Buell Wesley Frazier

[Bob Prudhomme]

Oh but it makes odds. This is some logic for you;

Without the paper bag being big enough you have no way to demonstrate that Oswald ever took a rifle into the TSBD.

So I guess you just choose to believe that Oswald brought the rifle into the TSBD regardless of the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence for it...

They're not allowed to believe otherwise, Martin. Haven't you figured them out yet?

[Martin Weidmann]

They're not allowed to believe otherwise, Martin. Haven't you figured them out yet?

Well, it's surely remarkable how they "deal" with known facts.....

[John Anderson]

Oh but it makes odds. This is some logic for you;

Without the paper bag being big enough you have no way to demonstrate that Oswald ever took a rifle into the TSBD.

So I guess you just choose to believe that Oswald brought the rifle into the TSBD regardless of the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence for it...

I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and  he used it. Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.
OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.

Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. If there ever was any evidence of that it was destroyed years ago but anyone still claiming Oswald was a Patsy after all these years has a screw loose or they are just misinformed.

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and  he used it. Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.
OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.

Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. If there ever was any evidence of that it was destroyed years ago but anyone still claiming Oswald was a Patsy after all these years has a screw loose or they are just misinformed.

I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and  he used it.

Really?

Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.

It is of course far easier to just make unsubstantiated claims based on bias....

OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.

I agree with you. I too think he was guilty but I nevertheless agreed with the verdict of the jury because the prosecution failed to make it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The problem for you is that the Simpson case has nothing to do with the JFK murder, except of course for the comparison that the WC also failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit.

There is the biased opinion again.... Making such a claim without being able to back it up with even a shred of evidence makes you completely insignificant for this forum.

[Bill Brown]

....Making such a claim without being able to back it up with even a shred of evidence...

LOL

[Joe Elliott]

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....

I do not know if Mr. Frazier was lying about the bag. I see no reason to believe he was lying. More likely, he was honestly mistaken. The threats the police made to him, of charging him with being an accessory to a murder, very likely would influence him into believing that the bag he saw Oswald with could not have contained the rifle. If this is true, Frazier is in the clear and it would be natural for him to fall into this belief.

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....

A theory that pretty well falls apart with the failure to find the ?outer? bag. Did Oswald eat the outer bag?

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

Under the best of conditions, the polygraph is not the most reliable way of telling the truth. Courts have found it to be not reliable. Hence, the results of polygraph tests are not allowed in court cases in most states in the country. While fingerprint evidence, which has with proven much more reliable, are allowed in all 50 states.

But if a polygraph test is reliable, it would be on questions the subject knows the answer to. ?Did you murder your wife?. ?Did you steal that man?s wallet?.

In Frazier?s case, his fears and hopes may very well of convinced him that the bag he saw was too short to hold a rifle, too flimsy to hold that rifle and that the bag the police was showing him was not the bag he saw Oswald with earlier in the day. It?s possible Frazier was lying. But it?s also possible he was being honest and thought he was telling the truth. If this is true, naturally we might expect him to pass a polygraph test that the bag he saw earlier was not the same bag the police showed him.

If a subject believes a falsehood, and he is questioned while being polygraphed about this falsehood, naturally the polygraph test will indicate that this statement is true. If a Scientific Creationist is questioned whether Theory of Evolution is true or not, the polygraph test will indicate that it is false. If a Holocaust Denier is question whether Holocaust really occurred or not, the polygraph test will indicate that it did not. Hence, we cannot conclude that the bag Oswald was carrying could not have contained a rifle because of a polygraph test.

In conclusion, I don?t know if Frazier was lying about the bag. I see no reason to believe he was lying, even if the bag presented to him was the same one he saw Oswald carrying. I see no reason not to give Mr. Frazier the benefit of the doubt. I believe that Mr. Frazier was probably honestly mistaken. His mistakes likely originated with the threats the police made to him.

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?

I don?t know what police procedures were back then. I imagine it varied from office to office. Some police might use a polygraph test. Others might not. Let alone a standard procedure on the order affidavits are signed and polygraph tests are given. If they get a confession after the polygraph test, they can always have the subject sign a different affidavit.

[Walt Cakebread]

Really?  And you know this how? You wouldn't just be giving us your biased opinion, would you?

And what about Buell Frazier.... he still stands by his first day testimony to this day. Is he lying also?

Yes, I believe that Fazier is lying about Lee telling him that there were curtain rods in the bag.....

At the time he first told that lie ( the night of 11/22/63 )  he saw it as a way of supporting Lee Oswald , who the cops said had told them the paper sack contained curtain rods ( though Lee never made any such claim)  Frazier saw it as a way of escaping the charge of being an accessory and at the same supporting Lee's alleged statement.

This is the prime reason that they called Frazier back to the police station to take a lie detector test....(a worthless test under the conditions that existed) They wanted Frazier to believe that the machine had supported him in saying that Lee told him that the bag contained curtain rods.....  And Frazier still believes that the lie detector test was legitmate.  So to this very day he spews the lie that Lee told him the bag held curtain rods.

[Martin Weidmann]

I do not know if Mr. Frazier was lying about the bag. I see no reason to believe he was lying. More likely, he was honestly mistaken. The threats the police made to him, of charging him with being an accessory to a murder, very likely would influence him into believing that the bag he saw Oswald with could not have contained the rifle. If this is true, Frazier is in the clear and it would be natural for him to fall into this belief.

You don't know if Frazier was lying or not, but you make the case anyway that police threats could have influenced him to deviate from the truth and make an "honest mistake" altering not only the size of the bag but also the description of the type of bag.

Sounds like you want your cake and eat it too....

A theory that pretty well falls apart with the failure to find the ?outer? bag. Did Oswald eat the outer bag?

Oh I agree... Day's theory only shows his desperation to explain the large discrepancy between the heavy bag he had and the flimsy bag Frazier had described. But that wasn't the point.... Day took Frazier's description seriously enough to look for an explanation, no matter how silly... In other words; he believed Frazier. That was the point.

Under the best of conditions, the polygraph is not the most reliable way of telling the truth. Courts have found it to be not reliable. Hence, the results of polygraph tests are not allowed in court cases in most states in the country. While fingerprint evidence, which has with proven much more reliable, are allowed in all 50 states.

But if a polygraph test is reliable, it would be on questions the subject knows the answer to. ?Did you murder your wife?. ?Did you steal that man?s wallet?.

It is of little significance if the polygraph is actually reliable or not. Police know full well that polygraphs are not admissible in court, yet they still use them to intimidate suspects to this day. What would be significant is what Frazier, as a 19 year old, would know about polygraphs and if that knowledge would be sufficient to attempt to lie about the bag.

In Frazier?s case, his fears and hopes may very well of convinced him that the bag he saw was too short to hold a rifle, too flimsy to hold that rifle and that the bag the police was showing him was not the bag he saw Oswald with earlier in the day. It?s possible Frazier was lying. But it?s also possible he was being honest and thought he was telling the truth. If this is true, naturally we might expect him to pass a polygraph test that the bag he saw earlier was not the same bag the police showed him.

That's a highly convoluted, speculative, far reaching and self-serving assumption to make. I don't believe it for a second that Frazier convinced himself in only a few hours time that he saw something different from what he actually saw and thus in doing so fooled the polygraph. A far more logical and honest conclusion would be that he simply told the truth..... but I can understand why that would be a problem for you.

If a subject believes a falsehood, and he is questioned while being polygraphed about this falsehood, naturally the polygraph test will indicate that this statement is true. If a Scientific Creationist is questioned whether Theory of Evolution is true or not, the polygraph test will indicate that it is false. If a Holocaust Denier is question whether Holocaust really occurred or not, the polygraph test will indicate that it did not. Hence, we cannot conclude that the bag Oswald was carrying could not have contained a rifle because of a polygraph test.

You are giving over the top examples about the creation and holocaust involving die hard believers with deeply rooted convictions that have absolutely nothing to do with a polygraph test being taken from a 19 year old kid.

In conclusion, I don?t know if Frazier was lying about the bag. I see no reason to believe he was lying, even if the bag presented to him was the same one he saw Oswald carrying. I see no reason not to give Mr. Frazier the benefit of the doubt. I believe that Mr. Frazier was probably honestly mistaken. His mistakes likely originated with the threats the police made to him.

This is so funny... and sad at the same time. You are willing to give Frazier the benefit of the doubt and in the next sentence you proclaim that he was probably mistaken..... Sorry Joe, but you're all over the place on this one. Try telling this to your best friends and see how they react.

I don?t know what police procedures were back then. I imagine it varied from office to office. Some police might use a polygraph test. Others might not. Let alone a standard procedure on the order affidavits are signed and polygraph tests are given. If they get a confession after the polygraph test, they can always have the subject sign a different affidavit.

Let's for argument's sake assume that the DPD had indeed a procedure where they would let a suspect first give an affidavit and then question him.... then, where is Oswald's affidavit?

In any event, since you admit that you do not know, you are only speculating here. But I have to conceed that - unlike others - at least you are trying.