Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part A

First topic message reminder :

This is full rebuild of the hugely popular thread created by Mick Purdy at the Webs forum in February 2015. – Stan

Mick Purdy

I believe Buell Wesley Frazier lied about seeing Lee Oswald with a package, a package two feet long on the morning of Friday November 22nd 1963.

I believe Linnie Mae Randle lied about seeing Oswald with a package, a package 27 inches long on the Morning of 22nd Nov 1963.

I believe both Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Wesley Frazier fabricated the curtain rod story.

I think there is ample evidence in their WC testimonies, affidavits and FBI interviews to support each of these contentions.

I have also come to the conclusion (after having a closer look at the testimonies and the various reports), that Buell Wesley Frazier lied about another crucially important matter that day. In my opinion the totality of the evidence suggests Frazier lied with regards to driving Lee Harvey Oswald to work that fateful morning.

Take a moment to reflect upon the importance of that drive to the case against Oswald before reading on.

The story was very likely fabricated not merely to have Oswald appear to carry a sack into work – but also to create the illusion of Oswald carrying a rifle. This conclusion is drawn from a study of the WC testimonies of both Randle and Frazier regarding Oswald, the package and his alleged arrival at the Randle residence that morning. Ten or more neighbours considered to be best placed to spot pedestrian movement in the vicinity were interviewed by the FBI as to whether they saw Oswald carrying a package from the Paine’s home to the Randle home. To a person, they stated they had not seen Oswald that morning – with or without any suspicious package which the police on more than one occasion, described as being similar in size and shape to a rifle case.

Frazier’s WC and Shaw trial testimony regarding the journey into work with Oswald appears rehearsed. Any questions relating to the “sack” or what was said in the car on the way in is met with what sounds very much like scripted answers that have become Frazier’s Lore. The sack, the curtain rods, the weather, and my favourite, Oswald’s kids, are IMO all part of the charade. Away from the small talk and banter about kids, he constantly flip flopped on testimony in a manner redolent with patterns of deceit.

Frazier’s WC testimony with regard to his arrival at work is at complete odds with the HSCA interview of Edward Shields. Though it could be argued Shields, unlike Frazier, was not under oath, and therefore is a witness of lesser value, the fact is that Shields was as close as you can get to a disinterested party merely reporting for the first what he had heard. Sadly, it took well over a decade for him to receive any relevant questions. In any event, it is highly unlikely he ever realized the import of his information.
  
From the HSCA interview of Shields
 

SHIELDS: I think Charles Givens hollered out there and asked Frazier where was his rider and he told him: "I dropped him off at the building." Yeah, that was it...Well, I was down on the floor when they hollered out and said and the answer he gave them, I don't know, I think he said: "I dropped him off at the building." Now, whoever it was hollering asked him, I don't know.
DAY: This is the morning of the assassination?
SHIELDS: Mm-hmm.
DAY: Somebody hollered out the window and say: "Where is your rider?" And to your recollection, Frazier says, "I dropped him off at the building."
SHIELDS: Yes.
DAY: Alright. The day of the assassination, did you see Oswald come to work with Frazier?
SHIELDS: No I didn’t.

 
To summarize what we have so far… no one claimed to see Lee Harvey Oswald walk to the Frazier residence that morning. No one claimed to see Lee Harvey Oswald in Frazier’s car that morning – except Frazier himself. No one saw Lee Harvey Oswald that morning with any package except Wes and Linnie Mae.

Frazier also testified that he let Oswald get well ahead on the walk from the car park to the loading dock entrance. But in the form of Edward Shields, we have a potential reason for Frazier to construct that story.

In the above two short paragraphs alone, we have three “firsts” – firsts that are needed for the official story to hold. Oswald had never walked to the Randle residence for his lift before. He was always picked up at the Paine house. Oswald had never taken a long package to work before. Oswald had never neglected to take a packed lunch before. Oswald had never even needed a lift on a Friday morning before. Frazier had never let Oswald walk ahead of him from the car park before. They had always walked in together. That is a lot of “firsts” – all reliant on a very tight little knit of witnesses outside of which, no corroboration exists. Nobody else, not one person can verify Frazier’s version of events in Irving except for his sister. At the other end of the journey at the TSBD parking lot, we rely solely on Frazier. It beggars belief that there are no other witnesses. That walk was at least 2 and 1/2 blocks long. Shields and Givens smash his fairy-tale apart.

This “story” IMO has the same stench wafting around it, like the rest of the days fables contain.

The bus trip, the cab ride, the sack, the run, the walk, the ducking, the escape, the 2nd floor, the first floor, the sixth floor, the lunch bag, the rifle case, the back seat, the front seat, the white jacket the grey jacket, the gun, the revolver ……………
 
An alternative scenario

Postal Inspectors interviewed Mr and Mrs CP Schneider at 2707 West Fifth St in the early evening of November 22. Mr Schneider confirmed he had seen Lee Oswald in front of the 2515 residence at approximately 6:00pm of the previous evening. He also stated that a neighbour, Mrs Ed Roberts of 2519 West Fifth St had told him that Willie Randle, 2439 West Fifth St, had driven Oswald to work on the morning of November 22, and that Oswald was carrying a package large enough to have contained a rifle. (CD 296)

What sort of investigation is it that receives hearsay evidence such as the above and fails to follow up to confirm or refute it with the parties involved? WE are indeed, expected to believe that no follow up was done, because there is no evidence any follow up was done. Yet, there is actually circumstantial evidence that the authorities did believe that Randle was the man who gave the lift because that same night, the FBI was attempting to trace the origins of the scope in the names of Lee Oswald OR Willie Randall [sic]. (CD 87) It is virtually impossible to believe that the FBI would act on hearsay alone, when a few houses from where the hearsay was received, lived the person who had passed on that hearsay. You would almost have to believe that this “Willie Randle” lead was followed up and that it checked out given the ease with which such a lead could be checked out. To further complicate matters, the DPD already had Oswald’s alleged driver in custody. If Frazier truly was the driver, there would no reason at all to be checking on “Willy Randle/Randall” as a co-conspirator!

Randle had arrived in Austin at about 7:00pm on what was said to be work-related business in company with co-worker named Berry Caster. (FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 32, p44) It is between a 3 and 4 hour drive from Irving to Austin, so it is far from impossible that “Willie” drove Lee to work that morning on the basis that Frazier had already left.

Because of the holes in the official investigation, some conjecture is needed if we are to try understand the mess we have been left. What follows is some of my conjecture.

Frazier left that morning on his own – with the throwdown M-C rifle. The call from Givens of “where’s your rider?” was code giving Frazier the all clear to bring “the package” in, or was code for simply it’s clear to come inside.

Since Lee had missed his ride, Willie Randle offered to give him one, but needed to borrow Ruth’s car since his own was full of work gear for the trip to Austin later on. This leads to Oswald’s statement in front of Roger Craig concerning Craig’s description of a certain station wagon that "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine. Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."

Doesn’t that sound like someone talking about a car that was being driven by someone else?

I’d like to thank Greg Parker for his enormous support and encouragement.

Stan Dane wrote:Terry Martin

"Dorothy Roberts, told them that "Willie Randle" had driven Oswald to work that morning. She apparently didn't know that it was Wesley Frazier who drove Oswald to work that morning."

Bingo, Greg! Seems you must've remembered this from somewhere. She "didn't know" it was Frazier... duh!

Mick Purdy

Couldn't have put it better myself Terry.

And the cat is out of the bag.

Greg Parker

According to CE1799, the postal inspectors, including in particular Harry Holmes, interviewed a Mr. and Mrs. C. P. Schneider of Irving, Texas, in the neighborhood of the Paines and Randles, on November 22, 1963, at 6pm. They said that Mrs. Ed Roberts, i.e. Dorothy Roberts, told them that "Willie Randle" had driven Oswald to work that morning. She apparently didn't know that it was Wesley Frazier who drove Oswald to work that morning.

Mick, why would she say it was Willie unless she was told that herself? She surely didn't make it up out of thin air. The information should have been followed up with an interview of Roberts followed by an interview with her source.
I mean, this at 6pm - Willie himself was still ont booked into his motel room at Austin - presumably he was still on the road on his way there.

And you've reminded me -- the motel managers told the FBI that Willie had told them he had an "acquantenship" with Oswald... yet officially they'd never laid eyes on each other. I would love to have a photo of Willie.

Stan Dane wrote:Greg Parker

According to CE1799, the postal inspectors, including in particular Harry Holmes, interviewed a Mr. and Mrs. C. P. Schneider of Irving, Texas, in the neighborhood of the Paines and Randles, on November 22, 1963, at 6pm. They said that Mrs. Ed Roberts, i.e. Dorothy Roberts, told them that "Willie Randle" had driven Oswald to work that morning. She apparently didn't know that it was Wesley Frazier who drove Oswald to work that morning.

Mick, why would she say it was Willie unless she was told that herself? She surely didn't make it up out of thin air. The information should have been followed up with an interview of Roberts followed by an interview with her source.
I mean, this at 6pm - Willie himself was still ont booked into his motel room at Austin - presumably he was still on the road on his way there.

And you've reminded me -- the motel managers told the FBI that Willie had told them he had an "acquantenship" with Oswald... yet officially they'd never laid eyes on each other. I would love to have a photo of Willie.

Mick Purdy

Spot on Greg,

My point exactly, I find this to be extremely interesting. She told them  that Willie drove Oswald to work. She had to have seen what she thought was Willie driving Oswald to work.

I believe Randle drove Oswald to work.

I am thinking I need to get a photo from somewhere, anywhere, of Mr Bill Randle

Terry Martin
 
I realize this may be an off-the-wall sort of question, but I just got to thinking about the way other areas of the case have simply vanished under detailed inspection, i got to wondering: Did Oswald actually go home Thursday night?
 
Is there any proof that he did, in fact, alter his schedule and go to Irving on Thursday evening rather than his "usual" (or semi-quasi-close to usual) Friday evening.
 
I do not mean to derail the fascinating look into the Vipers' Nest but I was thinking we might look at if there is any need to find out who drove him back to Dallas on Friday morning. If he was never in Irving Thursday night...
 
Ooooh, my head is spinning!

Greg Parker

Terry, he was seen around 6pm of Nov 21 on the Paine lawn by CP schneider. I have no reason to doubt that sighting. I believe he was either staying at the Paines the whole time (although there are other schools of thought that may hold more water), or living somewhere else in Oak cliff. There is evidence of him looking for accommodation in Oak Cliff long after he was supposed to have moved into the N Beckley boarding house.

Stan Dane wrote:Greg Parker

Terry, he was seen around 6pm of Nov 21 on the Paine lawn by CP schneider. I have no reason to doubt that sighting. I believe he was either staying at the Paines the whole time (although there are other schools of thought that may hold more water), or living somewhere else in Oak cliff. There is evidence of him looking for accommodation in Oak Cliff long after he was supposed to have moved into the N Beckley boarding house.

Terry Martin

Greg,

Thanks for the response. Unless it was Crafard at the Paine's house, I suppose he did go home on Thursday evening.

It is amazing how close Irving was to Oak Cliff. I have always wondered why he didn't just go home with BWF everyday. But that's for another thread.

Now we can get back to the business of dissecting what BWF and the Randalls were up to. And it certainly doesn't look good for Buell. (No wonder he's kept his mouth shut about PM.)

Stan Dane wrote:

Stan Dane wrote:Greg Parker

Terry, he was seen around 6pm of Nov 21 on the Paine lawn by CP schneider. I have no reason to doubt that sighting. I believe he was either staying at the Paines the whole time (although there are other schools of thought that may hold more water), or living somewhere else in Oak cliff. There is evidence of him looking for accommodation in Oak Cliff long after he was supposed to have moved into the N Beckley boarding house.

Terry Martin

Greg,

Thanks for the response. Unless it was Crafard at the Paine's house, I suppose he did go home on Thursday evening.

It is amazing how close Irving was to Oak Cliff. I have always wondered why he didn't just go home with BWF everyday. But that's for another thread.

Now we can get back to the business of dissecting what BWF and the Randalls were up to. And it certainly doesn't look good for Buell. (No wonder he's kept his mouth shut about PM.)

Greg Parker

You know the drill by now Terry... there's always more to come out... 

Stan Dane wrote:Greg Parker

Terry, he was seen around 6pm of Nov 21 on the Paine lawn by CP schneider. I have no reason to doubt that sighting. I believe he was either staying at the Paines the whole time (although there are other schools of thought that may hold more water), or living somewhere else in Oak cliff. There is evidence of him looking for accommodation in Oak Cliff long after he was supposed to have moved into the N Beckley boarding house.

Mick Purdy

Greg
 
you raise agood point.
and you've reminded me, how easy it was for neighbours back in '63 on Fifth and Westbrook  to see one anothers daily business. Just how little vegetation there was, trees gardens, and the fences surrounding the houses were only waist high cyclone wire fencing which ran down the sides and across the rear. Most had no front fence whatsoever.
 
I still maintain that it is beyond plausible (bloody near impossible)  that nobody saw Oswald trudge across from the Pain house to the Randle house given the geographical environment, with a package large enough to carry a rifle, and not be seen  by anyone especially at that time of the morning. And thats important to the official story, not only have we got nobody seeing a package but we have nobody seeing Oswald.
 
It makes sense that Oswald was driven home on Thursday night by Frazier, but then again as far as I'm aware we only have BWF and LMR who confirm this. Was he driven home by Frazier? I don't know. Was he in Irving on that Thusday night, almost certainly IMO

Mick Purdy

Lets consider the testimony of Randle and Frazier and Essie Mae with regards to Oswald at that kitchen window:
 
Mr. FRAZIER - I was sitting there eating my breakfast there, so sitting there, I usually talk to my little nieces, you know, they have them cartoons on for a while and we usually talk a little bit back and forth while eating breakfast and I was just finishing my coffee there and my sister, you know, was working over there around, you know the sink there, and she was fixing my lunch so she was somewhere around there over on the cabinets fixing the cabinets and mother just happened to glance up and saw this man, you know, who was Lee looking in the window for me and she said, "Who is that?"
 
So what we have here is Essie Mae observing Oswald looking through the kitchen window, with Randle right at the window at the sink and by way of her testimony tells us she can't identify who is going to Wes's car:
 
Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down so I closed the door. I didn't recognize him as he walked across my carport and I at that moment I wondered who was fixing to come to my back door so I opened the door slightly and saw that it--I assumed he was getting in the car but he didn't, so he come back and stood on the driveway.
 
How could Randle not recognise Lee, if he was looking through the window while she was right there at it she almost certainly knew who it was. And we have further proof the story is a fabrication, IMO because Essie Mae asks Wes "who is that" out loud, and Frazier says out loud and before Lee has gone to the car:
 
And I said, "That is Lee,"
 
Now unless someone can prove that Linnie Mae was deaf, the story of Lee coming over that morning IMO is a total fabrication

Vinny

Here is a reenactment of the official version of the Frazier-Oswald scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIre8cupXfg

Stan Dane wrote:Vinny

Here is a reenactment of the official version of the Frazier-Oswald scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIre8cupXfg

Mick Purdy

Thanks Vinny,
 
Priceless, and is a powerful tool in showing just how lame Randles Testimony is regarding not knowing who was aiming to go to Wes's car.

Which reminds me to let you know to have a look at the album I've posted in the Photo section regarding the geography of the walk fromthe Paine house over to the Randle home and the walk into the TSBD from the parking lot

Lee Farley

Mick,

Don't forget that the direction Frazier's car when parked next to the car port suddenly changed during the investigation.

Mick Purdy
 
Let’s look a little more closely at the shambolic testimony of Randle and Frazier from the Randle’s kitchen. IMO none of the events from the kitchen which these two describe could have possibly happened in the manner they have told us.
Let’s be clear here, this is no longer just about observing a package, this is about these two, Randle and Frazier and whether they really did eyeball Oswald that morning.
Randle said she saw Oswald crossing the Street, she didn’t know from where, but she observed him nonetheless walking toward the house. She said, she saw Lee long enough to establish he was carrying a large package in his right hand and gripped somewhere near the top, and that the package was almost touching the ground.
 
IMO Randle certainly goes to quite considerable length to have us believe she did indeed eyeball Oswald walking across Westbrook Street making his way to the house. She wanted us desperately to believe that, she has given us so much detail in her testimony of Oswald’s walk to the house, that it’s hard not to imagine Lee trudging across the bitumen towards the Randle home.
 
But then in a severe case of memory loss, Randle dropped the ball. She had a melt-down in her sworn testimony. IMO that goes a long way to powerfully suggest Randle never really saw Oswald at all. After testifying to the W.C. about all the details of Oswald’s walk to the house from the alleged view she had through the kitchen window, IMO Randle had a problem. She had to give reason to get to that back door for the illusion to be created further. We all know why that is. She had to get to the door to create the illusion Of Oswald placing the package in the car after having walked across the street. It was imperative that this was in their story.
 
It’s here where IMO Randle exposes her deceit and the fantasy of that morning. She claimed to have left the kitchen bench supposedly after eyeballing Oswald. She claimed she did this because she didn’t know who was aiming to come to her back door. She claimed she was at the open back door for a just a moment, but long enough to see Oswald walk to the car and open the right rear door and place the package inside the car and walk to the driveway. That’s some moment!
 
In Frazier’s Testimony he contradicts Randle’s version by allowing the mother Essie Mae to ask out loud “who’s that” and Frazier responds, “That’s Lee” In Randle’s world she missed hearing this apparently. She missed hearing her mother’s question and Frazier’s reply IMO because the event never occurred.
 
The contradiction comes from the testimony of Frazier, as Oswald stood looking through the window long enough for Essie Mae to have asked “Who’s that” and for Frazier to reply (out loud) “That’s Lee”. Randle then wanted us to believe she had completely forgotten what she had just seen through the window, and had heard and dived for the door, because she “wanted to see who was aiming to come to her back door”. This is the clue to the deceit, the lies and the fabrication.
 
IMO Randle’s story is false. She cannot have seen so much detail of Oswald coming over to her house and a moment later not know who is aiming to come to the back door.
 
I believe Frazier’s lie is in his testimony of what his mother had said that morning and subsequently what he claimed he said in reply to her, that is the clue to the deceit. IMO that is why Randle did not recollect that very important part of the official story. It simply did not happen. It was Frazier’s invention which Randle had forgotten to recall.
 
Randle said: I didn't recognize him as he walked across my carport and I at that moment I wondered who was fixing to come to my back door.
 
We know this to be false.
 
And one last thing to consider, In all the testimony, affidavits and interviews by the various authorities, over the issue of Oswald trudging over to the Randle house from the Paine’s, with a package large enough to carry a rifle, don’t you find it a little odd that in reality there is really only one person who saw Oswald make that walk with that large package. That person just happens to be Linnie Mae Randle. Wes never admits to actually seeing Lee at any time before meeting up with him outside of the house in the driveway when they leave for work.
 
IMO Wes takes up the slack of the fable at this moment, with the car trip into work and that walk into the TSBD. There is someone else who just happened to be the only person who witnessed Oswald with a package that day, as he walked through parking lot 1 on his 3 block walk on his way into the TSBD.
That person just happens to be Buell Wesley Frazier.
Now that really is keeping it all in the family.

Stan Dane wrote:Lee Farley

Mick,

Don't forget that the direction Frazier's car when parked next to the car port suddenly changed during the investigation.

Mick Purdy

Hi Lee 
Thanks Lee, are you able to be more specific.
I'm not aware of this so thanks for the heads up
Trust you're well

Terry Martin
 
IIRC, what Lee is referring to is that the WC had Frazier's car parked adjacent to the carport tail-end to the street, making Oswald have to walk between the car and the carport to open the back door ("easier for LMR to see his actions" supposedly).
 
By Frazier's testimony, however, he had backed into the space by the carport - sort of like for a quick getaway, perhaps - leaving the backdoor that supposedly allowed entrance of the long brown bag further from the house allowing easy access to Oswald.
 
But, of course, since Oswald did not arrive that morning, it is all academic and further example of conflicting elements in the story for people to argue over, yea or nay, while ignoring the real problem with the evidence.
 
(I had the photos of Frazier's parking somewhere but cannot seem to find them at the moment.)

And I would agree that 7:21 is a ridiculous departure time. I always preferred precisely 7:33.

Greg Parker
 
I agree with Mick that the small talk in the car is bullshit. Yes, Oswald loved his kids. But for Wes to say out of the blue during the 6th week of driving him to work about how he loved playing with the kids... just doesn't ring true. All that stuff would be well past it's used by date.
 
As for Frazier - his contradictions about running late extend into the reason he gave --- talking to the kids... because he also testified he talked to them every morning at breakfast.... why would doing it that morning suddenly make him late?
 
The problem for us is the same as in other parts of the case -- this trip to work is ingrained. But it's more than just that. It is the sheer volume and size of the lies. People have great difficulty believing that such mammoth lies could be attempted, let alone gotten away with... so they tend to assume anyone believing "it's all lies" are just uber-consiracists who are predisposed to believe "everything is a lie". And if you try and give the evidence, it is so unqweildy and convoluted that it's hard to grasp. They now think you're not only an unber-conspiricist, but you've also lost your cotton-pickin' mind.

We are on the right side of this, but isolated by the vastness of it... not being defeatist, just realistic. It's just another problem to work on... and a test of wills....

Stan Dane wrote:Terry Martin
 
IIRC, what Lee is referring to is that the WC had Frazier's car parked adjacent to the carport tail-end to the street, making Oswald have to walk between the car and the carport to open the back door ("easier for LMR to see his actions" supposedly).
 
By Frazier's testimony, however, he had backed into the space by the carport - sort of like for a quick getaway, perhaps - leaving the backdoor that supposedly allowed entrance of the long brown bag further from the house allowing easy access to Oswald.
 
But, of course, since Oswald did not arrive that morning, it is all academic and further example of conflicting elements in the story for people to argue over, yea or nay, while ignoring the real problem with the evidence.
 
(I had the photos of Frazier's parking somewhere but cannot seem to find them at the moment.)

And I would agree that 7:21 is a ridiculous departure time. I always preferred precisely 7:33.

Mick Purdy

Yes Terry 7.33 is so much more civilised.

And thanks Terry for the info much appreciated mate.

Stan Dane wrote:Greg Parker
 
I agree with Mick that the small talk in the car is bullshit. Yes, Oswald loved his kids. But for Wes to say out of the blue during the 6th week of driving him to work about how he loved playing with the kids... just doesn't ring true. All that stuff would be well past it's used by date.
 
As for Frazier - his contradictions about running late extend into the reason he gave --- talking to the kids... because he also testified he talked to them every morning at breakfast.... why would doing it that morning suddenly make him late?
 
The problem for us is the same as in other parts of the case -- this trip to work is ingrained. But it's more than just that. It is the sheer volume and size of the lies. People have great difficulty believing that such mammoth lies could be attempted, let alone gotten away with... so they tend to assume anyone believing "it's all lies" are just uber-consiracists who are predisposed to believe "everything is a lie". And if you try and give the evidence, it is so unqweildy and convoluted that it's hard to grasp. They now think you're not only an unber-conspiricist, but you've also lost your cotton-pickin' mind.

We are on the right side of this, but isolated by the vastness of it... not being defeatist, just realistic. It's just another problem to work on... and a test of wills....

Mick Purdy

Greg,

I have to say I agree with your assessment . On the surface this "Frazier didn't drive Oswald" thing is hard to swallow. But you're right, it fits with everything else on that day, I mean everything. Lee was Reamed Royally!  And almost every facet of that Reaming is fabricated by genuine  arseholes. Take it from me I don't often get agitated, but I'm done. We need to keep the bastards honest. We are on the right side and thanks to you Greg Parker we have a small chance at hitting them for six.

Mick Purdy

at that moment I wondered who was fixing to come to my back door so I opened the door slightly
That’s the big lie. It gave Randle the opportunity to spin her yarn.
If her story about Lee crossing that Street were true, there would have never been a reason to “see who was fixing to come to her back door”
And she also would have known who it was for the simple fact, Wes was driving Lee to work and she knew it.
It is that simple.
If what she said under oath was true then it’s reprehensible and inconceivable Randle wasn’t cautioned at that precise moment by her examiner Mr. Ball.
That one sentence, as Ball would have known, should have placed her sighting of Lee crossing that street with a package in jeopardy.
This one lie, allowed a free pass by Ball, was instrumental in helping to create the Legend of LHO.
It’s Randle’s ever so damaging testimony of peering through that kitchen door albeit only briefly, but long enough to see Oswald walk to the car, and place a package on either the floor or back seat of Wes’s car that helped creat the myth and seel the deal.

Job done.

Lee Farley

You're right, Mick.

Who the fuck, in Randle's situation, wouldn't turn around to Wes (who was allegeldy late for work by the way) and say "Hey, Wes. Lee is on his way over."

Oh no.  Instead we are expected to believe the utter bullshit that you wouldn't believe if it was written in a piece of trash pulp fiction novel.

Lucky guy that Lee Oswald.  Wesley's rear car doors being open that morning, eh?

Steely Dan

Am I right in thinking that it was one particular rear door that failed to lock properly, as BWF explained to a fairly skeptical HSCA. That may explain why the car needed to do an about turn in the way it was parked. Otherwise LMR would need to be able to see through both the car port wall and the car itself.

Greg Parker

I don't think it's any surprise why the Randles kept a very low profile after the WC and refused almost all interviews.

Stan Dane wrote:Steely Dan

Am I right in thinking that it was one particular rear door that failed to lock properly, as BWF explained to a fairly skeptical HSCA. That may explain why the car needed to do an about turn in the way it was parked. Otherwise LMR would need to be able to see through both the car port wall and the car itself.

Lee Farley

That's correct, Steely.

He explained this to Jack Moriarty who was one of the lead investigators for the HSCA after Moriarty asked Frazier if he always locked his car doors. Frazier answered yes.  How then did Oswald get in it to put the package in the back?

Cue fumbling and mumbling.

It just so happened, you'll never believe this, that the exact door that Oswald tried so he could get his disassembled rifle in, was broken.  The exact door.  Wow!  Million to one shot.

Oswald that weekend missed his chance to change his lot in life.  He should have phoned in sick at work and fucked off to the race track.

Steely Dan

Well you can't beat an honest investigation, so it's quite right this one is getting a fucking good arse kicking. For anyone to defend this crap, be they former WC loyers, media stars, or internet nasties, there can be no defence of ignorance. The FBI never told us this, the CIA never told us that. Get the fuck outta here. You had umpteen poor sods plonked infront of you who damned themselves.... or else.