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:Vinny

Frazier claims in interviews that Oswald was his friend.He also believes that Oswald is innocent.So why does he not mention that Oswald aka PM was standing near him on the entrance about the time of the shooting? That would prove Oswald was not the shooter since he could not have been obviously both on the steps as well as the sixth floor. What a great alibi for his "friend" that would be.

Mick Purdy

Vinny, that's the 64 Dollar question. Because I've just spent days revisiting BK's thread over at EF and gone through Sean Murphy's work regarding who is on the steps just after the shots and let me say it' seems a near certainty that PM is Oswald in my opinion and that makes Frazier's response for the past 51 years all the more galling in my mind. He has to have known Lee was right next to him. I'm working through something at the moment which I hope to expand on soon, regarding why Frazier may have not disclosed the fact Lee was next to him...........To me it makes perfect sense that Frazier should end up with Lee on those steps watching the parade.....more to come.

Vinny

Looking forward to what you will come up with.Sounds quite interesting.

Hasan Yusuf

I'm working through something at the moment which I hope to expand on soon, regarding why Frazier may have not disclosed the fact Lee was next to him...........To me it makes perfect sense that Frazier should end up with Lee on those steps watching the parade.....more to come.

Look forward to seeing it, Mick.

Barto

Buell Wesley Frazier - Recollections and Reflections: Lee Harvey Oswald
"How did the rifle get there? I have no idea. But, Lee did not take a rifle with him that morning."

https://vimeo.com/121102413

Stan Dane wrote:Barto

Buell Wesley Frazier - Recollections and Reflections: Lee Harvey Oswald
"How did the rifle get there? I have no idea. But, Lee did not take a rifle with him that morning."

https://vimeo.com/121102413

Mick Purdy

G'day Barto,

Thanks for posting  this. Wesley is such the consummate liar. The deflections and the diversionary rambling's are there for all to see and hear.

If you scratch the surface and look closely underneath that deceit there is a man who wasn't so magnanimous towards Lee and that rifle 50 odd years ago. The story has waxed and waned, changed significantly over time, and could have a lot to do with others passing away along the way. I no longer think he is deceitful, I now know he is. The evidence for that is hidden in plain sight in the record.

It's my contention albeit speculation that Frazier absolutely knew who stood along side of him to his right hand side a mere few feet away on those steps just after the shots rang out, and chose to lie and cover up that fact for the next 51 years. Why he would do such a thing is curious, but if I were a betting man I'd say that was the plan all along. 

For too long Frazier has been handled with kid gloves, and hiding behind minders who help keep the charade alive. IMO it's time for this nonsense to end. He needs to answer some very important questions.

Mick Purdy

This list is for you Steely. How silly of me to forget one of the biggest lies of all in the list. Please accept my humble apologies.

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.
 
The Fucking Whopper
Invented by a delusional man sometime around 2006. The most gigantic, jumbo, mammoth, colossus monster mother fucker of a lie that one can use. Typically used when describing ones fucked up delusional insane theory.
 
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

Mick Purdy

Frazier's shonky polygraph.

What the hell, why did the DPD have that car which was taking Frazier home, turn around at about 9.00 pm after several hours of interrogation and head back to City Hall. Why was that. I'm not buying the polygraph........as near as I can tell there's little to no evidence it took place....what was that second interrogation all about, and why re write second affidavits. Were there changes made to the originals? Maybe Frazier uttered something very displeasing to the cops, maybe he said Oswald was next to him, who knows?

Mick Purdy

W.C. Testimony:
 
Mr. ADAMCIK. I don't recall then at all. I left the house after awhile and went with, I believe it was, Mrs. Paine. I went with her to one of the neighbor houses to see about the children, leaving the children there. I left and went with her.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Coming back, Mrs. Frazier, I believe it was, drove up to the house as I was coming back with--no, it was Mrs. Bill Randle. She (Mrs. Randle) was a neighbor there and she was driving up to the house, so I asked her whether she knew anything about what had happened, and whether she had seen Lee Oswald, and she did tell me that Lee Oswald rode to work with her brother, which is Wesley Frazier, who was staying with her, and he rode to work with him that morning. She told me that she saw--she was up early in the morning and was drinking coffee, and saw Lee Harvey Oswald go across the front yard, across the yard carrying like a long package wrapped in something, carrying it from the Paine house to Wesley's car.
 
Clearly, I think it's safe to assume she hadn't driven up to the Paine's house from her home.
Essie looking after the kids?
Meeting with Wes at the hospital?
Meeting with Willie before he sets off for Austin.
Meeting with Wes and Willie? Why not?
Take your pick which scenario, they're all possible and all plausible IMHO.

And all can have just as sinister overtones in their own right......

Faroe Islander
 
http://fourandathumb.webplus.net/WCH2%20Wesley%20Frazier%20page%20228%20a.png
 
http://fourandathumb.webplus.net/WCH2%20Wesley%20Frazier%20page%20227-228%20a.png
 
Same story ?
 
https://s217.photobucket.com/user/David_Von_Pein/media/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/217WesleyFraziersCarAsItWasParkedOn.jpg.html?t=1278913979
 
Link from Von Pein site but shows where BWF parked his car, do you know if there is a view of the freeway from this place, and is this not a long way from the TSBD?

Mick Purdy

The truth is that Wes says that's where he parked his car to the WC and that they photographed that location with his car in that spot.......interestingly we have no body else to either support that claim or refute it. It makes no sense that he lied about this but Wes's form with regards to stretching the truth is not good. I believe if he parked the car there then yes,  he may have seen the freeway on the Western side of the parking lot. I'm going by memory, so forgive me if I'm wrong on this.

The walk from the location of the car parked in the lot is around 2 and 1/2 blocks, possibly as much as three blocks. So yes it was a long walk in. Took about 4-5 minutes according to testimony. That's why I believe its important to understand the testimony of Shields when he says he did not see Oswald with Frazier in the parking lot.

Shields should have seen Oswald, it's that simple. Even if you give Frazier the benefit of the doubt and allow for Oswald to be more than 100 feet ahead of him in the Lot, Shields should have most certainly still observed Oswald.

Mick Purdy

steely dan
What if there is a little bit of panic because the patsy is still alive instead of dead?
Mick Purdy
My what a fantastic question. What if you're right Steely!

What if Wes dropped Lee off at the Theatre, met up with Linnie, sat back and waited for news on the outcome at the theatre, and when the news came through that they'd apprehended Lee and had taken him down town for questioning ....well wouldn't that cause a ripple if the plan was to have him die at the TT.

An outcome which surely would've set in motion the plan to dump on Lee at the Paine's house and to send Wes to the hospital in a mad panic.

Mick Purdy

steely dan
Something i have been thinking about for a while Mick. The promised plan went wrong, and i would include the Paines, in the fall out that followed.

This makes a hell of a lot of sense at least to my tiny brain....don't get me wrong I've always thought Lee was supposed to die at the TT. But if you're right and Linnie and Wes along with Ruth and lets not forget Michael all were waiting for news of Lee's demise at the theatre then what you contend makes all the sense in the world......
 
Michael gets home at around 3,45 pm, Linnies there at around 3.30 pm all in a frantic state because the word is out Lee's been apprehended alive!

Its always bugged me, that Linnie didn't see fit to call in the long paper sack to authorities well before she eventually did.....lets face it if those two Linnie and Wes had really seen the sack with Lee that morning, you know the one, the long sack with something heavy inside almost touching the ground why didn't they immediately call police at around 1.00 pm....

The way Linnie described the sack and that she was suspicious doesn't ring true. When did that epiphany take hold.

No, I think you're onto something here Steely...Remember too Michael's excuse for not phoning the FBI with his suspicions of the rifle in the garage and his thoughts on Lee's political views and why he immediately thought of Lee when he heard the news of the assassination.

Same M.O. as Linnie and Ruth just packaged a little differently. Come to think of it maybe this is the reason for Wes's behaviour for the past 5 decades...maybe the theatre was supposed to be the end of it for him.....

Lee apprehended alive was his worst nightmare...maybe that explains some of the discord between Linnie and himself in their stories to authorities over the years.

Andrej Stancak

To follow the thread on Wesley Frazier, he and Ruth Paine are the living witnesses who could still perhaps change their lies to truth before it is too late. I am also convinced that Wes lied on too many occasions to frame Lee Oswald. However, he 1) always spoke nicely about Lee, how he liked children etc, and that he himself did not believe Lee would kill the president, and 2) never changed his 28-inch length estimate of the paper sack as if protesting with the skin on his teeth against the crime of framing Lee Oswald. Will he be able to leave a letter or anything which after his death would put things straight? I have no such hope in Ruth Paine. Wes was "processed" quite badly during the Friday night, and must have been scared to death. Seeing that Oswald was dead, he agreed to lying as he perhaps believed he could not cause more harm to a dead person, whilst he could somehow "save" himself. Interestingly, I saw a contribution, maybe 10 years old, on some forum (sorry for not taking a note, however, the thread still exists as I read it relatively recently) that Wesley labeled the Prayer Man as Bill Shelley ... The problem is that if people lie for decades, they tend to believe their lies, and become a bit delusional in that particular aspect.

Greg Parker

Andrej, I can't really add anything to your comments. I do largely agree with them - especially this part "The problem is that if people lie for decades, they tend to believe their lies, and become a bit delusional in that particular aspect." That seems to be a main stumbling block.

Mick Purdy

Andrej welcome,

I too cannot add much to what you've said. But I will say this, purely my opinion though after researching Wes very closely.
You said: he 1) always spoke nicely about Lee, how he liked children etc, and that he himself did not believe Lee would kill the president,
Wes has changed his tune over the years he wasn't nearly so defensive of Lee earlier on.....He has distanced himself from Oswald in the record and in media interviews many times over the past 5 decades.
You said: and 2) never changed his 28-inch length estimate of the paper sack as if protesting with the skin on his teeth against the crime of framing Lee Oswald.

IMO its not that he hasn't changed his story of the length of the package, it's more about the image he and his sister created to frame Lee. Once Wes invented and sold the curtain rod story, Lee was as good as cooked IMO. Wes did not need to talk abot the length it was an image the both of them created. And one more thing to consider  is the fact Wes told the authorities he had driven Lee into work that morning, I cannot fathom how he was ever going to tell police the FBI or any other law enforcement agency that he drove the alleged killer to the TSBD with a package long enough to have held a rifle.......he would have never admitted to that not in a million years. His MO IMO was to down play the package as much as he could while all along Linnie, played to the crowd..... just my opinion.

Barto

By Roy L Svhaeffer, strangely the polygraph matter is unmentioned....
Buell W. Frazier, a friend of Oswald's already had a lot of explaining to do because of his affiliation with Oswald. Frazier was arrested the afternoon of the assassination 4 while visiting his stepfather at a nursing home in Dallas. Frazier was held by the Dallas police until 9:00 p.m. that evening. The following day, the Dallas police took Frazier back into custody for further questioning. After further questioning about Oswald, the: -.Dallas police released Frazier, but kept a close tab on him. 8 Buell Frazier began his employment at the Texas School Book Depository on September 13, 1963. Prior to his employment in Dallas, Frazier lived in Hunstsville, Texas, two hundred miles away. Oswald was hired by Roy Truly on October 15, 1963. 9 Several persons believed that Frazier was involved with Oswald to a certain degree 3 in the assassination. Others believed that they had observed Oswald and Frazier at the 7 Sports Mime rifle range in Dallas in early October. Frazier stated that he had not met Oswald before October 16, the day Oswald started working at the Depository. Garland G. Slack stated that he had an altercation with a person shooting at his tarket in early October, prior to
October 16. When Oswald's picture appeared on television, Slack believed he was the person who shot at his target. Six persons at the rifle range swore that the man resembled Oswald. Slack alleged that the man with Oswald was a man named "Frazier, from Irving." 10 Frazier's involvement with Oswald was extremely detrimental. Frazier openly admitted that he drove Oswald to see his wife on the weekends in Irving. Frazier denied any involvement with Oswald
except being his friend. Frazier by his involvement with Oswald no doubt was influenced to some degree by the Dallas police to identify Lovelady as being the individual in the Altgens photograph.

[url=http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/P Disk/Pictures Lovelady-Oswald/Item 04.pdf]http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/P%20Disk/Pictures%20Lovelady-Oswald/Item%2004.pdf[/url]

BTW Mick this whole document talks about Lovelady and Atgens 6 btw, in case you haven't seen this before.

Mick Purdy

I want to reiterate something which has been mentioned here, and that is the importance of the curtain rod story. IMO Frazier never needed to say any more or any less than he did to incriminate Lee. The curtain rod story in conjunction with the large sack fabrication almost certainly put the MC rifle in Lee's hands on that Friday morning in almost everyone's eyes, no thanks to my two fav's Wes and Linnie.

So IMO the 5 decade old charade of Wes feigning concern and empathy for his little mate Lee is about as hollow as it gets.

Barto

So this additional report with the addition of the bag on Nov 25th, isn't suspicious at all.

Oh yeah I seemed to have forgotten this,  but since I was  given the hair dryer treatment by Fritz and co., and since Oswald is dead what gives right.........I seem to remember now.......

Mick Purdy

The importance of the fabrication of the curtain rod story cannot be over stated. Without it there could be no imaginary “rifle” inside the imaginary sack. The curtain rod story gives Wes the almost perfect escape from suspicion. The curtain rod story supplied Buell Wesley Frazier with an excuse for not being suspicious of the imaginary rigid long package carried by Lee into the TSBD on the day of Kennedy’s visit to Dealey Plaza. The long package, which was only ever seen by two people, the same two who told authorities about the curtain rods.
 
Oswald said

"I was arrested in New Orleans for disturbing the peace and paid a $10 fine for demonstrating for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. I had a fight with some anti-Castro refugees and they were released while I was fined … I refuse to take a polygraph. It has always been my practice not to agree to take a polygraph … The FBI has overstepped their bounds in using various tactics in interviewing me …. I didn’t shoot John Kennedy …. I didn’t even know Gov. John Connally had been shot ….I don’t own a rifle …. I didn’t tell Buell Wesley Frazier anything about bringing back some curtain rods …"

From "The Last Words of Lee Oswald," as compiled by Mae Brussell. Published in “The People’s Almanac #2,” by David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace (NY: Bantam Books, 1978), pp. 47-52.

But Frazier said
 
Mr. FRAZIER: So automatically I knew it wasn't Friday, I come to think it wasn't Friday and I said, "Why are you going home today?" And he says, "I am going home to get some curtain rods." He said, "You know, put in an apartment." He wanted to hang up some curtains and I said, "Very well." And I never thought more about it and I had some invoices in my hands for some orders and I walked on off and started filling the orders.

And

Mr. BALL - Do you remember the night before, that is after you got home that night, that your sister asked you how it happened that Oswald came home with you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I believe she did or something. We got to talking about something and said, I told her that he had rode home with me and told her he said he was going to come home and pick up some curtain rods or something.
 
And this

Mr. BALL - This night, this evening, do you remember you did talk to her about the fact that Oswald had come home with you?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe I did.
Mr. BALL - Did you tell her what he had told you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. I believe she said why did he come home now and I said, well, he says he was going to get some curtain rods.

And on the morning of 11/22/1963

Mr. BALL - All right. When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?" And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."

And this

Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

But Marina didn’t know anything about curtain rods

Mr. RANKIN. On the evening of the 21st, was anything said about curtain rods or his taking curtain rods to town the following day?
Mrs. Oswald. No, I didn't have any.
Mr. RANKIN. He didn't say anything like that?
Mrs. Oswald. No.

Wes and Linnie fabricated the curtain rod story in conjunction with the sack/bag/package/carton story. The length of the package was almost irrelevant: the two feet give or take a few inches was all that was needed. Remember, Wes has always stated it was NOT Lee's lunch. He has been adamant about this and that's important to the frame. And remember this: Linnie Mae at one point in her statements had the package a whopping 36-38 inches long and 6 inches wide.

But I'll leave it for the pics to speak for themselves for those who doubt Wes and Linnie framed Lee, with a cock and bull story of a sack which contained curtain rods.

Wesley and his estimate of the sack:



Linnie Mae and her estimate of the sack:



And an actual Carcano rifle broken down and placed inside a sack:



Any one doubting how damaging Wesley and Linnies stories were should take a look at these photos and maybe have a re-think. They created a perfect Oswald-rifle-carrying storm.

Mick Purdy

Again to point out, Frazier is caught lying about the curtain rod story. It's fabricated!

Lee said explicitly: "I didn’t tell Buell Wesley Frazier anything about bringing back some curtain rods…"  If Frazier fabricated the curtain rod story then by extension the sack story can be included in that same lie. The sound logic for this can be found in the reality that if there were no curtain rods, then there was never a long paper sack.

And then if Frazier has lied about this then he has most likely lied about various other things which occurred on that day including IMO the drive into work with Lee and including what he did after the assassination and including who was on the steps of the TSBD immediately following the shots. 

Frazier needs to be treated as a suspect in the crime rather than a victim, a part he has played oh so well.

Andrej Stancak

Thanks guys, for accepting me in your forum. I am overwhelmed by the details and facts you have about the case.

To Mick: I think the 28-inch package length was something what Wes and his sister invented to protect Wes as you are right, Wes was actually the one who assisted the assassin to carry his rifle to the crime scene, and if authorities would fancy it, he could be have been also accused. This would be possible if he had agreed to say e.g. 35 inch,  in which case WC would applaud him. However, he gave a figure that actually can also used in a court to defend Wes from any accusations of helping Oswald. I think Wes was tighly navigated and forced to reproduce the curtain rod story (which never happened). We know that there was another man in Oak Cliff area who was given a drive, and told the driver about his long package having a shape of a rifle to be curtain rods. So, the curtain rods was something the conspirators used quite consistently to create a dubious cover up for a rifle. Not that they have showed too much of imagination...

Stan Dane wrote:Mick Purdy

The importance of the fabrication of the curtain rod story cannot be over stated. Without it there could be no imaginary “rifle” inside the imaginary sack. The curtain rod story gives Wes the almost perfect escape from suspicion. The curtain rod story supplied Buell Wesley Frazier with an excuse for not being suspicious of the imaginary rigid long package carried by Lee into the TSBD on the day of Kennedy’s visit to Dealey Plaza. The long package, which was only ever seen by two people, the same two who told authorities about the curtain rods.
 
Oswald said

"I was arrested in New Orleans for disturbing the peace and paid a $10 fine for demonstrating for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. I had a fight with some anti-Castro refugees and they were released while I was fined … I refuse to take a polygraph. It has always been my practice not to agree to take a polygraph … The FBI has overstepped their bounds in using various tactics in interviewing me …. I didn’t shoot John Kennedy …. I didn’t even know Gov. John Connally had been shot ….I don’t own a rifle …. I didn’t tell Buell Wesley Frazier anything about bringing back some curtain rods …"

From "The Last Words of Lee Oswald," as compiled by Mae Brussell. Published in “The People’s Almanac #2,” by David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace (NY: Bantam Books, 1978), pp. 47-52.

But Frazier said
 
Mr. FRAZIER: So automatically I knew it wasn't Friday, I come to think it wasn't Friday and I said, "Why are you going home today?" And he says, "I am going home to get some curtain rods." He said, "You know, put in an apartment." He wanted to hang up some curtains and I said, "Very well." And I never thought more about it and I had some invoices in my hands for some orders and I walked on off and started filling the orders.

And

Mr. BALL - Do you remember the night before, that is after you got home that night, that your sister asked you how it happened that Oswald came home with you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I believe she did or something. We got to talking about something and said, I told her that he had rode home with me and told her he said he was going to come home and pick up some curtain rods or something.
 
And this

Mr. BALL - This night, this evening, do you remember you did talk to her about the fact that Oswald had come home with you?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe I did.
Mr. BALL - Did you tell her what he had told you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. I believe she said why did he come home now and I said, well, he says he was going to get some curtain rods.

And on the morning of 11/22/1963

Mr. BALL - All right. When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?" And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."

And this

Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

But Marina didn’t know anything about curtain rods

Mr. RANKIN. On the evening of the 21st, was anything said about curtain rods or his taking curtain rods to town the following day?
Mrs. Oswald. No, I didn't have any.
Mr. RANKIN. He didn't say anything like that?
Mrs. Oswald. No.

Wes and Linnie fabricated the curtain rod story in conjunction with the sack/bag/package/carton story. The length of the package was almost irrelevant: the two feet give or take a few inches was all that was needed. Remember, Wes has always stated it was NOT Lee's lunch. He has been adamant about this and that's important to the frame. And remember this: Linnie Mae at one point in her statements had the package a whopping 36-38 inches long and 6 inches wide.

But I'll leave it for the pics to speak for themselves for those who doubt Wes and Linnie framed Lee, with a cock and bull story of a sack which contained curtain rods.

Wesley and his estimate of the sack:



Linnie Mae and her estimate of the sack:



And an actual Carcano rifle broken down and placed inside a sack:



Any one doubting how damaging Wesley and Linnies stories were should take a look at these photos and maybe have a re-think. They created a perfect Oswald-rifle-carrying storm.

Looks a little different when the photos are equally scaled, Stan

Andrej Stancak

To Mick:
Mick, you wrote "IMO Frazier needs to be treated as a suspect in the crime rather than a victim, a part he has played oh so well."  This is something which already touches ethics and moral values. Technically, we agree that Wes lied on multiple occasions and for more than 50 years to frame Oswald. My problem is that I wish to understand also the reasons for his wrongdoing. I think people do not lie to blame an innocent person unless brutally forced. Would this mitigate Frazier's sin of giving a false testimony?  I do not think so, and still hope that Frazier will find the strength to speak the truth. If I knew his postal or email address, I would certainly write him a letter and encourage him to do so.

I grew up in a communist country, Czechoslovakia. My parents were very educated people, and hated communism. I know how much tactics, unslept nights, and states of terror they went through over many years to protect their beliefs and also us, their children. I also know how many good people succumbed to the pressure and helped communists and the state secret police by providing false testimonies about their co-workers or school mates. Basically, I still feel both sorry and ashamed for them. Maybe this is the point which pushes me to search for motives of people like Frazier or Lovelady.

Mick Purdy

Andrej:
I think people do not lie to blame an innocent person unless brutally forced. Would this mitigate Frazier's sin of giving a false testimony?

What you say may have merit: but consider also the possibility of deflection and diversion.
Maybe to save ones own skin.......there's many reasons why people lie especially when it involves diverting attention away from ones self.
As for being brutally forced, at least in a physical sense, I think thats possible but I'm willing to bet in Frazier's case if he was forced to lie about Oswald and the drive, along with the package of curtain rods it could have easily been some form of mental torture.........

......maybe blackmail.