Jump to content
The Education Forum

Wesley Frazier--there was no gun


Recommended Posts

On 9/7/2020 at 5:19 PM, James DiEugenio said:

My question is, why was the HSCA transcript deep sixed?  And also why has Frazier not made his copy public?

I mean please do not tell me he gave it to the Sixth Floor.

 

I suspect this is one of the reasons it was deep sixed...from the transcript of tapes 3 and 4... Probably "hid" was meant to be "had" IMO

fraz.png

Edited by Rob Clark
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is this the Denis M. transcript?

I have never seen that part of it before.

If he is now saying there was no rifle, then how could LHO have hidden the rifle?

And man, what does this mean "Oh my God. That was the first thing right there on the steps."  This has to be after the assassination.  If this is an accurate transcription then yeah I know why it was deep sixed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Is this the Denis M. transcript?

I have never seen that part of it before.

If he is now saying there was no rifle, then how could LHO have hidden the rifle?

And man, what does this mean "Oh my God. That was the first thing right there on the steps."  This has to be after the assassination.  If this is an accurate transcription then yeah I know why it was deep sixed.

 

It seems to me he might be trying to say that he realized it was Oswald when he was right there on the steps, when he heard the gunshots.

What this is here is Frazier going along with the plot, but as usual it's revisionist history. I doubt he thought that while on the steps, and I doubt he either knew Oswald "had" or "hid" a rifle.

We must remember Frazier's lies, and we must look at those lies critically. Look to how today he claims, in a very detailed story, that he was arrested at a hospital by two Dallas cops. He's in the hospital and he gets a phone call to come to the nurse's station, he leaves the room to do that and is manhandled by two Dallas cops, arrested. His new story seems aimed to create sympathy for him. 

Meanwhile compare this to the WC interviews which indicate that Frazier was actually taken down to the Irving police station by Irving cops, and he was taken into custody by DPD folks there. His story about being arrested by DPD in Irving is simply made-up.

There is much more that we can infer from Frazier's words. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Is this the Denis M. transcript?

I have never seen that part of it before.

If he is now saying there was no rifle, then how could LHO have hidden the rifle?

And man, what does this mean "Oh my God. That was the first thing right there on the steps."  This has to be after the assassination.  If this is an accurate transcription then yeah I know why it was deep sixed.

 

This is from the Richard Gilbride transcripts of tapes 3 and 4 that he had posted at the old ROKC forum many years ago. I interviewed him on my show about his HSCA transcripts. He used some kind of software like Dragon Speech, and if things looked screwy, he would go back and try to transcribe the noisier parts by ear as best he could. It's pretty damning for sure and also a reason to lie about it...I mean he blatantly says I didn't want to get dragged into it. And even if Oswald did bring a rifle to work that day, it doesn't mean he was on the 6th floor shooting it. At that point, the rifle was ordered under the name of A.J. Hidell...Castro sympathizer. Oswald may have been told to plant the gun in the building, and maybe he had been told they were going to shoot at and scare Kennedy into action against Cuba. The rifle would be found, traced to a fictitious person, and the trail ends?? At least that's what Oswald may have been told or thought. Frazier was a hunter and rifle owner...as one, you know damn well what a rifle in a soft case looks like...a rifle in a hard shell case...or a rifle in a paper case looks like for that matter. From the HSCA testimony of his co-workers at the TSBD, I'm convinced Frazier dropped Oswald off at the TSBD that morning before parking at the State building lot blocks away and he lied about it for obvious self preservation reasons. He realizes on the steps what possibly happened...goes to the basement to "eat lunch" or calm himself down and try to figure out what to do...can't, leaves work and goes directly to his stepdad's bedside at the Irving Medical Clinic I think, to seek advice. He was there for 2 and a half hours before Rose and Stoveall tracked him down and picked him up. By then he had a story and a plan, which he's clung to all these years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be  honest, I am at a loss at what to conclude about Frazier.

When i wrote about him in my last book, I did not have the complete Gilbride transcript.  But man, I now know why it was not printed.  There is much more in there than is in the WC.  Frazier is such a problematic witness.  And this is one of the problems I have with the first generation critics.  It just seems to me that there is more to him and his sister than meets the eye.  And the HSCA interview I think reveals some of it.  Like the car which he left outside, which his sister supposedly saw through the shutters,  with that one broken lock.  Which LHO conveniently found.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Frazier lied with malice, and his recent comments tend to point to that. In a presentation, Frazier said words to the effect that he was a young, ignorant, and trusting person who believed the people around him. He basically says that he believed whatever he was told and would never think a person would be deceptive or have some kind of ulterior motive. Now, why does Frazier say that? I envision here a scenario by which Frazier is told by the police that "we know we have our man. We know he did it. It's his rifle. We know he brought it in a bag. But we need your help."  I think Frazier at first resisted this, knowing it was wrong, and so police then intimidate him by accusing him of being involved and trying to get him to sign a confession. So he then has two choices: either cooperate with the police--who must be right, so what's so bad about that? he thinks--or himself be accused of being involved and "dragged into it." At that time, to Frazier, the choice is clear. Besides, he thinks "it's not really wrong if he's the guy who did it." 

Frazier was induced to say he saw Oswald carrying the package and he willingly went along with that to help authorities who, at the time, he believed just had to be right. And he's stuck with that story since then, but obviously has major guilt and regrets if you watch any of his recent videos where he almost cries when he talks about Lee Oswald. In these same videos he also says how today he no longer trusts people. Clearly he was fooled back then, realizes that now, and he regrets harming an innocent person.

An example of DPD's shoddy conduct that aligns with asking a witness to corroborate something can be found in the way they handled Bledsoe, McWatters and Whaley. They have Bledsoe ID Oswald from a spread of photos on Saturday long after his face has been all over TV and newspapers. So when she looks at that spread she already knows who she's "supposed" to pick. They have McWatters pick Oswald out of a lineup where Oswald is obviously beaten up, wearing a t-shirt, and he's put next to a some teenagers and there too it's obvious who the police want him to pick. With Whaley they prepare an affidavit for him which ID's Oswald and just hand it to him and ask him to sign it. Given all this shoddy "police work" that's so obviously biased to fit a narrative is it inconceivable that these cops might ask Frazier to "help" by saying he saw a package?

This is my opinion and it's speculation. But based on how the DPD behaved in other areas I think this scenario is reasonable, fits with their general lack of integrity, and this explains Frazier's obvious guilt and some of his statements, especially those comments he made about having been ignorant and young and too trusting. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at Frazier's words here and consider this: he is talking about how he was fooled to participate in incriminating Oswald.

"Living History" with Buell Wesley Frazier, posted 8/27/13 by the 6th Floor Museum

I'd like to explain something to people. Here you have a young boy. He's 18 years old. He comes from a small town. A small town anywhere USA. A small town, Texas. He wasn't worldly. He hadn't been a lot of places. He'd never been on a plane to go somewhere. He really didn't know very much. He was just a kid. And he was taught that everybody is your friend, and what everybody says is the truth until they prove to you that you can no longer believe that. That's the way I was then. But not anymore.

I know sometimes it may be hard for someone to understand: how you could be so naive and how you could be into something. Well, all I ask somebody do is, I says, just walk a few miles in my moccasins."

He practically admits it when he says "and how you could be into something."  Frazier almost cries when he is talking about this here. He clearly has a great deal of regret and sadness and is telling us why he went along with the DPD. He trusted them.  

Starts at 47 minutes in:

Immediately after Frazier's very candid admission and explanation of his naivete, the 6th floor stooge ignores everything he said and goes straight into a spiel about the package.

He asks Frazier about the package.

Next, Frazier does the same thing he did on the panel with Hugh Aynesworth: he mentions Josiah Thompson and his experiment which shows a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle cannot fit in the bag. 

I believe Frazier here is sticking to what he was asked to do: say he saw the bag. But at the same time, he isn't going all the way with it. He is insisting the bag was too small to hold a rifle. Why? Because he knows there wasn't any rifle, and there wasn't any package. He was fooled - and he just told us all that a few moments ago in an "explanation" that any intuitive person will pick up on. Read between the lines and you see what Frazier is conveying. 

Later, when he talks about the package, it is interesting to examine his choice of words. Take a look:

"there's no way it would fit in this package that [heavy emotion here -RB] they have put in the Warren Commission and they have sold America and the world on"

Notice he does not say "fit in the package I saw."  No, he says "this package they have put in the WC and they have sold America and the world on."

He knows it's a bill of goods and he's telling you that.

I don't see how anyone can view what Frazier is saying here and take in the full context, and his emotional response, and not see what he's admitting to without exactly saying it. 

Watch him, and see what you think. Read between the lines. See what he's implying, look at his choice of words, look at the emotional response. 

What's most chilling is at the very end, he is asked why he hasn't said much in all these years. Frazier says it's because he fears for his family's life. And the sixth floor stooge has nothing to say about that, but for the educated viewer it's quite clear what Frazier is saying here. He knows how other witnesses have wound up dead, and he realizes what could happen to him. Even so, he bravely hints at the truth in this video. 

Edited by Richard Booth
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks for that.

I agree about the Sixth Floor stooge. How could you just ignore that? 

I mean if it had been me, I would have asked something like, "What are you trying to say Wesley? That you regret what you said for the Warren Commission?"

I would say "what do you mean "How you could be into something" ?

and "Do you feel that you were tricked?"

Frazier closes this thing by saying he fears for his family's life. The sixth floor stooge's response to that? "Allright."

6th floor stooge: Why have you been so reluctant to share your story?

Frazier: "When this all happened, I was terrified. Some people believe in a conspiracy and some don't. Well you can believe whatever you like, this is America. But I knew that if there was people behind this, you best keep silent. Not going around talking. Because I didn't want anything to happen to my family. I can accept a lot of things happening to me. But not my family."

6th floor stooge: All right.

Frankly I am surprised they aired this. Had this been an interview on a TV show or some other production you can bet most of what he said here would have been left on the cutting room floor.

Edited by Richard Booth
Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, what do you think of him going downstairs to eat lunch after the murder?

That was not in the WC either as i recall. 

Isn't that weird?  I mean everyone else is running around the Plaza trying to find where the shots came from or the assassins.  He goes downstairs to eat lunch?  And, why downstairs? 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, what do you think of him going downstairs to eat lunch after the murder?

That was not in the WC either as i recall. 

Isn't that weird?  I mean everyone else is running around the Plaza trying to find where the shots came from or the assassins.  He goes downstairs to eat lunch?  And, why downstairs? 

I don't go as far as this video where it's suggested that Frazier turned off the power to the elevators. There is no way that the people involved in this conspiracy would rely on Frazier to do that. Someone far more responsible would be tasked with that if the power being cut was in fact part of the conspiracy. 

Personally I find the notion of heading down to the basement to eat lunch absurd. If I was just standing outside and I heard bullets fly and see the President get shot, I would not go inside a building and head to the basement to eat my lunch alone. That is preposterous. It makes no sense.

I think he has to be lying about that. He is concealing what he really did ... and that is interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that the Sixth Floor Museum stooge doesn't ask him about going to eat his lunch in the basement. He merely says "you went in the basement to eat your lunch. Then there was a roll call" -- he just breezes right past that.

Wouldn't you ask him why he decided to go eat his lunch and why the basement?

Also, why is he now saying he saw Oswald walking outside the building right after the shots and before he supposedly went to eat his lunch? What's with this new story about seeing LHO outside the building? He never thought to mention that before? He was asked before an array of questions and this has never come up, I don't think, though I could be wrong. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing about Frazier:

He avoided a question about where he's been and what he's been doing since 11/22/63. I believe he answered "you don't want to know."

Here is a question I'd like to as Buell:

"After the assassinatoon, when you were I believe 18 years old, our country had a huge war. How did you avoid the draft, did you go to school?"

Of course, I know that Buell Frazier was in the Army during almost the duration of the Vietnam War yet somehow managed to avoid being sent over there to die. In return for what he did, I think, or in return for his compliance. 

A sneaky question because he would have to say "actually I was in the Army" and then he'd have to explain how he was in the Army yet didn't get sent to Vietnam. Funny, how does that work?

Had he been talking to Mark Lane you can bet he would have been in Vietnam immediately thereafter. Bet on it.

Edited by Richard Booth
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this possible solution to the package Wesley Frazier said Oswald was carrying Fri morning Nov 22?--it was neither curtain rods nor was it a firearm, but instead was the package with the strange "601 West Nassaus Street" nonexistent address that turned up in the Irving Post Office the week after the assassination (carried by LHO Friday morning from Irving to Dallas inside a paper bag which may have also had his lunch). Has this previously been considered?

On Wednesday Nov 20 Marina and Ruth were gone to a medical appointment that day, and a mail carrier left a postage due notice for a package. But the package, addressed to Lee, was reported delivered, and Marina herself said she paid the 12 cents postage due and got the package. Assume that all happened Wed Nov 20. Assume--though there is no verification, it is plausible--that Marina contacted Lee and told him of the package Wed eve. It is not known what was in the package, and it may be that Marina did not know either if she did not open it, since it was addressed to Lee. But Lee knew, and something about that package perhaps was the reason Lee unexpectedly asked Wesley Frazier on Thursday for a ride out to Irving Thursday evening.

On Thursday evening Marina conveys the package to Lee, who puts it in a paper bag large enough to hold it as well as his lunch, and Lee takes it with his ride with Frazier into Dallas. Lee then drops it in a mailbox in Dallas--perhaps for a second time of the same unopened package--where it again ends up the next week forwarded to the Irving post office where it remained, this time not delivered.

The mystery is why does anyone mail a package to a non-existent address with no postage? The content of the package is unknown--there was an 18" heavy-paper liner or bag inside the package, open at both ends, in the already-opened package at the Irving post office. The speculation that the package had contained a magazine is just that, and does not explain why it would lack postage or bear the nonexistent address in what appears to be Oswald's handwriting. Certainly there is no verification by anyone who saw that it contained a magazine. The placement of a package in a mailbox such that it would end up in a post office dead drop (able to be reclaimed later) has been proposed by Gary Murr citing Newcomb and Adams to be a way to have something able to be produced a few days later.

That the address does not exist and the package was dropped into a mailbox with no postage is very odd, and it is only a small further step to identify the two packages addressed to Oswald, each having postage due, around the time of the assassination as the same one mailed twice by Oswald to himself, and that package as not only the explanation of the package Frazier saw Oswald carrying Friday morning but itself perhaps the cause of the unplanned trip of Oswald out to Irving on Thursday, after the package's first delivery to Marina on Wednesday.

In other words, perhaps the package delivered to Marina on Wednesday caused Lee to come out on Thursday where he retrieved it, took it back in to Dallas Friday morning and again dropped it in a mailbox to mail it to himself--again with no postage, again with the same intentionally undeliverable address (but which had nevertheless gotten forwarded to the Irving Marina and Lee address the first time--my grandfather was a small-town postmaster and used to tell stories of postal employees' skill at getting mail through to people even in different cities with name only and no street address at all). In this reconstruction Lee did have a package Friday morning but it was too small for a rifle just as Frazier has insisted all these years. Perhaps LHO told Frazier it was "curtain rods" because the true purpose or contents were private. 

Marina testified that she thought Lee did take a "small" package with him that morning, with his lunch, while denying that it was either a rifle or curtain rods.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know whether your husband carried any package with him when he left the house on November 22nd?

Mrs. Oswald. I think that he had a package with his lunch. But a small package.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know whether he had any package like a rifle in some container?

Mrs. Oswald. No.

All that needs to be supposed is (a) the package which owed postage addressed to LHO, delivered on Wed Nov 22 to Marina, had something to do with LHO's decision to come out to Irving the very next evening; (b) that was the package LHO took to work Fri morning according to Frazier; and (c) that package was dropped into a mailbox again in Dallas without postage by LHO (possibly pulled out of a larger-than normal paper bag with his lunch and dropped in a mailbox prior to walking in the TSBD that Friday morning?), and is the very package addressed in LHO's handwriting to "601 West Nassaus Street" which turned up the next week in the dead letter section of the Irving post office.

I do not know whether this is correct but it is an effort at making sense of some things. If this reconstruction does hold up, establishing what the package Frazier saw Oswald carry that morning WAS, it in turn would further establish what it WAS NOT--a rifle in the TSBD.

Edited by Greg Doudna
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...