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.

Ed Ledoux

Thanks Mick I do try to do my best, there is just too many fires to light on this case and bring this shit out of the dark ages. I commend your work on Wes's missing rider and many other areas. This and other threads have been such a pleasure to read and be apart of!

Keep up the fight Mick and ROKC on!

Stan Dane wrote:Stan Dane

:: Stan cursing at himself ::

There's been so much activity here lately that this thread rolled off my radar screen and I lost track of what was going on here the last couple of days. So in catching up…

I agree 100% about being respectful. Good investigators are respectful, but they don't shy away from asking the hard questions. What Ed said is dead nuts on.

There are too many holes in the testimony of, and the testimony pertaining to, BWF. This thread is ranking right up there with Prayer Man. ROKCing right along.

I agree with what Johnny just posted: if BWF lied about some things, what else did he lie about? The only way we'll know it to rebuild this thing from scratch. And put some people on the spot! Respectfully.

This is a five Parker thread.

Mick Purdy

And you ROKC Stan. And you are bang on. If Wes lied about some things he certainly would have lied about other stuff too.

Big Boss

It'd be nice to get him in an open, honest and trusthworthy lie detector test....then again I wonder if it would even produce noteworthy results.

Mick Purdy

I am re posting this para from my opening page of this thread.

It's timely IMO.

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.

After magnificent contributions from fellow members to this thread over the past few months nothing has altered my absolute belief that Wes Frazier is a liar and did not drive LHO to work on that Friday morning. In fact as we've looked more closely at him and his sister it is apparent Frazier and Randle lied about many things, which at this time we do not know the motive. We can only speculate. But I think it's safe to say The lies Wes has been caught telling place him in a sinister light and one of deep suspicion. The lies he's been caught up with lead to only one conclusion IMO.

He was involved in some way in helping Lee to be framed. 

More so, I am of the firm belief that Frazier left the TSBD with Oswald after the assassination, I realise this is based solely at this stage on conjecture and needs to be expanded and thoroughly researched through combing over Fraziers filmed interviews over the years, so we might learn of the truth about Wes's departure from work after the shots.

If I were a betting man, I would place a huge wager on the scenario of Wes leaving with Lee after the shots rang out.

IMO we need to look more closely at why Wes ended up in Irving and with a job at the TSBD just weeks before Lee started. And why and how did Wes coincidentally become Lee's friend and mentor at work. We need to look also more closely at the aftermath of the assassination and the possibility of Wes giving Lee a ride to the Texas theartre. 

This is possible IMO, it will take time and it will take focus but I believe its still possible to get to the bottom of Wes and his deceit.

ROKC ON!!

Terry Martin

Mick,

I for one would like to know what was really going on in the TSBD. Was it drugs? Guns? Were they smuggling hooch to the natives on the Nacgodoches Indian Reservation? Smuggling silk stockings for the girls at Ruby's place? Running a white slavery ring?

Perhaps it is irrelevant but I think it would go some distance in helping me wrap my mind around why Wes was sent there.

Could the Clyde Barrow gang be some sort of link to this stuff? (Or is that suggestion a little too much like the Little Big Horn tie-in?)

Stan Dane wrote:Terry Martin

Mick,

I for one would like to know what was really going on in the TSBD. Was it drugs? Guns? Were they smuggling hooch to the natives on the Nacgodoches Indian Reservation? Smuggling silk stockings for the girls at Ruby's place? Running a white slavery ring?

Perhaps it is irrelevant but I think it would go some distance in helping me wrap my mind around why Wes was sent there.

Could the Clyde Barrow gang be some sort of link to this stuff? (Or is that suggestion a little too much like the Little Big Horn tie-in?)

Mick Purdy

You raise a very very good point here Terry IMO.

The TSBD is a key, a key which IMHO if ever correctly turned the right way, may unlock some of the secrets of Dallas '63.

It would appear diversion was the order of the day.

As many many others here have written, Truly, Shelley, Dougherty, Piper, Byrd, Castor....etc etc all seem to have been involved in the smoke and mirrors.

Mick Purdy

For those who believe BWF lied about his true involvement in the assassination the following questions need to be asked.

And for those who can at least agree that it’s entirely possible that Wes did not drive Lee to work on that Friday morning then there is probably a few more questions to be raised also.

Why would Buell need to construct and invent a story of Oswald being with him Friday morning.

We know that he did invent the carpark story thanks to Shields and Givens (HSCA).

Why did he need to construct that carpark story in such a fashion to have he and Lee walking apart through the carpark, far enough apart to be completely separate but not too far as to still see Lee with the package and Lee walk into the rear entrance of the TSBD. And then why the detail of waiting behind letting Oswald walk ahead.

Why did he invent and construct the story with his sister of Oswald carrying a package to the Randle house that morning.

Why did they collaborate their stories, why did Wes construct and invent the story of the drive into work.

Why has Wes changed his story dramatically about what he did after the assassination.

How is it that Wes ended up at the hospital visiting his Step father. Why did he feel the urge to visit at such a time.

Why can’t Wes remember who he was with on the steps of the TSBD, why can’t Wes remember his movements following the shots.

Why is it that Wes has never had to account for at least 2-3 missing hours after the assassination.

Why isn’t Wes’s name on the role call list, and why did he claim to see Oswald walking along Houston near Elm after the assassination.

These a but a few questions:

Wes needs to be sat down and questioned IMHO.

Mick Purdy

I believe Givens is the key to knowing exactly where Lee was at work on Friday morning and at what time, and Given's also provides a time stamp for Wes and his whereabouts too. IMO Givens proves the two, Lee and Wes were separated and did not arrive at work together.
 
Consider, Givens observes Lee at 7.45 am in the Domino room reading a paper. Given’s floated between the Houston Nth ware house and the Elm street warehouse as required. Givens is witnessed by Shields at around 8.00 am down at the Houston Nth building at a window on the 2nd floor. (where he yells to Wes "where’s your rider") This is important IMO.
Givens yelled "where's your rider?" because he had already seen Wes's rider inside the TSBD.
 
What does this all mean?
 
IMHO it shows that Givens had spotted Lee in the Domino room at 7.45 am reading a newspaper, and then went down to the Nth Houston warehouse to discover what his duties for the day would be, most likely from Shields and arrived there at around 7.50 am. IMO at around 7.55 am or thereabouts Wes Frazier was observed on his own (HSCA Shields) walking through the parking lot by both Shields and Givens. Givens independently observed Oswald inside the Elm St Building at 7.45 am and witnessed Frazier at around 7.55-8.00 am in the car park walking on his own to the Elm St Building. In my opinion, this almost certainly suggests in an extremely persuasive way that Wes was indeed on his own in that car park and that Lee was already inside the building, reading the paper in the Domino room.

I would go so far as to say it proves it!

This plus Shields (I/V HSCA) places Wes's driving Lee to work that morning into the fiction section of the book store. (pun intended).

The drive into work with Lee IMO is a complete charade.

Wes, I think we got you here, awfully close to check and mate.

Stan Dane

I forget where we have the thread on witnesses who are still alive, but is Givens one of them?

Colin Crow

We know that the following TSBD worker swere taken to City Hall to provide statements after the shots were determined to have come from the 6th floor. Arce, Williams, Lovelady, Shelley were members of the flooring crew. Givens was later identified outside and taken in also. Dougherty was not part of the crew but had accessed the 6th floor that day so perhaps that is why he was detained. Norman admitted he was there at some time "shooting the breeze" but likely said nothing that afternoon about anything.

Frazier also had visited the 6th floor so why was he not taken, especially as when Oswald was "missing" he would be a prime candidate for questioning. How did Frazier slip through and leave?

Smee

Hi Mick,

Can you point me to the HSCA transcripts you reference please?

Thanks.

Stan Dane wrote:Smee

Hi Mick,

Can you point me to the HSCA transcripts you reference please?

Thanks.

Mick Purdy

This is the link to the HSCA transcripts I've referenced for Edward Shields.

http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/richard-gilbride-hsca-collection.html

Stan Dane wrote:Big Boss

It'd be nice to get him in an open, honest and trusthworthy lie detector test....then again I wonder if it would even produce noteworthy results.

Mick Purdy

Think it was tried once before without any remarkable results, so say the DPD.  

Stan Dane wrote:Stan Dane

I forget where we have the thread on witnesses who are still alive, but is Givens one of them?

Mick Purdy

Come up empty on this Stan,
I'll keep looking.

Colin Crow

I think Givens was about 40 at the time of the assassination......I seriously doubt he is still alive,

Stan Dane wrote:Colin Crow

I think Givens was about 40 at the time of the assassination......I seriously doubt he is still alive,

Mick Purdy

Thanks Colin, there is a you tube I/V from 2009 floating around from memory. 
Just can't seem to see anything recently

Mick Purdy

Mr. GIVENS. I do.
Mr. BELIN. What is your name, please?
Mr. GIVENS. Charles Douglas Givens.
Mr. BALL. Where do you live, Mr. Givens?
Mr. GIVENS. I live at 4208 First Avenue.
Mr. BELIN. How old are you?
Mr. GIVENS. 38.
Mr. BELIN. Married?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.

Correct Colin.

He would be 90 years old now.

Mick Purdy

Which Description of Liar best fits Wes?



Barefaced lie
A barefaced (or bald-faced) lie is one that is obviously a lie to those hearing it. The phrase comes from 17th-century British usage referring to those without facial hair as being seen as acting in an unconcealed or open way A variation that has been in use almost as long is bold-faced lie, referring to a lie told with a straight and confident face (hence "bold-faced"), usually with the corresponding tone of voice and emphatic body language of one confidently speaking the truth. Bold-faced lie can also refer to misleading or inaccurate newspaper headlines, but this usage appears to be a more recent appropriation of the term.

Big lie
A lie which attempts to trick the victim into believing something major which will likely be contradicted by some information the victim already possesses, or by their common sense. When the lie is of sufficient magnitude it may succeed, due to the victim's reluctance to believe that an untruth on such a grand scale would indeed be concocted.

Bluffing
To bluff is to pretend to have a capability or intention one does not actually possess. Bluffing is an act of deception that is rarely seen as immoral when it takes place in the context of a game, such as poker, where this kind of deception is consented to in advance by the players. For instance, a gambler who deceives other players into thinking he has different cards to those he really holds, or an athlete who hints he will move left and then dodges right is not considered to be lying (also known as a feint or juke). In these situations, deception is acceptable and is commonly expected as a tactic.

Bullshit
Bullshit does not necessarily have to be a complete fabrication. While a lie is related by a speaker who believes what is said is false, bullshit is offered by a speaker who does not care whether what is said is true because the speaker is more concerned with giving the hearer some impression. Thus bullshit may be either true or false, but demonstrates a lack of concern for the truth which is likely to lead to falsehoods.

Butler lie
A term coined by researchers in Cornell University's Social Media Lab that describes small/innate lies which are usually sent electronically, and are used to terminate conversations or to save face. For example sending an SMS to someone reading "I have to go, the waiter is here," when you are not at a restaurant is an example of a butler lie. A closely related concept is the "polite lie" 

Contextual lie
One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Likewise, one can actually state accurate facts, yet deceive with them. To say "Yeah, that's right, I ate all the white chocolate, by myself," using sarcasm, a form of assertion by ridiculing the fact(s) implying the liar believes it to be preposterous.

Cover-up
A cover-up may be used to deny, defend or obfuscate one's own (or one's allies or group's) errors, one's embarrassing actions or lifestyle, and/or one's lie(s) that they made previously. One may deny a lie made on a previous occasion, or one may alternatively claim that a previous lie was not as egregious as it actually was. For example, to claim that a premeditated lie was really "only" an emergency lie, or to claim that a self-serving lie was really "only" a white lie or noble lie. Not to be confused with confirmation bias in which the deceiver is deceiving themselves.

Deflecting
Avoiding the subject that the lie is about, not giving attention to the lie. When attention is given to the subject the lie is based around deflectors ignore or refuse to respond. Skillful deflectors are passive-aggressive people, who when confronted with subject choose to ignore and not respond.

Delusions
Delusions are very similar to Deflections. Delusions are the tendency to see excuses as facts. This type of lie is very strong because it filters out the information that contradicts with what we choose to believe in. This type of lie is a way that we train our minds to see things the way that would make the most sense to react to our behavior to make oneself believe that the actions are acceptable.

Dismissal
A dismissal lie can be one of the trickiest ones. Dismissing feelings, perceptions, raw facts of a situation as a kind of lie that can do damage to a person just as much as any other lie. Many mental disorders are linked to dismissal lies because they are dismissing their reality. A Psychologist R. D. Laing believes that this time of lie is common with in families of schizophrenics. Many children start out with a clear sense of reality, but then slowly start to loose their grasp due to meticulous and methodical dismissal. While some may not realize that just dismissing something can be considered a lie, if you dismiss something to often you are trying to change reality into something it is not causing your attention to be focused elsewhere and could be hurting others as more or more than a simple white lie.

Economical with the truth
Economy with the truth is popularly used as a euphemism for deceit, whether by volunteering false information (i.e., lying) or by deliberately holding back relevant facts. More literally, it describes a careful use of facts so as not to reveal too much information, as in "speaking carefully".

Exaggeration
An exaggeration (or hyperbole) occurs when the most fundamental aspects of a statement are true, but only to a certain degree. It is also seen as "stretching the truth" or making something appear more powerful, meaningful, or real than it actually is. Saying that someone devoured most of something when they only ate half would be considered an exaggeration.

Fabrication
A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true.[citation needed] Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth. Examples of fabrication: A person giving directions to a tourist when the person doesn't actually know the directions. Often propaganda is fabrication.

Fib
A fib is a lie told with no malicious intent and little consequence. Unlike a white lie, fibs rarely include those lies or omissions that are meant to do good.

Fraud
Fraud refers to the act of inducing another person or people to believe a lie in order to secure material or financial gain for the liar. Depending on the context, fraud may subject the liar to civil or criminal penalties.

Half-truth
A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may employ some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.

Haystack answer
A haystack answer (or statement) is a volume of false or irrelevant information, possibly containing a true fact (the needle in the "haystack"). Even if the truth is included, it is difficult or impossible to detect and identify. In this way, the legendary Leprechaun hid his pot of gold,[8] even after it had been found.

Honest lie
An honest lie (or confabulation) can be identified by verbal statements or actions that inaccurately describe history, background, and present situations. There is generally no intent to misinform and the individual is unaware that their information is false. Because of this, it is not technically a lie at all since by definition, there must be an intent to deceive for the statement to be considered a lie.

Jocose lie
Jocose (cf. jocular) lies are lies meant in jest, intended to be understood as such by all present parties. Teasing and irony are examples. A more elaborate instance is seen in some storytelling traditions, where the storyteller's insistence that the story is the absolute truth, despite all evidence to the contrary (i.e., tall tale), is considered humorous. There is debate about whether these are "real" lies, and different philosophers hold different views 


Lie-to-children
A lie-to-children is a lie, often a platitude, which may use euphemism(s), which is told to make an adult subject acceptable to children. Common examples include "The stork brought you" (in reference to childbirth) and the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny.

Lying by omission
Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission. It can be compared to dissimulation.

Lying in trade
The seller of a product or service may advertise untrue facts about the product or service in order to gain sales, especially by competitive advantage. Many countries and states have enacted consumer protection laws intended to combat such fraud. An example is the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act that holds a seller liable for omission of any material fact that the buyer relies upon.

Minimisation
Minimisation is the opposite of exaggeration. It is a type of deception[9] involving denial coupled with rationalization in situations where complete denial is implausible.

Misleading and dissembling
A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth. "Dissembling" likewise describes the presentation of facts in a way that is literally true, but intentionally misleading.

Noble lie
A noble lie is one that would normally cause discord if uncovered, but offers some benefit to the liar and assists in an orderly society, therefore, potentially beneficial to others. It is often told to maintain law, order and safety.

Omission
An Omission is when a person tells most of the truth, but leaves out a few key facts that therefore completely change the story.

Pathological lie
In psychiatry, pathological lying (also called compulsive lying, pseudologia fantastica and mythomania) is a behavior of habitual or compulsive lying.[10][11] It was first described in the medical literature in 1891 by Anton Delbrueck.[11] Although it is a controversial topic,[11] pathological lying has been defined as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime".[10] The individual may be aware they are lying, or may believe they are telling the truth, being unaware that they are relating fantasies.

Perjury
Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law, or in any of various sworn statements in writing. Perjury is a crime, because the witness has sworn to tell the truth and, for the credibility of the court to remain intact, witness testimony must be relied on as truthful.

Polite lie
A polite lie is a lie that a politeness standard requires, and which is usually known to be untrue by both parties. Whether such lies are acceptable is heavily dependent on culture. A common polite lie in international etiquette is to decline invitations because of "scheduling difficulties."

Puffery
Puffery is an exaggerated claim typically found in advertising and publicity announcements, such as "the highest quality at the lowest price," or "always votes in the best interest of all the people." Such statements are unlikely to be true - but cannot be proven false and so do not violate trade laws, especially as the consumer is expected to be able to tell that it is not the absolute truth.

Speaking with forked tongue
The phrase "speaking with a forked tongue" means to deliberately say one thing and mean another or, to be hypocritical, or act in a duplicitous manner. In the longstanding tradition of many Native American tribes, "speaking with a forked tongue" has meant lying, and a person was no longer considered worthy of trust, once he had been shown to "speak with a forked tongue". This phrase was also adopted by Americans around the time of the Revolution, and may be found in abundant references from the early 19th century — often reporting on American officers who sought to convince the tribal leaders with whom they negotiated that they "spoke with a straight and not with a forked tongue" (as for example, President Andrew Jackson told the Creek Nation in 1829[12]) According to one 1859 account, the native proverb that the "white man spoke with a forked tongue" originated as a result of the French tactic of the 1690s, in their war with the Iroquois, of inviting their enemies to attend a Peace Conference, only to be slaughtered or captured.

Weasel word
A weasel word is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged. A more formal term is equivocation.

White lie
White lies are minor lies which could be considered to be harmless, or even beneficial, in the long term. White lies are also considered to be used for greater good. White lies are often used to shield someone from a hurtful or emotionally damaging truth, especially when not knowing the truth is completely harmless.

Consequences
Once a lie has been told, there can be two alternative consequences: it may be discovered or remain undiscovered.
Under some circumstances, discovery of a lie may discredit other statements by the same speaker and can lead to social or legal sanctions against the speaker, such as ostracizing or conviction for perjury. When a lie is discovered, the state of mind and behavior of the lie teller (liar) is no longer predictable.
The discoverer of a lie may also be convinced or coerced to collaborate with the liar, becoming part of a conspiracy. They may actively propagate the lie to other parties, actively prevent the lie's discovery by other parties, or simply omit publicizing the lie (a secondary lie of omission).

Detection
Some people may be better "lie detectors" than others, better able to distinguish a lie by facial expression, cadence of speech, certain movements, and other methods. According to David J. Lieberman, PhD, in Never Be Lied to Again: How to Get the Truth in Five Minutes or Less in Any Conversation or Situation, these methods can be learned. Some methods of questioning may be more likely to elicit the truth, for instance: "When was the last time you smoked marijuana?" (a leading question) is more likely to get a truthful answer than "Do you smoke pot?" Asking the question most likely to get the information you want is a skill and can be learned. Avoiding vague questioning will help avoid lies of omission or vagueness.[citation needed]
The question of whether lies can reliably be detected through nonverbal means is a subject of some controversy.
• Polygraph "lie detector" machines measure the physiological stress a subject endures in a number of measures while he/she gives statements or answers questions. Spikes in stress are purported to indicate lying. The accuracy of this method is widely disputed, and in several well-known cases it was proven to have been deceived. Nonetheless, it remains in use in many areas, primarily as a method for eliciting confessions or employment screening. Polygraph results are not admissible as court evidence and are generally perceived to be pseudoscience.
• Various truth drugs have been proposed and used anecdotally, though none are considered very reliable. The CIA attempted to find a universal "truth serum" in the MK-ULTRA project, but it was an overall failure.[citation needed]
• A recent study found that lying takes longer than telling the truth, and thus the time to answer a question may be used as a method of lie detection. However, it has also been shown that instant-answers can be proof of a prepared lie. The only compromise is to try to surprise the victim and find a midway answer, not too quick, nor too long.[15]
Dr. Paul Ekman and Dr. Maureen O'Sullivan spent several decades studying people's ability to spot deception in a study called the Wizards Project. They studied police officers, psychologists, judges, lawyers, the CIA, FBI and the Secret Service. After studying nearly 20,000 people, they identified just over 50 people who can spot deception with great accuracy.[citation needed]
Dr. Freitas-Magalhaes developed the ForensicPsy and the Psy7Faces to read lies by facial expressions.
 
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

My favourite is Weasle Word. 

Greg Parker
 
Some methods of questioning may be more likely to elicit the truth, for instance: "When was the last time you smoked marijuana?" (a leading question) is more likely to get a truthful answer than "Do you smoke pot?" 

True. Trouble is, it works both ways. The WC used leading questions to get the answers it wanted—not necessarily the facts.

Mick Purdy

I believe Givens is the key to knowing exactly where Lee was at work on Friday morning and at what time, and Given's also provides a time stamp for Wes and his whereabouts too. IMO Givens proves the two, Lee and Wes were separated and did not arrive at work together.

Consider, Givens observes Lee at 7.45 am in the Domino room reading a paper. Given’s floated between the Houston Nth ware house and the Elm street warehouse as required. Givens is witnessed by Shields at around 8.00 am down at the Houston Nth building at a window on the 2nd floor. (where he yells to Wes "where’s your rider") This is important IMO. Givens yelled "where's your rider" because he had already seen Wes's rider inside the TSBD. 
What does this all mean?

IMHO it shows that Givens had spotted Lee in the Domino room at 7.45 am reading a newspaper, and then went down to the Nth Houston warehouse to discover what his duties for the day would be, most likely from Shields and arrived there at around 7.50 am.

IMO at around 7.55 am or thereabouts Wes Frazier was observed on his own (HSCA Shields) walking through the parking lot by both Shields and Givens. Givens independently observed Oswald inside the Elm St Building at 7.45 am and witnessed Frazier at around 7.55-8.00 am in the car park walking on his own to the Elm St Building. In my opinion, this almost certainly suggests in an extremely persuasive way that Wes was indeed on his own in that car park and that Lee was already inside the building, reading the paper in the Domino room.

I would go so far as to say it proves it!

Mick Purdy

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.

Mick Purdy

Can someone assist with discovering if Perjury in the Shaw trial would have a statute of limitation applied?

Pretty certain Wes could be hauled in if it was open duck season.......

Not sure of the law with regards to this....

Ed Ledoux

Like that lie list! Wes is a half-truther.

Warren Commission lawyers did some classic bait and switch with their questioning. I would call it a "version" of the truth.
It also depends on what you call facts.  In this case 'admissions of fact' as it is called  were like a whole other world where reality must be suspended briefly while counsel builds a imaginary framework made by assuming facts not in evidence. It can do this only if it knowingly does not seek admission of testimony of contrary witnesses. Lawyers keeping witnesses from telling them the whole story and details by crafting the questions to elicit a certain response, and only a certain response was quite legal, but without the adversary to ask the polar opposite questions and probing those details could anyone know where the truth laid on 11/22.

They allowed The Weasel to go unchallenged. The 24" bag and curtain rods were the only threads Wes (Linnie with the help of the good reverend) had to claim their innocence. Without the polygraph results from Wes' session/s I doubt the truth can be gleaned from the weasel.

Say do we know if this is the Houston Street Warehouse?

 

 

It is a four story warehouse with dock as seen in the recreation for the film FDIN. Wes appears to turn and park across from it. Recall that Wes said he does not take Houston but turns up Record. He avoids Houston while driving, only mentioning it existing one block over from where he drives.

"Went down--you know, I told you I had two routes; that day I went down, you know, Fifth Street runs into Sixth after you cross the Storey Road there, so I just went on down Sixth until I come to O'Connor, and then took a left on O'Connor and it takes you right on out to Stemmons and from there I went right on into Stemmons and come up Commerce, and you go up Commerce, there until you hit Record Street, that is one block over from Houston and then I went down until I hit McKinney and then it goes right down to the warehouse and then take a left and you go right around to the parking lot."

So what was the other route? Go by the TSBD? 

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

Also in the vid we see Wes take a route through the tracks, not near Houston street proper. He is closest to the other warehouse when he is driving past it to the parking spots. So when Wes is asked by Jarman "Where is your rider?" it must be as Wes drove past with no LHO riding to work, no curtian rods or short bag.

Here we see Wes's route to the TSBD across tracks etc. View of rear of building and windows.



What a lousy, though direct, way to walk...but hey that's just me, I'd walk up Houston. But this is Wes, and he avoids Houston, even walking....

Ed Ledoux

Full Mental Jacket Testimony

Mr. FRAZIER - He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them....




Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have because most time I noticed when Lee had it, I say he put off his shirt and just wear a T-shirt the biggest part of the time so really what shirt he wore that day I really didn't see it or didn't pay enough attention to it whether he did have a shirt on.
Mr. BALL - On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket?

Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.



Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types



Mr. BALL - It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.

So a big sleeved flannel gray wool zipper jacket... madre mia!

Stan Dane

"What a lousy, though direct, way to walk...but hey that's just me, I'd walk up Houston.
"But this is Wes, and he avoids Houston, even walking..."

Houston, we have a problem.