Home
Portal
Events
ROKC Wiki
Gallery
Search
Register
Log in
StanDane- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71 
Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Thu 11 Aug 2016, 6:23 pm
First topic message reminder :
This is full rebuild of the hugely popular thread created by Mick Purdy at the Webs forum in February 2015. – Stan
Mick Purdy
I believe Buell Wesley Frazier lied about seeing Lee Oswald with a package, a package two feet long on the morning of Friday November 22nd 1963.
I believe Linnie Mae Randle lied about seeing Oswald with a package, a package 27 inches long on the Morning of 22nd Nov 1963.
I believe both Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Wesley Frazier fabricated the curtain rod story.
I think there is ample evidence in their WC testimonies, affidavits and FBI interviews to support each of these contentions.
I have also come to the conclusion (after having a closer look at the testimonies and the various reports), that Buell Wesley Frazier lied about another crucially important matter that day. In my opinion the totality of the evidence suggests Frazier lied with regards to driving Lee Harvey Oswald to work that fateful morning.
Take a moment to reflect upon the importance of that drive to the case against Oswald before reading on.
The story was very likely fabricated not merely to have Oswald appear to carry a sack into work – but also to create the illusion of Oswald carrying a rifle. This conclusion is drawn from a study of the WC testimonies of both Randle and Frazier regarding Oswald, the package and his alleged arrival at the Randle residence that morning. Ten or more neighbours considered to be best placed to spot pedestrian movement in the vicinity were interviewed by the FBI as to whether they saw Oswald carrying a package from the Paine’s home to the Randle home. To a person, they stated they had not seen Oswald that morning – with or without any suspicious package which the police on more than one occasion, described as being similar in size and shape to a rifle case.
Frazier’s WC and Shaw trial testimony regarding the journey into work with Oswald appears rehearsed. Any questions relating to the “sack” or what was said in the car on the way in is met with what sounds very much like scripted answers that have become Frazier’s Lore. The sack, the curtain rods, the weather, and my favourite, Oswald’s kids, are IMO all part of the charade. Away from the small talk and banter about kids, he constantly flip flopped on testimony in a manner redolent with patterns of deceit.
Frazier’s WC testimony with regard to his arrival at work is at complete odds with the HSCA interview of Edward Shields. Though it could be argued Shields, unlike Frazier, was not under oath, and therefore is a witness of lesser value, the fact is that Shields was as close as you can get to a disinterested party merely reporting for the first what he had heard. Sadly, it took well over a decade for him to receive any relevant questions. In any event, it is highly unlikely he ever realized the import of his information.
From the HSCA interview of Shields
To summarize what we have so far… no one claimed to see Lee Harvey Oswald walk to the Frazier residence that morning. No one claimed to see Lee Harvey Oswald in Frazier’s car that morning – except Frazier himself. No one saw Lee Harvey Oswald that morning with any package except Wes and Linnie Mae.
Frazier also testified that he let Oswald get well ahead on the walk from the car park to the loading dock entrance. But in the form of Edward Shields, we have a potential reason for Frazier to construct that story.
In the above two short paragraphs alone, we have three “firsts” – firsts that are needed for the official story to hold. Oswald had never walked to the Randle residence for his lift before. He was always picked up at the Paine house. Oswald had never taken a long package to work before. Oswald had never neglected to take a packed lunch before. Oswald had never even needed a lift on a Friday morning before. Frazier had never let Oswald walk ahead of him from the car park before. They had always walked in together. That is a lot of “firsts” – all reliant on a very tight little knit of witnesses outside of which, no corroboration exists. Nobody else, not one person can verify Frazier’s version of events in Irving except for his sister. At the other end of the journey at the TSBD parking lot, we rely solely on Frazier. It beggars belief that there are no other witnesses. That walk was at least 2 and 1/2 blocks long. Shields and Givens smash his fairy-tale apart.
This “story” IMO has the same stench wafting around it, like the rest of the days fables contain.
The bus trip, the cab ride, the sack, the run, the walk, the ducking, the escape, the 2nd floor, the first floor, the sixth floor, the lunch bag, the rifle case, the back seat, the front seat, the white jacket the grey jacket, the gun, the revolver ……………
An alternative scenario
Postal Inspectors interviewed Mr and Mrs CP Schneider at 2707 West Fifth St in the early evening of November 22. Mr Schneider confirmed he had seen Lee Oswald in front of the 2515 residence at approximately 6:00pm of the previous evening. He also stated that a neighbour, Mrs Ed Roberts of 2519 West Fifth St had told him that Willie Randle, 2439 West Fifth St, had driven Oswald to work on the morning of November 22, and that Oswald was carrying a package large enough to have contained a rifle. (CD 296)
What sort of investigation is it that receives hearsay evidence such as the above and fails to follow up to confirm or refute it with the parties involved? WE are indeed, expected to believe that no follow up was done, because there is no evidence any follow up was done. Yet, there is actually circumstantial evidence that the authorities did believe that Randle was the man who gave the lift because that same night, the FBI was attempting to trace the origins of the scope in the names of Lee Oswald OR Willie Randall [sic]. (CD 87) It is virtually impossible to believe that the FBI would act on hearsay alone, when a few houses from where the hearsay was received, lived the person who had passed on that hearsay. You would almost have to believe that this “Willie Randle” lead was followed up and that it checked out given the ease with which such a lead could be checked out. To further complicate matters, the DPD already had Oswald’s alleged driver in custody. If Frazier truly was the driver, there would no reason at all to be checking on “Willy Randle/Randall” as a co-conspirator!
Randle had arrived in Austin at about 7:00pm on what was said to be work-related business in company with co-worker named Berry Caster. (FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 32, p44) It is between a 3 and 4 hour drive from Irving to Austin, so it is far from impossible that “Willie” drove Lee to work that morning on the basis that Frazier had already left.
Because of the holes in the official investigation, some conjecture is needed if we are to try understand the mess we have been left. What follows is some of my conjecture.
Frazier left that morning on his own – with the throwdown M-C rifle. The call from Givens of “where’s your rider?” was code giving Frazier the all clear to bring “the package” in, or was code for simply it’s clear to come inside.
Since Lee had missed his ride, Willie Randle offered to give him one, but needed to borrow Ruth’s car since his own was full of work gear for the trip to Austin later on. This leads to Oswald’s statement in front of Roger Craig concerning Craig’s description of a certain station wagon that "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine. Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."
Doesn’t that sound like someone talking about a car that was being driven by someone else?
I’d like to thank Greg Parker for his enormous support and encouragement.
This is full rebuild of the hugely popular thread created by Mick Purdy at the Webs forum in February 2015. – Stan
Mick Purdy
I believe Buell Wesley Frazier lied about seeing Lee Oswald with a package, a package two feet long on the morning of Friday November 22nd 1963.
I believe Linnie Mae Randle lied about seeing Oswald with a package, a package 27 inches long on the Morning of 22nd Nov 1963.
I believe both Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Wesley Frazier fabricated the curtain rod story.
I think there is ample evidence in their WC testimonies, affidavits and FBI interviews to support each of these contentions.
I have also come to the conclusion (after having a closer look at the testimonies and the various reports), that Buell Wesley Frazier lied about another crucially important matter that day. In my opinion the totality of the evidence suggests Frazier lied with regards to driving Lee Harvey Oswald to work that fateful morning.
Take a moment to reflect upon the importance of that drive to the case against Oswald before reading on.
The story was very likely fabricated not merely to have Oswald appear to carry a sack into work – but also to create the illusion of Oswald carrying a rifle. This conclusion is drawn from a study of the WC testimonies of both Randle and Frazier regarding Oswald, the package and his alleged arrival at the Randle residence that morning. Ten or more neighbours considered to be best placed to spot pedestrian movement in the vicinity were interviewed by the FBI as to whether they saw Oswald carrying a package from the Paine’s home to the Randle home. To a person, they stated they had not seen Oswald that morning – with or without any suspicious package which the police on more than one occasion, described as being similar in size and shape to a rifle case.
Frazier’s WC and Shaw trial testimony regarding the journey into work with Oswald appears rehearsed. Any questions relating to the “sack” or what was said in the car on the way in is met with what sounds very much like scripted answers that have become Frazier’s Lore. The sack, the curtain rods, the weather, and my favourite, Oswald’s kids, are IMO all part of the charade. Away from the small talk and banter about kids, he constantly flip flopped on testimony in a manner redolent with patterns of deceit.
Frazier’s WC testimony with regard to his arrival at work is at complete odds with the HSCA interview of Edward Shields. Though it could be argued Shields, unlike Frazier, was not under oath, and therefore is a witness of lesser value, the fact is that Shields was as close as you can get to a disinterested party merely reporting for the first what he had heard. Sadly, it took well over a decade for him to receive any relevant questions. In any event, it is highly unlikely he ever realized the import of his information.
From the HSCA interview of Shields
SHIELDS: I think Charles Givens hollered out there and asked Frazier where was his rider and he told him: "I dropped him off at the building." Yeah, that was it...Well, I was down on the floor when they hollered out and said and the answer he gave them, I don't know, I think he said: "I dropped him off at the building." Now, whoever it was hollering asked him, I don't know.
DAY: This is the morning of the assassination?
SHIELDS: Mm-hmm.
DAY: Somebody hollered out the window and say: "Where is your rider?" And to your recollection, Frazier says, "I dropped him off at the building."
SHIELDS: Yes.
DAY: Alright. The day of the assassination, did you see Oswald come to work with Frazier?
SHIELDS: No I didn’t.
To summarize what we have so far… no one claimed to see Lee Harvey Oswald walk to the Frazier residence that morning. No one claimed to see Lee Harvey Oswald in Frazier’s car that morning – except Frazier himself. No one saw Lee Harvey Oswald that morning with any package except Wes and Linnie Mae.
Frazier also testified that he let Oswald get well ahead on the walk from the car park to the loading dock entrance. But in the form of Edward Shields, we have a potential reason for Frazier to construct that story.
In the above two short paragraphs alone, we have three “firsts” – firsts that are needed for the official story to hold. Oswald had never walked to the Randle residence for his lift before. He was always picked up at the Paine house. Oswald had never taken a long package to work before. Oswald had never neglected to take a packed lunch before. Oswald had never even needed a lift on a Friday morning before. Frazier had never let Oswald walk ahead of him from the car park before. They had always walked in together. That is a lot of “firsts” – all reliant on a very tight little knit of witnesses outside of which, no corroboration exists. Nobody else, not one person can verify Frazier’s version of events in Irving except for his sister. At the other end of the journey at the TSBD parking lot, we rely solely on Frazier. It beggars belief that there are no other witnesses. That walk was at least 2 and 1/2 blocks long. Shields and Givens smash his fairy-tale apart.
This “story” IMO has the same stench wafting around it, like the rest of the days fables contain.
The bus trip, the cab ride, the sack, the run, the walk, the ducking, the escape, the 2nd floor, the first floor, the sixth floor, the lunch bag, the rifle case, the back seat, the front seat, the white jacket the grey jacket, the gun, the revolver ……………
An alternative scenario
Postal Inspectors interviewed Mr and Mrs CP Schneider at 2707 West Fifth St in the early evening of November 22. Mr Schneider confirmed he had seen Lee Oswald in front of the 2515 residence at approximately 6:00pm of the previous evening. He also stated that a neighbour, Mrs Ed Roberts of 2519 West Fifth St had told him that Willie Randle, 2439 West Fifth St, had driven Oswald to work on the morning of November 22, and that Oswald was carrying a package large enough to have contained a rifle. (CD 296)
What sort of investigation is it that receives hearsay evidence such as the above and fails to follow up to confirm or refute it with the parties involved? WE are indeed, expected to believe that no follow up was done, because there is no evidence any follow up was done. Yet, there is actually circumstantial evidence that the authorities did believe that Randle was the man who gave the lift because that same night, the FBI was attempting to trace the origins of the scope in the names of Lee Oswald OR Willie Randall [sic]. (CD 87) It is virtually impossible to believe that the FBI would act on hearsay alone, when a few houses from where the hearsay was received, lived the person who had passed on that hearsay. You would almost have to believe that this “Willie Randle” lead was followed up and that it checked out given the ease with which such a lead could be checked out. To further complicate matters, the DPD already had Oswald’s alleged driver in custody. If Frazier truly was the driver, there would no reason at all to be checking on “Willy Randle/Randall” as a co-conspirator!
Randle had arrived in Austin at about 7:00pm on what was said to be work-related business in company with co-worker named Berry Caster. (FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 32, p44) It is between a 3 and 4 hour drive from Irving to Austin, so it is far from impossible that “Willie” drove Lee to work that morning on the basis that Frazier had already left.
Because of the holes in the official investigation, some conjecture is needed if we are to try understand the mess we have been left. What follows is some of my conjecture.
Frazier left that morning on his own – with the throwdown M-C rifle. The call from Givens of “where’s your rider?” was code giving Frazier the all clear to bring “the package” in, or was code for simply it’s clear to come inside.
Since Lee had missed his ride, Willie Randle offered to give him one, but needed to borrow Ruth’s car since his own was full of work gear for the trip to Austin later on. This leads to Oswald’s statement in front of Roger Craig concerning Craig’s description of a certain station wagon that "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine. Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."
Doesn’t that sound like someone talking about a car that was being driven by someone else?
I’d like to thank Greg Parker for his enormous support and encouragement.
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:25 am
Mick Purdy
Sorry Colin, I should have been looking more closely at your post.
Agreed to a point with everything until the piece about Wes not helping to frame Lee. What this thread and many many other publications have shown is that it's a near certainty the BWF helped frame Oswald IMO.
So, I'm not indulging in any each way bet here: I am of the opinion that He was involved and I guess I am arguing to what extent.
The fact he is peddling a different version now to the one he might have 30, 40, years ago for me means naught.
He and Linnie, no matter what the argument over the length of the bag or even if there was one, assumed a much more sinister plot than just a wrinkled ol' lunch sack.
They both, portrayed it as something other than "normal"........something which commanded attention, and as it turns out has done for near on 50 years.
I'm not here to convince anyone my theory is right, or that any other theory on this is wrong. I've stated my case for what I believe. It's for others to decide.
I think the rambling's, the uh's and the eh's and the minute detail Wes spews about irrelevant facts and events which contribute nothing to anything ad nauseum is a technique he uses to continue on with the Bullshit. His lines on the important matters are always rehearsed and pretty much verbatim for the past 51 years.
You know the ones:
…and on and on it goes.
He needs to be sat down and asked a new set of questions, questions which are relevant to the case and even if they're hostile.
For me, Frazier's demeanor especially over the past decade or so is of a man who wants peace, a peace where he isn't being accused, suspected, and in a way tortured by the events of November 22nd. I can understand that, but it shouldn't give him a free pass, in my mind he hasn't earned that right.
Sorry Colin, I should have been looking more closely at your post.
Agreed to a point with everything until the piece about Wes not helping to frame Lee. What this thread and many many other publications have shown is that it's a near certainty the BWF helped frame Oswald IMO.
So, I'm not indulging in any each way bet here: I am of the opinion that He was involved and I guess I am arguing to what extent.
The fact he is peddling a different version now to the one he might have 30, 40, years ago for me means naught.
He and Linnie, no matter what the argument over the length of the bag or even if there was one, assumed a much more sinister plot than just a wrinkled ol' lunch sack.
They both, portrayed it as something other than "normal"........something which commanded attention, and as it turns out has done for near on 50 years.
I'm not here to convince anyone my theory is right, or that any other theory on this is wrong. I've stated my case for what I believe. It's for others to decide.
I think the rambling's, the uh's and the eh's and the minute detail Wes spews about irrelevant facts and events which contribute nothing to anything ad nauseum is a technique he uses to continue on with the Bullshit. His lines on the important matters are always rehearsed and pretty much verbatim for the past 51 years.
You know the ones:
- I glanced over my shoulder......
- What's the package...oh that's right you told me that they was curtain rods.....
- Curtain rods, curtain rods, curtain rods........
- Lee didn't talk very much........
- Oh you know he talked about his kids, he loved his kids.................
- Oh there was a kind of a mist you know little fine drops.........
- He walked ahead, but no further than 50 feet...........
- He carried the package parallel to his body
- sort of cupped in his right hand........
- looked at the railway tracks......
- watched the cars...............
- I stayed back to rev my engine...
…and on and on it goes.
He needs to be sat down and asked a new set of questions, questions which are relevant to the case and even if they're hostile.
For me, Frazier's demeanor especially over the past decade or so is of a man who wants peace, a peace where he isn't being accused, suspected, and in a way tortured by the events of November 22nd. I can understand that, but it shouldn't give him a free pass, in my mind he hasn't earned that right.
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:27 am
Terry Martin
Mick,
BWF may have framed Oswald but in a way to salve his soul. The bag - as described by both he and LMR - was far too short to have actually carried a rifle.
This "sidling up to the truth" reminds me of the "2nd floor encounter" which many researchers embrace as it "proves Oswald innocent".
Well, the WC uses both the bag-not-big-enough and the 2nd-floor-he-couldn't-have-gotten-to encounter to convict Oswald. Sure, neither idea exactly convicts LHO but both imply his guilt just because the incidents are just a little "off". Off enough that, as you say, they stick out.
I think most of the case was constructed in just this way to keep us all debating all this crap for fifty years and more.
Even if BWF clings to his account as some sort of salve for his soul, it doesn't save his bacon in the end.
He lied and Lee died.
End of story.
Mick,
BWF may have framed Oswald but in a way to salve his soul. The bag - as described by both he and LMR - was far too short to have actually carried a rifle.
This "sidling up to the truth" reminds me of the "2nd floor encounter" which many researchers embrace as it "proves Oswald innocent".
Well, the WC uses both the bag-not-big-enough and the 2nd-floor-he-couldn't-have-gotten-to encounter to convict Oswald. Sure, neither idea exactly convicts LHO but both imply his guilt just because the incidents are just a little "off". Off enough that, as you say, they stick out.
I think most of the case was constructed in just this way to keep us all debating all this crap for fifty years and more.
Even if BWF clings to his account as some sort of salve for his soul, it doesn't save his bacon in the end.
He lied and Lee died.
End of story.
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:33 am
Mick Purdy
Busted!
Frazier is caught in a big fat lie here.
I went to the hospital........please!
Wes is a liar. No squirming out of this one.
(Thanks to Ed Ledoux for this doc.)
And this information gives pause, for the possibility that a meeting may have taken place at the Randle house between Linnie, William and Wes as early as 1.20 pm. Now what time did William Randle really leave for Austin?
Busted!
Frazier is caught in a big fat lie here.
I went to the hospital........please!
Wes is a liar. No squirming out of this one.
(Thanks to Ed Ledoux for this doc.)
And this information gives pause, for the possibility that a meeting may have taken place at the Randle house between Linnie, William and Wes as early as 1.20 pm. Now what time did William Randle really leave for Austin?
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:36 am
Stan Dane wrote:Terry Martin
Mick,
BWF may have framed Oswald but in a way to salve his soul. The bag - as described by both he and LMR - was far too short to have actually carried a rifle.
This "sidling up to the truth" reminds me of the "2nd floor encounter" which many researchers embrace as it "proves Oswald innocent".
Well, the WC uses both the bag-not-big-enough and the 2nd-floor-he-couldn't-have-gotten-to encounter to convict Oswald. Sure, neither idea exactly convicts LHO but both imply his guilt just because the incidents are just a little "off". Off enough that, as you say, they stick out.
I think most of the case was constructed in just this way to keep us all debating all this crap for fifty years and more.
Even if BWF clings to his account as some sort of salve for his soul, it doesn't save his bacon in the end.
He lied and Lee died.
End of story.
Mick Purdy
And in my opinion lied to save his own skin.
The Randle family needs a thorough going over IMO.
Frazier is busted regarding the hospital visit, we need to find out why he lied and covered up the fact that he went straight home after the assassination. He lied about the sack, he didn't have Oswald with him on his way into work and now we have him heading straight home instead of going to see dear Ol' stepdad......A new set of questions for Wes?
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:37 am
Stan Dane
Looking at this from 30,000 feet, can we believe anything that Buell Wesley Fraizer has said?
Over at ED, Greg said – in response to Mr. Feasible Contention's claim "some of Armstrong's research is good" – that liquid in a bottle sold by snake-oil salesmen is always snake oil, regardless of what the label says.
If someone lies, can you believe anything they say? Who he said he was with? Who he said he saw? Where he said he was? Where he said he went? What he said he said?
Even Wes' claim that Fritz pressured him to sign a confession?
Just wondering.
Looking at this from 30,000 feet, can we believe anything that Buell Wesley Fraizer has said?
Over at ED, Greg said – in response to Mr. Feasible Contention's claim "some of Armstrong's research is good" – that liquid in a bottle sold by snake-oil salesmen is always snake oil, regardless of what the label says.
If someone lies, can you believe anything they say? Who he said he was with? Who he said he saw? Where he said he was? Where he said he went? What he said he said?
Even Wes' claim that Fritz pressured him to sign a confession?
Just wondering.
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:39 am
Stan Dane wrote:Stan Dane
Looking at this from 30,000 feet, can we believe anything that Buell Wesley Fraizer has said?
Over at ED, Greg said – in response to Mr. Feasible Contention's claim "some of Armstrong's research is good" – that liquid in a bottle sold by snake-oil salesmen is always snake oil, regardless of what the label says.
If someone lies, can you believe anything they say? Who he said he was with? Who he said he saw? Where he said he was? Where he said he went? What he said he said?
Even Wes' claim that Fritz pressured him to sign a confession?
Just wondering.
Mick Purdy
I know one thing for certain Stan, that from a legal point of view in the discovery period of a case where the prosecution and the defense teams go about putting their respective cases together, that lying is viewed as the ultimate sin. Lawyers, prosecutors and judges all take a dim view of it because once you've been marked as one, jury's are directed to treat you as someone who is not to be believed. Period. In some cases that person is dismissed from giving evidence altogether. And ultimately, if that person continues to lie, and brings that to trial in front of a judge and jury whilst under oath then, If I'm not mistaken that person has committed perjury.
It's such a shame Wes can't be held accountable.
In my mind he should be.
Isn't it time we compiled a set of relevant questions for Wesley given what we now know today in this case?
Isn't it time someone asked those questions of him without fear or favor?
Isn't it time he was made to be held accountable for his actions 51 years ago?
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:43 am
Greg Parker
From a press report of Nov 23, '63:
From a press report of Nov 23, '63:
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:45 am
Stan Dane wrote:Greg Parker
From a press report of Nov 23, '63:
Mick Purdy
The real irony here Greg is of its own we could all just assume and attribute this article to inaccurate reporting.....
But now not so sure, I mean really not certain at all that this is in error.
And that's a little scary.
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:46 am
Terry Martin
Yes, it has been called "inaccurate reporting" over the years but now it appears most of this stuff was simply changed because of the moving goalposts. Just like 1865, the authorities kept adjusting the case... NOT finding new evidence.
That's why the earliest reports are the most important IMO as they tell what was probably the clearest account. The truth before it was bent to match someone's agenda.
Yes, it has been called "inaccurate reporting" over the years but now it appears most of this stuff was simply changed because of the moving goalposts. Just like 1865, the authorities kept adjusting the case... NOT finding new evidence.
That's why the earliest reports are the most important IMO as they tell what was probably the clearest account. The truth before it was bent to match someone's agenda.
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:48 am
Mick Purdy
So how many cars were parked at the Randle house Friday morning.
We know Wes "owns " his by way of his WC testimony, Ha!
Do we assume William had a car, and what about Essie and Stepdad.
And does Linnie have her own vehicle too.
My it would've been busy at the Randles carport should they all had cars.
So how many cars were parked at the Randle house Friday morning.
We know Wes "owns " his by way of his WC testimony, Ha!
Do we assume William had a car, and what about Essie and Stepdad.
And does Linnie have her own vehicle too.
My it would've been busy at the Randles carport should they all had cars.
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:49 am
Ed Ledoux
Accusation not proved Police say
Read this juicy article from James Ewell and the DMN, November 22 1963
Abused man Bartlett claims lie detector was false.
Beating he suffered sounds exactly like LHO at the theater.
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/348 (Page 1 section 4)
Accusation not proved Police say
Read this juicy article from James Ewell and the DMN, November 22 1963
Abused man Bartlett claims lie detector was false.
Beating he suffered sounds exactly like LHO at the theater.
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/348 (Page 1 section 4)
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:51 am
Stan Dane wrote:Ed Ledoux
Accusation not proved Police say
Read this juicy article from James Ewell and the DMN, November 22 1963
Abused man Bartlett claims lie detector was false.
Beating he suffered sounds exactly like LHO at the theater.
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/348 (Page 1 section 4)
Terry Martin
Ed, that was an interesting read. I wonder whatever became of the case.
Also of interest was practically every other article on the page... maybe not the SMU thing but everything else.
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:53 am
Stan Dane wrote:Stan Dane wrote:Ed Ledoux
Accusation not proved Police say
Read this juicy article from James Ewell and the DMN, November 22 1963
Abused man Bartlett claims lie detector was false.
Beating he suffered sounds exactly like LHO at the theater.
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/348 (Page 1 section 4)
Terry Martin
Ed, that was an interesting read. I wonder whatever became of the case.
Also of interest was practically every other article on the page... maybe not the SMU thing but everything else.
Greg Parker
Yep. Agreed. Thanks, Ed.
And the polygraph was taken by... Bentley...
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:54 am
Stan Dane wrote:Ed Ledoux
Accusation not proved Police say
Read this juicy article from James Ewell and the DMN, November 22 1963
Abused man Bartlett claims lie detector was false.
Beating he suffered sounds exactly like LHO at the theater.
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/348 (Page 1 section 4)
Mick Purdy
Nice one Ed.
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:55 am
Mick Purdy
Harry Holmes, a postal inspector, questioned Oswald about the package he had been carrying:
Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, "Yes."
"What was in the sack?"
"Well, my lunch."
"What size sack did you have?"
He said, "Oh, I don’t know what size sack. You don’t always get a sack that fits your sandwiches. It might be a big sack."
"Was it a long sack?"
"Well, it could have been."
"What did you do with it?"
"Carried it in my lap."
"You didn’t put it over in the back seat?"
"No.” He said he wouldn’t have done that.
"Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat."
He said, "Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up."
That’s all he said about it.
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.305)
Harry Holmes, a postal inspector, questioned Oswald about the package he had been carrying:
Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, "Yes."
"What was in the sack?"
"Well, my lunch."
"What size sack did you have?"
He said, "Oh, I don’t know what size sack. You don’t always get a sack that fits your sandwiches. It might be a big sack."
"Was it a long sack?"
"Well, it could have been."
"What did you do with it?"
"Carried it in my lap."
"You didn’t put it over in the back seat?"
"No.” He said he wouldn’t have done that.
"Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat."
He said, "Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up."
That’s all he said about it.
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.305)
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 6:35 am
Stan Dane wrote:Mick Purdy
http://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2
I urge all members who might not have seen this video interview of Frazier by Gary Mack some time in 2002 to have a look at the time codes listed.
If anyone has had reservations about Frazier's involvement in the framing of LHO, then I would suggest this is must viewing.
IMO he is a passive-aggressive personality who constantly lies, over and over, so much so that he struggles to remember the mountainous dung heap he has created.
This interview reveals so much, Frazier has no clue when he speaks of the timeline of his afternoon activities on that Friday afternoon that the hole he digs for himself with regards to the hospital visit is so gigantic he cannot and will not ever climb from.
@12.36 G.M: Did you see Oswald at this time after the assassination
BWF: No!
@13.01 BWF: When we were outside the building before we went back inside.......
@13.58 BWF: Probably- five to ten minutes...................
Listen through to 15.20.
@20.33. Role call...................................
@23.14 BWF: That was before.............................
@25.05 BWF: I didn't go directly home.........
@38.55 BWF: Oswald on the radio as the suspect......... this is priceless
Mick Purdy
I didn't go directly home!
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 6:40 am
Mick Purdy
Interesting.
Interesting.
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 6:42 am
Mick Purdy
Mr. BALL - At any time before you went home, did you hear anybody ask for Lee?
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.
Representative FORD - Did all this occur after you had finished your lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it did.
Mr. BALL - At any time before you went home, did you hear anybody ask for Lee?
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.
Representative FORD - Did all this occur after you had finished your lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it did.
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 6:45 am
Mick Purdy
Shaw trial
Alcock Q: After going back into the Texas School Book Depository Building did you have occasion to see Lee Harvey Oswald?
Frazier A: No, sir, I did not.
Alcock Q: Where did you go when you went back into the building?
Frazier A: I went back in and I stayed there and talked to some of the people who worked there in the building. We talked in there. I did not eaten my lunch, several of us had not eaten our lunch, and I went and got my lunch and ate my lunch.
Alcock Q: Where inside the building did you eat your lunch?
Frazier A: I usually eat my lunch in the basement where I hang up my coat. I sat down like I usually did and ate my lunch.
Wes you say in the video you saw Lee after the assassination….. @ between 13.01-15.20
@12.36 G.M: Did you see Oswald at this time after the assassination
BWF: No!
http://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2
Shaw Trial
Q: Mr. Frazier, approximately how far were you from Lee Harvey Oswald as he entered the Book Depository that morning?
A: I would say around 50 feet.
Q: Were you ever closer to him than that on your walk from the car to the Book Depository?
A: The only other time was when I first got out of the car and he started walking off ahead of me.
So Wes you didn’t hang around to rev the engine?
So Shields and Givens missed yourself and Lee when you were closer than 50 feet together?
Shaw trial
Alcock Q: After going back into the Texas School Book Depository Building did you have occasion to see Lee Harvey Oswald?
Frazier A: No, sir, I did not.
Alcock Q: Where did you go when you went back into the building?
Frazier A: I went back in and I stayed there and talked to some of the people who worked there in the building. We talked in there. I did not eaten my lunch, several of us had not eaten our lunch, and I went and got my lunch and ate my lunch.
Alcock Q: Where inside the building did you eat your lunch?
Frazier A: I usually eat my lunch in the basement where I hang up my coat. I sat down like I usually did and ate my lunch.
Wes you say in the video you saw Lee after the assassination….. @ between 13.01-15.20
@12.36 G.M: Did you see Oswald at this time after the assassination
BWF: No!
http://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2
Shaw Trial
Q: Mr. Frazier, approximately how far were you from Lee Harvey Oswald as he entered the Book Depository that morning?
A: I would say around 50 feet.
Q: Were you ever closer to him than that on your walk from the car to the Book Depository?
A: The only other time was when I first got out of the car and he started walking off ahead of me.
So Wes you didn’t hang around to rev the engine?
So Shields and Givens missed yourself and Lee when you were closer than 50 feet together?
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 6:47 am
Colin Crow
See how long it takes to walk 50 feet (10 seconds). So how long did he "rev the engine for?".........and Frazier was dawdling looking at trains......this was not a short journey.....a few skips and Frazier catches him. Makes no sense.
See how long it takes to walk 50 feet (10 seconds). So how long did he "rev the engine for?".........and Frazier was dawdling looking at trains......this was not a short journey.....a few skips and Frazier catches him. Makes no sense.
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 6:48 am
Stan Dane wrote:Colin Crow
See how long it takes to walk 50 feet (10 seconds). So how long did he "rev the engine for?".........and Frazier was dawdling looking at trains......this was not a short journey.....a few skips and Frazier catches him. Makes no sense.
Mick Purdy
Agreed!
It only starts to make sense once we let go of what we've been told for 51 years.
IMO Wes lied about almost all of his movements that day, at least up until he was arrested and taken in for questioning by police.
And even then I don't think we can be sure he's told us the truth about what went on whilst he was in custody.
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 6:50 am
Smee
Greg,
You say:
All we know about him his that he was a violent drunk who Beull avoided at all times when they all lived in Huntsville.
Where does this come from?
Greg Parker wrote:Colin,
the stepfather? Interesting thought. All we know about him his that he was a violent drunk who Beull avoided at all times when they all lived in Huntsville. The hospital visit on such a day does give pause. Also back in those days (here at least) hospitals had hard and visiting hours which were rigidly applied...yet he appears to have been there several hours, unless I'm mistaken...
Greg,
You say:
All we know about him his that he was a violent drunk who Beull avoided at all times when they all lived in Huntsville.
Where does this come from?
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 6:51 am
Stan Dane wrote:Stan Dane wrote:Mick Purdy
http://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2
I urge all members who might not have seen this video interview of Frazier by Gary Mack some time in 2002 to have a look at the time codes listed.
If anyone has had reservations about Frazier's involvement in the framing of LHO, then I would suggest this is must viewing.
IMO he is a passive-aggressive personality who constantly lies, over and over, so much so that he struggles to remember the mountainous dung heap he has created.
This interview reveals so much, Frazier has no clue when he speaks of the timeline of his afternoon activities on that Friday afternoon that the hole he digs for himself with regards to the hospital visit is so gigantic he cannot and will not ever climb from.
@12.36 G.M: Did you see Oswald at this time after the assassination
BWF: No!
@13.01 BWF: When we were outside the building before we went back inside.......
@13.58 BWF: Probably- five to ten minutes...................
Listen through to 15.20.
@20.33. Role call...................................
@23.14 BWF: That was before.............................
@25.05 BWF: I didn't go directly home.........
@38.55 BWF: Oswald on the radio as the suspect......... this is priceless
Mick Purdy
I didn't go directly home!
Smee
How many affidavits included the addresses of adjacent persons when mentioned?
Did BWF just happen to know these addresses off the top of his head?
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 6:53 am
Beowulf
How many affidavits included the addresses of adjacent persons when mentioned?
Did BWF just happen to know these addresses off the top of his head?
Clearly it was drafted by FBI agents (who would have the addresses in their notes) and BWF was just told to sign. Also, not technically an affidavit because sworn statements must be notarized by a notary public to fall under perjury laws. Naturally the FBI has a workaround to this, the so-called Martha Stewart law—any false statement to a federal officer is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison, the same penalty as perjury itself (Martha was acquitted of insider trading but was convicted and sent to prison for lying to FBI agents about the matter).
How many affidavits included the addresses of adjacent persons when mentioned?
Did BWF just happen to know these addresses off the top of his head?
Clearly it was drafted by FBI agents (who would have the addresses in their notes) and BWF was just told to sign. Also, not technically an affidavit because sworn statements must be notarized by a notary public to fall under perjury laws. Naturally the FBI has a workaround to this, the so-called Martha Stewart law—any false statement to a federal officer is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison, the same penalty as perjury itself (Martha was acquitted of insider trading but was convicted and sent to prison for lying to FBI agents about the matter).
- StanDane
- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A
Wed 17 Aug 2016, 7:02 am
Stan Dane wrote:Terry Martin
Mick,
BWF may have framed Oswald but in a way to salve his soul. The bag - as described by both he and LMR - was far too short to have actually carried a rifle.
This "sidling up to the truth" reminds me of the "2nd floor encounter" which many researchers embrace as it "proves Oswald innocent".
Well, the WC uses both the bag-not-big-enough and the 2nd-floor-he-couldn't-have-gotten-to encounter to convict Oswald. Sure, neither idea exactly convicts LHO but both imply his guilt just because the incidents are just a little "off". Off enough that, as you say, they stick out.
I think most of the case was constructed in just this way to keep us all debating all this crap for fifty years and more.
Even if BWF clings to his account as some sort of salve for his soul, it doesn't save his bacon in the end.
He lied and Lee died.
End of story.
Mick Purdy
Couldn't agree more mate,
It's also compartmentalised isn't it, little boxes....I really feel like the Randles and the Paines along with Frazier were involved in setting Lee up regards to the rifle going into the TSBD...people bang on about the package being way too short.....but just look at what's happened for the past 51 years.
Job done! Lee's guilty, because why? he carried something in to the building, paper...brown I think, wasn't his lunch....oh yeah "curtain rods"....couldn't be his lunch, and the way he carried it cupped in his hand parallel to his body....it almost touched the ground,...yeah 3/12 feet long,......2 feet with top and bottom folded over.....it looked like it had weight in it...the paper, yeah sort of like well the sort you wrap things with you know, crinkly brown paper.....
True, they might have made the bag too short to carry a rifle but what they did was reprehensible, they conveyed something sinister...
As you say...
They lied and he died.
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|