Buell Wesley Frazier

[Walt Cakebread]

Walt, I really don't understand why you present this as if it is fact, when it is clearly only what you think happened.

it is clearly only what you think happened.

You and most readers understand that.....So why do I have to post a disclaimer??   

When you get to the bottom line ....EVERYTHING in this case is based on what someone accepts as a fact.....

Unfortunately..... Far too many believe that simply because someone has the badge of authority pinned on their lapel, then that persons word is the gospel truth.

Time after time folks post information that is verified in the WC testimony....  The problem is: The Warren Commission was created by LBJ ....and he intended for it to be a cover up committee.   

This is a KNOWN FACT!

[Richard Smith]

Interesting to reread this thread.  The beatdown of the strawman brothers was merciless.   There are a couple of options here:

1) Buell and his sister made up the long bag story.  Oswald told the truth that he carried only his lunch sack. 

Problems:  no logical explanation for Buell and his sister to intentionally lie about Oswald carrying a long bag and the curtain rod story.  If anything, this makes Buell look like he might have some reason to be suspicious of a guy making an unexpected trip and carrying a long, rifle shaped bag to his workplace on the morning that the president was going to drive by his building.  A bag would also have to be planted and Oswald's prints somehow added to it.  Odds of this scenario = zero.

2)  Oswald carried a long bag along the size estimated by Buell.

Problems:  Oswald denied this.  If this long bag had contained something exculpatory, then Oswald would have had every incentive to direct the DPD to his bag.  He didn't.  No bag matching Buell's estimate was ever found or otherwise accounted for in the TSBD.  The longer bag would have to be planted etc.  Odds of this = near zero.

3)  Oswald carried the long bag found on the 6th floor.  His prints are on that bag, it is found next to the SN where Oswald's prints were found along with fired bullet casings from his rifle.  There is no other accounting for that bag being on the 6th floor except in association with the assassination.

Problems:  Oswald denied carrying such a bag.  But he has every reason to lie if it contained the rifle.  Buell and his sister indicated the bag was too short to contain the rifle.  But they didn't have a great look or any reason to take much notice.  They made an honest but erroneous estimate.  The bag itself is the best evidence of its length.  Odds = 99.99 percent that the bag found on the 6th floor is the one Oswald carried to work that morning.

[Anthony Clayden]

Interesting to reread this thread.  The beatdown of the strawman brothers was merciless.   There are a couple of options here:

1) Buell and his sister made up the long bag story.  Oswald told the truth that he carried only his lunch sack. 

Problems:  no logical explanation for Buell and his sister to intentionally lie about Oswald carrying a long bag and the curtain rod story.  If anything, this makes Buell look like he might have some reason to be suspicious of a guy making an unexpected trip and carrying a long, rifle shaped bag to his workplace on the morning that the president was going to drive by his building.  A bag would also have to be planted and Oswald's prints somehow added to it.  Odds of this scenario = zero.

2)  Oswald carried a long bag along the size estimated by Buell.

Problems:  Oswald denied this.  If this long bag had contained something exculpatory, then Oswald would have had every incentive to direct the DPD to his bag.  He didn't.  No bag matching Buell's estimate was ever found or otherwise accounted for in the TSBD.  The longer bag would have to be planted etc.  Odds of this = near zero.

3)  Oswald carried the long bag found on the 6th floor.  His prints are on that bag, it is found next to the SN where Oswald's prints were found along with fired bullet casings from his rifle.  There is no other accounting for that bag being on the 6th floor except in association with the assassination.

Problems:  Oswald denied carrying such a bag.  But he has every reason to lie if it contained the rifle.  Buell and his sister indicated the bag was too short to contain the rifle.  But they didn't have a great look or any reason to take much notice.  They made an honest but erroneous estimate.  The bag itself is the best evidence of its length.  Odds = 99.99 percent that the bag found on the 6th floor is the one Oswald carried to work that morning.

Richard,

1) LHO's lunch sack may have been the sack described by Buell and his sister. Oswald was poor, staying at some else house. He would have grabbed anything available to reuse. As I have previously pointed out, the sack may have been one that orignally contained curtain rods, which Oswald reused for his lunch. When asked about the lunch sack, he may have responded to Buell with an answer as to its origins (explaining the unusual length) not its current contents.

2) Beull saw the bag on multile occassions, not a single glance. Oswald waited, not far from he car, whilst Buell charged the battery and only proceeded to the TSBD once Buell was on his way. Buell description of Oswald's method of carying the bag does not match either a longer bag nor a bag with the elongated weight distribution of a hidden rifle.

3) You ignored the failure of the DPD to photograph the bag in situ at the crime scene, along with the failure of the earliest DPD members to notice the bag. Surely that warrants a greater degree of uncertainty greater than the 0.01% that you have speculated.

[Richard Smith]

Richard,

1) LHO's lunch sack may have been the sack described by Buell and his sister. Oswald was poor, staying at some else house. He would have grabbed anything available to reuse. As I have previously pointed out, the sack may have been one that orignally contained curtain rods, which Oswald reused for his lunch. When asked about the lunch sack, he may have responded to Buell with an answer as to its origins (explaining the unusual length) not its current contents.

Frazier's testimony is clear.  He asked Oswald about his lunch.  Oswald indicated to him that he was going to buy it that day.  Oswald did not carry his lunch that morning.  He certainly did not carry his lunch that morning in a two-foot plus long bag.

Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.

[Ray Mitcham]

Frazier's testimony is clear.  He asked Oswald about his lunch.  Oswald indicated to him that he was going to buy it that day.  Oswald did not carry his lunch that morning.  He certainly did not carry his lunch that morning in a two-foot plus long bag.

Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.

Strange you believe Frazier when he talks about his lunch but not when he describes the length of the bag.

[Richard Smith]

Strange you believe Frazier when he talks about his lunch but not when he describes the length of the bag.

That's because there is an obvious distinction between estimating the size of an object with specificity and a general matter like whether he asked Oswald about his lunch.  I think Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his abilities in both instances but simply got his estimate off.  But if you find something odd in this, then how would you reconcile believing Frazier about the size of the bag but not his discussion of Oswald's lunch? Or do you not apply the same "logic" to conspiracy theories?

[Martin Weidmann]

That's because there is an obvious distinction between estimating the size of an object with specificity and a general matter like whether he asked Oswald about his lunch.  I think Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his abilities in both instances but simply got his estimate off.  But if you find something odd in this, then how would you reconcile believing Frazier about the size of the bag but not his discussion of Oswald's lunch? Or do you not apply the same "logic" to conspiracy theories?

When Frazier said the bag he saw fitted between the cup of Oswald?s hand and his armpit, there is no estimate. It?s merely a statement of fact about what he observed. So, Richard... tell us, did he tell the truth?

[Richard Smith]

When Frazier said the bag he saw fitted between the cup of Oswald?s hand and his armpit, there is no estimate. It?s merely a statement of fact about what he observed. So, Richard... tell us, did he tell the truth?

His estimate was honest but erroneous.   I think he believes his estimate is correct, but we have the bag.  So there is no need to speculate on its size.  It can be measured.  If Oswald carried a long bag along the size estimated by Frazier, then why would he deny that?  He would have every incentive to not only acknowledge it, but direct the police to it to show that it contained something other than a rifle.  Instead he lies about it and says he carried only his lunch in direct contradiction of Frazier's testimony.  That tells us all we need to know.  Oswald's prints are found on such a long bag.  No bag matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or otherwise accounted for because no such bag existed.  End of story.