Buell Wesley Frazier

[Walt Cakebread]

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

Let's see if we can shed a little light on this aspect....

First of... Was Lee ever asked if he carried the rifle in a paper sack?

I have found NOTHING to indicate that the authorities suggested or even hinted to Lee that he carried the rifle in a paper sack.

If the cops had found a paper sack that was large enough to carry the rifle why wouldn't they have said..."We found the sack that you used to smuggle the rifle into the building....  It has your palm print on it.   What we want to know is how did you manage to handle and carry that package without leaving more prints on it?


No wait..... I'm being sarcastic and factitious ...   But the fact is, they never suggested to Lee that he'd carried a rifle in a paper sack.

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

I believe Lee was telling the truth.....   

[Walt Cakebread]

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

I believe that Frazier was lying.....   And I don't blame him.

He was caught in a  quicksand that he'd been lured into by the Dallas Police.    The police told him that Lee had admitted carrying a large paper sack in which Lee had said contained curtain rods.  Wes Frazier could see no harm in verifing  Lee's story so he acknowledged that lee was carrying a sack that was made from flimsy brown paper like the paper that he seen curtain rods wrapped in.   

The police then pretended to give him a polygraph test and they said that he passed... so based on Frazier's story Lee was carrying a large paper sack. 

The so called lie detector test was a total sham....They could not have obtained any useful results from Frazier because he was in a highly agitated and nervous state at the time....... Frazier being a dumb kid, wouldn't have known that the lie detector test was a sham.....  He thought he was on record as telling the truth and he's stood his ground on that idea ......

[John Iacoletti]

So he didn't even have his full lunch in a two-foot plus long bag?  You can't really believe that.

Appeal to personal incredulity fallacy.

  Oswald denied carrying any long bag that morning.

False.  Fritz said "denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister", not any long bag.

Fritz probably handed CE142 to Oswald and told him that Frazier and his sister said he was carrying this bag.

[John Iacoletti]

LOL, concluding that 2+2=4 because 4 equals 2+2 is a circular argument.  So I guess we can discount it and conclude that 2+2 could be equal to anything.  Of course the bag found in the TSBD is relevant to the issue.  It has Oswald's prints on it.  It is found in a location that associates it with the assassination.

And there is no reason to think a rifle was ever inside it.

  It is a long, brown paper bag of the type described by Frazier.

No, Frazier described a shorter bag made out of flimsier paper.

  It exists.

So does the soda bottle.  Just because something was found on the 6th floor doesn't mean that it's automatically connected to the assassination.

Conversely, no bag matching Frazier's size estimate is ever found.

Was one ever looked for?  Was Harold Norman's lunch bag ever found?

  It can't be accounted for in any way.  Oswald denied carrying it.

False again.  Oswald (according to Fritz and Holmes) said he carried some kind of package.

[Richard 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."

Oswald denied carrying ANY long package that morning.  He claimed that he did carry his lunch.  Therefore, Oswald distinguished between the LONG package and his lunch.  If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH.  Oswald told him he was going to buy it.  Good grief.  There is zero doubt that the 6th floor bag is the one Oswald carried that morning.  It is simply playing the contrarian to suggest there is any doubt about this.  Not even most fringe kooks deny this.   Comparing a long, narrow rifle shaped bag with Oswald's prints on it and no work-related purpose for being left next to the SN when Oswald is reported to have carried such a bag that morning to a coke bottle is the height of absurdity and a great example of how a dishonest contrarian attempts to discredit the evidence like a disbarred attorney defending a client that he knows is guilty. 

[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."

Oswald denied carrying ANY long package that morning.  He claimed that he did carry his lunch.  Therefore, Oswald distinguished between the LONG package and his lunch.  If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH.  Oswald told him he was going to buy it.  Good grief.  There is zero doubt that the 6th floor bag is the one Oswald carried that morning.  It is simply playing the contrarian to suggest there is any doubt about this.  Not even most fringe kooks deny this.   Comparing a long, narrow rifle shaped bag with Oswald's prints on it and no work-related purpose for being left next to the SN when Oswald is reported to have carried such a bag that morning to a coke bottle is the height of absurdity and a great example of how a dishonest contrarian attempts to discredit the evidence like a disbarred attorney defending a client that he knows is guilty.

"If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH.  Oswald told him he was going to buy it."

There's your problem, Richard. Good grief, you believe Frazier.

[Richard Smith]

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

You are on the verge of learning something!  So now ask yourself who has the greater incentive to lie about Oswald carrying a long bag that morning?  It boils down to this.  If the bag contained a rifle used to assassinate the president, then Oswald has every incentive to lie about it.  If it contained curtain rods or some non-incriminatory item, then Oswald had every incentive to confirm that he carried such a bag and direct the police to it to clear himself.  Good so far?  Seems like common sense.  Now if Frazier is lying and made up the bag story, what are his incentives?  They seem to be non-existent and even contrary to his own interests.  If he is somehow being coerced into lying by the authorities to put the rifle in Oswald's hands, then why doesn't he say the bag is long enough to contain the rifle?  The entire purpose of such a lie in that scenario.  What good would it do the fantasy conspirators to put a bag too short to carry the rifle in Oswald's possession?  None.  It doesn't add up.  So the only other option is that Frazier just made the entire story up.  There is no good narrative to explain that.  If anything, his incentives would be to distance himself from having driven the assassin and his rifle not make up a story in which Oswald has a long, unexplained package with him that morning.  Connect the dots and there is one logical scenario as supported by the evidence.  Oswald carried a long package that morning as witnessed by Frazier.  Frazier honestly but erroneously estimated its length.  We know that because the bag was found.  It was used by Oswald to carry the rifle.  That is why Oswald lies about it.   All the stars align. 

[Richard Smith]

"If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH.  Oswald told him he was going to buy it."

There's your problem, Richard. Good grief, you believe Frazier.

I thought CTers believed Frazier?  Are you saying his estimate of the bag's length can't be trusted?