Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[John Iacoletti]

4. So, if Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle were right about the length of Oswald's package, then the question needs to be asked: What happened to the SHORTER 27-inch bag that Frazier and Randle said Oswald had with him on Nov. 22nd? Did THAT bag just disappear into a puff of smoke?

This is an argument from ignorance logical fallacy. 

What happened to Harold Norman's lunch bag?  It was never found.  Did it just disappear into a puff of smoke?

[Martin Weidmann]

Your struggle is not against LNers but reality.  The bag was found.  It had Oswald's prints on it.  It has been measured.  No one has to rely on an estimate of its size made at a glance with no particular cause to take note of it.  Here is where you go into the song and dance about proving this is the bag Oswald carried that morning.  Spare us.  No bag matching Frazier's description was ever found in the building.  Oswald himself denied carrying any bag other than his ordinary lunch bag (i.e. not one matching Frazier's estimate).  So he is either lying or Frazier is lying about him carrying a much longer bag that morning.  And who has the incentive to lie about that?  Obviously Oswald if it contained the rifle.  If Old Lee simply had a shorter bag that contained some nonincriminating item like curtain rods he not only admits to that but directs the police to that bag.  Instead he denies it. 

No other person who worked on that floor ever accounted for the bag that was found.  It had no apparent work-related purpose to be there and no other person who had access to the floor ever claimed that bag or offered any explanation for its presence there.  The claim that this large bag was made to carry some other evidence out of the building like a window sill is laughable.  If there is an object inside the bag, the cops are holding that object.  You don't make a large bag to protect evidence for prints, but then hold the evidence getting your prints all over it.  LOL.  It's obvious that if there is an object in the bag its being used to avoid touching the bag.  Thus, the bag is the evidence and not any object inside the bag.

Try something new for once. This BS is getting boring.

[Martin Weidmann]

I remember an old screwdriver with four flat sides. Would hurt my hand as the torque force increased. Maybe they were cheap screwdrivers made in Japan, then production of such handles were replaced by more ergonomic handles.

Isn't it amazing what you can do with computers?

Even the top part of the item inside the bottle becomes thinner as it morphes into a screwdriver.

[David Von Pein]

[Apr. 1964 FBI FD-302 photo]

Is that all? Isn't there some sort of document to confirm that the DALLAS POLICE removed the window frame/molding? The FBI report you provided doesn't prove anything. It's merely telling us Roy Truly's opinion of what happened.

I didn't see anything at all in the testimonies or DPD reports of Johnson/Montgomery/Day/Fritz regarding any removal of any window moldings.

[Martin Weidmann]

Is that all? Isn't there some sort of document to confirm that the DALLAS POLICE removed the window frame/molding? The FBI report you provided doesn't prove anything. Maybe some souvenir hunter took a hunk of the window frame between 11/22 and that April '64 report. Who can know?

But I sure didn't see anything at all in the testimonies or DPD reports of Johnson/Montgomery/Day/Fritz regarding any removal of any window moldings.

Wanna play that game? Alright....

There isn't a single first day report about the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car containing a Hidell alias card.

So, if we follow your "logic" here, doesn't that mean there was no Hidell ID in the wallet took from Oswald?

And while we are on the subject of answering questions, did you miss my last question in post #56 or are you simply ignoring it?

Here it is again;

We have two witnesses who both say that the bag found at the TSBD is not the bag they saw Oswald carry. Frazier told the investigators, the bag fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit and he also showed FBI agents to where the bag reached on the backseat of his car and the FBI agents measured the distance as being 27''.

Linnie Mae Randle told FBI against Odum and McNeely she saw Oswald holding a bag at the (folded up) top and carry it next to his leg. If that bag contained a wooden stock of a rifle it would have had to have been at least 34" long, which means it would have hit the ground, as Oswald's legs, measured from his hip, were not not 34" long. As the package didn't hit the ground it is reasonable to assume that the bag was shorter than 34". In fact, the bag that Oswald could have carried in the way Linnie Mae Randle described could not have been much larger than 27".

So, estimates aside, we have two measurements of the package compared to (1) the backseat of Frazier's car and (2) the size of Oswald's leg and a visual comparison of the size of the package in relation to the length of Oswald's arm. That seems pretty definitive to me. But that's not all. On Friday evening, only hours after the event and while he was being polygraphed, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD and he rejected it as the bag he had seen Oswald carry. He described the latter as being "a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased at a dime store".

As far as the bag is concerned that's the evidence interpretation for Oswald. Now, what exactly is there against Oswald?

The bag was (allegedly) found in the sniper's nest. It turned out to be made of materials that are common to the TSBD. Several prints are on the bag, but the only ones that could be identified belong to Oswald, which is somewhat remarkable as we know that at least Detective Montgomery handled the bag also (he unfolded it and carried it out of the building). It was never established that the bag found at the TSBD ever left the building, nor that it ever contained a rifle. So what we are left with is a bag, made from TSBD material, found inside the TSBD with prints of an employee of the TSBD on it.

Now, can you tell me, what plausible reason (other than circular logic) the investigators had to ignore the witness evidence as "mistaken" in favor of the TSBD bag being the one that Oswald carried after all?

[David Von Pein]

Wanna play that game? Alright....

There isn't a single first day report about the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car containing a Hidell alias card.

So, if we follow your "logic" here, doesn't that mean there was no Hidell ID in the wallet took from Oswald?

That's not analogous at all, Martin.

Why?

Because we've got the Hidell Selective Service I.D. card (CE795) that was in Oswald's wallet (even if Detective Paul Bentley didn't say anything about seeing it in an official report).

But where's the TWO "window sill" pieces talked about in this thread? Why aren't they seen (or mentioned) in any WC exhibits or documents or testimony?

[David Von Pein]

...did you miss my last question in post #56 or are you simply ignoring it?

Here it is again:

We have two witnesses who both say that the bag found at the TSBD is not the bag they saw Oswald carry. Frazier told the investigators, the bag fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit and he also showed FBI agents to where the bag reached on the backseat of his car and the FBI agents measured the distance as being 27''.

Linnie Mae Randle told FBI against Odum and McNeely she saw Oswald holding a bag at the (folded up) top and carry it next to his leg. If that bag contained a wooden stock of a rifle it would have had to have been at least 34" long, which means it would have hit the ground, as Oswald's legs, measured from his hip, were not not 34" long. As the package didn't hit the ground it is reasonable to assume that the bag was shorter than 34". In fact, the bag that Oswald could have carried in the way Linnie Mae Randle described could not have been much larger than 27".

So, estimates aside, we have two measurements of the package compared to (1) the backseat of Frazier's car and (2) the size of Oswald's leg and a visual comparison of the size of the package in relation to the length of Oswald's arm. That seems pretty definitive to me. But that's not all. On Friday evening, only hours after the event and while he was being polygraphed, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD and he rejected it as the bag he had seen Oswald carry. He described the latter as being "a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased at a dime store".

As far as the bag is concerned that's the evidence interpretation for Oswald. Now, what exactly is there against Oswald?

The bag was (allegedly) found in the sniper's nest. It turned out to be made of materials that are common to the TSBD. Several prints are on the bag, but the only ones that could be identified belong to Oswald, which is somewhat remarkable as we know that at least Detective Montgomery handled the bag also (he unfolded it and carried it out of the building). It was never established that the bag found at the TSBD ever left the building, nor that it ever contained a rifle. So what we are left with is a bag, made from TSBD material, found inside the TSBD with prints of an employee of the TSBD on it.

Now, can you tell me, what plausible reason (other than circular logic) the investigators had to ignore the witness evidence as "mistaken" in favor of the TSBD bag being the one that Oswald carried after all?

I'll go back about 15 years to answer your inquiry, Martin. Here's what I said in 2007:

"I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?

Care to guess at what those odds might be? They must be close to "O.J. DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22, 1963).

I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), which was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63.

I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it." -- DVP; October 2007

[Martin Weidmann]

That's not analogous at all, Martin.

Why?

Because we've got the Hidell Selective Service I.D. card (CE795) that was in Oswald's wallet (even if Detective Paul Bentley didn't say anything about seeing it in an official report).

But where's the TWO "window sill" pieces talked about in this thread? Why aren't they seen (or mentioned) in any WC exhibits or documents?

Because we've got the Hidell Selective Service I.D. card that was in Oswald's wallet (even if Detective Paul Bentley didn't say anything about seeing it in an official report).

Are you sure? According to his WC testimony Detective Rose was off duty that day. He was called back in and arrived at the DPD office about the same time when Oswald was being brought in. Rose was the first person to talk to Oswald, just after an unidentified officer gave him a wallet which he said belonged to Oswald. Nobody knows who that officer was (much like the officers who handled the white/grey jacket). What we do know is that Bentley was taken to the hospital because of the injury to his leg. So, where is the chain of custody that shows the wallet Rose was given was the same one Bentley took from Oswald?

And before you start claiming just how silly this is, please check out why chains of custody are relevant and important!