Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

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]

I've defended it time and time again, there are HUGE threads both here and at Duncan's site with tons of my original work. Your search finger broken? Its really very simple. Speer says the bag seen outside the TSBD is a different size than the one in the archives. I say his work is whackjob and prove it. I'm just about to bomb his latest drivel back into the stone age.

So tell us "larry", is he right? A simple yes or no will do. Why don't you go on record?

Maybe I can turn you into a sheet of glass....

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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?)

David, do you have an exact cite for the part in red? It would be most helpful to establish that such information from Truly's wife was indeed printed so early.

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]

I've defended it time and time again, there are HUGE threads both here and at Duncan's site with tons of my original work. Your search finger broken? Its really very simple. Speer says the bag seen outside the TSBD is a different size than the one in the archives. I say his work is whackjob and prove it. I'm just about to bomb his latest drivel back into the stone age.

So tell us "larry", is he right? A simple yes or no will do. Why don't you go on record?

Maybe I can turn you into a sheet of glass....

Craig,

this is not about what you tell us you are doing to Pat's arguments...

It's about the evidence.

It's about what people said before they knew better not to say it

You, sir windex, want to wage personal war against Mr Speer...

not the evidence I presented you.

The "bag" in those pictures requires :

creation,

transportation,

concealment,

use after breaking down the "rifle",

transportation,

concealment again,

retrieval,

folding and placing,

and yet, while taking the time to hide the rifle

leaves this homemade bag where it is never photographed...

where it is given to the FBI, Hicks, and Studebaker

when samples of paper is taken and "duplicate" bags are created

yet it is finally photographed in the hands of Montgomery who admits to their being a "venetian blind" holding up the bag in those pix..

but not to how it is he holding this bag, or who gave it to him..

So Mr. Lamson... speaking of glass... you will forever be able to argue the conclusions and opinions of others...

what you cant and dont address is the EVIDENCE. The source info..... you support the WCR/FBI conclusions, you are bound by their evidence... testimony from those there at the time.

Whether I agree with Pat Speer does not change what was actually said, what physical evidence we must use and decide whether is authentic or fabricated...

You're transparency screams, "look at me" craig... "I'm making you look over HERE while I dont address what was asked over THERE"

you'd think one with such a big brain would be able to better conceal their tactics...

So what will it be? You gonna just argue about what Mr. Speer has to say and proclaim yourself today's king of the hill, or

could the focus be on the evidence.. and what IT says?

I'll let Speer speak for himself ...

The evidence will do the same...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig,

this is not about what you tell us you are doing to Pat's arguments...

It's about the evidence.

It's about what people said before they knew better not to say it

You, sir windex, want to wage personal war against Mr Speer...

not the evidence I presented you.

The "bag" in those pictures requires :

creation,

transportation,

concealment,

use after breaking down the "rifle",

transportation,

concealment again,

retrieval,

folding and placing,

and yet, while taking the time to hide the rifle

leaves this homemade bag where it is never photographed...

where it is given to the FBI, Hicks, and Studebaker

when samples of paper is taken and "duplicate" bags are created

yet it is finally photographed in the hands of Montgomery who admits to their being a "venetian blind" holding up the bag in those pix..

but not to how it is he holding this bag, or who gave it to him..

So Mr. Lamson... speaking of glass... you will forever be able to argue the conclusions and opinions of others...

what you cant and dont address is the EVIDENCE. The source info..... you support the WCR/FBI conclusions, you are bound by their evidence... testimony from those there at the time.

Whether I agree with Pat Speer does not change what was actually said, what physical evidence we must use and decide whether is authentic or fabricated...

You're transparency screams, "look at me" craig... "I'm making you look over HERE while I dont address what was asked over THERE"

you'd think one with such a big brain would be able to better conceal their tactics...

So what will it be? You gonna just argue about what Mr. Speer has to say and proclaim yourself today's king of the hill, or

could the focus be on the evidence.. and what IT says?

I'll let Speer speak for himself ...

The evidence will do the same...

Translated from 'larry' speak..I would prefer not to be on the record about Speers claim.

You want to talk about evidence, be my guest. Heck you silly ct's can't even decide on what size the bag is let alone any of the rest of it. Its a giant custer f. So bang your drum all day speculating to your hearts content. You got nothing concrete and quite frankly I'm simply not interested in word games over things that will never be resolved. Clearly that suits you just fine. You are as empty as the 'conclusions' you posit. So shine on, play your parlor word games. 50 years and all you have is conflict and speculation.

Leave the photo work to those who know. Its really quite clear you don't have the first clue and you never will. Its WAY beyond your limited ability.

And mind you 'larry' I address the evidence all the time...THE PHOTO EVIDENCE. Which is exactly what I'm doing here. Photographic principles have no politics nor bias. They are what they are. And if they put your fantasy based conclusions in jeopardy, so much the better.

But thanks for playing 'larry' . Good to see you are another clucker...

BTW this is not about personal war against Speer. His WORK is the target and his ignorance. Not to mention the gross disinformation he has posted on his website. You claim to be seeking the truth. You should WELCOME the detailed inspection of his claims. He represents YOU. And I must say your reluctance to even take stand is remarkable considering you have had no problems doing so in the past. Very illumiinating.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?)

David, do you have an exact cite for the part in red? It would be most helpful to establish that such information from Truly's wife was indeed printed so early.

Presently, I do not have an exact cite. This information comes from very extensive newspaper archives research which I did between 1969 and 1974 at the UCLA Research Library. On microfilm (and via Interlibrary Loan), I ordered the newspapers from all five cities that Kennedy visited in Texas. Then, expanding on that, I added major cities to the list--regardless of whether they were in Texas.

I made hundreds of pages of notes, and collected hundreds of pages of newspaper printouts. In connection with all that, one of the articles that came through was published in either the Philadelphia Bulletin or Inquirer. It was a major article on the assassination (and published that weekend, as were many such articles, in the American press). As I recall the reporter called Truly's residence but wasn't able to reach Truly. But his wife related what her husband had said. It was pretty specific, and so he included that in his story: that her husband commented on how unruffled Oswald was, despite being confronted, at the soda machine, by a police officer with a drawn gun. Today, I would have scanned such an item; back then, I clipped it, and put it into a "Baker-Truly" subject file.

But setting that particular item aside--i.e., putting aside what Truly's wife told a newspaper reporter--there are multiple FBI reports of Truly himself being interviewed about the events of that day by FBI agents on Friday November 22, and then again on Saturday, November 23. Those reports essentially say the same thing.

As I'm sure you know, Truly testified that he (Truly) was racing up the stairs, was located between the second and third floor when he first realized that the officer was no longer behind him. He then returned to the second floor landing, and saw the scene unfold that he described repeatedly--to newspaper reporters, and, most importantly, to three FBI agents in two separate interviews--one on 11/22, the other on 11/23. Per the two FBI reports: Officer Baker, gun drawn, was inching his way towards the door of a room, in which Oswald was getting a coke.

This whole scene reeks of foreknowledge--and that's the key issue. As I wrote in BEST EVIDENCE, I believe that Oswald came very close to getting shot, right in the lunchroom (and that might well have happened, had Truly not been present). And that's what this is really all about.

This entire episode reminds me of the statement that Sgt. Hill made to a California radio station at 6:45 P.M. (Dallas time) on the evening of 11/22/63. Referring to the President's murder just hours earlier (and the apprehension of Oswald), he summed it up this way: "It was a tragedy that it ever had to happen, but at the same time, if it did happen and if this man—this man turns out to be the one, we’ll feel that we sort of took the blot our face a little bit by being able to catch him ourselves." (CD 1210)

FWIW: I agree with Oswald's mother who publicly stated not just that her son was set up, and (in her opinion) that he was supposed to have been murdered in the building.

As the saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words." Officer's Baker's actions--recorded on film as he rushed into building, and then, insofar as what transpired inside the building (as reported by Truly)-- speak very loudly, and I think any reasonable person, reading the entire record, will understand that.

If I come across the file containing the clip with the quote from Truly's wife, I of course will post that.

DSL

4/7/13; 5:40 PM PST

Los Angeles, California

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:

DSL INSERT: Note what Pat Speer leaves out in this lengthy narrative (See my post below).

In short, to assemble this narrative, Speer apparently collected everything he could find about the bag, starting with CD 7, the FBI Field Office Report from mid December, 1963. The trouble is--the most interview occurred in the first FBI Field Office Report, dated November 30, 1963, and I am referring, of course, to the first FBI interview of Linnie Mae Randle, which was on November 22, 1963 (CD 5, p. 320). If one omits that data, then one gets an incomplete (and distorted) picture of what is really going on here.

So much for my comments. . . now let's turn to Speer's narrative:

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.

Pat:

You can play all the games you wish the English language. The fact is that in your chapter--"PatSpeer.com, Chapter 2--you failed to cite or make any mention of the fact that Linnie Mae Randle was interviewed by FBI Agent James Bookhout on the evening of November 22, 1963, and made the statement she did--a statement not published by the Warren Commission in the 26 Volumes but which can be found in Commission Document 5, page 320.

TO QUOTE THIS CRITICAL PASSAGE (again):

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.

This interview, in my opinion, qualifies as "first day evidence."

Is it to be found anywhere in your lengthy narrative?

Answer: "No".

Why not? Certainly not because you set out to engage in a cover-up; rather, like many who arrived "on the scene" somewhat later, you failed to appreciate the importance of the original FBI reports, many of which can be found in CD 5. But I ordered that stuff and was immersed in indexing it back in 1969. And it was made available to Mary Ferrell and Sylvia Meagher, who helped finance that rather huge (multi-thousand page) order. So I am quite familiar with CD 5, and most of the other "early" FBI reports.

So now, in April, 2013, and having had this rather serious deficiency pointed out, you hurry back to your existing text, quote it at length, and --apparently--attempting to defend your omission of this crucial data, you now focus on the adjective "approximately" and state:

"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."

". . approximately. . "? ". .an approximately. . "? ". . .subsequently allowed to give a more considered opinion. . "?

In other words, we can then ignore what she originally told FBI Agent Bookhout?

Please save us from this belated attempt to salvage some validity from your incomplete and incorrect analysis. Why not own up to what your text (as currently written) says, and what I believe to be much closer to the truth:

"Ooops! I never saw that FBI interview before. . . or, if I did, I didn't notice that when she was first interviewed, on Friday, 11/22/63, she described the bag as (a) "a long brown package" and (b ), quoting it at length, "a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches."

Instead of admitting to an error, you now assert that my analysis is "silly," return to Randle's original statement (which, I gather, was not mentioned anywhere in your "Chapter 2"), and now attempt to make excuses.

So now you write: "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."

I look forward to someday seeing your "revised Chapter 2" --which no doubt will appear in due course. And no doubt, in that revised narrative, you will properly quote the first interview of Linnie Mae Randle, provided on 11/22; perhaps include the apparent fear that her brother experienced that night (as related to me, in the early 1970's, by George O'Toole, when he was writing his book); and finally attempt to integrate all this into one lucid and sensible account--an account in which the package size was reduced by 30%, but of course (you will probably maintain) that has nothing to do with attempting to protect her brother. (Oh. . perish the thought!).

If your final verdict is that "She was subsequently allowed to give a more considered opiniion"--if you really buy into that--then I say you are being an apologist for the official version, rather than facing the rather obvious fact that Linnie Mae Randle gave an account of the length and heft of the package that was in fact accurate; an account that scared the heck out of Frazier, given the magnitude of the crime that Oswald was accused of later that day. So Frazier reduced the size of the package (and she then went along).

Yes, that's my opinion of what is gong on here.

And you think that his sister helping to get her brother off the hook is "silly"?

Oh pleez. . .

DSL

4/7/13; 7 pm PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW this is not about personal war against Speer. His WORK is the target and his ignorance. Not to mention the gross disinformation he has posted on his website. You claim to be seeking the truth. You should WELCOME the detailed inspection of his claims. He represents YOU. And I must say your reluctance to even take stand is remarkable considering you have had no problems doing so in the past. Very illumiinating.

This isn't quite true, Craig, and you know it. Despite the fact I've repeatedly sided with you on many of your claims, and ardently defended your right to post on this website, my argument for my supposition that the bag in the archives may not be the bag in the press photos drives you BONKERS. Or have you forgotten the nasty emails you sent me, which went way beyond what would be allowed on the forum, and which may in fact have led to your banishment should I have complained? From the very beginning, you have both misrepresented the nature of my arguments (they are just that--arguments--not "proof") and changed the playing field, whereby you seem to "think" I need to "prove" the bags are not the same before I can even venture into the possibility they are not the same. That's nonsense, and transparent nonsense at that. What is it exactly that you're afraid of? That, gulp, people might think some of the evidence against Oswald has been faked? Well, ding ding ding, they already think that. And in this instance they're correct to do so, with or without my argument using the press photos.

When it comes to the bag, we have

1) no photographs of it in the sniper's nest

2) numerous officers viewing the sniper's nest in the immediate aftermath of the shooting who fail to remember seeing a large bag in the vicinity of the sniper's nest

3) Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle's statements and testimony suggesting the bag in the archives was not the bag Oswald carried that morning

4) Lt. Day's false testimony indicating he discovered and signed the bag in the depository, when photos show him viewing the bag outside the building upon his return from DPD headquarters, and none of those present when the bag was discovered (Montgomery, Johnson, and Studebaker) said anything about his being present when the bag was discovered during their testimony. (Day would, in fact, later admit he wasn't even present when the bag was "discovered."

5) An FBI report involving the bag with many inaccurate claims in it.

6) An FBI report involving the bag which was changed to support the authenticity of the bag.

7) No accounting of the size of the paper sample taken from the building.

8) The probable disappearance of the bulk of the paper sample.

9) Photographs of prints supposedly on the bag which can not be matched up with the bag in the archives.

It goes on and on. The evidence surrounding the bag is a gigantic mess, and may have, on its own, led to Oswald's release should the problems with this evidence been exposed at trial. I do, however, accept the possibility better and clearer photos of the bag both when first taken into evidence by the FBI and subsequently within the archives exist, and that these photos will demonstrate that the bag in the archives did indeed show Oswald's prints, and that this bag was indeed the bag photographed outside the building.

But I doubt it. And you should to.

What makes you so CERTAIN the bags are the same, Craig? Very few, if any, researchers have looked at your re-creation of the Allen photo and said "By Jove, that's it! Allen was but a few feet from Montgomery and the bag and the bag was leaning toward the camera, making the top of the bag--which was really the same width as the bottom of the bag--look far wider!"

I mean, it's just not convincing. Can't you see that? Do you really believe that your coming up with an angle at which the bag MAY have had the same shape as in the press photos PROVES the photo was actually taken from that angle?

If so, well, that's very illuminating.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

My responses in CAPS AND BOLD.

Pat:

You can play all the games you wish the English language. The fact is that in your chapter--"PatSpeer.com, Chapter 2--you failed to cite or make any mention of the fact that Linnie Mae Randle was interviewed by FBI Agent James Bookhout on the evening of November 22, 1963, and made the statement she did--a statement not published by the Warren Commission in the 26 Volumes but which can be found in Commission Document 5, page 320.

JESUS, DAVID, I AM NOT PLAYING "GAMES." LEARN TO USE THE "FIND" FEATURE ON YOUR COMPUTER. I IN FACT DO PRESENT RANDLE'S STATEMENT TO BOOKHOUT IN CHAPTER 2 OF MY ONLINE BOOK, A CHAPTER WRITTEN 4 OR 5 YEARS AGO, IF NOT EARLIER.

TO QUOTE THIS CRITICAL PASSAGE (again):

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.

This interview, in my opinion, qualifies as "first day evidence."

Is it to be found anywhere in your lengthy narrative?

Answer: "No".

WRONG.

Why not? Certainly not because you set out to engage in a cover-up; rather, like many who arrived "on the scene" somewhat later, you failed to appreciate the importance of the original FBI reports, many of which can be found in CD 5.

HAVE YOU EVEN LOOKED AT MY ONLINE BOOK? I QUOTE CD5 EXTENSIVELY.

But I ordered that stuff and was immersed in indexing it back in 1969. And it was made available to Mary Ferrell and Sylvia Meagher, who helped finance that rather huge (multi-thousand page) order. So I am quite familiar with CD 5, and most of the other "early" FBI reports.

I'VE READ IT, DAVID. IT'S ALL ONLINE.

So now, in April, 2013, and having had this rather serious deficiency pointed out, you hurry back to your existing text, quote it at length, and --apparently--attempting to defend your omission of this crucial data, you now focus on the adjective "approximately" and state:

THERE WAS NO OMISSION, 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."

". . approximately. . "? ". .an approximately. . "? ". . .subsequently allowed to give a more considered opinion. . "?

In other words, we can then ignore what she originally told FBI Agent Bookhout?

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE TOLD BOOKHOUT, DAVID. BOOKHOUT WROTE THAT SHE STATED SHE SAW 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." IT'S NOT A DIRECT QUOTE, DAVID. (OR DO YOU REALLY THINK SHE SAID THE CAR WAS "WESLEY FRAZIER'S" CAR, AS OPPOSED TO "MY BROTHER'S" CAR?) IT SEEMS QUITE POSSIBLE THEN, THAT BOOKHOUT ASKED HER HOW BIG IT WAS AND SHE SAID "I DON'T KNOW, ABOUT THIS BIG" AND HELD UP HER HANDS, AND BOOKHOUT LOOKED AT HER HANDS AND ESTIMATED THE PACKAGE WAS 3 FEET BY SIX INCHES.

Please save us from this belated attempt to salvage some validity from your incomplete and incorrect analysis.

PLEASE SAVE US FROM YOUR INCREDIBLY WRONG-HEADED ATTEMPT TO PRETEND BOOKHOUT'S REPORT PROVES THE BAG IN THE ARCHIVES WAS THE BAG FRAZIER SAW IN THE CAR.

Why not own up to what your text (as currently written) says, and what I believe to be much closer to the truth:

"Ooops! I never saw that FBI interview before. . . or, if I did, I didn't notice that when she was first interviewed, on Friday, 11/22/63, she described the bag as (a) "a long brown package" and (b ), quoting it at length, "a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches."

Instead of admitting to an error, you now assert that my analysis is "silly," return to Randle's original statement (which, I gather, was not mentioned anywhere in your "Chapter 2"), and now attempt to make excuses.

YOU GATHERED WRONG. I QUOTED BOOKHOUT'S REPORT IN CHAPTER 2.

So now you write: "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."

I WROTE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S THE TRUTH. IF BOOKHOUT HAD SHOWN RANDLE A 3 FOOT BY SIX INCH OBJECT ON 11-22, AND HAD SOMEONE CARRY THAT IN THEIR ARMS (IN ORDER TO GIVE HER A FEEL FOR WHAT A PACKAGE OF THAT SIZE WOULD LOOK LIKE) HE WOULD HAVE ALMOST CERTAINLY SAID AS MUCH IN HIS REPORT. IF YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THE 3 FEET BY SIX INCH APPROXIMATION WAS BASED UPON ANYTHING BEYOND A QUICK GUESS BY RANDLE, OR BOOKHOUT'S APPROXIMATION OF A DEMONSTRATION BY RANDLE, PLEASE SHOW IT TO US.

I look forward to someday seeing your "revised Chapter 2" --which no doubt will appear in due course.

I AM CONSTANTLY REVISING MY ONLINE BOOK, BUT HAVE NO PLANS OF REMOVING MY DISCUSSION OF BOOKHOUT'S REPORT--WHICH HAS BEEN IN CHAPTER 2 FOR YEARS.

And no doubt, in that revised narrative, you will properly quote the first interview of Linnie Mae Randle, provided on 11/22; perhaps include the apparent fear that her brother experienced that night (as related to me, in the early 1970's, by George O'Toole, when he was writing his book); and finally attempt to integrate all this into one lucid and sensible account--an account in which the package size was reduced by 30%, but of course (you will probably maintain) that has nothing to do with attempting to protect her brother. (Oh. . perish the thought!).

SORRY, IT'S UNLIKELY I'LL DEVOTE MUCH TIME DISCUSSING YOUR CONJECTURE LINNIE MAE RANDLE LIED ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE BAG SHE SAW TO "PROTECT" HER BROTHER. IT'S 100% CLEAR TO ME, AS IT SHOULD BE YOU, THAT FRAZIER AND RANDLE PUT THEMSELVES AT RISK BY DENYING THE BAG THEY SAW WAS BIG ENOUGH TO HOLD THE RIFLE. THAT YOU THINK THEY WERE MORE FRIGHTENED BY THE PROSPECT OSWALD BROUGHT HIS RIFLE TO WORK IN FRAZIER'S CAR THAN THEY WERE BY THE PROSPECT THEIR TESTIMONY WOULD SUGGEST OSWALD WAS FRAMED, IS BIZARRE, IMO. THEY WERE FROM TEXAS, DAVID. IF OSWALD TOLD FRAZIER HE WAS GONNA DO SOME SHOOTING AFTER WORK AND 'WOULD IT BE OKAY IF I BROUGHT MY RIFLE TO WORK IN YOUR CAR," HE WOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A VICTIM, AND NO ONE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT ANY LESS OF HIM.

If your final verdict is that "She was subsequently allowed to give a more considered opiniion"--if you really buy into that--then I say you are being an apologist for the official version, rather than facing the rather obvious fact that Linnie Mae Randle gave an account of the length and heft of the package that was in fact accurate; an account that scared the heck out of Frazier, given the magnitude of the crime that Oswald was accused of later that day. So Frazier reduced the size of the package (and she then went along).

YOU CONVENIENTLY IGNORE THAT, ONCE SHOWN THE BAG IN THE ARCHIVES, SHE CHANGED THE WIDTH OF THE BAG SHE SAW TO MATCH THE APPROXIMATE SIZE OF THAT BAG. THIS SUGGESTS THAT, IF ANYTHING, SHE WAS TRYING TO GO ALONG WITH THE FBI, AND NOT LYING TO PROTECT HER BROTHER FROM ANYONE'S THINKING HE DROVE THE RIFLE TO WORK. (WHICH THEY, OF COURSE, DID ANYHOW.)

Yes, that's my opinion of what is gong on here.

THAT'S JUST SAD.

And you think that his sister helping to get her brother off the hook is "silly"?

OFF THE HOOK FOR WHAT? EVERYONE--AND I MEAN EVERYONE--ASSUMED HE DROVE THE RIFLE TO WORK. DO YOU REALLY THINK RANDLE BELIEVED--FOR ONE SECOND--THAT HER BACKING UP HER BROTHER ON HIS CLAIM THE BAG WAS TOO SMALL HAD ANY INFLUENCE ON THE FBI? THE WARREN COMMISSION? SO WHO WAS IT EXACTLY THEY WERE TRYING TO FOOL? AND TO WHAT END?

Oh pleez. . .

DSL

4/7/13; 7 pm PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?)

David, do you have an exact cite for the part in red? It would be most helpful to establish that such information from Truly's wife was indeed printed so early.

Presently, I do not have an exact cite. This information comes from very extensive newspaper archives research which I did between 1969 and 1974 at the UCLA Research Library. On microfilm (and via Interlibrary Loan), I ordered the newspapers from all five cities that Kennedy visited in Texas. Then, expanding on that, I added major cities to the list--regardless of whether they were in Texas.

I made hundreds of pages of notes, and collected hundreds of pages of newspaper printouts. In connection with all that, one of the articles that came through was published in either the Philadelphia Bulletin or Inquirer. It was a major article on the assassination (and published that weekend, as were many such articles, in the American press). As I recall the reporter called Truly's residence but wasn't able to reach Truly. But his wife related what her husband had said. It was pretty specific, and so he included that in his story: that her husband commented on how unruffled Oswald was, despite being confronted, at the soda machine, by a police officer with a drawn gun. Today, I would have scanned such an item; back then, I clipped it, and put it into a "Baker-Truly" subject file.

But setting that particular item aside--i.e., putting aside what Truly's wife told a newspaper reporter--there are multiple FBI reports of Truly himself being interviewed about the events of that day by FBI agents on Friday November 22, and then again on Saturday, November 23. Those reports essentially say the same thing.

As I'm sure you know, Truly testified that he (Truly) was racing up the stairs, was located between the second and third floor when he first realized that the officer was no longer behind him. He then returned to the second floor landing, and saw the scene unfold that he described repeatedly--to newspaper reporters, and, most importantly, to three FBI agents in two separate interviews--one on 11/22, the other on 11/23. Per the two FBI reports: Officer Baker, gun drawn, was inching his way towards the door of a room, in which Oswald was getting a coke.

This whole scene reeks of foreknowledge--and that's the key issue. As I wrote in BEST EVIDENCE, I believe that Oswald came very close to getting shot, right in the lunchroom (and that might well have happened, had Truly not been present). And that's what this is really all about.

This entire episode reminds me of the statement that Sgt. Hill made to a California radio station at 6:45 P.M. (Dallas time) on the evening of 11/22/63. Referring to the President's murder just hours earlier (and the apprehension of Oswald), he summed it up this way: "It was a tragedy that it ever had to happen, but at the same time, if it did happen and if this man—this man turns out to be the one, we’ll feel that we sort of took the blot our face a little bit by being able to catch him ourselves." (CD 1210)

FWIW: I agree with Oswald's mother who publicly stated not just that her son was set up, and (in her opinion) that he was supposed to have been murdered in the building.

As the saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words." Officer's Baker's actions--recorded on film as he rushed into building, and then, insofar as what transpired inside the building (as reported by Truly)-- speak very loudly, and I think any reasonable person, reading the entire record, will understand that.

If I come across the file containing the clip with the quote from Truly's wife, I of course will post that.

DSL

4/7/13; 5:40 PM PST

Los Angeles, California

Many thanks for the information, David, and for the further reflections on the Baker-Oswald matter.

And yes, if you do come across that Philadelphia newspaper clipping, please do post it. I'm most keen to find the earliest public mention of the second-floor lunchroom incident.

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites
Many thanks for the information, David, and for the further reflections on the Baker-Oswald matter.

And yes, if you do come across that Philadelphia newspaper clipping, please do post it. I'm most keen to find the earliest public mention of the second-floor lunchroom incident.

Sean

:secretPsst Sean, I'm sure he'll find it right under those Star-Telegram reports on 1958 Ft Worth riots he has stashed away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, it's just not convincing. Can't you see that? Do you really believe that your coming up with an angle at which the bag MAY have had the same shape as in the press photos PROVES the photo was actually taken from that angle?

I could spend a few thousand words showing just how bad your post really was but I'm afraid the mods might not find it amusing, So I'll just comment on tidbit for now.

ITS THE ONLY WAY THE PHOTO COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN PAT. And this has been proven via proof of concept. And its been tested over and over again with the same results. It can be debated which lens was used but the results are the same. And how do I know? I've tested it repeatedly.

What is also true is that your attempts to dispute this information are pure ignorance. You simply have no clue about how any of this works nor have you posted accurate information. This will be shown conclusively very shortly and I'm sure, par for the course for you, you will concoct some bs response to try and save face.

You are simply a BS'er Pat. Welcome to reality even if it hurts.

So its not convincing to people who try to find Oswald innocent at any cost? Wow, imagine that. I'm shocked I tell you..shocked.

Hang on to your fantasy for a bit longer Pat. Think your work on this has merit. It won't last much longer.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to post
Share on other sites

My responses in CAPS AND BOLD.

DSL NOTE: Besides my written response (below), I have added a number of "DSL Inserts" in Red and Bold.

Pat:

You can play all the games you wish the English language. The fact is that in your chapter--"PatSpeer.com, Chapter 2--you failed to cite or make any mention of the fact that Linnie Mae Randle was interviewed by FBI Agent James Bookhout on the evening of November 22, 1963, and made the statement she did--a statement not published by the Warren Commission in the 26 Volumes but which can be found in Commission Document 5, page 320.

JESUS, DAVID, I AM NOT PLAYING "GAMES." LEARN TO USE THE "FIND" FEATURE ON YOUR COMPUTER. I IN FACT DO PRESENT RANDLE'S STATEMENT TO BOOKHOUT IN CHAPTER 2 OF MY ONLINE BOOK, A CHAPTER WRITTEN 4 OR 5 YEARS AGO, IF NOT EARLIER.

TO QUOTE THIS CRITICAL PASSAGE (again):

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.

This interview, in my opinion, qualifies as "first day evidence."

Is it to be found anywhere in your lengthy narrative?

Answer: "No".

WRONG.

Why not? Certainly not because you set out to engage in a cover-up; rather, like many who arrived "on the scene" somewhat later, you failed to appreciate the importance of the original FBI reports, many of which can be found in CD 5.

HAVE YOU EVEN LOOKED AT MY ONLINE BOOK? I QUOTE CD5 EXTENSIVELY.

DSL INSERT: You may "quote CD5 extensively" but that's irrelevant. The point is that in this instance, you did not focus on CD 5, and this quote in particular, in your section on "the bag." Instead, it appears in an unrelated place in your Chapter 2. If you make a turkey sandwich for lunch, do you blame your spouse for not finding it, if instead of putting it in the refrigerator, you put it in a hat box in the closet? Really. . . !

But I ordered that stuff and was immersed in indexing it back in 1969. And it was made available to Mary Ferrell and Sylvia Meagher, who helped finance that rather huge (multi-thousand page) order. So I am quite familiar with CD 5, and most of the other "early" FBI reports.

I'VE READ IT, DAVID. IT'S ALL ONLINE.

So now, in April, 2013, and having had this rather serious deficiency pointed out, you hurry back to your existing text, quote it at length, and --apparently--attempting to defend your omission of this crucial data, you now focus on the adjective "approximately" and state:

THERE WAS NO OMISSION, 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."

". . approximately. . "? ". .an approximately. . "? ". . .subsequently allowed to give a more considered opinion. . "?

In other words, we can then ignore what she originally told FBI Agent Bookhout?

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE TOLD BOOKHOUT, DAVID. BOOKHOUT WROTE THAT SHE STATED SHE SAW 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." IT'S NOT A DIRECT QUOTE, DAVID. (OR DO YOU REALLY THINK SHE SAID THE CAR WAS "WESLEY FRAZIER'S" CAR, AS OPPOSED TO "MY BROTHER'S" CAR?) IT SEEMS QUITE POSSIBLE THEN, THAT BOOKHOUT ASKED HER HOW BIG IT WAS AND SHE SAID "I DON'T KNOW, ABOUT THIS BIG" AND HELD UP HER HANDS, AND BOOKHOUT LOOKED AT HER HANDS AND ESTIMATED THE PACKAGE WAS 3 FEET BY SIX INCHES.

DSL INSERT: No, we don't know "what she told Bookhout" but we DO know what he wrote, and that's what counts. Your analysis largely ignores what Bookhout wrote, because you placed the critical quote in the midst of some accounts about grassy knoll witnesses. I'm not saying you did that deliberately, or to be deceptive--but its indicative of the fact that your thinking (and analysis) is faulty, and somewhat disorganized.

Please save us from this belated attempt to salvage some validity from your incomplete and incorrect analysis.

PLEASE SAVE US FROM YOUR INCREDIBLY WRONG-HEADED ATTEMPT TO PRETEND BOOKHOUT'S REPORT PROVES THE BAG IN THE ARCHIVES WAS THE BAG FRAZIER SAW IN THE CAR.

DSL INSERT: OMG, Pat: the issue is not whether the bag in the archives was the bag Frazier saw in the car. That's your issue. And its "an" issue. But the truly important issue is whether Linnie Mae Randle said the bag was three feet long on Friday night, and then changed her story, within a day or so, shortening the bag length, to comport with her brother's account. That is the primary issue.

Why not own up to what your text (as currently written) says, and what I believe to be much closer to the truth:

"Ooops! I never saw that FBI interview before. . . or, if I did, I didn't notice that when she was first interviewed, on Friday, 11/22/63, she described the bag as (a) "a long brown package" and (b ), quoting it at length, "a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches."

Instead of admitting to an error, you now assert that my analysis is "silly," return to Randle's original statement (which, I gather, was not mentioned anywhere in your "Chapter 2"), and now attempt to make excuses.

YOU GATHERED WRONG. I QUOTED BOOKHOUT'S REPORT IN CHAPTER 2.

DSL INSERT: Oh no, you did not. (See my post below)

So now you write: "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."

I WROTE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S THE TRUTH. IF BOOKHOUT HAD SHOWN RANDLE A 3 FOOT BY SIX INCH OBJECT ON 11-22, AND HAD SOMEONE CARRY THAT IN THEIR ARMS (IN ORDER TO GIVE HER A FEEL FOR WHAT A PACKAGE OF THAT SIZE WOULD LOOK LIKE) HE WOULD HAVE ALMOST CERTAINLY SAID AS MUCH IN HIS REPORT. IF YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THE 3 FEET BY SIX INCH APPROXIMATION WAS BASED UPON ANYTHING BEYOND A QUICK GUESS BY RANDLE, OR BOOKHOUT'S APPROXIMATION OF A DEMONSTRATION BY RANDLE, PLEASE SHOW IT TO US.

DSL Insert: Pat, you're endlessly theorizing and conjecturing about the process of estimation. Any attorney would just read what Bookhout wrote and immediately see that Randle changed her story from Friday night to the days following. But you are so pre-occupied with your hypothesis of "bag substitution" that you apparently fail to see what is clearly self evident (and of paramount importance): that the witness changed her story between Friday night and Saturday and/or Sunday. Its right there, in plain English--but you don't want to recognize it because (apparently) you are blinded by some commitment you have to a hypothesis that these two are some sort of heros by "resisting" (my quotes) the conventional wisdom about Oswald carrying a weapon to work that day. I'm not saying that its not important to pursue the matter of "bag substitution" etc.; what I am saying is that one cannot (and should not) ignore the plain-as-day evidence that, according to these FBI 302 reports, Linnie Mae Randle changed her story as to bag length, in the first 24-48 hours.

I look forward to someday seeing your "revised Chapter 2" --which no doubt will appear in due course.

I AM CONSTANTLY REVISING MY ONLINE BOOK, BUT HAVE NO PLANS OF REMOVING MY DISCUSSION OF BOOKHOUT'S REPORT--WHICH HAS BEEN IN CHAPTER 2 FOR YEARS.

DSL INSERT: The choice is yours, but unless you want to be in the position of putting the turkey sandwich in the closet, instead of the refrigerator, then any discussion of Linnie Mae Randle's original FBI statement about bag length belongs in the section of your chapter on "the bag" and not in some other section listing eyewitness accounts to the assassination. (Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?)

And no doubt, in that revised narrative, you will properly quote the first interview of Linnie Mae Randle, provided on 11/22; perhaps include the apparent fear that her brother experienced that night (as related to me, in the early 1970's, by George O'Toole, when he was writing his book); and finally attempt to integrate all this into one lucid and sensible account--an account in which the package size was reduced by 30%, but of course (you will probably maintain) that has nothing to do with attempting to protect her brother. (Oh. . perish the thought!).

SORRY, IT'S UNLIKELY I'LL DEVOTE MUCH TIME DISCUSSING YOUR CONJECTURE LINNIE MAE RANDLE LIED ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE BAG SHE SAW TO "PROTECT" HER BROTHER. IT'S 100% CLEAR TO ME, AS IT SHOULD BE YOU, THAT FRAZIER AND RANDLE PUT THEMSELVES AT RISK BY DENYING THE BAG THEY SAW WAS BIG ENOUGH TO HOLD THE RIFLE. THAT YOU THINK THEY WERE MORE FRIGHTENED BY THE PROSPECT OSWALD BROUGHT HIS RIFLE TO WORK IN FRAZIER'S CAR THAN THEY WERE BY THE PROSPECT THEIR TESTIMONY WOULD SUGGEST OSWALD WAS FRAMED, IS BIZARRE, IMO. THEY WERE FROM TEXAS, DAVID. IF OSWALD TOLD FRAZIER HE WAS GONNA DO SOME SHOOTING AFTER WORK AND 'WOULD IT BE OKAY IF I BROUGHT MY RIFLE TO WORK IN YOUR CAR," HE WOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A VICTIM, AND NO ONE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT ANY LESS OF HIM.

DSL INSERT: You write: ". . .IT'S 100% CLEAR TO ME, AS IT SHOULD BE YOU. . ." No, Pat: its not "100 % clear" at all. Methinks you need some corrective lenses on this situation. (And my vision is fine, thank you.) Whether you are right or wrong about "the bag" being substituted, etc., no editor would read what you have written and not raise the question(s) I have: why is the critical quote about Linnie Mae Randle in the wrong section of your chapter? And why do you have the interview date wrong? See my extended discussion below.

If your final verdict is that "She was subsequently allowed to give a more considered opiniion"--if you really buy into that--then I say you are being an apologist for the official version, rather than facing the rather obvious fact that Linnie Mae Randle gave an account of the length and heft of the package that was in fact accurate; an account that scared the heck out of Frazier, given the magnitude of the crime that Oswald was accused of later that day. So Frazier reduced the size of the package (and she then went along).

YOU CONVENIENTLY IGNORE THAT, ONCE SHOWN THE BAG IN THE ARCHIVES, SHE CHANGED THE WIDTH OF THE BAG SHE SAW TO MATCH THE APPROXIMATE SIZE OF THAT BAG. THIS SUGGESTS THAT, IF ANYTHING, SHE WAS TRYING TO GO ALONG WITH THE FBI, AND NOT LYING TO PROTECT HER BROTHER FROM ANYONE'S THINKING HE DROVE THE RIFLE TO WORK. (WHICH THEY, OF COURSE, DID ANYHOW.)

DSL INSERT: Pat: You are substituting your theory of "bag substitution" for the plain-as-day fact that Linnie Mae Randle changed her story as to bag length. Its right there, in plain English, in the original FBI report written by Bookhout. (Do you have an aversion to what's written in plain English?)

Yes, that's my opinion of what is gong on here.

THAT'S JUST SAD.

DSL INSERT: Yes, of course its "just sad" - -to you. Because, apparently, you are thoroughly invested in some theory about Randle and her brother being great heroes in this historical drama, rather than the alternate explanation that they were following a far more personal agenda.

And you think that his sister helping to get her brother off the hook is "silly"?

OFF THE HOOK FOR WHAT? EVERYONE--AND I MEAN EVERYONE--ASSUMED HE DROVE THE RIFLE TO WORK. DO YOU REALLY THINK RANDLE BELIEVED--FOR ONE SECOND--THAT HER BACKING UP HER BROTHER ON HIS CLAIM THE BAG WAS TOO SMALL HAD ANY INFLUENCE ON THE FBI? THE WARREN COMMISSION? SO WHO WAS IT EXACTLY THEY WERE TRYING TO FOOL? AND TO WHAT END?

DSL RESPONSE: See my discussion below. (But I'm afraid you are so focused on this pet hypothesis of yours that you are unwilling to see and understand what is written in plain English in the original FBI report written by Bookhout, a report that clearly caught the attention of top people at FBI headquarters in Washington.

Oh pleez. . .

DSL

4/7/13; 7 pm PDT

Los Angeles, California

Pat,

In your response to my post, you defend yourself by telling me you indeed had the critical quote from Linnie Mae Randle in your Chapter 2, and that I should learn how to use the “find” command.

Here’s your defense: “YOU GATHERED WRONG. I QUOTED BOOKHOUT'S REPORT IN CHAPTER 2.”

DSL Response: Pat. . you're still playing games, of a sort. Yes, Pat, you quoted Bookhout’s report “in chapter 2”—the problem is, you did not quote Bookhout’s report in the section of your book on “the bag”. Instead, you put that paragraph in a section of chapter two where you are discussing eyewitnesses to the assassination.

Now what kind of “organization” is that? How would you like it if I included an account of Paul O’Connor saying the body arrived in a body bag, but put that in the midst of a lengthy writeup of witnesses who thought they saw smoke on the knoll?

So, to begin with, you have the quote in the incorrect section of your book--more specifically, of that chapter. But there’s more.

Second, and here’s where it gets worse, you make no mention that what makes this report so very important is that the date of the interview was November 22, 1963. Instead, you label the report—where you do quote it (which, as I said, is in an inappropriate section of your on line book)—as a report on November 23, 1963!

But that’s just plain incorrect. The reason the date is important is that Linnie Mae Randle stated the bag was three feet long on Friday night—and then changed the length in later interviews.

YOUR REASONING. . .

Then comes this precious piece of “reasoning”, and I quote:

SORRY, IT'S UNLIKELY I'LL DEVOTE MUCH TIME DISCUSSING YOUR CONJECTURE LINNIE MAE RANDLE LIED ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE BAG SHE SAW TO "PROTECT" HER BROTHER. IT'S 100% CLEAR TO ME, AS IT SHOULD BE YOU, THAT FRAZIER AND RANDLE PUT THEMSELVES AT RISK BY DENYING THE BAG THEY SAW WAS BIG ENOUGH TO HOLD THE RIFLE. THAT YOU THINK THEY WERE MORE FRIGHTENED BY THE PROSPECT OSWALD BROUGHT HIS RIFLE TO WORK IN FRAZIER'S CAR THAN THEY WERE BY THE PROSPECT THEIR TESTIMONY WOULD SUGGEST OSWALD WAS FRAMED, IS BIZARRE, IMO.

UNQUOTE

You are completely wrong if you think that Frazier and Randle “put themselves at risk” by understating the size of the bag. The direct “risk” –which seems to sail right by your radar—was if Frazier and his sister provided the Dallas Police with a solid reason for believing that Wesley Frazier brought Oswald and his rifle—I stress, “and his rifle”—to work that day.

That is the hot button; that is the very hot “third rail” in this situation—not your conjecture that Frazier and his sister had any legal risk in providing a description of the bag that was “too short” for the rifle.

You are so wrapped up in your thesis of a Dallas Police Department frameup (and I’m no defender of the DPD, fyi) that you are missing the more immediate issue.

The Dallas Police could not “arrest Frazier” for underestimating the length of the bag—regardless of whether they personally liked him (and his story) or not. But they could pounce on him, big time, if both he and his sister gave dimensions of the bag that were clearly large enough for it to have contained a rifle.

For then the issue would be: "Did you know?" etc.

So, to recap, there’s nothing wrong with my chain of inference. But there’s plenty wrong with yours, and with the layout of your chapter 2.

So: when (and if) you rewrite the chapter, I have these editorial suggestions:

(1) Put the Linnie Mae Randle quote about the bag length in the section on “the bag”, and not intermingled with eyewitness accounts of those who thought a shot came from the grassy knoll.

(2) When you cite the Linnie Mae Randle quote, correct the date. The date of the interview was Friday, November 22, 1963, not November 23, as you incorrectly state.

Finally, if you are going to treat the subject properly: recognize the fact that her story changed between Friday night, and the days following; and add the memo up at the Assistant FBI Director level where the three foot length of the bag was immediately noted, in Washington, as being significant.

And guess what: it is.

Especially because:

(a) that made it long enough to carry a disassembled rifle

(b ) Because she changed her story the next day.

By focusing on your own hypothesis (bag substitution, fabrication ,etc. ) you have thrown out the baby with the bath water, and avoided the truly important issue in this case: Did Buell Wesley Frazier take Oswald to work on Friday morning, November 22, 1963, with a bag that was large enough to carry a disassembled rifle?

DSL

4/8/13; 2:20 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're revealing your own bias, David. You have concocted a fantasy in which Randle lied to the FBI to help her brother evade being prosecuted for a crime that didn't even exist. It was not a crime to drive around with a rifle in your car. This was Texas. If you've to been Texas, and I know you have, then you must have noticed all the gun racks in the pick-up trucks. Guess what? They're designed to hold guns.

The fact remains, moreover, that if Randle told such a lie, it was totally pointless. From the very beginning, the assumption was that Oswald brought his rifle to work that day, in Frazier's car. And nothing she said ever changed that.

So why do you persist? Let me guess. It's the curtain rods. You don't want to believe that Oswald told Frazier he was picking up or bringing curtain rods to his room. And so you're pushing that Frazier invented the curtain rod story to save himself from the terrifying reality he knew Oswald was bringing a gun to work. Not bad.

But I don't buy it. Sorry.

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...