Buell Wesley Frazier, curtain rods and the lack of blaming Frazier- very interesting

[Guest]

On Frazier, there is Linnie's very first/early statement, I believe when she said the package to be a little over 3 ft

and heavy (please correct me if I'm wrong / I think someone posted that early statement on this forum some weeks/months ago).   Did Buell realize he was in trouble if the package was thàt long and could contain... etc   

Later on their estimates matched almost to the inch.

 

 

[Jamey Flanagan]

Interesting info @Pat Speer! I had never read or heard that Oswald's curtain rod at his apartment was damaged! I can't remember which book it was I remember reading at one time growing up, but it was one with a lone nutter slant to it and it showed a picture of inside Oswald's apartment and there were curtains hung already and it's like they were trying to say that Oswald already had curtains and they were hung on curtain rods therefore he was lying about needing some as an excuse to snuggle his rifle into the TSBD. Also, I believe it was in Frazier's book that came out fairly recently that he said at some point after the assassination an anonymous caller called his home and said that some curtain rods were found at the TSBD but made to disappear! This was recounted, I believe, in a book I do own which is pictured by @Vince Palamara in the original post (The Lone Star Speaks).

[Gil Jesus]

38 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

That's ALL about when they checked it AFTER 11/22

Nobody was 100% sure on the situation (about the curtain rods) before 11/22

So it is still an option there were indeed wrapped curtain rods as Mrs.Paine at one point declared

TIMING... 

Dallas  FBI sends teletype to Hoover saying that in order to establish that ( not inquire if any ) no curtain rods were found in the TSBD, they interviewed Roy Truly, the guy who hired Oswald and vouched for people police encountered in the building and that the "contents" of that interview " will not be incorporated in any report submitted by Dallas in accordance with instructions in referenced teletype."

They were instructed not to incorporate the Truly interview in any reports they made.

Can you say suppression of evidence ?

 

inco

 

This was in response to the Commission's need to "establish that no curtain rods were found in the Texas School Book Depository". Why would they need to prove no curtain rods were found in the building if they had the "proof" that the package Oswald brought to work that day contained the rifle ?

In other words, if the package contained the rifle, then there was no need to "prove" the curtain rods were not found in the building. 

Unless they were and this was an attempt to suppress that.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Guest]

@Pat Speer noticed you got the curtain story it's own chapter, super !

@Jamey Flanagan Pat has most of the pictures included in his article :

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4h-the-curtain-rod-story

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Dallas  FBI sends teletype to Hoover saying that in order to establish that ( not inquire if any ) no curtain rods were found in the TSBD, they interviewed Roy Truly, the guy who hired Oswald and vouched for people police encountered in the building and that the "contents" of that interview " will not be incorporated in any report submitted by Dallas in accordance with instructions in referenced teletype."

They were instructed not to incorporate the Truly interview in any reports they made.

Can you say suppression of evidence ?

 

incorporated by Dall

That is indeed very troublesome

[Guest]

Quote from somewhere on this forum :

Mrs Randle went to Paine's house and met the police detectives who came to search Paine's house; she volunteered information about the package without being even asked. Clearly, the package was something she needed to unburden herself from. I do not have access to Bishop's book at the moment, however, I remember that Mrs Randle spoke first about a package 3 feet long which would be closer to the length of a rifle than her subsequent 27-28.5'.

Can anyone substantiate this ?  I remember seeing an early statement of Linnie, but I'm not sure it was this one ?

 

[Tony Rose]

22 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Regardless, I think he had more integrity than many so-called highfalutin' educated folk.

 

I don't think you find very may highfalutin' educated folk anywhere in the assassination, except in the shadows and on the periphery.

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

But Ruth Paine maintained that she had only TWO curtain rods (total) in her garage. Whether they were wrapped in paper or not, the total number of rods that Ruth said she had in her garage was TWO. And that's the number of curtain rods that were found on a shelf in Ruth's garage during her WC testimony.

Pat,

Do you think Ruth was lying about having just two rods in her garage? Or do you think she was merely confused about how many rods she might have had in her house during the 1963-1964 time period?

I don't deny that my last suggestion is most certainly a possibility, particularly since Ruth was quite obviously hazy about the way the curtain rods were wrapped (or even if they were wrapped in paper at all).

But the thing that makes your suggestion unbelievable about Oswald possibly helping himself to a set of Ruth's rods is the fact that if Lee Oswald HAD done such a thing on 11/22/63, he most certainly would have admitted that fact to the police after his arrest. Instead, he tells Captain Fritz that Buell Frazier was the li@r when it comes the topic of any curtain rods.

It makes no sense for Oswald to deny all knowledge of any curtain rods unless Oswald had something ELSE inside that package that he was desperate to hide from the police.

(Yes, I know you're going to tell me that we don't really know anything that Oswald really told the cops after his arrest, and therefore I'm supposed to assume that the DPD was putting all kinds of things into LHO's mouth in order to frame him more conveniently. But forgive me if I don't follow you down that murky and unprovable path.)

 

Until a few years ago, I totally accepted that Oswald had brought something to work that day that he felt he should lie about. But when I finally decided to get to the bottom of the curtain rod story, I was led in another direction. 

The fact is Ruth's recollection of the curtain rods in her garage, and only two curtain rods, is not very convincing. It's clear from her testimony and subsequent statements that she was outraged by the possibility Oswald would just take some curtain rods. It's certainly not unreasonable to assume there could have been another set of curtain rods.

This is assuming, of course, that the rods found in her unlocked garage had not been added at a later date. We know there was a second set of curtain rods submitted by Howlett and tested by the DPD before the rods were found in the garage. We know the WC refused to follow-up on the lead provided by the FBI--that the curtain rod in Oswald's rented room was damaged. It's not unreasonable to assume then that the finding of the curtain rods was staged by Jenner to smash Oswald's "alibi" and explain the curtain rods submitted by Howlett and tested by the DPD.

As far as what Oswald did and did not deny...

1) We can't trust the summaries of the interviews... Hosty would later describe incidents and questions that somehow never made it into anyone's summary.

2) I totally accept that Oswald was being less than truthful in what were essentially preliminary interviews. He may have been waiting for a sign from someone as to what he could or could not discuss. He knew his wife was dependent on the Paines. As a result, he may have thought it wise to not admit stealing Ruth's precious curtain rods until it became absolutely necessary. 

 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

On Frazier, there is Linnie's very first/early statement, I believe when she said the package to be a little over 3 ft

and heavy (please correct me if I'm wrong / I think someone posted that early statement on this forum some weeks/months ago).   Did Buell realize he was in trouble if the package was thàt long and could contain... etc   

Later on their estimates matched almost to the inch.

 

 

That estimate was second-hand and off the cuff. I suspect many people (many of them women) would have trouble estimating the length of an item that was 2-3 feet long. A week or so later the FBI created a replica sack and took it out to show Frazier and his sister. Frazier told them it was roughly twice the size of the package he saw in Oswald's possession. They also showed it to Linnie, and had someone carry it the way she said she saw Oswald carry a package. She said this bag was far too long and that the bag she saw was much to short to have held the assassination rifle. 

We have no reason to doubt them. The bag story is ludicrous on its face. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Interesting info @Pat Speer! I had never read or heard that Oswald's curtain rod at his apartment was damaged! I can't remember which book it was I remember reading at one time growing up, but it was one with a lone nutter slant to it and it showed a picture of inside Oswald's apartment and there were curtains hung already and it's like they were trying to say that Oswald already had curtains and they were hung on curtain rods therefore he was lying about needing some as an excuse to snuggle his rifle into the TSBD. Also, I believe it was in Frazier's book that came out fairly recently that he said at some point after the assassination an anonymous caller called his home and said that some curtain rods were found at the TSBD but made to disappear! This was recounted, I believe, in a book I do own which is pictured by @Vince Palamara in the original post (The Lone Star Speaks).

I should probably add that bit from The Lone Star Speaks to my website. I pieced together that SS Agent John Joe Howlett was the one who submitted a set of curtain rods to the DPD for testing, and that Howlett had been featured in the SS re-enactment film filmed on location in the TSBD in early December, but I don't think I mentioned that Frazier said someone had called him. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

That estimate was second-hand and off the cuff. I suspect many people (many of them women) would have trouble estimating the length of an item that was 2-3 feet long. A week or so later the FBI created a replica sack and took it out to show Frazier and his sister. They placed it in the back seat of Frazier's car and he told them it was roughly twice the size of the package he saw in Oswald's possession. They also showed it to Linnie, and had someone carry it the way she said she saw Oswald carry a package. She said this bag was far too long and that the bag she saw was much to short to have held the assassination rifle. 

We have no reason to doubt them. The bag story is ludicrous on its face. 

Thanks for the clarificatioin, just to be sure, was it this one I just found on some forum, I'll copy/quote it in full : 

The following is from Commission Document 5, p. 320  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

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Dallas  FBI sends teletype to Hoover saying that in order to establish that ( not inquire if any ) no curtain rods were found in the TSBD, they interviewed Roy Truly, the guy who hired Oswald and vouched for people police encountered in the building and that the "contents" of that interview " will not be incorporated in any report submitted by Dallas in accordance with instructions in referenced teletype."

They were instructed not to incorporate the Truly interview in any reports they made.

Can you say suppression of evidence ?

 

inco

 

This was in response to the Commission's need to "establish that no curtain rods were found in the Texas School Book Depository". Why would they need to prove no curtain rods were found in the building if they had the "proof" that the package Oswald brought to work that day contained the rifle ?

In other words, if the package contained the rifle, then there was no need to "prove" the curtain rods were not found in the building. 

Unless they were and this was an attempt to suppress that.

 

 

I noticed this myself on this and a few other documents. I think this was the FBI's M.O. to conceal evidence. They would at times put statements in a memo based on a supposed interview, without there being a report on the actual interview. Such a memo would have no official author, no signature... no accountability...and be based upon an interview for which there was no documentation. It seems possible this was done to add things into the record without actually finding out if they were true. I mean, why on Earth would Hoover, a man obsessed with documentation, go out of his way to make sure no documentation would be created on certain supposed interviews? I think this was code to his subordinates that they were to create a memo telling him what he wanted to hear without actually doing an interview. 

[Pat Speer]

13 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Thanks for the clarificatioin, just to be sure, was it this one I just found on some forum, I'll copy/quote it in full : 

The following is from Commission Document 5, p. 320  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

I discuss the bag at some length (pun not intended) in a section of Chapter 2 at patspeer.com entitled Not Exactly in the Bag.

From that chapter:

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).

Now 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. Frazier estimated the length of the package he saw on his back seat. They measured this out on the seat and it would have been 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 photographed by the FBI is about 38 inches long, approximately 40% longer than the sack described by both Frazier and Randle. It also appears to have been slightly tapered from one end to the other--from about 8 1/2 inches wide at the open end to about 9 1/4 inches wide at the closed end, for an average of 8 7/8 inches wide. Frazier, of course, said the bag in Oswald's possession was about 6 inches wide.

Time for math. 27 x 6 = 162 sq. inches. 38 x 8.875 = 337.25 sq. inches. This means the bag shown Frazier--assuming it was the bag sent on to the FBI--was more than twice as large as the bag he recalled seeing in Oswald's possession.

It was also made from a thicker paper. No wonder he'd refused to ID the bag!

Edited August 26, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Gil Jesus]

4 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Dallas  FBI sends teletype to Hoover saying that in order to establish that ( not inquire if any ) no curtain rods were found in the TSBD, they interviewed Roy Truly, the guy who hired Oswald and vouched for people police encountered in the building and that the "contents" of that interview " will not be incorporated in any report submitted by Dallas in accordance with instructions in referenced teletype."

They were instructed not to incorporate the Truly interview in any reports they made.

Can you say suppression of evidence ?

 

inco

 

This was in response to the Commission's need to "establish that no curtain rods were found in the Texas School Book Depository". Why would they need to prove no curtain rods were found in the building if they had the "proof" that the package Oswald brought to work that day contained the rifle ?

In other words, if the package contained the rifle, then there was no need to "prove" the curtain rods were not found in the building. 

Unless they were and this was an attempt to suppress that.

 

 

And here's another little juicy tidbit on the curtain rods that allegedly sat in the Paine garage until March 23, 1964:

The testimony that Michael Paine gave on the rods he gave on 3/17/64, six days BEFORE those rods were examined.

Ruth Paine's testimony on the rods was given on 3/19, 3/20 and 3/21/64, again, before the rods were dusted for fingerprints.

Apparently, the authorities didn't know that the Paines had curtain rods wrapped in paper in their garage and when they found out, they did everything they could to disconnect that evidence with the TSBD. ( see WC memo to FBI above )

Edited August 26, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I noticed this myself on this and a few other documents. I think this was the FBI's M.O. to conceal evidence. They would at times put statements in a memo based on a supposed interview, without there being a report on the actual interview. Such a memo would have no official author, no signature... no accountability...and be based upon an interview for which there was no documentation. It seems possible this was done to add things into the record without actually finding out if they were true. I mean, why on Earth would Hoover, a man obsessed with documentation, go out of his way to make sure no documentation would be created on certain supposed interviews? I think this was code to his subordinates that they were to create a memo telling him what he wanted to hear without actually doing an interview. 

I know one thing the FBI did along these lines was specifically order that certain interviews, etc. that were only conducted to comply with requests from the Warren Commission not be put into report form. The attitude expressed was that the WC errands were not actual FBI business, so the interviews were not worth recording in internal files via a FD-302 report, or something like that. 

I’m thinking of a specific memo that I believe was the precursor to the alleged Odom interviews of Tomlinson and Wright regarding CE 399. Odom told Tink Thompson and Gary Aguilar that if he’d done those interviews, they would have been recorded in a 302 report - but this memo reflects that Hoover, or maybe it was Belmont, ordered that the interviews not be written up because they were just a silly errand for the President’s Commission, etc. I’ll try to find it later.