Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

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://jfkassassinat...ny/randl_l1.htm

Bernice:

Thanks for taking the time to type in the entire text of this FBI report.

It is a well known dictum of any police investigation that the "earliest recorded recollection" is of particular importance, and that applies not ust to wounds on a body (i.e., the Dallas doctors' observations) but also, and in this particular case, the length and nature of the bag placed in the rear of Frazier's car.

For reasons I have never understood, the existence of Linnie Mae Randle's first account has been ignored by many students of this case, despite the fact that this interview was conducted on November 22, 1963.

To anyone reading the FBI reports--and particularly if one "begins at the beginning" (which means starting with the first FBI Field Report (dated 11/30/63) presented to headquarters, and then forwarded to the WC (as "CD 5")--Randles' first FBI interview is critically important.

It was never properly pursued and, if true, it contains the answer to this particular puzzle: Oswald brought a bag to work that was sufficiently big to contain a rifle.

If this report is accurate, Randle knows that, Frazier knows that, and, as I said in a previous post, a "family decision" was made early on to avoid the appearance that, on November 22, 1963, Frazier transported "Oswald and his rifle" to work at the TSBD.

Unfortunately (for Randle) FBI Agent Bookhout interviewed her before she got "the word," and provided corroboration for what--if this report is true--was her brother's false story.

DSL

4/6/13; 5:40 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

I don't know (i.e., as in "know," for a fact) what was in the bag. But whether it was curtain rods, a garden shovel, or a rifle, there obviously must have been trickery and deception involved for Oswald to return home on Thursday evening, and return with that package.

This would be an interesting topic for a panel discussion, to discuss all the possibilities and ramifications.

DSL

4/6/13; 5:55 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

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.

And you failed...miserably. Your 'attempts" to find the bag was fake are a complete joke. Your complete ignorance of perspective, basic photographic skill, and just poor research are readily apparent to anyone not jaded by dogma. And your attempts to show me wrong are highly comical. Just your garden variety ct loon stuff.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Duncan,

Thanks much for posting this.

An excellent filmed summary of the issue.

For those who believe Oswald was innocent, the choice is simple:

either Oswald carried "something else" to work that morning (either innocently, or through trickery). . .

OR. . .

he carried a 36" bulky package to work, and within 24 hours, Frazier--who did not wish to be implicated in the crime--reduced the size of the package, and his sister then provided corroboration for this "side reduction."

As for myself, I'm sick and tired of people who put their narrow self interest ahead of truth in history.

At the very least--and returning now to 1964 and the Warren Commission investigation--we could have had a properly conducted investigation in which these witnesses were placed under oath, reminded of the consequences of perjury, and confronted with what this report stated.

In the same vein, I would like to have seen FBI Agent Bookhout questioned, under oath, about just when it was on Friday evening that he questioned Randle, how she behaved during the interview, what additional data she may have provided as to why she said the package was 36 inches long etc.

And, to round it out, I think the FBI interoffice memorandum that I have seen (in which one top official communicates with another about the length of the package, based on this FBI interview) was made a part of the record.

It is critically important to know the true size of the package that Oswald placed in the back of Frazier's car, in order to understand not only what was in the package, but what his own state of mind may have been as to why he brought a package of that size to work on Friday morning, November 22, 1963.

DSL

4/6/13; 6:10 PM PDT

Los Angeles, Californina

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know (i.e., as in "know," for a fact) what was in the bag. But whether it was curtain rods, a garden shovel, or a rifle, there obviously must have been trickery and deception involved for Oswald to return home on Thursday evening, and return with that package.

This would be an interesting topic for a panel discussion, to discuss all the possibilities and ramifications.

DSL

4/6/13; 5:55 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Thanks. Your suggested explanation for Linnie Mae & Wesley's 'size reduction' is interesting.

If we put the case that Oswald was indeed tricked into bringing the rifle to work that morning, then it's not at all hard to guess what his very first action upon hearing the shots and/or 'commotion' might have been: check for the rifle.

Now where might he have left it that morning?

Kent Biffle got closer than any other reporter to Roy Truly in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.

From the report he filed that evening for the Dallas Morning News:

StorageRoomBifflemarked.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, just ask your self this question:

How much weight is given the fact that no one saw Oswald bring that long bag into work, versus Frazier's story that he did have a long bag?

I would say its pretty much an accepted fact about Frazier's bag even among those on our side. So, you argue about the length of the bag. How long has that been going on?

It was not until Ian Griggs' 2005 essay, "The Bag that Never Was" in his No Case to Answer that some of us began to rethink that whole episode. When one combines it with the interesting chapter in The Assassination Tapes then one begins to see that the first generation of critics accepted something they should not have. Like, for example, Oswald ordering the rifle, the Marion Baker confrontation, and Oswald in Mexico CIty.

Jim DiEugenio,

Once again, we are treated --now on this discussion group--to some of your absurd ideas, treated as "fact".

Your sentence--"one begins to see that the first generation of critics accepted something they should not have. Like, for example, Oswald ordering the rifle, the Marion Baker confrontation, and Oswald in Mexico CIty"--provides a perfect example."

Oh, I see. . suddenly we have a group of facts that are suddenly "non-facts" (according to you, that is).

Yes, Oswald ordered a rifle. The postal money order evidence proves he did that. (You want to debate whether the rifle shipped is exactly the one ordered? . . .fine, then do that. But please don't spread the nonsense that he didn't order a rifle).

Or that Marina didn't see him with a rifle--repeatedly, in Dallas, in the spring of 1963; and then in New Orleans, after he moved to that city.

This is in the same vein as one researcher who claimed--loudly, on this forum, a year or more ago--that Marina was a xxxx because Oswald didn't "possess" a rifle. The evidence is fairly obvious that Oswald possessed a rifle, starting with the date it arrived at his PO Box, then in New Orleans, then in the fall of 1963 after his return from Mexico City. (Or do you think Marina made all of that up?)

Now, I see that you have added to your revisionist catalog the notion that there was no Marrion Baker confrontation? (Oh really? And what about all the FBI reports to the contrary. . or is that all made up? And what about the fact that Truly told his wife about it, and that was in the Philadelphia newspapers, within 24 -36 hours? Or was that made up too?)

Finally, of course, there is Mexico City. . putting aside the matter of whether he was impersonated on the phone (and that is a possibility), are you also of the opinion he never went down there? Never met with Kostikov, Nechiporenko, Yatskov--in the two -day period, 9/27 an 9/28/63?

Jim: If you want to turn everything into a "non-fact," then why not just write a novel? Like those movies we see that are titled "Inspired by True Events," perhaps you can include a similar opening page; and subtitle it "Jim DiEugenio's Fictional Take on the Kennedy Assassination".

But stop parading around as an "expert" on the Kennedy case, and as a proponent of valid history.

The existing record cannot be swept away because it is inconvenient.

DSL

4/6/13; 6:25 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig, really.

LOL. :down

Who do you write for, you?

Because you convinced no one on that.

As per Lifton, the date of that FBI report is 11/22.

IF you want to ignore what happened the day before, fine.

Can't wait to read your book.

Poor jimbo, can't even understand the topic let alone the processes. You are WAY out if your depth jimbo...and blinded by dogma.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, LOL. :D

No one has done more work on this story than I have. And I am still working on it.

You're a crack up Craig.

You simply don't have a clue jimbo, about why Speer washed up with his fake bag nonsense. Its WAY beyond your ken as it is his. Talk about a crackup...enjoy your fantasy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. David's argument that Randle lied to protect her brother is pretty silly, IMO. On the day of the shooting, she was asked to approximate the size of the bag she saw in Oswald's possession. She said 3 feet by six inches. At the time the DPD thought this was sufficient and no one knew this was an issue. The FBI then came back and asked her to approximate the size of the bag she saw in comparison to both the bag placed in evidence, and a replacement bag made from paper from the building held in someone's hand while crossing the street. After careful consideration, she now estimated that the bag she saw was about 27 inches long, the same length attributed the bag by her brother after studying the appearance of the replacement bag in the back of his car. She made it pretty clear she wasn't just going along with her brother, for that matter, by now claiming she thought the bag was about 8 1/2 inches wide, far wider than she'd originally claimed.

2. Craig's memory has failed him. I took some pictures which suggested to me that the bag in the archives was of different proportions than the bag in the news photos. Craig then showed how the bag in the archives COULD have the appearance of the bag in the news photos provided the bag was leaning sharply toward a nearby photographer and the photographer was shooting at an upward angle. We went round and round on this. Craig never offered anything, however, to give us any reason to believe the photo we were discussing was taken at such an angle, let alone that ALL the news photos of the bag-all of which showed a bag of different proportions than the one in the archives--were taken at such an angle. He never once, for that matter, discussed my research on the bag--which showed beyond all doubt that Lt. Day did not in fact discover the bag by the window in the school book depository, as claimed by most LNs, and that NO ONE involved in the discovery of the bag was ever shown the bag now in the archives, in order to verify it was in fact the bag they'd "discovered."

There's also this. In all our round and round on the bag, Craig never responded to what is to me a conclusive argument the bags are not the same.

proofofconcept.jpg

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize this requires you to THINK Lammy...

which bag did the FBI get,

which one did Studebaker give to whom,

How does Hicks not have a clue as to what they are talking about when he was specifically left to deal with this bag

and since Monty does not take this bag... where did he get the one he was holding in the photos?

Use that big Brain Lammy, or is all you can do is point out where you think others are wrong without offering ANYTHING in its place....

This subject becomes yet another aspect of the case you could care less about other than to xxxxx the thread...

Now post something pithy and original CL... ADD to the conversation (I forgot, math eludes you... adding anything is beyond you)

:rolleyes:

Mr. BELIN. What did you do with the bag after you found it and you put this writing on after you dusted it?

Mr. DAY. I released it to the FBI agent.

Mr. BELIN. Did you take it down to the station with you?

Mr. DAY. I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left. I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in.

Mr. BELIN. By this you are referring to the bag itself?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Was it folded over?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was doubled - it was a piece of paper about this long and it was doubled over.

Mr. BALL. How long was it, approximately?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't know - I picked it up and dusted it and they took it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I have seen of it, and I don't know

Mr. BALL. Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas School Book Depository building?

Mr. HICKS. Paper bag?

Mr. BALL. Paper bag.

Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken bones or maybe a lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up.

Mr. BALL. Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper; did you ever see it?

Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I don't believe I did. I don't recall it.

Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?

Mr. BALL. The paper sack?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?

Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.

Mr. BALL. You picked it up?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat,

Now you risk another lecture by the professional photographer about: Drum Roll please:

"perspective"

Translated out of Lamsonese, this means: Who you going to believe, Craigie or your lying eyes.

Kudos to Martin also.

To me, this argument is so obvious that its silly to argue about it anymore.

You sure that's where you want to go jimbo? You are gonna look even more silly that you look right now if you do. But I understand something as simple as basic perspective is WAY over your limited ability to understand.

This is gonna be double the fun now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize this requires you to THINK Lammy...

which bag did the FBI get,

which one did Studebaker give to whom,

How does Hicks not have a clue as to what they are talking about when he was specifically left to deal with this bag

and since Monty does not take this bag... where did he get the one he was holding in the photos?

Use that big Brain Lammy, or is all you can do is point out where you think others are wrong without offering ANYTHING in its place....

This subject becomes yet another aspect of the case you could care less about other than to xxxxx the thread...

Now post something pithy and original CL... ADD to the conversation (I forgot, math eludes you... adding anything is beyond you)

:rolleyes:

Mr. BELIN. What did you do with the bag after you found it and you put this writing on after you dusted it?

Mr. DAY. I released it to the FBI agent.

Mr. BELIN. Did you take it down to the station with you?

Mr. DAY. I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left. I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in.

Mr. BELIN. By this you are referring to the bag itself?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Was it folded over?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was doubled - it was a piece of paper about this long and it was doubled over.

Mr. BALL. How long was it, approximately?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't know - I picked it up and dusted it and they took it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I have seen of it, and I don't know

Mr. BALL. Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas School Book Depository building?

Mr. HICKS. Paper bag?

Mr. BALL. Paper bag.

Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken bones or maybe a lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up.

Mr. BALL. Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper; did you ever see it?

Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I don't believe I did. I don't recall it.

Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?

Mr. BALL. The paper sack?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?

Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.

Mr. BALL. You picked it up?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints

Look, "larry" is here. Right on cue.

So "Larry" is Speer correct with his fake bag photo claim or not. Get on the record so we can make this a three-for now. I do so like making you look like a complete clown.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize this requires you to THINK Lammy...

which bag did the FBI get,

which one did Studebaker give to whom,

How does Hicks not have a clue as to what they are talking about when he was specifically left to deal with this bag

and since Monty does not take this bag... where did he get the one he was holding in the photos?

Use that big Brain Lammy, or is all you can do is point out where you think others are wrong without offering ANYTHING in its place....

This subject becomes yet another aspect of the case you could care less about other than to xxxxx the thread...

Now post something pithy and original CL... ADD to the conversation (I forgot, math eludes you... adding anything is beyond you)

:rolleyes:

Mr. BELIN. What did you do with the bag after you found it and you put this writing on after you dusted it?

Mr. DAY. I released it to the FBI agent.

Mr. BELIN. Did you take it down to the station with you?

Mr. DAY. I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left. I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in.

Mr. BELIN. By this you are referring to the bag itself?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Was it folded over?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was doubled - it was a piece of paper about this long and it was doubled over.

Mr. BALL. How long was it, approximately?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't know - I picked it up and dusted it and they took it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I have seen of it, and I don't know

Mr. BALL. Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas School Book Depository building?

Mr. HICKS. Paper bag?

Mr. BALL. Paper bag.

Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken bones or maybe a lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up.

Mr. BALL. Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper; did you ever see it?

Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I don't believe I did. I don't recall it.

Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?

Mr. BALL. The paper sack?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?

Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.

Mr. BALL. You picked it up?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints

Look, "larry" is here. Right on cue.

So "Larry" is Speer correct with his fake bag photo claim or not. Get on the record so we can make this a three-for now. I do so like making you look like a complete clown.

you are getting your exercise aren't ya there laddie... so when can we expect something from that tired old Gang of 6 camp? Something worth more than that regular old CT phrase "ho-hum, more .johnism, I told you so"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are getting your exercise aren't ya there laddie... so when can we expect something from that tired old Gang of 6 camp? Something worth more than that regular old CT phrase "ho-hum, more .johnism, I told you so"?

LOTS of whackjob ct theory and disinformation why not toss your hat in the ring and actually take a real STANCE on something for a change. Is

Is Speer correct about the fake bag photo or not? Or are you just more chicken clucks?

We need to change you name to "waffle" Healy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lammy, when do YOU ever say anything about what YOU conclude based on YOUR years at this? all you ever do is ASK...

post an ANSWER and see if it holds any water...

Defend YOUR postion.. if you even HAVE a postion...

nevermind, I see that's not in your job description...

In Internet slang, a xxxxx (pron.: /ˈtrl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]

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...