Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Co-worker who drove LHO to work recounts that day, his story has not changed....fwiw..b

''After the president was shot, around 12:30 p.m., police instructed managers at the school book depository to gather the employees for a roll call. Oswald was the only one missing'' SAME OLD CRAP....

http://www.dallasnew...darkest-day.ece

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Pat:

In the old parody on of 60 Minutes on Saturday Night Live (“Weekend Update”), Dan Akyroyd would listen patiently while Jane Curtin would deliver some commentary, and then look at the camera and say, “You ignorant slut!” It would always get a laugh…even though the same line was repeated numerous times.

I shall not say any such thing about your post because (a) the metaphor really doesn’t apply to you and (b ) we’re supposed to behave ourselves on this forum.

But, regarding your post: It is a silly, superficial, false, and misleading critique of what I have said. You also indulge in erroneous speculation about what I believe, and that’s just plain annoying.

So. . . Where shall we start?

a) The FBI 302 report of the original Linnie Mae Randle interview records the fact that, on 11/22/63, Randle originally said the bag was 3 feet long. (Even Jane Curtin would probably read that correctly over the air).

b ) Frazier was subjected to serious pressure that night for having carried Oswald and (presumably) “his rifle” to the building. (And I’ll bet Jane Curtin would get that right, too). In short, I shouldn’t have to educate you, of all people, about the basics. Certainly, I remember well the late George O’Toole describing Frazier’s situation (predicament?) and how frightened he was on then night of 11/22. Just last week, at a public function (See Bernice Moore's post, above) Frazier was stating that “an angry Dallas Police captain” came to the room where he was being interrogated and “demanding that he sign a confession”. In other words, Frazier says that he was under pressure to confess to being an accomplice. (Is that true? He certainly never said that to the FBI or the WC.) But if there’s any truth to this, then my case is proved. OTOH: If not, then he’s a fabricator—and in that case, why should we believe anything he has to say? I’m not passing judgment here--just pointing to the alternatives. Now let's move on. . . .

c) If the bag was really 3 feet long (as his sister said it was on Friday night) then Frazier could easily have been put on the spot: e.g., “Did you know what was in that package?!” (And if he had been put on the spot, he certainly couldn’t have used the rather foolish line of reasoning that you have set forth in your post. Just imagine (and now I’ll quote from your post, paraphrasing just a bit): “So what if I drove this guy to work with a rifle? Is that a crime? I didn’t know what was in the bag! But even if I did, its not a crime to drive around here in Dallas with a rifle in your car. This is Texas. . Surely you know that. You live here! So surely you must have noticed all the gun racks in the pick-up trucks. Guess what? They're designed to hold guns!”

Now that, Pat Speer, is the lecture you just delivered to me—and you think that’s a realistic way of looking at Frazier’s situation on the night of November 22, 1963?

Oh pleez. . .

Now let's return to the reality of the situation. Clearly, subject to the potential pressure of this situation, it would be all too human for Frazier to simply reduce the size of the bag. Not because he was committed to Oswald’s innocence (or because he once took the Boy Scout oath to tell the truth, and that meant always telling the truth about the size of a paper bag, any paper bag); but because, in Dallas that weekend, the name of the game was: “How do I save my own ass?How do I make sure I am not implicated in this crime?

So that’s the dynamic. . . the obvious dynamic and certainly not: “Gee, I love Oswald so much. . I think I’ll reduce the size of the bag!”

I’m sorry to rain on your parade, Pat Speer, but I’ve assessed this situation quite accurately; and, imho, its you who are off in la la land.

Now, on to another point.

d) Frazier’s description of bag length reduced its size to a number that clearly was NOT big enough to carry a rifle—even a disassembled rifle.

e) Frazier’s sister, Linnie Mae Randle, starting the next day, provided a (changed) bag length that was consistent with her brother’s description.

One doesn't have to be Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots. (So . . .why can’t you see the obvious?)

You give away your own bias—perhaps more accurately stated, your stubbornness not to face the facts—by responding to the data I have cited by stating that I 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.”

“. . . concocted a fantasy. . .” ?

No sir, I’m just following the evidence.

First of all, this is not about “being prosecuted for a crime.” This is about the possibility of unbearable pressure being brought to bear on an innocent person (Frazier) who, because of the bag length (if his sister’s description was accurate) could have been (falsely) perceived as some sort of accomplice. He himself said almost as much—just last week (and as I quoted the Dallas News account): Frazier said, as reported: . .an angry police captain came into the room, demanding that he sign a confession. He wanted me to confess to being part of the JFK killing.

I’m not saying that I subscribe to that proposition—in fact, I don’t. Not at all. I don’t think BWF had a blessed thing to do with the assassination of JFK. I’m simply stating the problem, as it would have been perceived by Frazier.

You’ve got a most peculiar way of interpreting evidence, and evaluating my critique of your analysis, Pat. First, you say I have concocted a fantasy. That is false. I’m not doing that at all. Then, you state that the crime of reducing the bag length was pointless. But that’s also wrong; indeed, that’s absurd. If he (and/or his sister) did anything like that, that’s obstruction of justice (or have you forgotten about that?)

As to the Dallas atmosphere that weekend: In 1995, I met with Michael Paine, for several hours, at his home in Boxboro, Mass. The memories he had then of Fritz (I think) or some senior DPD official trying to get him to “talk to” Oswald were so vivid that his mouth started trembling, and he started crying. Right there in front of me. So: One police official was pressuring Paine to “talk to Oswald” and another was bullying Frazier attempting to get him to sign some sort of bogus confession.

And you think my interpretation, which focuses on this sort of pressure, is “concocting a fantasy”?

Wow. And then you presume to tell me, in 2013, what is “fantasy” –when you have been so careless as to (a) not properly place this FBI report in your chapter 2, in the section where it ought to be (in your discussion of the bag, and not with assassination eyewitnesses); and (b ) when you have cited it, you mis-stated the date of the interview as November 23, not November 22, which (in effect) erases the fact that –overnight—Linnie Mae Randle in fact changed her story. (And that’s provable: just compare what she told Agent Bookhout on Friday evening, with what she said later that weekend!)

Then you go on to speculate about my motives. Your last paragraph (the one starting with “Let me guess”) then goes on to falsely conjecture about my motives, and that’s another doozie. Apparently, you’re having trouble figuring out why I’m “raining on your parade,” but clearly you are trying. So you write: “Let me guess. It’s the curtain rods. You don’t want to believe that Oswald told Fraizer he was picking up or bringing curtain rods to his room.”

No Pat; you’re wrong (again). I never said that Frazier made up the curtain rod story. I—and other researchers, interested in this case long before you got involved—have gone around the mulberry bush on that one. The story was told “early” and so I believe it.

"TO DO" LIST FOR PAT SPEER, TO "GET RIGHT" WITH THIS SITUATION

Here’s my suggestion. Before indulging in false conjectures about my motives, clean up your own writing in this area. As I’ve previously stated, that means:

(a) Confront the fact that, according to the FBI report of James Bookhout, based on an interview conducted on 11/22/63, Linnie Mae Randle said the package was 3 feet long. That’s just a fact. Cite the Bookhout FBI report, in proper context, and attempt to explain it (if you can). But don’t ignore it, or include it in some irrelevant location in your chapter, and then misstate the date of the interview (as 11/23/63, and not 11/22) which is exactly what you did. (Again, not because you set out to deceive, but, imho, because you are so enamored of your own pet hypothesis about bag substitution that you failed to take into account other relevant data).

(b ) This FBI report became the subject of an FBI memo in Washington (sorry, I can’t produce it at this moment, but its in my files, because that’s how I learned about her original statement)

(c ) The next day (and the day after) she changed the bag length, to a shorter number which comported with her brother’s description.

One other thing: a knowledgeable researcher has informed me that, in some document collection, there is a DPD Frazier interview, from 11/22/63, in which Frazier himself said –on Friday night—that the bag length was 3 feet. If that document can be located, that would only strengthen the case that the “original” bag length, as recollected by these two critical witnesses, was 3 feet, and not 30% shorter. (And that would cast their subsequent statements in a different light now, wouldn’t it?)

Right now, it would appear that Linnie Mae Randle changed her story. But if a 11/22 DPD interview with Buell Frazier also stated the bag was 3 feet, then BOTH Frazier and his sister changed their stories, and that would raise the issue of collusion, and cast everything in a new and different light—wouldn’t it?

Let me repeat your final statement, because it is totally false, and a testament to your stubbornness in not dealing with the facts, but instead indulging in speculation about my motives. (And that is particularly unbecoming of a moderator on this forum).

QUOTE: 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. UNQUOTE

No Pat, I never said that. But having to rebut this nonsense makes me realize why Dan Akyroyd got so irritated with the "pronouncements" of Jane Curtin.

So let me repeat, again, what I did say the issue was (and is). Its not whether Oswald brought his lunch to work that day. I think its fairly obvious he did not do that. The question is whether he brought a package out to the car that morning; a package that, when properly described, was big enough (i.e., long enough) to have contained a disassembled rifle.

Now that’s the question.

And if he did do that, and if he’s innocent, then why did he do that? What “story” was he told? Who said what to Lee Oswald—earlier in the week—that he would go home on Thursday evening, and then return with such a package?

DSL

4/10/13; 1:10 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

a) The FBI 302 report of the original Linnie Mae Randle interview records the fact that, on 11/22/63, Randle originally said the bag was 3 feet long. (Even Jane Curtin would probably read that correctly over the air).

Wrong. Totally wrong. 100 % wrong.

I don't usually post on forums anymore, but I'm making an exception this once.

The 302 in question represents nothing more than unsigned, unproven hearsay. It is NOT, as Mr. Lifton is falsely claiming, an established FACT that Randle told Bookhout the package was 3 feet 6 inches long. It is only a FACT that he typed that in his report. Repeat: It is only a FACT that he typed that in his report. We do not know FOR A FACT that Randle gave him this estimate. We do not know FOR A FACT that it was not (as Pat suggested) simply a case of Randle holding out her hands and Bookhout providing the estimate. We do not know FOR A FACT that, if she did indeed provide an estimate, that Bookhout recorded it correctly. We do not know FOR A FACT whether or not Bookhout made an error when he was typing up his report.

That is why this unsigned hearsay account is utterly meaningless and why, from a legal standpoint, Randle's sworn testimony should be given the greater weight.

Mr. Lifton, and probably the rest of us too, needs to stop treating these unsigned hearsay reports as if they establish anything.

They don't.

Every now and then, one comes across someone who fancies himself a “researcher” and but who—if you scratch beneath the surface—is actually propounding the position that nothing is knowable. Such a person is an aggressive agnostic.

The position you have taken amounts to just about that—so why bother with the specifics of anything, if its all unknowable? Sign up for some courses in philosophy, and write a thesis that reality is unknowable. Because that, essentially, is what you are propounding.

The FBI 302 reports are the backbone of any FBI investigation. No, Martin, they are not sworn No, they are not videotaped. No, they were not even audio-taped.

But the agents are trained to take notes, and then dictate reports. That’s what they do. And that’s what they did in 1963.

That’s their “day job”—that’s what much of it amounts to: interviewing, and report writing.

When you write. . . :

It is NOT, as Mr. Lifton is falsely claiming, an established FACT that Randle told Bookhout the package was 3 feet 6 inches long. It is only a FACT that he typed that in his report.

. . . I must then inquire: what’s your agenda? What kind of nonsense are you propounding? Are you arguing that the only “facts” are statements sworn under oath? (and perhaps videotaped?)

What I see –behind a superficial veneer of “sophistication”—is nothing less than a nihilistic approach to fact-finding, and an attempt to argue that the entire original investigation is meaningless.

What an absurd position.

In the case of the Warren Commission (and after months had passed, and the original FBI reports could be digested and analyzed), some 552 witnesses were then called to testify---but nobody would know what was relevant, or whom to call, and for what reason, if it wasn’t for the original FBI investigation.

Do you think that Joseph Ball and David Belin, the two lawyers who handled “The Assassin” chapter of the Warren Report, just wandered down to Dallas, with a stenographer, and looked people up in the telephone directory?

In mathematics, in solving an infinite series, there is a “first approximation” and then a “second” and a “third” and so forth—and gradually, there is a convergence towards a solution.

A similar situation exists here.

A historical inquiry presupposes the existence of “first responders.” Let me repeat that: in any investigation, there has to be “first responders.” Someone has to be the first to question “the witness.” And then, if the situation requires it, there are additional interviews.

Do you seriously think we should ignore the entire FBI investigation because each individual was not sworn, and a stenographer was not present?

I think that’s a nonsensical position.

No, I’m not disparaging the value of sworn statements.

I am stating that, when a president is assassinated, and dozens (if not hundreds) of agents disperse into the field to question witnesses and collect information, then that is a perfectly valid starting point for an investigation.

On the other hand, Martin, if you want to argue that nothing can be ascertained, and that Randle’s account to the FBI is “utterly meaningless,” then I strongly suggest that you not attempt to write valid history or properly interpret the record.

And by the way: Do you also disparage reports of witnesses in the New York Times because they are not sworn? Do you put down the New York Times, or the London Times and say, “Utterly worthless” because you are reading the product of reporters, and not depositions?

Because, you see, given the strictures you seem to be propounding, nothing means anything. And everything is “utterly worthless.”

Ultimately, that is where your position leads. Indeed, that appears to be your position: “This unsigned hearsay account is utterly meaningless.”

Oh pleez. . . What nonsense.

You know where that leads? To one big black hole where nothing can be ascertained, and we all must wallow in a miasma of uncertainty.

Now you can go and live in that neighborhood. For those of us who seek the truth, then I say the FBI data base can not be ignored. No, its not the “be all and end all,” but it’s a reasonable starting point.

So no, Martin, we don’t know as “an established FACT that Randle told Bookhout the package was 3 feet 6 inches long. It is only a FACT that he typed that in his report.”

That’s right. In some perfect world, the FBI agents would be accompanied by a stenographer—and a court officer to swear each and every witness—but that’s not the way an investigation was conducted in 1963, and, for all your professions of scholarship, you are simply issuing an invitation to the gullible and to like-minded cynics to share your space in that black hole.

Sorry, not interested.

DSL

4/10/13 - 4:20 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Link to post
Share on other sites

In this fbi report the 3foot 6 inch measurement is stated ..all i have..fwiw....b

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

post-632-0-80445100-1365615247_thumb.jpg

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to post
Share on other sites

I started reading your post, David, but found it too embarrassing to continue. Your attempts at twisting my words and actions into some sort of great evasion of the obvious fact Linnie Randle is a xxxx is bizarre, IMO. You don't understand the layout of my book. Fine. But claiming the layout of my book is designed to conceal information is beyond wacky.

You have latched onto the idea Randle lied to protect her brother, even though this lie would have been pointless. Fine. Have at it. I suspect you're wrong.

1. You have no evidence, from what I can gather, that Randle spoke to Bookhout before her brother had spoken to Bookhout. For all we know, she gave Bookhout an estimate the bag was 3 feet long with the full knowledge her brother thought the bag was about 2 feet long.

2. From what I can gather, Randle first said she thought the bag was of a size too short to hold the rifle more than a week later, after the FBI came out to visit her, and asked her to approximate its size on the replacement bag. Now, this is important, David. She did not contact them, or anyone, and try to correct her statement to Bookhout. They came to her, at a time long past the time anyone suspected her brother of any deliberate involvement in the murder of President Kennedy. As a result, your claim she lied to protect her brother makes no sense to me.

3. I believe you've written, in one or two of your posts, that Randle changed her appraisal of the bag the day after speaking to Bookhout. Now, this may very well be. She may have discussed the bag with her brother, and thought, well, he got a better look at it, I bet he's right. But, beyond that, what is your evidence for this? The thought occurs that I'm overlooking a statement or interview. If so, I'd appreciate a link. Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
p. Speer: I started reading your post, David, but found it too embarrassing to continue.

That's not the way an interchange of ideas works.

IMO the whole package story is dubious. If you bring a gun to work in a suspicious bag, to kill the president , you don't drive with a coworker...the possibility remains, that there was no bag at all...all I can see, is, that Frazier is a storyteller in one way or the other...

in other words: a useless witness...

Edited by Karl Kinaski
Link to post
Share on other sites

Randle cannot even get her address correctly in her testimony...

She also states she sees Oswald walk across WESTBROOK whcih is to the WEST of her yet the window in the kitchen looks out to the SOUTH...

CE442-446 give you a good look. the Paine's were 5 houses down to the WEST...

Mr. BALL. Mrs. Randle, where do you live?

Mrs. RANDLE. 2438 Westfield, Irving, Tex.

Mr. BALL. That was before you moved down the street to the corner of Westfield and Fifth Street?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

There is no “Westfield” in Irving… It is “Westbrook” and the house where she lived was addressed on Fifth street on the corner of WESTBROOK…

How does one get their own address wrong?

Mrs. RANDLE. I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport.

Mr. BALL. What street did he cross to go over?

Mrs. RANDLE. He crossed Westbrook.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0096a.htm

The remaining exhibits are in the pages that follow and shows how little of Oswald Randle could have seen… the carport and driveway are on the west side of the house while the window is on the south.

Her story is no better than his...

and then there is that little part about CREATING the bag, and the fact there are many dissimilarities between the paper and the tape from the bag and what was in the TSBD...

Unless someone can get:

- the rifle into that garage

- Oswald into the garage to break down the rifle at some point in time

- Oswald MAKING the bag THAT WEEK while leaving only one fingerprint on it (and not being seen by the wrapper who never left his post)

- Oswald into the garage to unwrap the rifle pieces or as a whole and THEN break it down

- the parts into the bag and leave the bag "somewhere" to be retreived Friday morning...

- Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it. How far is it from Oswald's hand to the ground with his hand at his side...? almost 3 feet??

- this package into the TSBD while making it appear to the one person who saw him that he had "NOTHING IN HIS HANDS"

- it hidden somewhere in the TSBD

- retrieved from it's spot without being noticed with enough time to reassemble it and get to the window by when oswald THINKS the limo would be passing

- Oswald into the window at the right time

- Oswald to leave this bag in plain sight in the corner where he supposedly shoots yet takes the time to hide the rifle

- SOMEONE to actually pick up the bag, give it to Montgomery so those pictures are taken when NO ONE admits to doing so... In fact Day says the FBI took it, Hicks says he never saw the bag and Monty has no idea how he comes to have the bag in front of the TSBD...

other than that... the Randle/Frasier bag story holds up just fine...

:up

Link to post
Share on other sites

David Lifton' timestamp='1365581931' post='271342

"TO DO" LIST FOR PAT SPEER, TO "GET RIGHT" WITH THIS SITUATION

SPEER RESPONSE: My, how humble you are! Should I submit a similar list for yourself?

Here’s my suggestion. Before indulging in false conjectures about my motives, clean up your own writing in this area. As I’ve previously stated, that means:

(a) Confront the fact that, according to the FBI report of James Bookhout, based on an interview conducted on 11/22/63, Linnie Mae Randle said the package was 3 feet long. That’s just a fact.

SPEER RESPONSE: That's not a fact, David, and you know it. He said she "stated" it was "approximately three feet long." He did not put the words "three feet long" in direct quotes. She was interviewed by Gene Roberts a few days later, and apparently told him it was "two or three feet or more." A few days after that, the FBI paid her a visit, and showed her a bag around 38 inches long, and she said this was too long, and folded the bag back to her best estimation of the length of the bag she saw in Oswald's possession. The length was now 27 inches. It's bizarre to me that you think her initial approximation--assuming it was her approximation--is somehow more valid than her approximation while handling an actual bag. I mean, have you ever been to IKEA...with a woman? I have, numerous times, and it is not remotely surprising to me that a woman might say something is about 36 inches long, and then measure it, and find it to be about 27 inches long. Perhaps that makes me a sexist, oh well.

Cite the Bookhout FBI report, in proper context

SPEER RESPONSE: it is in proper context. You created a post accusing me of hiding it from my readers, when you hadn't really looked for it, and are now trying to cover up your mistake.

, and attempt to explain it (if you can). But don’t ignore it, or include it in some irrelevant location in your chapter,

SPEER RESPONSE: if you'd actually read my chapters, instead of searching through them trying to find something to nail me on, you'd know that Chapters 2 through 3c are a discussion of the FBI Secret Service, and Warren Commission investigations through the eyes of a non-existent person--one who was given access to the bulk of the memos and testimony, and charged with figuring out what happened. These are presented in chronological order, with the occasional aside discussing the long-term ramifications of the documents.

and then misstate the date of the interview (as 11/23/63, and not 11/22) which is exactly what you did. (Again, not because you set out to deceive, but, imho, because you are so enamored of your own pet hypothesis about bag substitution that you failed to take into account other relevant data).

SPEER RESPONSE: in chapter 2, the imaginary person conducting a real investigation was working for the FBI, and was relying almost exclusively on FBI reports. Hence, the items were presented in order by the dates of the reports. To avoid further confusion, however, I have added in that the 11-23 reports of Frazier and his sister were based upon interviews performed the day before.

(b ) This FBI report became the subject of an FBI memo in Washington (sorry, I can’t produce it at this moment, but its in my files, because that’s how I learned about her original statement)

(c ) The next day (and the day after) she changed the bag length, to a shorter number which comported with her brother’s description.

SPEER RESPONSE: as stated in my last post, I've seen nothing indicating she changed her appraisal the next day. Citation please.

One other thing: a knowledgeable researcher has informed me that, in some document collection, there is a DPD Frazier interview, from 11/22/63, in which Frazier himself said –on Friday night—that the bag length was 3 feet. If that document can be located, that would only strengthen the case that the “original” bag length, as recollected by these two critical witnesses, was 3 feet, and not 30% shorter. (And that would cast their subsequent statements in a different light now, wouldn’t it?)

Right now, it would appear that Linnie Mae Randle changed her story. But if a 11/22 DPD interview with Buell Frazier also stated the bag was 3 feet, then BOTH Frazier and his sister changed their stories, and that would raise the issue of collusion, and cast everything in a new and different light—wouldn’t it?

SPEER RESPONSE: No, probably not. For whatever reason, you're unwilling to accept the possibility someone said "about 3 feet" and then got a measuring tape out and said "Well, no, I guess it was really 2 feet, 3 inches." I, on the other hand, don't find this the least bit surprising.

Let me repeat your final statement, because it is totally false, and a testament to your stubbornness in not dealing with the facts, but instead indulging in speculation about my motives. (And that is particularly unbecoming of a moderator on this forum).

QUOTE: 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. UNQUOTE

No Pat, I never said that. But having to rebut this nonsense makes me realize why Dan Akyroyd got so irritated with the "pronouncements" of Jane Curtin.

So let me repeat, again, what I did say the issue was (and is). Its not whether Oswald brought his lunch to work that day. I think its fairly obvious he did not do that. The question is whether he brought a package out to the car that morning; a package that, when properly described, was big enough (i.e., long enough) to have contained a disassembled rifle.

Now that’s the question.

And if he did do that, and if he’s innocent, then why did he do that? What “story” was he told? Who said what to Lee Oswald—earlier in the week—that he would go home on Thursday evening, and then return with such a package?

SPEER RESPONSE: So, to be clear, you believe Oswald lied to Frazier about the curtain rods to hide that he was bringing a rifle to work, and that both Frazier and his sister lied about the bag length to hide that they knew he'd brought a rifle to work. It just doesn't add up, David. There was nothing illegal about bringing a rifle to work, should Oswald have brought it to work. Warren Caster brought two rifles to work--what? two days before--and his actions barely raised an eyebrow. By holding that Oswald really did bring in a bag which held a rifle, moreover, you are supporting that all is well and good with the bag evidence. And that, for the multiple reasons provided on my website--only one of which is that the bag in the press photos appears to be a different bag than the one in the evidence photos--is just silly.

DSL

4/10/13; 1:10 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

DSL to Pat Speer

But, regarding your post: It is a silly, superficial, false, and misleading critique of what I have said. You also indulge in erroneous speculation about what I believe, and that’s just plain annoying.

You mean like this, David?

DSL to Greg Parker 1/1/2012

Let me understand something. You're presuming to instruct people as to the standards they should follow, while you run a website that promotes the notion that the key to the JFK case is that Oswald had a secret twin brother? Or that the TSBD janitor holds the key to the case,and that 5-7 employees of the TSBD escorted your imaginary gunmen to safety?

David, you are the hypocrites hypocrite.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat Speer to DSL

SPEER RESPONSE: My, how humble you are! Should I submit a similar list for yourself?

Pat Speer to Greg Parker 1/2/2012

Perhaps the hole in the O-Zone has thinned out your skin, I don't know. But you should feel honored, in my opinion, when Lifton, or Thompson, or Mack, etc takes the time to read what you've written, and tell you you are wrong. You can always write-off their comments as those of someone stuck in their ways. Most do.

Are you feeling "honored", Pat? Sure doesn't look like it.

Why does the word "hypocrite" come to mind as I look at the two sets of comments?

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat Speer to DSL

SPEER RESPONSE: My, how humble you are! Should I submit a similar list for yourself?

Pat Speer to Greg Parker 1/2/2012

Perhaps the hole in the O-Zone has thinned out your skin, I don't know. But you should feel honored, in my opinion, when Lifton, or Thompson, or Mack, etc takes the time to read what you've written, and tell you you are wrong. You can always write-off their comments as those of someone stuck in their ways. Most do.

Are you feeling "honored", Pat? Sure doesn't look like it.

Why does the word "hypocrite" come to mind as I look at the two sets of comments?

Actually, Greg, I do feel kinda honored David cares what I think. Although the tone of our disagreement has been fairly adversarial, I'm hoping that one of us can learn something from it. If David can find evidence Randle changed her opinion on the bag length the next day, then I will have some food for thought. If he can't find such evidence, however, then he's stuck with the probability she didn't change her opinion until the FBI tracked her down and showed her what a 3 foot bag actually looked like. And that should give him some food for thought.

That's a lot more productive than most of these threads, sad to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat Speer to DSL

SPEER RESPONSE: My, how humble you are! Should I submit a similar list for yourself?

Pat Speer to Greg Parker 1/2/2012

Perhaps the hole in the O-Zone has thinned out your skin, I don't know. But you should feel honored, in my opinion, when Lifton, or Thompson, or Mack, etc takes the time to read what you've written, and tell you you are wrong. You can always write-off their comments as those of someone stuck in their ways. Most do.

Are you feeling "honored", Pat? Sure doesn't look like it.

Why does the word "hypocrite" come to mind as I look at the two sets of comments?

Actually, Greg, I do feel kinda honored David cares what I think. Although the tone of our disagreement has been fairly adversarial, I'm hoping that one of us can learn something from it. If David can find evidence Randle changed her opinion on the bag length the next day, then I will have some food for thought. If he can't find such evidence, however, then he's stuck with the probability she didn't change her opinion until the FBI tracked her down and showed her what a 3 foot bag actually looked like. And that should give him some food for thought.

That's a lot more productive than most of these threads, sad to say.

"Kinda"? Good one, Pat, but no sale. Obviously not enough to actually sound honored. Or maybe that hole in the ozone has just gotten bigger? Lifton changing his mind about something? Now I know the sun's getting to you...

Nah... I'm not buying you believe it either. Just more dissembling to avoid the "hypocrisy" tag you've earned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

David Lifton' timestamp='1365581931' post='271342

"TO DO" LIST FOR PAT SPEER, TO "GET RIGHT" WITH THIS SITUATION

SPEER RESPONSE: My, how humble you are! Should I submit a similar list for yourself?

Here’s my suggestion. Before indulging in false conjectures about my motives, clean up your own writing in this area. As I’ve previously stated, that means:

(a) Confront the fact that, according to the FBI report of James Bookhout, based on an interview conducted on 11/22/63, Linnie Mae Randle said the package was 3 feet long. That’s just a fact.

SPEER RESPONSE: That's not a fact, David, and you know it. He said she "stated" it was "approximately three feet long." He did not put the words "three feet long" in direct quotes. She was interviewed by Gene Roberts a few days later, and apparently told him it was "two or three feet or more." A few days after that, the FBI paid her a visit, and showed her a bag around 38 inches long, and she said this was too long, and folded the bag back to her best estimation of the length of the bag she saw in Oswald's possession. The length was now 27 inches. It's bizarre to me that you think her initial approximation--assuming it was her approximation--is somehow more valid than her approximation while handling an actual bag. I mean, have you ever been to IKEA...with a woman? I have, numerous times, and it is not remotely surprising to me that a woman might say something is about 36 inches long, and then measure it, and find it to be about 27 inches long. Perhaps that makes me a sexist, oh well.

Cite the Bookhout FBI report, in proper context

SPEER RESPONSE: it is in proper context. You created a post accusing me of hiding it from my readers, when you hadn't really looked for it, and are now trying to cover up your mistake.

, and attempt to explain it (if you can). But don’t ignore it, or include it in some irrelevant location in your chapter,

SPEER RESPONSE: if you'd actually read my chapters, instead of searching through them trying to find something to nail me on, you'd know that Chapters 2 through 3c are a discussion of the FBI Secret Service, and Warren Commission investigations through the eyes of a non-existent person--one who was given access to the bulk of the memos and testimony, and charged with figuring out what happened. These are presented in chronological order, with the occasional aside discussing the long-term ramifications of the documents.

and then misstate the date of the interview (as 11/23/63, and not 11/22) which is exactly what you did. (Again, not because you set out to deceive, but, imho, because you are so enamored of your own pet hypothesis about bag substitution that you failed to take into account other relevant data).

SPEER RESPONSE: in chapter 2, the imaginary person conducting a real investigation was working for the FBI, and was relying almost exclusively on FBI reports. Hence, the items were presented in order by the dates of the reports. To avoid further confusion, however, I have added in that the 11-23 reports of Frazier and his sister were based upon interviews performed the day before.

(b ) This FBI report became the subject of an FBI memo in Washington (sorry, I can’t produce it at this moment, but its in my files, because that’s how I learned about her original statement)

(c ) The next day (and the day after) she changed the bag length, to a shorter number which comported with her brother’s description.

SPEER RESPONSE: as stated in my last post, I've seen nothing indicating she changed her appraisal the next day. Citation please.

One other thing: a knowledgeable researcher has informed me that, in some document collection, there is a DPD Frazier interview, from 11/22/63, in which Frazier himself said –on Friday night—that the bag length was 3 feet. If that document can be located, that would only strengthen the case that the “original” bag length, as recollected by these two critical witnesses, was 3 feet, and not 30% shorter. (And that would cast their subsequent statements in a different light now, wouldn’t it?)

Right now, it would appear that Linnie Mae Randle changed her story. But if a 11/22 DPD interview with Buell Frazier also stated the bag was 3 feet, then BOTH Frazier and his sister changed their stories, and that would raise the issue of collusion, and cast everything in a new and different light—wouldn’t it?

SPEER RESPONSE: No, probably not. For whatever reason, you're unwilling to accept the possibility someone said "about 3 feet" and then got a measuring tape out and said "Well, no, I guess it was really 2 feet, 3 inches." I, on the other hand, don't find this the least bit surprising.

Let me repeat your final statement, because it is totally false, and a testament to your stubbornness in not dealing with the facts, but instead indulging in speculation about my motives. (And that is particularly unbecoming of a moderator on this forum).

QUOTE: 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. UNQUOTE

No Pat, I never said that. But having to rebut this nonsense makes me realize why Dan Akyroyd got so irritated with the "pronouncements" of Jane Curtin.

So let me repeat, again, what I did say the issue was (and is). Its not whether Oswald brought his lunch to work that day. I think its fairly obvious he did not do that. The question is whether he brought a package out to the car that morning; a package that, when properly described, was big enough (i.e., long enough) to have contained a disassembled rifle.

Now that’s the question.

And if he did do that, and if he’s innocent, then why did he do that? What “story” was he told? Who said what to Lee Oswald—earlier in the week—that he would go home on Thursday evening, and then return with such a package?

SPEER RESPONSE: So, to be clear, you believe Oswald lied to Frazier about the curtain rods to hide that he was bringing a rifle to work, and that both Frazier and his sister lied about the bag length to hide that they knew he'd brought a rifle to work. It just doesn't add up, David. There was nothing illegal about bringing a rifle to work, should Oswald have brought it to work. Warren Caster brought two rifles to work--what? two days before--and his actions barely raised an eyebrow. By holding that Oswald really did bring in a bag which held a rifle, moreover, you are supporting that all is well and good with the bag evidence. And that, for the multiple reasons provided on my website--only one of which is that the bag in the press photos appears to be a different bag than the one in the evidence photos--is just silly.

DSL

4/10/13; 1:10 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Pat:

Continuing this discussion (and searching for a bit of common ground here), let me focus on your last paragraph (“Speer Response,” above) and let’s conduct a “thought experiment”.

Suppose it was possible to go back in time, and fluoroscope the package, just as Oswald entered the TSBD.

What do you think that would show-i.e, what do you think was in the package?

Here, I believe, are the main possibilities:

(a) a very large sandwich –e.g., a hero sandwich of some sort.

(b ) curtain rods

(c ) a weapon

(d) a garden shovel (or something other piece of hardware, that has nothing to do with a gun)

The question I now put to you is this: whatever it was that Oswald was carrying in that package, would you not agree that—if it was not “b”—then Oswald was involved in deception?

Let’s go down the list, and examine each possibility:

Re (a): Would you not agree that the package did not contain food, or his lunch?

But would you also then agree that if it was really "just lunch," then he was involved in a deception?

Re (b ): It might be curtain rods, but that is not supported by Ruth Paine’s testimony; and I don’t believe she is lying on this point. (Do we agree on that?) In any event, if he was actually carrying curtain rods, then he was telling the truth to Frazier, and, in that case, he was not involved in any deception.

Re (c ) It might be a weapon, but if it was, then Oswald was involved in deception (Agreed?)

Re (d) If it was some other piece of hardware—a shovel, or anything else—then (again) Oswald was involved in deception. (Otherwise, why, for example, if he was carrying a small garden shovel, would he say it was “curtain rods”?)

So my question to you is very simply this: would you agree that, unless Oswald was in fact carrying curtain rods, then he was involved in a deception of some sort? (Agreed?)

Let me stress that I’m not asking whether you think Oswald was the assassin, or anything like that. My question is really much more specific, restrictive, and narrow, and directed to Oswald’s state of mind: Was he involved in deception? (And if so, why?)

Your thoughts?

DSL

4/10/13l 9:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, Caliornia

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

So my question to you is very simply this: would you agree that, unless Oswald was in fact carrying curtain rods, then he was involved in a deception of some sort? (Agreed?)

Let me stress that I’m not asking whether you think Oswald was the assassin, or anything like that. My question is really much more specific, restrictive, and narrow, and directed to Oswald’s state of mind: Was he involved in deception? (And if so, why?)

Your thoughts?

DSL

4/10/13l 9:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, Caliornia

I don't pretend to know what Oswald's role was on the day of the shooting. I'm fairly certain he was not a shooter, but beyond that I can't say. I do think it unlikely he was picked at random, whereby he could have called in sick, got another job, or ate lunch on the sidewalk, and the assassination would still have been a go. This leads me to suspect he was involved in some way, and not entirely truthful in his interviews (assuming, that is, that the reports of these interviews are accurate). If I were writing a novel based on the assassination, in which Oswald was an innocent, and in which I was trying to explain the "curtain rods" story, I might offer that Oswald was asked by his CIA case officer to participate in a black op against the pro-Castro community, and was asked to smuggle an offensive banner into the building that would then be hung from an upstairs window. But that's just one of many possibilities...

Edited by Pat Speer
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...