Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Tue 22 Sep 2009, 11:12 pm

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER

Whose line is it anyhow?
Which School Book Depository (TSBD) employee stated that on November 22nd, 1963, he:

1. took a sandwich and piece of fruit for lunch in a brown paper bag and that it sat beside him during the ride to work?

2. ate lunch alone that day?

3. left the building after eating lunch because it didn't seem like any further work would be done and he therefore decided to take the afternoon off?

If you answered Lee Harvey Oswald to the first question, you would be correct. More than one of his interrogators recalled him saying this. If you answered Buell Wesley Frazier, you'd also be correct. He made this claim during testimony.

If you answered Lee Harvey Oswald to the 2nd question, you would be correct, according to at least Special Agent Bookhout. If you answered Buell Wesley Frazier, you would also be correct, per his testimony.

If you answered Lee Harvey Oswald to the third question, you would be correct, again according to some of his interrogators. If you answered Buell Wesley Frazier, you would also be correct - for that, in substance, is what he told Historian William Manchester in 1964.[1]

Which TSBD employee broke normal routines on that same day?

If you answered Lee Harvey Oswald, you would be correct. He came to work that day with Frazier from Irving after breaking normal routine and arriving at the Paine residence on the Thursday after work instead of Friday. If you answered Buell Wesley Frazier, you would also be correct. He testified before the Warren Commission that he usually ate lunch in the first floor Domino room, and on rare occasion, in the 2nd floor lunch room, but on that day, he ate alone in the basement.[2] He also testified that when Oswald rode with him to work, they would walk over to the building together from the car park, but on November 22, he decided to stay in his old Chevy to watch the rail cars being switched and run his engine "to charge up [his] battery". Oswald, who had walked on ahead, stopped and waited, then resumed walking when he noticed Frazier getting out. However, Frazier continued to dawdle watching the trains, allowing Oswald to get further and further away from him.

From Huntsville
Frazier arrived from Huntsville, 200 miles south of Dallas during early September and moved in with his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, her husband, Bill, and their three kids. The residence, at 2439 West Fifth St, Irving, was owned by Bill Randle's father. The Paine residence was only half a block away. Frazier testified that the reason for his move was to find employment, and that after having no success on his own, he signed up with several employment agencies. He further testified that he was phoned about the position at the TSBD by the Massey Employment Agency, and as a result, attended an interview with Roy Truly on September 13, commencing work the same day.

It seems incredible that there is nothing in the records indicating the Massey Employment Agency was contacted to confirm the referral.[3] It should have seemed important to have this cleared up given that Buell’s story is in conflict with the testimony of his sister who told the commission that she had helped her brother search for work, because as a local, she knew all the places that "someone with, you know, not very much of an education can find work." The help she gave consisted of listing all such places. It was apparently as a result of that success, a similar list was made for Oswald. If Buell had found the job through an agency, the logical thing to do would have been to recommend that agency to Oswald. No such recommendation appears to have been made.

A whole mess of trouble
By the evening of the assassination, Frazier was in danger of being implicated in the crime. He was located at the Irving Professional Center visiting his step-father, David Williams - a patient at the clinic - and taken into custody by Det. McCabe of Irving Police. He was then picked up by Dallas police and taken to the clinic where his car was examined.

From there, he was driven to his sister's home where a search uncovered an Enfield rifle with scope and full clip and a partial box of ammunition.[4] Soon afterwards, Linnie Mae arrived home, and she and Frazier - accompanied by a Baptist preacher referred to as Rev. Campble [sic], were taken to Police Headquarters at City Hall for questioning.[5]

The polygraph
Buell and Linnie Mae were questioned by police until 9:00 pm, at which time their affidavits were taken. After this was done, Detectives Rose and Stovall were driving them back to Irving when a call came through to return them to City Hall. Upon arrival, Rose phoned Captain Fritz who ordered that Frazier be polygraphed. By the time the Crime Lab's RD Lewis arrived to administer the test, it was 11:20. The test concluded at 12:10am. [6] According to the combined report of Rose, Stovall and Adamcik, the test "showed conclusively that Wesley Frazier was truthful".

But was a proper polygraph test actually administered, or was it a prop to get Frazier's future cooperation on the bag alleged to have been carried that morning by Oswald? The affidavit itself gives no detail on the bag except approximate length and that it was folded. What would be required later would be an admission it resembled the bag found in the building.

Between Lewis' arrival time and the time the test was completed, only fifty minutes had elapsed. This seems woefully inadequate when one considers a pre-test interview is standard protocol. On top of that, time was also required to write the questions, including the so-called "control" questions. All this, plus the test in 50 minutes hardly seems possible.

Officially, only Rose and Stovall witnessed the test. However, according to Jim Bishop's 1968 book , The Day Kennedy Was Shot, there were five other officers in the room and doorway apart from Lewis, and the young man at the center of the attention was in a state of near hysteria.

By contrast, Rose, interviewed for Larry Sneed's book, No More Silence claimed to view the test through a one-way mirror. He told Sneed that though "it wasn't an ideal situation for a polygraph... it wasn't necessarily bad either because Wesley was a straight guy. He seemed totally straight forward and passed the test with flying colors."

If such a test was actually conducted with Frazier passing it, why has there never been a report produced by Lewis? After extensive searching, the only report found where Lewis is said to have stated he performed such a test, is page 291 of Commission Document 7, which is an interview of Lewis conducted by FBI Special Agent, Vince Drain on November 29, 1963. And what an interesting interview it was.

The FBI takes over the handling of Frazier
On December 1, (the same day that Drain interviewed Lewis) Bardwell ("Bob") Odum and Gibbon McNeely interviewed Frazier at his place of residence. During the interview, Frazier showed them where the bag extended to when he saw it on the back seat of his car. This measured 27 inches - three inches more than the estimate he had given police. An improvement. Frazier then repeated what he'd said during his polygraph - that at the time he saw it being carried by Oswald, he'd concluded that the package was wrapped "in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by 5 and 10 cent stores". But this time, he added that reflecting upon the matter, he realized that he'd reached this conclusion when he'd observed the package under Oswald's arm as Oswald was turned with his back to him. Odum, using a replica sack made from material at the TSBD, reconstructed the scene, which showed the closest Frazier had got to Oswald was 12 feet, and that the visible area of the package from Frazier's vantage point measured nine inches by one inch. He also now stated that his conclusion about the sack being made of crinkly paper from a 5 and dime was based to a "considerable extent" upon the fact that the color of the sack was a very light brown as compared with the very dark brown paper used for heavier grocery sacks, and that the color of the replica was the same color as the one he'd seen in Oswald's possession. But the FBI cannot have it both ways. By reconstructing how Frazier described Oswald carrying the bag in order to convince the witness he was probably mistaken about it being made of cheap, crinkly paper, the FBI by extension, was admitting the rifle was not inside the bag, as the broken down Mannlicher-Carcano is simply far oo long to be carried in that manner. On the other hand, if they had insisted Oswald carried the bag in some other way, then they would have had no basis to suggest Frazier's initial description was inaccurate. In any case, Frazier had seen Oswald's bag up close inside the car.

The Federal agents also had with them, the original. This sack, too - said to be stained from fingerprint testing, was shown to Frazier who agreed that if it had been the same color as the replica, it may well have been the bag Oswald carried. As a final word, he added that he felt he was in "no position to definitely state that this was or was not the sack."[7] No position, indeed. The fact is, if the bag Frazier saw had been the same color as the replica, it was unlikely that he saw the bag in evidence. The commissions own experts had testified that the two bags were different in color – even prior to the discoloration to the original.

LINNIE MAE RANDLE

Denial
Ruth Paine testified that Linnie Mae had said “they needed another person at the Texas School Book Depository where Wesley worked." Despite Linnie Mae's denial in her own testimony that she was aware of any possible vacancy, the Warren Commission Report went with Ms Paine's version, flatly stating, "One of the neighbors present, Linnie Mae Randle, said that her brother had recently been hired as a schoolbook order filler at the Texas School Book Depository and she thought that the depository might need additional help."

Multitasking
On the morning of Friday, November 22, 1963, when Linnie Mae saw Oswald, she was

1. having coffee after getting up early (WC testimony of Det. John Adamcik, recalling his conversation with Linnie Mae on the afternoon of the assassination)

2. at the sink preparing lunch for Buell (WC testimonies of Buell Frazier and Linnie Mar Randle)

3. washing dishes (Linnie Mae to author Jim Bishop in 1968)

Suspicion
Detectives Rose, Stovall and Adamcik, along with three county officers, arrived at the Paine residence between 3:00pm and 3:30pm. At approximately 3:45pm, Michael Paine arrived. At some point after this, Adamcik accompanied Ruth Paine to the house of a neighbor to arrange care for the children so that Ruth and Marina could be taken to City Hall. On their way back, Linnie Mae drove up to the house, and was asked by Adamcik if she knew anything about what had happened, and if she knew Oswald [8] In response, she informed him that her brother, Wesley Frazier, took Oswald to work that morning, and that she had seen him (Oswald} carry something over to her brother's car and put it in the back. The object was long, and wrapped in paper or a box. According to Adamcik, she thought this was suspicious. She then told Adamcik that her brother could be reached at Parkland Hospital where he was visiting his step-father [9]

Under questioning during testimony, he also recalled that she'd told him it was unusual for Oswald to be at the Paine's residence on a Thursday; that in the past, he'd always arrived on the Friday and stayed the weekend.

In an interview with the FBI, Linnie Mae stated that she had seen Oswald arrive with Buell on the Thursday and had asked Frazier about this change of routine. Her brother, she said, had replied that Oswald had come over a day early to pick up curtain rods for his apartment. She repeated this story before the Commission.

None of this however, was mentioned in her statement made for the police on the night of the assassination. If this conversation did take place between brother and sister, then Linnie Mae had no reason at all to be suspicious after seeing Oswald the next morning with a long package. Nor did she have any reason to believe there was anything "unusual" about Oswald being at the Paine home a day early. But her dramatic arrival at the Paine residence to impart her "suspicion" to police is no more remarkable than Ruth Paine's greeting to detectives Rose and Stovall, "Come on in, we were expecting you. Just as soon as we heard where it happened, we figured someone would be out." Or, for that matter, Michael Paine's sudden arrival at 3:45 after apparently coming to a similar conclusion to his wife.

The search for Frazier
Linnie Mae's discussion with Adamcik was what now made Frazier a potential suspect as an accomplice. Shortly after the detectives arrived back at City Hall at 6:00pm with the Paines and Marina, they contacted Parkland Hospital and discovered that Frazier was not there. They then rang around all the clinics in Irving, finally locating him at the Irving Professional Center.

As previously shown, the police eventually took Frazier home in order to conduct a search of the property. At some point, Linnie Mae arrived, and she, Frazier and the Rev Campble, along with Frazier's Enfield and other evidence, were taken to City Hall. It was now around 9:00pm. After giving her affidavit, Linnie Mae was shown "some brown package paper", but was unable to confirm it was "identical" to the package Oswald had carried due to having only seen that package from a distance through her window.[10]

The FBI takes over the handling of Randle
On the same day that Special Agents Odum and McNeely called on Frazier, they also put Linnie Mae through her paces, recreating what she claimed she'd witnessed.

Observing the replica bag, she stated it was the same heavy grade type of paper that Oswald's sack was constructed from. Shown the original bag, she stated if it had been the same color as the replica, it could have been the bag she observed.[11] Amusingly, the FBI, used three pieces of pressed board to "bulk" up the package to Linnie Mae's specification, solemnly declaring in August, 1964, that "when the case is closed these pieces of pressed board will be destroyed".[12] I wonder if they still have them?

Neighbors saw nothing
December 1st was a busy day for Odum and McNeely. They also interviewed Mr and Mrs CP Schneider, Mrs Mary Ponder, Mr and Mrs Victor Embry, Mrs James Goodwin, Mr and Mrs James Williams, and Mr and Mrs Ed Roberts. All were neighbors of the Paines and Randles. None had seen Oswald as he trudged over from the Paine residence to the Randle house on the morning of the assassination - carrying a long, bulky package or otherwise.[13] This begs the question though, as to why Oswald would risk being seen by neighbors carrying the package which, according to police, resembled a rifle case - especially if he intended using it for assassinating Kennedy later that day. One possible answer (but by no means the only) can be found in what Harry Holmes and Gus Rose said to author Larry Sneed during interviews for the book, No More Silence.

Holmes: Oswald told Fritz that the curtain rods weren't for his room, he had brought them in for a co-worker who needed some. Although some accounts say Oswald told Fritz the bag contained his lunch, he in fact told Fritz (in Holmes' presence) that the bag contained curtain rods for a co-worker.

Rose: Frazier said he didn't think the package had contained curtain rods. He suggested that Oswald leave it in the car, but Oswald refused, saying "No, I need it here." [14] If Oswald had such a package, and did "need it here [inside the TSBD]", it might indicate it contained a rifle he planned to use later with deadly intent. It may also indicate that it was curtain rods he was bringing in for an unknown fellow employee. In that regard, Holmes and Rose may just have independently corroborated each other.

The car door conundrum
In her very first statement on what she had witnessed, Linnie Mae made no mention of which car door Oswald had placed his package. She merely stated, "I saw him put it in Wesley's car". In her FBI statement made the following day, she declared she had seen him place it "in the back seat area".

By the time the FBI reinterviewed her on Dec 1, she was able to go into more detail, saying that she had seen Oswald open "the right rear door of the car" and, presuming he was getting in, turned to go back to the sink "after" hearing the car door being shut.

It was during her March 11, 1964 testimony before the Warren Commission that she finally admitted the truth. After initially repeating her earlier claims of seeing Oswald place the package in the right back seat area, she was drawn back to it later under questioning by Senator Cooper. To Cooper, she responded, "what made me establish the door on Wesley's car, it is an old car and that door, the window is broken and everything and it is hard to close, so that cinched it in my mind which door it was, too. But it was only briefly that I looked". [15] In other words, she did not see Oswald place the package in the right back seat area of the car. It was an assumption on her part. Other evidence presented here suggests either Oswald carried it in his lap the whole way – as had been the case previously, or he initially carried it that way but then threw it in the backseat at Frazier’s suggestion.

WILLIAM ("BILL") EDWARD RANDLE

Business in Austin
Neither Linnie Mae nor Buell Frazier were asked during testimony if Bill Randle was home on the morning of Friday, November 22, 1963. His only recorded whereabouts on that day is at the Austin Motel in Austin. And only then because of a tip to the FBI from the motel manager.

Mrs John O Thompson phoned the Austin FBI office on November 23 to inform them that Randle had arrived at about 7:00pm the previous day with a man named Berry J Caster driving a Chevy pick up. The report goes on to say, "they both claimed to be employees of the Irving Counter Top Company", and that he had a "personal acquaintanceship" with Oswald, the extent of which was not discussed.

According to Mrs Thompson, Randle said his wife worked at the same building as Oswald, and also told her of rumors that had circulated in Dallas that Kennedy would be shot when he came "on account of the Veteran's Administration Offices being moved out of Dallas".

At about 7:30pm, Randle attempted to contact Marvin Randle in Irving, but was unsuccessful, though he did get through in a later attempt, learning that his wife had been called in for questioning concerning the assassination. On receiving this news, he checked out of the motel and caught a flight back to Dallas at 11:05pm. Caster checked out at 7:00am the following morning and drove the Chevy back to Irving.[16]

This report was not followed up until January 21 when Randle was interviewed by Special Agent Warren de Brueys. Randle advised that the trip to Austin was in connection with his employment for Irving Counter Top, that the business was owned by his brother, Marvin, and it was purely a business matter that had prompted his call to his brother. He denied any knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald, had never even seen him except in newspapers after the assassination, and said he could not recall making any statement that Kennedy would be killed because of the Veteran's Offices being moved out of the city.[17] Notably absent in the report is what time he left Irving that day (it is about a 3 hour drive, so the latest he could have left to arrive at 7:00pm is about 4:00pm); what time he arrived home after his flight; and whether Berry Caster was related to Warren Caster who had been displaying rifles in the TSBD two days before the assassination.

The rifle scope
There is a Secret Service document dated December 3, 1963 pertaining to the California investigation of the rifle scope inscribed Ordnance Optic, Inc, Hollywood, California and mounted on the Mannlicher-Carcano allegedly used in the assassination. What is interesting about this document is that no company by that name was located in Hollywood. Instead, they checked out two other optics businesses listed in the phone directory - the first of which was found to now be a phonographic warehouse. The second one was Gordon Optics Supply and Optics Industries. The owner, Murray Gordon, was contacted and interviewed. Despite stating that his business was only involved in importing eye glass frames, the files were nevertheless checked for two names. The first name unsurprisingly, was Lee H Oswald - the other was Willy Randall. Neither name was found. Next, based on a tip from Lt Manuel Pena of the Robbery Division that the Retting Gun Shop dealt in telescopic sights, the owner, Martin Retting, was interviewed. Retting revealed that he was the sole importer from Japan of the sights inscribed "Ordnance Optics, Inc", as they were much used in hunting. He further advised that he had sold them mainly to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, though he had also sold a quantity to Dave's House of Guns in Dallas. Retting however, was of the opinion that Oswald probably brought his scope with the rifle from Klein's as they usually sold them as a package. Rettings' records were also checked for the names, Oswald and Randall. [18] It seems that Rettings' advice that Klein's was the likely source of the scope was all too readily accepted as Dave's House of Guns was only checked out in regard to the Smith & Wesson pistol.

Was "Willy Randall" actually "William Randle?
The answer is almost certainly yes. Firstly, Linnie Mae is referred to as "Mrs Bill Randall" in several documents. Secondly, at least one FBI report refers to Bill Randle as a "suspect" after the tip was received from Austin. Fair enough. The question is, why, among all possible accomplices, Randle was being investigated specifically (and only) in regard to the rifle scope? But that is just one of many, many questions that remain unanswered in regard to Frazier, Linnie Mae Randle and husband, Bill.

ENDNOTES
[1] Death of a President by William Manchester, p. 355 of the paperback edition

[2] He would not repeat the slip (if that is what it was) at the Shaw trial, claiming there that he always ate in the basement.

[3] The agency was in Irving according to a Dallas researcher who did some checking on my behalf.

[4] Stovall Commission Exhibit C.

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7] Warren Commission Exhibit 2009

[8] Warren Commission testimony of John Adamcik. Adamcik gave the time of arrival at the Paine's front door as a few minutes after 3:00pm. The joint report of Rose, Stovall and Adamcik - designated Stovall Exhibit C by the Commission, gave the time as approximately 3:30pm.

[9] Stovall Commission Exhibit C.

[10] FBI report on November 23 interview with Linnie Mae Randle by James Bookhout - File # DL 89-43. It is entirely unclear in this report whether the "package paper" shown to Randle was the bag now in the archives, a replica, or just sample paper taken from the book depository building. The subject was not broached during her testimony.

[11] FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 211 p 115.

[12] Warren Commission Exhibit 2008

[13] Commission Document 7, p 98

[14] alt.assassination newsgroup post by Martin Shakleford, November 5, 2007.

[15] This problem with Linnie Mae's statements on seeing the package being placed in the car was noted in a Lancer forum post made by researcher, Ian Lloyd on October 26, 2007. Lloyd also cited the photo exhibits of the Randle home and carport as strongly indicating Linnie Mae could not have seen all that she had claimed.

[16] FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 84, p 98. Mrs Thompson was likely confused about Randle's wife working at the same place as Oswald. He had most likely told her that his wife's brother did. This misstatement seems to have led to Linnie Mae Randle's name being hand written under the typed list of TSBD employees who had their details taken as they left the building on the afternoon of the assassination. The name was subsequently crossed out.

[17] Id. at p 99

[18] Post made to the Education Forum by researcher Mark Knight, May 27, 2006 citing CE 1331. Manuel Pena had been working for the Dodd Committee investigating mail order weapons. One of the companies under scrutiny had been Klein's. Pena would later have in involvement in the RFK investigation.

CORRIGENDUM

Cite 14
The correct (and complete) quote from Sneed's book is “Somebody in the room at that point asked him what was in the paper bag that he had the next morning when he rode to work with another employee. ‘Well, that was my lunch’. That’s what he told us. ‘Your lunch? Why did you carry a lunch in a big old bag like that’? ‘Well’, he said ‘you don’t always get a bag that just fits your lunch; you take what you can get.’ He was that quick, no mincing around, no trying to make up something. He was then asked, ‘Well, where did you carry it’? ‘I carried it in my lap.’ he said, ‘just like I always carry my lunch’ and the driver said, ‘Throw it over in the back seat’. That’s what he said about it! According to the man who drove him to work the next day he had a rather long brown paper wrapper which might have been a bag. The driver asked him, ‘What’s that?’ as Oswald threw it over the back seat. Oswald told him, ‘That’s some curtain rods.’ I’ve noticed in some of the literature that it was for his room, but he told Captain Fritz previously that it was curtain rods which he was bringing because he didn’t need them. As they were getting out of the car, he supposedly said that the curtain rods were for a fellow at work. In short, Homes was quoting Frazier - not Oswald - in reference to having brought curtain rods for a fellow worker.

Sat 05 Dec 2009, 2:32 am

A magnificent essay which portrays the problems and shortcomings of Wesley Frazier and the curtain rod story in stark relief. I've been studying it in conjunction with Pat Speer's "Sack of Lies" at his website, and Part 6 (section II and III) of Jim DiEugenio's critique of Bugliosi.
This triad of essays forms the state-of-the-art of Frazier & the paper bag problem, as we know it, aptly summed up by DiEugenio: "If this case were ever reopened, [Frazier] would be one of the first witnesses called to the stand. And he would be there a long time. The reason is easy to understand: If there is no bag, there is no rifle."

A major question mark regarding Frazier's story- that he followed 50 feet behind Oswald once they'd parked at the north warehouse- was raised when John Armstrong discovered a 10/23/77 HSCA interview of Edward Shields; one of Shields' co-workers in the skeleton crew that worked at the north warehouse was outside the building as Frazier pulled up.

SHIELDS: "And [Frazier] was parking on the back- on the back lot out there. And [the co-worker] hollered and asked him where his rider was and [Frazier] said, "I DROPPED HIM OFF AT THE BUILDING."

This introduces the possibility that Frazier knowingly dropped Oswald and a packaged rifle off at the Houston Street loading dock, so that Oswald wouldn't have to walk with the thing for 1200 feet across the rear railroad yard.
And, it puts Frazier's elaborate tale- of running his engine to charge the battery, and dawdling to watch the welders at the trains- in the fiction section. One item in his tale I find peculiar is that Oswald gets the package out of the back seat and waits behind the car at the cyclone fence- yet, once Frazier gets out, Oswald starts double-timing it for the Depository. A rather abrupt and quixotic change of behavior.

Co-workers at the north warehouse included Haddon Aiken, age 69, and Franklin Wester, age 22 (WCH XXII pp. 633, 680)

Another item of interest is that Frazier registered a high stress level (indicative of lying) on George O'Toole's PSE, when asked about Oswald carrying a package into the Depository.
Not having read O'Toole's book since 1985, I'm curious as to exactly which audio clip he analyzed. In this computer age, it might be available somewhere.

Also, after Detective Gus Rose had completed his search of the Paine home, Linnie Mae Randle drove by and told him she'd heard Oswald say that morning that his package contained "curtain rods"- yet she acknowledged in her testimony that she never spoke to Oswald that morning.

It strikes me that she was filling in the blanks, to protect her brother Wesley- that Linnie Mae & Wesley must have talked by phone shortly beforehand regarding how the package supposedly contained curtain rods. Linnie Mae made a similar fill-in-the-blank claim about seeing Oswald place the package in the back seat of Wesley's car- but of course her view was blocked by the carport wall.

It also strikes me that whatever went on during Frazier's polygraph exam, the DPD got the answers they were looking for right away.
Was Frazier nervous because he knew Oswald had not brought in curtain rods, but had brought in a rifle? That's what I suspect. No wonder the polygraph questions & results are nowhere to be found.

Yet I don't look upon him as a conspirator. I doubt that he put 2 + 2 together that morning, and realized that this rifle could be used in the assassination of the President. That's why I can look at his November 2008 youtube interview, at http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/s , and believe him when he says he's innocent.
It's just that he's been lying all these years- about walking 50 feet behind Oswald, and about the length of the package Oswald had. It wasn't 24-27", as he and Linnie Mae repeatedly maintained (no such package was ever found in the Depository).
The package, more than likely, was about 4-foot-long, a fully-assembled rifle. So Wesley & Linnie Mae concocted their story about a 24-27" package in order to divorce themselves as completely as possible from being indicted for crimnal negligence, or some such.

I have another problem. I only learned a couple of days ago (from the youtube Bugliosi trial) that Frazier watched the motorcade while standing behind Shelley & Lovelady, in the shadows in the alcove in front of the glass entrance door to the Depository. All this time I'd assumed, because he'd said he was "on the steps", that he was a couple of steps in front of them.

There are, in my view, only 3 possible places for Oswald at this time: A) the 2nd-floor lunchroom or vicinity B) next to Frazier C) elsewhere on the 1st floor

Also, in his testimony, he remains in the alcove after the shooting, yet fails to notice Marrion Baker charging up the steps and meeting Truly (right in the alcove, or perhaps on the lobby side of the glass door).
And (II p. 234) he claims that Lovelady & Shelley walked down toward the park peninsula, which is complete fiction, in my estimation.

This is a vast topic and I have another post to follow, as soon as I'm able to compose it, which may be several more hours away.

Sat 05 Dec 2009, 10:46 am

Pat Speer has made a very significant discovery- namely, that the paper bag Detective Leslie Montgomery carried out of the front entrance of the Depository at about 2:30 PM is NOT the same paper bag entered into the evidence by the FBI. Also, that the DPD didn't even photograph any paper bag at all until they received one back from the FBI on November 26th.

News photos show that Montgomery's bag is 10 3/4" wide, has none of the 3"-wide packing tape along its length or at the bottom (open end), and is extensively crinkled at the open end. The FBI bag (Exhibit 4) is 8 1/2" wide, has packing tape along its length and the open end, and has no crinkling at the open end.

Speer makes a compelling case, to show that it was feasible (given the acquisition of Depository shipping material on that day), that the DPD constructed an 8 1/2"-wide bag - this is the bag that the FBI's Sebastian Latona found a partial right palmprint and partial left fingerprint on. There is an implication (although no exlicit accusation is made) that the DPD constructed this bag in order to get one with Oswald's prints on it.

I personally wouldn't put it past the DPD to do this kind of treasonous mischief. But there are difficulties associated with getting Oswald's prints on this bag (a necessary corollary to the hypothesis that the DPD constructed the 8 1/2" bag), which make me think it didn't happen.

The major obstacle preventing the planting of Oswald's prints is that Latona- who detected them via the silver nitrate method- stated that he processed the bag on the morning of the 23rd (IV pp. 3-4). Vince Drain acquired the DPD evidence around midnight and took a red-eye flight to Washington that arrived around 5 or 6 AM.

Oswald was first fingerprinted at 9 PM on the 22nd, via the ink method, and again by the same method at 12:30 AM. (Chemically-treated inkless cards weren't used until Rusty Livingston got prints off of Oswald's body in the morgue). So, unless the DPD somehow coaxed Oswald into touching the 8 1/2" bag, there's a huge logistical problem in transferring Oswald's inked prints onto a bag. It seems super-unlikely, and I doubt that (in principle) inked prints can even be transferred onto an object and leave a non-ink impression.

All that said, an idea which came to me a couple of days ago may be worth considering- namely, that the DPD actually brought out two long paper bags, one by Montgomery, the other surreptitiously (folded into a shirt or notebook?- and not necessarily at the same time as Montgomery).
I'm a big proponent of the two-snipers-on-the-6th-floor scenario, and it seems to me that the two rifles were each brought in beforehand in their own separate bags. I would conjecture that the first one was brought to the Depository by the Oswald lookalike dropped off there by refrigerator technician Ralph Yates shortly before noon on the 20th (the first episode mentioning "curtain rods"). The second, by Oswald himself, when Frazier dropped him off at the Houston Street loading dock the morning of the 22nd.

My choice for where these rifles were kept is the 7th floor corner storeroom. The FBI photo (WCD 496, photo #37) only shows half the room; it was two double-windows wide, and cluttered with paraphernalia. It would be a convenient place to tuck rifles away and provide easy access for their use on the 6th floor.

The Powell and Dillard B photos show that somebody left the lights on in this 7th-floor storeroom. One light is a ceiling lamp, and the lower one almost certainly is a desk lamp- one would think that these were both on the same circuit, controlled by an electrical switch at the door to the storeroom. It looks to me that somebody needed the light to fish something out of the storeroom, but didn't turn it off when they left- typical of the dumb mistakes that criminals make.

That's where I would guess the paper bags were actually found- and the officers involved played make-believe pass-the-buck to locate the bag's discovery in the rectangular dotted line in the 6th-floor corner.

And given a 50-50 chance, they bumbled and brought out the bag that didn't have Oswald's prints on it. They had to get both bags back to the DPD Crime Lab to figure out which was witch.

Only in Amerika...

Sun 06 Dec 2009, 10:55 pm

Sorry for the tardy reply, Richard. Full plate and poor time management Embarassed

A major question mark regarding Frazier's story- that he followed 50 feet behind Oswald once they'd parked at the north warehouse- was raised when John Armstrong discovered a 10/23/77 HSCA interview of Edward Shields; one of Shields' co-workers in the skeleton crew that worked at the north warehouse was outside the building as Frazier pulled up.

SHIELDS: "And [Frazier] was parking on the back- on the back lot out there. And [the co-worker] hollered and asked him where his rider was and [Frazier] said, "I DROPPED HIM OFF AT THE BUILDING."

The question that springs to mind is, how did this co-worker know to ask about Oswald when he'd never arrived with Frazier on a Friday in the past?

Is it possible the co-worker saw someone else in the car, then lost sight of it until Frazier parked in the back lot? I don't know the layout of the area well enough, but that seems the only way Shields 1977 comments make sense.

Pat Speer has made a very significant discovery- namely, that the paper bag Detective Leslie Montgomery carried out of the front entrance of the Depository at about 2:30 PM

That photo of Montgomery is a puzzle. Just what is it in that bag holding it up???

Mon 07 Dec 2009, 1:18 pm

No hurry on replies- especially since in this business (out of fear of dumb mistakes) it can take a while to get back up to speed on a topic one has researched inside-out only recently. Sleep

I would guess that the co-worker may have seen Frazier & Oswald leaving the back lot on Thursday after work, so asked him where his rider was on Friday morning.

Shields' information is only second-hand. It seems he would have been just inside the north warehouse, getting ready for the work day, and the co-worker (Franklin Wester?) saw Frazier arrive alone, and made small shop-talk about it as he went inside.
Shields' remembrance, IF it is accurate, puts Frazier's story in the fiction department- of following 50 feet behind Oswald on their way to the Depository.

I would imagine that Montgomery found a long wood dowel or yardstick, with which to balance the bag without disturbing any prints. The bag is too flat to contain a hidden rifle.

Ian Griggs has pointed out (another magnificent essay I'd forgotten, "The Paper Bag That Never Was" at Dealey Plaza Echo, Vol. 1, Issue 1 & 2) that even a broken-down Carcano would require a minimum of 36 inches or so of space- and unequivocally established that a broken-down Carcano couldn't have been brought to the Depository in the bag in evidence- there were no associated scratches found on the inside surface of the bag, nor on the rifle stock.

The great unsolved mystery about Frazier's 24-27" bag is that no one has ever been able to figure out what was in it. scratch

Griggs also points out that Frazier volunteered this length before being asked (II p. 226), consistent with the idea that this length was a prepared concoction:

BALL: What did the package look like?

FRAZIER: Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long.

Also, that Linnie Mae Randle first told the FBI on November 22nd that the bag was "approximately 3 feet by 6 inches"; Frazier told the FBI that night it was "approximately 2 feet in length". (WCD 5 pp. 320, 318)

It looks to me as though brother & sister got their stories in sync, to keep the bag too short to possibly implicate Frazier- that he may have knowingly delivered Oswald with a rifle to the Depository.

How this bag ever got to Irving is pure guesswork. Duke Lane suggested in a Lancer post last summer that the logical suspect for who made it was Jack Dougherty- he opened the Depository up each morning at 7 and would have had access to Troy West's wrapping paper and tape machine.

As to how this bag got to Irving, one possibility is that the Oswald lookalike brought it there on Wednesday, after he'd dropped off his own rifle & bag at the Depository. According to John Armstrong, this lookalike actually lived at the Paines' for much of the summer.
In any case, I don't see Ruth Paine as totally ignorant about what went on with this bag. Go for it!

According to "Harvey and Lee" p. 880: "When HSCA investigators tried to interview Frazier in 1977 he stalled repeatedly. The interviewer who was attempting to interview him wrote, 'Frazier continues to procrastinate. Now wants to meet in lawyer's office next Friday. Definite resistance but reason not apparent. Will require another call tomorrow at 10:00 'to see if lawyer says OK'. (10/20/77)... Call Buell Wesley Frazier at work and get more 'put off'."

I've looked and looked at Mary Ferrell and NARA, but can't find any HSCA interview of Frazier.

Tue 08 Dec 2009, 11:14 pm

I would guess that the co-worker may have seen Frazier & Oswald leaving the back lot on Thursday after work, so asked him where his rider was on Friday morning.

Possible, I guess.

Shields' information is only second-hand. It seems he would have been just inside the north warehouse, getting ready for the work day, and the co-worker (Franklin Wester?) saw Frazier arrive alone, and made small shop-talk about it as he went inside.

Shields' remembrance, IF it is accurate, puts Frazier's story in the fiction department- of following 50 feet behind Oswald on their way to the Depository.

Shields interview was recorded and no transcript appears to be available. I'd be less concerned about Shield's memory and more concerned about the possibility his testimony has been "value added".

Armstrong seems to have been loose with the facts in other areas - a prime example. He claims the name "Lee Oswald" was used during the Bolton Ford incident. The FBI reports however, don't back that up. The name given was simply "Oswald".

There are other examples if you need them.

I would imagine that Montgomery found a long wood dowel or yardstick, with which to balance the bag without disturbing any prints. The bag is too flat to contain a hidden rifle.

Dowel = curtain rods, perhaps?

It looks to me as though brother & sister got their stories in sync, to keep the bag too short to possibly implicate Frazier- that he may have knowingly delivered Oswald with a rifle to the Depository.

That's an interesting thought - and to me, a completely new take on things.

I'd been working on the idea that Buell allowed Oswald to get ahead so that he (Frazier) could take the rifle in unseen. The first place he went was straight down to the basement - the place he returns to later for lunch - a place he had not used before to have lunch. This had a conveyor belt up to the packing bay. I also wonder if it had the switches to shut down the elevators? I know you only had to leave a door open to stop them running, but someone could always come along unexpected and close the gate...

According to "Harvey and Lee" p. 880: "When HSCA investigators tried to interview Frazier in 1977 he stalled repeatedly. The interviewer who was attempting to interview him wrote, 'Frazier continues to procrastinate. Now wants to meet in lawyer's office next Friday. Definite resistance but reason not apparent. Will require another call tomorrow at 10:00 'to see if lawyer says OK'. (10/20/77)... Call Buell Wesley Frazier at work and get more 'put off'."

I've looked and looked at Mary Ferrell and NARA, but can't find any HSCA interview of Frazier.

I've now looked as well. Not only can't I find it at MFF, I can't find any reference to it anywhere. It's hard to imagine the HSCA ignoring Frazier - but then again - they did ignore Ruth Paine, so it's possible.

Has anyone apart from Armstrong claimed to have to have seen this material?

Fri 11 Dec 2009, 6:24 am

John Armstrong is the only one who's seen the Shields HSCA interview and Frazier HSCA memo, as far as I know. I agree that there are several instances involving his Lee Oswald which are "value added" to conform them into his overall Harvey & Lee thesis, but I have nothing but complete respect for Armstrong's work- it must have been exceedingly difficult terrain to trailblaze & navigate.
I've been scratching the surface with another researcher the past few months, on the concept that Harvey & Lee were actually half-brothers, one of them a bastard child, in a family scandal involving father Robert and one of Marguerote's sisters or cousins. It will probably take a lot of years to develop; in any case, I'm 100% sold on the Oswald lookalike hypothesis.
The Jiffy convenience store episode, involving the lookalike at 9:30 AM on the 22nd, at WCD 7 p. 738, has been deep-sixed at Mary Ferrell. So I have to wonder whether Frazier's HSCA stuff has been deep-sixed at the Archives.
Although it would be nice to get some corroboration, I'm sure that John was taking notes verbatim on the Shields interview and Frazier HSCA memo.

That's quite an original concept- that perhaps it was Frazier who carried the bag in that morning, putting it in the basement. I would think you'd need to find some opportunity during that work morning, for Oswald to bring the bag upstairs, and get his palmprint on it. An interesting concept worth exploring.
In either event, I don't see Frazier as completely ignorant regarding delivery of a rifle that morning. His 24" bag was never found, and while a parcel that size is long enough to suggest a rifle component, its 12 inches too short to accomodate most barrels or stocks. Frazier had some knowledge of rifles and by alleging the bag was only 24", he successfully dissociated himself from the suspicion that the bag contained a fully-assembled rifle or a rifle component.

The 24" length was the initial lie he told to the FBI's Richard Harrison the night of the 22nd, and he's stuck with it ever since. It seems to me that Linnie Mae Randle shrunk her FBI estimate of 3 feet down to 27" for Frazier's benefit.
So, considering he's just lied to the FBI, his apprehension about being polygraphed by the DPD was well-described by Jim Bishop's "controlled hysteria"- i.e. they're goingto find out what he knows about the probable delivery of a rifle, and find out he's just lied to the FBI.

I have to think that the DPD polygraphers- RD Lewis, Stovall, and 2 or 3 others- got Frazier to acknowledge he'd known the wrapping paper was long enough to accomodate a rifle, but let him ride with his fable about it being only 24" long. The DPD figured he was innocent and needed the 24" story to protect himself. And the DPD later deep-sixed the polygraph results in order to protect themselves- the supposed integrity of their investigation.
This line of thinking at least jives with what Gus Rose recalled about talking to Frazier earlier that evening, about seeing Oswald that morning (No More Silence, p. 342): "Wesley said to me, 'I didn't think it was curtain rods, but I didn't want to argue with him. When we got to work, Lee got that package out, and I asked him, 'Why don't we lock that under the trunk and when we get off you can get it?'
Oswald replied, 'No, I need it here'."

Frazier, of course, never mentioned this suspicion or conversation in his testimony. His fable about the 24" package has spawned 4 1/2 decades of suspicion about him, and deservedly so. It would be nice if he set the record straight in a recorded interview or at a conference. The truth shall set you free?

I've been wondering about a power stoppage of the elevators for several years, but can't rigorously prove it. What got me started was Geneva Hine's statement that "the lights all went out and the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us." I believe she is talking about the Lucite display buttons on the phone carriages that signal an incoming call; there was no switchboard; she was manning the 2nd-floor central-office phones as a favor to the other office girls, since she'd seen the President before.

At least 2 ("lights"- plural) phone calls went dead simultaneously. I have to wonder whether a voltage spike or power surge (which also occurs in a negative sense- a negative spike or sudden loss of power) brought about this temporary loss of power to the phones. This could occur if the phone's electrical line was physically close to a strongly-changing electrical line. Then the fundamental force of induction comes into play. A changing current in one line can induce a current to change in a neighboring line, if it is close enough.

There were 2 elevator outages noted: 1) the front passenger elevator wasn't working when Victoris Adams and Sandra Styles tried it on the 4th floor; at 12:31, in my opinion 2) Luke Mooney took the west freight elevator from the 1st to the 2nd floor, and Adams got on, somewhere between 12:45 and 12:50
But the elevator's power then cut out and they had to use the stairs.

IF the front pasenger elevator & rear freight elevators were tied into the same circuit, the 12:31 passenger elevator outage may mean the freight elevators were shut off at this time as well. The passenger elevator was newly-installed, built during renovations to the vacant warehouse, once the Sexton grocery company moved out of 411 Elm Street. The freight elevators had been in use for years and years.

The main junction box for the freight elevators was undoubtedly somewhere just beneath them, in the basement at the rear of the building. It may have been a 440-volt feed, to provide ample power for the elevators. The installation of a passenger elevator required either its own separate junction box, or a cable running along the wall or ceiling to connect with the box for the freight elevators.

It's true that, if the outer corrugated-metal gate wasn't shut closed, the west freight elevator couldn't be summoned- riding empty on its own. With the outer gate open, this elevator could still be ridden up & down if, as a safety feature, the inner wooden-slat gate was rolled down.

So we may picture Truly yelling up the shaft, 50 seconds after the assassination, and Dougherty standing on the elevator platform at the 5th floor, with the inside gate shut, ignoring Truly, waiting for the power to get turned on. He'd then just press a button for a floor on the control panel inside.

It wasn't necessary to cut off the elevator's power, but may have been incorporated into the assassination planning, a precautionary overkill.

These days I'm not even sure whether Geneva Hine might have been pulling everyone's leg- whether she made up her phones-went-dead story to protect herself; that will depend on whether she's the woman interviewed by Robert Groden, who apparently changed a dollar for Oswald on the 2nd floor only moments before the shooting started. cat

Sat 12 Dec 2009, 10:02 pm

John Armstrong is the only one who's seen the Shields HSCA interview and Frazier HSCA memo, as far as I know. I agree that there are several instances involving his Lee Oswald which are "value added" to conform them into his overall Harvey & Lee thesis, but I have nothing but complete respect for Armstrong's work- it must have been exceedingly difficult terrain to trailblaze & navigate.

Richard,

I don't doubt you sincerely respect Armstrong and his work. His supporters are nothing if not loyal. In your case, at least it doesn't appear to be blind loyalty.

If I appear to lack respect for the man and his work, there are solid reasons for it; the major one being something you would not be aware of involving a conflict of interest inadvertently revealed on another forum by one of his major supporters - who then found no problem in backflipping when the conflict was pointed out.

Hopefully we can agree to disagree about the merit of his work.

That said, I don't like to throw the baby out with the bathwater - but I do think your version has far more going for it, for example, perhaps explaining some oddities re his birth certificate.

The Jiffy convenience store episode, involving the lookalike at 9:30 AM on the 22nd, at WCD 7 p. 738, has been deep-sixed at Mary Ferrell. So I have to wonder whether Frazier's HSCA stuff has been deep-sixed at the Archives.
Although it would be nice to get some corroboration, I'm sure that John was taking notes verbatim on the Shields interview and Frazier HSCA memo.

No surprise, I guess, that I'd be easier about it if corroboration existed.

That's quite an original concept - that perhaps it was Frazier who carried the bag in that morning, putting it in the basement. I would think you'd need to find some opportunity during that work morning, for Oswald to bring the bag upstairs, and get his palmprint on it. An interesting concept worth exploring.

My scenario includes:

Frazier being brought to Irving as a possible patsy because it was not known whether Oswald would make it back to Dallas. When he did, having Frazier in place made it easier to get Oswald in. One of those who had knowingly brought Buell to Irving was of course his sister. She had no problem with it because she saw herself as way above Buell who she thought of as an uneducated hick and well below her station in life.

Oswald's palmprint getting on the bag without Oswald knowing about it. I think Frazier let Oswald get ahead so he could carry the parcel in without Oswald seeing him do it.

I have to think that the DPD polygraphers- RD Lewis, Stovall, and 2 or 3 others- got Frazier to acknowledge he'd known the wrapping paper was long enough to accomodate a rifle, but let him ride with his fable about it being only 24" long. The DPD figured he was innocent and needed the 24" story to protect himself. And the DPD later deep-sixed the polygraph results in order to protect themselves- the supposed integrity of their investigation.

That does explain a lot. Have you read the FBI report on their chat with Lewis?

I've posted it here: Lewis FBI Report

I did not believe that any polygraph was taken. If you are right and there was one (and what you say does make a heap of sense, so you may well be), then it was not one that went by the book. For one, the time-frame was too short. And any lack of care in conducting it would be another reason to make the paperwork disappear.

The problem as I see it is that Lewis (and others since) have insisted that Frazier passed the test. That being the case, then Frazier was telling the truth so far as he knew it when he said the bag was about 2 feet long and made of cheap crinkly paper. How can he pass the test AND be describing a bag other than the one in evidence? My reasoning has been that he could pass it by describing Oswald's lunch sack if that was all that Oswald was indeed carrying.

And Lewis does suggest that the bag is not the one Oswald had and that Oswald must have thrown his away.

This line of thinking at least jives with what Gus Rose recalled about talking to Frazier earlier that evening, about seeing Oswald that morning (No More Silence, p. 342): "Wesley said to me, 'I didn't think it was curtain rods, but I didn't want to argue with him. When we got to work, Lee got that package out, and I asked him, 'Why don't we lock that under the trunk and when we get off you can get it?' Oswald replied, 'No, I need it here'."

I wasn't aware of that, but if this conversation really did take place, I'd probably need to rethink the whole thing. The people involved in that polygraph have given wildly different accounts in different books however, and Rose in particular has a tarnished reputation following release of The Thin Blue Line

The main junction box for the freight elevators was undoubtedly somewhere just beneath them, in the basement at the rear of the building. It may have been a 440-volt feed, to provide ample power for the elevators. The installation of a passenger elevator required either its own separate junction box, or a cable running along the wall or ceiling to connect with the box for the freight elevators.

It's true that, if the outer corrugated-metal gate wasn't shut closed, the west freight elevator couldn't be summoned- riding empty on its own. With the outer gate open, this elevator could still be ridden up & down if, as a safety feature, the inner wooden-slat gate was rolled down.

So we may picture Truly yelling up the shaft, 50 seconds after the assassination, and Dougherty standing on the elevator platform at the 5th floor, with the inside gate shut, ignoring Truly, waiting for the power to get turned on. He'd then just press a button for a floor on the control panel inside.

It wasn't necessary to cut off the elevator's power, but may have been incorporated into the assassination planning, a precautionary overkill.

Thanks for those details! If the power was cut at the junction box, and the junction box was in the basement, then Frazier was the man in place to do it.

These days I'm not even sure whether Geneva Hine might have been pulling everyone's leg- whether she made up her phones-went-dead story to protect herself; that will depend on whether she's the woman interviewed by Robert Groden, who apparently changed a dollar for Oswald on the 2nd floor only moments before the shooting started.

Well, I'm sure Sean will have some interesting things to say about this aspect.

Thu 17 Dec 2009, 3:19 pm

Yeah, there's been a "professional jealousy" aspect to researchers that makes me wonder whether this conflict of interest on John Armstrong's part- I'd prefer to stay in "ignorance is bliss" land about it, since I haven't read this post. His opus maximus is an entirely earnest effort, complete with its own internal labyrinth of personal coverups. It would be like finding out Jim Marrs actually didn't cancel his JFK class at UTexas Arlington- he punched out Gary Mack and Dave Perry and did 3 months in the county jail.

Armstrong has opened up a lot of new trails, and I'm sure the repercussions were a lot to deal with for trying to manage humdrum daily life. Some areas, unfortunately, have become uncorroboration-able, like the Jiffy store story.
The way his referencing system takes the reader right inside the Archives can't be topped.
I've been exposed to an improvement in his theory- it can only be said to be a minor improvement- but it's only an idea so far, with little and no documentary support, it's through-the-looking-glass-a-bit-further type of stuff. Armstrong pretty much ran the table on dicey documentary support, so one would want a convincing presentation, with something more than wisps of evidence, to introduce this improvement.

One of my all-time favorite books.

Your scenario on Frazier sure works for me. Brother & sister were about 11 years apart. I had downloaded the Lewis FBI report a few weks ago, and accepted that the polygraph had actually taken place, thinking the DPD was looking for a group story to be told about the results, so that they let him ride with his 24" size bag story that he'd already told the FBI.

A bit too harsh, perhaps, but I had to wonder why the polygraph results got deep-sixed.

But, as you pointed out in your original essay, Oswald did say (I hope) to Holmes that sometimes you use any old bag you find for lunch. A myriad of reasons puts Holmes as a suspect (binoculars from his postal room, for one) so I'm lost in the woods when Holmes tells Larry Sneed anything.

It may well be that Oswald only brought in a big crinkly lunch bag, and that scenario sure works for me.

I'd like to hear somewhere Frazier's take on this- as well as Randle's- the truth.
They may need protection from Aynesworth and Perry, who themselves need a thorough interrogation.

Yeah, it boils down to: if elevator power off, then Frazier shut it off.

Sat 19 Dec 2009, 11:33 pm

Yeah, there's been a "professional jealousy" aspect to researchers that makes me wonder whether this conflict of interest on John Armstrong's part-

Richard, it seems there is a word missing in the above. Did you mean "...this conflict of interest IS on John Armstrong's part?

I'll take your word about the professional jealousy. I've only ever come across his CT supporters and LN detractors - who aren't motivated by jealousy.

If you think that is my motivation, so be it. All I can tell you is, my allegiance is to accuracy in citing, and to declaring information needed to help assess and weigh what is being presented. Regardless, I'd still like to be able to agree to disagree about Armstrong and leave it at that. It's your work I'm interested in - not his.

But, as you pointed out in your original essay, Oswald did say (I hope) to Holmes that sometimes you use any old bag you find for lunch. A myriad of reasons puts Holmes as a suspect (binoculars from his postal room, for one) so I'm lost in the woods when Holmes tells Larry Sneed anything.

Holmes is suspected by a number of people. I have no opinion on that. What I will say is that his "professional suspicioner" self description makes him sound like Inspector Cluseau. And Cluseau would be more than capable of being "in" on it, while simultaneously inadvertently helping the other side. It is largely Holmes' testimony for instance that I think gives a fairly accurate description of Oswald's alibi. Others party to the interrogations were trying to put words in Oswald's mouth to void the alibi.

Sun 20 Dec 2009, 5:05 pm

Greg, no, I think what I'm refering to is a general "attack mode" emotion on the part of researchers who haven't gone there first-hand, and I had in mind a poster you battled off regarding Darwin, Australia during WWII; also, knee-jerk internet critics who don't do their homework, in say college libraries or such, but rely upon the latest vibe in the JFK investigation, to whittle their spears and do their Lilliputian thing.

So I'm of the opinion at present that John Armstrong's conflict of interest (which is unknown to me) probably has a deeper story-line, whether it be personal, or unmentionable connections, or even/only this stage in his development and the development of thought in JFK matters.
Anyways, I've no great curiosity about this conflict of interest; sure, he's a mysterioso, but I'm OK with that.

I ordered an early copy once his book was available, it lay open many dozens of nights while I worked on my own perspective on Dallas & JFK, so I'm a bit of an authority on his work. So said, I passed through the bandwagonning stage and more like a "UN interpreter".

I heartily agree that the lack of/fudge-factor in his accuracy can be a drawback; I search for what he was after, attempting to resolve whatever issue to my satisfaction. One can be "over-accurate" as well, on occasion.

I very much admire the work you've done, your background and such. I know quite a bit more than you might suspect about, oh, Alice Springs, facility capabilities, Rhyolite, Aboriginal dreamtime. There are things picked up when housepainting with "failed" Sydney engineers.

Well, only off the top of my head for the moment, the most suspicious evidence I find that damns Holmes is the postal money order "Hidell" sent to Klein's Sporting Goods- no bank stamp on the back, forged signature, and came from a stack in the Dallas P.O. that was out of numerical sequence.

Holmes, in any event, was in a key position to manipulate much of the postal paper trail against Oswald. He opened the brown package (Nassau St., Irving) that "Harvey" Oswald's handwriting sent to himself, to get dead-ended into the Irving Post Office.

A shame, since I suspect the contents were actually on paper, a treatise of sorts, listing names & organizations involved in the assassination.

The historic Oswald, I do declare, was aiming to bring down the whole house of cards of conspirators. But once he'd thwarted the Chicago plot, (timed for the Diem coup), the bastards improved their methods against him.

Can't extend to him single-handed credit on Chicago, since it was more of a dry run, for a security test, than an actual enactment. Dallas, at least to me, has the earmarks of the always-intended place, sort of a psychologic setup along the hallway through Cape Canaveral, Miami, Tampa, San Antonio & Houston & all but the last few yards of the motorcade.

These guys were pros. Had it figured down to the red roses Jackie was given.

Tue 10 Aug 2010, 7:31 pm

Richard Gilbride wrote:

It may well be that Oswald only brought in a big crinkly lunch bag, and that scenario sure works for me.

I'd like to hear somewhere Frazier's take on this- as well as Randle's- the truth.
They may need protection from Aynesworth and Perry, who themselves need a thorough interrogation.

I've previously posted on this aspect - in an interview that Frazier did for a TV documentary which appears to be sometime in the 80s - unfortunately I don't know which one - he describes the bag as being made from the "kind of heavy brown paper that you find in a shipping department..." or words to that effect. Also that it was taped together, again with the kind of tape that you'd find in a shippng department. Somewhat of a departure from the crinkly brown paper bag you get from a 5 and 10c store!?!?

There's also the interview he gave to Gary Mack sometime in the early 80s when he admits that he saw Oswald outside the TSBD after the assassination!

So, whilst many say his story hasn't changed over the years, there are actually subtle differences as time goes on.

Tue 10 Aug 2010, 9:47 pm

I hope you don't mind Greg, but I thought I'd post my original thoughts on this that I previously wrote - slightly updated. It repeats some of your points but I think it also introduces other aspects and, perhaps, different viewpoints for further discussion...

I've read quite a lot on Frazier's and Randle's (or Randall? - seems to have 2 different spellings but I'll stick with Randle as it appears in WCR) statements and testimonies regarding the length of the bag but only one other seems to have questioned, briefly, what they actually say they saw, particularly Randle. I have various concerns with their statements and testimonies:

1. It is not established which kitchen window Oswald was seen looking through – Frazier says “He just looked through the kitchen window. To see from there on the ground outside there. I say you don't have to be any height at all, you don't have to be too tall to be able to look in the kitchen window there…” which seems to indicate the low window on the opposite side of the kitchen from the carport (see CE442)– why would Oswald have walked all the way round to there? Also, if Frazier and his mother were sitting at the kitchen table with Randle at the sink, obscuring the view through that window, how did Frazier’s mother see Oswald at the window, and Frazier also see him to identify him?

2. Then Randle’s description of having seen Oswald only from the waist up seems to indicate that she saw him only from the window in front of the house, in which case, she wouldn’t have seen his lower half which leads to the issue of whether she had actually seen the package at all if she’d only seen Oswald from the waist up.

3. Strange that Frazier was running late that morning and Oswald still got there before Frazier was ready when Oswald himself had also apparently overslept. Both sleeping late on the same, this most important and infamous, of days!?!?

4. Why did Frazier have to “charge the battery” on his car – he’d just driven 15 miles to work?

5. Why did Oswald wait for Frazier to get out of the car before walking ahead of him anyway? If he was waiting for him, why didn’t they walk in together as Frazier testifies they usually did? Frazier testified that they would normally walk in together. Or was it actually the other way round and Frazier was waiting for Oswald to leave for some reason and he only left the car when Oswald got fed up of waiting and started walking in himself?

6. Why is Randle so interested in the package, almost to the exclusion of everything else – I mean, she didn’t even recognise Oswald and could not recall what Oswald was wearing yet she can describe the package in great detail?

7. It is clear that Randle could not possibly have seen Oswald placing any package in Frazier’s car since Frazier’s car was parked outside the carport (CE447) and her view would have been blocked by the car that was in the carport (Randle’s?) and of course, not forgetting, the side-wall of the carport!!! Frazier also says in his affidavit to the DPD that “…it was parked backed up at the side of the carport…” so the rear right door to which Randle refers was also on the furthest side of Frazier’s car from Randle’s view! 2 further things to note here – In CE446, the car shown as Frazier’s is not actually Frazier’s car and, in CE447, the car inside the carport is a white car. Now look at CE446 which purports to show the view that Randle had from the kitchen door - is it my imagination or have the 2 cars been swapped round to give the impression that Randle could actually have seen the car from the kitchen door?

8. Randle described the reason she ‘knew’ it was the right rear door of the car because “…what made me establish the door on Wesley's car, it is an old car and that door, the window is broken and everything and it is hard to close, so that cinched in my mind which door it was, too…” – If she saw Oswald place a package in the car through the rear right door, why does she resort to describing it like this? Perhaps it is because she didn’t actually see it and just heard the noise of somebody trying to close the door by slamming it because it was difficult to close?

9. Randle says of seeing Oswald that she “…just saw him from the waist up…” – if that was the case, how did she manage to see him with the package as he “…carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it…”?

10. Whilst samples of packaging paper were taken from the Paine house, neither Ruth Paine or Marina Oswald were asked whether there was any indication that Oswald had helped himself to the bread, cheese and fruit for his lunch that he said he took with him to work that day nor, indeed, were they asked whether there were any paper sacks or bags in the house that Oswald might have taken from the house that morning? The only thing Marina was asked was whether he had taken anything to work with him that morning, even though she’s already said that she hadn’t seen him leaving. Her reply “I think that he had a package with his lunch. But a small package” seems to indicate that, when staying at the Paine’s house, he would take a lunch with him to work – what did he usually carry it in?

11. Why is Randle being so defensive about mentioning a job in the TSBD? She seems desperate to distance herself from anything to do with this and, in fact throughout her testimony, she never once mentions the words or letters (Texas School Book Depository/TSBD), she just calls it “over there”!?!? Then Ruth Paine is saying in her testimony that Randle volunteered the information…?

This leads me on to a few thoughts:

• Did 2 people appear at the Randle house that morning? One who put something in the car then left and then Oswald who appeared at the window you might have expected him to appear at first if he’d just walked down from the Paine house?
• Did one person appear there – Oswald? Was he was just carrying a lunch sack with cheese, bread and fruit in it - as he said to Fritz - which would explain Randle’s description of the way the bag was being carried and the fact it appeared heavier and bulkier toward the bottom – as it probably would if it were a brown paper lunch bag containing bread, cheese and fruit? This would probably also explain a bit better the way Frazier described Oswald’s way of carrying the package to the Depository.
• It is interesting to note that Frazier was arrested (not sure on what charge at the moment) on the 22nd November and questioned at some length. A .303 Enfield rifle and ammunition rounds were also found after a search of Randle’s house, where he was staying at the time – See DPD Officer G.F. Rose report of officer’s duties in DPD JFK archives, box 1, folder 6, item 21, this is also one of the reports saying that Ruth Paine made the comment as the Dallas Police arrived to search her house “Come on in, we were expecting you…”. As the police were driving Frazier home, they had a radio call to bring him back in for questioning under polygraph – the results are reported as confirming his affidavit in this report (though, Rose's supplementary report says that the polygraph test was carried out first!) – I wonder what questions were asked? Also, Frazier wasn’t arrested until 18:30-18:45 that evening – where had he been since leaving the book depository earlier in the afternoon and going to see his step-father in hospital?
• Why is Randle saying that she saw Oswald open the car door and place something in the car when she clearly could not possibly have seen this?
• In the Paine testimony, it is apparently stated by Jenner that the floor plan drawing, CE441 was not available at the time of Randle’s testimony and she was never asked to look at any pictures, photographs or diagrams to confirm or describe anything during her testimony so I guess it can be fairly safely assumed that the photographs, CEs 442, 443, 446 & 447 either hadn’t been taken or were not available at that point, in which case, did someone realise that when Randle’s testimony was read and compared with the photographs that had been taken with Frazier’s car outside the carport and another white car inside the carport (CE446) that there was a problem in that they realised that Randle could not possibly have seen Oswald place anything inside the car? It was too late by then as Randle had given her testimony so did someone have the idea that they could perhaps go back and ask Frazier to swap the cars to take another photograph with Frazier’s car inside the carport?
• How do Randle and Frazier manage to recall the package in great detail yet are extremely vague about most other things and “…didn’t pay too much attention..” ?
• Then there is the photograph of the bag being removed from the Depository – it has clearly been folded horizontally along the length a couple of times (appears to be in half then in half again) yet doesn’t appear to be significantly creased in the way it might have been if carried in the way both Randle and Frazier describe (Frazier described in his affidavit that it had been folded down at the top and folded under along its length – why is there no crease along its length in the photograph?). It appears to be rather large for it to be tucked under the arm as Frazier described Oswald carried it.
• One more thought on the rifle – if it was disassembled to get it into the depository surely, whilst disassembling, any unnecessary parts would have been removed and left, particularly the strap, to make sure it’s as small as possible, light as possible, easier to conceal and as easy & quick as possible to re-assemble? (If the sniper’s nest “design” was already established for the purpose, the strap would not have been required).

Finally, why did Randle go round to the Paine's house when the police arrived there on the afternoon of the 22nd and tell them about her brother giving Oswald a lift to work that morning carrying a package that "made her suspicious"???

Another thing is that isn't it a coincidence that Fazier used to work in a store where he used to unpack curtain rods? The Paines had curtain rods in their garage and Oswald allegedly said that he was picking up curtain rods - then again, the source of the curtain rods story is none other than...Buell Wesley Frazier!!! Oswald always maintained that he only took his lunch into work.

Wed 11 Aug 2010, 5:02 pm

greg parker wrote:BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER

[b]LINNIE MAE RANDLE

Suspicion
Detectives Rose, Stovall and Adamcik, along with three county officers, arrived at the Paine residence between 3:00pm and 3:30pm. At approximately 3:45pm, Michael Paine arrived. At some point after this, Adamcik accompanied Ruth Paine to the house of a neighbor to arrange care for the children so that Ruth and Marina could be taken to City Hall. On their way back, Linnie Mae drove up to the house, and was asked by Adamcik if she knew anything about what had happened, and if she knew Oswald [8] In response, she informed him that her brother, Wesley Frazier, took Oswald to work that morning, and that she had seen him (Oswald} carry something over to her brother's car and put it in the back. The object was long, and wrapped in paper or a box. According to Adamcik, she thought this was suspicious. She then told Adamcik that her brother could be reached at Parkland Hospital where he was visiting his step-father [9]

Greg,

"...According to Adamcik, she thought this was suspicious."

Where does Adamcik say this please?

Thu 12 Aug 2010, 11:50 am

Hello, Ian, that Adamcik reference is at WCH XXI p. 600

You've essayed a clear & well-put criminological study of the problems in Frazier & Randle's account of the morning of November 22nd. The only conclusion I'm happy with is that they were both lying, and that something entirely different happened.

You may (or may not) be familiar with "The Malicious Myth of the Curtain Rod Package" section in my essay "The Piper of Potemkin Village". After familiarizing yourself with it, you may (or may not) wish you had. cat

In the Shields transcript on page 14 we get the account of Frazier arriving in his parking space alone, having already dropped his rider "off at the building". That, for starters, seems to me one missing detail hidden by Frazier's lies about that morning.

There should be a fuller picture once I manage to de-noise & decipher the 4-hour Archives tape of Frazier's HSCA interview, of the curious title "Wesley Buell Frazier's Polygraph Test". scratch

It is of paramount importance that Fox Mulder remain out of the loop regarding the contents of this tape. Although, if my present suspicions are correct, it was he who overlaid the noise onto it.

Thu 12 Aug 2010, 7:56 pm

Thanks for the reference Richard - that is VERY interesting to me (Adamcik doesn't seem to mention it in his testimony)...Whilst Randle seems confused as to when Frazier told her that Oswald was having his lift on a Thursday to pick up curtain rods, she finally decides that he must have informed her of this on the Thursday evening. This makes sense to me as I'm sure she would have asked why Frazier had brought him home, unusually, on the Thursday. Therefore, why was she "suspicious" of the package when she was talking to Adamcik? If she had been told previously that Oswald was bringing curtain rods, why be so supicious? Or, perhaps, was she suspicious not only of Oswald, but also of Frazier and that they were concocting something together?

I've not read your essay but I shall endeavour to do so - is there a link?

Can't wait for the "Frazier ploygraph" transcript - good luck with that!!!

Fri 13 Aug 2010, 2:18 am

Richard,

Read the pertinent part of your essay (and various other sections - will complete over the next few days when time permits)...Seems like we're thinking along identical lines!!!

Sun 15 Aug 2010, 10:56 am

ianlloyd wrote:I hope you don't mind Greg, but I thought I'd post my original thoughts on this that I previously wrote - slightly updated. It repeats some of your points but I think it also introduces other aspects and, perhaps, different viewpoints for further discussion...

Ian. I am very happy to have you join the discussion!

I've read quite a lot on Frazier's and Randle's (or Randall? - seems to have 2 different spellings but I'll stick with Randle as it appears in WCR) statements and testimonies regarding the length of the bag but only one other seems to have questioned, briefly, what they actually say they saw, particularly Randle. I have various concerns with their statements and testimonies:

1. It is not established which kitchen window Oswald was seen looking through – Frazier says “He just looked through the kitchen window. To see from there on the ground outside there. I say you don't have to be any height at all, you don't have to be too tall to be able to look in the kitchen window there…” which seems to indicate the low window on the opposite side of the kitchen from the carport (see CE442)– why would Oswald have walked all the way round to there?

Maybe just to see if Frazier was up?

Also, if Frazier and his mother were sitting at the kitchen table with Randle at the sink, obscuring the view through that window, how did Frazier’s mother see Oswald at the window, and Frazier also see him to identify him?

Good points.

2. Then Randle’s description of having seen Oswald only from the waist up seems to indicate that she saw him only from the window in front of the house, in which case, she wouldn’t have seen his lower half which leads to the issue of whether she had actually seen the package at all if she’d only seen Oswald from the waist up.

3. Strange that Frazier was running late that morning and Oswald still got there before Frazier was ready when Oswald himself had also apparently overslept. Both sleeping late on the same, this most important and infamous, of days!?!?

Yep. Both slept late. Both took a sandwich and an apple for lunch.

4. Why did Frazier have to “charge the battery” on his car – he’d just driven 15 miles to work?

I ended up asking about this. I was told that what he did was correct for that car. Can't remember who told me, so can't say now how accurate that is.

5. Why did Oswald wait for Frazier to get out of the car before walking ahead of him anyway?

My impression is that he waited until Frazier got out of the car, then kept walking. Frazier however, dawdled and made no attempt to catch up.

If he was waiting for him, why didn’t they walk in together as Frazier testifies they usually did? Frazier testified that they would normally walk in together. Or was it actually the other way round and Frazier was waiting for Oswald to leave for some reason and he only left the car when Oswald got fed up of waiting and started walking in himself?

Well, a whole new possibility has emerged that Frazier actually dropped Oswald off at the front. If this is true, Frazier comes under enormous suspicion - especially given his curious behaviour post-assassination.

6. Why is Randle so interested in the package, almost to the exclusion of everything else – I mean, she didn’t even recognise Oswald and could not recall what Oswald was wearing yet she can describe the package in great detail?

7. It is clear that Randle could not possibly have seen Oswald placing any package in Frazier’s car since Frazier’s car was parked outside the carport (CE447) and her view would have been blocked by the car that was in the carport (Randle’s?) and of course, not forgetting, the side-wall of the carport!!! Frazier also says in his affidavit to the DPD that “…it was parked backed up at the side of the carport…” so the rear right door to which Randle refers was also on the furthest side of Frazier’s car from Randle’s view! 2 further things to note here – In CE446, the car shown as Frazier’s is not actually Frazier’s car and, in CE447, the car inside the carport is a white car. Now look at CE446 which purports to show the view that Randle had from the kitchen door - is it my imagination or have the 2 cars been swapped round to give the impression that Randle could actually have seen the car from the kitchen door?

8. Randle described the reason she ‘knew’ it was the right rear door of the car because “…what made me establish the door on Wesley's car, it is an old car and that door, the window is broken and everything and it is hard to close, so that cinched in my mind which door it was, too…” – If she saw Oswald place a package in the car through the rear right door, why does she resort to describing it like this? Perhaps it is because she didn’t actually see it and just heard the noise of somebody trying to close the door by slamming it because it was difficult to close?

9. Randle says of seeing Oswald that she “…just saw him from the waist up…” – if that was the case, how did she manage to see him with the package as he “…carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it…”?

Agree with all the above points

10. Whilst samples of packaging paper were taken from the Paine house, neither Ruth Paine or Marina Oswald were asked whether there was any indication that Oswald had helped himself to the bread, cheese and fruit for his lunch that he said he took with him to work that day nor, indeed, were they asked whether there were any paper sacks or bags in the house that Oswald might have taken from the house that morning? The only thing Marina was asked was whether he had taken anything to work with him that morning, even though she’s already said that she hadn’t seen him leaving. Her reply “I think that he had a package with his lunch. But a small package” seems to indicate that, when staying at the Paine’s house, he would take a lunch with him to work – what did he usually carry it in?

He said in his interrogation that he used whatever bag he could find.

11. Why is Randle being so defensive about mentioning a job in the TSBD? She seems desperate to distance herself from anything to do with this and, in fact throughout her testimony, she never once mentions the words or letters (Texas School Book Depository/TSBD), she just calls it “over there”!?!? Then Ruth Paine is saying in her testimony that Randle volunteered the information…?

Her whole testimony around this shows she was almost contemptuous of Wes, making a point of saying how little education he had and hinting this was the only type of job he was capable of getting. In my estimation, she was a social climber who married into a family "going places" through politics. I say this because her brother-in-law, Marvin, was active in conservative dixiecrat politics, and would later go on to become mayor of Irving. For his part, Wes hinted in testimony that he and his sister rarely even spoke to each other... I have to wonder, given all this, whether Wes was used similar to a trojan horse to get Oswald into the building.

This leads me on to a few thoughts:

• Did 2 people appear at the Randle house that morning? One who put something in the car then left and then Oswald who appeared at the window you might have expected him to appear at first if he’d just walked down from the Paine house?

I doubt it.

• Did one person appear there – Oswald? Was he was just carrying a lunch sack with cheese, bread and fruit in it - as he said to Fritz - which would explain Randle’s description of the way the bag was being carried and the fact it appeared heavier and bulkier toward the bottom – as it probably would if it were a brown paper lunch bag containing bread, cheese and fruit? This would probably also explain a bit better the way Frazier described Oswald’s way of carrying the package to the Depository.
• It is interesting to note that Frazier was arrested (not sure on what charge at the moment) on the 22nd November and questioned at some length. A .303 Enfield rifle and ammunition rounds were also found after a search of Randle’s house, where he was staying at the time – See DPD Officer G.F. Rose report of officer’s duties in DPD JFK archives, box 1, folder 6, item 21, this is also one of the reports saying that Ruth Paine made the comment as the Dallas Police arrived to search her house “Come on in, we were expecting you…”. As the police were driving Frazier home, they had a radio call to bring him back in for questioning under polygraph – the results are reported as confirming his affidavit in this report (though, Rose's supplementary report says that the polygraph test was carried out first!) – I wonder what questions were asked? Also, Frazier wasn’t arrested until 18:30-18:45 that evening – where had he been since leaving the book depository earlier in the afternoon and going to see his step-father in hospital?
• Why is Randle saying that she saw Oswald open the car door and place something in the car when she clearly could not possibly have seen this?
• In the Paine testimony, it is apparently stated by Jenner that the floor plan drawing, CE441 was not available at the time of Randle’s testimony and she was never asked to look at any pictures, photographs or diagrams to confirm or describe anything during her testimony so I guess it can be fairly safely assumed that the photographs, CEs 442, 443, 446 & 447 either hadn’t been taken or were not available at that point, in which case, did someone realise that when Randle’s testimony was read and compared with the photographs that had been taken with Frazier’s car outside the carport and another white car inside the carport (CE446) that there was a problem in that they realised that Randle could not possibly have seen Oswald place anything inside the car? It was too late by then as Randle had given her testimony so did someone have the idea that they could perhaps go back and ask Frazier to swap the cars to take another photograph with Frazier’s car inside the carport?
• How do Randle and Frazier manage to recall the package in great detail yet are extremely vague about most other things and “…didn’t pay too much attention..” ?
• Then there is the photograph of the bag being removed from the Depository – it has clearly been folded horizontally along the length a couple of times (appears to be in half then in half again) yet doesn’t appear to be significantly creased in the way it might have been if carried in the way both Randle and Frazier describe (Frazier described in his affidavit that it had been folded down at the top and folded under along its length – why is there no crease along its length in the photograph?). It appears to be rather large for it to be tucked under the arm as Frazier described Oswald carried it.
• One more thought on the rifle – if it was disassembled to get it into the depository surely, whilst disassembling, any unnecessary parts would have been removed and left, particularly the strap, to make sure it’s as small as possible, light as possible, easier to conceal and as easy & quick as possible to re-assemble? (If the sniper’s nest “design” was already established for the purpose, the strap would not have been required).

Finally, why did Randle go round to the Paine's house when the police arrived there on the afternoon of the 22nd and tell them about her brother giving Oswald a lift to work that morning carrying a package that "made her suspicious"???

The $64 question

Another thing is that isn't it a coincidence that Fazier used to work in a store where he used to unpack curtain rods? The Paines had curtain rods in their garage and Oswald allegedly said that he was picking up curtain rods - then again, the source of the curtain rods story is none other than...Buell Wesley Frazier!!! Oswald always maintained that he only took his lunch into work.

Sun 15 Aug 2010, 9:04 pm

greg parker wrote:

ianlloyd wrote:I hope you don't mind Greg, but I thought I'd post my original thoughts on this that I previously wrote - slightly updated. It repeats some of your points but I think it also introduces other aspects and, perhaps, different viewpoints for further discussion...

Ian. I am very happy to have you join the discussion!

Thanks Greg

I've read quite a lot on Frazier's and Randle's (or Randall? - seems to have 2 different spellings but I'll stick with Randle as it appears in WCR) statements and testimonies regarding the length of the bag but only one other seems to have questioned, briefly, what they actually say they saw, particularly Randle. I have various concerns with their statements and testimonies:

1. It is not established which kitchen window Oswald was seen looking through – Frazier says “He just looked through the kitchen window. To see from there on the ground outside there. I say you don't have to be any height at all, you don't have to be too tall to be able to look in the kitchen window there…” which seems to indicate the low window on the opposite side of the kitchen from the carport (see CE442)– why would Oswald have walked all the way round to there?

Maybe just to see if Frazier was up?

But wouldn't he have seen Randle in the kitchen window nearer the carport?

Also, if Frazier and his mother were sitting at the kitchen table with Randle at the sink, obscuring the view through that window, how did Frazier’s mother see Oswald at the window, and Frazier also see him to identify him?

Good points.

2. Then Randle’s description of having seen Oswald only from the waist up seems to indicate that she saw him only from the window in front of the house, in which case, she wouldn’t have seen his lower half which leads to the issue of whether she had actually seen the package at all if she’d only seen Oswald from the waist up.

3. Strange that Frazier was running late that morning and Oswald still got there before Frazier was ready when Oswald himself had also apparently overslept. Both sleeping late on the same, this most important and infamous, of days!?!?

Yep. Both slept late. Both took a sandwich and an apple for lunch.

4. Why did Frazier have to “charge the battery” on his car – he’d just driven 15 miles to work?

I ended up asking about this. I was told that what he did was correct for that car. Can't remember who told me, so can't say now how accurate that is.

Yes, I've been told something about this as well - I think it may have been a response on Lancer.

5. Why did Oswald wait for Frazier to get out of the car before walking ahead of him anyway?

My impression is that he waited until Frazier got out of the car, then kept walking. Frazier however, dawdled and made no attempt to catch up.

If he was waiting for him, why didn’t they walk in together as Frazier testifies they usually did? Frazier testified that they would normally walk in together. Or was it actually the other way round and Frazier was waiting for Oswald to leave for some reason and he only left the car when Oswald got fed up of waiting and started walking in himself?

Well, a whole new possibility has emerged that Frazier actually dropped Oswald off at the front. If this is true, Frazier comes under enormous suspicion - especially given his curious behaviour post-assassination.

I guess you're referring here to Eddie Shields saying that Frazier told him that he'd dropped Oswald off "...at the building..." (or words to that effect)? Yes, this opens up many possibilities, not least of which may be that Frazier invented the story about Oswald walking ahead of him into the TSBD to cover this off? The other thing here is that, whilst some were questioned about seeing Oswald entering the building that morning (particularly Dougherty), nobody seems to have been asked if they saw Frazier enter the building.

6. Why is Randle so interested in the package, almost to the exclusion of everything else – I mean, she didn’t even recognise Oswald and could not recall what Oswald was wearing yet she can describe the package in great detail?

7. It is clear that Randle could not possibly have seen Oswald placing any package in Frazier’s car since Frazier’s car was parked outside the carport (CE447) and her view would have been blocked by the car that was in the carport (Randle’s?) and of course, not forgetting, the side-wall of the carport!!! Frazier also says in his affidavit to the DPD that “…it was parked backed up at the side of the carport…” so the rear right door to which Randle refers was also on the furthest side of Frazier’s car from Randle’s view! 2 further things to note here – In CE446, the car shown as Frazier’s is not actually Frazier’s car and, in CE447, the car inside the carport is a white car. Now look at CE446 which purports to show the view that Randle had from the kitchen door - is it my imagination or have the 2 cars been swapped round to give the impression that Randle could actually have seen the car from the kitchen door?

8. Randle described the reason she ‘knew’ it was the right rear door of the car because “…what made me establish the door on Wesley's car, it is an old car and that door, the window is broken and everything and it is hard to close, so that cinched in my mind which door it was, too…” – If she saw Oswald place a package in the car through the rear right door, why does she resort to describing it like this? Perhaps it is because she didn’t actually see it and just heard the noise of somebody trying to close the door by slamming it because it was difficult to close?

9. Randle says of seeing Oswald that she “…just saw him from the waist up…” – if that was the case, how did she manage to see him with the package as he “…carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it…”?

Agree with all the above points

10. Whilst samples of packaging paper were taken from the Paine house, neither Ruth Paine or Marina Oswald were asked whether there was any indication that Oswald had helped himself to the bread, cheese and fruit for his lunch that he said he took with him to work that day nor, indeed, were they asked whether there were any paper sacks or bags in the house that Oswald might have taken from the house that morning? The only thing Marina was asked was whether he had taken anything to work with him that morning, even though she’s already said that she hadn’t seen him leaving. Her reply “I think that he had a package with his lunch. But a small package” seems to indicate that, when staying at the Paine’s house, he would take a lunch with him to work – what did he usually carry it in?

He said in his interrogation that he used whatever bag he could find.

11. Why is Randle being so defensive about mentioning a job in the TSBD? She seems desperate to distance herself from anything to do with this and, in fact throughout her testimony, she never once mentions the words or letters (Texas School Book Depository/TSBD), she just calls it “over there”!?!? Then Ruth Paine is saying in her testimony that Randle volunteered the information…?

Her whole testimony around this shows she was almost contemptuous of Wes, making a point of saying how little education he had and hinting this was the only type of job he was capable of getting. In my estimation, she was a social climber who married into a family "going places" through politics. I say this because her brother-in-law, Marvin, was active in conservative dixiecrat politics, and would later go on to become mayor of Irving. For his part, Wes hinted in testimony that he and his sister rarely even spoke to each other... I have to wonder, given all this, whether Wes was used similar to a trojan horse to get Oswald into the building.

This leads me on to a few thoughts:

• Did 2 people appear at the Randle house that morning? One who put something in the car then left and then Oswald who appeared at the window you might have expected him to appear at first if he’d just walked down from the Paine house?

I doubt it.

So do I but I just threw it in as it is a possibility.

• Did one person appear there – Oswald? Was he was just carrying a lunch sack with cheese, bread and fruit in it - as he said to Fritz - which would explain Randle’s description of the way the bag was being carried and the fact it appeared heavier and bulkier toward the bottom – as it probably would if it were a brown paper lunch bag containing bread, cheese and fruit? This would probably also explain a bit better the way Frazier described Oswald’s way of carrying the package to the Depository.
• It is interesting to note that Frazier was arrested (not sure on what charge at the moment) on the 22nd November and questioned at some length. A .303 Enfield rifle and ammunition rounds were also found after a search of Randle’s house, where he was staying at the time – See DPD Officer G.F. Rose report of officer’s duties in DPD JFK archives, box 1, folder 6, item 21, this is also one of the reports saying that Ruth Paine made the comment as the Dallas Police arrived to search her house “Come on in, we were expecting you…”. As the police were driving Frazier home, they had a radio call to bring him back in for questioning under polygraph – the results are reported as confirming his affidavit in this report (though, Rose's supplementary report says that the polygraph test was carried out first!) – I wonder what questions were asked? Also, Frazier wasn’t arrested until 18:30-18:45 that evening – where had he been since leaving the book depository earlier in the afternoon and going to see his step-father in hospital?
• Why is Randle saying that she saw Oswald open the car door and place something in the car when she clearly could not possibly have seen this?
• In the Paine testimony, it is apparently stated by Jenner that the floor plan drawing, CE441 was not available at the time of Randle’s testimony and she was never asked to look at any pictures, photographs or diagrams to confirm or describe anything during her testimony so I guess it can be fairly safely assumed that the photographs, CEs 442, 443, 446 & 447 either hadn’t been taken or were not available at that point, in which case, did someone realise that when Randle’s testimony was read and compared with the photographs that had been taken with Frazier’s car outside the carport and another white car inside the carport (CE446) that there was a problem in that they realised that Randle could not possibly have seen Oswald place anything inside the car? It was too late by then as Randle had given her testimony so did someone have the idea that they could perhaps go back and ask Frazier to swap the cars to take another photograph with Frazier’s car inside the carport?
• How do Randle and Frazier manage to recall the package in great detail yet are extremely vague about most other things and “…didn’t pay too much attention..” ?
• Then there is the photograph of the bag being removed from the Depository – it has clearly been folded horizontally along the length a couple of times (appears to be in half then in half again) yet doesn’t appear to be significantly creased in the way it might have been if carried in the way both Randle and Frazier describe (Frazier described in his affidavit that it had been folded down at the top and folded under along its length – why is there no crease along its length in the photograph?). It appears to be rather large for it to be tucked under the arm as Frazier described Oswald carried it.
• One more thought on the rifle – if it was disassembled to get it into the depository surely, whilst disassembling, any unnecessary parts would have been removed and left, particularly the strap, to make sure it’s as small as possible, light as possible, easier to conceal and as easy & quick as possible to re-assemble? (If the sniper’s nest “design” was already established for the purpose, the strap would not have been required).

Finally, why did Randle go round to the Paine's house when the police arrived there on the afternoon of the 22nd and tell them about her brother giving Oswald a lift to work that morning carrying a package that "made her suspicious"???

The $64 question

Another thing is that isn't it a coincidence that Fazier used to work in a store where he used to unpack curtain rods? The Paines had curtain rods in their garage and Oswald allegedly said that he was picking up curtain rods - then again, the source of the curtain rods story is none other than...Buell Wesley Frazier!!! Oswald always maintained that he only took his lunch into work.

Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:28 pm

Fri 13 Apr 2012, 1:29 pm

AllenLowe wrote:another possible theory, after doing a little research (Greg Parker's site), is that Frazier and his sister did indeed witness Oswald carrying a larger, gun-type case; but that in order to distance themselves from the whole event they made up the bag story. (sorry, Greg, if I am mis-characterizing) -

Allen,

that point was made by Richard Gilbride in this thread. I don't know if Richard still believes it, but I'm hopeful when he's able, he'll return to posting.

I agree that there may have been collusion - but not on the size of the bag. There was other evidence, or something being hidden.

The whole thing about spending hours at a hospital by the side of his step-father is a sham. He hated his step-father who was an abusive drunk. And of course, Linnie Mae sent police to the wrong hospital... which may have bought time for Buell to clean a couple of things up before high-tailing it to the right hospital to play the concerned, doting son.

Jim DiEugenio wrote:A gun type case?

That morning?

WHere did it go then?

There never was one, Jim.

The cops who arrived at the Paine house and examined the blanket claimed it still held the shape of a rifle.

When interviewed by the FBI, polygrapher Lewis claimed that Frazier was shown a "homemade brown heavy paper gun case" as part of the polygraph. So Lewis was likewise claiming that even the paper was still in the general shape of a rifle.

Every single cop claimed Frazier passed this test. So when Frazier insisted that the paper Oswald had was cheap crinkly paper, he was - by the cops own mouths - telling the truth.

But when the cops insist that Frazier passed the test, they conveniently forget that he denied the bag being shown was the right one - and WHY he was denying it (wrong type of paper). They simply want to leave the impression that he actually ID'd the bag.

But again - there wasn't any bag (or blanket) holding the shape of a rifle. For one, we know the MC could'n't fit in the alleged bag.

Secondly, if the blanket actually took on the OBVIOUS shape of what it held (which is the impression given) - and if what it held was actually a rifle... then ask yourself how in Hades Mike Paine could move it around without realizing what was in it? He had been in the army, so he had some familiarity with rifles.

In short, the whole gun case thing was a whopping great lie to help the case against Oswald. He had what he said he had - his lunch in a sack. Buell's curtain rod story was just that - Buell's curtain rod story - an alternative lie to distance himself from a bag that he himself took in which was big enough to contain at least curtain rods, but actually contained....? which if found, could be then sheeted home to Oswald. "Oh yeah - that's the bag he had - said it was curtain rods". In the meantime, he could truthfully tell them the bag they had wasn't the one Oswald had...

Fri 20 Apr 2012, 2:05 am

greg parker wrote:

AllenLowe wrote:another possible theory, after doing a little research (Greg Parker's site), is that Frazier and his sister did indeed witness Oswald carrying a larger, gun-type case; but that in order to distance themselves from the whole event they made up the bag story. (sorry, Greg, if I am mis-characterizing) -

Allen,

that point was made by Richard Gilbride in this thread. I don't know if Richard still believes it, but I'm hopeful when he's able, he'll return to posting.

I agree that there may have been collusion - but not on the size of the bag. There was other evidence, or something being hidden.

The whole thing about spending hours at a hospital by the side of his step-father is a sham. He hated his step-father who was an abusive drunk. And of course, Linnie Mae sent police to the wrong hospital... which may have bought time for Buell to clean a couple of things up before high-tailing it to the right hospital to play the concerned, doting son.

Jim DiEugenio wrote:A gun type case?

That morning?

WHere did it go then?

There never was one, Jim.

The cops who arrived at the Paine house and examined the blanket claimed it still held the shape of a rifle.

When interviewed by the FBI, polygrapher Lewis claimed that Frazier was shown a "homemade brown heavy paper gun case" as part of the polygraph. So Lewis was likewise claiming that even the paper was still in the general shape of a rifle.

Every single cop claimed Frazier passed this test. So when Frazier insisted that the paper Oswald had was cheap crinkly paper, he was - by the cops own mouths - telling the truth.

But when the cops insist that Frazier passed the test, they conveniently forget that he denied the bag being shown was the right one - and WHY he was denying it (wrong type of paper). They simply want to leave the impression that he actually ID'd the bag.

But again - there wasn't any bag (or blanket) holding the shape of a rifle. For one, we know the MC could'n't fit in the alleged bag.

Secondly, if the blanket actually took on the OBVIOUS shape of what it held (which is the impression given) - and if what it held was actually a rifle... then ask yourself how in Hades Mike Paine could move it around without realizing what was in it? He had been in the army, so he had some familiarity with rifles.

In short, the whole gun case thing was a whopping great lie to help the case against Oswald. He had what he said he had - his lunch in a sack. Buell's curtain rod story was just that - Buell's curtain rod story - an alternative lie to distance himself from a bag that he himself took in which was big enough to contain at least curtain rods, but actually contained....? which if found, could be then sheeted home to Oswald. "Oh yeah - that's the bag he had - said it was curtain rods". In the meantime, he could truthfully tell them the bag they had wasn't the one Oswald had...

A near pefect summation IMO, Greg. And the main reason why Buell Wesley Frazier is shepherded around Dallas by handlers to this very day.

Fri 20 Apr 2012, 7:54 am

Lee, to me it is just so blatant.

I think it was Rose who made the point that the blanket was rifle shaped and Marina or someone else saying when she saw the blanket she was unconcerned because it looked like it still had the rifle inside it.

If it was the shape of a rifle, then the Paines knew it was there. Can't have it both ways.

In the report following the interview with Lewis (in which Lewis refers to it as a "homemade heavy paper gun case", the FBI makes a point of trying to tamp down the spin a bit by saying "Lewis refers to the paper in this manner because of the fact that the Dallas Police Department is of the opinion the brown heavy paper was used by Oswald to carry the rifle..."

But this wasn't even THE bag. It was a replica! The report goes on to say that Lewis is of the opinion that if this was not right bag (per Buell), then Oswald must have thrown his away.
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/gallery/ASSASSIONATION/Documents/Det-Lewis-FBI-Interview-pic_7.htm

Sat 21 Apr 2012, 12:32 am

greg parker wrote:Lee, to me it is just so blatant.

I think it was Rose who made the point that the blanket was rifle shaped and Marina or someone else saying when she saw the blanket she was unconcerned because it looked like it still had the rifle inside it.

If it was the shape of a rifle, then the Paines knew it was there. Can't have it both ways.

In the report following the interview with Lewis (in which Lewis refers to it as a "homemade heavy paper gun case", the FBI makes a point of trying to tamp down the spin a bit by saying "Lewis refers to the paper in this manner because of the fact that the Dallas Police Department is of the opinion the brown heavy paper was used by Oswald to carry the rifle..."

But this wasn't even THE bag. It was a replica! The report goes on to say that Lewis is of the opinion that if this was not right bag (per Buell), then Oswald must have thrown his away.
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/gallery/ASSASSIONATION/Documents/Det-Lewis-FBI-Interview-pic_7.htm

I don't think it's common knowledge amongst some of the newer people interested in the case that the the Dallas Police were either getting ready to charge Frazier as a co-conspirator, or were creating the pretense that they were getting ready to charge him as a co-conspirator.

The whole Michael Paine "I thought the blanket had tent equipment in it" bollocks became really topical when David Lifton said he got Paine on record stating that he knew Oswald had the rifle. I can't believe there wasn't more of a reaction from other members of the EF concerning this admission and Lifton keeping a lid on it for 15 years.

IMO there was no damn rifle in the garage. Marina's first statement is the accurate one, and the White Russian community then systematically surrounded her and added to the pressure for her to fall in line...

Tue 01 May 2012, 9:58 pm

Spent afew hours over the weekend re-reading Frazier's WC testimony, Greg.

It certainly was a morning of exceptions. The first time Oswald didn't bring his lunch to work. The first time he came up to the Randle house. The first time Oswald brought a package. Frazier losing track of time. Frazier hangs back in the parking lot to charge his car battery.

Frazier says he got up that morning at 6:30. The timeframe for leaving the house to get to work on time was 7:20-7:25. Leaving at 7:20 each morning for work, according to Frazier, would give them enough time to make the walk up to the TSBD, "hang up their coats and get to work at 8:00am.

Seems strange to me reading his testimony that on this day of firsts, Frazier loses track of time to find Lee wandering around the car port. He says they left at 7:21 and got to work on time so it seems strange that he then left Lee to walk ahead while he stayed behind to charge up his car battery.

I am with you. The package was Lee's lunch in an oversized brown grocery bag. 100% certainty. Frazier's story is pure bullshit - beginning to end.

Went to eat his lunch in the basement after the assassination my arse!

Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Frazier & Randle

Frazier & Randle

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae Randle and Bill Randle

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Buell Wesley Frazier

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Frazier et al

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle