Home
Portal
Events
ROKC Wiki
Gallery
Search
Register
Log in
Randle & Frazier Contradictions
+10
John Mooney
Hasan Yusuf
Colin_Crow
Martin Hay
Ed.Ledoux
Albert Rossi
ianlloyd
James DiEugenio
StanDane
greg_parker
14 posters
GuestGuest
Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sat 28 Dec 2013, 6:01 am
Contradiction Number One: The Direction of Frazier's Car
During the Warren Commission testimony of Linnie Mae Randle, the sister of Buell Wesley Frazier, the following exchange took place between her and Joseph Ball:
Mr. BALL. Did you see him go to the car?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What did he do?
Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down so I closed the door?
Randle very specifically picked out the "right back door" of Frazier's car as the one that Oswald opened and placed the brown paper package inside that she claimed she saw him carrying.
The Warren Commission published the photograph below of the Randle house depicting the location and direction of Buell Wesley Frazier's car that morning:
The right rear door of Frazier's car is furthest away from where Randle claims she watched Oswald from in the official photograph above. Remember that Randle also had to look through the slats of wood of the carport to see him as well as past the other car parked in the carport itself. The kitchen window she says Oswald waved at her through can also be seen.
Linnie Mae Randle in a March 9, 1964, interview with the FBI went on to change the direction the car was facing that she claims she originally gave in error. The car was now facing west rather than east:
The strange thing about this is J. Lee Rankin made a written request of the FBI on March 3rd, 1964, that photographs of the Randle house and of the location of Frazier's car be taken and sent to the Warren Commission. The above photograph is one of those requested. Six days later Randle changed her original statement concerning the direction of the car. Her new recollections now matched the photograph taken by the FBI. Instead of facing the fence, the car was now facing the street.
But even more worrying is this quote from Frazier's FBI interview with Special Agent Harrison on November 23, 1963:
As you can see, very early on Frazier claimed he backed his car out of the driveway indicating that it was in fact headed east and not west which would raise some real questions about which car door Randle claims she saw Oswald opening. Which was it?
And the answer will be compounded by Frazier's HSCA interview statement that Oswald only gained access to his locked car because one of the rear doors was broken. But which one? Or am I asking too many questions about a story that is just simply another big pile of shite?
Next Up: The Distance Oswald Walked Ahead of Frazier After Arriving At Work
During the Warren Commission testimony of Linnie Mae Randle, the sister of Buell Wesley Frazier, the following exchange took place between her and Joseph Ball:
Mr. BALL. Did you see him go to the car?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What did he do?
Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down so I closed the door?
Randle very specifically picked out the "right back door" of Frazier's car as the one that Oswald opened and placed the brown paper package inside that she claimed she saw him carrying.
The Warren Commission published the photograph below of the Randle house depicting the location and direction of Buell Wesley Frazier's car that morning:
The right rear door of Frazier's car is furthest away from where Randle claims she watched Oswald from in the official photograph above. Remember that Randle also had to look through the slats of wood of the carport to see him as well as past the other car parked in the carport itself. The kitchen window she says Oswald waved at her through can also be seen.
Linnie Mae Randle in a March 9, 1964, interview with the FBI went on to change the direction the car was facing that she claims she originally gave in error. The car was now facing west rather than east:
The strange thing about this is J. Lee Rankin made a written request of the FBI on March 3rd, 1964, that photographs of the Randle house and of the location of Frazier's car be taken and sent to the Warren Commission. The above photograph is one of those requested. Six days later Randle changed her original statement concerning the direction of the car. Her new recollections now matched the photograph taken by the FBI. Instead of facing the fence, the car was now facing the street.
But even more worrying is this quote from Frazier's FBI interview with Special Agent Harrison on November 23, 1963:
As you can see, very early on Frazier claimed he backed his car out of the driveway indicating that it was in fact headed east and not west which would raise some real questions about which car door Randle claims she saw Oswald opening. Which was it?
And the answer will be compounded by Frazier's HSCA interview statement that Oswald only gained access to his locked car because one of the rear doors was broken. But which one? Or am I asking too many questions about a story that is just simply another big pile of shite?
Next Up: The Distance Oswald Walked Ahead of Frazier After Arriving At Work
- GuestGuest
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sat 28 Dec 2013, 7:23 am
The Distance Oswald Walked Ahead of Frazier After Arriving At Work
When Buell Wesley Frazier was in the hands of the Dallas Police and the FBI his story concerning his and Oswald's arrival at work that morning consisted of the following:
Frazier parked his car in a parking lot some distance North of the Texas School Book Depository and upon arrival Oswald got out of the passenger seat, opened the right rear door, got out his package, and without saying a word to his "chauffeur" just started walking toward work leaving Frazier behind. Frazier stayed so he could charge his car battery for a while and then started to walk behind Oswald. Oswald raced ahead and Frazier slowed down.
There are slight variations of the story depending upon which statement you read. For example Frazier charged his battery for a few seconds in one statement versus a few minutes in another. We mustn't forget that Oswald and Frazier set off for work later than usual that morning and were cutting it fine getting there on time.
The segment below is from Frazier's first day affidavit with the Dallas Police:
So, Frazier, almost late for work slows down to the point that Oswald, carrying a rifle in a brown paper bag, goes from being a few feet ahead to way ahead of Frazier. Why? Why would Frazier slow down to a crawl on a day that he left late for work? Next up, his FBI statement from November 23, 1963 when he was interviewed by SA Harrison:
So, on the 23rd we have roughly the same story except we now have a specific distance that Oswald managed to get ahead of Frazier - 50 feet from 10 feet. But still no explanation why Frazier slowed down after getting to work later than normal.
On December 1, 1963, when interviewed by Bardwell Odum of the FBI we finally get a reason as to why Frazier slowed down:
Frazier is claiming Oswald managed to get ahead of him because Frazier slowed down, after getting to work later than normal, to watch some welders on the railway tracks.
The reason I bring all this up is because throughout every interview it is either explicitly stated or inferred that Oswald seemed to want to get ahead, and away, from Frazier with this package. The way the statements are composed make it appear Oswald had something to hide and a combination of Oswald's rudeness/haste, recharging batteries and interesting welders allow Oswald and Frazier to become "separated".
But there is something interesting in Frazier's interview with the Secret Service that alters the story slightly and runs in direct opposition with the theme that is developed in the DPD and FBI interviews. The USSS interview was conducted by SS SA William N. Carter on December 5, 1963:
This, in my opinion, gives a totally different feel to the events that morning. Frazier says that Lee waited for him by the fence. No walking off. No rudeness and anti-social behaviour of a person just walking off with not so much as a thank you to the person who had just given him a lift to work. In this version Lee waits for Frazier as would be expected of anyone who had just received a lift from a neighbour. Also absent from this version is Lee walking ahead by 50 feet and Frazier slowing down to watch welders weld railway tracks.
So, did Lee race ahead, or did Lee wait for Frazier? Was it Lee wanting to get away from Frazier or did Frazier want to get away from Oswald?
Next Up: What weekends did Frazier take Oswald to Irving?
When Buell Wesley Frazier was in the hands of the Dallas Police and the FBI his story concerning his and Oswald's arrival at work that morning consisted of the following:
Frazier parked his car in a parking lot some distance North of the Texas School Book Depository and upon arrival Oswald got out of the passenger seat, opened the right rear door, got out his package, and without saying a word to his "chauffeur" just started walking toward work leaving Frazier behind. Frazier stayed so he could charge his car battery for a while and then started to walk behind Oswald. Oswald raced ahead and Frazier slowed down.
There are slight variations of the story depending upon which statement you read. For example Frazier charged his battery for a few seconds in one statement versus a few minutes in another. We mustn't forget that Oswald and Frazier set off for work later than usual that morning and were cutting it fine getting there on time.
The segment below is from Frazier's first day affidavit with the Dallas Police:
So, Frazier, almost late for work slows down to the point that Oswald, carrying a rifle in a brown paper bag, goes from being a few feet ahead to way ahead of Frazier. Why? Why would Frazier slow down to a crawl on a day that he left late for work? Next up, his FBI statement from November 23, 1963 when he was interviewed by SA Harrison:
So, on the 23rd we have roughly the same story except we now have a specific distance that Oswald managed to get ahead of Frazier - 50 feet from 10 feet. But still no explanation why Frazier slowed down after getting to work later than normal.
On December 1, 1963, when interviewed by Bardwell Odum of the FBI we finally get a reason as to why Frazier slowed down:
Frazier is claiming Oswald managed to get ahead of him because Frazier slowed down, after getting to work later than normal, to watch some welders on the railway tracks.
The reason I bring all this up is because throughout every interview it is either explicitly stated or inferred that Oswald seemed to want to get ahead, and away, from Frazier with this package. The way the statements are composed make it appear Oswald had something to hide and a combination of Oswald's rudeness/haste, recharging batteries and interesting welders allow Oswald and Frazier to become "separated".
But there is something interesting in Frazier's interview with the Secret Service that alters the story slightly and runs in direct opposition with the theme that is developed in the DPD and FBI interviews. The USSS interview was conducted by SS SA William N. Carter on December 5, 1963:
This, in my opinion, gives a totally different feel to the events that morning. Frazier says that Lee waited for him by the fence. No walking off. No rudeness and anti-social behaviour of a person just walking off with not so much as a thank you to the person who had just given him a lift to work. In this version Lee waits for Frazier as would be expected of anyone who had just received a lift from a neighbour. Also absent from this version is Lee walking ahead by 50 feet and Frazier slowing down to watch welders weld railway tracks.
So, did Lee race ahead, or did Lee wait for Frazier? Was it Lee wanting to get away from Frazier or did Frazier want to get away from Oswald?
Next Up: What weekends did Frazier take Oswald to Irving?
greg_parkerAdmin- Posts : 8368
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia 
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sat 28 Dec 2013, 9:08 am
lee wrote:This, in my opinion, gives a totally different feel to the events that morning. Frazier says that Lee waited for him by the fence. No walking ahead. No rudeness and anti-social behaviour of a person just walking off with not so much as a thank you to the person who had just given him a lift to work. In this version Lee waits for Frazier as would be expected of anyone who had just received a lift from a neighbour. Also absent from this version is Lee walking ahead by 50 feet and Frazier slowing down to watch welders weld railway tracks.
So, did Lee race ahead, or did Lee wait for Frazier? Was it Lee wanting to get away from Frazier or did Frazier want to get away from Oswald?
This is from an old thread on Frazier and the Randles
He also testified that when Oswald rode with him to work, they would walk over to the building together from the car park, but on November 22, he decided to stay in his old Chevy to watch the rail cars being switched and run his engine "to charge up [his] battery". Oswald, who had walked on ahead, stopped and waited, then resumed walking when he noticed Frazier getting out. However, Frazier continued to dawdle watching the trains, allowing Oswald to get further and further away from him.
-------------------
You've made the point far more explicitly, and added how the story progressed.
I have wondered at times whether Frazier might have been deliberately letting Oswald get well advanced so that he himself could surreptitiously remove something from the car? I don't believe anyone was ever asked if Frazier carried anything in...
Devil's Advocate question for vintage car buffs.
Would Frazier have to run the engine to charge the battery every morning? If so, what to make of his statement that they always (apart from Nov 22nd) walked over to the loading dock together? If he did need to charge every morning, would this mean that Oswald always waited with him (apart from on Nov 22nd)?
_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise.
Lachie Hulme
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
Me
"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." Don Jeffries
"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
https://gregrparker.com
StanDane- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sat 28 Dec 2013, 10:34 am
Prior to 1960, most US cars used electric generators to charge their batteries. Generators produce DC power and are not able to produce the amount of power that an alternator can (if you ever study the difference between AC and DC, you'll quickly see why AC alternators are a superior way to produce electricity). Alternators produce AC power which is converted (rectified) to DC power which is used to operate automobiles. Alternators are smaller, more efficient, and can produce significant amounts of power even when operating at low speeds.greg parker wrote:Devil's Advocate question for vintage car buffs.
Would Frazier have to run the engine to charge the battery every morning? If so, what to make of his statement that they always (apart from Nov 22nd) walked over to the loading dock together? If he did need to charge every morning, would this mean that Oswald always waited with him (apart from on Nov 22nd)?
I'm thinking that Frazier's "old Chevy" probably had a generator? But either way, I think it makes no sense to let the car run to charge the battery after making a trip.
Cars with alternators: when you start up and begin driving, the alternator quickly replaces the electricity drawn from the battery. When your trip concludes, even if it's a short drive, your battery should be fully charged. I mean, we all make short trips all the time and never think about batteries. They just work.
Cars with generators: I think it takes longer for the generator to replace the power used to start the car, but, IIRC, generators produce very little power at idle speeds, so there is little to be gained by letting the engine idle to charge to battery. It would be better to keep driving so the generator could operate at higher rpm and be more efficient.
Anyway, this is just blurbage from somebody who doesn't know for sure. Anybody with good information, please chime in. Color me suspicious though.
- James DiEugenio
- Posts : 213
Join date : 2013-08-01
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sat 28 Dec 2013, 11:43 am
Its pretty clear that Frazier's story about Oswald being out in front of him needed a pretext: battery charging, railroad workers, welders.
Second, does anyone think the gunsack in question is the kind which can be found at the 5 and 10 cent stores back then? That is Woolworth's or Kresge's? (I'm showing my age but ALbert knows what these were.)
Finally, who can believe Linnie Mae Randle today? Her story has so many problems with it, she is now ascending into Howard Brennan territory.
Second, does anyone think the gunsack in question is the kind which can be found at the 5 and 10 cent stores back then? That is Woolworth's or Kresge's? (I'm showing my age but ALbert knows what these were.)
Finally, who can believe Linnie Mae Randle today? Her story has so many problems with it, she is now ascending into Howard Brennan territory.
- greg_parkerAdmin
- Posts : 8368
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sat 28 Dec 2013, 1:22 pm
James DiEugenio wrote:Its pretty clear that Frazier's story about Oswald being out in front of him needed a pretext: battery charging, railroad workers, welders.
That's what I think, too, Jim. But I've learned to tread carefully and be as sure as I can be before running with anything.
Second, does anyone think the gunsack in question is the kind which can be found at the 5 and 10 cent stores back then? That is Woolworth's or Kresge's? (I'm showing my age but ALbert knows what these were.)
If you read through all of Frazier's interviews, it's as clear as can be that he differentiates between the bag he saw and the bag in evidence - not just on the basis of length, but also on the color and "heaviness" of the paper.
The argument from the LN brigade is that if he was in any way involved, why didn't he just go along with the bag being "it"? I think the answer is the alleged "polygraph" in which he was shown the bag. He was probably warned if he lied, the machine would tell them and he'd be in big trouble. So he told the truth about the bag and stuck with it.
Finally, who can believe Linnie Mae Randle today? Her story has so many problems with it, she is now ascending into Howard Brennan territory.
The Randle clan were involved in politics. Dixiecrats. "Nuff said.
_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise.
Lachie Hulme
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
Me
"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." Don Jeffries
"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
https://gregrparker.com
- James DiEugenio
- Posts : 213
Join date : 2013-08-01
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sat 28 Dec 2013, 1:50 pm
Greg, what is the basis for Wesley being confronted with a bag during his polygraph?
I thought no one had seen the polygraph text or results?
I thought no one had seen the polygraph text or results?
- greg_parkerAdmin
- Posts : 8368
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sat 28 Dec 2013, 2:06 pm
Jim, the basis for it is the Dec 1, 1963 interview with RD Lewis. The same fellow who later have no memory of administering such a polygraph.James DiEugenio wrote:Greg, what is the basis for Wesley being confronted with a bag during his polygraph?
I thought no one had seen the polygraph text or results?
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/gallery/ASSASSINATION/DOCUMENTS/Det-Lewis-FBI-Interview-pic_7.htm
Based on known times from the records, there was not enough time for Lewis to have figured out questions to ask and administer the test. And I could be wrong, but I don't think it's standard practice to produce evidence for witnesses to look at during polygraphs.
In my opinion, they tried to bluff him into a confession by strapping him to the machine and giving him the "third degree". The bluff was that the machine would tell them if he was lying. I further believe that the bag was the only subject of this "test".
As far as I can tell, there is no record of any polygraph, and as above, Lewis later disowned any knowledge of one. The bluff blew up in their face. The thought of being caught lying scared the shit out of Frazier - so he told the truth - it wasn't THAT bag that Oswald had.
I do wonder what the answer would have been if the question was something along the lines of "have you ever seen this bag before?"
_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise.
Lachie Hulme
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
Me
"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." Don Jeffries
"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
https://gregrparker.com
- ianlloyd
- Posts : 151
Join date : 2010-03-18
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sat 28 Dec 2013, 8:16 pm
For Lee,
Good stuff yet again.
A search on this forum for "Frazier and Randle" should find a previous thread in a similar vein.
Not sure if it's worth noting but I will anyway for anyone that didn't realise - the FBI photograph does not actually show Frazier's car, it is another car, I presume an FBI car?
Also, I have previously questioned the car charging scenario and was informed some time ago that this was a relatively usual thing for those cars.
Good stuff yet again.
A search on this forum for "Frazier and Randle" should find a previous thread in a similar vein.
Not sure if it's worth noting but I will anyway for anyone that didn't realise - the FBI photograph does not actually show Frazier's car, it is another car, I presume an FBI car?
Also, I have previously questioned the car charging scenario and was informed some time ago that this was a relatively usual thing for those cars.
- greg_parkerAdmin
- Posts : 8368
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sat 28 Dec 2013, 8:42 pm
Ian, yeah, I have been told the same thing in the past - but I have never been able to verify it independently.ianlloyd wrote:For Lee,
Good stuff yet again.
A search on this forum for "Frazier and Randle" should find a previous thread in a similar vein.
Not sure if it's worth noting but I will anyway for anyone that didn't realise - the FBI photograph does not actually show Frazier's car, it is another car, I presume an FBI car?
Also, I have previously questioned the car charging scenario and was informed some time ago that this was a relatively usual thing for those cars.
If he did do it all the time, and he and Lee always walked together - then it suggests Oswald always waited for him... so either way, there is a problem to be dealt with.
_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise.
Lachie Hulme
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
Me
"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." Don Jeffries
"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
https://gregrparker.com
- GuestGuest
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sat 28 Dec 2013, 10:21 pm
ianlloyd wrote:For Lee,
Good stuff yet again.
A search on this forum for "Frazier and Randle" should find a previous thread in a similar vein.
Not sure if it's worth noting but I will anyway for anyone that didn't realise - the FBI photograph does not actually show Frazier's car, it is another car, I presume an FBI car?
Also, I have previously questioned the car charging scenario and was informed some time ago that this was a relatively usual thing for those cars.
Cheers, Ian. I kind of suspected it wasn't Frazier's car because I recently watched a documentary where a current day BWF actually took the trip from Irving to the TSBD in a 1954 Chevy. The car obviously looks nothing like the one in the picture.
It's almost as if these stories had contradictions built into them so we would never know what the hell was going on. Frazier claims he backed his car out that morning which I'm guessing would be true of 99% of the human population who I'm sure would drive their car forwards next to the car port when they got home. I doubt many people would back in when they arrived home.
The change of direction that Frazier's car was facing that morning has to based upon a problem faced by the FBI because change it did.
Anyway, here is a 1954 four door Chevy for anyone who has not seen one before:
Oh, and here is Linnie Mae Randle's view into the carport from the kitchen door. Frazier's supposed west facing car was on the othe side of the slats and the right rear door furthest away from Randle.
- ianlloyd
- Posts : 151
Join date : 2010-03-18
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sun 29 Dec 2013, 12:39 am
Hi Lee,
That second FBI photo, no. 13, purportedly of Randle's view into the carport is also misleading - the carport is 2 car widths wide, yet that photo makes it appear narrower.
There are all sorts of issues with the morning encounter when you start reviewing what people said they saw then start looking at the kitchen window positions, how high they are, etc. You will start scratching your head thinking "how did he/she see that through that window?".
That second FBI photo, no. 13, purportedly of Randle's view into the carport is also misleading - the carport is 2 car widths wide, yet that photo makes it appear narrower.
There are all sorts of issues with the morning encounter when you start reviewing what people said they saw then start looking at the kitchen window positions, how high they are, etc. You will start scratching your head thinking "how did he/she see that through that window?".
- GuestGuest
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sun 29 Dec 2013, 1:05 am
Did Oswald have an Irving routine?
Between October 16, 1963, when Oswald started his job at the Texas School Book Depository, until November 22, when he kind of resigned, there were six weekends if we count Friday 11/22:
October
Fri 18, Sat 19, Sun 20
Fri 25, Sat 26, Sun 27
November
Fri 1, Sat 2, Sun 3
Fri 8, Sat 9, Sun 10
Fri 15, Sat 16, Sun 17
Fri 22
According to the first day statement of Buell Wesley Frazier Oswald rode back to Irving with him every single Friday between Oct 16 and November 22 and rode back with him to work on Monday morning with only one exception - the exception was the evening of Thursday November 21st when Oswald went back to Irving the night before the assassination:
So, according to Frazier on day one, between Oct 16 and November 22 Oswald rode to Irving on a Friday and rode back to Dallas on a Monday with him on 5 separate occasions and rode back to Irving on a Thursday and back to work on a Friday once.
Linnie Mae Randle, Frazier's sister said the same thing when she was interviewed on 11/23:
Frazier "customarily" dropped Oswald at 2515 West Fifth Street on a Friday and took him back to work on a Monday. The exception being Thursday 21st which was so out of the ordinary that Randle allegedly asked Frazier why this had happened:
So, once again, early doors, we are given the impression from both Frazier and Randle that other than assassination weekend Oswald went home with Frazier every weekend between October 16 and November 15 - a total of five weekends.
Below is the segment from the Bardwell Odum FBI interview with Frazier that took place on December 2, 1963:
However, we quickly begin to run into problems with this routine that both Frazier and Randle define for us.
When he was interviewed by the Secret Service on December 5th Buell Wesley Frazier now said there was one other variation in the routine of dropping Oswald off on a Friday and picking him up on a Monday:
So, in addition to the assassination weekend we now have another exception. Frazier claims Oswald did not travel with him on another weekend because, Frazier claims, Oswald was going back to Oak Cliff to take a drivers test. I believe these dates were November 15, 16, 17 - the weekend before the assassination.
Paine confirmed in her Warren Commission testimony that Oswald did not come back to Irving the weekend of November 15, 16, 17 because the last weekend he visited (before November 21st) was November 8, 9 and 10. This was the weekend he missed because Ruth Paine said she threw a surprise birthday party for her daughter:
Mrs. PAINE - Yes, on November 9, which was election day, Saturday, in Texas.
Mr. JENNER - This was the weekend he was home?
Mrs. PAINE - This was the weekend that he was home, which was the last weekend he was home, don't call it home though.
Mr. JENNER - I am sorry. It was the last weekend that he was at your home?
Mrs. PAINE - That is correct.
Mr. JENNER - And he arrived the previous day, evening or late afternoon?
Mrs. PAINE - That is correct.
So we are now down to four occasions out of the six weekends that Oswald travelled to Irving on a Friday and returned on a Monday. The definition of the word "routine" will soon be pushed to its limit.
On Sunday October 20, 1963, another momentous occurrence took place in the life of Lee Harvey Oswald. His second daughter Rachel Oswald was born. According to the testimony of Ruth Paine, Lee Oswald did not return to Oak Cliff after work on Monday 21st of October but instead came back to Irving.
Mrs. PAINE - I did not awaken him. I thought about it and I decided if he was not interested in being awake I would tell him in the morning.
Mr. JENNER - And the morning was Monday?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Having learned that he was the father of a baby girl, I assume you told him that?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Did he go to work that day?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Did he return to Irving that evening?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. It was agreed when he left that he would return that evening.
Mr. JENNER - How did he--was he brought back to Irving that evening?
Mrs. PAINE - I imagine Wesley brought him.
Did Wesley bring him back to Irving on the evening of Monday October 21st and take him back to Dallas on the morning of Tuesday October 22nd? If so, we have another exception, and we are down to only three occasions that Buell Wesley Frazier dropped Oswald off on a Friday and picked him up on a Monday.
I have a problem with the weekend of the 18, 19, 20 of October. In Paine's testimony that weekend is consumed by the labor and delivery of Oswald's child - no mention of it being his birthday weekend. His birthday falling on the Friday. By the time his birthday is mentioned Paine does a slight pratfall:
Mr. JENNER - Did he return to work the next morning [Tuesday 22nd of October]?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; he did.
Mr. JENNER - When next did you hear from him?
Mrs. PAINE - The following Friday he came out again.
Mr. JENNER - Do you know how he returned to Dallas that following morning, that is the 22d?
Mrs. PAINE - Probably went with Wesley also.
Mr. JENNER - And he came out the following weekend, did he?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. That was his birthday.
Mr. JENNER - The 18th of October is his birthday. Did you have a party for him?
Mrs. PAINE - We had a cake; yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Was that weekend uneventful?
Mrs. PAINE - Well, Marina was already home.
Mr. JENNER - The baby was now home. She came home very quickly?
Mrs. PAINE - Very quickly, a day and a half. She was home on Tuesday, the 16th, is that right-- skipped a day, the 22d. So that his party was the week before, too. I was wrong then.
Mr. JENNER - When did he return, on Friday of that week?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes, which was the 25th. I was mistaken.
So, we have here a routine with a percentage of 50. Six weekends, three containing a routine of being dropped Friday and being picked up Monday.
That, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot be defined as a routine.
Between October 16, 1963, when Oswald started his job at the Texas School Book Depository, until November 22, when he kind of resigned, there were six weekends if we count Friday 11/22:
October
Fri 18, Sat 19, Sun 20
Fri 25, Sat 26, Sun 27
November
Fri 1, Sat 2, Sun 3
Fri 8, Sat 9, Sun 10
Fri 15, Sat 16, Sun 17
Fri 22
According to the first day statement of Buell Wesley Frazier Oswald rode back to Irving with him every single Friday between Oct 16 and November 22 and rode back with him to work on Monday morning with only one exception - the exception was the evening of Thursday November 21st when Oswald went back to Irving the night before the assassination:
So, according to Frazier on day one, between Oct 16 and November 22 Oswald rode to Irving on a Friday and rode back to Dallas on a Monday with him on 5 separate occasions and rode back to Irving on a Thursday and back to work on a Friday once.
Linnie Mae Randle, Frazier's sister said the same thing when she was interviewed on 11/23:
Frazier "customarily" dropped Oswald at 2515 West Fifth Street on a Friday and took him back to work on a Monday. The exception being Thursday 21st which was so out of the ordinary that Randle allegedly asked Frazier why this had happened:
So, once again, early doors, we are given the impression from both Frazier and Randle that other than assassination weekend Oswald went home with Frazier every weekend between October 16 and November 15 - a total of five weekends.
Below is the segment from the Bardwell Odum FBI interview with Frazier that took place on December 2, 1963:
However, we quickly begin to run into problems with this routine that both Frazier and Randle define for us.
When he was interviewed by the Secret Service on December 5th Buell Wesley Frazier now said there was one other variation in the routine of dropping Oswald off on a Friday and picking him up on a Monday:
So, in addition to the assassination weekend we now have another exception. Frazier claims Oswald did not travel with him on another weekend because, Frazier claims, Oswald was going back to Oak Cliff to take a drivers test. I believe these dates were November 15, 16, 17 - the weekend before the assassination.
Paine confirmed in her Warren Commission testimony that Oswald did not come back to Irving the weekend of November 15, 16, 17 because the last weekend he visited (before November 21st) was November 8, 9 and 10. This was the weekend he missed because Ruth Paine said she threw a surprise birthday party for her daughter:
Mrs. PAINE - Yes, on November 9, which was election day, Saturday, in Texas.
Mr. JENNER - This was the weekend he was home?
Mrs. PAINE - This was the weekend that he was home, which was the last weekend he was home, don't call it home though.
Mr. JENNER - I am sorry. It was the last weekend that he was at your home?
Mrs. PAINE - That is correct.
Mr. JENNER - And he arrived the previous day, evening or late afternoon?
Mrs. PAINE - That is correct.
So we are now down to four occasions out of the six weekends that Oswald travelled to Irving on a Friday and returned on a Monday. The definition of the word "routine" will soon be pushed to its limit.
On Sunday October 20, 1963, another momentous occurrence took place in the life of Lee Harvey Oswald. His second daughter Rachel Oswald was born. According to the testimony of Ruth Paine, Lee Oswald did not return to Oak Cliff after work on Monday 21st of October but instead came back to Irving.
Mrs. PAINE - I did not awaken him. I thought about it and I decided if he was not interested in being awake I would tell him in the morning.
Mr. JENNER - And the morning was Monday?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Having learned that he was the father of a baby girl, I assume you told him that?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Did he go to work that day?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Did he return to Irving that evening?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. It was agreed when he left that he would return that evening.
Mr. JENNER - How did he--was he brought back to Irving that evening?
Mrs. PAINE - I imagine Wesley brought him.
Did Wesley bring him back to Irving on the evening of Monday October 21st and take him back to Dallas on the morning of Tuesday October 22nd? If so, we have another exception, and we are down to only three occasions that Buell Wesley Frazier dropped Oswald off on a Friday and picked him up on a Monday.
I have a problem with the weekend of the 18, 19, 20 of October. In Paine's testimony that weekend is consumed by the labor and delivery of Oswald's child - no mention of it being his birthday weekend. His birthday falling on the Friday. By the time his birthday is mentioned Paine does a slight pratfall:
Mr. JENNER - Did he return to work the next morning [Tuesday 22nd of October]?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; he did.
Mr. JENNER - When next did you hear from him?
Mrs. PAINE - The following Friday he came out again.
Mr. JENNER - Do you know how he returned to Dallas that following morning, that is the 22d?
Mrs. PAINE - Probably went with Wesley also.
Mr. JENNER - And he came out the following weekend, did he?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. That was his birthday.
Mr. JENNER - The 18th of October is his birthday. Did you have a party for him?
Mrs. PAINE - We had a cake; yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Was that weekend uneventful?
Mrs. PAINE - Well, Marina was already home.
Mr. JENNER - The baby was now home. She came home very quickly?
Mrs. PAINE - Very quickly, a day and a half. She was home on Tuesday, the 16th, is that right-- skipped a day, the 22d. So that his party was the week before, too. I was wrong then.
Mr. JENNER - When did he return, on Friday of that week?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes, which was the 25th. I was mistaken.
So, we have here a routine with a percentage of 50. Six weekends, three containing a routine of being dropped Friday and being picked up Monday.
That, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot be defined as a routine.
Albert Rossi- Posts : 417
Join date : 2013-08-29
Age : 69
Location : Naperville, IL USA
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sun 29 Dec 2013, 1:27 am
greg parker wrote:Jim, the basis for it is the Dec 1, 1963 interview with RD Lewis. The same fellow who later have no memory of administering such a polygraph.James DiEugenio wrote:Greg, what is the basis for Wesley being confronted with a bag during his polygraph?
I thought no one had seen the polygraph text or results?
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/gallery/ASSASSINATION/DOCUMENTS/Det-Lewis-FBI-Interview-pic_7.htm
Based on known times from the records, there was not enough time for Lewis to have figured out questions to ask and administer the test. And I could be wrong, but I don't think it's standard practice to produce evidence for witnesses to look at during polygraphs.
In my opinion, they tried to bluff him into a confession by strapping him to the machine and giving him the "third degree". The bluff was that the machine would tell them if he was lying. I further believe that the bag was the only subject of this "test".
As far as I can tell, there is no record of any polygraph, and as above, Lewis later disowned any knowledge of one. The bluff blew up in their face. The thought of being caught lying scared the shit out of Frazier - so he told the truth - it wasn't THAT bag that Oswald had.
I do wonder what the answer would have been if the question was something along the lines of "have you ever seen this bag before?"
Greg, makes sense, and explains what I felt was an incongruous adherence to a detail from an otherwise compromised and compromising witness. Thanks for pointing this out.
- GuestGuest
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sun 29 Dec 2013, 2:52 am
Alternators do not put out any more current than the old generators, they are simply far more compact and will put out the same amperage as a generator three times its size. Alternators typically have to be turning faster than an engine's idle speed before they begin charging while a generator is charging the second it begins turning.
BWF was wasting his time revving his engine up trying to charge his battery. He had just completed a trip from Irving into downtown Dallas and his battery should have been fully charged. If not, his terminals likely needed cleaning or the battery was nearing the end of its life and was no longer capable of holding a full charge.
BWF was wasting his time revving his engine up trying to charge his battery. He had just completed a trip from Irving into downtown Dallas and his battery should have been fully charged. If not, his terminals likely needed cleaning or the battery was nearing the end of its life and was no longer capable of holding a full charge.
- James DiEugenio
- Posts : 213
Join date : 2013-08-01
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sun 29 Dec 2013, 3:47 am
Greg and Albert:
First of all, it is unusual to present the subject with actual evidence during a polygraph.
Second, here is my question, if this actually did happen, WHAT bag or sack did they present Frazier with?
Everyone knows there was no photo taken in situ. And everyone knows--except Craig Lamson-- that the sack taken out of the TSBD in photos could not have been the one Frazier said he saw Oswald with, its much too long.
So here is another mystery. A week later, Lewis says Frazier denied it, but what was the reference point?
First of all, it is unusual to present the subject with actual evidence during a polygraph.
Second, here is my question, if this actually did happen, WHAT bag or sack did they present Frazier with?
Everyone knows there was no photo taken in situ. And everyone knows--except Craig Lamson-- that the sack taken out of the TSBD in photos could not have been the one Frazier said he saw Oswald with, its much too long.
So here is another mystery. A week later, Lewis says Frazier denied it, but what was the reference point?
- greg_parkerAdmin
- Posts : 8368
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sun 29 Dec 2013, 10:07 am
James DiEugenio wrote:Greg and Albert:
First of all, it is unusual to present the subject with actual evidence during a polygraph.
Okay. Thanks, Jim. That confirms what I previously only suspected.
Second, here is my question, if this actually did happen, WHAT bag or sack did they present Frazier with?
Everyone knows there was no photo taken in situ. And everyone knows--except Craig Lamson-- that the sack taken out of the TSBD in photos could not have been the one Frazier said he saw Oswald with, its much too long.
So here is another mystery. A week later, Lewis says Frazier denied it, but what was the reference point?
Not sure what you mean by "reference point", but the fact is that Frazier had already been questioned thoroughly and had his affidavit taken by 9pm and then let go. The ONLY reason for hauling him back would be "the bag" - which doesn't seem to have been available earlier in the evening when Frazier and his sister were both being questioned. Could it have been "manufactured" in the interim? Amazing to me that the bag supposedly looked like a "gun case" to Lewis and the blanket still held the shape of a rifle according to Det. Rose - yet Mike Paine, veteran of the Korean war - who handled it multiple times - thought it was tent pegs?
_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise.
Lachie Hulme
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
Me
"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." Don Jeffries
"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
https://gregrparker.com
- James DiEugenio
- Posts : 213
Join date : 2013-08-01
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sun 29 Dec 2013, 2:22 pm
LOL
What I mean about the "reference point" is: what bag are we talking about?
I mean from that FBI document, Lewis does not in any way really describe what they showed Frazier.
What I mean about the "reference point" is: what bag are we talking about?
I mean from that FBI document, Lewis does not in any way really describe what they showed Frazier.
- greg_parkerAdmin
- Posts : 8368
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Sun 29 Dec 2013, 3:42 pm
Ah. The FBI report claims Lewis referred to it as a "brown heavy paper gun-case" ( which the FBI helpfully assures us was not in fact, an actual real paper gun-case). Frazier was saying that it was a crinkly bag like you get in a 5 and dime store.James DiEugenio wrote:LOL
What I mean about the "reference point" is: what bag are we talking about?
I mean from that FBI document, Lewis does not in any way really describe what they showed Frazier.
Either the bag was not available (being tested in the lab?) when Frazier and his sister were being questioned, or it was manufactured after they left.
Eco-friendly disposal gun-case vs cheap crinkly oversized lunch bag vs tent peg holder vs curtain rod holder vs Venetian blind holder vs none of the above vs post-assassination manufactured evidence. YOU BE THE JUDGE
drum roll...
_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise.
Lachie Hulme
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
Me
"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." Don Jeffries
"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
https://gregrparker.com
Ed.Ledoux- Posts : 3361
Join date : 2012-01-04
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Mon 30 Dec 2013, 9:38 pm
Just for conjecture:
Why would Ossie need a paper sack for the rifle when it was already "wrapped" in a blanket and this wrapping supposedly even fooled Ruth and Michael Paine? (camping equipment/tent poles??)
Why not use the blanket?
Appears paper sack came about late in the game, perhaps from a report or word from someone seeing Lee with a sack besides BFW and LMR.
And if it was the heavy brown wrapping paper from the TSBD would not Wesley recognize it imediately as such...he saw this brown paper at work 5 days a week, would he not be familiar with its make-up, glued seems, etc???
I also seem to get the feeling Ossie was staying with BWF when not at Ruth's house of Paine. And Larry Crafard (Cra Cra) was rooming in Dallas/Oak Cliff close to Ruby's apartment as he could.
Look like a size medium jacket to me
Why would Ossie need a paper sack for the rifle when it was already "wrapped" in a blanket and this wrapping supposedly even fooled Ruth and Michael Paine? (camping equipment/tent poles??)
Why not use the blanket?
Appears paper sack came about late in the game, perhaps from a report or word from someone seeing Lee with a sack besides BFW and LMR.
And if it was the heavy brown wrapping paper from the TSBD would not Wesley recognize it imediately as such...he saw this brown paper at work 5 days a week, would he not be familiar with its make-up, glued seems, etc???
I also seem to get the feeling Ossie was staying with BWF when not at Ruth's house of Paine. And Larry Crafard (Cra Cra) was rooming in Dallas/Oak Cliff close to Ruby's apartment as he could.
Look like a size medium jacket to me
- GuestGuest
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Tue 31 Dec 2013, 12:59 am
On July 22, 1964, Norman Redlich sent a memo to Wesley Liebeler detailing questions that needed answering in relation to Buell Wesley Frazier. Redlich was one of the best lawyers the Warren Commission had and through his memos we can see how incredibly important avenues of investigation were developed by him only to see the leads and questions closed down and left unasked. One such area that Redlich identified was concerning the infamous package allegedly carried by Oswald on the morning of November 22:
In the memo Redlich writes:
"With regard to Buell Wesley Frazier we notice that our record is not complete in that for some reason Frazier was never asked whether, prior to the morning of November 22, he had ever seen Oswald carrying a package which might have contained an object similar to the rifle. He should be asked whether he ever saw a package similar to the one he saw on the 22d or whether he ever saw a bulky package of any kind being carried by Oswald. He has already testified that he never saw a package being carried by Oswald from the Depository Building back to Irving, but he was never asked about a package being carried from Irving to the Depository Building."
[Emphasis mine]
Liebeler, unless I am mistaken, did not make a specific request of the FBI to ask Frazier the pertinent questions outlined by Redlich. The most important question being whether Frazier "ever saw a bulky package of any kind being carried by Oswald."
Why is this question important?
During the testimony of Ruth Paine the following exchange took place between her and Albert Jenner:
Mr. JENNER - Now, the same question with respect to laundry. That would be laundry largely. I take it from your telling us about you and Marina hanging up clothes in your backyard on the 22d of November that neither you nor she ever sent any laundry out for cleaning or washing.
Mrs. PAINE - No; and Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house, and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with him on Monday.
Mr. JENNER - So that as far as you recall, he made no expenditures for laundry?
Mrs. PAINE - That is correct.
So, if Marina and Ruth laundered Lee Oswald's dirty clothes during his weekend stays in Irving then a few very simple logical questions arise, questions that I'm sure played on the mind of Norman Redlich:
1. How did Lee Oswald get his dirty clothes to Irving on a Friday [or Thursday] for them to be cleaned over the weekend?
2. How did Lee Oswald get his clean clothes back to Oak Cliff on a Monday?
3. If Lee Oswald did take his dirty laundry with him to work on a Friday and bring his clean laundry back with him on Monday, then Lee Oswald carrying a package of some kind occurred every time Frazier picked him up and dropped him off.
4. If that is the case then Oswald carrying a package on the morning of November 22d was not unusual. Therefore if he did take his dirty/clean washing to and from Irving each weekend then why was Randle so preoccupied with the package Oswald had that day even going to the point of snooping on him through the kitchen door?
Did the package he carried that morning contain his freshly laundered clothes?
Why did the Warren a Commission, consisting of some of the best lawyers in the American legal system, not want to explore this rudimentary and fundamental question, especially given we have evidence that Norman Redlich raised the flag concerning it?
In the memo Redlich writes:
"With regard to Buell Wesley Frazier we notice that our record is not complete in that for some reason Frazier was never asked whether, prior to the morning of November 22, he had ever seen Oswald carrying a package which might have contained an object similar to the rifle. He should be asked whether he ever saw a package similar to the one he saw on the 22d or whether he ever saw a bulky package of any kind being carried by Oswald. He has already testified that he never saw a package being carried by Oswald from the Depository Building back to Irving, but he was never asked about a package being carried from Irving to the Depository Building."
[Emphasis mine]
Liebeler, unless I am mistaken, did not make a specific request of the FBI to ask Frazier the pertinent questions outlined by Redlich. The most important question being whether Frazier "ever saw a bulky package of any kind being carried by Oswald."
Why is this question important?
During the testimony of Ruth Paine the following exchange took place between her and Albert Jenner:
Mr. JENNER - Now, the same question with respect to laundry. That would be laundry largely. I take it from your telling us about you and Marina hanging up clothes in your backyard on the 22d of November that neither you nor she ever sent any laundry out for cleaning or washing.
Mrs. PAINE - No; and Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house, and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with him on Monday.
Mr. JENNER - So that as far as you recall, he made no expenditures for laundry?
Mrs. PAINE - That is correct.
So, if Marina and Ruth laundered Lee Oswald's dirty clothes during his weekend stays in Irving then a few very simple logical questions arise, questions that I'm sure played on the mind of Norman Redlich:
1. How did Lee Oswald get his dirty clothes to Irving on a Friday [or Thursday] for them to be cleaned over the weekend?
2. How did Lee Oswald get his clean clothes back to Oak Cliff on a Monday?
3. If Lee Oswald did take his dirty laundry with him to work on a Friday and bring his clean laundry back with him on Monday, then Lee Oswald carrying a package of some kind occurred every time Frazier picked him up and dropped him off.
4. If that is the case then Oswald carrying a package on the morning of November 22d was not unusual. Therefore if he did take his dirty/clean washing to and from Irving each weekend then why was Randle so preoccupied with the package Oswald had that day even going to the point of snooping on him through the kitchen door?
Did the package he carried that morning contain his freshly laundered clothes?
Why did the Warren a Commission, consisting of some of the best lawyers in the American legal system, not want to explore this rudimentary and fundamental question, especially given we have evidence that Norman Redlich raised the flag concerning it?
- GuestGuest
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Tue 31 Dec 2013, 4:36 am
Can somebody save my sanity and tell me where the hell Commission Exhibit C-254 is please?
Did the Warren Commission once again live up to own standards regarding this exhibit?
Did the Warren Commission once again live up to own standards regarding this exhibit?
- Albert Rossi
- Posts : 417
Join date : 2013-08-29
Age : 69
Location : Naperville, IL USA
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Tue 31 Dec 2013, 4:40 am
Walt Brown's index gives: CE 254, letter, LHO to US Embassy, Moscow, Dec. 1, 1961. XVI, 713; I, 249.
Is that what you're after, Lee?
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0369a.htm
Looks like this might not be it, though, since you posted the request to this thread.
Is that what you're after, Lee?
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0369a.htm
Looks like this might not be it, though, since you posted the request to this thread.
Martin Hay- Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22
Re: Randle & Frazier Contradictions
Tue 31 Dec 2013, 4:56 am
greg parker wrote:yet Mike Paine, veteran of the Korean war - who handled it multiple times - thought it was tent pegs?
Greg, I'm guessing that's from his WC testimony? Could you give me the page numbers if you know them? I don't wanna have to re-read the whole damn thing.
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum