Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Sean, I never invoked Aynesworth's name. Though I think it matters not a whit that Frazier maintains the parcel was too small. He was telling a truth that did not hurt him personally and does not hurt the official story since that verdict was made long ago.

Greg, it directly threatens the official theory by throwing into question the claim that Oswald brought that rifle in that bag to that building that morning.

My point was, Oswald was not the only person in that car with a "lunch bag" and no one ever asked Frazier under a polygraph or cross examination or even just informally, how big his own lunch sack was.

We now know there is a distinct possibility that Oswald was dropped off at the Elm St building before Frazier went to the parking lot. Maybe Frazier did not want his passenger see HIM get a package off the back seat?

If Frazier has something major to hide along these specific lines, wouldn't drawing people's attention all over again to the Oswald-bag part be the very last thing one would expect him to be doing in 2013?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

IMO, West's unequivocal testimony eliminates the possibility that 1.) Oswald had the right paper to make that wrapping, and 2.) The wrapping brought down from the TSBD was brought there by Oswald.

If those two statements are accurate, and I think the evidence shows they are, then Frazier's story is suspect.

On the contrary, Jim, if those two statements are accurate, then Frazier's story makes perfect sense: Oswald brought a different, smaller bag into work that morning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean, I never invoked Aynesworth's name. Though I think it matters not a whit that Frazier maintains the parcel was too small. He was telling a truth that did not hurt him personally and does not hurt the official story since that verdict was made long ago.

Greg, it directly threatens the official theory by throwing into question the claim that Oswald brought that rifle in that bag to that building that morning.

Sean, I don't see any sign that anyone has ever felt threatened by anything Frazier has said post-WC. He is simply dismissed as wrong on the basis that he only had a quick look. The only effect he has had is in making himself look innocent by NOT lying about the size of Oswald's bag. Meanwhile his guilt or innocence has never been tested with the RIGHT set of questions. Not even informally, let alone under conditions in which he is compelled to tell the truth.

My point was, Oswald was not the only person in that car with a "lunch bag" and no one ever asked Frazier under a polygraph or cross examination or even just informally, how big his own lunch sack was.

We now know there is a distinct possibility that Oswald was dropped off at the Elm St building before Frazier went to the parking lot. Maybe Frazier did not want his passenger see HIM get a package off the back seat?

If Frazier has something major to hide along these specific lines, wouldn't drawing people's attention all over again to the Oswald-bag part be the very last thing one would expect him to be doing in 2013?

No. That part has not drawn any attention to anything. It just causes endless debate about the size of the bloody bag. What has drawn attention is him saying he avoided his drunken step-father in Huntsville,then deciding to spend all afternoon and evening visiting him in hospital after leaving work on the day of the assassination; his own varied testimonies on where he ate lunch that day and where he normally ate lunch; his timing in arriving and getting his job vs timing in public knowledge of JFK Dallas trip and; statements made by fellow TSBD employees to HSCA investigators and not discovered until Richard Gilbride liberated them.

His public statements about the length of the bag are just a distraction - fodder to feed into various forum chat rooms.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to post
Share on other sites

But Sean, if Oswald did bring in a lunch bag, are you seriously going to see it was as long as the Fraziers say it was?

I think that is kind of ridiculous. Never heard of a lunch bag that long.

For a light eater like Oswald?

So what are we accusing Frazier of doing now, Jim? Trying to frame Oswald for overconsumption?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But Sean, if Oswald did bring in a lunch bag, are you seriously going to see it was as long as the Fraziers say it was?

I think that is kind of ridiculous. Never heard of a lunch bag that long.

For a light eater like Oswald?

So what are we accusing Frazier of doing now, Jim? Trying to frame Oswald for overconsumption?

No Sean, for not eating enough.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean, I never invoked Aynesworth's name. Though I think it matters not a whit that Frazier maintains the parcel was too small. He was telling a truth that did not hurt him personally and does not hurt the official story since that verdict was made long ago.

Greg, it directly threatens the official theory by throwing into question the claim that Oswald brought that rifle in that bag to that building that morning.

Sean, I don't see any sign that anyone has ever felt threatened by anything Frazier has said post-WC. He is simply dismissed as wrong on the basis that he only had a quick look. The only effect he has had is in making himself look innocent by NOT lying about the size of Oswald's bag. Meanwhile his guilt or innocence has never been tested with the RIGHT set of questions. Not even informally, let alone under conditions in which he is compelled to tell the truth.

My point was, Oswald was not the only person in that car with a "lunch bag" and no one ever asked Frazier under a polygraph or cross examination or even just informally, how big his own lunch sack was.

We now know there is a distinct possibility that Oswald was dropped off at the Elm St building before Frazier went to the parking lot. Maybe Frazier did not want his passenger see HIM get a package off the back seat?

If Frazier has something major to hide along these specific lines, wouldn't drawing people's attention all over again to the Oswald-bag part be the very last thing one would expect him to be doing in 2013?

No. That part has not drawn any attention to anything. It just causes endless debate about the size of the bloody bag. What has drawn attention is him saying he avoided his drunken step-father in Huntsville,then deciding to spend all afternoon and evening visiting him in hospital after leaving work on the day of the assassination; his own varied testimonies on where he ate lunch that day and where he normally ate lunch; his timing in arriving and getting his job vs timing in public knowledge of JFK Dallas trip and; statements made by fellow TSBD employees to HSCA investigators and not discovered until Richard Gilbride liberated them.

His public statements about the length of the bag are just a distraction - fodder to feed into various forum chat rooms.

Greg, what do you suspect Frazier is actually hiding? What was his true involvement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, what do you suspect Frazier is actually hiding? What was his true involvement?

Sean, Huntsville was/is a prison town. You're either a con an ex-con or a prison worker, or future con or prison worker.

Big sis escaped and married into what she probably saw as Irving Royalty; an English family heavily involved in local politics as Dxiecrats.

That's just by way of what may or may not be pertinent background.

To answer specifically "what do I suspect he is hiding'? SOMETHING. Thus my desire to see him answer the right questions under conditions of legal compulsion. [Edit to add] I did not event suspicion around Frazier. He created it himself by his actions and words.

"What was his true involvement?" That is what I would hope would be teased out through the above process. If he was nothing more than a witness, then he should glide through the process without a hitch.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean:

The Fraziers both said the wrapper was about 28 inches long. (WR, p. 133) Which is over two feet. Quite a lunch bag. Must have been a five course meal.

The WC needed it to be 34.8 inches long. It was a near miss. As Greg said that was negated by saying that they did not get a real good look.

Not a near miss, Jim. Not even close. Frazier claimed to see the bag on the back seat of the car, and spent some time with the FBI trying to estimate how much of the back seat was covered by the bag. His estimate was that the bag was 27 by 6 (or 162 sq. inches). The bag in the archives photos is 38 by 8 1/2 (323 sq. inches), basically TWICE as big.

Link to post
Share on other sites

question - if they were going to invent the paper bag in response to pressure like this - why did they not come up with something more convincing and/or consistent with something that could contain a rifle? Why did they describe something with dimensions that made no sense? I would a assume that a story concocted with and for the police would have devised something more plausible than a bag that was too small.

The bag was needed to get the rifle to the TSBD... there NEVER was a bag in Wesley's car...

In fact, the bag may have been brought in by the man Yates gives a ride and drops off right outside the TSBD...

with a 3-4 foot package.

The bag also was never in the corner of the TSBD... an interesting mystery inside the mystery...

Read the testimony of Studebaker, Day, Montgomery... and try to find out who and how that bag gets from that corner, to the photos of Monty holding the bag out front...

I'veposted it before... it is very telling...

Enjoy

DJ

Sorry, but Linnie Mae Randle confirms there was a bag. In her first FBI interview, she says it was some 3 feet long. (Later, she reduced its size, which--I speculate--was an attempt to spin her account to preclude her brother carrying a rifle in his car to work that day).

But to say that there was "no bag" in the car seems completely unfounded, to me.

DSL

4/2/13; 3:40 AM

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion the pouch, wrapper, bag, etc, whatever you want to call it, that the DPD brought down, this has no relation to the Frazier story.

But Jim, you were using this bag to make Frazier's story suspect. Which makes no sense. Frazier's story makes it suspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean:

The Fraziers both said the wrapper was about 28 inches long. (WR, p. 133) Which is over two feet. Quite a lunch bag. Must have been a five course meal.

The WC needed it to be 34.8 inches long. It was a near miss. As Greg said that was negated by saying that they did not get a real good look.

Not a near miss, Jim. Not even close. Frazier claimed to see the bag on the back seat of the car, and spent some time with the FBI trying to estimate how much of the back seat was covered by the bag. His estimate was that the bag was 27 by 6 (or 162 sq. inches). The bag in the archives photos is 38 by 8 1/2 (323 sq. inches), basically TWICE as big.

But Pat, that is different.

In my opinion the pouch, wrapper, bag, etc, whatever you want to call it, that the DPD brought down, this has no relation to the Frazier story.

Having gone over this material several times, I just do not buy the story that Studebaker would not take a photo of it lying in situ. ANd the DPD could never get their story about this.

Secondly, if you look at that photo of the DPD out front of the TSBD, well I just do not think that that partiucular wrapper matches up with Frazier's testimony.

Then there is the Troy West testimony. Which in view is pretty devastating tot he WC.

Yes, I know. I devoted several chapters of my website, and hundreds of hours of research and argument, trying to prove that point.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean:

The Fraziers both said the wrapper was about 28 inches long. (WR, p. 133) Which is over two feet. Quite a lunch bag. Must have been a five course meal.

The WC needed it to be 34.8 inches long. It was a near miss. As Greg said that was negated by saying that they did not get a real good look.

Not a near miss, Jim. Not even close. Frazier claimed to see the bag on the back seat of the car, and spent some time with the FBI trying to estimate how much of the back seat was covered by the bag. His estimate was that the bag was 27 by 6 (or 162 sq. inches). The bag in the archives photos is 38 by 8 1/2 (323 sq. inches), basically TWICE as big.

But Pat, that is different.

In my opinion the pouch, wrapper, bag, etc, whatever you want to call it, that the DPD brought down, this has no relation to the Frazier story.

Having gone over this material several times, I just do not buy the story that Studebaker would not take a photo of it lying in situ. ANd the DPD could never get their story about this.

Secondly, if you look at that photo of the DPD out front of the TSBD, well I just do not think that that partiucular wrapper matches up with Frazier's testimony.

Then there is the Troy West testimony. Which in view is pretty devastating tot he WC.

I do not understand why more attention is not paid to what Linnie Mae Randle first told the FBI when interviewed on Friday evening, November 22. The interviewing agent was James Bookhout, and his report --not published by the Warren Commission in the 26 volumes--can be found on page 320 of Commission Document 5 (CD 5).

Here's the quote:

Randle stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out a window of her residence and observed Lee Harvey Oswald walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of Wesley Frazier’s 154 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed Oswald walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for Frazier to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

I first became aware of this quote when I found it in an FBI internal memo, from one top official to another. But CD 5, p. 320, is the original source. Subsequent to this interview, the bag (in Randle's story) got shorter. It always seemed to me that Frazier did not wish to be in the position of being responsible for having transported "Oswald and his rifle" to the TSBD that day, and his sister didn't want to support an account of the bag length which would imply that was so.

For whatever reason, Linnie Mae Randle was never confronted with her original statement, nor was FBI Agent Bookhout questioned in detail about this particular report. (And I doubt very much that Bookhout would have said he made an error of that magnitude).

What lesson should we draw from this? There are certain "secrets" in this case that people seem determined to carry to the grave; and I'm afraid that the length of the bag that Oswald brought out to Frazier's car falls into that category.

DSL

4/5/13; 7:50 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

David, Ms. Randle's initial approximation of the bag being three feet by six inches was just that, an approximation. She was subsequently allowed to give a more considered opinion.

From patspeer.com, Chapter 2:

On 12-2-63, we find out that Dallas FBI agents Odum and McNeely, desperate to get around the problem created by Frazier's refusal to ID the bag, have visited the school book depository, gathered up some paper and some tape, and created a replica sack to show those who knew Oswald. Significantly, the report on their actions of the day before tells us the "paper was described as "60 pound paper, 24 inches wide" and that the tape was "gummed, brown paper tape, three inches wide, made on 60 pound paper stock." (CD7, p292). It also tells us that after creating the sack, they took it, along with the original sack, which had been stained by the FBI during testing, over to show Ruth Paine, at whose home Oswald had stayed the night before the shooting. She "advised that she does not recall seeing Lee Oswald in possession of any sack resembling either of these sacks, nor does she recall seeing him in possession of paper or tape of the type used on either of these sacks." (CD7, p293). Perhaps hoping he would change his mind, they then showed these sacks to Buell Frazier. In their 12-2 report, Odum and McNeeley re-tell Frazier's story. They write: "As he started to drive out of the yard, Frazier glanced back and noticed a long package, light brown in color, lying on the back of the rear seat and extending from approximately the right rear door to about the center of the seat...Frazier designated an approximate spot on the back seat where he felt the package extended to from the right rear door and measurement by Special Agents Bardwell D. Odum and Gibbon E. McNeeley determined that this spot was 27 inches from the inside of the right door, indicating that Frazier estimates that as the length of the package." They then recount Frazier's recollection of how Oswald carried the package into the building: "Oswald had this package under his right arm, one end of this package being under his armpit and the other end apparently held with his right fingers...Frazier stated that when he saw this package under the arm of Oswald, he reached the conclusion that the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores." They then describe showing Frazier the replica sack. Agent Odum held the sack under his arm, and they measured how much of the sack was visible to Frazier, when held under his arm. It was 9" by 1". According to Odum's report, Frazier then advised Odum "that he now realizes that his conclusion that the sack was thin, crinkly paper, of the type used in Five and Ten Cent stores, was based to a considerable extent upon the fact that the color of the sack was a very light brown as compared with the type of dark brown paper used for heavier grocery sacks. He noted that the color of the replica sack was the same color as the package which he had seen in possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963." Odum then shows Frazier the original sack. He writes: "Frazier examined the original found by the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building on November 22,1963, and stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the sack or package which he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but that he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack." This is incredibly disingenuous, and fails to note that Frazier was shown this sack, on the night of the shooting, before it had been discolored by the FBI's tests, and had refused to identify it as the sack or bag brought into work by Oswald. Odum then reports: "Frazier indicated on the replica sack the estimated width of the package in possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, and this was found to be an approximate width of six inches". (CD7, 294-297).

They then showed the sack to Frazier's sister, Linnie Mae Randle. She also has her doubts about the sack. Odum reports: "Mrs. Randle states that at the time she saw Oswald walking across the street, he was carrying a long package wrapped in brown paper or a brown sack in his right hand. It appeared to contain something heavy. She stated that it was long but did not touch the ground as he walked across the street. She examined a replica of the sack...She stated that this was the same kind of paper that made up the sack or package that she saw Oswald carrying, and was the same heavy grade of paper, since she recalls noting that there was something heavy in the sack when she saw it, and it was the same color paper as the sack she had seen on the morning of November 22, 1963. She was shown the original paper sack...She stated that if the original sack was previously the same color as the replica sack, that the original sack could have been the one which she saw Oswald carrying on the morning of November 22, 1963...The action of Oswald walking across Westbrook Street was re-enacted by Special Agent McNeeley, carrying the replica sack...in accordance with Mrs. Randle's observations, Special Agent McNeeley grasped the top of the sack with his hand...When the proper length of the sack was reached according to Mrs. Randle's estimate, it was measured and found to be 27 inches long. She demonstrated the width of the sack as it appeared to her, noting that it did have something bulky in it originally. Her designation on the replica sack was found to be 8 1/2 inches for the width of the original package she had seen Oswald carrying." (CD7, p298-299). Here, once again, Odum acts as though the recollection of the witness is consistent with the sack carried by Oswald being the sack found in the sniper's nest. This just isn't true. Two witnesses saw the sack. The FBI performed two tests to determine the length of the sack seen by the witnesses. They put the replica sack in Frazier's back seat. This confirmed for Frazier that the sack he saw was about 27 inches long. They then re-enacted Oswald walking across the street to get Randle's best estimate of the length of the sack. This led her to conclude the sack she saw was...27 inches long. We've seen some evidence photos. The sack found in the sniper's nest was 38 inches long, approximately 40% longer than the sack described by both Frazier and Randle. We've also seen press photos of the original sack, as it was brought out of the school book depository. It appears to have been well over 10 inches in width.

This gets us thinking. We do a quick comparison of photos of the bag as it was removed from the depository, and these convince us the bag was actually about 10.75 inches wide. Okay. The bag in these photos is also about 38 inches long. If the bag holding the rifle was 38 by 10.75, however, it would have covered 408.5 sq. inches on the back seat of Frazier's car. The sack described by Frazier, meanwhile, is 27 x 6, 162 sq. inches...This means that the bag shown Frazier--assuming it was the bag in the press photos--was TWO AND A HALF TIMES as large as the bag he recalled seeing in Oswald's possession. No wonder he'd refused to ID the bag.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date 11/23/63

LINNIE MAE RANDLE, 2439 West Fifth Street, Irving, Texas, phone Blackburn 3-8965, was interviewed at the Dallas Police Department.

RANDLE advised that she is the sister of BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, who is employed by the Texas School Book Depository and resides at her residence, stated that she met LEE HARVEY OSWALD through her brother, and has known OSWALD and his wife for about six weeks. RANDLE advised that OSWALD's wife is MARINA OSWALD, who resides at 2515 W. Fifth, Irving, Texas, and that OSWALD spends the weekends with his wife at the above mentioned address. Her brother, WESLEY FRAZIER, customarily drives LEE HARVEY OSWALD to 2515 West Fifth, Irving, Texas, on Friday night, and takes him back to work on Monday morning. He stated that OSWALD is also employed at the Texas School Book Depository.

On the night of November 21, 1963, she observed FRAZIER letting LEE HARVEY OSWALD out of FRAZIER's car at 2515 West Fifth. Subsequently, she asked FRAZIER why OSWALD was visiting his wife on Thursday evening, as he usually did not visit her until Friday evening each week. FRAZIER told her that OSWALD claimed he was visiting his wife the night of November 21, 1963, because he is fixing up his apartment and RUTH PAINE, with whom his wife resides at 2515 West Fifth, Irving, was going to give him some curtain rods.

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

RANDLE stated while at the Dallas Police Department on the evening of November 22, 1963, officers of the Dallas Police Department had exhibited to her some brown package paper, however she had not been able to positively identify it as being identical with the above-mentioned brown package, due to the fact she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance.

on 11/22/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43

by Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT/cah/tjd

Date dictated 11/23/63

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but Linnie Mae Randle confirms there was a bag. In her first FBI interview, she says it was some 3 feet long. (Later, she reduced its size, which--I speculate--was an attempt to spin her account to preclude her brother carrying a rifle in his car to work that day).

But to say that there was "no bag" in the car seems completely unfounded, to me.

DSL

4/2/13; 3:40 AM

Los Angeles, California

David, do you believe the MC rifle was in the bag Oswald brought to work that morning?

And if so, do you believe he was tricked into bringing 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...