Buell Wesley Frazier - The bag that was a sack

[Walt Cakebread]

That Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit and if anyone else was involved it was likely covered up by the CIA and FBI?
Yeah that's hilarious.

Yes....... Everybody knows that  FBI and CIA  agents are all Eagle Scouts.....

[Martin Weidmann]

Where are all the know-it-all LNs?

Frazier's day 1 statement, while being polygraphed, tells us that, some 16 hours earlier, he had seen Oswald carry "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".

In the subsequent days, Frazier made a similar statement to FBI agents Odum and McNeely and a memo from James Anderton to SAC Dallas confirms that Lt Day clearly believed that Frazier was telling the truth.

So, why were these statements by Frazier ignored and why was there no search for the kind of bag that Frazier described?

[Richard Smith]

Where are all the know-it-all LNs?

Frazier's day 1 statement, while being polygraphed, tells us that, some 16 hours earlier, he had seen Oswald carry "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".

In the subsequent days, Frazier made a similar statement to FBI agents Odum and McNeely and a memo from James Anderton to SAC Dallas confirms that Lt Day clearly believed that Frazier was telling the truth.

So, why were these statements by Frazier ignored and why was there no search for the kind of bag that Frazier described?

LOL.  We have gone through this already.  Frazier may honestly but erroneously thought it was not bag he saw Oswald carry that morning.  Because he honestly thought so, it would not register as a lie on the polygraph even though it was not true.  Good grief.  Of course if the polygraph had confirmed that Frazier saw the bag found in the TSBD, you and your nutty kindred would be on here lecturing us on how unreliable such polygraphs are.  You still can't explain why Oswald himself would deny carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier.  If it contained some non-incriminatory item it would have assisted him to admit and direct the DPD to that bag.  But instead he denies it.  And no such bag matching Frazier's estimate is ever found or accounted for in any way - because it wasn't there.  Instead a longer bag is found with Oswald's prints.  It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to puzzle this out.  Oswald carried a long bag that morning that contained some incriminatory item (the reason he later had to lie about it).  That item was the rifle.   The bag he used was long enough because it was found and measured.   As a result, there is no reason to speculate or rely upon an estimate of its size.  We know how long it was because it was found and measured.

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL.  We have gone through this already.  Frazier may honestly but erroneously thought it was not bag he saw Oswald carry that morning.  Because he honestly thought so, it would not register as a lie on the polygraph even though it was not true.  Good grief.  Of course if the polygraph had confirmed that Frazier saw the bag found in the TSBD, you and your nutty kindred would be on here lecturing us on how unreliable such polygraphs are.  You still can't explain why Oswald himself would deny carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier.  If it contained some non-incriminatory item it would have assisted him to admit and direct the DPD to that bag.  But instead he denies it.  And no such bag matching Frazier's estimate is ever found or accounted for in any way - because it wasn't there.  Instead a longer bag is found with Oswald's prints.  It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to puzzle this out.  Oswald carried a long bag that morning that contained some incriminatory item (the reason he later had to lie about it).  That item was the rifle.   The bag he used was long enough because it was found and measured.   As a result, there is no reason to speculate or rely upon an estimate of its size.  We know how long it was because it was found and measured.

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to puzzle this out.

Apparently it does, as you seem to be struggling

Frazier may honestly but erroneously thought it was not bag he saw Oswald carry that morning.  Because he honestly thought so, it would not register as a lie on the polygraph even though it was not true.  Good grief.

Or Frazier simply told the truth when he said that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".

Being possibly wrong about a size estimate is one thing. Being shown a bag and saying it isn't the one he had seen Oswald carry 16 hours earlier is another. Frazier cleary knew what kind of bag he had seen and it wasn't a heavy duty bag like the one shown to him.

Of course if the polygraph had confirmed that Frazier saw the bag found in the TSBD, you and your nutty kindred would be on here lecturing us on how unreliable such polygraphs are.

Pathetic argument. Fact is however that polygraphs are indeed unreliable, but that's not the point. To this day police still use polygraphs to intimidate suspects. Frazier, being a 19 year old kid with no prior contact with police, most likely wouldn't have known how reliable the test was or not. As he was innocent, it didn't matter because all he needed to do (and did) was tell the truth and I might add the record shows that Lt Day believed him!

You still can't explain why Oswald himself would deny carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier.

I don't have to explain that because - as John Iacoletti has told you a number of times already - Oswald was never asked about a bag size estimated by Frazier. All Fritz asked him (according to his own report) was if he had carried a long bag. Whatever "long bag" means is open to discussion, but you don't get to add on "size estimated by Frazier" to change the question. It is however extremely telling that you feel the need to misrepresent the facts. There is nothing in the record anywhere that shows that a size estimate by Frazier or anybody else was ever mentioned by Fritz. Oswald could have had no clue just how long the bag was that Fritz was talking about, he probably just knew that the bag he had used wasn't "long" and so he denied it.   

If it contained some non-incriminatory item it would have assisted him to admit and direct the DPD to that bag.  But instead he denies it.  And no such bag matching Frazier's estimate is ever found or accounted for in any way - because it wasn't there.

Already explained to you, yet clearly in vain because you keep on repeating the same worthless crap time after time. They did not find "a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" because they never looked for one. During their search of the TSBD (prior to Frazier's polygraph) they mainly searched the 6th floor and found a bag. At that time they did not know about Frazier's description of the bag and there is no record that they searched the TSBD again after Frazier's polygraph, so your entire argument goes nowhere. Besides (and this has been said to you many times also) absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Please try to get that through your thick skull for once!

Instead a longer bag is found with Oswald's prints.

There you go again.... the bag actually contained more prints, which could have belonged to other people but were never identified. So, just claiming that the bag had Oswald's prints on it without mentioning the rest is pure dishonesty. As for the prints themselves, we just have to take Latona's word for it, don't we? He was only able to discover two identifiable parcial prints after using silver nitrate, which also destroyed the bag to such extend that a re-examination of the bag was never possible again. But even if those prints did belong to Oswald, the bag was made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD on a floor where Oswald worked. There is no evidentary value to those prints beyond the fact that they show that Oswald once held that bag.... that's it! Everything else is just your imagination.

Oswald carried a long bag that morning that contained some incriminatory item (the reason he later had to lie about it).  That item was the rifle.   The bag he used was long enough because it was found and measured.   As a result, there is no reason to speculate or rely upon an estimate of its size.  We know how long it was because it was found and measured.

The trouble with all this nonsense is that you don't have a shred of evidence to prove any of it. It is nothing more than your opinion based on all sorts of bogus assumptions for which you also don't have a shred of evidence....

In fact, your entire post is the same old crap you have posted time after time. What you have not done is deal with the FACT that Frazier on day 1 said to Lt Day that the bag Oswald carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and told polygrapher R.D. Lewis that it was a ?crickly brown paper sack? and that he told Odum and McNeely a few days later that "the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?

Let me guess; Frazier just was honestly mistaken, right? He just couldn't tell the difference between a cheap dime store bag and the heavy duty wrapping paper he probably saw at the TSBD every day, right?

[Richard Smith]

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to puzzle this out.

Apparently it does, as you seem to be struggling

Frazier may honestly but erroneously thought it was not bag he saw Oswald carry that morning.  Because he honestly thought so, it would not register as a lie on the polygraph even though it was not true.  Good grief.

Or Frazier simply told the truth when he said that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".

Being possibly wrong about a size estimate is one thing. Being shown a bag and saying it isn't the one he had seen Oswald carry 16 hours earlier is another. Frazier cleary knew what kind of bag he had seen and it wasn't a heavy duty bag like the one shown to him.

Of course if the polygraph had confirmed that Frazier saw the bag found in the TSBD, you and your nutty kindred would be on here lecturing us on how unreliable such polygraphs are.

Pathetic argument. Fact is however that polygraphs are indeed unreliable, but that's not the point. To this day police still use polygraphs to intimidate suspects. Frazier, being a 19 year old kid with no prior contact with police, most likely wouldn't have known how reliable the test was or not. As he was innocent, it didn't matter because all he needed to do (and did) was tell the truth and I might add the record shows that Lt Day believed him!

You still can't explain why Oswald himself would deny carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier.

I don't have to explain that because - as John Iacoletti has told you a number of times already - Oswald was never asked about a bag size estimated by Frazier. All Fritz asked him (according to his own report) was if he had carried a long bag. Whatever "long bag" means is open to discussion, but you don't get to add on "size estimated by Frazier" to change the question. It is however extremely telling that you feel the need to misrepresent the facts. There is nothing in the record anywhere that shows that a size estimate by Frazier or anybody else was ever mentioned by Fritz. Oswald could have had no clue just how long the bag was that Fritz was talking about, he probably just knew that the bag he had used wasn't "long" and so he denied it.   

If it contained some non-incriminatory item it would have assisted him to admit and direct the DPD to that bag.  But instead he denies it.  And no such bag matching Frazier's estimate is ever found or accounted for in any way - because it wasn't there.

Already explained to you, yet clearly in vain because you keep on repeating the same worthless crap time after time. They did not find "a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" because they never looked for one. During their search of the TSBD (prior to Frazier's polygraph) they mainly searched the 6th floor and found a bag. At that time they did not know about Frazier's description of the bag and there is no record that they searched the TSBD again after Frazier's polygraph, so your entire argument goes nowhere. Besides (and this has been said to you many times also) absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Please try to get that through your thick skull for once!

Instead a longer bag is found with Oswald's prints.

There you go again.... the bag actually contained more prints, which could have belonged to other people but were never identified. So, just claiming that the bag had Oswald's prints on it without mentioning the rest is pure dishonesty. As for the prints themselves, we just have to take Latona's word for it, don't we? He was only able to discover two identifiable parcial prints after using silver nitrate, which also destroyed the bag to such extend that a re-examination of the bag was never possible again. But even if those prints did belong to Oswald, the bag was made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD on a floor where Oswald worked. There is no evidentary value to those prints beyond the fact that they show that Oswald once held that bag.... that's it! Everything else is just your imagination.

Oswald carried a long bag that morning that contained some incriminatory item (the reason he later had to lie about it).  That item was the rifle.   The bag he used was long enough because it was found and measured.   As a result, there is no reason to speculate or rely upon an estimate of its size.  We know how long it was because it was found and measured.

The trouble with all this nonsense is that you don't have a shred of evidence to prove any of it. It is nothing more than your opinion based on all sorts of bogus assumptions for which you also don't have a shred of evidence....

In fact, your entire post is the same old crap you have posted time after time. What you have not done is deal with the FACT that Frazier on day 1 said to Lt Day that the bag Oswald carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and told polygrapher R.D. Lewis that it was a ?crickly brown paper sack? and that he told Odum and McNeely a few days later that "the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?

Let me guess; Frazier just was honestly mistaken, right? He just couldn't tell the difference between a cheap dime store bag and the heavy duty wrapping paper he probably saw at the TSBD every day, right?

This is simple.  Any reliance on a polygraph is misplaced if the person being interrogated honestly but erroneously answers a question.  The polygraph is not God determining the truth of a matter but indicates whether the person is intentionally lying.  If that person is being honest but gets it wrong that is a mistake not an intentional lie.  It is the totality of facts that resolves the question and not an estimate.  Only one bag matching Frazier's general description was found.  It has Oswald's prints on it confirming it was in Oswald's possession.  There is no work-related explanation for that bag to be in the TSBD.  No other person who ever worked there came forward and explained the bag or accounted for it.  No bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for.  Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch.  Thus, he denied carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier when that would have assisted him.  The bag is found in proximity to fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle and the SN boxes with Oswald's prints on them.   There is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts and evidence.  There is not a single respectable historian that entertains any doubt whatsover that the bag found on the 6th floor was the one used to carry the rifle that morning.  This is the kind of discussion that only a fringe group has on the Internet.  They would throw a net over you if you made that argument in front of any informed group of folks.  Why don't you take your nutty theory to the NY Times if you think it is accurate and supported by the evidence instead of spending day and night here agonizing over every sentence like some kind of demented monk?

[Walt Cakebread]

This is simple.  Any reliance on a polygraph is misplaced if the person being interrogated honestly but erroneously answers a question.  The polygraph is not God determining the truth of a matter but indicates whether the person is intentionally lying.  If that person is being honest but gets it wrong that is a mistake not an intentional lie.  It is the totality of facts that resolves the question and not an estimate.  Only one bag matching Frazier's general description was found.  It has Oswald's prints on it confirming it was in Oswald's possession.  There is no work-related explanation for that bag to be in the TSBD.  No other person who ever worked there came forward and explained the bag or accounted for it.  No bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for.  Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch.  Thus, he denied carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier when that would have assisted him.  The bag is found in proximity to fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle and the SN boxes with Oswald's prints on them.   There is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts and evidence.  There is not a single respectable historian that entertains any doubt whatsover that the bag found on the 6th floor was the one used to carry the rifle that morning.  This is the kind of discussion that only a fringe group has on the Internet.  They would throw a net over you if you made that argument in front of any informed group of folks.  Why don't you take your nutty theory to the NY Times if you think it is accurate and supported by the evidence instead of spending day and night here agonizing over every sentence like some kind of demented monk?

Only one bag matching Frazier's general description was found.

Really???  They found a paper bag that was about two feet long and made from FLIMSY  light weight brown paper??

I'm sure that you can verify this statement ..."Only one bag matching Frazier's general description was found." so please do....

[Martin Weidmann]

This is simple.  Any reliance on a polygraph is misplaced if the person being interrogated honestly but erroneously answers a question.  The polygraph is not God determining the truth of a matter but indicates whether the person is intentionally lying.  If that person is being honest but gets it wrong that is a mistake not an intentional lie.  It is the totality of facts that resolves the question and not an estimate.  Only one bag matching Frazier's general description was found.  It has Oswald's prints on it confirming it was in Oswald's possession.  There is no work-related explanation for that bag to be in the TSBD.  No other person who ever worked there came forward and explained the bag or accounted for it.  No bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for.  Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch.  Thus, he denied carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier when that would have assisted him.  The bag is found in proximity to fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle and the SN boxes with Oswald's prints on them.   There is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts and evidence.  There is not a single respectable historian that entertains any doubt whatsover that the bag found on the 6th floor was the one used to carry the rifle that morning.  This is the kind of discussion that only a fringe group has on the Internet.  They would throw a net over you if you made that argument in front of any informed group of folks.  Why don't you take your nutty theory to the NY Times if you think it is accurate and supported by the evidence instead of spending day and night here agonizing over every sentence like some kind of demented monk?

This is simple.  Any reliance on a polygraph is misplaced if the person being interrogated honestly but erroneously answers a question.  The polygraph is not God determining the truth of a matter but indicates whether the person is intentionally lying.  If that person is being honest but gets it wrong that is a mistake not an intentional lie.

Who exactly is relying on a polygraph?... Another figment of your imagination!

It is the totality of facts that resolves the question and not an estimate.

You still haven't caught on to the notion that Frazier's description of the bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" is not an estimate!

Only one bag matching Frazier's general description was found.

This is an outright lie. The bag they "found" on the 6th floor does not match Frazier's "general description" at all!

It has Oswald's prints on it confirming it was in Oswald's possession.

Are you really this stupid?... Prints on a bag at best only confirm that somebody touched that bag at some point in time. That's it!

There is no work-related explanation for that bag to be in the TSBD.

Says who?.... You are making stuff up again! Why do you constantly need this kind of strawman?

No other person who ever worked there came forward and explained the bag or accounted for it. 

Meaning what exactly? How many people would have even known about that paper bag and the significance placed on it in the first place, prior to the WCR being released?

No bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for.

Only a fool continues to make the argument that a bag that was not found because nobody searched for it actually means something.

Besides, you are contradicting yourself in your dishonesty, as you claimed (falsly) that they had found a bag "matching Frazier's general description"

Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch.

So what?

Thus, he denied carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier when that would have assisted him.

BS... This has already been explained to you time after time.... Oswald was never asked about a bag "size estimated by Frazier". According to Fritz he was merely asked if he had carried a "long" bag, whatever that means.....

The bag is found in proximity to fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle and the SN boxes with Oswald's prints on them.   

Really?... Where exactly was it and who found that bag?

Detective Montgomery is on record saying that Fritz told him to guard the so-called sniper's nest until Day and Studebaker got there. He said he did and nobody touched anything in the location during that time. Yet, Montgomery also says on record that he saw the folded bag lying on top of a box. But Studebaker (who failed to photograph it in situ, yet was photographed himself bending over the exact same location when the bag was supposed to be there) claimed it was on the floor. Another unresolved contradiction...

Oswald's rifle

LOL

SN boxes with Oswald's prints on them

Wow.. boxes in a warehouse have prints on them from a guy whose job it is to handle those boxes..... Cased closed, right? Pfffffff


And again, your entire post is the same old crap you have posted time after time. What you have not done is deal with the FACT that Frazier on day 1 said to Lt Day that the bag Oswald carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and told polygrapher R.D. Lewis that it was a ?crickly brown paper sack? and that he told Odum and McNeely a few days later that "the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?

Let me guess; Frazier just was honestly mistaken, right? He just couldn't tell the difference between a cheap dime store bag and the heavy duty wrapping paper he probably saw at the TSBD every day, right?

[Richard Smith]

im?passe
a situation in which no progress is possible.

Martin cites a polygraph over and over and then asks who is relying on a polygraph.   He denies there is no work-related explanation for the bag but doesn't provide any or cite to any evidence in the last 50 years that provides any explanation for that bag being on the 6th floor except to carry the rifle.  He dismisses Oswald's prints on this bag because they only demonstrate that he touched it at some point (yes, like that morning when he carried it into the building).  He takes issue with the characterization that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier.   Frazier indicated that Oswald carried a long package about two feet long that was not his lunch.  Oswald denied carrying a long package but insisted it was his lunch.  Somehow Martin apparently believes these are not mutually exclusive claims.  He explains away the fact that no two-foot long bag was ever found by suggesting that no one ever searched for it!  A ridiculous and dishonest claim.  The building was thoroughly searched and a bag was found.  He idiotically tries to explain why no one ever came forward to explain the bag found if it had some work-related purpose by dishonestly claiming that no one would understand it's importance.  A real lulu.  The bag the authorities claimed the assassin brought his rifle.  If this bag belonged to someone else or had some work-related purpose for being on the 6th floor someone would have come forward to explain it in the last fifty years.  They did not.   That is the single dumbest claim since John I. suggested Oswald would not have taken paper from the TSBD to make the bag because that might have got him fired!!!  A real concern for the guy who intended to assassinate the president that week.  LOL. That one is a keeper.  These kooks are all the more humorous because they take themselves so seriously on an Internet forum.  Again, if you think you have evidence that proves a conspiracy take it to the NY Times and get back to us on their opinion.