Buell Wesley Frazier

[Martin Weidmann]

His estimate was honest but erroneous.   I think he believes his estimate is correct, but we have the bag.  So there is no need to speculate on its size.  It can be measured.  If Oswald carried a long bag along the size estimated by Frazier, then why would he deny that?  He would have every incentive to not only acknowledge it, but direct the police to it to show that it contained something other than a rifle.  Instead he lies about it and says he carried only his lunch in direct contradiction of Frazier's testimony.  That tells us all we need to know.  Oswald's prints are found on such a long bag.  No bag matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or otherwise accounted for because no such bag existed.  End of story.

Where in this rant do you address the point I raised about Frazier stating that the package fitted between Oswald's cupped hand and his armpit?

[Walt Cakebread]

Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."

Mr Smith, You seem to be unable to understand a simple point that an elementary school kid can understand...

The Warren Commission was nothing but a white wash, cover up committee..... 

Your citing of the testimony that the shyster lawyers drew from the witnesses is worthless.    Often the testimony is completely contradictory to the witnesses  sworn affidavit.

[Richard Smith]

Mr Smith, You seem to be unable to understand a simple point that an elementary school kid can understand...

The Warren Commission was nothing but a white wash, cover up committee..... 

Your citing of the testimony that the shyster lawyers drew from the witnesses is worthless.    Often the testimony is completely contradictory to the witnesses  sworn affidavit.

Let's revisit.  You stated:  "Lee DID NOT deny carrying a long bag that morning."  Here is the testimony:

I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."

Instead of doing the honest thing and acknowledging your error, we get this silly nonsense. 

[Richard Smith]

Richard,

Firstly these answers are not from recordings or accurate at the time transcriptions but the memories of officers, who were keen to defend the built case.
He answered that he carried his lunch, but his lunch was in something, he may have had the lunch in a large sack not when asked about package thought they meant something more substantive.

As to what he brought, he may have put a piece of fruit or cake for morning tea or as part of his lunch but planned get something more. You always assume that Wesley and Linnie under estimated the length, they may have over estimated it.

Oswald denied carrying a long bag that morning.  Frazier asked him about his lunch and he said he intended to buy it that day (i.e. he was not carrying a lunch).  Those are just facts.  There is zero possibility of the scenario that you are suggesting in which Oswald carries a partial lunch in a two-foot plus long bag, tells Frazier it is curtain rods, lies to Frazier for some unknown reason about buying his lunch that day, and then lies to the police about carrying a long bag.  Particularly when Oswald would have every incentive to direct the police to this long bag if it contained something non-incriminatory.   Add on that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found in the TSBD while a bag with Oswald's prints was found and it is a slam dunk.   No serious historian entertains even the possibility that the bag found on the 6th floor was not the one used by Oswald to carry his rifle.

[Walt Cakebread]

Let's revisit.  You stated:  "Lee DID NOT deny carrying a long bag that morning."  Here is the testimony:

I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."

Instead of doing the honest thing and acknowledging your error, we get this silly nonsense.

Mr Smith....On page 626 of the WR there is a copy of FBI agent James Bookhout report of the 10:30 am  11/23/63.interrogation of Lee Oswald.   This is the first time a package was mentioned to Lee Oswald. Bookhout wrote:...

"He denied that he had brought a package to work on that day and he denied that he ever had any conversation about curtain rods with this boy named  Wesley who drove him to his employment."

On December 17th Postal Inspector ( And FBI informant) Harry Holmes wrote a memo ( page 636) in which he mentions the paper sack....

Holmes wrote:......Quote...   "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 on the size or shape of the sack, he said   "Oh I don't recall it may have been a small sack or a large sack, you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches" ...unquote

Referring to the paper sack .....Do you see the word LONG in either of the reports , Mr Smith.....??

[Richard Smith]

Mr Smith....On page 626 of the WR there is a copy of FBI agent James Bookhout report of the 10:30 am  11/23/63.interrogation of Lee Oswald.   This is the first time a package was mentioned to Lee Oswald. Bookhout wrote:...

"He denied that he had brought a package to work on that day and he denied that he ever had any conversation about curtain rods with this boy named  Wesley who drove him to his employment."

On December 17th Postal Inspector ( And FBI informant) Harry Holmes wrote a memo ( page 636) in which he mentions the paper sack....

Holmes wrote:......Quote...   "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 on the size or shape of the sack, he said   "Oh I don't recall it may have been a small sack or a large sack, you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches" ...unquote

Referring to the paper sack .....Do you see the word LONG in either of the reports , Mr Smith.....??

I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."

[Walt Cakebread]

I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."

If you've read the reports that were written at the time . you'd then know that what was pulled from the witnesses mouths  by the LBJ's cover up committee lawyers often conflicts with what the witness said in the 48 hours following the coup d e'tat.

What you've posted is an excellent example of one of those lawyers leading the witness.

What was the purpose of the Warren Commission?.....

LBJ created the WC to convince the American suckers that Lee Harrrrrrvey Osssssswald was the arch villain who murdered President Kennedy for no reason and he had no accomplices.

IOW...  The WC was a whitewash and a cover up....  Isn't that true Mr Smith?   So why do you persist in citing that BS.

[Ray Mitcham]

I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."

If Oswald  was telling the truth, then Frazier was lying.