Another FBI lie exposed: What Buell told the FBI about the "package"

[Gil Jesus]

FBI report:

Frazier, "stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the package he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack."  ( 24 H 410 )

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/frazier_no_id_bag.jpg

This FBI lie was exposed during Frazier's testimony when he testified that when he was shown the CE 142 bag by the FBI, he told them that the length was "entirely too long." ( 2 H 240 )

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WC_Vol2_240-frazier-CE-142-too-long-634x1024.gif

These type of tactics by authorities ( altering what the witness said ) do not occur during legitimate criminal investigations.

[David Von Pein]

4 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

FBI report:

Frazier, "stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the package he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack."  ( 24 H 410 )

[...]

These type of tactics by authorities ( altering what the witness said ) do not occur during legitimate criminal investigations.

And I suppose this means you also think the FBI lied through their collective anal cracks when they said that Linnie Mae Randle said the exact same thing that Buell Frazier said about the bag (with respect to the bag's color). Right?

From a discussion here at the EF in March of 2018:

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Reprise [the "she" in this report (CD7) refers to Linnie Randle]....




JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Notice in the last sentence, the two dependent clauses begun with the words "if" and "could".

Thanks for posting that David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks for totally missing the point, Jim.

That point being:

If the bag that Linnie Mae Randle saw Lee Oswald carrying had REALLY been quite a bit shorter than the "original" bag she was later shown, then there should have been no "ifs" and "coulds" about it in Randle's mind—i.e., the "original" bag (via those conditions) could not possibly have been the bag Linnie Mae saw on Nov. 22, regardless of the bag's COLOR.

But instead of saying to the FBI agents something like this....

Regardless of the color issue, there's no way in the world this "original" bag you are showing me now could be the same one I saw Oswald carrying on Nov. 22nd, because this "original" bag is way too long.

....she, instead, tells the FBI agents that the "original" bag she was being shown is still in the mix of possible bags that Lee Oswald "could have been" carrying on November 22nd.

Do conspiracy theorists think that Mrs. Randle just TOTALLY IGNORED the LENGTH of the "original" bag when she said that the original sack was still a candidate for the one she saw Oswald toting on 11/22? Was she ONLY concerned with the COLOR of the bags at that point in time in her FBI interview? In other words, she knew the original bag was much too long, but she was unable to concentrate on two separate aspects of the bag at the same time (color and length), so she said "could have been" with respect to the color only, all the while totally forgetting that this "original" bag in front of her was entirely too big. Is that what some conspiracists want to contend?

[2023 Edit --- Or, more likely, the CTers of the world probably think that it was the FBI that was playing fast & loose with the evidence. In other words, the FBI's only concern in the CD7 interviews with both Frazier & Randle was the COLOR of the bag. They didn't give a damn that both Frazier and Randle were (probably) screaming these words at their FBI interviewers: "That CE142 bag is way too big!! So why are you only interested in the COLOR of the bag?!"]

In addition....

There's also the fact that the amount of Oswald's bag that was available to view from Randle's perspective on Nov. 22 was very likely a few inches less than the bag's overall length of 38 inches. It was "folded" in some manner, as Wesley Frazier said in his 11/22/63 affidavit:

"The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under." -- Buell Wesley Frazier


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Frazier actual quote [Mitcham's emphasis]...

"It must have been about 2 feet long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

Slightly changes the debate when all the info is given.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, then, Ray, don't forget to mention the fact that Wesley Frazier said a total of TEN TIMES during his Warren Commission testimony that he wasn't paying much attention to Oswald's paper sack. [Click Here to see all ten "I didn't pay much attention" references.]

But keep pretending that Frazier's "two feet" estimate is a rock-solid fact as far as the actual length of Oswald's bag is concerned. Did Frazier whip out a tape measure the instant he saw the brown bag resting on his back seat?
 

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1275.html

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by David Von Pein