Buell Wesley Frazier

[Bill Brown]

Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy.   And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books.   The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth?    Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?


In the book  The Day Kennedy Was Shot ( page 432) the author Bishop says that DPD detective Gus Rose had been informed by Linnie Mae Randall that Lee Oswald was carrying a paper sack that contained curtain rods ...

Quote.."A woman neighbor of the Oswalds has said that her brother had driven Oswald to work with curtain rods." unquote  This is completely at odds with the official tale in which Buell Frazier is credited with presenting the curtain rod tale at the police station on the night of the murder.

The question is:  Who first mentioned the curtain rods ??   IMO  It was the Dallas police who told Frazier that Lee claimed that the paper sack contained curtain rods, when in reality Lee Oswald had said nothing of the kind ( just as he denied)

The cops were desperate to present a method by which Lee could have smuggled the Carcano into the TSBD.  They needed Frazier to confirm that Lee Oswald had carried a long paper sack that morning.   Thus they told Frazier that Lee has admitted that he had carried a long paper sack that contained curtain rods.   The police had already tried to implicate Frazier by saying they could charge him as an accessory because he had transported the murder weapon in his car that morning......So when they told Frazier that Lee Oswald had said that the sack contained curtain rods Frazier jumped at the opportunity to clear himself of the charge of being an accessory and said that yes It was true that lee had told him that there were curtain rods in the sack.    The wily cops cemented the curtain rod story for all time when they said that Frazier was telling the truth about the curtain rod story because he had passed a lie detector test in which he was questioned about the curtain rods.....   In reality any results of a "lie detector" test would have been completely worthless
under the conditions in which it was administered.

So when they told Frazier that Lee Oswald had said that the sack contained curtain rods Frazier jumped at the opportunity to clear himself of the charge of being an accessory and said that yes It was true that lee had told him that there were curtain rods in the sack.

LOL

[Bill Brown]

You are (perhaps on purpose) ignoring two crucial pieces of information;

1. Frazier was shown the TSBD bag on Friday evening (at around 11.30 pm). This was the first time Frazier was asked about the bag and he would IMO have no way of knowing anything about it's later significance. This was also before the bag was ruined with silver nitrate (by Latona) and thus still had it's original color. So, while he was being polygraphed, Frazier instantly dismissed the bag shown to him as the one he saw Oswald carry.

Are you claiming that Frazier, while being polygraphed, purposely lied about the size of a bag which more than likely was insignificant to him at that time? 

2. Frazier told the DPD officers that same night that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".

You can believe and argue all you want that Frazier and Randle underestimated the size of the bag, but how do you explain the points I have raised?

Simply by ignoring them, perhaps?

Are you claiming that Frazier, while being polygraphed, purposely lied about the size of a bag which more than likely was insignificant to him at that time?

Frazier felt the bag was significant enough to mention it in his affidavit given a couple hours before the polygraph.

[Joe Elliott]

Addendum:

Michael Shermer has pointed out that the side that argues against the truth focuses on minutiae, whether it is 9/11 truthers, Scientific Creationists or Holocaust deniers. And don?t look at the overall picture.

Holocaust deniers claim presence of ?Prussian Blue? in the in the delousing stations but not in the gas chambers prove that the gas chambers were not used to kill people. Ignoring that insects require a much higher presence of cyanide is needed to kill insects (16,000 parts per million) than people (300 parts per million).

Scientific Creationists claiming human footprints besides dinosaur footprints disprove the Theory of Evolution. Ignoring the possibility of the ?human footprints? being chiseled into the rock by fakers.

9/11 Truthers pointing out that the fires could not have been hot enough to melt steel, and not considering that the steel doesn?t have to be melted, just heated to a high enough temperature long enough, to fail to support the tremendous weight of the building.

And just this weekend we see CTers doing the same thing.

1.   The southwest corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD looks like a sniper?s nest, but it is claimed that it is just a bit too cramped to be used to shoot from.

2.   The bag Oswald carried with him into work looked like it could have been used to carry his rifle into work that day, but it is claimed that it was just a bit too short to hold the rifle.

[Denis Morissette]

Re-ashing the old evidence and theories that have been discussed and debated to death. I'm sure you will bring a great contribution to the case.

[Joe Elliott]

You are (perhaps on purpose) ignoring two crucial pieces of information;

1. Frazier was shown the TSBD bag on Friday evening (at around 11.30 pm). This was the first time Frazier was asked about the bag and he would IMO have no way of knowing anything about it's later significance. This was also before the bag was ruined with silver nitrate (by Latona) and thus still had it's original color. So, while he was being polygraphed, Frazier instantly dismissed the bag shown to him as the one he saw Oswald carry.

Are you claiming that Frazier, while being polygraphed, purposely lied about the size of a bag which more than likely was insignificant to him at that time? 

2. Frazier told the DPD officers that same night that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".

You can believe and argue all you want that Frazier and Randle underestimated the size of the bag, but how do you explain the points I have raised?

Simply by ignoring them, perhaps?

You wish.

Frazier that being threatened with being charged with being an accessory to the murder. By transporting the assassin and the rifle contained within a bag. This went on for many hours and was still going on at 11:30 pm.

Given this pressure, it is natural that Frazier would:

1.   State the bag he saw with Oswald was too short to hold the rifle.


2.   State that the bag he saw with Oswald bag was too flimsy to hold the rifle.


3.   State that the bag presented to him, which was long enough and not too flimsy, was not the bag he saw Oswald with.

Given the pressure put on Frazier to confess, would it not be natural for Frazier to convince himself of this? If any of claims 1, 2 or 3 are true, the charges of the state against Frazier collapses.

Your airily claim that Frazier would not have known about the significance of the bag at 11:30 pm is false. He had already been questioned about it for hours and strongly urged to sign a written confession. Of course, he knew the significance of the bag presented to him at 11:30 pm.

[Bill Brown]

Didn't they attach cables from a car battery to his testicles so he would say that the bag was only 2 feet long? You know, those dirty tactics that cops use.

I'm surprised that Frazier has not added this to his claim that Fritz was going to punch him.

[Bill Brown]

That answers my question, I guess.... you deal with the facts by ignoring them!

YOU are ignoring the fact that Frazier felt the bag significant enough to be sure to mention it in his affidavit, which he gave a couple hours BEFORE the polygraph.

[Martin Weidmann]

You wish.

Frazier that being threatened with being charged with being an accessory to the murder. By transporting the assassin and the rifle contained within a bag. This went on for many hours and was still going on at 11:30 pm.

Given this pressure, it is natural that Frazier would:

1.   State the bag he saw with Oswald was too short to hold the rifle.


2.   State that the bag he saw with Oswald bag was too flimsy to hold the rifle.


3.   State that the bag presented to him, which was long enough and not too flimsy, was not the bag he saw Oswald with.

So, without any evidence for it, you are basically accusing Frazier of purposely outright lying about the size and nature of the bag....

That's a far cry from saying that Frazier wasn't paying attention and was simply mistaken.... but if that's the way you want to go....

Btw, for what it's worth, Lt Day clearly believed him, because on 11/29/63 Day was still developing his flawed theory that Oswald could have used the flimsy bag to conceal the heavy bag in which he carried the rifle....

Given the pressure put on Frazier to confess, would it not be natural for Frazier to convince himself of this? If any of claims 1, 2 or 3 are true, the charges of the state against Frazier collapses.

So, Frazier convinced himself that his lies are actually true, thus beating the polygraph.... Is that what you are saying?

Your airily claim that Frazier would not have known about the significance of the bag at 11:30 pm is false. He had already been questioned about it for hours and strongly urged to sign a written confession. Of course, he knew the significance of the bag presented to him at 11:30 pm.

The first question to be answered of course is; when exactly did Frazier give and sign the affidavit? Was it prior to him being polygraphed or after it?

Since when is it police procedure to let a potential suspect first give an affidavit and only then, maybe for the fun of it, apply pressure on him by having him polygraphed?

Secondly, the affidavit clearly shows that Frazier must have been questioned about the events of the day, including the bag, by then, but there is nothing in the affidavit that would suggest that he was made aware why the police was so interested in that bag. It's not normal procedure for police to volunteer information to potential suspects, is it?