Jump to content
The Education Forum

2008 Interview with Wesley Frazier


Recommended Posts

This 2008 interview with Hugh Aynesworth in the Dallas Morning News, reveals that :

Mr. Frazier was questioned vigorously by police – accused of being involved in the plot to kill Kennedy – and even told falsely by police officers that Oswald had named him as a co-conspirator.

In Washington, before the Warren Commission, he was "pressured" to change his recollection. Corroboration for this claim comes from his sister.

That the Warren Commission had a "pre-arranged agenda" that caused them to label anyone whose testimony disagreed with that agenda to be labelled "mistaken".

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...fk.3d76e89.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gil,

As I read the article, I realized that here was a man who basically has had his life ruined, simply by allowing a man to ride with him in his car from Dallas to Irving on Thursday, Nov. 21, 1963, and back the next day. The interview shows a man who is very troubled by his roll on that fateful day. I found it fascinating that he and his sister's story as to what they had seen or thought they had seen pertaining to the size of the package LHO placed in Wesley's car that morning never waivered. Wesley is very adamant about watching Oswald walk away from the car in the parking lot of the TSBD as he made sure that his car battery was charged. He had time to look at the size of the paper bag, and there was, and is no question at least in his mind, that the package could not have held the disassembled Manlicher Carcano. It was too short. Also, he mentioned that Lee said Marina had made him some curtains for his apartment. Has she ever said whether or not she did, in fact, do such a thing? My understanding has always been that Oswald alone mentioned curtain rods. If Marina actually made curtains, that, IMO, certainly puts a different spin on the story. But, as an aside, I have always had trouble wrapping my mind around someone needing a paper bag for curtain rods. It would seem that anyone would have just had them open, as they are very small and would not create a problem in transporting them. And it is no small matter as to the timing of the trip out to Irving the night before the assassination.

To be fair, it could be as Gerald Ford said, they were just honestly mistaken about the size of the paper bag.

It is very sad that this man has had to live his life very differently that he would have had he not befriended a man by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Terry

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gil,

As I read the article, I realized that here was a man who basically has had his life ruined, simply by allowing a man to ride with him in his car from Dallas to Irving on Thursday, Nov. 21, 1963, and back the next day. The interview shows a man who is very troubled by his roll on that fateful day. I found it fascinating that he and his sister's story as to what they had seen or thought they had seen pertaining to the size of the package LHO placed in Wesley's car that morning never waivered. Wesley is very adamant about watching Oswald walk away from the car in the parking lot of the TSBD as he made sure that his car battery was charged. He had time to look at the size of the paper bag, and there was, and is no question at least in his mind, that the package could not have held the disassembled Manlicher Carcano. It was too short. Also, he mentioned that Lee said Marina had made him some curtains for his apartment. Has she ever said whether or not she did, in fact, do such a thing? My understanding has always been that Oswald alone mentioned curtain rods. If Marina actually made curtains, that, IMO, certainly puts a different spin on the story. But, as an aside, I have always had trouble wrapping my mind around someone needing a paper bag for curtain rods. It would seem that anyone would have just had them open, as they are very small and would not create a problem in transporting them. And it is no small matter as to the timing of the trip out to Irving the night before the assassination.

I don't find it odd that curtain rods were carried in a bag. They slide in and out of each other, which makes them adjustable. But if you lose one side, the curtain rod is useless. So putting them into something that would hold the two pieces from separating seems reasonable to me.

Additionally, CE 1952 is a document indicating that the Dallas Police dusted "4 pcs" of white "curtain rods" four months after the assassination for Oswald's fingerprints.

Oswald's room had two windows that would have required ( you guessed it ) four pieces of rods.

Ruth Paine testified that she had some curtain rods in her garage wrapped in a brown paper, like Frazier and Randle saw, and that those rods when fully compressed measured between 28-30 inches long, just about the length Frazier and Randle testified to.

But Mrs. Paine also testified that the Dallas Police never questioned her about the rods, nor did the rods ever leave her garage.

If the four pieces of curtain rods were removed from the Paine garage in March 1964, as the evidence suggests, why did the authorities dust these rods for prints if they had NOTHING to do with the assassination ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Oswald carried curtain rods into the TSBD WHERE ARE THEY???? The Dallas Police , FBI. SS do not mention

curtain rods being found on Nov 22 or any other day. Also I believe Oswald's landlady testufued that Oswalds room had curtains , so if

it had curtains it must have had curtain rods, So there was no need for Oswald to take Curtain rods from Ruth Paines house to The TSBD

on Nov. 22.....

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
This 2008 interview with Hugh Aynesworth in the Dallas Morning News, reveals that :

Mr. Frazier was questioned vigorously by police – accused of being involved in the plot to kill Kennedy – and even told falsely by police officers that Oswald had named him as a co-conspirator.

In Washington, before the Warren Commission, he was "pressured" to change his recollection. Corroboration for this claim comes from his sister.

That the Warren Commission had a "pre-arranged agenda" that caused them to label anyone whose testimony disagreed with that agenda to be labelled "mistaken".

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...fk.3d76e89.html

A fair and ballanced report from Mr. Aynesworth. He can get a job at FOX News.

Frazier isn't able to convince Aynesworth that he didn't transport the rifle to the TSBD on the morning of the assassination, and Aynesworth isn't able to convince Frazier that he did.

And Dave Perry manages to drag mud into Frazier's story too.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites
In mid-September 1963, Mr. Frazier, 19, moved to Irving to live with his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, her husband and three children.

When was the motorcade made a firm plan?

When did the TSBD decide it suddenly needed to fix floor boards?

He slept on his sister's couch, drove a clunker Chevy and was pleased to be earning $1.25 an hour, then the minimum wage, at the Texas School Book Depository.

As a teenager in Huntsville, Mr. Frazier had deftly balanced high school and several part-time jobs while trying to stay out of the way of an abusive, alcoholic stepfather.

And yet the move wasn't an escape. His mother and step-father also came to stay with Linnie. And Buell was so keen to stay out of his step-father's way, he visited him in hospital on Nov 22 - though poor Linnie gave the cops a bum steer on which hospital that was.

On Nov. 22, Ms. Randle and Mr. Frazier were finishing breakfast about 7:15 a.m. when she looked out her window and saw a man standing close to her brother's car with a package under his arm.

She actually claimed to see him walking to the car and admitted she had no line of sight to see him place anything in the car.

A few minutes later, Mr. Frazier and Oswald headed for the book depository, where they were to report at 8 a.m.

No such reporting was required.

Mr. Frazier was questioned vigorously by police – accused of being involved in the plot to kill Kennedy – and even told falsely by police officers that Oswald had named him as a co-conspirator. After 12 intense hours at the Police Department, he was allowed to take a polygraph test, passed it impressively and was released.

He was indeed questioned vigorously. He was almost back home when he was driven back for the polygraph. It's true that he was said to have passed this test. What Aynesworth neglects to say is that Frazier passed by saying that the bag was made of cheap crinkly material like you'd find in a five and dime. There is however, at least some reason to doubt such a test was administered and it's more than possible that a phony test was rigged to bluff a confession.

In Washington, Mr. Frazier said, he was "pressured" to change his recollection. In the days afterward, he was badgered by the media, harassed by people who didn't understand his relationship to Oswald and even became fearful for his life.

He had already capitulated to pressure from the FBI to agree it was not cheap crinkly material, but the same paper as found in the TSBD.

For years, Mr. Frazier refrained from talking about his role that fateful Friday. He hasn't had a listed telephone number for years. Few people have visited his home.

Which is a pity because he needs to clarify a few points.

1)He gave various contradictory statements to officials over the years as to what his usual lunch-time habits were. If, as he claimed in one instance, he always ate in the domino room, why did he choose to eat alone in the basement that day?

2) Manchester claimed in his book that Frazier told him he left immediately as he did not think there would be any more work that day (sound familiar?). Can he explain that? It was not the only coincidence between he and Oswald. He also claimed to have a bagged sandwich and apple as his lunch - the same lunch Oswald claimed he had.

3) Who got him the job at the TSBD? Linnie stated she had suggested it as a possibility. He testified however, that he was referred there by an employment agency.

Frazier may well be, and probably is, innocent. But it's false to suggest this means he has nothing to hide.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Frazier was questioned vigorously by police – accused of being involved in the plot to kill Kennedy – and even told falsely by police officers that Oswald had named him as a co-conspirator. After 12 intense hours at the Police Department, he was allowed to take a polygraph test, passed it impressively and was released.
He was indeed questioned vigorously. He was almost back home when he was driven back for the polygraph. It's true that he was said to have passed this test. What Aynesworth neglects to say is that Frazier passed by saying that the bag was made of cheap crinkly material like you'd find in a five and dime. There is however, at least some reason to doubt such a test was administered and it's more than possible that a phony test was rigged to bluff a confession.
This is the most important revelation in the post, so let me first congratulate Greg on obtaining the actual questions and transcript of Frazier's polygraph, along with the graphed results. I hope it will be posted here soon because I've often wondered whether the questions he was supposedly asked were those he was really asked, if he was asked questions different than was claimed that he was asked (e.g., an exchange like "Is your tee-shirt white?" "Yes." substituted to read "Did Oswald recruit you?" "No." showing a negative reaction - a truth - to the wrong question), or if positive reactions - lies - were simply shrugged off and claimed to have been negative - truthful - responses.

This is a potentially important area of future study.

In Washington, Mr. Frazier said, he was "pressured" to change his recollection. In the days afterward, he was badgered by the media, harassed by people who didn't understand his relationship to Oswald and even became fearful for his life.
He had already capitulated to pressure from the FBI to agree it was not cheap crinkly material, but the same paper as found in the TSBD.
Exactly! Since he was guaranteed the protection of the FBI, why be "fearful for his life?" Clearly this article is propaganda, designed to elicit sympathy for this guy when obviously none is deserved. Having passed a test that was not administered but was phony and rigged nevertheless, he changed his statements that he didn't make to conform with what they'd wanted him to say if he had said anything. This guy is clever again by half!
For years, Mr. Frazier refrained from talking about his role that fateful Friday. He hasn't had a listed telephone number for years. Few people have visited his home.
Which is a pity because he needs to clarify a few points.

1) He gave various contradictory statements to officials over the years as to what his usual lunch-time habits were. If, as he claimed in one instance, he always ate in the domino room, why did he choose to eat alone in the basement that day?

His likely excuse is that there were a lot of people milling around, poking into things, acting like they were investigating something, and he "found it difficult to find somewhere to eat in peace."
2) Manchester claimed in his book that Frazier told him he left immediately as he did not think there would be any more work that day (sound familiar?). Can he explain that? It was not the only coincidence between he and Oswald. He also claimed to have a bagged sandwich and apple as his lunch - the same lunch Oswald claimed he had.
Delving into this, we may be able to postulate that it illustrates the possibility that the two of them had spent the previous evening together and didn't think to cover that fact by at least picking something different out of the refrigerator. It's usually the little things like that, that end up unravelling the whole mystery. Amateurish at best, methinks.
3) Who got him the job at the TSBD? Linnie stated she had suggested it as a possibility. He testified however, that he was referred there by an employment agency.
Once again, the devil is in the details.
Frazier may well be, and probably is, innocent. But it's false to suggest this means he has nothing to hide.
Most innocent people do. It's a point well taken.

[continued]

Link to post
Share on other sites
In mid-September 1963, Mr. Frazier, 19, moved to Irving to live with his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, her husband and three children.
When was the motorcade made a firm plan? When did the TSBD decide it suddenly needed to fix floor boards?
When it realized that the chief conspirator, an 18-year-old mastermind just out of high school, had been arranged to come to work for them. He was specifically selected because of his sister's proximity to where the Russian emigree wife of a defector to the Soviet Union had lived for a couple of weeks.
He slept on his sister's couch, drove a clunker Chevy and was pleased to be earning $1.25 an hour, then the minimum wage, at the Texas School Book Depository.

As a teenager in Huntsville, Mr. Frazier had deftly balanced high school and several part-time jobs while trying to stay out of the way of an abusive, alcoholic stepfather.

And yet the move wasn't an escape. His mother and step-father also came to stay with Linnie. And Buell was so keen to stay out of his step-father's way, he visited him in hospital on Nov 22 - though poor Linnie gave the cops a bum steer on which hospital that was.
This was, of course, a cover arragned by Frazier himself. So thorough was the charade that, rather than having "come to stay with Linnie," he arranged for a hospital room for the old man, paid for through off-the-books large monthly "bonuses" arranged through the TSBD (undoubtedly underpinned by "unemployment checks" arranged through the Unemployment Commission via John Connally; has anyone looked into this area of potential financing?). Frazier played a well-rehearsed role as the dutiful step-son as a ruse to explain his whereabouts after the assassination, most likely to confer with this man who, if we research it fully, we'll probably find was not his actual step-father, but a deep-cover CIA agent wearing step-dad's severed head. The woman at Linnie's house was not Mom, but a cleverly-disguised "handler" assigned by David Atlee Phillips, which explains why he was in Fort Worth that afternoon.
On Nov. 22, Ms. Randle and Mr. Frazier were finishing breakfast about 7:15 a.m. when she looked out her window and saw a man standing close to her brother's car with a package under his arm.
She actually claimed to see him walking to the car and admitted she had no line of sight to see him place anything in the car.
This is among the most clever subterfuges I've seen, actually. Think about it: she sees a guy coming down the street with a package in his hand, and then notices him standing in the vicinity of her brother's car (assuming she's really Frazier's sister: after all, her middle name was "Mae," wasn't it, not Frazier?); she cannot see the package any longer, by her very own admission. By this ruse, we are led to believe that Oswald, walking down the street with a package in his hand, might still have the package in his hand when he reaches the car! And by what spurious device are we led to this conclusion? Her deduction! Women don't deduce, they intuit; who do these people think they're trying to fool?

But fool us they did ... and this is cleverer still: having placed the package in the designated patsy's hands, she then testifies under oath - under oath, as if putting one's hands on a Bible would have meaning for a Godless Communist! - she then estimates its length (which she couldn't have been able to judge since she couldn't see it at the closest proximity outside her window) not in accordance with the item in evidence, but shorter, in keeping with her brother's pre-arranged testimony, thus allowing them to be adjudged "mistaken" (but mistaken together!) so that the issue could never reach resolution. That accomplished, of course, numerous books followed and continue today, 45 years later, together with television specials and documentaries ad infinitum, the spawning (devil-spawning, if you ask me!) of an entire industry, proving once and for all that it was really all about money in the first place flowing to the rich and powerful.

Have we considered JFK's plans on curtailing the power of the press to make money?

A few minutes later, Mr. Frazier and Oswald headed for the book depository, where they were to report at 8 a.m.
No such reporting was required.
True. The phrase "reporting to work" was coined recently to allow Aynesworth to make this claim, and surreptitiously inserted into contemporaneous dictionaries to make it appear as if this was done in 1963. This illustrates the influence the man has, or conversely, the extent to which he is privy to the inner workings of the CIA's "Lex" (short for Lexiconography) division.

I, too, have some problems with Hugh's article, especially in his innate inability to accede to his subject's point of view in favor of his own: while Frazier, for example, said that he didn't believe Oswald was the shooter, the author nevertheless put Oswald in the window - not even deferentially saying "allegedly" - as if his subject really doesn't know what he's talking about, and if he does, well, he's wrong and the "freelance writer and author" is right, thus leaving the realm of "reporting" and moving into that of "editorializing."

(While Enron chairman Ken Lay was convicted in a court of law but died before his appeal could be heard, he is "not guilty" and is seldom if ever referred to as such; living people - perhaps on account of potential lawsuits - who may be guilty but haven't been convicted always "allegedly" commit a crime. Oswald, however, was not convicted, but lately no longer seems to be an "alleged" killer as if his guilt is firmly and legally established. But, I guess if Marina and family don't care, why should anyone else?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it necessary to note the sardonicism intended? One certainly hopes not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In mid-September 1963, Mr. Frazier, 19, moved to Irving to live with his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, her husband and three children.

When was the motorcade made a firm plan?

When did the TSBD decide it suddenly needed to fix floor boards?

He slept on his sister's couch, drove a clunker Chevy and was pleased to be earning $1.25 an hour, then the minimum wage, at the Texas School Book Depository.

As a teenager in Huntsville, Mr. Frazier had deftly balanced high school and several part-time jobs while trying to stay out of the way of an abusive, alcoholic stepfather.

And yet the move wasn't an escape. His mother and step-father also came to stay with Linnie. And Buell was so keen to stay out of his step-father's way, he visited him in hospital on Nov 22 - though poor Linnie gave the cops a bum steer on which hospital that was.

On Nov. 22, Ms. Randle and Mr. Frazier were finishing breakfast about 7:15 a.m. when she looked out her window and saw a man standing close to her brother's car with a package under his arm.

She actually claimed to see him walking to the car and admitted she had no line of sight to see him place anything in the car.

A few minutes later, Mr. Frazier and Oswald headed for the book depository, where they were to report at 8 a.m.

No such reporting was required.

Mr. Frazier was questioned vigorously by police – accused of being involved in the plot to kill Kennedy – and even told falsely by police officers that Oswald had named him as a co-conspirator. After 12 intense hours at the Police Department, he was allowed to take a polygraph test, passed it impressively and was released.

He was indeed questioned vigorously. He was almost back home when he was driven back for the polygraph. It's true that he was said to have passed this test. What Aynesworth neglects to say is that Frazier passed by saying that the bag was made of cheap crinkly material like you'd find in a five and dime. There is however, at least some reason to doubt such a test was administered and it's more than possible that a phony test was rigged to bluff a confession.

In Washington, Mr. Frazier said, he was "pressured" to change his recollection. In the days afterward, he was badgered by the media, harassed by people who didn't understand his relationship to Oswald and even became fearful for his life.

He had already capitulated to pressure from the FBI to agree it was not cheap crinkly material, but the same paper as found in the TSBD.

For years, Mr. Frazier refrained from talking about his role that fateful Friday. He hasn't had a listed telephone number for years. Few people have visited his home.

Which is a pity because he needs to clarify a few points.

1)He gave various contradictory statements to officials over the years as to what his usual lunch-time habits were. If, as he claimed in one instance, he always ate in the domino room, why did he choose to eat alone in the basement that day?

2) Manchester claimed in his book that Frazier told him he left immediately as he did not think there would be any more work that day (sound familiar?). Can he explain that? It was not the only coincidence between he and Oswald. He also claimed to have a bagged sandwich and apple as his lunch - the same lunch Oswald claimed he had.

3) Who got him the job at the TSBD? Linnie stated she had suggested it as a possibility. He testified however, that he was referred there by an employment agency.

Frazier may well be, and probably is, innocent. But it's false to suggest this means he has nothing to hide.

Thanks Greg,

For your reasoned and rational review,

which this forum has been greatly lacking of late.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly! Since he was guaranteed the protection of the FBI...

Thank you. I had no idea that the FBI automatically threw their protective barriers around you in return for changing elements of your story. That piece of info may come in handy one day :ph34r:

His likely excuse is that there were a lot of people milling around, poking into things, acting like they were investigating something, and he "found it difficult to find somewhere to eat in peace."

Well then, Duke he obviously had foreknowledge he would need to find "somewhere to eat in peace" since he said he took his lunch straight down to the basement on arrival.

Delving into this, we may be able to postulate that it illustrates the possibility that the two of them had spent the previous evening together and didn't think to cover that fact by at least picking something different out of the refrigerator. It's usually the little things like that, that end up unravelling the whole mystery. Amateurish at best, methinks.

Seems at least one of them had a bagged sandwich and apple. But only one of them specified what was on the sandwich - the same one who was denied any possibility of clarifying on the record just what he did bring to work that day. Buell on the other hand, ate in a place he apparently had not used as a lunchroom previously - a place where no witness could refute his claims about what he ate.

Most innocent people do [have something to hide]. It's a point well taken.

Uh huh. So you could not work out I was referring specifically to the assassination? That's the problem with you sardonica, Duke. It doesn't play well unless you invent what you're replying to, or jump on any perceived grammatical loophole. I don't mind you taking the mickey - but I'd prefer it if it was based on what I actually wrote - not on what you wish I had.

When it realized that the chief conspirator, an 18-year-old mastermind just out of high school, had been arranged to come to work for them. He was specifically selected because of his sister's proximity to where the Russian emigree wife of a defector to the Soviet Union had lived for a couple of weeks.

16 year olds plan and carry out massacres -- but I never claimed Buell was a conspirator - let alone the head honcho.

we'll probably find was not his actual step-father, but a deep-cover CIA agent wearing step-dad's severed head

I believe it's a popular pass-time in Texas.

True. The phrase "reporting to work" was coined recently to allow Aynesworth to make this claim, and surreptitiously inserted into contemporaneous dictionaries to make it appear as if this was done in 1963. This illustrates the influence the man has, or conversely, the extent to which he is privy to the inner workings of the CIA's "Lex" (short for Lexiconography) division.

Now you're misquoting me and Aynesworth.

Aynesworth wrote, "A few minutes later, Mr. Frazier and Oswald headed for the book depository, where they were to report at 8 a.m."

This specifically indicates they were "to report" at a particular time. This isn't merely a turn of phrase. It is a misleading statement. Had Either man needed to report to anyone upon entering the building, the concealment of any long parcels world have been difficult to say the least. The record actually indicates most of the workers could have gotten away with turning up late, leaving early, spending the day shooting or the breeze, or even disappearing for short periods.

This is among the most clever subterfuges I've seen, actually. Think about it: she sees a guy coming down the street with a package in his hand, and then notices him standing in the vicinity of her brother's car (assuming she's really Frazier's sister: after all, her middle name was "Mae," wasn't it, not Frazier?); she cannot see the package any longer, by her very own admission. By this ruse, we are led to believe that Oswald, walking down the street with a package in his hand, might still have the package in his hand when he reaches the car! And by what spurious device are we led to this conclusion? Her deduction! Women don't deduce, they intuit; who do these people think they're trying to fool?

The key point is Councilor, she is not a witness to him placing anything on the back seat. Oswald claimed he only carried a lunch sack and that this was in the front with him.

Thanks Greg,

For your reasoned and rational review,

which this forum has been greatly lacking of late.

Bill,

For reasons I can't fathom, certain witnesses seem to draw a coterie of protectors who are bitterly opposed to them facing any further questioning. The fact is, we know a lot of the right questions to ask now, have identified weaknesses, ambiguities, and contradictions in previous testimonies and the areas which need targeting. While some want to pick and choose the witnesses they want to question, and protect others from any questioning, time matches on. Put as many of them back on the witness stand as possible - along with all who never got called before, but should have been, then throw in all the new ones we've id'd.

Most importantly - make a list of those who should be treated as "hostile".

With regard to Frazier, surely it occurred to him that he might have been set up as a potential patsy - especially if he had done any favors for anyone on a "no questions asked" basis...

Link to post
Share on other sites
True. The phrase "reporting to work" was coined recently to allow Aynesworth to make this claim, and surreptitiously inserted into contemporaneous dictionaries to make it appear as if this was done in 1963. This illustrates the influence the man has, or conversely, the extent to which he is privy to the inner workings of the CIA's "Lex" (short for Lexiconography) division.
Now you're misquoting me and Aynesworth.

Aynesworth wrote, "A few minutes later, Mr. Frazier and Oswald headed for the book depository, where they were to report at 8 a.m."

This specifically indicates they were "to report" at a particular time. This isn't merely a turn of phrase. It is a misleading statement. Had Either man needed to report to anyone upon entering the building, the concealment of any long parcels world have been difficult to say the least. The record actually indicates most of the workers could have gotten away with turning up late, leaving early, spending the day shooting or the breeze, or even disappearing for short periods.

Your problem here, Greg, is that you're not American. It is a "turn of phrase," a colloquialism, whatever you want to call it. "Reporting" to work does not mean that one must "report to" someone on arrival, only that they need to be there. I "report to" work every day, but I neither punch a clock or tell anyone I'm there.

If, however, you wish it to be a "misleading statement," you're certainly free to feel misled. An American wouldn't be (although one is bound to chime in contrarily!).

Part of the difficulty some people have is that of preconceived notions. You've decided, for example, that there's something suspicious about Frazier having taken his lunch (and eaten his lunch) in the basement. I could ask him what was behind that, and - if he remembers this minor detail (no matter how major it is to you) - no matter what he answers, since he "has something to hide," his answer will not satisfy because he's "obviously" still hiding whatever it is you think he's hiding. The only "good" answer will be something that's seemingly worth hiding (e.g., "well, Lee told me on the way in that 'something big' was going to happen at noontime today and that I should make myself scarce. I figured that the basement was as good a place as any. I didn't want to tell anyone that for fear of seeming like I was a part of the conspiracy").

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Frazier, I find it curious that when Dave Perry arrived in this area

nearly 20 years ago, he became a close neighbor and friend of Frazier, who

lives in Grapevine, more than 20 miles from Dallas in an area of some five

million people. Just a coincidence I guess, that someone moving from the

Washington area to the Dallas area would "just happen" to select a residence

near an important Oswald witness. I also find it curious that when Posner

visited Dallas "interviewing" witnesses for his book, he was the guest of

Perry. It is also interesting that Perry's college chum in Maryland was the

curious Gus Russo, and that the two of them managed to become "consultants"

to Oliver Stone who was filming JFK. This is the same Russo who bragged

that "THE CIA CALLS ME GUS"...the same Russo who was allegedly involved

in pilfering an early script and leaking it to the media using Harold Weisberg,

and the same Perry who was accused of allegedly pilfering files on Roscoe White

by the late Larry Howard, head of the JFK-AIC, and leaking them to the press.

The curious Russo also "authored" a "Castro did it" book. All very curious.

Or am I just too suspicious of coincidences?

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be, Jack. (grin)

If I recall the story correctly, it was Dave Murph at TCU who learned where Frazier was then living in Irving, and asked Perry to come along for "moral support" in meeting this mysterious, possibly reclusive, Buell Wesley Frazier, who for all Murph knew might've taken pot shots at him inasmuch as there are stories of other witnesses doing the same.

Grapevine is no more "near an important Oswald witness" than anywhere else is in the DFW area, or no nearer or farther from other important witnesses to Oswald or anything else that took place in Dallas and who still live in the area. You don't live much farther away; does that have any significance?

You live pretty close to John Thomas Masen, as well as to the "David Atlee Phillips under arrest in Fort Worth," Ken Wilson, who is a cousin of a guy who was arrested as what we might now call "an Oswald double." Both might be called, to one extent or another, "important Oswald witnesses" also. Do you attach any importance to that? Why haven't you told this to people, who might want to know your connection to them, or if there is one?

Don't you also know Jim Marrs who, outside of Crossfire also apparently believes (if his travels on the circuit are any indication) that aliens visit Earth and abduct people: how does that affect your credibility, if at all?

I can't and won't defend any question of "pilfering," but I do know that many documents were available to the press at the Ricky White press conference, and that Perry dug up many more independently of the AIC that disproved Ricky's trashing of his father's name. If Perry "leaked" those to the press, then I say "more power to him!"

Weren't you also suspicious of someone who knew Perry and Mack, who was likewise then a "flash in the pan" upon whose departure from Dallas to Fairfax, Virginia, almost immediately preceded Mack's curatorship at the Sixth Floor Museum? A "coincidence" that Fairfax is in close proximity to McLean/Langley and Mack got his "reward," yet that person has to pay the same $13.50 as everyone else to go upstairs at the old TSBD to this day?

Sometimes "coincidences" are simply how we explain things that have no connection!

Link to post
Share on other sites
True. The phrase "reporting to work" was coined recently to allow Aynesworth to make this claim, and surreptitiously inserted into contemporaneous dictionaries to make it appear as if this was done in 1963. This illustrates the influence the man has, or conversely, the extent to which he is privy to the inner workings of the CIA's "Lex" (short for Lexiconography) division.
Now you're misquoting me and Aynesworth.

Aynesworth wrote, "A few minutes later, Mr. Frazier and Oswald headed for the book depository, where they were to report at 8 a.m."

This specifically indicates they were "to report" at a particular time. This isn't merely a turn of phrase. It is a misleading statement. Had Either man needed to report to anyone upon entering the building, the concealment of any long parcels world have been difficult to say the least. The record actually indicates most of the workers could have gotten away with turning up late, leaving early, spending the day shooting or the breeze, or even disappearing for short periods.

Your problem here, Greg, is that you're not American. It is a "turn of phrase," a colloquialism, whatever you want to call it. "Reporting" to work does not mean that one must "report to" someone on arrival, only that they need to be there. I "report to" work every day, but I neither punch a clock or tell anyone I'm there.

The problem Duke, is not where I'm from - it's in journalistic precision. It can mean just turning up, but that does not preclude the literal meaning applying. We don't know which was intended. Anyone reading it who is not familiar with the nitty-gritty of the case, may be misled.

If, however, you wish it to be a "misleading statement," you're certainly free to feel misled. An American wouldn't be (although one is bound to chime in contrarily!).

Lack of precision in phrasing is poor journalistic practice. I was not misled. I know the facts.

Part of the difficulty some people have is that of preconceived notions. You've decided, for example, that there's something suspicious about Frazier having taken his lunch (and eaten his lunch) in the basement.

No. You've decided anyone who questions his contradictory statements on it must be overly suspicious. It is you who has prejudged Wes as having nothing further he can add to what is already known, and has no need to explain any discrepancies.

I could ask him what was behind that, and - if he remembers this minor detail (no matter how major it is to you) - no matter what he answers, since he "has something to hide," his answer will not satisfy because he's "obviously" still hiding whatever it is you think he's hiding. The only "good" answer will be something that's seemingly worth hiding (e.g., "well, Lee told me on the way in that 'something big' was going to happen at noontime today and that I should make myself scarce. I figured that the basement was as good a place as any. I didn't want to tell anyone that for fear of seeming like I was a part of the conspiracy").

There you go again, putting your interpretation on this with scant regard to what I've actually said. I have decided nothing except that he has made contradictory statements about some of his activities that day, and he has never been asked to clarify or explain those statements. I'd like to see that happen. Standard practice in the field of law is to establish the facts. You may have a different MO. So be it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...