Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[David Von Pein]

"Window Sill" Follow-Up....

I found this document at the Ferrell archives (CD899):

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11295#relPageId=4

And if that "strip of wood" from the TSBD window is, in fact, the item that Colin Crow and others have been talking about in this thread, then it's pretty clear that Det. Montgomery did not have that item in the bag he's seen carrying out of the TSBD. The above document makes clear that Lt. Day gave the wood piece to Capt. Doughty, and it then went to the FBI.

But, I guess CTers can always theorize that L.D. Montgomery was still involved in taking it out of the Depository, but his name certainly isn't mentioned in the above report at all.

[David Von Pein]

Because we've got the Hidell Selective Service I.D. card that was in Oswald's wallet (even if Detective Paul Bentley didn't say anything about seeing it in an official report).

Are you sure? According to his WC testimony Detective Rose was off duty that day. He was called back in and arrived at the DPD office about the same time when Oswald was being brought in. Rose was the first person to talk to Oswald, just after an unidentified officer gave him a wallet which he said belonged to Oswald. Nobody knows who that officer was (much like the officers who handled the white/grey jacket). What we do know is that Bentley was taken to the hospital because of the injury to his leg. So, where is the chain of custody that shows the wallet Rose was given was the same one Bentley took from Oswald?

And before you start claiming just how silly this is, please check out why chains of custody are relevant and important!

So, I guess all this is leading to the suggestion that the "Hidell" I.D. card was somehow faked by the DPD, is that it?

Boy, those DPD boys were sure busy faking & framing that weekend, weren't they?

The authorities were a bit sloppy with some of the evidence in the JFK case, I'll grant you that -- e.g., the careless way that SS Agent Richard Johnsen handled CE399 at Parkland on 11/22. Instead of putting it in some kind of container (which the hospital certainly could have provided), he just sticks it in his pocket.

And I'm sure that the DPD officers could have done a better job when it comes to some areas (like keeping the damn basement doors shut and locked until their famous prisoner made it out of City Hall alive).

But I'm not prepared to accept the common belief that dozens of pieces of evidence in this case were fraudulently manufactured by the DPD (or FBI) in order to frame Mr. Oswald. I just don't think that happened. And no one has ever proved any of the evidence in this case was faked.

[Martin Weidmann]

I'll go back about 15 years to answer your inquiry, Martin. Here's what I said in 2007:

"I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?

Care to guess at what those odds might be? They must be close to "O.J. DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22, 1963).

I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle, which was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63.

I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it." -- DVP; October 2007

So, it's circular logic.... Oswald brought in a paper bag and we found a paper bag, so it must be his, no matter what the witnesses say who actually saw the bag and said the two are not the same bag.

"I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?

Care to guess at what those odds might be?

I have no idea what those odds are and neither do you. You're just guessing.

I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle, which was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63.

This is an extremely leading and bad faith question. There's a lot to unpack here. First of all, it was a bag made from TSBD materials, found at the TSBD. There's hardly anything strange about finding a bag at the location where it was made. What the purpose of the TSBD bag was is something we can only guess about. There is no way to know for sure. What is easy to explain is how Oswald's prints (and there were not only his prints on it) could have gotten on the bag. Oswald worked in the building and collected books from the 6th floor. It can not be ruled out that he simply moved that bag to get to a box of books he needed. Now, what needs to be considered is that the evidence that the bag was found in the sniper's nest is extremely ambivalent at best. Six law enforcement officers who were in the nest before Fritz, Day and Studebaker arrived failed to see the bag. After the arrival of these men, other officers did see the bag, but Studebaker failed to photograph it in situ. At least three people have claimed that they found the bag, which - to say the least - is odd. So, I'm not so sure the bag was actually found inside the sniper's nest. But even if it was, that does not, in any way, shape or form justify the conclusion that Oswald was in the sniper's nest on 11/22/63.

I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it."

The mere fact that you can not think of such an explanation is meaningless. It certainly doesn't make what you prefer to believe true.

Having said all this, my question related to this comment;

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.)

and the question still stands.

What plausible reason (other than circular logic) did the investigators have to ignore, from day one, the witness evidence provided by Frazier and Randle as "mistaken" in favor of the TSBD bag being the one that Oswald carried after all?

[David Von Pein]

What plausible reason (other than circular logic) did the investigators have to ignore, from day one, the witness evidence provided by Frazier and Randle as "mistaken" in favor of the TSBD bag being the one that Oswald carried after all?

The answer to that couldn't be more obvious, Mr. Weidmann....

The "investigators" possessed the capability of drawing reasonable and logical inferences and conclusions from the available evidence. In other words, they were capable of adding 2 & 2 together, which is a task that most Internet conspiracy believers seem incapable of performing.

(Can you really not see the logic in my October 2007 comment above regarding the paper bag, Martin? You really can't grasp it?)

[Martin Weidmann]

So, I guess all this is leading to the suggestion that the "Hidell" I.D. card was somehow faked by the DPD, is that it?

Boy, those DPD boys were sure busy faking & framing that weekend, weren't they?

The authorities were a bit sloppy with some of the evidence in the JFK case, I'll grant you that -- e.g., the careless way that SS Agent Richard Johnsen handled CE399 at Parkland on 11/22. Instead of putting it in some kind of container (which the hospital certainly could have provided), he just sticks it in his pocket.

And I'm sure that the DPD officers could have done a better job when it comes to some areas (like keeping the damn basement doors shut and locked until their famous prisoner made it out of City Hall alive).

But I'm not prepared to accept the common belief that dozens of pieces of evidence in this case were fraudulently manufactured by the DPD (or FBI) in order to frame Mr. Oswald. I just don't think that happened. And no one has ever proved any of the evidence in this case was faked.

So, I guess all this is leading to the suggestion that the "Hidell" I.D. card was somehow faked by the DPD, is that it?

No. I don't think the DPD faked the Hidell ID card

Boy, those DPD boys were sure busy faking & framing that weekend, weren't they?

Irony doesn't enhance your case one bit

The authorities were a bit sloppy with some of the evidence in the JFK case, I'll grant you that -- e.g., the careless way that SS Agent Richard Johnsen handled CE399 at Parkland on 11/22. Instead of putting it in some kind of container (which the hospital certainly could have provided), he just sticks it in his pocket.

A bit sloppy? That's the understatement of the century!

Let's not get into CE399 and it's authenticity here. I'll be glad to discuss that and the bullet fragments allegedly found in the limo in another thread, if you're interested, but not here.

And I'm sure that the DPD officers could have done a better job when it comes to some areas (like keeping the damn basement doors shut and locked until their famous prisoner made it out of City Hall alive).

And not walk around for some two hours with a revolver and then claim it was Oswald's, as Hill did. Or have unidentified officers handle the jacket found under a car (which in radio traffic was repeately refered to as being white) as Captain Westbrook did, and then ending up handing it into the evidence room with initials of officers on it who were not even present when the jacket was found. And the list goes on....

But I'm not prepared to accept the common belief that dozens of pieces of evidence in this case were fraudulently manufactured by the DPD (or FBI) in order to frame Mr. Oswald. I just don't think that happened.

I never claimed the DPD manufactured evidence, although I do believe they did manipulate some of it (not unusual at the time), but as far as the FBI goes, I am absolutely convinced there was some dodgy stuff going on. Perhaps not with the intention to frame an innocent man (which IMO Oswald could not be. He must have been involved in something somehow) but more likely in an effort to wrap the case more tightly around the already dead Oswald.

The shenanigans of Shanklin's airtel re Odum allegedly showing the bullet CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright, which by now I am convinced never happened, comes to mind.

And no one has ever proved any of the evidence in this case was faked.

It's a bit difficult to prove anything when the evidence is locked away and classified top secret for decades, don't you think?

I'll grant you this. For a large part of the population all this stuff about evidence tampering is way out there. They simply don't come across it in their every day life and can't even begin to imagine what really goes on. Not only in Goverment, but also in business. Sure, once in a while they see a crime show, but they don't take it seriously because they've seen multiple crime shows and movies about the same thing and that's just the movies, right? Only a few people see through it and understand that fraud in all shapes and forms is part of every day life and law enforcement is no exemption. From false police reports to drop guns to prosecutorial misconduct, it's a matter of every day life. That's why chain of custody is so massively important and when I see just how many "honest mistakes" were allegedly made in the investigation into the assassination of a President my BS meter automatically explodes. A first year prosecutor prosecuting a low life criminal would be ashamed to take such a pathetic case to court, but here we have the Government asking us to believe this is what happened. It's sad.

[John Iacoletti]

The authorities were a bit sloppy with some of the evidence in the JFK case, I'll grant you that

Understatement of the year.

But I'm not prepared to accept the common belief that dozens of pieces of evidence in this case were fraudulently manufactured by the DPD (or FBI) in order to frame Mr. Oswald.

Strawman alert.

I just don't think that happened. And no one has ever proved any of the evidence in this case was faked.

The burden is on you (and the police) to prove that the evidence is authentic.  And their "sloppyness" rendered the evidence tainted and unreliable.

[Martin Weidmann]

The answer to that couldn't be more obvious, Mr. Weidmann....

The "investigators" possessed the capability of drawing reasonable and logical inferences and conclusions from the available evidence. In other words, they were capable of adding 2 & 2 together, which is a task that most Internet conspiracy believers seem incapable of performing.

(Can you really not see the logic in my October 2007 comment above regarding the paper bag, Martin? You really can't grasp it?)

You won't get very far talking down to me, Mr. Von Pein.

All you are telling me is that it's a case of 100% circular logic. They believed Oswald was their man so obviously he did bring the bag found at the TSBD into the building.

It's pathetic. It isn't following the evidence where it leads you, it's deciding up front what the outcome should be and looking for the evidence to connect the dots. There is nothing even remotely logical about it.

And your high and mighty attitude doesn't alter one bit of the fact that you have just demonstrated beyond doubt that the case against Oswald was rigged from the beginning. Thank you for playing the game. You just lost!

[John Iacoletti]

The "investigators" possessed the capability of drawing reasonable and logical inferences and conclusions from the available evidence. In other words, they were capable of adding 2 & 2 together, which is a task that most Internet conspiracy believers seem incapable of performing.

You're free to speculate to your heart's content, but don't pretend that your speculations constitute evidence.  The evidence is that CE142 was not the package that Frazier and Randle saw, and there's no evidence that either wrapper contained a rifle, so what difference does it make?