Home
Portal
Events
ROKC Wiki
Gallery
Search
Register
Log in
Vinny- Posts : 3356
Join date : 2013-08-27
Frazier And PSE
Wed 12 Apr 2017, 1:53 am
This is from the book The Assassination Tapes by George O'Toole.
After a couple of anxious hours, Pellicano called me back. He told me to get ready to tape record from the phone. I set up my machine, and Pellicano transmitted the tape of his interview with Buell Wesley Frazier. It was solid gold.
Tony Pellicano grew up in Cicero, Illinois, and he sounds like Chicago —except when he chooses to adopt a different personality. In the interview with Frazier, Pellicano was "Tom MacSwade," a freelance Texas newspaperman. With amazing ease and authenticity, he switched to the accents and idiom of Texas-Arkansas.
Pellicano: I am a freelance reporter, and I have been working on a story about the effect that the death of John F. Kennedy had on certain people in the Dallas area, and I have been talking to some folks—a lot of folks with the Dallas Police Department— and, you know, some of the people around whose lives were definitely affected by the serious thing that happened.
Frazier: Yes.
Pellicano: And I come across your name, and I thought ' would give you a call.
Frazier: I see.
Pellicano: Would you mind answering a few questions for me?
Frazier: I guess not.
Pellicano was trying to relax Frazier and get a few irrelevant responses.
There was moderate-to-good stress in "I guess not." Pellicano asked whether Frazier could remember the details of what happened on the day of the assassination. His reply, "Yes I can, showed moderate-to good stress.
Pellicano: Ok, now, you know, some of the police officers that I talked to over at the Dallas Police Department, they said that, oh, on the date, the twenty-second, you know, when you were arrested, you were brought up there to the Dallas Police Department, you know?
Frazier: Yes.
Pellicano: And, I guess you didn't know what was going on, you know,what was happening with Oswald,did you?
Frazier: Well, they told me.
Now the stress had become good.
Pellicano changed the subject and asked what sort of person Oswald had seemed to be. Frazier said he was a quiet sort of person, and he only knew him as a fellow employee. The stress dropped back to the moderate-to-good level.
Pellicano: Did you know he was a Communist or anything like that?
Frazier: No, not until after all this, you know. After it happened, you know, lots of things came out, youknow.
The stress climbed to good-to-hard.Pellicano got to the subject of November 21, the day before the
assassination.
Pellicano: He asked you, he said,"Wes, I want to go home, and I want to bring out some curtain rods for my room?"
Frazier; That is true. Because, you know, he had an apartment, you know, over at Dallas, you know.The stress hit maximum hard on
"That is true," but dropped down to moderate-to-good on the rest of the statement.
Pellicano: He said, "I want to pick up some curtain rods," and what did you do, drive him on home?
Frazier: No, what he did, you know,Thursday he came out. His wife lives out there in Irving, you know,and so, you know, he told me he wanted a ride home out to Irving to see his wife.
I said, "Very well."
So, you know, he did, and he said,you know, on the way out, he said the next morning he is going to bring in some curtain rods, you know, for his apartment over at Dallas. I said, "Very well," you know, so I didn't think anything else about it, you know.
The stress was nearly maximum hard during the entire statement.
Pellicano: What happened then? What did you do? You picked him up the next morning?
Frazier: You know, he come down to where I live, you know, and he got out and walked in, you know, sit down in the car, you know, so, you know, when I got in the car, I glanced at the package, and I didn't think anything about it, and I asked him, I said, "What is that?" And he said, you know, "That is some curtain rods I told you I was going to bring," you know, so I just dropped the subject right there, you know, because I didn't think anything more about it, you know.
The statement began at moderateto- good stress and stayed at that level until "And he said, you know.That is some curtain rods . . .' " at which point it hit maximum hard.
The stress then dropped to the good-to-hard level and remained there for the rest of the statement.
Pellicano: Did he tell you they were curtain rods? Frazier: Right.
Pellicano: I mean, did it look to you like it was a package of curtain rods.
Frazier: Yes, it did.
There was good-to-hard stress in "Right" and hard stress in "Yes, it did." Pellicano led the conversation into a discussion of curtain rods by saying his wife had just bought some the other day. The stress dropped to moderate. Then there was more talk of Oswald, and Frazier offered the view that he had been more intelligent than most people thought. This produced moderate stress. Then Pellicano got back to the subject of the package of curtain rods.
After a couple of anxious hours, Pellicano called me back. He told me to get ready to tape record from the phone. I set up my machine, and Pellicano transmitted the tape of his interview with Buell Wesley Frazier. It was solid gold.
Tony Pellicano grew up in Cicero, Illinois, and he sounds like Chicago —except when he chooses to adopt a different personality. In the interview with Frazier, Pellicano was "Tom MacSwade," a freelance Texas newspaperman. With amazing ease and authenticity, he switched to the accents and idiom of Texas-Arkansas.
Pellicano: I am a freelance reporter, and I have been working on a story about the effect that the death of John F. Kennedy had on certain people in the Dallas area, and I have been talking to some folks—a lot of folks with the Dallas Police Department— and, you know, some of the people around whose lives were definitely affected by the serious thing that happened.
Frazier: Yes.
Pellicano: And I come across your name, and I thought ' would give you a call.
Frazier: I see.
Pellicano: Would you mind answering a few questions for me?
Frazier: I guess not.
Pellicano was trying to relax Frazier and get a few irrelevant responses.
There was moderate-to-good stress in "I guess not." Pellicano asked whether Frazier could remember the details of what happened on the day of the assassination. His reply, "Yes I can, showed moderate-to good stress.
Pellicano: Ok, now, you know, some of the police officers that I talked to over at the Dallas Police Department, they said that, oh, on the date, the twenty-second, you know, when you were arrested, you were brought up there to the Dallas Police Department, you know?
Frazier: Yes.
Pellicano: And, I guess you didn't know what was going on, you know,what was happening with Oswald,did you?
Frazier: Well, they told me.
Now the stress had become good.
Pellicano changed the subject and asked what sort of person Oswald had seemed to be. Frazier said he was a quiet sort of person, and he only knew him as a fellow employee. The stress dropped back to the moderate-to-good level.
Pellicano: Did you know he was a Communist or anything like that?
Frazier: No, not until after all this, you know. After it happened, you know, lots of things came out, youknow.
The stress climbed to good-to-hard.Pellicano got to the subject of November 21, the day before the
assassination.
Pellicano: He asked you, he said,"Wes, I want to go home, and I want to bring out some curtain rods for my room?"
Frazier; That is true. Because, you know, he had an apartment, you know, over at Dallas, you know.The stress hit maximum hard on
"That is true," but dropped down to moderate-to-good on the rest of the statement.
Pellicano: He said, "I want to pick up some curtain rods," and what did you do, drive him on home?
Frazier: No, what he did, you know,Thursday he came out. His wife lives out there in Irving, you know,and so, you know, he told me he wanted a ride home out to Irving to see his wife.
I said, "Very well."
So, you know, he did, and he said,you know, on the way out, he said the next morning he is going to bring in some curtain rods, you know, for his apartment over at Dallas. I said, "Very well," you know, so I didn't think anything else about it, you know.
The stress was nearly maximum hard during the entire statement.
Pellicano: What happened then? What did you do? You picked him up the next morning?
Frazier: You know, he come down to where I live, you know, and he got out and walked in, you know, sit down in the car, you know, so, you know, when I got in the car, I glanced at the package, and I didn't think anything about it, and I asked him, I said, "What is that?" And he said, you know, "That is some curtain rods I told you I was going to bring," you know, so I just dropped the subject right there, you know, because I didn't think anything more about it, you know.
The statement began at moderateto- good stress and stayed at that level until "And he said, you know.That is some curtain rods . . .' " at which point it hit maximum hard.
The stress then dropped to the good-to-hard level and remained there for the rest of the statement.
Pellicano: Did he tell you they were curtain rods? Frazier: Right.
Pellicano: I mean, did it look to you like it was a package of curtain rods.
Frazier: Yes, it did.
There was good-to-hard stress in "Right" and hard stress in "Yes, it did." Pellicano led the conversation into a discussion of curtain rods by saying his wife had just bought some the other day. The stress dropped to moderate. Then there was more talk of Oswald, and Frazier offered the view that he had been more intelligent than most people thought. This produced moderate stress. Then Pellicano got back to the subject of the package of curtain rods.
_________________
Out With Bill Shelley In Front.
- Vinny
- Posts : 3356
Join date : 2013-08-27
Re: Frazier And PSE
Wed 12 Apr 2017, 2:01 am
Pellicano: Well, when you went to work, did he take that package up with him into the building?
Frazier:Yes, he did.
There was maximum hard stress.
Pellicano: Did you see where he put it? Frazier: No, because he walked on ahead.
There was good-to-hard stress.
Pellicano: Did he tell you he was going to go home with you that night?
Frazier: What night was that?
Pellicano: That is the Friday, you know, the day that the president
died.
Frazier: No, because he come up with some theory about—I asked him about this. He said he had to go get his driving license.
Maximum hard stress appeared.
Pellicano asked Frazier about the polygraph examination he had been given. Showing only moderate stress, Frazier gave a detailed description of being hooked up to the instrument and interrogated by a detective.
Pellicano: There was nobody else in the room with you? Frazier: That is correct.
Maximum hard stress appeared.
Pellicano: Well, what did he do, ask you all them questions that he asked you before? Frazier: Right. That is true.
There was moderate stress.
Pellicano: And did he tell you that you passed the test?
Frazier: Yes, he did. He said I did very well.
There was maximum hard stress.
Pellicano said he was sure that was so, and they talked further about the polygraph and what it was like to take the examination. Then Pellicano asked another question:
Pellicano: Do you know Paul Bentley?
Frazier: Paul Bentley?
Pellicano: Yes. Frazier: No, I don't.
There was maximum hard stress in both of Frazier's replies. The form of his response is also interesting. I have asked the same question of several people who, I am sure, never heard of Paul Bentley. Without exception, their response
was, "Who is Paul Bentley?" They didn't recognize the name, but they
wanted to know the connection in which I expected they might know him before saying they've never heard of the man. But Frazier's denial was immediate and
unhesitating.
Frazier's story differed in one point from the official Dallas police account of the events of November 22: he denied that he had been brought back from Irving to take the polygraph examination.
According to Frazier, he was brought back to answer some questions that the police had forgotten to ask. The polygraph test, said Frazier, was given before his
first trip to Irving in the police car.
Frazier: I remember they had me come back, and they asked me a couple other questions, and I satisfied them, and they let me go.
Pellicano: But, when you came back, you didn't take the lie detector test? You took the lie detector test before you went?
Frazier: Right. That is true.
Frazier may simply have become confused in his recollection of the swirl of events surrounding him that night, especially since he was frightened. Or he may have
deliberately inverted the true sequence of events to minimize the implication that Captain Fritz had doubted his word. And if the latter explanation is so, it does not
necessarily demand a sinister interpretation. But, whatever the reason for Frazier's revision, the statement "Right. That is true,"shows good-to-hard stress.
Pellicano asked Frazier if he knew before the assassination that Oswald owned the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
Frazier: Well, actually, to tell you—I never saw it, you know. They found it in the building, you know, after the president was shot, you know.
Pellicano: You never knew he had this gun, then?
Frazier: That is true.
This produced good-to-hard stress.
Pellicano: Did the police ever ask you did you ever know if he had a gun or nothing?
Frazier: They asked me that, and I told them I didn't know, you know, because I told them I never had been over to the man's
Pellicano: I'm talking about way before this thing ever hap-pend. Did
any police ever come up to you and ask you to get his gun?
Frazier: Oh, no.
Pellicano: Never happened?
Frazier: No, never happened.
This produced hard stress.
Pellicano skillfully led the interview to each of the points of interest without ever adopting an accusatory manner. In his role as "a good old boy," who wanted to "get a lot of things out so all these Yankee dudes that have been writing the other stories can shut up a little bit," he was superb.
Although he obviously did his best in finding Frazier and conducting the interview, I don't think Pellicano really believed there was anything to the case until later that Saturday evening. I had been analyzing my copy of the tape with
the PSE, and Pellicano had been doing the same thing with the original in Chicago.
He had been jubilant when he called to report on his interview and transmit the
tape, but he sounded quite subdued when he called back later that evening.
"Every one of the points you listed, he stressed on every one of them."
I said I had gotten about the same results with my own PSE.
"My God almighty," he said quietly.
What role did Buell Wesley Frazier play in the events of November 22,1963? He was a nineteen-year old laborer, placed by fate—or some other influence—in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald. Could Frazier have been a conspirator, given the
job of implicating Oswald in the assassination? It seems unlikely.
There is nothing in his background to suggest the criminal or the fanatic. Attempting to recruit the teenager into an assassination plot would have been a reckless and foolish act. Safer methods could produce the desired effect.
Consider this hypothetical problem: How could a conspirator, seeking to
implicate Oswald, arrange to have him go to Irving on Thursday afternoon and bring his rifle to the book depository on Friday morning?
Frazier:Yes, he did.
There was maximum hard stress.
Pellicano: Did you see where he put it? Frazier: No, because he walked on ahead.
There was good-to-hard stress.
Pellicano: Did he tell you he was going to go home with you that night?
Frazier: What night was that?
Pellicano: That is the Friday, you know, the day that the president
died.
Frazier: No, because he come up with some theory about—I asked him about this. He said he had to go get his driving license.
Maximum hard stress appeared.
Pellicano asked Frazier about the polygraph examination he had been given. Showing only moderate stress, Frazier gave a detailed description of being hooked up to the instrument and interrogated by a detective.
Pellicano: There was nobody else in the room with you? Frazier: That is correct.
Maximum hard stress appeared.
Pellicano: Well, what did he do, ask you all them questions that he asked you before? Frazier: Right. That is true.
There was moderate stress.
Pellicano: And did he tell you that you passed the test?
Frazier: Yes, he did. He said I did very well.
There was maximum hard stress.
Pellicano said he was sure that was so, and they talked further about the polygraph and what it was like to take the examination. Then Pellicano asked another question:
Pellicano: Do you know Paul Bentley?
Frazier: Paul Bentley?
Pellicano: Yes. Frazier: No, I don't.
There was maximum hard stress in both of Frazier's replies. The form of his response is also interesting. I have asked the same question of several people who, I am sure, never heard of Paul Bentley. Without exception, their response
was, "Who is Paul Bentley?" They didn't recognize the name, but they
wanted to know the connection in which I expected they might know him before saying they've never heard of the man. But Frazier's denial was immediate and
unhesitating.
Frazier's story differed in one point from the official Dallas police account of the events of November 22: he denied that he had been brought back from Irving to take the polygraph examination.
According to Frazier, he was brought back to answer some questions that the police had forgotten to ask. The polygraph test, said Frazier, was given before his
first trip to Irving in the police car.
Frazier: I remember they had me come back, and they asked me a couple other questions, and I satisfied them, and they let me go.
Pellicano: But, when you came back, you didn't take the lie detector test? You took the lie detector test before you went?
Frazier: Right. That is true.
Frazier may simply have become confused in his recollection of the swirl of events surrounding him that night, especially since he was frightened. Or he may have
deliberately inverted the true sequence of events to minimize the implication that Captain Fritz had doubted his word. And if the latter explanation is so, it does not
necessarily demand a sinister interpretation. But, whatever the reason for Frazier's revision, the statement "Right. That is true,"shows good-to-hard stress.
Pellicano asked Frazier if he knew before the assassination that Oswald owned the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
Frazier: Well, actually, to tell you—I never saw it, you know. They found it in the building, you know, after the president was shot, you know.
Pellicano: You never knew he had this gun, then?
Frazier: That is true.
This produced good-to-hard stress.
Pellicano: Did the police ever ask you did you ever know if he had a gun or nothing?
Frazier: They asked me that, and I told them I didn't know, you know, because I told them I never had been over to the man's
Pellicano: I'm talking about way before this thing ever hap-pend. Did
any police ever come up to you and ask you to get his gun?
Frazier: Oh, no.
Pellicano: Never happened?
Frazier: No, never happened.
This produced hard stress.
Pellicano skillfully led the interview to each of the points of interest without ever adopting an accusatory manner. In his role as "a good old boy," who wanted to "get a lot of things out so all these Yankee dudes that have been writing the other stories can shut up a little bit," he was superb.
Although he obviously did his best in finding Frazier and conducting the interview, I don't think Pellicano really believed there was anything to the case until later that Saturday evening. I had been analyzing my copy of the tape with
the PSE, and Pellicano had been doing the same thing with the original in Chicago.
He had been jubilant when he called to report on his interview and transmit the
tape, but he sounded quite subdued when he called back later that evening.
"Every one of the points you listed, he stressed on every one of them."
I said I had gotten about the same results with my own PSE.
"My God almighty," he said quietly.
What role did Buell Wesley Frazier play in the events of November 22,1963? He was a nineteen-year old laborer, placed by fate—or some other influence—in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald. Could Frazier have been a conspirator, given the
job of implicating Oswald in the assassination? It seems unlikely.
There is nothing in his background to suggest the criminal or the fanatic. Attempting to recruit the teenager into an assassination plot would have been a reckless and foolish act. Safer methods could produce the desired effect.
Consider this hypothetical problem: How could a conspirator, seeking to
implicate Oswald, arrange to have him go to Irving on Thursday afternoon and bring his rifle to the book depository on Friday morning?
_________________
Out With Bill Shelley In Front.
- Vinny
- Posts : 3356
Join date : 2013-08-27
Re: Frazier And PSE
Wed 12 Apr 2017, 2:19 am
Suppose that a policeman quietly approached an employee of the book depository and told him that Oswald was a Communist and a dangerous radical. Suppose he said that Oswald owned a rifle and was suspected of using it in some crime,but the police could not obtain the weapon through formal, legal means. Suppose the officer asked the man to get the rifle for the police through some pretext in
order to make ballistics tests. And suppose Oswald's co-worker agreed to this. What kind of pretext would work?
Oswald had bought the cheap rifle sight unseen from a mail-order house in Chicago. After it was delivered and he had an opportunity to examine it, he probably realized that the weapon wasn't worth even the $12.78 he paid for it. And so the Mannlicher-Carcano lay in disuse in Mrs. Paine's garage, wrapped in an
old blanket. He should have welcomed an opportunity to sell it.
Oswald may have recovered his investment on November 22; there was $13.00 in his wallet when he was arrested.^ Oswald made a special trip to Irving on Thursday to get the rifle,perhaps because the buyer said he needed it for a weekend hunting trip. The trip to Irving cost Oswald nothing but time, since Frazier demanded no payment for driving Oswald back and forth. ^ Having
found a buyer for the weapon, Oswald would naturally want to complete the transaction before the man changed his mind.
If this was in fact how things happened, then Oswald did not invent the "curtain rod story." But what about Frazier? On the evening of November 22, Buell Wesley Frazier was in a far from enviable position. Rumors and suspicions of conspiracy were rampant throughout Dallas and the nation. Lee Harvey Oswald was presumed to have been the assassin, and the threads of a conspiracy were sought among those who were in any way associated with him. Frazier was Oswald's co-worker in the book depository, a neighbor of Oswald's wife, and the person who had chauffered Oswald on the sinister trip to Irving. The alleged assassin and the purported murder weapon had been brought to the scene of the crime in Frazier's car that very morning.
The Dallas police did not simply bring in Frazier for questioning;they arrested him. They searched his automobile and his home, and they confiscated his British 303 rifle, the same type weapon that was first reported by the media to have been found in the book depository.'
The Zapruder film and the autopsy evidence suggests that there was more than one assassin. It seems likely, then, that more than one potential fall guy had been selected, and on the evening of November 22, Buell Wesley Frazier appeared to
be, after Oswald, the leading candidate. It remained only for someone to find a pristine slug from Frazier's .303 rifle on the floor of Parkland Hospital or buried in
the soil in Dealey Plaza,* and Frazier could have been thrown into The Dallas city jail beside Oswald. If Frazier had not told Captain Fritz the curtain-rod story, if he reported that the trip to Irving to retrieve the Mannlicher-Carcano had been
instigated by a Dallas policeman, if he said that he had been an unwitting dupe in the framing of Oswald, would the trap have been sprung? Would the world have
awakened on November 23 to learn that Oswald's "accomplice" had been arrested by the Dallas police?
These are, of course, questions and not answers. And they are hypothetical questions, at that. The PSE is not an infallible instrument, and no matter how striking the stress analysis of the Pellicano- Frazier interview may seem, it does
not prove beyond all doubt that this reconstruction of events is correct.
But there are other questions, far from hypothetical, and they suggest no obvious, innocent answers: Why did Detective R. D. Lewis deny any recollection of being called from his home in the middle of the night to give a polygraph examination related to the investigation of a presidential assassination? Why did Detective
Richard Stovall deny being present during the test? And why did Lt.Gerald Hill claim that Captain Fritz didn't believe in the polygraph and that, therefore, the examination couldn't have taken place?
The midnight polygraph examination of Buell Wesley Frazier lies at the very heart of the mystery of November 22, 1963.Why does it provoke hard stress,false statements, and curious lapses of memory among the Dallas police officers who should be the most familiar with it? Unless and until the government meets its
responsibility to reopen the case of the assassination of President Kennedy, the answer to these questions can only be the darkest speculation.
*The Dallas Times-Herald reported on November 24, 1963, "Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor corner window the slayer used to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered (emphasis added) at 100 yards."
Since the Warren Report claimed that the only bullets found were the fragments in the presidential limousine and the intact bullet on the floor of Parkland, I hoped to ask Lieutenant Day about this when 1 spoke to him in June 1973.
Unfortunately, Lieutenant Day, who had agreed to be interviewed, broke
off the interview and referred me to the Warren Report when 1 began by
asking him if more than one rifle had been found in the Texas School Book Depository. Lieutenant Day Was head of the crime scene search section and had custody of all the physical evidence linking Oswald to the shootings of President Kennedy and Officer Tippit.
order to make ballistics tests. And suppose Oswald's co-worker agreed to this. What kind of pretext would work?
Oswald had bought the cheap rifle sight unseen from a mail-order house in Chicago. After it was delivered and he had an opportunity to examine it, he probably realized that the weapon wasn't worth even the $12.78 he paid for it. And so the Mannlicher-Carcano lay in disuse in Mrs. Paine's garage, wrapped in an
old blanket. He should have welcomed an opportunity to sell it.
Oswald may have recovered his investment on November 22; there was $13.00 in his wallet when he was arrested.^ Oswald made a special trip to Irving on Thursday to get the rifle,perhaps because the buyer said he needed it for a weekend hunting trip. The trip to Irving cost Oswald nothing but time, since Frazier demanded no payment for driving Oswald back and forth. ^ Having
found a buyer for the weapon, Oswald would naturally want to complete the transaction before the man changed his mind.
If this was in fact how things happened, then Oswald did not invent the "curtain rod story." But what about Frazier? On the evening of November 22, Buell Wesley Frazier was in a far from enviable position. Rumors and suspicions of conspiracy were rampant throughout Dallas and the nation. Lee Harvey Oswald was presumed to have been the assassin, and the threads of a conspiracy were sought among those who were in any way associated with him. Frazier was Oswald's co-worker in the book depository, a neighbor of Oswald's wife, and the person who had chauffered Oswald on the sinister trip to Irving. The alleged assassin and the purported murder weapon had been brought to the scene of the crime in Frazier's car that very morning.
The Dallas police did not simply bring in Frazier for questioning;they arrested him. They searched his automobile and his home, and they confiscated his British 303 rifle, the same type weapon that was first reported by the media to have been found in the book depository.'
The Zapruder film and the autopsy evidence suggests that there was more than one assassin. It seems likely, then, that more than one potential fall guy had been selected, and on the evening of November 22, Buell Wesley Frazier appeared to
be, after Oswald, the leading candidate. It remained only for someone to find a pristine slug from Frazier's .303 rifle on the floor of Parkland Hospital or buried in
the soil in Dealey Plaza,* and Frazier could have been thrown into The Dallas city jail beside Oswald. If Frazier had not told Captain Fritz the curtain-rod story, if he reported that the trip to Irving to retrieve the Mannlicher-Carcano had been
instigated by a Dallas policeman, if he said that he had been an unwitting dupe in the framing of Oswald, would the trap have been sprung? Would the world have
awakened on November 23 to learn that Oswald's "accomplice" had been arrested by the Dallas police?
These are, of course, questions and not answers. And they are hypothetical questions, at that. The PSE is not an infallible instrument, and no matter how striking the stress analysis of the Pellicano- Frazier interview may seem, it does
not prove beyond all doubt that this reconstruction of events is correct.
But there are other questions, far from hypothetical, and they suggest no obvious, innocent answers: Why did Detective R. D. Lewis deny any recollection of being called from his home in the middle of the night to give a polygraph examination related to the investigation of a presidential assassination? Why did Detective
Richard Stovall deny being present during the test? And why did Lt.Gerald Hill claim that Captain Fritz didn't believe in the polygraph and that, therefore, the examination couldn't have taken place?
The midnight polygraph examination of Buell Wesley Frazier lies at the very heart of the mystery of November 22, 1963.Why does it provoke hard stress,false statements, and curious lapses of memory among the Dallas police officers who should be the most familiar with it? Unless and until the government meets its
responsibility to reopen the case of the assassination of President Kennedy, the answer to these questions can only be the darkest speculation.
*The Dallas Times-Herald reported on November 24, 1963, "Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor corner window the slayer used to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered (emphasis added) at 100 yards."
Since the Warren Report claimed that the only bullets found were the fragments in the presidential limousine and the intact bullet on the floor of Parkland, I hoped to ask Lieutenant Day about this when 1 spoke to him in June 1973.
Unfortunately, Lieutenant Day, who had agreed to be interviewed, broke
off the interview and referred me to the Warren Report when 1 began by
asking him if more than one rifle had been found in the Texas School Book Depository. Lieutenant Day Was head of the crime scene search section and had custody of all the physical evidence linking Oswald to the shootings of President Kennedy and Officer Tippit.
_________________
Out With Bill Shelley In Front.
Mick_Purdy- Posts : 2419
Join date : 2013-07-26
Location : Melbourne Australia
Re: Frazier And PSE
Thu 13 Apr 2017, 12:20 pm
But there are other questions, far from hypothetical, and they suggest no obvious, innocent answers: Why did Detective R. D. Lewis deny any recollection of being called from his home in the middle of the night to give a polygraph examination related to the investigation of a presidential assassination? Why did Detective
Richard Stovall deny being present during the test? And why did Lt.Gerald Hill claim that Captain Fritz didn't believe in the polygraph and that, therefore, the examination couldn't have taken place?
The midnight polygraph examination of Buell Wesley Frazier lies at the very heart of the mystery of November 22, 1963.Why does it provoke hard stress,false statements, and curious lapses of memory among the Dallas police officers who should be the most familiar with it? Unless and until the government meets its
responsibility to reopen the case of the assassination of President Kennedy, the answer to these questions can only be the darkest speculation.
*The Dallas Times-Herald reported on November 24, 1963, "Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor corner window the slayer used to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered (emphasis added) at 100 yards."
Since the Warren Report claimed that the only bullets found were the fragments in the presidential limousine and the intact bullet on the floor of Parkland, I hoped to ask Lieutenant Day about this when 1 spoke to him in June 1973.
Unfortunately, Lieutenant Day, who had agreed to be interviewed, broke
off the interview and referred me to the Warren Report when 1 began by
asking him if more than one rifle had been found in the Texas School Book Depository. Lieutenant Day Was head of the crime scene search section and had custody of all the physical evidence linking Oswald to the shootings of President Kennedy and Officer Tippit.
I agree, IMO there is so much more to the alleged Polygraph and Frazier than meets the eye. What that might be is anyones guess unfortunately.
That is of course, unless Wesley might consider a final one on one sit down interview with no holds barred and no minders present, so that he might finally consider telling the world the truth of those weeks, days and hours leading up to the assassination and immediately afterward.
Nah! Won't happen.
Richard Stovall deny being present during the test? And why did Lt.Gerald Hill claim that Captain Fritz didn't believe in the polygraph and that, therefore, the examination couldn't have taken place?
The midnight polygraph examination of Buell Wesley Frazier lies at the very heart of the mystery of November 22, 1963.Why does it provoke hard stress,false statements, and curious lapses of memory among the Dallas police officers who should be the most familiar with it? Unless and until the government meets its
responsibility to reopen the case of the assassination of President Kennedy, the answer to these questions can only be the darkest speculation.
*The Dallas Times-Herald reported on November 24, 1963, "Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor corner window the slayer used to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered (emphasis added) at 100 yards."
Since the Warren Report claimed that the only bullets found were the fragments in the presidential limousine and the intact bullet on the floor of Parkland, I hoped to ask Lieutenant Day about this when 1 spoke to him in June 1973.
Unfortunately, Lieutenant Day, who had agreed to be interviewed, broke
off the interview and referred me to the Warren Report when 1 began by
asking him if more than one rifle had been found in the Texas School Book Depository. Lieutenant Day Was head of the crime scene search section and had custody of all the physical evidence linking Oswald to the shootings of President Kennedy and Officer Tippit.
I agree, IMO there is so much more to the alleged Polygraph and Frazier than meets the eye. What that might be is anyones guess unfortunately.
That is of course, unless Wesley might consider a final one on one sit down interview with no holds barred and no minders present, so that he might finally consider telling the world the truth of those weeks, days and hours leading up to the assassination and immediately afterward.
Nah! Won't happen.
_________________
I'm just a patsy!
- beowulf
- Posts : 373
Join date : 2013-04-21
Re: Frazier And PSE
Thu 27 Apr 2017, 4:07 am
Maybe you can't get Frazier or any other witness to take a polygraph but perhaps there's another way to skin the cat. On George Noory's radio show the other night, a retired US Marshal discusses a way to detect deception by the word patterns the witness used.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2017/04/21
He even has software online where (for a fee) you can submit testimony for "statement analysis".
"The Statement Analyzer is an online program that will analyze a statement and assist you in determining if the subject is being truthful. The program utilizes the Statement Analysis® techniques and looks for deceptive language within the statement"
http://www.statementanalysis.com/analyzer/
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2017/04/21
He even has software online where (for a fee) you can submit testimony for "statement analysis".
"The Statement Analyzer is an online program that will analyze a statement and assist you in determining if the subject is being truthful. The program utilizes the Statement Analysis® techniques and looks for deceptive language within the statement"
http://www.statementanalysis.com/analyzer/
greg_parkerAdmin- Posts : 8331
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia 
Re: Frazier And PSE
Thu 27 Apr 2017, 7:27 am
I started a discussion with the ex marshal a week or two ago.beowulf wrote:Maybe you can't get Frazier or any other witness to take a polygraph but perhaps there's another way to skin the cat. On George Noory's radio show the other night, a retired US Marshal discusses a way to detect deception by the word patterns the witness used.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2017/04/21
He even has software online where (for a fee) you can submit testimony for "statement analysis".
"The Statement Analyzer is an online program that will analyze a statement and assist you in determining if the subject is being truthful. The program utilizes the Statement Analysis® techniques and looks for deceptive language within the statement"
http://www.statementanalysis.com/analyzer/
His method is widely criticized as junk science and he firmly believes Oswald is guilty on the basis of statements he ripped from Mae Brussels "Last Words" piece.
In my discussion with him, it was obvious he is not interested in facts, only in his product, but if someone has a few spare dollars that needs burning...
_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise.
Lachie Hulme
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
Me
"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." Don Jeffries
"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
https://gregrparker.com
- beowulf
- Posts : 373
Join date : 2013-04-21
Re: Frazier And PSE
Thu 27 Apr 2017, 8:56 am
Heh, I should have figured you were a step ahead of me on this!
Ed.Ledoux- Posts : 3327
Join date : 2012-01-04
Re: Frazier And PSE
Thu 27 Apr 2017, 10:12 pm
Ffs...
Last words like Fritz claiming Oswald carried a pistol into the movies cause its what boys do...
Sorry I wouldn't trust Fritz's words as the truth.
The hearsay used against Lee is indicative of Lies by the authorities.
Analysis complete.
Oh and fuck the Marshall and the horse he rode in on.
Bad science used by an ex cop.... spare me the dejavu.
Last words like Fritz claiming Oswald carried a pistol into the movies cause its what boys do...
Sorry I wouldn't trust Fritz's words as the truth.
The hearsay used against Lee is indicative of Lies by the authorities.
Analysis complete.
Oh and fuck the Marshall and the horse he rode in on.
Bad science used by an ex cop.... spare me the dejavu.
- Ed.Ledoux
- Posts : 3327
Join date : 2012-01-04
Re: Frazier And PSE
Thu 27 Apr 2017, 10:15 pm
Have the good Marshall run a test on Cecil in other words McWatters
Or Amos Euins
Or any police officer involved in the case...
Silly Marshall
Or Amos Euins
Or any police officer involved in the case...
Silly Marshall
- greg_parkerAdmin
- Posts : 8331
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
Re: Frazier And PSE
Thu 27 Apr 2017, 10:31 pm
Part of what I sent him was my response to his conclusions concerning Oswald based on "last words". Me in bold
"Based on the statements compiled by Mae Brussell, Oswald does show signs of being deceptive."
And based on the statements as they were written by the interrogators (together with oral testimony), it is obvious that there are numerous issues with accuracy, as well as what appears to be an attempt to nullify Oswald's alibi. I say this because FBI agents Hosty and Bookhout wrote a joint report which in part outlines what appears to be an alibi. After Oswald's death, Bookhout wrote a solo report changing aspects of that alibi which nullified it as exculpatory. Fritz, who kept no notes of the interrogation, scrambled when forced to write a report for the commission and cribbed some material from Bookhout's notes so that Fritz's report ended up reflecting the corrupted Bookhout solo report.
"As I previously mentioned not all of these statements credited to Lee Harvey Oswald are exact quotes."
An important point. And by using the highly parsed Mae Brussel quotes, you are also ignoring the fact that different officers/agents are doing the (inexact) quoting. Different people may account for the changes in language you ascribe to Oswald. You would have been better served quoting from these interrogation reports - at least you may have picked up on this issue.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app11.htm
His reply to the above:
"I looked at the link you sent me along with other documents in the Warren Report. Even though they use quotation marks attributing certain statements to Oswald, we do not know if these were his exact words. I could not find any recordings of an actual question and answer format. Most statements seem to be a summary of what was said."
Later in his reply is his real bottom line:
"Everything you said my be true but what I have said is also true. Based on Brussell’s compilation, Oswald shows signs of deception."
----------------------
Throughout the exchanges, he pushed his method as almost foolproof.
From my perspective, the method probably does have a limited use in limited circumstances in lie detection.
The danger of this and similar methods used for example in the Reid Technique is just that very blind faith in their infallibility as shown by the ex Marshal... to the point where someone will be pursued as a sole suspect based on the perceived incorrect use of a word, while good evidence pointing to a different person is ignored.
"Based on the statements compiled by Mae Brussell, Oswald does show signs of being deceptive."
And based on the statements as they were written by the interrogators (together with oral testimony), it is obvious that there are numerous issues with accuracy, as well as what appears to be an attempt to nullify Oswald's alibi. I say this because FBI agents Hosty and Bookhout wrote a joint report which in part outlines what appears to be an alibi. After Oswald's death, Bookhout wrote a solo report changing aspects of that alibi which nullified it as exculpatory. Fritz, who kept no notes of the interrogation, scrambled when forced to write a report for the commission and cribbed some material from Bookhout's notes so that Fritz's report ended up reflecting the corrupted Bookhout solo report.
"As I previously mentioned not all of these statements credited to Lee Harvey Oswald are exact quotes."
An important point. And by using the highly parsed Mae Brussel quotes, you are also ignoring the fact that different officers/agents are doing the (inexact) quoting. Different people may account for the changes in language you ascribe to Oswald. You would have been better served quoting from these interrogation reports - at least you may have picked up on this issue.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app11.htm
His reply to the above:
"I looked at the link you sent me along with other documents in the Warren Report. Even though they use quotation marks attributing certain statements to Oswald, we do not know if these were his exact words. I could not find any recordings of an actual question and answer format. Most statements seem to be a summary of what was said."
Later in his reply is his real bottom line:
"Everything you said my be true but what I have said is also true. Based on Brussell’s compilation, Oswald shows signs of deception."
----------------------
Throughout the exchanges, he pushed his method as almost foolproof.
From my perspective, the method probably does have a limited use in limited circumstances in lie detection.
The danger of this and similar methods used for example in the Reid Technique is just that very blind faith in their infallibility as shown by the ex Marshal... to the point where someone will be pursued as a sole suspect based on the perceived incorrect use of a word, while good evidence pointing to a different person is ignored.
_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise.
Lachie Hulme
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
Me
"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." Don Jeffries
"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
https://gregrparker.com
barto- Posts : 3635
Join date : 2015-07-21
Re: Frazier And PSE
Fri 28 Apr 2017, 7:37 am
Frazier and Gus Rose inside room 317
ROKC Scan of Jim Murray contact sheet.
_________________
Prayer Man: More Than a Fuzzy Picture (E-)Book @ Amazon.
Prayer-Man.com
- GuestGuest
Re: Frazier And PSE
Fri 28 Apr 2017, 8:16 am
I wonder if reverse speech would work on Frazier...
Am still very skeptical about it. but some results seem like its worthy of further study
Am still very skeptical about it. but some results seem like its worthy of further study
- Mick_Purdy
- Posts : 2419
Join date : 2013-07-26
Location : Melbourne Australia
Re: Frazier And PSE
Fri 28 Apr 2017, 8:50 am
So called : Independent Analysis of Dektor’s PSE technology.
http://www.experts.com/Articles/PSE-and-Voice-Stress-Analysis-for-Lie-Detection-By-Michael-Gervais
Maybe - maybe not.
http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/palmatr.html
http://www.experts.com/Articles/PSE-and-Voice-Stress-Analysis-for-Lie-Detection-By-Michael-Gervais
Maybe - maybe not.
http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/palmatr.html
_________________
I'm just a patsy!
- Vinny
- Posts : 3356
Join date : 2013-08-27
Re: Frazier And PSE
Fri 28 Apr 2017, 2:12 pm
Looks like the experts are divided on its effectiveness.
_________________
Out With Bill Shelley In Front.
- Mick_Purdy
- Posts : 2419
Join date : 2013-07-26
Location : Melbourne Australia
Re: Frazier And PSE
Sat 29 Apr 2017, 10:24 am
Vinny,
from what I can gather the Dektor technology is currently being used by American Law enforcement as the Lie Dection method of choice.
This naturally does not mean its reliable, other than it is a part of the arsenal in Law enforcemnt's bag of tools (tricks)
Unlike the Marshall's "statement analyser" which I know JS about, this Dektor technology has been around for many years and is very similar to O'Tooles work from memory.
from what I can gather the Dektor technology is currently being used by American Law enforcement as the Lie Dection method of choice.
This naturally does not mean its reliable, other than it is a part of the arsenal in Law enforcemnt's bag of tools (tricks)
Unlike the Marshall's "statement analyser" which I know JS about, this Dektor technology has been around for many years and is very similar to O'Tooles work from memory.
_________________
I'm just a patsy!
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|