Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[David Von Pein]

Frazier tells the investigators the bag fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and his shoulder. He also shows FBI agents to where the bag reached on the backseat of his car and the FBI agents measure the distance which is 27''.

Yes, Buell Frazier has, indeed, been very consistent when he has made the claim that Oswald carried the bag cupped in his right hand with the other end of the package under Oswald's right armpit.

But....

Mr. Frazier is also on record as having said the following at the 1986 Oswald Mock Trial in London, England:

VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true."

BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

Linnie Mae Randle says she saw Oswald holding the bag at the top and carry next to his leg. If that bag contained a wooden stock of a rifle it would have been at least 34" long, which means it would have hit the ground. Since it didn't, it is reasonable to assume that the bag was shorter than 34".

But Mrs. Randle also told FBI agent James Bookhout on the day of the assassination itself that the package she saw Lee Oswald carrying that same day was "approximately 3 feet" (36 inches) in length (see the 11/22/63 FBI Report below)....

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm

So it would appear as if Linnie Mae's bag-length estimate got smaller over a period of time. The reason for this change can never be fully known, of course. But the fact remains (per Bookhout's Nov. 22 report above) that Linnie, in her very first attempt at estimating the size of Oswald's paper bag, said the bag was "approximately three feet" long. And that is just 2 inches away from the actual size of the 38-inch bag that was found in the Sniper's Nest.

[BTW / FYI / FWIW --- In the 1964 David Wolper motion picture "Four Days In November", Linnie Mae Randle said the bag was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long" (30 inches). See video below.]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G4mVIszdpy7RHsHQskIefrB_F_s1rOnz/view

The only evidence there is that the bag was found at the sniper's nest are the statements of a couple of cops.

It's more than just a couple. It's at least double that number, and possibly as many as 5 or 6 officers said they saw the empty paper bag on the sixth floor. Here's a list of the four DPD officers that I usually cite whenever this topic comes up:

J.C. Day [4 H 267]
L.D. Montgomery [7 H 97]
Robert Studebaker [7 H 143-144]
Marvin Johnson [7 H 103]

There is evidence that DPD officers made a bag themselves to carry a window sill out of the building. And lo and behold, when the bag was being photographed as it was carried out of the building, it clearly had something in it that was holding it up. Any chance that you can tell us what was in that bag?

A "window sill"? That's the first time I've ever heard that one.

You think there's a window sill tucked away in this bag?....



In reality, of course, there's nothing at all in the above bag.

"He was mistaken" is just the WC and LN's way to call somebody a liar!

That's total nonsense, Martin. When I say that I think someone was "mistaken", that's precisely what I mean. I'm not calling that person a liar.

Two things you fail to address are:

(1) To this day Frazier maintains he was right about the size of the bag and he never wavered from that, ever. Why do you think [he] is so adamant?

I would guess it is because his memory of the package is firm and concrete in his own mind, and he sees no reason to change now.

But a lot of people were mistaken about the things they saw and heard on 11/22/63. (And I mean mistakes, not lies.) Nellie Connally being another good example. She always maintained that she witnessed JFK reacting to being hit by the first shot. But a close look at the Zapruder Film shows that Nellie wasn't even looking in JFK's direction in order to see what she always said she saw at the time she says she saw it. But she's not a liar, she's simply mistaken.

A lot of the Parkland witnesses were "mistaken" too when they said they saw a big hole in the back of JFK's head. But the autopsy photos prove for all time that those witnesses were, indeed, mistaken. (CTer protests notwithstanding, of course.)

(2) What are the odds that two people who saw the paper bag are both "mistaken" in exactly the same manner?

See my last comment about all the mistaken Parkland Hospital witnesses.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes, Buell Frazier has, indeed, been very consistent when he has made the claim that Oswald carried the bag cupped in his right hand with the other end of the package under Oswald's right armpit.

But....

Mr. Frazier is also on record as having said the following at the 1986 Oswald Mock Trial in London, England:

VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true."

BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

Of course that was his answer to that leading question. If the package had protruded out Frazier wouldn't have been able to see that, by looking at Oswald's back as he walked away. Frazier was just being honest, but the mere fact that the bag "could have been protruding" doesn't automatically mean that it was.

What Frazier actually saw (looking at Oswald's front side) was a package cupped in Oswald's right hand and under his right armpit and there is no way that a package of 34" would have fitted between the cup of his hand and his armpit. So, even if the package did protrude out, it wouldn't grow because of it.

But Mrs. Randle also told FBI agent James Bookhout on the day of the assassination itself that the package she saw Lee Oswald carrying that same day was "approximately 3 feet" (36 inches) in length (see the 11/22/63 FBI Report below)....

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm

Here we go again... That's what Bookhout claimed in his FD-302 report Linnie Mae Randle had said. This was not an affidavit! Randle did not sign it and never knew about the content. There are plenty of FB-302 reports in circulation that contain incorrect content. In all her official statements, including her testimony Randle remained adamant about the size of the bag.

In fact, on 02/12/63 she was interviewed by FBI agents Odum and McNeely and described to them how Oswald had held the bag. McNeely then did a reconstruction in accordance to Randle's instructions and when they subsequently measured the size of the bag it was 27". So even if Randle misestimated the size when she spoke to Bookhout, she recified it only a few days later.

And there's something else; In her WC testimony, Randle described how Oswald carried the package;

Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

Unless you are going to argue that Oswald's legs were longer than 34" (the size of the wooden stock) there is no way the package could have been that size and not touch the ground.

Now, tell me, David, why can Randle be "mistaken" in all her official statements but not in an alleged statement to Bookhout?

So it would appear as if Linnie Mae's bag-length estimate got smaller over a period of time. The reason for this change can never be fully known, of course. But the fact remains (per Bookhout's Nov. 22 report above) that Linnie, in her very first attempt at estimating the size of Oswald's paper bag, said the bag was "approximately three feet" long. And that is just 2 inches away from the actual size of the 38-inch bag that was found in the Sniper's Nest.

There is no need for me to respond to speculation. The mere fact that you give great weight to an internal FBI report that may or may not be correct over all her official statements tells me you're cherry picking and grasping at straws

[BTW / FYI / FWIW --- In the 1964 David Wolper motion picture "Four Days In November", Linnie Mae Randle said the bag was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long" (30 inches). See video below.]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G4mVIszdpy7RHsHQskIefrB_F_s1rOnz/view

The operative word here is "approximately"! It's a meaningless estimate.

The evidence shows that the size of the package was determined twice by FBI agents who measured the size after an reenactment, once in Frazier's car and the other in Irving, based upon Randle's instructions. In addition we have Frazier stating that he saw the package fit between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit and we have Randle describing the way Oswald carried the package which did not touch the ground.

It's more than just a couple. It's at least double that number, and possibly as many as 5 or 6 officers said they saw the empty paper bag on the sixth floor. Here's a list of the four DPD officers that I usually cite whenever this topic comes up:

J.C. Day [4 H 267]
L.D. Montgomery [7 H 97]
Robert Studebaker [7 H 143-144]
Marvin Johnson [7 H 103]

Actually, if I remember correctly it's six law enforcement officers who said they saw the bag. And there were six other who said they didn't. Those included Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney (who actually discovered the sniper's nest), DPD Sgt Hill and Detective Boyd, who arrived with Captain Fritz before Studebaker and Day got there.

Yet, on 11/24/63 Studebaker told an FBI agent he found the bag, Lt Day told FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11/30/63 that he found it and Montgomery said in his WC testimony that he handed over the bag to Studebaker and Day. Go figure! Several people claiming to have found the bag and all of them got there after Mooney, Hill and Boyd had already been in the sniper's nest and saw nothing.

A "window sill"? That's the first time I've ever heard that one.

You think there's a window sill tucked away in this bag?....



In reality, of course, there's nothing at all in the above bag.

Well, a window sill was removed from the window in the sniper's nest, or do you deny that?
I simply do not know what's inside there and neither do you, but something is holding up that bag.
Your opinion isn't of course automatically "reality". Btw, have a look at the photo on the left.
How is Montgomery holding that bag if there's nothing in it?

That's total nonsense, Martin. When I say that I think someone was "mistaken", that's precisely what I mean. I'm not calling that person a liar.

Yeah, right... pull the other one.

I would guess it is because his memory of the package is firm and concrete in his own mind, and he sees no reason to change now.

You can guess all you want and so can I. And my guess is that he sees no reason to change his story because he has been telling the truth all along and in a consistent way. Unlike other witnesses (like Brennan and Graig) who changed their story over time, Frazier has always said the same thing.

The WC (and you) may say he's mistaken but that's based on absolutely nothing except flawed circular logic. 

And let's not forget that, on Friday evening, only hours after the event and while he was being polygraphed, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD (by then already deemed to be - without a shred of actual evidence - the bag Oswald used to bring in the rifle) and rejected it as the bag he had seen Oswald carry. He described the latter as being "a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased at a dime store". Why do you think this was ignored by the investigators?

Let's try to reconstruct this is a hypothetical conversation;

Officer 1: We have this man, Frazier, here and he says he saw the bag Oswald carried. It fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and under his armpit. That's about 27". And we also have his sister saying roughly the same thing.

Officer 2: Yeah, that may well be but we found a larger bag in the TSBD which we think was used to bring the rifle in.

Officer 1: Yes, I know, but Frazier was shown that bag on Friday evening and said it wasn't the one he saw Oswald carry, which was a flimsy dime store kinda bag.

Officer 2: Never mind about all that. We have this big bag and Frazier and Randle are simply mistaken. That's all there is to it.

Now, in the real world, does that even strike you as being a normal way to conduct an investigation?

But a lot of people were mistaken about the things they saw and heard on 11/22/63. (And I mean mistakes, not lies.) Nellie Connally being another good example. She always maintained that she witnessed JFK reacting to being hit by the first shot. But a close look at the Zapruder Film shows that Nellie wasn't even looking in JFK's direction in order to see what she always said she saw at the time she says she saw it. But she's not a liar, she's simply mistaken.

So, now you compare the incorrect statement of somebody who witnesses something happening in a blink of an eye, with the observation of Frazier who saw the package far longer and thus was able to get more details right? Pffff

A lot of the Parkland witnesses were "mistaken" too when they said they saw a big hole in the back of JFK's head. But the autopsy photos prove for all time that those witnesses were, indeed, mistaken. (CTer protests notwithstanding, of course.)

Is that why Arlen Specter told Dr. Jones, after a meeting that included discussion about the supposed exit wound being an entrance wound;

"We have people who will testify that they saw him [JFK] shot from the overpass. We do not believe they are credible witnesses... and I don’t want you saying anything about it."

See my last comment about all the mistaken Parkland Hospital witnesses.

Just because you and the WC claim the Parkland doctors were wrong, doesn't mean they were.

[David Von Pein]

Well, a window sill was removed from the window in the sniper's nest, or do you deny that?

Yes, I have heard about the WHOLE WINDOW being removed and saved as a souvenir. Wasn't it the building's owner (Byrd) who had it removed? But it certainly wasn't removed on the afternoon of the assassination. No way it was removed that early on.

How is Montgomery holding that bag if there's nothing in it?

The bag is made from fairly stiff heavy-duty paper stock. The thickness of the paper can be detected in those photos. It's similar in style and thickness to a grocery store paper bag. And the rigidness of its construction is the thing that obviously is keeping it from completely collapsing as Det. Montgomery is holding it in those photos.

Here's what Linnie Mae Randle said (emphasis is my own):

"He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me."

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes, I have heard about the WHOLE WINDOW being removed and saved as a souvenir. Wasn't it the building's owner (Byrd) who had it removed? But it certainly wasn't removed on the afternoon of the assassination. No way it was removed that early on.


The bag is made from fairly stiff heavy-duty paper stock. The thickness of the paper can be detected in those photos. It's similar in style and thickness to a grocery store paper bag. And the rigidness of its construction is the thing that obviously is keeping it from completely collapsing as Det. Montgomery is holding it in those photos.

Here's what Linnie Mae Randle said (emphasis is my own):

"He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me."

So, now we're reduced to only answering the points where you think you can score points?

Yes, I have heard about the WHOLE WINDOW being removed and saved as a souvenir. Wasn't it the building's owner (Byrd) who had it removed? But it certainly wasn't removed on the afternoon of the assassination. No way it was removed that early on.

Yes the window was completely removed later on, but I do recall reading a report about the removal of the window sill. I'll see if I can find it

The bag is made from fairly stiff heavy-duty paper stock. The thickness of the paper can be detected in those photos. It's similar in style and thickness to a grocery store paper bag.

Of course the back is made from fairy stiff heavy-duty paper stock. Which makes it all the more significant that, in the evening of 11/22/63, Frazier rejected that bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry, because he knew the difference between a rigid sPersony bag like the TSBD one and the "thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased at a dime store" he had seen Oswald carry.

And the rigidness of its construction is the thing that obviously is keeping it from completely collapsing as Det. Montgomery is holding it in those photos.

You'd better take another look at the way he is holding the bag. It is utterly absurd to carry an unfolded bag by only holding it with one hand at the bottom. If there was nothing in the bag to hold it up, why would it be unfolded in the first place. It was alledgely found folded up, so what was the purpose of unfolding it and taking it outside in that manner?

Here's what Linnie Mae Randle said (emphasis is my own):

"He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me."

Sure, but she only saw the bag at a fair distance. Frazier saw it up close. Now why would you prefer a sighting from a fair distance over an up close observation?

[David Von Pein]

So, now we're reduced to only answering the points where you think you can score points?

If you can't score a point, why shoot?

And there will always be contradictions in many of the witness statements. CTers will always choose the statements that help their cause, and LNers will prop up the stuff that helps the LN cause. And we'll all stay on the JFK merry-go-round for another day.

Sure, but she [Linnie Mae] only saw the bag at a fair distance. Frazier saw it up close. Now why would you prefer a sighting from a fair distance over an up close observation?

I wanted to make sure that Linnie's "Heavier than a grocery sack" testimony was placed on the table too. (Fair is fair, right?) You post the "flimsy" testimony; I post the "heavy sack" testimony. It's pick-&-choose heaven....just like always at JFK forums.

But the key difference is: I can "pick & choose" all day long (and every single forum member does it all the time; can't be helped; it's human nature to do that, and it will always be that way), but at the end of today, like every other day since 1963, I'll still have every scrap of physical evidence to back up my LN beliefs, vs. your collection of zero pieces of physical evidence to support your make-believe conspiracy.

[David Von Pein]

...but I do recall reading a report about the removal of the window sill.

Removed (by the police) prior to sundown on Nov. 22?

[Martin Weidmann]

If you can't score a point, why shoot?

Perhaps this shouldn't be about scoring point?

You do understand that selecting those parts of the conversation you want to continue, you actually admit defeat on all the other topics, right?

And there will always be contradictions in many of the witness statements. CTers will always choose the statements that help their cause, and LNers will prop up the stuff that helps the LN cause. And we'll all stay on the JFK merry-go-round for another day.

Fair enough, at least to some extent. It's the proscution vs defense game, which is exactly why the LN case is just as much a theory than the one for the defense. However, having said that, witness statements very often are subject to corrections and alterations because the initial statement isn't complete or accurate. So, it follows that a witness statement that is not only consistent but also can not be debunked with actual facts in 58 years can normally be considered to have been correct.

I wanted to make sure that Linnie's "Heavier than a grocery sack" testimony was placed on the table too. (Fair is fair, right?) You post the "flimsy" testimony; I post the "heavy sack" testimony. It's pick-&-choose heaven....just like always at JFK forums.

Actually, I just quoted from an airtel from James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, the content of which was basically confirmed by the statement Detective Lewis (who conducted Frazier's polygraph) gave to FBI Vincent Drain on 12/01/63

But the key difference is: I can "pick & choose" all day long (and every single forum member does it all the time; can't be helped; it's human nature to do that, and it will always be that way),

I agree. Everybody who is looking for a predetermined outcome will cherry pick the pieces of evidence that support their narrative. That's the way the WC and the FBI worked and things haven't changed since. Unfortunately, there is no guarentee whatsoever that that particular narritive is the right one. It's only the selected one.

but at the end of today, like every other day since 1963, I'll still have every scrap of physical evidence to back up my LN beliefs, vs. your collection of zero pieces of physical evidence to support your make-believe conspiracy.

Still desperate to score a point, I see. Like a child (or Chappy) who always needs to have the last word. Very disappointing.

I don't have a conspiracy theory, make believe or otherwise. I couldn't care less if there was a conspiracy or if Oswald did it alone. What I am only interested in is finding out if the case against Oswald is strong enough to withstand scrutiny. Those pieces of physical evidence are only as good as the interpretation of them. A correct investigation is one of considering all the possible explanations and eliminating theories. That's not what happened here.

How do I know? That's an easy question to answer. In a proper investigation more physical evidence is collected than will ever be used in a subsequent prosecution, because there will always be dead ends in an investigation. As that evidence is nevertheless part of the investigation, it should be stored at the National Archives along with everything else. And guess what, it isn't. All you will find by way of physical evidence are those items that are part of the case against Oswald, which either means that the investigators got everything right from day one or there is/was more to this case than what we know now.

[David Von Pein]

Perhaps this shouldn't be about scoring point?

I agree. It should be more about making good points, evaluating ALL the evidence and witness testimony, and then discarding the parts that can reasonably be deemed invalid or unworthy of serious consideration. (IOW, wheat over chaff.)

IMO, the CTers retain way too much chaff and discard virtually all of the wheat (i.e., the actual physical evidence in the case, which all points to Mr. Oswald, of course). That's certainly not the way to solve this (or any) case.

All you will find by way of physical evidence are those items that are part of the case against Oswald, which either means that the investigators got everything right from day one or there is/was more to this case than what we know now.

And the reason for that is simple (IMO) --- There is no physical evidence other than the stuff that leads directly to Oswald. No such "non-Oswald" physical evidence was found. It doesn't exist, and never did.

But you don't believe that, do you Martin?