Frazier and Oswald

[Greg Parker]

WHAT THEY HAD FOR LUNCH

Oswald, during interrogation, is said to have claimed that he took a cheese sandwich and apple in a paper bag held beside him or on his lap in the car ride to work. He could not recall the size of the bag, saying he made do with whatever he could find. Note that Mrs Paine would have had no need of keeping lunch bags. She did admit having cheese in her fridge.

Frazier stated in his WC testimony that he had a sandwich and an apple in a paper bag which he had beside him in the car. He also said that Oswald told him he was going to buy his lunch that day. Of the two however, who was more likely to buy lunch... the frugal family man, Oswald, or the the single 19 year old living cheaply with his sister?

WHERE THEY ATE

Oswald, during interrogation, is said to have claimed that he ate alone in the Domino room [per Bookhout report], and that he had seen two Negros come in -- Junior and and a short guy [Fritz' notes and Bookhout report]. Jarman and Norman did re-enter the building at about 12:23.

Frazier stated in his WC testimony that he ate alone in the basement the day of the assassination, commencing about 10 minutes prior to being due back at work. This would put it at 12:35. Admitted that previously, he had only ever eaten in the Domino room.

HOW THEY LEFT

Oswald, during interrogation, is said to have claimed that he went on downstairs (after 2nd floor purchase of coke) to see what all the commotion was about, started to go out of the building, was stopped before getting to the door by an officer and questioned. Truly then intervened, telling the officers [note plural] he was an employee. Oswald was then asked to step aside and told they'd get to him later [per Holmes' testimony]. Similar accounts were published in newspapers across the globe in the immediate aftermath of the assassination stating Oswald was stopped at the front entrance. For example, from the Sydney Morning Herald: "During the frantic search for the President's killer, police were posted at exits to the warehouse.

Police said a man, whom they identified as Oswald, walked through the door of the warehouse and was stopped by a policeman. Oswald told the policeman that 'I work here,' and when another employee confirmed that he did, the policeman let Oswald walk away, they said." CE 1381 has statement after statement of employees detailing being stopped, questioned and cleared by police before being allowed to leave, for example, Sarah Stanton stated, "I left the Depository building about 2:20pm on the afternoon of 11-22-63 after giving the police our names and addresses." [sic], and Roy Edward Lewis claimed he was cleared to leave as early as 1:15. Oswald could not have known officers were stationed on the 1st floor, taking names and addresses unless he was there, or was later told about it. The latter is ludicrous as it would entail the cops providing Oswald with information which went in his favour.

From Frazier's testimony:

Mr. BALL - Had the police officers come in there and talked to you?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; they come in and talked to all of us. They asked us to show our proper identification, and then they had us to write our name down and who to get in touch with if they wanted to see us.

Mr. BALL - Did they ask you where you had been at the time the President passed?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; they had. I told them I was out on the steps there.

Mr. BALL - Asked you who you were with?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I told them and naturally Mr. Shelley and Billy vouched for me and so they didn't think anything about it.

and later:

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe they did, because they, you know, like one man showed us, we had to give proper identification and after we passed him he told us to walk on then to the next man, and we, you know, put down proper information where he could be found if they wanted to see you and talk to you any more, and then we went on up to a little bit more to the front entrance more toward Mr. Shelley's office there with another man and stood there for a little while and told us all that was there could go ahead and go home.

Mr. BALL - Then you went on home?

Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

However, a few months after his WC testimony, Frazier was interviewed by William Manchester. On page 355 of the paper back edition of Death of a President, is this passage: "Wesley Frazier, who had driven Lee Oswald and his rifle into downtown Dallas five hours earlier, calmly polished off his lunch in the Book Depository and then, realising that there could be no further work in the growing turmoil. drove back to Irving

to take the afternoon off". Note that Frazier's statment of 11/22/63 makes no mention of being questioned by police. His first account of that appears to be in his testimony; an account he appears to have forgotten again by the time Manchester interview.

On the other hand, if Oswald was stopped at the front door and questioned in the same manner as all other employees, then it explains perfectly how the cops had the N Beckley address. Oswald gave it to them...

Other things worth thinking about:

Frazier testified that the morning of 11/22/63 was the first time Oswald ever walked ahead of him. This is interpreted as Oswald not wanting Frazier to get too close a look at his package. But that whole scenario can be turned on its head. Could it not have been that Frazier lingered in his car for the first time so that Oswald would not see him carrying a package? Indeed, as is well noted, no one saw Oswald with anything that morning. No one was asked if Frazier was carrying anything... and by his own testimony, he headed straight for the basement to put away his lunch and coat. Did he already know he would be eating in the basement for the first time that day?

Then there is the first report of a rifle found in the TSBD - an Enfield. Frazier own such a rifle. Would an Enfield fit in the bag described by Frazier and his sister? Oswald's ownership of an M-C, on the other hand, is based on circumstantial evidence with key pieces missing - not the least being the receipt for pick up at the PO.

I'd also ask, is there any photographic evidence of Frazier being out front during the assassination? I don't know of any, but am probably not as familiar with the photographic evidence as some...

One thing is certain, Frazier was kept under the hammer all night by the DPD, released, then immediately dragged back for a polygraph. He was in big trouble as a possible co-conspirator or accessory unless he cooperated. And we all know what cooperation with the cops means in Texas.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Greg Parker

[Robert Howard]

WHAT THEY HAD FOR LUNCH

Oswald, during interrogation, is said to have claimed that he took a cheese sandwich and apple in a paper bag held beside him or on his lap in the car ride to work. He could not recall the size of the bag, saying he made do with whatever he could find. Note that Mrs Paine would have had no need of keeping lunch bags. She did admit having cheese in her fridge.

Frazier stated in his WC testimony that he had a sandwich and an apple in a paper bag which he had beside him in the car. He also said that Oswald told him he was going to buy his lunch that day. Of the two however, who was more likely to buy lunch... the frugal family man, Oswald, or the the single 19 year old living cheaply with his sister?

WHERE THEY ATE

Oswald, during interrogation, is said to have claimed that he ate alone in the Domino room [per Bookhout report], and that he had seen two Negros come in -- Junior and and a short guy [Fritz' notes and Bookhout report]. Jarman and Norman did re-enter the building at about 12:23.

Frazier stated in his WC testimony that he ate alone in the basement the day of the assassination, commencing about 10 minutes prior to being due back at work. This would put it at 12:35. Admitted that previously, he had only ever eaten in the Domino room.

HOW THEY LEFT

Oswald, during interrogation, is said to have claimed that he went on downstairs (after 2nd floor purchase of coke) to see what all the commotion was about, started to go out of the building, was stopped before getting to the door by an officer and questioned. Truly then intervened, telling the officers [note plural] he was an employee. Oswald was then asked to step aside and told they'd get to him later [per Holmes' testimony]. Similar accounts were published in newspapers across the globe in the immediate aftermath of the assassination stating Oswald was stopped at the front entrance. For example, from the Sydney Morning Herald: "During the frantic search for the President's killer, police were posted at exits to the warehouse.

Police said a man, whom they identified as Oswald, walked through the door of the warehouse and was stopped by a policeman. Oswald told the policeman that 'I work here,' and when another employee confirmed that he did, the policeman let Oswald walk away, they said." CE 1381 has statement after statement of employees detailing being stopped, questioned and cleared by police before being allowed to leave, for example, Sarah Stanton stated, "I left the Depository building about 2:20pm on the afternoon of 11-22-63 after giving the police our names and addresses." [sic], and Roy Edward Lewis claimed he was cleared to leave as early as 1:15. Oswald could not have known officers were stationed on the 1st floor, taking names and addresses unless he was there, or was later told about it. The latter is ludicrous as it would entail the cops providing Oswald with information which went in his favour.

From Frazier's testimony:

Mr. BALL - Had the police officers come in there and talked to you?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; they come in and talked to all of us. They asked us to show our proper identification, and then they had us to write our name down and who to get in touch with if they wanted to see us.

Mr. BALL - Did they ask you where you had been at the time the President passed?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; they had. I told them I was out on the steps there.

Mr. BALL - Asked you who you were with?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I told them and naturally Mr. Shelley and Billy vouched for me and so they didn't think anything about it.

and later:

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe they did, because they, you know, like one man showed us, we had to give proper identification and after we passed him he told us to walk on then to the next man, and we, you know, put down proper information where he could be found if they wanted to see you and talk to you any more, and then we went on up to a little bit more to the front entrance more toward Mr. Shelley's office there with another man and stood there for a little while and told us all that was there could go ahead and go home.

Mr. BALL - Then you went on home?

Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

However, a few months after his WC testimony, Frazier was interviewed by William Manchester. On page 355 of the paper back edition of Death of a President, is this passage: "Wesley Frazier, who had driven Lee Oswald and his rifle into downtown Dallas five hours earlier, calmly polished off his lunch in the Book Depository and then, realising that there could be no further work in the growing turmoil. drove back to Irving

to take the afternoon off". Note that Frazier's statment of 11/22/63 makes no mention of being questioned by police. His first account of that appears to be in his testimony; an account he appears to have forgotten again by the time Manchester interview.

On the other hand, if Oswald was stopped at the front door and questioned in the same manner as all other employees, then it explains perfectly how the cops had the N Beckley address. Oswald gave it to them...

Other things worth thinking about:

Frazier testified that the morning of 11/22/63 was the first time Oswald ever walked ahead of him. This is interpreted as Oswald not wanting Frazier to get too close a look at his package. But that whole scenario can be turned on its head. Could it not have been that Frazier lingered in his car for the first time so that Oswald would not see him carrying a package? Indeed, as is well noted, no one saw Oswald with anything that morning. No one was asked if Frazier was carrying anything... and by his own testimony, he headed straight for the basement to put away his lunch and coat. Did he already know he would be eating in the basement for the first time that day?

Then there is the first report of a rifle found in the TSBD - an Enfield. Frazier own such a rifle. Would an Enfield fit in the bag described by Frazier and his sister? Oswald's ownership of an M-C, on the other hand, is based on circumstantial evidence with key pieces missing - not the least being the receipt for pick up at the PO.

I'd also ask, is there any photographic evidence of Frazier being out front during the assassination? I don't know of any, but am probably not as familiar with the photographic evidence as some...

One thing is certain, Frazier was kept under the hammer all night by the DPD, released, then immediately dragged back for a polygraph. He was in big trouble as a possible co-conspirator or accessory unless he cooperated. And we all know what cooperation with the cops means in Texas.

One thing is certain, Frazier was kept under the hammer all night by the DPD, released, then immediately dragged back for a polygraph. He was in big trouble as a possible co-conspirator or accessory unless he cooperated. And we all know what cooperation with the cops means in Texas.

I think the last paragraph pretty much sums up the book on Buell Wesley Frazier, From the FWIW Dept, maryferrell.org under Buell Wesley Frazier mentions that he 'possibly handled cartons on the 6th floor,' gee if that were true, Mr. Frazier might have felt some pressure that night that most of us only experience in our nightmare's, can you imagine being told, "Well Mr Frazier, if you don't cooperate you might find yourself......"

See

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...wRec.do?id=3922

Edited June 1, 2006 by Robert Howard

[Chuck Robbins]

WHAT THEY HAD FOR LUNCH

Oswald, during interrogation, is said to have claimed that he took a cheese sandwich and apple in a paper bag held beside him or on his lap in the car ride to work. He could not recall the size of the bag, saying he made do with whatever he could find. Note that Mrs Paine would have had no need of keeping lunch bags. She did admit having cheese in her fridge.

Frazier stated in his WC testimony that he had a sandwich and an apple in a paper bag which he had beside him in the car. He also said that Oswald told him he was going to buy his lunch that day. Of the two however, who was more likely to buy lunch... the frugal family man, Oswald, or the the single 19 year old living cheaply with his sister?

WHERE THEY ATE

Oswald, during interrogation, is said to have claimed that he ate alone in the Domino room [per Bookhout report], and that he had seen two Negros come in -- Junior and and a short guy [Fritz' notes and Bookhout report]. Jarman and Norman did re-enter the building at about 12:23.

Frazier stated in his WC testimony that he ate alone in the basement the day of the assassination, commencing about 10 minutes prior to being due back at work. This would put it at 12:35. Admitted that previously, he had only ever eaten in the Domino room.

HOW THEY LEFT

Oswald, during interrogation, is said to have claimed that he went on downstairs (after 2nd floor purchase of coke) to see what all the commotion was about, started to go out of the building, was stopped before getting to the door by an officer and questioned. Truly then intervened, telling the officers [note plural] he was an employee. Oswald was then asked to step aside and told they'd get to him later [per Holmes' testimony]. Similar accounts were published in newspapers across the globe in the immediate aftermath of the assassination stating Oswald was stopped at the front entrance. For example, from the Sydney Morning Herald: "During the frantic search for the President's killer, police were posted at exits to the warehouse.

Police said a man, whom they identified as Oswald, walked through the door of the warehouse and was stopped by a policeman. Oswald told the policeman that 'I work here,' and when another employee confirmed that he did, the policeman let Oswald walk away, they said." CE 1381 has statement after statement of employees detailing being stopped, questioned and cleared by police before being allowed to leave, for example, Sarah Stanton stated, "I left the Depository building about 2:20pm on the afternoon of 11-22-63 after giving the police our names and addresses." [sic], and Roy Edward Lewis claimed he was cleared to leave as early as 1:15. Oswald could not have known officers were stationed on the 1st floor, taking names and addresses unless he was there, or was later told about it. The latter is ludicrous as it would entail the cops providing Oswald with information which went in his favour.

From Frazier's testimony:

Mr. BALL - Had the police officers come in there and talked to you?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; they come in and talked to all of us. They asked us to show our proper identification, and then they had us to write our name down and who to get in touch with if they wanted to see us.

Mr. BALL - Did they ask you where you had been at the time the President passed?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; they had. I told them I was out on the steps there.

Mr. BALL - Asked you who you were with?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I told them and naturally Mr. Shelley and Billy vouched for me and so they didn't think anything about it.

and later:

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe they did, because they, you know, like one man showed us, we had to give proper identification and after we passed him he told us to walk on then to the next man, and we, you know, put down proper information where he could be found if they wanted to see you and talk to you any more, and then we went on up to a little bit more to the front entrance more toward Mr. Shelley's office there with another man and stood there for a little while and told us all that was there could go ahead and go home.

Mr. BALL - Then you went on home?

Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

However, a few months after his WC testimony, Frazier was interviewed by William Manchester. On page 355 of the paper back edition of Death of a President, is this passage: "Wesley Frazier, who had driven Lee Oswald and his rifle into downtown Dallas five hours earlier, calmly polished off his lunch in the Book Depository and then, realising that there could be no further work in the growing turmoil. drove back to Irving

to take the afternoon off". Note that Frazier's statment of 11/22/63 makes no mention of being questioned by police. His first account of that appears to be in his testimony; an account he appears to have forgotten again by the time Manchester interview.

On the other hand, if Oswald was stopped at the front door and questioned in the same manner as all other employees, then it explains perfectly how the cops had the N Beckley address. Oswald gave it to them...

Other things worth thinking about:

Frazier testified that the morning of 11/22/63 was the first time Oswald ever walked ahead of him. This is interpreted as Oswald not wanting Frazier to get too close a look at his package. But that whole scenario can be turned on its head. Could it not have been that Frazier lingered in his car for the first time so that Oswald would not see him carrying a package? Indeed, as is well noted, no one saw Oswald with anything that morning. No one was asked if Frazier was carrying anything... and by his own testimony, he headed straight for the basement to put away his lunch and coat. Did he already know he would be eating in the basement for the first time that day?

Then there is the first report of a rifle found in the TSBD - an Enfield. Frazier own such a rifle. Would an Enfield fit in the bag described by Frazier and his sister? Oswald's ownership of an M-C, on the other hand, is based on circumstantial evidence with key pieces missing - not the least being the receipt for pick up at the PO.

I'd also ask, is there any photographic evidence of Frazier being out front during the assassination? I don't know of any, but am probably not as familiar with the photographic evidence as some...

One thing is certain, Frazier was kept under the hammer all night by the DPD, released, then immediately dragged back for a polygraph. He was in big trouble as a possible co-conspirator or accessory unless he cooperated. And we all know what cooperation with the cops means in Texas.

Frazier stored his rifle at his Mother's house.

J. E. Hoover told Johnson that the assassin kept his rifle at his Mother's house.

The Enfield, for what it is worth, was known as the fastest bolt-action rifle available in 1963.

Frazier's rifle and ammo were taken by the police.

I gave plenty of reasons in a related post to suspect Frazier was involved.

Including that his sister told the DPD, when they asked where her brother was, that Frazier was at Parkland Hospital visiting their stepfather.

Chuck

[Mark Knight]

DPD and Frazier

Frazier's Statement, p.1

Frazier's statement, p.2

Frazier's Statement, p.3

Frazier's Statement, p.4

Lovelady's Statement...no mention of Frazier

DPD Property Clerk's Receipt for Frazier's rifle

Edited June 1, 2006 by Mark Knight

[Duke Lane]

Frazier stored his rifle at his Mother's house.

J. E. Hoover told Johnson that the assassin kept his rifle at his Mother's house.

The Enfield, for what it is worth, was known as the fastest bolt-action rifle available in 1963.

Frazier's rifle and ammo were taken by the police.

I gave plenty of reasons in a related post to suspect Frazier was involved.

Including that his sister told the DPD, when they asked where her brother was, that Frazier was at Parkland Hospital visiting their stepfather.

Chuck

Regarding the "plenty of reasons in a related post," which is that "related post?" It's not leaping out at me, and none of the keyword searches I've made have turned anything up by you.

As to Hoover's comments, as quoted above and otherwise: having died in 1972, we can now ascertain with reasonable certainty that Hoover was not God. Whence, then, his omniscience?

He "knew" that "three shots were fired" before anyone had investigated the reports of several more, that "it was a Communist" who shot JFK even in the face of LHO's denials and intimations of naming others, before his FBI usurped jurisdiction (well, to be fair, DPD abandoned it), all from 1000+ miles away, how could that have been so? How, then, did he "know" enough to report to LBJ that "the assassin kept his rifle at his mother's house?"

His mother, I recall, was living with him and his sister during that period. I've never been certain if it was a temporary arrangement, if mom and pop had a home of their own elsewhere, as opposed, say, to an apartment that they stopped renting for the duration of dad's illness, and the stay with Linnie Mae was more long-term.

With pop being in the hospital, why is BWF's visiting him a reason to be suspicious? Parkland has literally thousands of beds, so what's significant about the fact that a TSBD employee's father occupied one of them? Clearly, he had to be somewhere if he had to be in a hospital at all, and I'm fairly confident that your not suggesting that pop's ailment was "part of the plot" (e.g., if the bullet didn't kill JFK, pop could always slip into his room and strangle him).

Personally, I've always thought it interesting that LHO was a "lone-nut Communist" while Ruby was a "lone-nut Jew." Unfortunately, I just can't seem to think of anyone that would want to put the heat on both Communists and Jews for killing a Yankee liberal ... at least, not in Dallas in 1963. If I could, it would be that rock that I'd be looking under. The biggest trouble is that your neighbor - or even your parents! - could be among that ilk, and you'd have no way of knowing ....

Got a cite on that comment about Frazier's visiting pop?

[Robert Howard]

Personally, I've always thought it interesting that LHO was a "lone-nut Communist" while Ruby was a "lone-nut Jew." Unfortunately, I just can't seem to think of anyone that would want to put the heat on both Communists and Jews for killing a Yankee liberal ... at least, not in Dallas in 1963. If I could, it would be that rock that I'd be looking under. The biggest trouble is that your neighbor - or even your parents! - could be among that ilk, and you'd have no way of knowing ....

If the subject matter were anything other than Dallas - November 22, 1963 I would totally agree, but we are dealing with subject matter where conventionality pretty much doesent exist. Which, in turn get's back to a perception that I am starting to see validated, which is - from 11/22/63 to the present day, one can make the argument that it all [the open conspiracy versus mass perception] Some of the biggest names associated with the era - LBJ, RFK, Bertrand Russell, Nixon - [The Warren Report was the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on the American people] all stated their belief that Dallas was a conspiracy. It was the mass media that propagandized the masses, [Dan Rather's contribution consisted of decieving millions about what the Zapruder film showed, until it was finally seen over a decade later on ABC's Goodnight America with Robert Groden and Dick Gregory and an uncorrupted? [at that time?] Geraldo Rivera. It was the same dynamic that was used in an attempt to neutralize Garrison via the NBC White Paper, and Mellen's well documented re-construct of RFK pal Walter Sheridan, he of NSA et al, making Garrison appear to be a psycho, [see current thread re same with ridiculous title on Forum] it all seems to have gone full circle to me when you consider the Kirknewton intercepts 'NSA Angle' to the myriad document's still classified [so much for the JFK Record's Act and accompanying charade didn't produce the Paine's when Ruth was seeking info on LHO as far back as 1957] Isn't it ironic that the dominant news story in late May 2006 concerns 'spinning' NSA wiretaps, the only party which maintains that American's 'are not concerned' about the same issue is the same media we all ostensibly depend on to get the facts. I personally don't buy it, but outside the Forum I would be categorized as a conspiracy theorist, even though my views are in alignment with, what a lot of the 'mover's and shaker's' in 1963 intimated [at least eventually] was the truth to begin with.

[Antti Hynonen]

Duke Lane Posted Today, 06:33 AM

QUOTE(Chuck Robbins @ Jun 1 2006, 12:09 AM)

Frazier stored his rifle at his Mother's house.

J. E. Hoover told Johnson that the assassin kept his rifle at his Mother's house.

The Enfield, for what it is worth, was known as the fastest bolt-action rifle available in 1963.

Frazier's rifle and ammo were taken by the police.

I gave plenty of reasons in a related post to suspect Frazier was involved.

Including that his sister told the DPD, when they asked where her brother was, that Frazier was at Parkland Hospital visiting their stepfather.

Chuck

Regarding the "plenty of reasons in a related post," which is that "related post?" It's not leaping out at me, and none of the keyword searches I've made have turned anything up by you.

As to Hoover's comments, as quoted above and otherwise: having died in 1972, we can now ascertain with reasonable certainty that Hoover was not God. Whence, then, his omniscience?

He "knew" that "three shots were fired" before anyone had investigated the reports of several more, that "it was a Communist" who shot JFK even in the face of LHO's denials and intimations of naming others, before his FBI usurped jurisdiction (well, to be fair, DPD abandoned it), all from 1000+ miles away, how could that have been so? How, then, did he "know" enough to report to LBJ that "the assassin kept his rifle at his mother's house?"

His mother, I recall, was living with him and his sister during that period. I've never been certain if it was a temporary arrangement, if mom and pop had a home of their own elsewhere, as opposed, say, to an apartment that they stopped renting for the duration of dad's illness, and the stay with Linnie Mae was more long-term.

With pop being in the hospital, why is BWF's visiting him a reason to be suspicious? Parkland has literally thousands of beds, so what's significant about the fact that a TSBD employee's father occupied one of them? Clearly, he had to be somewhere if he had to be in a hospital at all, and I'm fairly confident that your not suggesting that pop's ailment was "part of the plot" (e.g., if the bullet didn't kill JFK, pop could always slip into his room and strangle him).

Personally, I've always thought it interesting that LHO was a "lone-nut Communist" while Ruby was a "lone-nut Jew." Unfortunately, I just can't seem to think of anyone that would want to put the heat on both Communists and Jews for killing a Yankee liberal ... at least, not in Dallas in 1963. If I could, it would be that rock that I'd be looking under. The biggest trouble is that your neighbor - or even your parents! - could be among that ilk, and you'd have no way of knowing ....

Got a cite on that comment about Frazier's visiting pop?

Parkland was a wild goose chase.

Pop was at another Dallas area clinic, of which I do not recall the name.

[Chuck Robbins]

Frazier stored his rifle at his Mother's house.

J. E. Hoover told Johnson that the assassin kept his rifle at his Mother's house.

The Enfield, for what it is worth, was known as the fastest bolt-action rifle available in 1963.

Frazier's rifle and ammo were taken by the police.

I gave plenty of reasons in a related post to suspect Frazier was involved.

Including that his sister told the DPD, when they asked where her brother was, that Frazier was at Parkland Hospital visiting their stepfather.

Chuck

Regarding the "plenty of reasons in a related post," which is that "related post?" It's not leaping out at me, and none of the keyword searches I've made have turned anything up by you.

As to Hoover's comments, as quoted above and otherwise: having died in 1972, we can now ascertain with reasonable certainty that Hoover was not God. Whence, then, his omniscience?

He "knew" that "three shots were fired" before anyone had investigated the reports of several more, that "it was a Communist" who shot JFK even in the face of LHO's denials and intimations of naming others, before his FBI usurped jurisdiction (well, to be fair, DPD abandoned it), all from 1000+ miles away, how could that have been so? How, then, did he "know" enough to report to LBJ that "the assassin kept his rifle at his mother's house?"

His mother, I recall, was living with him and his sister during that period. I've never been certain if it was a temporary arrangement, if mom and pop had a home of their own elsewhere, as opposed, say, to an apartment that they stopped renting for the duration of dad's illness, and the stay with Linnie Mae was more long-term.

With pop being in the hospital, why is BWF's visiting him a reason to be suspicious? Parkland has literally thousands of beds, so what's significant about the fact that a TSBD employee's father occupied one of them? Clearly, he had to be somewhere if he had to be in a hospital at all, and I'm fairly confident that your not suggesting that pop's ailment was "part of the plot" (e.g., if the bullet didn't kill JFK, pop could always slip into his room and strangle him).

Personally, I've always thought it interesting that LHO was a "lone-nut Communist" while Ruby was a "lone-nut Jew." Unfortunately, I just can't seem to think of anyone that would want to put the heat on both Communists and Jews for killing a Yankee liberal ... at least, not in Dallas in 1963. If I could, it would be that rock that I'd be looking under. The biggest trouble is that your neighbor - or even your parents! - could be among that ilk, and you'd have no way of knowing ....

Got a cite on that comment about Frazier's visiting pop?

I thought twice about what I was posting in response to Duke Lane.

I decided there was no need to be argumentative. I am not going to try to convince Duke of anything.

What follows is my revised reply.

Duke, I am confident that you are capable of finding the report from the DPD regarding their interview of Linnie Mae and Wesley.

You know where the DPD webpage is with the thousands of papers, right?

Find it, I did.

Chuck

Edited June 1, 2006 by Chuck Robbins

[Mark Knight]

Hey, Duke:

If you'd have checked the links in my post above, you'd have known about BWF and Parkland/NOT Parkland.

Read The Document, Duke

Hope this helps clear THAT matter up.

Y'know, I posted those links so you folks could read the documents; it wasn't an attempt merely to show that I could cut and paste links. Sorry you didn't see it as having anything valuable to offer to the discussion. I'll refrain hereafter from such misguided attempts at clarifying things, as apparently such efforts are a waste of time.

[Duke Lane]

I suggest that you stop poo-pooing something you obviously know nothing about.

I did mention that his sister made that statement. You don't know how to verify that for yourself? Most of this information I post here is from memory.

I'd suggest putting away your attitude, it doesn't befit you well and does not lead toward reasonable discussion. I only noticed question marks in my note, so why would you think they are anything other than questions? Are you used to being ridiculed, is that the problem? Believe me, if I wanted to pooh-pooh something, I would and could do it a whole lot more effectively than my earlier post, if that was what it had been intended to do. It wasn't.

Since you are posting from memory, why am I supposed to be confident that your memory is absolutely accurate? If it is wrong, am I supposed to keep searching and searching until I (don't) find what you're referring to? You are the one who made the statement, and it is your responsibility to back it up when asked rather than sending someone off on what, for all anyone knows, could be a wild goose chase.

If your memory is so accurate, am I being presumptious to think that you might also remember where you read what you cite? If so, it is common courtesy to point someone to a particular location instead of telling them to look through everything they can find until they locate what you're referring to ... if it even exists!

I often post from memory myself and occasionally misremember something; I imagine you could possibly be as fallable as I am. Unless, of course, maybe you're J. Edgar Hoover?

In this case, there are so many details that nobody could possibly know each and every one of them. I think I know as much as most people and more than some. If you know more, please shower me with your pearls of wisdom instead of raining down your disdain. I'd like to think I'd extend you the same courtesy ... even if only to show off my knowledge and prove I'm not just talking through my hat!

I had to look this information up once already to have it committed to memory. I suggest you spend more time reading the thousands of pages that I have had to, then perhaps, you wouldn't need to ask me to cite something for you.

Forgive me, I'm new to this. There are thousands of pages to read? Ah, no wonder it's so difficult to provide a citation! You're right: if I'd read all that you have, then I'd probably know exactly where to look!

Regarding the "plenty of reasons in a related post," which is that "related post?" It's not leaping out at me, and none of the keyword searches I've made have turned anything up by you.

Again, can you steer me toward this "related post," or do I have to search the entire forum?

As to Hoover's comments, as quoted above and otherwise: having died in 1972, we can now ascertain with reasonable certainty that Hoover was not God. Whence, then, his omniscience?

He "knew" that "three shots were fired" before anyone had investigated the reports of several more, that "it was a Communist" who shot JFK even in the face of LHO's denials and intimations of naming others, before his FBI usurped jurisdiction (well, to be fair, DPD abandoned it), all from 1000+ miles away, how could that have been so? How, then, did he "know" enough to report to LBJ that "the assassin kept his rifle at his mother's house?"

Hoover seemed to know the scenario which was layed out before the event played out. Just because he is dead now does not mean that we should forget the content of his earlier statements and recorded conversations.

I think that the former was my point, and I never suggested any different than the latter.

Regardless of what you say, Oswald, who did not have a rifle at his mother's house, (or anywhere else as far as I'm concerned) could not have been the person Hoover was speaking of. Hoover also said that it was a woman named a. hidell who got the rifle through the mail.

I am searching my post and don't find where I "said" any such thing. Please try to refrain from putting words in my mouth (or keyboard, as the case may be).

Uh, because his father wasn't in Parkland hospital?

Yes, that might explain it. Now, then, what is so significant in your mind about Linnie Mae saying "Parkland" instead of naming the hospital or clinic where he actually was? Why in your opinion was it a "wild goose chase" and not just a simple misstatement? Why would anyone have "chased" the "fact" of Pop being in Parkland versus anywhere else?

[Chuck Robbins]

To all,

I apologize for the hatchet job I did on this post. I still don't quite know how to quote properly. Bear with me and I will work on improving my editing and posting.

Duke,

That post was up for a total of perhaps 5 minutes before i edited it down.

I guess you managed to get ahold of it before I had removed what I agree was unnecessarily antagonistic.

My apologies for that.

Now, you make the statement about me being used to being ridiculed, correct? So, according to you, you were ridiculing me. Perhaps I should have left my post intact after all.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxx

I suggest that you stop poo-pooing something you obviously know nothing about.

I did mention that his sister made that statement. You don't know how to verify that for yourself? Most of this information I post here is from memory.

I'd suggest putting away your attitude, it doesn't befit you well and does not lead toward reasonable discussion. I only noticed question marks in my note, so why would you think they are anything other than questions? Are you used to being ridiculed, is that the problem? Believe me, if I wanted to pooh-pooh something, I would and could do it a whole lot more effectively than my earlier post, if that was what it had been intended to do. It wasn't.

Since you are posting from memory, why am I supposed to be confident that your memory is absolutely accurate? If it is wrong, am I supposed to keep searching and searching until I (don't) find what you're referring to? You are the one who made the statement, and it is your responsibility to back it up when asked rather than sending someone off on what, for all anyone knows, could be a wild goose chase.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxx

Did you leave the part of the post intact where I pointed out the effort Mark had put into pasting links to the documents in question? Don't pretend that you had not been given the information asked for, O.K.?

Did you quote where I also thanked Mark for his efforts? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If your memory is so accurate, am I being presumptious to think that you might also remember where you read what you cite? If so, it is common courtesy to point someone to a particular location instead of telling them to look through everything they can find until they locate what you're referring to ... if it even exists!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I repeat, you WERE provided the links, if you had taken the time to review the post in toto. I don't have to prove to you that anything exists. I won't waste my time with your baiting any longer.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I often post from memory myself and occasionally misremember something; I imagine you could possibly be as fallable as I am. Unless, of course, maybe you're J. Edgar Hoover?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

No, I'm as fallable as the next guy, however, I tell people up front when I am running from memory.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxx

In this case, there are so many details that nobody could possibly know each and every one of them. I think I know as much as most people and more than some. If you know more, please shower me with your pearls of wisdom instead of raining down your disdain. I'd like to think I'd extend you the same courtesy ... even if only to show off my knowledge and prove I'm not just talking through my hat!

I had to look this information up once already to have it committed to memory. I suggest you spend more time reading the thousands of pages that I have had to, then perhaps, you wouldn't need to ask me to cite something for you.

Forgive me, I'm new to this. There are thousands of pages to read? Ah, no wonder it's so difficult to provide a citation! You're right: if I'd read all that you have, then I'd probably know exactly where to look!

Regarding the "plenty of reasons in a related post," which is that "related post?" It's not leaping out at me, and none of the keyword searches I've made have turned anything up by you.

Again, can you steer me toward this "related post," or do I have to search the entire forum?

As to Hoover's comments, as quoted above and otherwise: having died in 1972, we can now ascertain with reasonable certainty that Hoover was not God. Whence, then, his omniscience?

He "knew" that "three shots were fired" before anyone had investigated the reports of several more, that "it was a Communist" who shot JFK even in the face of LHO's denials and intimations of naming others, before his FBI usurped jurisdiction (well, to be fair, DPD abandoned it), all from 1000+ miles away, how could that have been so? How, then, did he "know" enough to report to LBJ that "the assassin kept his rifle at his mother's house?"

Hoover seemed to know the scenario which was layed out before the event played out. Just because he is dead now does not mean that we should forget the content of his earlier statements and recorded conversations.

I think that the former was my point, and I never suggested any different than the latter.

Regardless of what you say, Oswald, who did not have a rifle at his mother's house, (or anywhere else as far as I'm concerned) could not have been the person Hoover was speaking of. Hoover also said that it was a woman named a. hidell who got the rifle through the mail.

I am searching my post and don't find where I "said" any such thing. Please try to refrain from putting words in my mouth (or keyboard, as the case may be).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxx

You sure toss your opinions around as if they were fact.

Are you suggesting that Hoover pulled his data from "his hat"? It would be nice if he had cited the sources of his information, but, seeing as he was the director of the FBI, I believe his sources had to be somewhat reliable.

The point here is that you were, in my mind anyway, trying to minimalize the evidence, that Hoover provided, that the assassin stored the rifle at his mother's house.

The point I was making was that Oswald was not that person. Then you stated Hoover could not be relied upon, ergo, his statement about the assassin, even though obviously not Oswald, could be ignored. Words to that effect, anyway.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxx

Uh, because his father wasn't in Parkland hospital?

Yes, that might explain it. Now, then, what is so significant in your mind about Linnie Mae saying "Parkland" instead of naming the hospital or clinic where he actually was? Why in your opinion was it a "wild goose chase" and not just a simple misstatement? Why would anyone have "chased" the "fact" of Pop being in Parkland versus anywhere else?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxx

I never said it was a wild goose chase. That was another post made by another forum member. Take your own advice about putting words in another's mouth?

What makes you think Linnie Mae actually did make a mistake? I believe the story was changed so that Frazier could not be placed at Parkland. His father was not there, so, I ask, why was he there? Is that a little more clear?

I tried to be civil with you, Duke.

Even after i edited that post, in an attempt to prevent just this sort of exchange, you had to post it and stir the pot. I truly did try to make the best of a somewhat negative situation.

At this point, it would be in both of our best interests if we just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I am pretty sure nothing I have to say is of interest to you.

I am absolutely sure that what you have to say is of no interest to me.

Good day, sir.

Chuck

Edited June 1, 2006 by Chuck Robbins

[Chuck Robbins]

double posted for some reason.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Chuck Robbins

[Duke Lane]

Chuck & Mark,

All right, I'm backing off here, starting over. In my defense, I did not see your edited post until well after I'd replied to the original one, that is, until about 3:30 p.m. today, Thursday, June 1. The reply window was probably on my screen for several hours as I went between it and other things that I was doing.

As to the links, I didn't make the linkage between "DPD and Frazier" and a series of "Frazier's Statement" links with what Linnie Mae had to say to anyone.

I think, in retrospect, that it would have been much easier to say "see Mark's links for the info" rather than just telling me to "go look it up" without at least an indication of where to start, or telling me to "spend more time reading the thousands of pages like [you] had to."

You were right: your original post was antagonistic. I was antagonized, and responded in kind. I can't help the timing between my reading it and your editing it; we were probably in edit mode at the same time.

I glanced at a couple of the links - mostly "Frazier's Statement to DPD" pages - but did not happen to click the one about "DPD and Frazier," simply because I was looking for information about "DPD and Randle."

In any case, my apologies as well to both of you. Let's get past this and move on, shall we? I was asking what I thought were legitimate questions; I was NOT trying to clone alt.conspiracy.jfk onto this forum, as I've apparently succeeded in doing ... and for that, I apologize to John Simpkin and everyone else in the known world!!

I'll respond/inquire on the other points in a separate post. Right now, I've got to figure out why one of my computers isn't working ... and will probably end up trying to do two things at once again! More later ....

[Duke Lane]

To all,

I apologize for the hatchet job I did on this post. I still don't quite know how to quote properly. Bear with me and I will work on improving my editing and posting.

Just cuz I'm really a nice guy (believe it or not!), when I get back from my trip over the weekend, I'll send you an email that might help.

As to Hoover's comments, as quoted above and otherwise: having died in 1972, we can now ascertain with reasonable certainty that Hoover was not God. Whence, then, his omniscience?

He "knew" that "three shots were fired" before anyone had investigated the reports of several more, that "it was a Communist" who shot JFK even in the face of LHO's denials and intimations of naming others, before his FBI usurped jurisdiction (well, to be fair, DPD abandoned it), all from 1000+ miles away, how could that have been so? How, then, did he "know" enough to report to LBJ that "the assassin kept his rifle at his mother's house?"

Hoover seemed to know the scenario which was layed out before the event played out. ... Regardless of what you say, Oswald, who did not have a rifle at his mother's house, (or anywhere else as far as I'm concerned) could not have been the person Hoover was speaking of. Hoover also said that it was a woman named a. hidell who got the rifle through the mail. ... Are you suggesting that Hoover pulled his data from "his hat"? It would be nice if he had cited the sources of his information, but, seeing as he was the director of the FBI, I believe his sources had to be somewhat reliable. The point here is that you were, in my mind anyway, trying to minimalize the evidence, that Hoover provided, that the assassin stored the rifle at his mother's house. The point I was making was that Oswald was not that person. Then you stated Hoover could not be relied upon, ergo, his statement about the assassin, even though obviously not Oswald, could be ignored. Words to that effect, anyway.

The point that I was trying to make - and apparently failed at - is that JEH was too informed, and many of the statements he'd made could even be construed to suggest that he just hadn't gotten the story completely straight yet. After all, he was 68 years old at the time (born in 1895, as I recall).

"America's top cop" had solved the whole crime from his office within a matter of hours. Yes, he had sources - FBI agents - in Dallas, but even they could not have known all the facts so quickly. One example is the number and direction of the shots: there were people reporting as many as six, making claims of bullets striking the pavement, there were cracks and holes in the limo windshield (that was quickly flown out of town, so who's going to say which Dallas agent(s) did or didn't see them?), people claiming to have seen men with guns in the WEST window, seen smoke from the grassy knoll, etc., etc.

Yet, given this information, JEH apparently decided - without having heard anything in Dealey Plaza himself (nor did but a couple of his agents) - that there were ONLY three shots, they only came from ONE direction, that TWO hit Kennedy and ONE hit Connally (oops!), and the ONLY person involved - who not only denied shooting anyone, but also hinted at others' involvement - was "a Communist" (JEH's favorite bogeyman!).

Were his sources reliable? I'd have to say 'yes' ... because they probably knew beforehand how this was going to go down. JEH had all the "facts," he just hadn't internalized them yet and misspoke a few of them, got his perps mixed up and other assorted slips that - had he been anyone else - probably would have landed him on the "prime suspects" list.

Was the actual fact that JEH "knew" that the rifle was kept at the house where his wife was staying, and he merely made a slip? A woman is a woman, after all: mother, wife, protector of wife (mother-figure), sister ...? Who knows?

What makes you think Linnie Mae actually did make a mistake? I believe the story was changed so that Frazier could not be placed at Parkland. His father was not there, so, I ask, why was he there? Is that a little more clear?

Reading the supplemental report, it says that LMR told Stovall that BWF was at Parkland visiting Pop. He and Rose checked with Parkland and found that pops wasn't there, so they apparently started calling around and "finally located Dave Williams [the step-father] at Irving Professional Center" (IPC) at Irving, one town to the southwest. They called Irving PD (IPD) and one of their detectives (McCabe) apparently drove over there, found Frazier and brought him back to IPD, whereupon McCabe called Rose & Stovall to say that he had BWF in custody.

Here's what I get out of that:

There is no indication of how much time elapsed between their getting LMR's info and finally locating pops somewhere else, nor how long it took it took McCabe to get there, locate BWF (presumably with pops) and bring him back to the station. Since the report doesn't give the address of IPC, and there is no phone listing for them today, I can't begin to guesstimate even how far IPC was from IPD.

So one of three things seems apparent at this point: either (1) LMR made a mistake (this was the afternoon of 11/22, and the news reports were full of "Parkland," so it would almost seem natural that she'd just say that without thinking); (2) LMR told R&S that pops was at "the hospital" and THEY assumed that it meant Parkland for very similar reasons as above; meaning in either case that BWF was never at Parkland to begin with, or else (3) BWF was at Parkland and LMR somehow managed to get ahold of him there (but not through the extension in pops' room, which wasn't there) quickly enough that BWF had time to get over to IPC before McCabe arrived in search of him.

Regardless of where IPC was, you can reach most places in Irving from others within about 10 mins, especially if you're a cop with the lights flashing (and presuming the siren - if IPD even had them; Fort Worth did not - was not going). The phone call was instantaneous, and presumably McCabe bolted out the door and hurried - Code 2 or 3 - over to IPC to nab BWF.

I don't know how many hospitals were operating around the area back then, but even today I can't imagine that it would take two cops working the phones more than an hour to call the main desk of each of them - working their way out from where the subject lived - much more than an hour, maybe two, to find out where pops really was.

Even still, that doesn't leave a lot of time for LMR to get in contact with her brother in an era before cell phones, or for BWF with certainty to contact his sister (unless they were on a coordinated call-home-for-updates schedule, like "call every 30 minutes"), and since pops wasn't at Parkland, she couldn't have called her brother in pops' room there, so how did he know to hurry on up over to IPC before IPD got there?

If LMR sent them on a "wild goose chase" (as Antti suggested), she must have known that the cops would eventually try to track him down at Parkland, not find pops registered there, and eventually get wise to the fact that he was somewhere else, and either get there themselves or send someone over in their stead (she may not have been wise to jurisdictional issues ... and is it in any way significant or meaningful that R&S did not rush over to IPC at the same time as IPD was going there instead of waiting to hear back from McCabe before leaving DPD? After all, it was only important that IPD was there, not that they were there alone, with plenty of time to figure out what room pops was in, transport BWF back to IPD HQ, etc.). Otherwise, why send 'em on a wild goose chase in the first place?

According to Yahoo maps, it takes (only?) about 15-20 minutes to drive from the center of Irving (825 W Irving Blvd, where city hall is located today) the 10.5 miles to downtown Dallas (the geographical center of Dallas is not many blocks from Dealey Plaza or the old City Hall), so they could have left to go there right after they'd contacted McCabe. If so, they'd have been there probably pretty close to the time McCabe had found pops' room with BWF in it. Instead, they waited until McCabe called back with BWF already in custody, and then drove the 15 minutes out to IPD (I'm presuming they knew exactly where it was and didn't drive around looking for it).

Then, they went back to IPC and searched BWF's car, finding nothing of import. If they'd gone out there in the first place, they'd have saved at least 30 minutes (time for McCabe to get back to his car with BWF, drive back to IPD, put BWF in lockup -?- and call R&S back with the news, plus the time to get BWF back out of lockup and drive back to IPC). After five - ten? fifteen? - minutes of searching the car, they then went over to LMR's house and ...

Wait! I was going to say "search it," but they only stated one reason for having gone there (even if there were others), and that was to have BWF show them "where he kept his .303 cal rifle & box of ammo." Leaving aside the fact that this was at his own house - actually, his sister's - where mom was but staying while pops was in the hospital, that is, that BWF did not "store his rifle at his mother's house," one now has to wonder why they were in search of BWF in the first place, and the answer seems to be to check out his rifle. Who told them about the rifle, or did they have some other reason for thinking he had one? Interesting ....

In any case, they then waited (?) for LMR to come home ("to the location," the address which coincided with her own address) and then took them to the Homicide Bureau where they took their statements before bringing them back home (no mention of how Buell got his car back to the house).

Any idea offhand of what time they took the pair's affidavits? My guess is that it wasn't but two, three or four hours after they'd called LMR to ask about bro, during which a fair shake of things transpired, further limiting the time that they spent on a "wild goose chase," and lacking a need to send them on one, why would LMR lie about her brother's whereabouts? It minimizes the time available, also, for her to reach him and for him to scurry out to IPC before McCabe got there.

So, as to the question:

I believe the story was changed so that Frazier could not be placed at Parkland. His father was not there, so, I ask, why was he there?

... I think this goes a long way in suggesting that BWF was not at Parkland but was always at IPC with pops, if only because he'd have had a difficult-as-hell time getting to IPC before the cops showed up ... which, if he was up to no good, actually happened probably long before anyone would have suspected that they would glom onto the ruse and manage to track down pops' real location.

Why would anyone - especially the cops - "change the story so that Frazier could not be placed at Parkland?" Why would him not being there be important, and if he was there, why would he have been? Outside of (R&S' understand of?) LMR's saying her brother was at Parkland, what else suggests he might have been to make you question why he was there?

I'm not being obtuse, I'm only trying to figure out the motivations for all of this. It is not making sense to me.

I am also going to check for any new posts or edits before I post this ... which, incidentally, has taken me until 7:10 to put together, so a lot could have happened, eh?

Nope, didn't see any, so here goes ...!

[Greg Parker]

O what fun you miss living in a different time zone!

Personally, I've always thought it interesting that LHO was a "lone-nut Communist" while Ruby was a "lone-nut Jew." Unfortunately, I just can't seem to think of anyone that would want to put the heat on both Communists and Jews for killing a Yankee liberal ...

DL

Duke, please see Walker Letter writing Campaign thread for the answer.

Hoover was speaking of. Hoover also said that it was a woman named a. hidell who got the rifle through the mail.

CR

This was probably a reference to Anna Hidell said in Col Jones testimony to be a typographical error in a DPD report in his talks with them concerning MI Hidell/Oswald file.

Edited June 2, 2006 by Greg Parker