Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Dan O'meara]

Indeed, so why did you write earlier;

After the event he realised it was a rifle and that no-one would buy his "But I thought it was curtain rods" excuse.

If, as you claim, Frazier thought no-one would buy the curtain rods story, then why would he still tell it and not come up with something else?

How does Frazier know so soon that the shots were fired from the TSBD? Btw he testified that he thought they came from the railroad area.

How and when did Frazier find out Oswald was arrested and for what?

This is all hindsight not supported by the facts or evidence

In their report, Rose, Stovall and Adamcik gave a later time.

Only if he had all the information at that time, which he clearly couldn't have. Oswald was arrested after Frazier left the TSBD. The first broadcast of his arrest was at 2:40 only mentioned that he was arrested in connection with the murder of officer Tippit.

It's highly speculative to assume that Frazier, between his departure from the TSBD and his arrest at the hospital, would somehow have obtained sufficient information to tie Oswald to the Kennedy murder and draw the conclusions you propose. But even if he did, why did he still tell the curtain rods story?

It's also possible that Frazier wasn't aware of any problem until he was arrested. Speculation isn't getting you far!

You seem to be deliberately complicating the scenario I'm proposing.
The scenario, which is obviously speculation, is meant to account for as many factors as possible relating to the curtain rod affair.
The point is that Frazier only alters one aspect of what actually happened - the size of the bag. That's all.
Everything else happened as he testified.

1) Oswald asks to be dropped off on Thursday evening to collect some curtain rods:

BWF didn't know there were curtain rods in the Paine garage, that's why he couldn't have made up the curtain rod story. Oswald did know they were in there which is why he made the story up. To have cover for the long package he was bringing to work.
And there was 2 curtain rods in the garage. Ruth Paine had put them there herself.
Oswald didn't need curtain rods. He had perfectly functioning curtain rods in his room.
He never mentioned to his landlady he was going to change the curtain rods.
He never mentioned to Ruth Paine he was going to take the curtain rods.
The only person he mentioned curtain rods to was Frazier.
And the 2 curtain rods were still there after the assassination. Because Oswald never took them.

2) Oswald shows up the next morning with a long package:

In the long package is the rifle Marina testified to seeing in the tied-up blanket in the garage which was no longer there when the police searched the garage later that day.
BWF asks what the package is and Oswald reminds him of the curtain rods.
BWF has absolutely no reason to doubt him and accepts the story.

After the assassination there is a roll call in the TSBD after which BWF returns home.
Frazier is adamant he was in the hospital only a short time (15 - 20 mins at the most) before he was arrested.
Let's say it takes 15 mins to drive from the house he was staying to where his step-dad was (probably shorter)
In the report I posted we can assume BWF was arrested approximately 5:30pm which means he could have been in his house until as late as 4:45pm watching events unfold on the TV. It's possible he saw the police activity at the Paine house before heading off.
As you point out, Rose and Stovall place his arrest later in the day which means he could have left the house even later.
By 4:45pm anyone watching the TV knows that the shots that killed JFK came from the TSBD and that Oswald, a TSBD employee, had been arrested.

Buell realises that the long package contained a rifle and not curtain rods.
He realises that he has been duped.
He realises that, through no fault of his own, he is an accomplice in the murder of the President.
He realises that if he describes the package he actually saw no-one will believe he thought they were curtain rods.
He can't say there was no package because if he gets caught out blatantly lying he will be in real trouble.

All he can do is diminish the size of the package and make out he never really paid any attention to it as Oswald explained they were curtain rods.
He's done nothing wrong.

Oswald denies bringing curtain rods with him because he knows they are still back at the garage.

[Martin Weidmann]

You seem to be deliberately complicating the scenario I'm proposing.
The scenario, which is obviously speculation, is meant to account for as many factors as possible relating to the curtain rod affair.
The point is that Frazier only alters one aspect of what actually happened - the size of the bag. That's all.
Everything else happened as he testified.

1) Oswald asks to be dropped off on Thursday evening to collect some curtain rods:

BWF didn't know there were curtain rods in the Paine garage, that's why he couldn't have made up the curtain rod story. Oswald did know they were in there which is why he made the story up. To have cover for the long package he was bringing to work.
And there was 2 curtain rods in the garage. Ruth Paine had put them there herself.
Oswald didn't need curtain rods. He had perfectly functioning curtain rods in his room.
He never mentioned to his landlady he was going to change the curtain rods.
He never mentioned to Ruth Paine he was going to take the curtain rods.
The only person he mentioned curtain rods to was Frazier.
And the 2 curtain rods were still there after the assassination. Because Oswald never took them.

2) Oswald shows up the next morning with a long package:

In the long package is the rifle Marina testified to seeing in the tied-up blanket in the garage which was no longer there when the police searched the garage later that day.
BWF asks what the package is and Oswald reminds him of the curtain rods.
BWF has absolutely no reason to doubt him and accepts the story.

After the assassination there is a roll call in the TSBD after which BWF returns home.
Frazier is adamant he was in the hospital only a short time (15 - 20 mins at the most) before he was arrested.
Let's say it takes 15 mins to drive from the house he was staying to where his step-dad was (probably shorter)
In the report I posted we can assume BWF was arrested approximately 5:30pm which means he could have been in his house until as late as 4:45pm watching events unfold on the TV. It's possible he saw the police activity at the Paine house before heading off.
As you point out, Rose and Stovall place his arrest later in the day which means he could have left the house even later.
By 4:45pm anyone watching the TV knows that the shots that killed JFK came from the TSBD and that Oswald, a TSBD employee, had been arrested.

Buell realises that the long package contained a rifle and not curtain rods.
He realises that he has been duped.
He realises that, through no fault of his own, he is an accomplice in the murder of the President.
He realises that if he describes the package he actually saw no-one will believe he thought they were curtain rods.
He can't say there was no package because if he gets caught out blatantly lying he will be in real trouble.

All he can do is diminish the size of the package and make out he never really paid any attention to it as Oswald explained they were curtain rods.
He's done nothing wrong.

Oswald denies bringing curtain rods with him because he knows they are still back at the garage.

You seem to be deliberately complicating the scenario I'm proposing.

Not really. The scenario doesn't make any sense.

The scenario, which is obviously speculation, is meant to account for as many factors as possible relating to the curtain rod affair.
The point is that Frazier only alters one aspect of what actually happened - the size of the bag. That's all.
Everything else happened as he testified.

No. Frazier actually doesn't change anything. He tells exactly what happened, that he saw Oswald carry a bag, that he was told it contained curtain rods and that Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and underneath his armpit.

In other words, even if your speculation is true, that Frazier at some point somehow started to believe that Oswald had actually brought a broken down rifle of 34,8" in that paper bag (which Frazier denies to this day), it did not motivate him to change anything in his story.

Your entire convoluted theory seems to have as it's sole purpose that Frazier at some point knew or understood that Oswald had brought a rifle to work that Friday. It's not only highly speculative but it's also something that Frazier has denied from day one.

[Martin Weidmann]

I assume you're talking about this extraordinary document posted by Alan:


For me, the importance of this document is that there could hardly be a clearer example of tampering with the processing of evidence.
I find it hard to believe an honest mistake has led to the same document being given different release dates.
It seems to be a doctored document and, as such, can hardly be viewed as being reliable in any way.
The submitted date (3/15/64) can be taken with a pinch of salt.
The question is - what did the person(s) creating this document hope to achieve?

This doesn't make any sense. The DPD document is part of the official record. There is no logical or plausible purpose for this document to exist, except of course for a fingerprint examination of curtain rods that were provided to the DPD identification bureau on 3/15/64.

The original doesn't have to be doctored, simply because Lt Day wrote a different release date on the copy that found it's way into the WC evidence. To question the entire document as unreliable seems to be a selfserving exercise.

There is no reason to take the submittion date with a pinch of salt. The submittion date is the same on the original and the copy, the document is part of the official evidence, and even you can't think of a good reason for such a document to be forged.

To me, your "logic" seems to be designed to simply dismiss an inconvenient document.

[Richard Smith]

Frazier isn't inventing the package.
He isn't inventing he was told they were curtain rods.

Indeed. He didn't invent a story and simply told the truth.

I still don't understand how you can claim, on the one hand, that Frazier, at some point early on, understood he could be in trouble and needed to concoct a story with his sister, yet on the other hand confirm that Oswald told investigators exactly what really happened.

There is an obvious contradiction there.

What did he have to worry about?  LOL. Let's see. Frazier drove the person suspected of assassinating the President who he knew was carrying a long, narrow bag that could have contained the murder weapon.   Old Ned Spangler just held Booth's horse for a couple of minutes and nearly was hung for it.  Should Spangler have worried?  I think Oswald did carry a long bag and that he did tell Frazier it contained curtain rods.  But if the curtain rod story was fabricated by Frazier, the purpose would be to show that he had asked Oswald about the contents of the bag and the explanation that he was given (i.e. that it contained curtain rods) seemed plausible to him.  That gives Frazier cover to not be suspicious.  He becomes just a good ole boy in Gomer Pyle bliss.  How was he to know?  If, however, he didn't have any explanation about Oswald carrying such a strange bag that morning, it might beg the question as to whether he should have been more aware of what was happening. 

[Martin Weidmann]

What did he have to worry about?  LOL. Let's see. Frazier drove the person suspected of assassinating the President who he knew was carrying a long, narrow bag that could have contained the murder weapon.   Old Ned Spangler just held Booth's horse for a couple of minutes and nearly was hung for it.  Should Spangler have worried?  I think Oswald did carry a long bag and that he did tell Frazier it contained curtain rods.  But if the curtain rod story was fabricated by Frazier, the purpose would be to show that he had asked Oswald about the contents of the bag and the explanation that he was given (i.e. that it contained curtain rods) seemed plausible to him.  That gives Frazier cover to not be suspicious.  He becomes just a good ole boy in Gomer Pyle bliss.  How was he to know?  If, however, he didn't have any explanation about Oswald carrying such a strange bag that morning, it might beg the question as to whether he should have been more aware of what was happening.

So many words and so little significant information. The bottom line is that Frazier told the DPD he saw Oswald carry a bag that fitted between the cup of his hand and under his armpit and that Oswald had told him it contained curtain rods.

Shortly before midnight Frazier was polygraphed by Detective R.D. Lewis. While being polygraphed he told the same story and was shown the bag found at the TSBD which he denied was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. The polygraph result was that Frazier was being truthful and he was released from custody.

You can speculate, in your usual selfserving way, as much as you want, but the facts are that Frazier simply told DPD what happened and passed a polygraph while doing it.

Had he known everything you guys claim he knew and had he been really concerned he might have tried to change his story to minimize his involvement, but as it stands he just told the DPD what really happened. Go figure!

[Colin Crow]

The first mention of a bag/package arises between Adamcik and LMR. Apparently she knows about the curtain rods but fails to mention them. For some reason she was suspicious. The curtain rods are first mentioned by Frazier that evening when asked about Oswald carrying a package.

[Dan O'meara]

You seem to be deliberately complicating the scenario I'm proposing.

Not really. The scenario doesn't make any sense.

The scenario, which is obviously speculation, is meant to account for as many factors as possible relating to the curtain rod affair.
The point is that Frazier only alters one aspect of what actually happened - the size of the bag. That's all.
Everything else happened as he testified.

No. Frazier actually doesn't change anything. He tells exactly what happened, that he saw Oswald carry a bag, that he was told it contained curtain rods and that Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and underneath his armpit.

In other words, even if your speculation is true, that Frazier at some point somehow started to believe that Oswald had actually brought a broken down rifle of 34,8" in that paper bag (which Frazier denies to this day), it did not motivate him to change anything in his story.

Your entire convoluted theory seems to have as it's sole purpose that Frazier at some point knew or understood that Oswald had brought a rifle to work that Friday. It's not only highly speculative but it's also something that Frazier has denied from day one.

"In other words, even if your speculation is true, that Frazier at some point somehow started to believe that Oswald had actually brought a broken down rifle of 34,8" in that paper bag (which Frazier denies to this day), it did not motivate him to change anything in his story."


I'm not saying Oswald brought a "broken down rifle" in the bag. That's your addition.
He brought a fully assembled rifle.
That's what motivated Frazier to change his story.

"Your entire convoluted theory seems to have as it's sole purpose that Frazier at some point knew or understood that Oswald had brought a rifle to work that Friday. It's not only highly speculative but it's also something that Frazier has denied from day one."

Frazier changed one small detail in his story - the length of the long package Oswald brought with him.
You may find this "convoluted" but I don't. I find it incredibly easy to understand.

Oswald had no need for curtain rods.
He never mentioned curtain rods to anyone other than Frazier.
He didn't bring curtain rods with him that day. But he did bring a long package.
The 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage were still there after the assassination.
The rifle Marina saw in the blanket was gone.
How do you explain all this?

[Martin Weidmann]

"In other words, even if your speculation is true, that Frazier at some point somehow started to believe that Oswald had actually brought a broken down rifle of 34,8" in that paper bag (which Frazier denies to this day), it did not motivate him to change anything in his story."


I'm not saying Oswald brought a "broken down rifle" in the bag. That's your addition.
He brought a fully assembled rifle.
That's what motivated Frazier to change his story.

That makes even less sense. Even the bag found at the TSBD wouldn't be big enough to contain a fully assembled rifle. What is your evidence for this claim?

"Your entire convoluted theory seems to have as it's sole purpose that Frazier at some point knew or understood that Oswald had brought a rifle to work that Friday. It's not only highly speculative but it's also something that Frazier has denied from day one."

Frazier changed one small detail in his story - the length of the long package Oswald brought with him.
You may find this "convoluted" but I don't. I find it incredibly easy to understand.

And how do you explain that Frazier passed a polygraph test on Friday evening?

Oswald had no need for curtain rods.
He never mentioned curtain rods to anyone other than Frazier.
He didn't bring curtain rods with him that day. But he did bring a long package.

How in the world do you know what Oswald needed or not?

The 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage were still there after the assassination.

And what makes you believe that the two sets of curtain rods were the only ones? What if there was a third set in Oswald's belongings? There has to be an explanation for the set of curtain rods that were given to the DPD to check for fingerprints on 03/15/64.

The rifle Marina saw in the blanket was gone.
How do you explain all this?

One week after returning from New Orleans, which was late September, Marina pulled back part of the blanket and saw what she believed to be a wooden stock of a rifle. Now even if that was true, and it was a rifle, how do you know it was the MC rifle and how do you know it was not removed earlier and thus still there on 11/21/63? The answer is easy; You don't.

You are making a lot of factual statements which in reality are only mere selfserving speculation.