BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963

[Alan Ford]

Frazier has denied all his life and from day 1 that CE-142 is the bag he saw Oswald carry.

I'm not sure that's quite correct, Mr Weidmann.

Mr Frazier has denied from day 1 that CE-142 is the same length as the bag he saw Mr Oswald carry!

 

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm not sure that's quite correct, Mr Weidmann.

Mr Frazier has denied from day 1 that CE-142 is the same length as the bag he saw Mr Oswald carry!

 

Actually, Mr. Ford, Frazier was shown CE-142 (and it's duplicate substitute) over and over again and has always denied that it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry.

Obviously, if it wasn't CE-142 then it must have been another bag that Frazier saw and that one did not have the same length as CE-142.

[Alan Ford]

Actually, Mr. Ford, Frazier was shown CE-142 (and it's duplicate substitute) over and over again and has always denied that it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry.

Obviously, if it wasn't CE-142 then it must have been another bag that Frazier saw and that one did not have the same length as CE-142.

Can you give us a citation where Mr Frazier states categorically that CE-142 was not the bag he saw---without the sole reason for this being length?

 

[Alan Ford]

There is a third possibility. Let's see if you can think of it yourself! 

Mr Smith must be waiting for John and Jean to get back to his emails! 

[Walt Cakebread]

I'm not sure that's quite correct, Mr Weidmann.

Mr Frazier has denied from day 1 that CE-142 is the same length as the bag he saw Mr Oswald carry!

 

I'm sure Martin will set you straight .... But  Buell Frazier is on record as saying CE 142 is NOT the bag that Lee carried that morning.

Frazier specifically pointed out that CE 142 was constructed fro HEAVY WEIGHT brown paper like that used to wrap books at the TSBD, while the bag that Lee Carried was constructed of FLIMSY LIGHT WEIGHT paper....

[Alan Ford]

I'm sure Martin will set you straight .... But  Buell Frazier is on record as saying CE 142 is NOT the bag that Lee carried that morning.

Frazier specifically pointed out that CE 142 was constructed fro HEAVY WEIGHT brown paper like that used to wrap books at the TSBD, while the bag that Lee Carried was constructed of FLIMSY LIGHT WEIGHT paper....

Citation, please! 

[Martin Weidmann]

Can you give us a citation where Mr Frazier states categorically that CE-142 was not the bag he saw---without the sole reason for this being length?

 

Hi Alan,

I copy/pasted this from the OP of another thread; https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,72.0.html

At 11.30 pm on 11/22/63 Frazier was being polygraphed by DPD detective R.D. Lewis. During this session, Frazier was shown the paper bag that had been found at the TSBD, which at that time (except for the fact that it had been dusted in vain for prints at the TSBD) was still in its original state. Frazier could not identify the bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry, some 16 / 17 hours earlier and the polygraph did not register an anomaly.

According to a report by FBI agent Vincent Drain, dated December 1, 1963, the polygrapher R.D. Lewis stated that Frazier had told him that the ?crickly brown paper sack? Oswald had carried did not resemble the ?home made heavy paper gun case? the DPD officers had shown him. Drain added that Lewis referred to the bag as ?paper gun case? because ?the DPD is of the opinion the brown heavy paper was used by Oswald to carry the rifle into the building?.

A memo from FBI agent James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, reveals the desperation of Lt. Day after Frazier failed to identify the heavy bag found at the TSBD. Anderton writes that, according to Lt Day, Frazier described the bag Oswald had carried as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". The memo then goes on to say;

"Lt. Day states that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald, by dismantling the rifle, could have placed it in the thick brown sack folder over, and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack"

The obvious question is why Day was so desperate to explain the discrepancy between the heavy bag allegedly found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the flimsy bag Frazier had seen that he would come up with this silly theory. Even more so, if Oswald's prints had really been found on the heavy bag and the MC rifle ......

So, what else did Frazier say or do in those early days? Well, for one thing he corrected and initialed his own affidavit. Where it used the word ?bag? he crossed it out and replaced it with ?sack?. For some reason that distinction was important to him.

And then of course there was the Odum and McNeely report of December 2, 1963. They quote Frazier as saying that ?the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?

So we have at least two occasions shortly after the event where Frazier qualifies the paper bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and ?a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?.

[Alan Ford]

Hi Alan,

I copy/pasted this from the OP of another thread; https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,72.0.html

At 11.30 pm on 11/22/63 Frazier was being polygraphed by DPD detective R.D. Lewis. During this session, Frazier was shown the paper bag that had been found at the TSBD, which at that time (except for the fact that it had been dusted in vain for prints at the TSBD) was still in its original state. Frazier could not identify the bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry, some 16 / 17 hours earlier and the polygraph did not register an anomaly.

According to a report by FBI agent Vincent Drain, dated December 1, 1963, the polygrapher R.D. Lewis stated that Frazier had told him that the ?crickly brown paper sack? Oswald had carried did not resemble the ?home made heavy paper gun case? the DPD officers had shown him. Drain added that Lewis referred to the bag as ?paper gun case? because ?the DPD is of the opinion the brown heavy paper was used by Oswald to carry the rifle into the building?.

A memo from FBI agent James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, reveals the desperation of Lt. Day after Frazier failed to identify the heavy bag found at the TSBD. Anderton writes that, according to Lt Day, Frazier described the bag Oswald had carried as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". The memo then goes on to say;

"Lt. Day states that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald, by dismantling the rifle, could have placed it in the thick brown sack folder over, and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack"

The obvious question is why Day was so desperate to explain the discrepancy between the heavy bag allegedly found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the flimsy bag Frazier had seen that he would come up with this silly theory. Even more so, if Oswald's prints had really been found on the heavy bag and the MC rifle ......

So, what else did Frazier say or do in those early days? Well, for one thing he corrected and initialed his own affidavit. Where it used the word ?bag? he crossed it out and replaced it with ?sack?. For some reason that distinction was important to him.

And then of course there was the Odum and McNeely report of December 2, 1963. They quote Frazier as saying that ?the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?

So we have at least two occasions shortly after the event where Frazier qualifies the paper bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and ?a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?.

Thank you for this very ample reply, Mr Weidman, it's appreciated! 

Now!

It may well be that Mr Frazier felt the paper was more "crinkly", and that his impression (based on casual sighting of the bag) was correct.
-------------------I.e. it may well be that CE-142 is not the bag he saw Mr Oswald bring to work that morning.

However! There is also this in the Odum-McNeely report of 2 Dec which you cite:

[H]e now realizes that his conclusion that the sack was thin, crinkly paper, of the type used in Five and Ten Cent stores, was based to a considerable extent upon the fact that the color of the sack was a very light brown as compared with the type of dark brown paper used for heavier grocery sacks. He noted that the color of the replica sack was the same color as the package which he had seen in possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963

Not a direct quote from Mr Frazier, I'll readily grant you! But...

During his Warren Commission testimony, Mr Frazier is shown an untreated (i.e. non-discolored) part of CE-142:

Mr. BALL - Is that similar to the color of the bag you saw in the back seat of your car that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - It would be, surely it could have been, and it couldn't have been. Like I say, see, you know this color, either one of these colors, is very similar to the type of paper that you can get out of a store or anything like that, and so I say it could have been and then it couldn't have been.
Mr. BALL - Do you mean by that that it is similar to the color?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And do you have a definite memory of the color of the bag you saw on the back seat of your car so that you can distinguish between one color and another?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe it would be more on this basis here.
Mr. BALL - You say it would be more on the color of bag No. 364, is that right?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

I don't think we can rule out Mr Frazier's having seen Mr Oswald with CE-142 that morning-----at least not until we have at least tried to account for the serious discrepancy in described length between it and the bag Mr Frazier and Ms Randle described.

Now! I believe we can account for this discrepancy, and in a way that blows the official story to smithereens.

And so-----I urge caution! It may well be that, in dismissing CE-142 as the bag Mr Oswald brought to work that morning, we are potentially dismissing a powerfully eloquent clue as to how Mr Oswald was framed for involvement in the assassination!