A... strange Harold Weisberg clip.

[Miles Massicotte]

At 1:21:05 in the linked video below Harold Weisberg mentions that the purpose of the Buell Wesley Frazier polygraph was to ask Buell if he had been sleeping with Marina, and Buell answered yes. 

The Buell Frazier polygraph has never surfaced. I wouldn't normally take this seriously, but I generally like Weisberg and find him to be well sourced. Does anyone know anything about this??? It is certainly wild if true...

[Michael Crane]

This is one of those cases where one person is incorrect on one issue & you cannot dismiss everything that they say.

Frazier said that Oswald was standing outside of the TSBD after the motorcade drove by.

This is probably why the results never surfaced.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Tony Krome]

Sleeping with Wesley now? The rumour list grows. So far we have Marina and Ruth, and Marina and Robert;

In the period just after the assassination, Marina had a brief affair with Lee’s brother, Robert Oswald.

Who's next? Hosty?

[Pat Speer]

11 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

This is one of those cases where one person is incorrect on one issue & you cannot dismiss everything that they say.

Frazier said that Oswald was standing outside of the TSBD after the motorcade drove by.

This is probably why the results never surfaced.

Huh? Frazier was shown the bag and said it was not the bag Oswald had been carrying that morning. And passed a polygraph when saying so. Much as Brennan's refusing to ID Oswald as the shooter, this was a big problem. So no reports were written on Brennan's refusal to ID Oswald and Frazier's refusal to ID the bag. Can't have those ending up in the hands of a defense attorney, now can we? 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Gerry Down]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Frazier was shown the bag and said it was not the bag Oswald had been carrying that morning. And passed a polygraph while saying so. Much

That could be a possibility.

But the night of the assassination seems awfully quick to conduct a polygraph. I wonder when did Frazier first mention the polygraph. Many years later? If so, he could just be misremembering.

[James DiEugenio]

Correct me if I am wrong, but did not the polygraph disappear?

Someone asked Frazier about this at a conference and he said he does not know what happened to it.

According to Jim Bishop, Frazier was very nervous during it and it was hard to get a reading on him.

I have never heard this story that Weisberg is saying here.

[Pete Mellor]

Det., R.D. Lewis arrived at DPD and immediately went to the ID Bureau offices.  He removed his coat and was quickly briefed on the subject.  He was told that Frazier lives close to Oswald's wife, worked at the TSBD with Oswald, and gave Oswald a ride to Irving on weekends.  They also tell him that 'Homicide is pretty sure that Oswald is the man they want, but the Frazier kid is something else.'  They tell him that they wonder if Frazier is an accomplice and that is why he appears so scared.  And isn't that what Fritz wants to know?  Is this just an ordinary guy, or part of something bigger?  (The Day Kennedy Was Shot-Bishop p609)

Stovall admitted to WC Attorney Joseph Ball that he was present during the polygraph.  He explained "in our polygraph room we've got a two-way mirror there and in another room behind it, so that the officer that is investigating the case, if he wants to, can watch the examination being given, and you can hear the questions and the answers."  When Det. Lewis later described at least five people in the room, this is what he meant.  They were all behind the mirror, not standing beside Frazier's chair.

[David Von Pein]

Here's another very "strange" Weisberg clip (which, given the known evidence in the JFK case, is much more ridiculous than even Harold's ultra-preposterous notion that the DPD would have even cared about whether Buell was shacking up with Marina):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Larry Hancock]

An FBI document contains the information that the DPD did polygraph Frazier the evening of the assassination, that he was shown the actual bag recovered from the TSBD and that he stated that it was no the bag he had seen Oswald carry that morning...which is indeed the most likely reason the DPD report itself was never entered into any official record...as Pat said above. 

[Gerry Down]

Strange the FBI would allow that into a document. They were trying to pin Oswald down as the lone assassin at that time.

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

That could be a possibility.

But the night of the assassination seems awfully quick to conduct a polygraph. I wonder when did Frazier first mention the polygraph. Many years later? If so, he could just be misremembering.

No, he didn't mention it years later. The FBI found out about it when they followed up a week later. 

From chapter 2 at patspeer.com:

On 11-29-63 we see a Secret Service report on an 11-28 interview of Linnie Mae Randle. Although the FBI's 11-23 report on an 11-22 interview with Randle reflects that she initially believed the bag Oswald took to work on the 22nd was approximately 3 feet long (long enough to have carried the rifle), this new report quotes her directly, and suggests either that the first report was inaccurate or that she'd had a talk with her brother Buell Frazier about the length of the bag he said was about two feet long, and had decided to agree with him. The report quotes her as saying "At about 7:10 A.M., Friday, November 22, 1963, Oswald came by my house. I glanced through the window of the kitchen-dining area and saw him walking across the street, and coming up the driveway. He was carrying a package. It was wrapped in brown paper. The package seemed to be about 2 feet or over in length. It seemed to have some weight to it from the manner in which he, Oswald, was carrying it." (CD 87, p. 186).

We wonder as to why Randle was re-interviewed but not her brother. We then see an FBI memo to file from Dallas SAIC Shanklin regarding a phone call he had with Inspector James Handley this morning. (This memo can be found in the Weisberg Archives.) Shanklin writes "Bureau is going to fly the brown paper sack back to Dallas. Have one of the agents take it out and have him (Note: he must mean Frazier) identify it as the same paper that he (Note: he must mean Oswald) carried out that morning."

We then find out that Frazier has just today been re-interviewed by FBI agent James Anderton, and that his memorandum has just been placed in the files of the FBI's Dallas office. (Strangely, this memorandum was never sent to headquarters, and was never added to the bureau's assassination file. So how do we know about it, then? Well, it was uncovered in a lawsuit by Harold Weisberg, and can be found in his online archives.)

The memo details that Frazier "recalls that on the morning of November 22, when Oswald rode to work in his car, he had something in a brown paper sack, the kind you would obtain in a dime store, specifically that the paper in the sack was of a flimsy, thin consistency. Frazier stated that he could not observe the sack very well since Oswald threw it in the back seat of his car, and upon arriving ...

at work Oswald carried the package in a vertical position under his right arm, appearing to be holding the end of whatever was in the sack, which he recalled was about two feet in length. Mr. Frazier was questioned as to the ends of the sack and if two sacks had been placed together, but he could recall only seeing one sack described above."

Anderton's memo then enters virgin territory: "Mr. Frazier stated that between 11:00 PM and midnight, November 22, 1963, he was in the polygraph room of the Dallas Police Department and before taking the polygraph examination a police officer, name unknown to him, brought in a large paper sack, approximately three to four feet in length and the type a grocery store receives their five-pound bags of sugar in, specifically that the paper in the sack was very thick and stiff. He stated that this sack shown to him appeared to actually have been made by someone cutting down a larger sack. He said he told the police officer that this sack had never been seen by him before. He also said that this sack was definitely not the one he had observed in possession of Oswald the morning of November 22, 1963."

Uh-oh. That sounds pretty definitive. Frazier has drawn a line---the bag shown Frazier was not the bag he saw in Oswald's possession. Period. Now, this is a problem for a couple of reasons. One is that it leaves us at a loss as to how Oswald got the rifle into the building. Second is that the FBI has already determined that Oswald's prints were on the bag sent the FBI. Well, if he didn't carry the bag into the building, how did his prints get on the bag? Was the paper comprising the bag sent the FBI taken from some other source--perhaps some paper Oswald had touched at work, or while in police custody? Or were the prints simply misidentified?

The Dallas Police have come up with their own explanation. Another 11-29-63 memo from Anderton (similarly not sent to Washington, and similarly found in the Weisberg Archives) reveals: ""Lt. Carl Day, Dallas PD Crime Lab, advised that on 11/22/63, he recovered a heavy brown sack appearing to be homemade and appearing to have been folded together at one time. This sack when laid out was about four feet long but when doubled was about two feet long. Lt. Day recalls that on evening of 11/22/63, about 11:30 p.m., one of Captain Fritz's officers requested that he show this thick, brown sack to a man named Frazier. Lt. Day said that Frazier was unable to identify this sack and told him that a sack he observed in possession of Oswald early that morning was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like one purchased in a dime store. Lt. Day stated that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald by dismantling the rifle could have placed it in the thick, brown sack folded over and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack." Anderton then adds: "however, the entire package would have been longer than two feet since the stock of the rifle alone was over two feet."

Curiously, considering Anderton's memo on Frazier was not relayed to headquarters, we discover that the content of Anderton's memo on Day has been immediately relayed to headquarters.

Yes, an 11-29 memo from Inspector J.L. Handley in Dallas to Assistant Director Alex Rosen in Washington relates: "Lieutenant Carl Day, Dallas, Texas, Police Department Crime Laboratory, advised that on November 22, 1963, he recovered a heavy brown sack appearing to be homemade and appearing to have been folded together at one time. This sack when laid out was about four feet long but when doubled was about two feet long. Lt. Day recalls that on the evening of 11-22-63, about 11:30 p.m., one of Capt. Fritz's officers requested that he show this thick, brown sack to a man named Frazier. Lt. Day stated that Frazier was unable to identify this sack and told him that a sack he observed in possession of Oswald early that morning was definitely a thin flimsy sack like one purchased in a dime store. Lt. Day stated that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald by dismantling the rifle could have placed it in the thick, brown sack folded over and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack." This memo then notes: "however, the entire package would have been longer than two feet since the stock of the rifle alone was over two feet." (FBI assassination file 62-109060 section.14 page 123-125)

Hmmm. This shows us that the Dallas police are, at least at this point, ready to accept that the bag found in the sniper's nest was not the bag seen by Frazier or Randle. This in itself is intriguing. Maybe they know something we don't. Such as that the bag--which they did not photograph on the 22nd--was not found in the building at all, but taped together by detectives after they found out Oswald had carried a bag to work that morning...

Something very strange is going on. The next day, we see an 11-30-63 report by Vincent Drain on an interview purportedly conducted with Lt. Day, purportedly the day before, the very day Anderton spoke to Day.

"Lt. Carl Day, Dallas Police Department, stated he found the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case near the scene of the shooting on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He stated the manager, Mr. Truly, saw this bag at the time it was taken into possession by Lt. Day. Truly, according to Day, had not seen this bag before. No one else viewed it. Truly furnished similar brown paper from the roll that was used in packing books by the Texas School Book Depository. This paper was examined by the FBI Laboratory and found not to be identical with the paper gun case found at the scene of the shooting. The Dallas Police have not exhibited this to anyone else. It was immediately locked up by Day, kept in his possession until it was turned over to FBI agent Drain for transmittal to the Laboratory. It was examined by the Laboratory, returned to the Dallas Police Department November 24, 1963, locked up in the Crime Laboratory. This bag was returned to Agent Drain on November 26, 1963, and taken back to the FBI Laboratory.

Lt. Day stated no one has identified this bag to the Dallas Police Department." (CD5, p129).

To our surprise, this report on Drain's interview with Lt. Day from 11-29-63 directly contradicts the previous day's memo on Anderton's 11-29-63 phone call with Lt. Day. It appears that Drain is lying. But why?

The thought occurs that a decision has been made to claim the paper bag was used by Oswald to smuggle the rifle into the building, no matter what Frazier says, and that Drain (and/or Drain's superiors) are attempting to hide that Frazier viewed the bag on the night of the shooting, and insisted it was not the bag he saw in Oswald's possession.

(The FBI would later recognize a mistake in this report and submit a re-written version of this report to both their files and the Warren Commission's files. This mistake was not that the bag was not shown to anyone else, however, but that the "similar brown paper" taken from the depository didn't match the "paper gun case." In 1980, after this switcheroo was discovered by researcher J. Gary Shaw, and discussed in an article by Jack White, for that matter, Dallas newsman Earl Golz contacted Vincent Drain and asked for his response. Author Henry Hurt did so as well. Although Drain acknowledged approving and initialing the second "corrected" version of this report, he told both Golz and Hurt that he was shocked and surprised by the mistake in the original report, and that this report was a "fake" that he had not approved or initialed. Although, unsurprisingly, the FBI maintained that Drain was responsible for the mistake, his claim the original report was a "fake" has some unexpected support. From J. Edgar Hoover, of all people. Although more than a dozen FBI agents, including Drain, received reprimands from the FBI for supposed mistakes regarding Oswald and the assassination, Drain was not reprimanded for writing an incorrect report that, much to the embarrassment of the Bureau, had to be withdrawn and replaced in the files of the Warren Commission. This is hard to fathom, should Drain have truly been responsible.)

Edited December 8, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Huh? Frazier was shown the bag and said it was not the bag Oswald had been carrying that morning. And passed a polygraph when saying so. Much as Brennan's refusing to ID Oswald as the shooter, this was a big problem. So no reports were written on Brennan's refusal to ID Oswald and Frazier's refusal to ID the bag. Can't have those ending up in the hands of a defense attorney, now can we? 

All I know Pat,is I watch videos on Youtube,and on the side,you can watch other sort of related videos.

Well it was around the 22nd of November,and I watched a video on Youtube on my Tv,that had Frazier talking,and that is when I heard him say that about Oswald being outside to his left.I'm almost positive that he said Houston street.

 

*Wait,wait,wait...I can remember recording a 3 part thingy about JFK on the DVR. It was one of those episodes.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Stu Wexler]

I will say this. Harold Weisberg did a lot of shoeleather investigations in this case. He did not just read the WC volumes. He also eschewed speculation as much as anyone. I would love to know where he might be getting this story re an affair.

[Pat Speer]

28 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

All I know Pat,is I watch videos on Youtube,and on the side,you can watch other sort of related videos.

Well it was around the 22nd of November,and I watched a video on Youtube on my Tv,that had Frazier talking,and that is when I heard him say that about Oswald being outside to his left.I'm almost positive that he said Houston street.

 

*Wait,wait,wait...I can remember recording a 3 part thingy about JFK on the DVR. It was one of those episodes.

Frazier has never said he saw Oswald outside before or during the shooting. What he has said for the past ten years or so is that he saw Oswald walk down Houston from behind the building a short time after the shooting. Heck, while I am skeptical about most late-arriving stories, this one might actually be true. If true, it would explain why no one remembered Oswald's walking out the front of the building. 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Frazier has never said he saw Oswald outside before or during the shooting. What he has said for the past ten years or so is that he saw Oswald walk down Houston from behind the building a short time after the shooting. Heck, while I am skeptical about most late-arriving stories, this one might actually be true. If true, it would explain why no one remembered Oswald's walking out the front of the building. 

I'm not here to bullshit anybody.I'm here to discuss the assassination and cover-up.

I don't have a dog in this fight.I checked my darn DVR and all it shows was the last two things I deleted,and those were football games that I deleted (recently deleted)

Frazier said it...I heard it and watched it with my own eyes.