Buell Wesley Frazier

[Walt Cakebread]

Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy.   And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books.   The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth?    Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?



 

[Martin Weidmann]

Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy.   And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books.   The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth?    Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?

Actually, the record shows that Frazier was shown the paper bag from the TSBD while he was being polygraphed in the evening hours of 11/22/63. Frazier not only failed to identify the bag but also added that the bag Oswald had carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".

A memo from James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, reveals the desperation of Lt. Day after Frazier failed to identify the heavy bag found at the TSBD. Anderton writes;

"Lt. Day states that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald, by dismantling the rifle, could have placed it in the thick brown sack folder over, and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack"

The obvious question is why Day was so desperate to explain the discrepancy between the heavy bag allegedly found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the flimsy bag Frazier had seen that he would come up with this theory. Even more so, if he really had found Oswald's prints on the heavy bag and the MC rifle......

[Denis Morissette]

Someday, you will figure out that one. Maybe by 2039? Truth will set you free.

[Bill Brown]

Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy.   And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books.   The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth?    Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?

If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle?  Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?

Silly conspirators.

[Joe Elliott]

The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw the bag Oswald had is a classic example of, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.

Buell and Linnie saw Oswald carrying a long bag to work on the morning of November 22. That is bad. This only makes Oswald look guilty. Why is he carrying a long package into work on that day, of all days?

But, the solution is the focus on some minutiae. Both witnesses remember the bag being a bit too short. If taken as the absolute truth, it means Oswald did not bring his rifle in to work that day.

But can we take this as the absolute truth? Couldn?t the witnesses have been off on the exact length of the bag. Particularly since neither had any reason at the time to carefully note the exact length of the bag?

Also, CTers ignore that both witnesses had reasons for underestimating the length of the bag. Buell was accused of being an accessory to a murder. Because he had driver the accused assassin and his rifle to the plaza. Neither Buell nor Linnie, his sister, wanted this to happen. So naturally, they both have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag. If the bag is too short to hold the rifle, then Buell cannot be charged.

So, this argument by CTers ignores three points.

1.   The witnesses could be off a bit on the exact length of the bag.


2.   Both witnesses have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag.


3.   CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.

[Walt Cakebread]

Actually, the record shows that Frazier was shown the paper bag from the TSBD while he was being polygraphed in the evening hours of 11/22/63. Frazier not only failed to identify the bag but also added that the bag Oswald had carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".

A memo from James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, reveals the desperation of Lt. Day after Frazier failed to identify the heavy bag found at the TSBD. Anderton writes;

"Lt. Day states that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald, by dismantling the rifle, could have placed it in the thick brown sack folder over, and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack"

The obvious question is why Day was so desperate to explain the discrepancy between the heavy bag allegedly found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the flimsy bag Frazier had seen that he would come up with this theory. Even more so, if he really had found Oswald's prints on the heavy bag and the MC rifle......

Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy.   And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books.   The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth?    Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
[/quote]

In the book  The Day Kennedy Was Shot ( page 432) the author Bishop says that DPD detective Gus Rose had been informed by Linnie Mae Randall that Lee Oswald was carrying a paper sack that contained curtain rods ...

Quote.."A woman neighbor of the Oswalds has said that her brother had driven Oswald to work with curtain rods." unquote  This is completely at odds with the official tale in which Buell Frazier is credited with presenting the curtain rod tale at the police station on the night of the murder.

The question is:  Who first mentioned the curtain rods ??   IMO  It was the Dallas police who told Frazier that Lee claimed that the paper sack contained curtain rods, when in reality Lee Oswald had said nothing of the kind ( just as he denied)

The cops were desperate to present a method by which Lee could have smuggled the Carcano into the TSBD.  They needed Frazier to confirm that Lee Oswald had carried a long paper sack that morning.   Thus they told Frazier that Lee has admitted that he had carried a long paper sack that contained curtain rods.   The police had already tried to implicate Frazier by saying they could charge him as an accessory because he had transported the murder weapon in his car that morning......So when they told Frazier that Lee Oswald had said that the sack contained curtain rods Frazier jumped at the opportunity to clear himself of the charge of being an accessory and said that yes It was true that lee had told him that there were curtain rods in the sack.    The wily cops cemented the curtain rod story for all time when they said that Frazier was telling the truth about the curtain rod story because he had passed a lie detector test in which he was questioned about the curtain rods.....   In reality any results of a "lie detector" test would have been completely worthless
under the conditions in which it was administered.

[Martin Weidmann]

The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw the bag Oswald had is a classic example of, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.

Buell and Linnie saw Oswald carrying a long bag to work on the morning of November 22. That is bad. This only makes Oswald look guilty. Why is he carrying a long package into work on that day, of all days?

But, the solution is the focus on some minutiae. Both witnesses remember the bag being a bit too short. If taken as the absolute truth, it means Oswald did not bring his rifle in to work that day.

But can we take this as the absolute truth? Couldn?t the witnesses have been off on the exact length of the bag. Particularly since neither had any reason at the time to carefully note the exact length of the bag?

Also, CTers ignore that both witnesses had reasons for underestimating the length of the bag. Buell was accused of being an accessory to a murder. Because he had driver the accused assassin and his rifle to the plaza. Neither Buell nor Linnie, his sister, wanted this to happen. So naturally, they both have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag. If the bag is too short to hold the rifle, then Buell cannot be charged.

So, this argument by CTers ignores three points.

1.   The witnesses could be off a bit on the exact length of the bag.


2.   Both witnesses have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag.


3.   CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.

You are (perhaps on purpose) ignoring two crucial pieces of information;

1. Frazier was shown the TSBD bag on Friday evening (at around 11.30 pm). This was the first time Frazier was asked about the bag and he would IMO have no way of knowing anything about it's later significance. This was also before the bag was ruined with silver nitrate (by Latona) and thus still had it's original color. So, while he was being polygraphed, Frazier instantly dismissed the bag shown to him as the one he saw Oswald carry.

Are you claiming that Frazier, while being polygraphed, purposely lied about the size of a bag which more than likely was insignificant to him at that time? 

2. Frazier told the DPD officers that same night that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".

You can believe and argue all you want that Frazier and Randle underestimated the size of the bag, but how do you explain the points I have raised?

Simply by ignoring them, perhaps?

[Bill Brown]

The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw the bag Oswald had is a classic example of, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.

Buell and Linnie saw Oswald carrying a long bag to work on the morning of November 22. That is bad. This only makes Oswald look guilty. Why is he carrying a long package into work on that day, of all days?

But, the solution is the focus on some minutiae. Both witnesses remember the bag being a bit too short. If taken as the absolute truth, it means Oswald did not bring his rifle in to work that day.

But can we take this as the absolute truth? Couldn?t the witnesses have been off on the exact length of the bag. Particularly since neither had any reason at the time to carefully note the exact length of the bag?

Also, CTers ignore that both witnesses had reasons for underestimating the length of the bag. Buell was accused of being an accessory to a murder. Because he had driver the accused assassin and his rifle to the plaza. Neither Buell nor Linnie, his sister, wanted this to happen. So naturally, they both have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag. If the bag is too short to hold the rifle, then Buell cannot be charged.

So, this argument by CTers ignores three points.

1.   The witnesses could be off a bit on the exact length of the bag.


2.   Both witnesses have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag.


3.   CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.

3.   CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.

That's right, Joe.

Also, according to Fritz, Oswald claimed that all he carried that morning was his lunch sack, a sack which in no way can be mistaken for anything described by Randle and Frazier.