was asked.  If the WC attorney had asked different questions, then I feel sure we would have received more information.   But no.

When Frazier was being paid for an interview -- the stakes were very different.   There was no Sacred Oath.  There was cash being paid.  It was like a circus, because the JFK assassination has become worldwide Entertainment.   Liars make thousands of dollars with their fictions, inventions, and made up stuff.   So, it has a different atmosphere.

In my opinion, we can trust Frazier's WC testimony as it stands.  

The one wiggly part is the length of LHO's paper package.   Frazier did not KNOW the actual length -- because what sane person takes every paper package they see, and insists on measuring the exact length?  

Nobody.

So, Frazier didn't know.  So, it was silly of the WC attorneys to continue to stretch out the question of the length of the package -- for hours it seems -- when all Frazier could do was guess, based on a three-month-old memory of a few seconds' observation.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

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.

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Andrej,

Yes, this helps enormously.  Thanks for sharing this.

Here are my opinions.  

1.  You say that Frazier either lied under oath in his WC testimony, or he lied in his "Living History" interview.

2.  I say Frazier lied in his "Living History" interview.  It was not perjury, however, because he was not under oath.

3.  I agree that it was not a recall problem -- you say he adds details -- he expands on his WC testimony.  That's important.  

4.  Yes, he made an addition, but that addition has many signs of a lie.  For example, it has the characteristics of a dream.

5.  In a common dream, important people are seen, but they don't say anything.  

6.  Also as in a dream, Frazier says he is talking to "a lady," and he doesn't identify her.   He doesn't remember her name or her face -- just as in a common dream.

7.  Also, he doesn't say what they were talking about.  Nothing about their conversation is recalled -- just as in a common dream.

8.  If I wanted to push my own CT, I would seize upon this, because Frazier is here saying that LHO came out of the TSBD by a rear exit; the one at Houston Street.   But I won't, because this alleged memory of Frazier is so wispy.

9.  It actually harmonizes with the story of Baker/Truly, who agree they saw LHO on the 2nd floor, near the lunchroom there; and then left the TSBD somehow.  But that is neutral -- it neither convicts nor exonerates LHO.   Still, the "memory" is too wispy to be real.

10.  LHO took weekly rides from Frazier -- and Frazier sees LHO walking away from the chaos of Dealey Plaza (crossing Houston Street) but Frazier doesn't call out to his riding buddy?   No, "hello Lee!?"   No wave?   Nothing?   It's like a dream.

11.  Now, since Frazier lied, we must ask why?   You say that nobody wishes to lie -- but we are always forced.   I disagree.  There are many people who enjoy lying for the fun of it -- to fool people and laugh -- or in the hopes of getting attention -- or extra attention -- or fame. 

12.  Why would Frazier lie (when he was not under oath)?   IMHO, Frazier was paid for this interview, and he hoped to get more interviews.  After all, look at all the attention and money that Ricky White got in 1990 when he came out publicly to say that his father, Roscoe White, a DPD cop, confessed that he was one of the JFK shooters on 11/22/1963.   Lots of money.

13.  My further evidence that nobody led Frazier is that this lie serves no other purpose than toying with the interviewer.  It neither convicts LHO nor exonerates LHO.

14.  Finally, if LHO was never at the front steps of the TSBD, he wouldn't have to walk through the 1st floor to get out by a rear exit.  The 2nd floor lunch room was already close to a rear exit.   

15.  IMHO, LHO left the TSBD by a rear exit, however, Frazier didn't see him.  He only dreamed it.

Interesting material, Andrej.   Thanks for sharing.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

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? 

1 hour ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Andrej, I will respond to this in more detail later on.

In the meantime, just to share, here is part of an interview from Buell Frazier from 19th June 2002 in which he mentions seeing Lee after the shots...

 

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? 

28 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

lol Me thinks he (Doyle) doth protest too much.

Small point -  Sanders didn't say 'standing right next to her', she said 'standing next to her'.
Small point - from the time Sanders reached the steps (12:20) and the time of the shots (12:30) people could have moved.

Anyway,

regarding Andrej's transcript,

I had a wee go at doing the transcript for myself;

Anyroads,

With the absolute greatest of respect... right at the start of the video it clearly states when it was recorded - July 13th 2013.

Small point - Frazier does not say that he saw hime leaving the depository from the back of the building! What he does say is that he saw him walking along the side of the building and draws the conclusion that to be in such a position means he must have left via the docks, that's his inference but not the same as saying that he saw him leave via the back!

 

Maybe that will be his 'ultimate card', maybe... it's a very interesting interview he gives, and when I first heard the bit about seeing Oswald after the shots I was surprised, genuinely I was... brand new and never heard infromation after fifty years indeed. What else surprised me was when he said, and I quote, "And so we looked bewildered. And I turned to Sarah: she said "She said somebody shot the President", I said I doubt that's what she said. She said that she did say that. So we stood there for a few minutes," kind of ties in quite nicely with what he said to the WC: " There was a lady there, a heavy-set lady who worked upstairs there whose name is Sarah something, I don't know her last name. " Frazier puts himself beside Sarah Stanton before, during and after the shots, the same Sarah Stanton that was mentioned as being out with Bill Shelley when Lovelady went and joined them... So in the moments just prior to the shots, do we know where Shelley and Lovelady are? Do we know where Frazier is? Where's Sarah then?

And a little nugget that Frazier mentioned during the trial of Clay Shaw;

 

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?

4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Andrej,

I'll wait patiently for your post on Frazier's credibility.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

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.

9 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Andrej,

Are you saying that Buell Wesley Frazier was "forced" to remain silent about who stood next to him?

Are also saying that the same conspirators who obliged the medical staff at Bethesda Naval Hospital to alter the results of their autopsy were the same people who "forced" Frazier to remain silent?

Are you saying that if Frazier had not been "forced" to remain silent, then he "would have" testified that Lee Harvey Oswald was "Prayer Man?"

Then, are you also saying that Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady were also "forced" to remain silent about it?   And all other TSBD workers on the steps of the TSBD who also testified for the Warren Commission?

If so, Andrej, then IMHO you are simply making stuff up.  You have no evidence for such a claim.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

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. 

45 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy, I tend to agree with Andrej on this issue.  But let me say that I understand that there can be no firm conclusions drawn. 

I have talked before about the  first generation critics' shibboleths about the Warren Report.  That is, points they would not really challenge e.g. the second floor lunch encounter or the MC rifle they said was Oswald's. Well here is another sentence attributed to Oswald pretty much as fact: "Oswald told Frazier that he would like to drive to Irving to pick up some curtain rods for an apartment in Dallas."  Except that Oswald never admitted saying this.  He , in fact, denied it.

In Reclaiming Parkland, which I guess no one here has read, I spent 12 pages on this issue.  And as Andrej noted, a good jumping off point is O'toole's book, since he was the first to draw attention to the importance of Wesley Frazier and his sister in the riddle of Oswald and how the DPD made their case.

But to answer your question about what you term to be two lies.  I approach this question on two levels in RP.  First, the problems with the so called gun sack.  Both Gil Jesus and Pat Speer have brought up some very serious questions about this piece of evidence.  As Sylvia Meagher and Roger Feinman insisted until their dying days:  why did the DPD not photograph it in situ?  It would have gone a long way toward making their case, and OTOH, they photographed pretty much the whole floor.  But somehow, they did not shoot a pic of this key piece of evidence.

To my knowledge, the first time we see this gun sack is outside the building.  And as both Gil and Pat demonstrate in spades, it is very hard to imagine that this is the bag that Frazier and his sister are talking about.  I won't go through all the problems inherent in the paradoxes of those pictures.  You can go to each of their sites and read them.  I will say that, for me, its almost ludicrous to say that that is the gun sack Oswald stuck under his arm. And then there is, as there always is, the problem of corroboration and chain of possession. Why did no one else see Oswald with the gun package inside the TSBD?  Most notably Jack Dougherty?  And I don't have to add the indelible testimony of Troy West who Harold Weisberg immortalized in Whitewash. How does one get around his testimony if Oswald himself made the gun sack?  (Harold did for West what Thompson did for S. M. Holland.)  Cadigan said he found no oil or grease marks on the sack, yet the MC rifle was wiped with Cosmoline before it was transported. Further, no one ever said they saw this paper sack on Oswald's person or in his possessions did they?   I could go on and on, but I think the weight of the evidence implies that the origins of the gun sack pictured outside the TSBD with the cops is dubious. In a court of law, it would have been under sustained and effective attack.  And as Gil Jesus shows with convincing evidence, the FBI was almost surely covering up for the DPD on the issue.  (Reclaiming Parkland, pgs 204-05)  

The problem, as the late Roger Feinman so simply stated was this: if the police found a rifle on the sixth floor, then how did the suspect get it there? For if they could show he clandestinely carried it in, that would be pretty incriminating.  So to make that case, they needed Frazier.  Very conveniently for the DPD, Frazier owned an Enfield rifle, which in Walt Brown's chronology is the first rifle the DPD reported as being the weapon used.  And herein comes one of the most interesting parts of O'toole's book: the midnight polygraph of Frazier that O'toole had such a hard time verifying since none of the police wanted to talk about it. As described in Jim Bishop's volume, The Day Kennedy was Shot, Frazier was emotionally distraught to the point he could not compose himself. Bishop called the scene "controlled hysteria". (ibid, p. 207)  It was so bad, the  technician could not get legitimate readings.  Now, that technician did not sign the report and did not testify before the Commission.  And that report is nowhere to be found today, but somehow Frazier passed the test. 

As per Linnie Mae, I won't belabor the story about her seeing LHO come up the street as pictured in the WC.  We have been through that whole thing and to me it simply is not credible, what with her position at the window, and then the garage slats, which she does not mention in her testimony etc etc.  And the person who did see Oswald approach the house, mother Esther Williams, said nothing about any guns sack. (p. 208)

Let me add two other evidentiary points.  First, Wesley told the HSCA that he always locked his car at night since it was positioned outside.  Naturally they then asked him, well how did Oswald open the door to deposit his bag?  Wesley said that particular door was broken. To which the questioner said, "You figure that one out OK?"  Finally, the WR states, with the help of Jerry Ford, that Frazier followed Oswald into the TSBD that morning, with LHO walking ahead at a brisk pace. But yet there is co-worker Edward Shields who testified  to the HSCA differently.  He worked at the warehouse building north of the TSBD.  He said that he saw Frazier park his car that morning and someone asked him where his friend was.  Frazier replied, "I dropped him off at the building."

In my view, the Frazier/Randle guns sack poses some very serious questions.  And as I note above, if Frazier was threatened with being a suspect or accomplice, would that not be a reason for him to go along with the dog and pony show.  But yet, to shove it back at them he would disagree with the length.  

 

 

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.

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thanks for your explanation Andrej. I'll give it some thought. This is one of those hard-to-explain parts of the story.

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

19 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

You must be joking!

For one thing - which is it - 27" or 28"?  No need to guess when it could be measured with a ruler or tape.

Secondly, did Lee have the top of the package folded over by a few inches?  One wouldn't want the end of a rifle barrel sticking out of the sack while trying to sell the idea that the bag contains curtain rods - now would they.

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

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Andrej,

So you believe that this lie about the curtain rods just popped into Frazier's brain? I don't understand that. Why wouldn't Frazier just tell the truth?

Furthermore, can you explain why Frazier would at first come up with the lie about curtain rods, making Oswald look guilty, only to lie again, saying the bag was too short for a broken down rifle to fit inside? Making Oswald look not guilty?

 

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.

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, one can take from this what they want, but NOT that the occipital area at the back of the skull was blown out. You see, Jenkins said...numerous times in my presence, and in the presence of others...that the occipital region at the back of the head was shattered but still in place beneath the scalp at the beginning of the autopsy.

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.

On 3/10/2017 at 7:02 AM, David Von Pein said:

Joe,

The weight of JFK's brain is shown in the very first sentence on Page 1 of the Supplementary Report....

"Following formalin fixation the brain weighs 1500 gms."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284b.htm

And that's why the brain weighed so much --- because it was only weighed "FOLLOWING formalin fixation", not BEFORE.

Also....

The material being ejected from JFK's head at Z313 isn't MOSTLY his brains. It's mostly blood and other ejecta from the cranium.

And I discount Paul O'Connor mainly because I know he can't be correct about his "No Brain" observation. And the reason I know he can't be correct is contained in the page of the WCR I linked above.

David:

The brain weight of 1500 g was too large relative to the damage sustained. Exposing a brain to formalin for three weeks increases the brain weight due to swelling by 8-9%. Thus, 1500 g would correspond to an intact brain. However, I am sure you would agree that a large part of Kennedy's right brain hemisphere was missing. The figure "1500 g" appears to be made up. I wrote an essay on this topic a while ago (thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com), however, I am posting it here too:

From: thejfktruthmatters.worpress.com (March 26, 2016).

1500 g. This was the weight of President Kennedy’s brain during the pathological examination made at the Bethesda Naval Hospital on December 6, 1963 [1]. The brain weight figure allows to infer on the weight of President’s brain at the time of autopsy. Unfortunately, the Bethesda pathologists did not weigh President’s brain during the autopsy in spite of this procedure being a routine part of every autopsy [2].

A three week formalin fixation has been shown to increase the brain weight by 50 g on average [3]. More recent data suggest a variable percent increases in brain weights due to the formalin fixation with an average weight increase of 8.8% over the period of few weeks [4]. If we apply the swelling factor of 8.8%, the estimated weight of President Kennedy’s brain at the time of autopsy was 1373 g.

This figure appears to be too large relative to the amount of damage to the President Kennedy’s brain. The damage to the right hemisphere and the associated loss of brain tissue has been estimated by Mr. David Lifton to be as much as 70% in the right hemisphere [5]. If a normal brain would suffer such loss of tissue, it could not weigh 1373 g. To provide some approximation of the weight of intact and injured Kennedy’s brain, normative data obtained in large cohorts of people can be used. The study by Debakan et al. (1978) [6] analysed the post-mortem brain weights in 2773 males and 1963 females in 23 age categories. The mean weight of a male brain in the age range of 40-50 years was 1430 g (standard deviation 20 g). As President Kennedy was tall (72.5 inches, 184 cm), and since brain weight correlates with body height and weight [6], it is reasonable to estimate that the weight of Kennedy’s brain would be in the upper range of the normal distribution of brain weights in his age category. The upper weight value corresponding to the top 5% brain weights for males aged 40-50 years, estimated using the Z-scores method, would be 1496.2 g (rounded to 1496 g). If Kennedy’s brain sustained a loss of 70% of brain tissue in one hemisphere [5], his brain at the time of autopsy weighed only 972 g. However, even if we accept a smaller than 70% loss of brain tissue of 50% in one hemisphere, the brain weight at the time of autopsy would be only 1122 g. After correcting these brain weight estimates for swelling due to immersing the brain into a formalin solution, Kennedy’s brain during the pathological examination on December 6 was expected to weigh 1058 g or 1221 g for a 70% and 50% loss of tissue in one hemisphere, respectively.

These calculations suggest that the brain examined on December 6, 1963 was different from the brain removed from President Kennedy’s skull during the autopsy on November 22, 1963. Further, this finding sheds a new light on the omission to weigh the brain during the autopsy [2]. The following two explanations need to be considered:

1. The pathologists were stressed out and confused during the autopsy itself and forgot to measure the brain weight. This would be an unlikely but honest error.

2. The pathologists intentionally skipped weighing the brain during the autopsy either to conceal the real loss of brain tissue, and/or to be able to use a different brain in further examinations. The correct brain weight data at the time of autopsy might have prevented the use of a different brain as the other brain would have been weighed during the follow-up pathological examination of the fixated brain, and the discrepancy in the autopsy and post-autopsy weights would be evident. If this explanation is correct, it is also conceivable that the generals and some unknown civilians present in the autopsy room [5] couched or ordered Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell not to weigh the brain.

As my calculations suggest that other than President Kennedy’s brain was examined on December 6, I am inclined to accept the latter explanation. The calculations and the conclusion accord a previous note by Mr. Doug Horne (2006) that the weight of 1500 g would be too large for the brain showing extensive tissue loss [7].

Footnotes:

[1] Appendix IX. Commission Exhibit 391. Supplementary report of autopsy number A63-272. https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

[2] During his deposition for the ARRB, the interviewers asked Dr. Humes about the lack of the weight figure in the autopsy form. Dr. Humes had a difficult time to explain (ARRB deposition 1996, pp. 74-75):

1. I’d like to draw your attention to a few items on the first page of this document. Right next to the marking for brain, there’s no entry of a weight there. Do you see that on the document?
   A. Yes, I see that it’s blank, yeah.
   Q. Why is there no weight for the brain there?
   A. I don’t know. I don’t really–can’t really recall why.
   Q. Was the fresh brain weighed?
   A. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. It’s as simple as that.
   Q. Would it be standard practice for a gunshot wound in the head to have the brain weighed?
   A. Yeah, we weigh it with gunshot wound or no. Normally we weigh the brain when we remove it. I can’t recall why–I don’t know, one, whether it was weighed or not, or, two, why it doesn’t show here. I have no explanation for that

[3] Frýdl V, Koch R, Závodská H. The effect of formalin fixation on several properties of the brain. Zentralbl. Allg. Pathol. 135:649-55 (1989)

[4] Itabashi, H.H., Andrews, J.M., Tomiyasu, U., Erlich, S.S., Sathyavagiswaran, L. Forensic Pathology: A Practical Review of the Fundamentals. Academic Press & Elsevier, 2007, p. 22.

[5] Lifton, D. Best Evidence. Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., New York, Fourth Edition, 1989, pp. 470-472.

[6] Debakan, A.S., Sadowsky, D. Changes of brain weights during the span of human life: relation of brain weights to body heights and body heights. Ann. Neurol., 4: 345-356, 1978.

[7] Spartacus Educational Forum, thread: Cover-up of medical evidence. Post by Doug Horne, dated May 16, 2006, No. 3. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6849&hl=

13 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

Good to see that Campbell saw Truly and Patrolman Baker run into the building. They too can be added to the witnesses who saw what the Darnell film illustrates just short of the running up the stairs before turning the camera away from the scene.

The next thing is when did Campbell see Oswald on the first floor?  It certainly wasn't when Baker and Truly entered the building because Campbell took off shagging tail for the knoll. It could have been several minutes before Campbell went back to the TSBD. Because Campbell saw Lee after returning to the building doesn't mean that Oswald wasn't on the second floor when Baker and Truly started up the stairs. It's looking to me that the person who wrote the story assumed that because Oswald was said to be seen on the first floor by Campbell who said shortly after hearing shots ... he raced into the building, thus Truly and Baker must have run into Oswald on the first floor as they ran to the elevator, but neither Truly, Baker, West, Piper, or anyone else who was in the building or who entered the building just behind Truly said anything about seeing Oswald on the first floor at that time.

Bill:

Your question as to when Ochus Campbell returned to the Depository building has been already discussed in quite a detail in the original Prayer Man thread. I cannot add anything to what Sean Murphy wrote on August 24, 2013, page 18 in that thread. Please check it for yourself. I see no reason for copying/pasting Sean's original post here.

If you follow up few more posts in the original thread, you would also acknowledge that there are two independent sources of information that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the storage room after the shooting. One is Campbell's observation, and the other is the testimony of the postal inspector Holmes.

As far as the timing of Oswald's dwelling in the storage room is concerned, there are some unknowns, that is for sure. We do not know for how long would Oswald as Prayer Man stay in the doorway after the last frame of the Darnell's film. Although I do not wish to re-ignite the discussion of Baker's run to the Depository, the timing of his entering the building might have been delayed by him first running to the east corner of the building and only then returning to the main entrance. This would explain the absence of his entering to the building in Wesley Frazier's testimony who otherwise had to see Baker should Baker continue his dash up the steps into the building. A tentative scenario could be this:

Time 0 s: last frame of Darnell; Prayer Man and Frazier at their locations in the doorway; Campbell moving towards the Grassy Knoll; Baker about 8-10 yards from the entrance and heading towards the east corner of the Depository.

Time 0 + ~10 s: Frazier and Prayer Man go into the the building via the glass door. Campbell still wanting to go to the Grassy Knoll. Baker reaching the east corner of the building.

Time 0 + ~30 s: Frazier on his way to the basement, Oswald enters the storage room; Baker decides to go to the building; Campbell about to reach the decision to return to the building;

Time 0 + ~50 s: Frazier about to enter the basement, Oswald in the storage room (not everyone would agree, however, maybe searching desperately for the rifle he may have left there); Baker reaches the glass door, followed by Truly. Campbell on his way back to the Depository.

Time 0 + 55 s:  Frazier in the basement, Oswald in the storage room, Baker sees him in there and asks if he worked here, Truly answers on Oswald's behalf. Campbell about to enter the steps leading to the building.

Time 0 + 65 s: Baker and Truly rush out from the vestibule, Campbell enters the glass door, Oswald is still in the storage room. 

Time 0 +70 s: Baker and Truly out of the vestibule and in the open plane area, Campbell spots Oswald in the storage room.

Thus,  Baker+Truly and Campbell could see the same Lee Harvey Oswald in the storage room at two slightly different time instants. Please note that from Campbell's perspective it would be about two minutes to return to the Depository because my time 0 corresponds to about 30 seconds after the last shot. 

I hope it makes sense.

9 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Andrej,

You are an intelligent person.  Yet your claim here makes no sense to me at all.

IMHO you have been under the influence of CIA-did-it fiction writers for a long time.

"Someone who knew from the very start how the investigation should end."    That was NOBODY.

Nobody had that sort of control over the witnesses, Andrej, to "force" them to lie as you suggest.

The WC witnesses who lied were the people who killed JFK.   They also controlled the evidence -- the rifle -- the bullets.  

That was all they had.  They needed only one more thing -- Lee Harvey Oswald to be dead.   They botched that on 11/22/1963.  

They finally solved it on 11/24/1963.

Lee Harvey Oswald was well-framed for the murder of JFK -- he was framed in New Orleans that summer, and in Mexico City.

It was not the CIA who framed Lee Harvey Oswald.   It was a Civilian Plot involving Dallas officials and New Orleans officials who also belonged to the Radical Right.

Rogues Dallas Police and Deputies were part of that plot -- and could control the evidence.

They could not control the testimony of the WC witnesses.  NOBODY was forced to lie to the WC.   NOBODY.

You have no evidence of such "force."   It is a fiction.  It is an old, CIA-did-it fiction.  It has failed for 50 years.   It is useless.

The WC witnesses who didn't kill JFK -- the vast majority of these 488 witnesses -- simply told the Truth as best they could remember it.

It seems to me, Andrej, that your CT has come to require Prayer-Man, and has come to require that Fritz, Bookhout, Hosty, Holmes, Sorrels etc. were all telling the Truth.   Once you realize that Fritz & Co. were part of the JFK Kill Team, and so were the actual WC liars, then the myth of Prayer-Man can rest in peace.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul:

I answered with this: " Someone who knew from the very start how the investigation should end, and someone who hung around when the testimonies were taken.  "

I was not specific but it is obvious that since Baker was a patrolman, he hung at the DPD, and he gave an affidavit to the FBI that the ones who couched him (and Truly) would be some members of the DPD and the FBI. The reasons of the DPD and the FBI for couching Baker might have been different, more sinister in members of the DPD who appeared to actively frame Oswald for the murder of President Kennedy. Less sinister in the FBI agents who followed Hoover's early decision to scapegoat Oswald. I think we agree or have very close opinions on the point of framing.

"... how the investigation should end" : this would be "Oswald being the lone assassin and dead".

The story "The Thin Blue Line", flagged up by Joseph McBride, illustrates how fellow DPD officers adjusted their testimonies to convict an innocent man. They did it in the seventies, and they certainly could do it in 1963.

As for the "forces": the assassination had multiple limbs. The limbs did not need to know too much about each other. The most proximal limb which was responsible for framing  and silencing Oswald in Dallas was the rogue DPD, however, the rogue members of the DPD were connected to the deep forces ("politics") which also moved other limbs. Whether the connection  was purely ideological (racist, ultra-right views shared with KKK, JBS, General Walker) or more concrete (bags of money delivered to members of the DPD from H.L. Hunt by Jack Ruby), this I do not know. At the end of the day, it was all interconnected in "deep politics" terms. It is beyond my depth of knowledge to fish in these muddy waters and pull out some diamonds of truth. However, it would be a mistake to think that the most proximal limb (the rogue DPD) was actually the sole limb in the assassination.

Whilst Baker certainly needed to be couched to say what was appropriate for the LN version, Commissioner Ford or Aarlen Specter knew themselves what to do. In that sense, Ford indeed was not "forced" to falsify the location of the back wound. However, he was forced by the circumstances.

Late edit:

"Once you realize that Fritz & Co. were part of the JFK Kill Team, and so were the actual WC liars, then the myth of Prayer-Man can rest in peace."

Paul: even if Fritz & Co. were the "JFK Kill Team", they still needed a patsy. The patsy was Lee Harvey Oswald. Unfortunately for whoever who framed Lee Harvey Oswald, Lee went out as the motorcade was passing the Depository to see what was this commotion about, holding a Coke he bought some minutes ago on the second floor. So, Prayer Man stays as a problem even for those believing your theory about Fritz&Co. being responsible for the murder of President Kennedy.