Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Martin Weidmann]

Is that all? Isn't there some sort of document to confirm that the DALLAS POLICE removed the window frame/molding? The FBI report you provided doesn't prove anything. Maybe some souvenir hunter took a hunk of the window frame between 11/22 and that April '64 report. Who can know?

But I sure didn't see anything at all in the testimonies or DPD reports of Johnson/Montgomery/Day/Fritz regarding any removal of any window moldings.

Wanna play that game? Alright....

There isn't a single first day report about the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car containing a Hidell alias card.

So, if we follow your "logic" here, doesn't that mean there was no Hidell ID in the wallet took from Oswald?

And while we are on the subject of answering questions, did you miss my last question in post #56 or are you simply ignoring it?

Here it is again;

We have two witnesses who both say that the bag found at the TSBD is not the bag they saw Oswald carry. Frazier told the investigators, the bag fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit and he also showed FBI agents to where the bag reached on the backseat of his car and the FBI agents measured the distance as being 27''.

Linnie Mae Randle told FBI against Odum and McNeely she saw Oswald holding a bag at the (folded up) top and carry it next to his leg. If that bag contained a wooden stock of a rifle it would have had to have been at least 34" long, which means it would have hit the ground, as Oswald's legs, measured from his hip, were not not 34" long. As the package didn't hit the ground it is reasonable to assume that the bag was shorter than 34". In fact, the bag that Oswald could have carried in the way Linnie Mae Randle described could not have been much larger than 27".

So, estimates aside, we have two measurements of the package compared to (1) the backseat of Frazier's car and (2) the size of Oswald's leg and a visual comparison of the size of the package in relation to the length of Oswald's arm. That seems pretty definitive to me. But that's not all. On Friday evening, only hours after the event and while he was being polygraphed, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD and he 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".

As far as the bag is concerned that's the evidence interpretation for Oswald. Now, what exactly is there against Oswald?

The bag was (allegedly) found in the sniper's nest. It turned out to be made of materials that are common to the TSBD. Several prints are on the bag, but the only ones that could be identified belong to Oswald, which is somewhat remarkable as we know that at least Detective Montgomery handled the bag also (he unfolded it and carried it out of the building). It was never established that the bag found at the TSBD ever left the building, nor that it ever contained a rifle. So what we are left with is a bag, made from TSBD material, found inside the TSBD with prints of an employee of the TSBD on it.

Now, can you tell me, what plausible reason (other than circular logic) the investigators had to ignore the witness evidence as "mistaken" in favor of the TSBD bag being the one that Oswald carried after all?

[David Von Pein]

Wanna play that game? Alright....

There isn't a single first day report about the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car containing a Hidell alias card.

So, if we follow your "logic" here, doesn't that mean there was no Hidell ID in the wallet took from Oswald?

That's not analogous at all, Martin.

Why?

Because we've got the Hidell Selective Service I.D. card (CE795) that was in Oswald's wallet (even if Detective Paul Bentley didn't say anything about seeing it in an official report).

But where's the TWO "window sill" pieces talked about in this thread? Why aren't they seen (or mentioned) in any WC exhibits or documents or testimony?

[David Von Pein]

...did you miss my last question in post #56 or are you simply ignoring it?

Here it is again:

We have two witnesses who both say that the bag found at the TSBD is not the bag they saw Oswald carry. Frazier told the investigators, the bag fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit and he also showed FBI agents to where the bag reached on the backseat of his car and the FBI agents measured the distance as being 27''.

Linnie Mae Randle told FBI against Odum and McNeely she saw Oswald holding a bag at the (folded up) top and carry it next to his leg. If that bag contained a wooden stock of a rifle it would have had to have been at least 34" long, which means it would have hit the ground, as Oswald's legs, measured from his hip, were not not 34" long. As the package didn't hit the ground it is reasonable to assume that the bag was shorter than 34". In fact, the bag that Oswald could have carried in the way Linnie Mae Randle described could not have been much larger than 27".

So, estimates aside, we have two measurements of the package compared to (1) the backseat of Frazier's car and (2) the size of Oswald's leg and a visual comparison of the size of the package in relation to the length of Oswald's arm. That seems pretty definitive to me. But that's not all. On Friday evening, only hours after the event and while he was being polygraphed, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD and he 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".

As far as the bag is concerned that's the evidence interpretation for Oswald. Now, what exactly is there against Oswald?

The bag was (allegedly) found in the sniper's nest. It turned out to be made of materials that are common to the TSBD. Several prints are on the bag, but the only ones that could be identified belong to Oswald, which is somewhat remarkable as we know that at least Detective Montgomery handled the bag also (he unfolded it and carried it out of the building). It was never established that the bag found at the TSBD ever left the building, nor that it ever contained a rifle. So what we are left with is a bag, made from TSBD material, found inside the TSBD with prints of an employee of the TSBD on it.

Now, can you tell me, what plausible reason (other than circular logic) the investigators had to ignore the witness evidence as "mistaken" in favor of the TSBD bag being the one that Oswald carried after all?

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

[Martin Weidmann]

That's not analogous at all, Martin.

Why?

Because we've got the Hidell Selective Service I.D. card (CE795) that was in Oswald's wallet (even if Detective Paul Bentley didn't say anything about seeing it in an official report).

But where's the TWO "window sill" pieces talked about in this thread? Why aren't they seen (or mentioned) in any WC exhibits or documents?

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!

[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?)