Biography : Chris Frazier

[Chris Frazier]

I'm 60 with thin, salt and pepper hair (mostly salt), closely cropped beard (now mostly salt), 5 feet, 11 inches, a bit overweight, Caucasian, and, because of loss of disc space in the lumbar space, I generally walk with a cane.

I live in Savannah. I'm withdrawing from law practice, having grown tired and disenchanted with the brutish and largely illusory judicial system. (I never call it the "justice" or the "legal" system.) My first career was as a journalist, something I pursued for roughly eight years in all. I stopped doing it only because there's no way to survive on a reporter's pay if you have a family.

I've practiced mostly criminal and civil rights law for the past 29 years. I win far more than I lose. I suppose that's due, in part, to an obsessive eye for detail, meticulous preparation, and enduring skepticism, particular about anything that issues from a government actor's mouth. Too few prosecutors are ever disciplined for misconduct, so the rebuke to Durham's now disbarred DA came as a fresh and satisfying breeze. There are many unethical zealots holding those positions, and they are almost never called to account. But then neither are most in positions of power.

I've never bought the official story of the Kennedy assassination. The same spring that feeds this profound doubt probably makes me a good trial lawyer.

I'm not a prosperous lawyer; merely a competent one. I seem always to have been drawn to the difficult cases. I despise anything that's pedestrian and boring. On the other hand, I don't immerse myself in a subject just to relieve boredom.

I'm married. My wife's name is Monique. I have four grown children. She has five. Together we have four grandchildren and one on the way.

We're addicted to mostly British cinema and television.

I'm presently researching a book on the late David Atlee Phillips, a figure in the CIA and Kennedy assassination who hasn't gotten nearly enough attention. Frankly, I could use some help with this project, although I've already marshaled considerable raw material. The two greatest problems are (1) getting the few people who knew him and are still above ground to talk about him (2) and prying material from reliable sources. I presently have a FOIA request before CIA. It appears that I'll have to litigate the claim.

I'm a voracious and catholic reader. I read history, literature, philosophy, biography, LeCarre novels, psychology, some science, science fiction, political science, and so forth.

I despise the pejorative use of the phrase "conspiracy theorists." It is arrogant and used to marginalize. Having read God knows how many books in my life time, I can assure you that most major events in history are organized and executed by cabals with specific agendas. I don't understand how anyone can study Watergate, our descent into the morass of Southeast Asia, the Iran-Contra scandal, and all the coups we sponsored throughout the world without immediately recognizing the pervasiveness of "conspiracies."

As a lawyer, I certain know what a conspiracy is. Almost every indictment drawn by U.S. attorneys throughout the federal judicial apparatus allege that various individuals and/or organizations aligned themselves in conspiratorial enterprises to commit certain prohibited criminal acts. But it is in the interest of the elites to portray the suspicious and distrustful as panting, delusional fools. Because most Americans have short attention spans and don't read very much, it is still an effective technique. I blame the people of this country for intellectual laziness and an absence of essential curiosity..

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Chris,

Maybe as time goes by you might address yourself to an issue which seems important - evidence that would be material in a courtroom vs. evidence which is merely suggestive.

A jury is allowed to find guilt based on a preponderance of evidence - correct?

If so, then would photographs be allowed into evidence if they could be interpreted in numerous ways? Would it be one expert against another and let the jury decide?

I've got a bias against fuzzy photos because they can be interpreted in so many different ways. It seems intellectually dishonest to say they are "this" but cannot be "that."

Would it be productive for a lawyer to admit some of the Dealey Plaza photos into evidence when they are so indistinct and open to numerous interpretations?

Thanks.