A... strange Harold Weisberg clip.

[Michael Crane]

Yes Pat, I do remember now that Frazier said that it was after the shooting that he seen Oswald.

I had to re-read what you said.

[Pat Speer]

33 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

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.

I believe that he said he saw Oswald to his left. Frazier claims that while he was standing on the front steps after the shooting he saw Oswald walk by on Houston Street, which was to Frazier's left. He says that Oswald then crossed the street. 

But I thought you were saying he said he saw Oswald to his left...during the shooting...when he has said no such thing. I have spent time with Frazier at conferences, and he is regularly badgered by "Prayer Man" enthusiasts who demand to know why he won't admit Lee was on the steps, etc. And I have talked with him afterwards. He believes there was a conspiracy. He believes Oswald was innocent. But he maintains that he did not see Oswald on the steps during the shooting. 

[Pat Speer]

47 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Yes Pat, I do remember now that Frazier said that it was after the shooting that he seen Oswald.

I had to re-read what you said.

Ok, all is well. I was beginning to wonder if Frazier had pulled a massive switcheroo and no one noticed. 

[Alan Ford]

18 hours ago, Miles Massicotte said:

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. 

That would be kind of ironic, given that Mr. Frazier was asked by an FBI agent that evening whether there was any homosexual element to Mr. Oswald's friendship with him.

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Alan Ford said:

That would be kind of ironic, given that Mr. Frazier was asked by an FBI agent that evening whether there was any homosexual element to Mr. Oswald's friendship with him.

Is there a source for that?

[Denis Morissette]

The polygraph seems to be nowhere to be found. Maybe a policeman kept it as a souvenir. I’ll send a letter to former DPD Lt. Paul McCaghren who is the most knowledgeable ex-Dallas police officer alive. Det Elmer Boyd may know, but he was too fragile when I called him 2 weeks ago. 60 years after the events is a bit late…

[Miles Massicotte]

Bart Kamp has a collection of documents on the lost polygraph on his website: http://www.prayer-man.com/buell-wesley-fraziers-polygraph/

There is also a good discussion on the ROKC forum about it: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1371-frazier-and-his-polygraph-test

[Alan Ford]

8 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Is there a source for that?

[Gerry Down]

2 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Thanks, hadn't seen that before.

[Gerry Down]

3 hours ago, Miles Massicotte said:

Bart Kamp has a collection of documents on the lost polygraph on his website: http://www.prayer-man.com/buell-wesley-fraziers-polygraph/

There is also a good discussion on the ROKC forum about it: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1371-frazier-and-his-polygraph-test

Thanks for these links. 

[Gerry Down]

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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.)

Thanks for this useful info. I always thought the Frazier polygraph was just a rumour but it looks like it did indeed happen. It's a pity Will Fritz was not asked about this during his WC testimony. But maybe the WC didn't want to go there.

[Alan Ford]

7 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Thanks for this useful info. I always thought the Frazier polygraph was just a rumour but it looks like it did indeed happen. It's a pity Will Fritz was not asked about this during his WC testimony. But maybe the WC didn't want to go there.

I doubt the paper bag issue was the reason why the polygraph results were deep-sixed. Mr. Frazier's firm recollection that the bag he saw Mr. Oswald carry was not the long paper sack was after all allowed to go on the record elsewhere. A 'truthful' result to polygraph questions about the bag could still be explained away as 'His honest subjective memory must be off' (which of course became the WC conclusion on the matter).

No, I think there was something else covered in that polygraph test, and I suspect that something would explain why Mr. Frazier became a person of major interest all of a sudden, to the point where his car was searched in the hospital parking lot even before he was arrested.

Was it perhaps something Mr. Oswald had said in interrogation? 

[Greg Doudna]

17 hours ago, Stu Wexler said:

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.

It would be a plausible fishing question by police in a questioning or polygraph on other matters, though if so the expected and accurate answer from Buell would have been no, not yes. 

I listened to Weisberg’s answer several times to make sure Weisberg said “he said he had” not “hadn’t” but it seems Weisberg said as reported. 

Weisberg’s source may have been one of the officers who knew of the polygraph either directly or indirectly. But could police gossip get that mistaken that badly.

Maybe this wasn’t a case of a police source got it that wrong by mistake? Suppose Weisberg learned there was a polygraph of Frazier, which concerned something DPD preferred not to disclose. Weisberg asks his police source and is given back a bullshit answer which he believed, as to what the polygraph was about. In this scenario either Frazier was not asked that question or if he was Weisberg’s DPD source misled Weisberg as to the answer and the claim that that was the purpose of the polygraph.

It already is clear there was some kind of concealment or deflection going on re that Frazier polygraph. An intentionally misleading answer to Weisberg would be consistent with that? 

[Alan Ford]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

It would be a plausible fishing question by police in a questioning or polygraph on other matters, though if so the expected and accurate answer from Buell would have been no, not yes. 

I listened to Weisberg’s answer several times to make sure Weisberg said “he said he had” not “hadn’t” but it seems Weisberg said as reported. 

Weisberg’s source may have been one of the officers who knew of the polygraph either directly or indirectly. But could police gossip get that mistaken that badly.

Maybe this wasn’t a case of a police source got it that wrong by mistake? Suppose Weisberg learned there was a polygraph of Frazier, which concerned something DPD preferred not to disclose. Weisberg asks his police source and is given back a bullshit answer which he believed, as to what the polygraph was about. In this scenario either Frazier was not asked that question or if he was Weisberg’s DPD source misled Weisberg as to the answer and the claim that that was the purpose of the polygraph.

It already is clear there was some kind of concealment or deflection going on re that Frazier polygraph. An intentionally misleading answer to Weisberg would be consistent with that? 

Mr. Frazier's ever-evolving account of his movements after leaving the Depository is a major red flag. Once again, I would not rule him out as Mr. Oswald's ride away from Dealey Plaza after the assassination. If he did indeed drive Mr. Oswald, then presumably their movements would have ruled out Mr. Oswald for the Tippit shooting----------good reason to deep-six the polygraph results.

[Pat Speer]

4 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Mr. Frazier's ever-evolving account of his movements after leaving the Depository is a major red flag. Once again, I would not rule him out as Mr. Oswald's ride away from Dealey Plaza after the assassination. If he did indeed drive Mr. Oswald, then presumably their movements would have ruled out Mr. Oswald for the Tippit shooting----------good reason to deep-six the polygraph results.

What?? Frazier remained in the building for some time after the shooting. He was not listed as missing when they did the "roll call". It's astonishing to think you believe he drove Oswald away from Dealey Plaza. He was a 19 year-old kid, for crying out loud. Not some secret agent or militia type.