Buell Wesley Frazier

[John Iacoletti]

Only in John's Alice-in-Wonderland world could two people both be telling the truth when one says that the other was carrying a long package and the other says he was not.  LOL.

Fritz - "He said he had a cheese sandwich and some fruit and that was the only package he had brought with him to work and denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister"

Holmes - "When asked if he didn't bring a sack with him the next morning to work, he stated that he did, and when asked as to the contents of the sack, he stated that it contained his lunch. Then, when asked as to the size or shape of the sack, he said 'Oh, I don't recall, it may have a small sack or a large sack, you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches.'"

The claim that Oswald denied carrying any kind of long package is just flat out false.

   That one is a keeper.  It highlights John's dishonest approach to the evidence.  You can't have it both ways simply because there is no other way to reconcile the facts to his desired outcome.  Either Oswald or Frazier is lying about the long package.

No, you're being dishonest.  Not only by cherry-picking your interpretation of Fritz's testimony from 8 months later and ignoring everything else, but by also imposing your own biased standard of what "long package" does and does not mean.  The bottom line is that Frazier said that Oswald carried a bag that was not CE142.  Randle said that Oswald carried a bag that was not CE142.  Oswald said he carried a bag that could have been small or large.

The choice then becomes whether to accept the obvious, common sense interpretation as supported by the evidence (i.e. the long bag found with Oswald's prints on it is the long bag he carried that morning) or entertain baseless alternative fantasies that make no narrative sense (the bag found was planted, no one "looked" for Frazier's bag even though they searched the building and found a similar long bag, and Frazier acted contrary to his own self interest etc).  This is just a devil's advocate game to see how long a contrarian can extend a discussion with his intellectual superiors to feel relevant.

...and it's back to the fantasy conspirators strawman again.  Bottom line again:  you can't show that Oswald carried in CE 142 that morning, you can't show that CE 142 ever had C2766 (or any rifle) inside it, and you can't even show that CE 142 was in the alleged sniper's nest when it was first discovered.

In addition, John, yet again, dishonestly cites the evidence.  Per Dishonest John: "Frazier saw a package.  Fritz reported that Oswald said he had a package."  John is implying that the long package Frazier saw is the same one Oswald acknowledged carrying (i.e his lunch).  But that is not what the evidence suggests.

I think you're confusing your assumptions ("long package") with evidence.

  In fact, it is completely to the contrary and excludes this possibility.  What Frazier "reported" was a long package over two feet long which he specifically indicated was not Oswald's lunch.

Frazier also reported that CE 142 was not that bag.  Cherry-picking again?  Frazier's recall is 100% accurate except when you don't want it to be?

Why can't a lunch be in a 2 foot (give or take a few inches) package?  Just because you want it to be a rifle?

Thus, there is no possibility whatsoever, as John dishonestly suggests with his selective omissions, that Frazier's package and Oswald's lunch could be one and the same package.

Why?  You can't put more than one thing in a package now?

  Both Frazier and Oswald confirmed they were two distinct items being discussed - a long package and Oswald's lunch.  Common sense also lends itself to the conclusion that no one other than perhaps Fred Flintstone has ever carried his lunch in such a large package.

"Common sense" again.  The last refuge of somebody without evidence.

[Bill Chapman]

If your goal is to demonstrate that the bags are the same, then it's not sufficient to just postulate that he could have been mistaken.  That doesn't actually demonstrate that they were the same.

Correction:  Bookhout recorded (after the fact) a second hand account of her saying that the bag was about 3 feet long.

Is her affidavit a second-hand account, John?

I didn't say anything here about Buell being mistaken. I asked if Buell had seen Oswald from the front while carrying the bag at any point.

[John Iacoletti]

Is her affidavit a second-hand account, John?

Interesting.  Have you seen an affidavit that mentions the length of the bag she saw?

I didn't say anything here about Buell being mistaken. I asked if Buell had seen Oswald from the front while carrying the bag at any point.

Difficult to say for sure, but possibly when he first got the package out of the car or while he was waiting over by the cyclone fence.  Relevance?

[Anthony Clayden]

Is her affidavit a second-hand account, John?

I didn't say anything here about Buell being mistaken. I asked if Buell had seen Oswald from the front while carrying the bag at any point.

That would be question to ask Buell, luckily he is stll alive.
However from the way he described Oswald's action, it would appear likely to me. It would be very odd and memorable, if somebody waited for you and looked away the whole time whilst they did it.

Buell Wesley Frazier: He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started walking off and so I followed him in.

[Anthony Clayden]

Richard,

Issues with the gun being in the bag Oswald took.

1)  Length of gun compared to the length as reported by 2 witnesses
2)  Dougherty not seeing it when Oswald entered.
3)  Assembling the gun at work during the day (what tool, why connect sling and scope when neither would have helped

Now you seem stuck on defending the WC storyline, but there are other ways to put the story together. How about....

Oswald has moved the gun and has it hidden at his boarding room well before the assassination week. (How else does he practice with it in the tme leading up to the assassination.)
Oswald by himself takes the gun to work (covered in anything handy) and hides in back shed area on Wednesday evening.
Thursday evening trip is not to pick up the gun but to see his kids for possibly last time and give his wife money.
Oswald takes CE142 but folded to work with Buell (thus explaning the length issue) and covers the gun with it and leaves the gun outside. Going inside with nothing in his hands. (Dougherty sees him with nothing)
Oswald was aware that walking in before work with a large packages would look odd, but his job required hm to carry packages during the day, so once working, no one would be suspicious of him with a package. As gun is already assembled, no need for assembling at work, or question of whay attach a useless sling and scope. CE142 was made to look like just another package being moved at TSBD.
Oswald goes back during the work day, and takes the gun to the 6th floor.

I'm sure you wll point out the issues with this, but it covers many of known challenges of the WC story. Unapproveable of course but still a possibility.

[Bill Chapman]

Interesting.  Have you seen an affidavit that mentions the length of the bag she saw?
>>> As it turns out, no.

This will do:

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date 11/23/63

LINNIE MAE RANDLE, 2439 West Fifth Street, Irving, Texas, phone Blackburn 3-8965, was interviewed at the Dallas Police Department.

RANDLE advised that she is the sister of BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, who is employed by the Texas School Book Depository and resides at her residence, stated that she met LEE HARVEY OSWALD through her brother, and has known OSWALD and his wife for about six weeks. RANDLE advised that OSWALD's wife is MARINA OSWALD, who resides at 2515 W. Fifth, Irving, Texas, and that OSWALD spends the weekends with his wife at the above mentioned address. Her brother, WESLEY FRAZIER, customarily drives LEE HARVEY OSWALD to 2515 West Fifth, Irving, Texas, on Friday night, and takes him back to work on Monday morning. He stated that OSWALD is also employed at the Texas School Book Depository.

On the night of November 21, 1963, she observed FRAZIER letting LEE HARVEY OSWALD out of FRAZIER's car at 2515 West Fifth. Subsequently, she asked FRAZIER why OSWALD was visiting his wife on Thursday evening, as he usually did not visit her until Friday evening each week. FRAZIER told her that OSWALD claimed he was visiting his wife the night of November 21, 1963, because he is fixing up his apartment and RUTH PAINE, with whom his wife resides at 2515 West Fifth, Irving, was going to give him some curtain rods.

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

RANDLE stated while at the Dallas Police Department on the evening of November 22, 1963, officers of the Dallas Police Department had exhibited to her some brown package paper, however she had not been able to positively identify it as being identical with the above-mentioned brown package, due to the fact she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance.

on 11/22/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43

by Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT/cah/tjd

Date dictated 11/23/63

------------------------------------------------

Difficult to say for sure, but possibly when he first got the package out of the car or while he was waiting over by the cyclone fence.  Relevance?

Buell seemed more concerned about his car battery at that point

The relevance of a Buell frontal/non-frontal view of the package being carried is abundantly clear

[Bill Chapman]

Not forgetting Buell is quite a bit taller than LO.

Or he might have used the left hand to angle the bag over in front of his head

[Walt Cakebread]

Interesting.  Have you seen an affidavit that mentions the length of the bag she saw?
>>> As it turns out, no.

This will do:

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date 11/23/63

LINNIE MAE RANDLE, 2439 West Fifth Street, Irving, Texas, phone Blackburn 3-8965, was interviewed at the Dallas Police Department.

RANDLE advised that she is the sister of BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, who is employed by the Texas School Book Depository and resides at her residence, stated that she met LEE HARVEY OSWALD through her brother, and has known OSWALD and his wife for about six weeks. RANDLE advised that OSWALD's wife is MARINA OSWALD, who resides at 2515 W. Fifth, Irving, Texas, and that OSWALD spends the weekends with his wife at the above mentioned address. Her brother, WESLEY FRAZIER, customarily drives LEE HARVEY OSWALD to 2515 West Fifth, Irving, Texas, on Friday night, and takes him back to work on Monday morning. He stated that OSWALD is also employed at the Texas School Book Depository.

On the night of November 21, 1963, she observed FRAZIER letting LEE HARVEY OSWALD out of FRAZIER's car at 2515 West Fifth. Subsequently, she asked FRAZIER why OSWALD was visiting his wife on Thursday evening, as he usually did not visit her until Friday evening each week. FRAZIER told her that OSWALD claimed he was visiting his wife the night of November 21, 1963, because he is fixing up his apartment and RUTH PAINE, with whom his wife resides at 2515 West Fifth, Irving, was going to give him some curtain rods.

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

RANDLE stated while at the Dallas Police Department on the evening of November 22, 1963, officers of the Dallas Police Department had exhibited to her some brown package paper, however she had not been able to positively identify it as being identical with the above-mentioned brown package, due to the fact she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance.

on 11/22/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43

by Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT/cah/tjd

Date dictated 11/23/63

------------------------------------------------

Difficult to say for sure, but possibly when he first got the package out of the car or while he was waiting over by the cyclone fence.  Relevance?

Buell seemed more concerned about his car battery at that point

The relevance of a Buell frontal/non-frontal view of the package being carried is abundantly clear

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile.

What a silly thing to post.....  It's obviously totally inaccurate....   A THREE FOOT LONG paper sack??

I would hasten to point out that Mrs Randle  DESCRIBED the manner in which Lee carried the paper sack.... She said that Lee had the sack down beside his right leg and his right arm was extended down at his side as he walked along with the sack it nearly touched the ground.  ( What was the distance from the sack to the ground.....6 inches? A subjective distance)   At any rate Lee was 5'9" and his hand would have been about 26 inches from the ground with his arm down at his side.   So the sack could not have been anywhere near 3 foot long....  It was probably about 2 feet long, but it might have been less than 2 feet  If "Randle's idea of "nearly touched the ground" was 8 to 10 inches.