Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Richard Smith]

That one threw me too

That doesn't surprise me.  This is simple.  Frazier is facing both potential legal and much more likely public judgment of his conduct.  He does not want to be forever known as the guy who should have been suspicious of the guy who assassinated the president and did nothing about it.  An obvious point unless you believe that he did want to be blamed by the public for being a clueless numbskull.

[Dan O'meara]

According to Frazier. Not fact. Linnie May mentioned nothing about them to Adamcik. Adamcik doesn’t even mention their discussion in his report of events that afternoon. Yet the Thursday visit by Oswald to Irving was a hot topic of discussion between brother and sister that afternoon. By Friday morning short term memory loss hits both.

A lot of things are like that Colin.
Marina says she sees a rifle in the blanket. It's not a fact she did, it's just "according to Marina".
Ruth Paine is adamant there was just two curtain rods. It's not a fact there were, it's just "according to Ruth Paine".

I'm just proposing a scenario that tries to cover as many of these "according to" statements as possible.
It's speculation and assumption.
I'm assuming Marina did see a rifle. I'm assuming there were only two curtain rods etc. based on various testimonies.

In Frazier's first statement he mentions that Oswald told him about the curtain rods.
How did Frazier know there were curtain rods available in the Paine household?
I have to assume it's because Oswald told him about them. Otherwise it's a wildly lucky guess.

[Martin Weidmann]

The only thing Drain's report reveals is that it wasn't a real polygraph test.
Frazier isn't being asked specific questions that he answers 'yes' or 'no' to. He's having a conversation - "it's possible it was this, but it could have been that" type of thing.
A good reason to suppose that there will never be a record found of the polygraph test is because it wasn't real.
I don't know a lot about polygraphs but I'm assuming they don't work by having the person being tested just chat away.
The bottom line is, in the scenario I'm proposing Frazier changes one small detail at the beginning  - the length of the bag.
Everything else he can be completely honest about because he is innocent. He's done nothing wrong.
It's not unimaginable to assume the authorities already think they know what was in the bag. They are 100% certain what was in the bag Oswald brought to work that day.
There only real concern would probably be whether Frazier was involved in some way.
He wasn't.
He really did believe there were curtain rods in the bag. That's the truth.
He really wasn't involved in any way. That's the truth.

And to get back to a point John made earlier.
Imagine Frazier hooked up to a polygraph that he thought was real and thinking he could get away with "There was no long package".

If the authorities think he's mistaken over one detail that's not a crime.
If they think he's lying to them, that's a different ball game.
They obviously believe he is being truthful.

Because the authorities obviously believed he was being truthful.
And I imagine that belief didn't come easy.
I imagine Frazier was put through the wringer before they were satisfied.
History tells us they were satisfied and did believe he was being truthful.
I imagine if there was the slightest doubt the police would've been all over him because these are men whose specialist subject is whether they are being told the truth or not.
They believed he thought it was curtain rods in the bag.
They believed he had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination.

The only thing Drain's report reveals is that it wasn't a real polygraph test.

Sorry, but this is total BS. I'm not sure which report you are looking at but when Detective Lewis, who was the DPD polygraph operator, takes a polygraph, who are you to say that it wasn't a real polygraph?

The Drain FD 302 only concentrates on the paper bag and not on the actual polygraph

Frazier isn't being asked specific questions that he answers 'yes' or 'no' to. He's having a conversation - "it's possible it was this, but it could have been that" type of thing.

Again, how in the world would you even know what questions were asked? The answer is that you don't and you are just arguing for argument's sake.

A good reason to suppose that there will never be a record found of the polygraph test is because it wasn't real.

Really? You probably missed that in the Drain FD 302 it says; "and while he was running the polygraph, Frazier was shown what appeared to be a homemade brown heavy paper gun case".

Also, in a Supplementary Offense Report, dated 11/22/63 Detectives Rose and Stovall state;

"Frazier was interrogated and run on the polygraph with negative results"

So, let me guess, Rose and Stovall also lied? Right?

I don't know a lot about polygraphs but I'm assuming they don't work by having the person being tested just chat away.

And what makes you think that they just chatted away during the polygraph? Just because Drain reports on what Lewis and Day said about how Frazier reacted to the bag they showed him? Really?

I imagine Frazier was put through the wringer before they were satisfied.

Really? By not giving him a real polygraph? Are you serious?

History tells us they were satisfied and did believe he was being truthful.

Good grief. They believed he was truthful because the polygraph indicated that.

The bottom line is, in the scenario I'm proposing Frazier changes one small detail at the beginning  - the length of the bag.


No. The bottom line is that you made an assumption, based on no evidence whatsoever, which you now believe to be the absolute truth and nothing anybody can tell you will make you change your mind.

The DPD identification document is "suspicious", the polygraph wasn't "real", Frazier told the truth but lied about the size of the bag and so on. Yeah right......

[Jerry Freeman]

This is simple. ..  An obvious point unless you believe that he did want to be blamed by the public for being a clueless numbskull.

"Simple"?
If everything is so simple then maybe you can simply post the printed results and subsequent report on this Frazier polygraph[?] I've never seen them. Or perhaps Dan O'meara will.

[Dan O'meara]

The only thing Drain's report reveals is that it wasn't a real polygraph test.

Sorry, but this is total BS. I'm not sure which report you are looking at but when Detective Lewis, who was the DPD polygraph operator, takes a polygraph, who are you to say that it wasn't a real polygraph?

The Drain FD 302 only concentrates on the paper bag and not on the actual polygraph

Frazier isn't being asked specific questions that he answers 'yes' or 'no' to. He's having a conversation - "it's possible it was this, but it could have been that" type of thing.

Again, how in the world would you even know what questions were asked? The answer is that you don't and you are just arguing for argument's sake.

A good reason to suppose that there will never be a record found of the polygraph test is because it wasn't real.

Really? You probably missed that in the Drain FD 302 it says; "and while he was running the polygraph, Frazier was shown what appeared to be a homemade brown heavy paper gun case".

Also, in a Supplementary Offense Report, dated 11/22/63 Detectives Rose and Stovall state;

"Frazier was interrogated and run on the polygraph with negative results"

So, let me guess, Rose and Stovall also lied? Right?

I don't know a lot about polygraphs but I'm assuming they don't work by having the person being tested just chat away.

And what makes you think that they just chatted away during the polygraph? Just because Drain reports on what Lewis and Day said about how Frazier reacted to the bag they showed him? Really?

I imagine Frazier was put through the wringer before they were satisfied.

Really? By not giving him a real polygraph? Are you serious?

History tells us they were satisfied and did believe he was being truthful.

Good grief. They believed he was truthful because the polygraph indicated that.

The bottom line is, in the scenario I'm proposing Frazier changes one small detail at the beginning  - the length of the bag.


No. The bottom line is that you made an assumption, based on no evidence whatsoever, which you now believe to be the absolute truth and nothing anybody can tell you will make you change your mind.

The DPD identification document is "suspicious", the polygraph wasn't "real", Frazier told the truth but lied about the size of the bag and so on. Yeah right......

Oh boy.
You seem a bit hot under the collar there Martin.
I get the impression you don't like your own scenario questioned (whatever that is).
Like I say, I'm just playing with possibilities, trying to find the best fit.

"...while he was running the polygraph,
Frazier was shown what appeared to be a homemade brown
heavy paper gun case...Frazier said that it
was possible that this was the case, but he did not think
that it resembled it. He stated that the crinkly brown paper
that OSWALD had when he rode to work with him that
morning was about two feet long."

To me this doesn't seem like someone answering 'yes' or 'no'.
"It's possible but I don't think so", sounds a bit more conversational to me.
You will know more about these things than I do but I'm not sure how you get a definitive response when the person being tested changes their mind half way through an answer.
It's just the impression I get from this small fraction of the reported polygraph for which there is no record. Mustn't have seemed important enough to keep a record of it.
It doesn't seem like a real polygraph test to me but what I know about it comes from the movies. Not real life.
Does it seem real to you?

Doesn't the DPD document seem "suspicious" to you in any way?
You even said yourself:
"Why Lt Day took it upon himself to write a different release datum on a copy of the document is the only thing I can not explain."

"The bottom line is that you made an assumption, based on no evidence whatsoever..."

The assumption I'm making - that BWF downplayed the size of the bag Oswald brought to work with him that morning is based on the following evidence:

Oswald broke his usual routine, went to the Paine house the night before the assassination to collect curtain rods - Frazier's testimony
There were two curtain rods in the Paine garage - Ruth Paine's testimony
There was a rifle in a blanket in the garage - Marina's testimony
Oswald showed up at the Randle house with a long package - BWF and LMR testimony
Oswald reminded Frazier they were curtain rods - Frazier testimony
Oswald never mentioned needing curtain rods to Ruth Paine, Marina or Earlene Roberts.
The two curtain rods were still in the garage after the assassination - Ruth Paine testimony
The rifle was missing after the assassination - various police testimonies

The scenario I'm proposing covers all these bits of testimony.
Does yours?

"...which you now believe to be the absolute truth and nothing anybody can tell you will make you change your mind."

Propose a better scenario and change my mind.

PS: Even if it includes "Oswald's travel rods"

[Alan Ford]

Oswald had no need for curtain rods.

You don't know that

He never mentioned curtain rods to anyone other than Frazier.
He didn't bring curtain rods with him that day.

Sorry, Mr O'Meara, you don't get to claim this as fact while failing (as you are doing!) to account for the fact that two curtain rods were formally submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section for testing for Mr Oswald's prints on 3/15/64----------and formally released on 3/24/64.

By the way! Your little gambit of pointing to the variant version (with release date of 3/26/64) as some sort of mitigation (from a WC apologist point of view) of the disaster which this document constitutes is just plain silly.

[Alan Ford]

That doesn't surprise me.  This is simple.  Frazier is facing both potential legal and much more likely public judgment of his conduct.  He does not want to be forever known as the guy who should have been suspicious of the guy who assassinated the president and did nothing about it.  An obvious point unless you believe that he did want to be blamed by the public for being a clueless numbskull.

Have you gotten any further in explaining away the Crime Scene Search Document, Mr Smith? As in, further than 'Ok, so they got the submission date wrong... and the release date... but hey, no biggie'?

 

[Dan O'meara]

You don't know that

I'm basing that assumption on the following images of Oswald's room and the fact he never mentioned needing curtain rods to his housekeeper or Mrs Paine, from whom he is supposed to have just taken the rods

Sorry, Mr O'Meara, you don't get to claim this as fact while failing (as you are doing!) to account for the fact that two curtain rods were formally submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section for testing for Mr Oswald's prints on 3/15/64----------and formally released on 3/24/64.

Read my recent posts Alan.
I'm not claiming anything as a fact, unlike yourself.
Ruth Paine's testimony and the record of the "official" removal of the rods from the Paine garage completely undermine the dubious DPD document.

By the way! Your little gambit of pointing to the variant version (with release date of 3/26/64) as some sort of mitigation (from a WC apologist point of view) of the disaster which this document constitutes is just plain silly.

Pointing out the seemingly deliberate falsification of the document is a "gambit"? Listen to yourself.
"WC apologist"?? I can assure you I'm no WC apologist.
"disaster"?? Please elaborate on what you mean here.

It's "silly" to point out the clearly dubious nature of the DPD document? I don't think so Alan. I think it's a bit more than silly to take that document at face value, as you seem to do.