Andrej Stancak

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.

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: 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. 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): 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=

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.

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.

Thanks, Bart, this is very useful, and not that easy to find.

Bill: I do not know how much time would it take to run one or two extra flights. I am trying to figure out the scenario you have in mind in which Oswald would meet Baker and Truly in the first floor while descending from the second floor. It would depend at which section of the first floor the encounter was supposed to be. If it would be the open plane area leading to the stairs and elevators, then Eddie Piper would not only see Baker and Truly but also Oswald. This apparently did not happen. It could then be that Baker and Truly met Oswald in the first floor vestibule, and Oswald came in from the second floor via the front stairs. In that case, the encounter would happen in the first floor and Oswald could not be the assassin because his route (+Coke) would be considerable longer and Baker's route considerably shorter, and this would exonerate Oswald. Therefore, the first floor encounter would have to be suppressed (although Oswald may not be Prayer Man in such a scenario). This hypothetical scenario would serve you in refuting Oswald being Prayer Man, however, it would not serve you in keeping the second floor encounter. Which of the two prospects would you choose? "Killing" Prayer Man or burying the second floor encounter? And please bear in mind, it is all about the start of Oswald's departure from the second floor lunchroom: if he started soon, he would reach the vestibule/glass door when the motorcade was turning to Elm, he would enter the doorway, he would be Prayer Man, and would be met by Baker and Truly when he returned to the vestibule. Welcome to Prayer Man's camp. "why not have Lee out of breath and looking nervous. Instead they described a man who didn't appear to have just made record time getting to the second floor lunchroom from just being on the 6th." This is an interesting comment. I would say: 1) Any deviations from the truth were intentionally kept to minimum to avoid ripples in the story. 2) Not being short of breath did not prevent the Dallas Police, the FBI and the Warren Commission to still insist that Oswald had to get to the second floor lunchroom from the sixth floor. Therefore, it was not necessary to add this detail to Baker's and Truly's testimonies. 3) If Oswald would be described as short of breath and aroused, the question would be how came that no one (neither Baker nor Truly, Vicki Adams, Sandra Styles, Mrs. Garner) heard him running - only running could explain him being short of breath. 4. If Oswald would be described as short of breath, the question for Baker would be why he did not find this man suspicious and enquire about his state.

Paul: I would like to know who actually guided Baker and Truly but I do not know. Someone who knew from the very start how the investigation should end, and someone who hung around when the testimonies were taken. However, it was the same force which compelled Commissioner Ford to move the back wound to the neck, the same force which decided that 27 inch equals 38 inch, the same force which made sure that no faithful trace from Oswald's interrogation would be available, the same force which allowed Lee Harvey Oswald to be killed by Jack Ruby, the same force which cleaned and refurbished the limo right away, the same which made a surgery on President's head prior to the regular autopsy, the same force which brought the motorcade to Elm street. This was not the making of one man. No normal person lies gladly. People do not want to lie, and do not lie unless forced by the circumstances. It could be presented to Baker and Truly as their patriotic duty and as a relatively minor thing: "You do not need to lie, you just say that you met him in the second floor vestibule rather than in the first floor vestibule. That's all."

Bill: Mr. Truly could not say that Lee Harvey Oswald was approached by Officer Baker on the first floor. This is the point. If he would admit this, Lee Harvey Oswald could not be the assassin because he would not have time to run down to meet Baker who has just entered the first floor. That would be a killer blow to the lone nut theory which started to shape very early on (actually, it was prepared before the act). Truly and Baker were forced to lie. Gerald Ford lied by moving the back wound from a thoracic level to the neck. If this wound would stay where it really was, the lone nut theory would be gone. Moving the first floor encounter to the second floor was a similar necessity. Only the second floor offered the benefit of uncertainty as to where people could come from. This was the reason for selecting the second floor as their meeting point. Please note that moving the encounter from the first to the second floor allowed to keep certain features as if it were the truth: the "vestibule", the words used, the Coke, and the rest of Baker-Truly trip to the upper floors (I hope I will not be accused of plagiarism since I am only repeating Sean Murphy's comments). I have explained and documented the witnesses roles and possibilities in several posts, including some quite dramatic video recordings of interrogations. The men who stood on the top landing and saw Oswald in the doorway were immediately taken to the police headquarters. Ladies were offered a bail-out in the sense that there will be an (unsigned?) FBI report and no one will ever call them again. Did you watch Serrano's interrogation in the matter of her sighting of the Polka dot dress lady? Exactly this type of offer Serrano received, and she then kept silence for more than 40 years. And yes, Oswald's whereabouts on the first floor have to do with him being Prayer Man. These are the high-voltage issues, and they can bring down the lone nut version of events. As to your beliefs and height and weight impressions: no one cares what you believe, only that we are polite at this Forum and better ignore such empty comments of yours.

Paul: Oswald was on the fifth/sixth floor around 11.50 at which time he was abandoned by the floor laying crew. Thus, Shelley could only see him later than 11.50, after Oswald also came down. Shelley for some reason mixed up his time estimate. This can happen, no big deal. The point is that Oswald came down to the first floor, and not to the second floor and staying only there. Carolyne Arnold: what a brave lady she was. This was one of the most courageous witnesses. Bookhout, Hosty and Fritz: well, you seem to see liars everywhere. You can disqualify any information using your method, basically ruining any chance to understand what happened. Their confirmation of Oswald's statement of his presence in the domino room would certainly not help them to make Oswald a lone nut. I miss a logical reason why would they want to falsify Oswald's statements about his presence in the first floor during the shooting. Piper: you said Oswald took the elevator to get from the sixth floor to the second floor at which place he stayed for the entire period until his encounter with Officer Baker. However, Eddie saw him on the first floor at 12noon which means that Oswald did not do what you suggest. You missed Oswald's sighting of Jarman and Norman who were passing by on their way from Elm to the fifth floor. Oswald could furnish this information only if he actually saw them, meaning he was on the first floor. ---------------- I know that the Baker-Oswald second floor encounter is a holly cow for many assassination researchers, something which is difficult to part with. However, it is basically re-experiencing the 2013 Prayer Man thread (around pages 5-15) in which several astute researchers were perplexed by Sean Murphy's burial of this holly cow. You may find those early pages in the main Prayer Man thread ("Oswald leaving ...") therapeutic.

Yes, you may be right and I may be wrong, it seems like a continuation of their morning encounter. Thanks.