Buell Wesley Frazier

[Bill Chapman]

We'll never know if Randle's estimate was a spoken one or not. Bookout did not make that distinction as far as I know


Exactly right. And that's why you don't get to assume that what Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 was indeed correct.

People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.

Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.

What kind of weird "logic" is this? When you are innocent and uninvolved there is no reason to lie about anything. Lying under such circumstances could only make you look guilty and get you into trouble.

'You don't get to assume that what Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 was indeed correct'
>>> Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct

'What kind of weird "logic" is this? When you are innocent and uninvolved there is no reason to lie about anything. Lying under such circumstances could only make you look guilty and get you into trouble'
>>> Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?

[Martin Weidmann]

'You don't get to assume that what Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 was indeed correct'
>>> Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct

'What kind of weird "logic" is this? When you are innocent and uninvolved there is no reason to lie about anything. Lying under such circumstances could only make you look guilty and get you into trouble'
>>> Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?

Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct

That would possibly be true if Randle had not made several other statements, including one under oath, that differ completely from what Bookhout wrote. As it stands all her known statements back up the conclusion that what Bookhout wrote was incorrect.


Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?

You are not making any sense. First you suggest that Frazier and Randle may have lied about the bag to avoid Frazier being regarded as complicit in the murder.

People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.

Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.

That's my reality.

and now you seem to suggest that Frazier could easily have told a lie because of the limited consequence that would have. So, here is my question for you;

If Frazier had nothing to fear to begin with, why would he lie in the first place?

[Walt Cakebread]

Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct

That would possibly be true if Randle had not made several other statements, including one under oath, that differ completely from what Bookhout wrote. As it stands all her known statements back up the conclusion that what Bookhout wrote was incorrect.


Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?

You are not making any sense. First you suggest that Frazier and Randle may have lied about the bag to avoid Frazier being regarded as complicit in the murder.

and now you seem to suggest that Frazier could easily have told a lie because of the limited consequence that would have. So, here is my question for you;

If Frazier had nothing to fear to begin with, why would he lie in the first place?

I believe that BWF lied to avoid becoming a accessory ....( because he had transported the weapon to the site) I believe the police told BFW that Lee Oswald had told them that the sack he carried that morning contained curtain rods. ( In reality Lee had said nothing of the kind) BWF could see no harm in confirming Lee's story (which was not Lee's story, but a tale invented by the police)  So BWF confirmed that Lee had told him the sack held curtain rods.   Thereby supporting his friend Lee, and clearing himself of any accessory charge.

The police submitted BWF to a phony "lie dector test and told him that he'd passed the test because the machine indicated that he was telling the truth about the paper sack.  ( even though the lie detector test was a complete scam)

The cops now knew they had a witness who would swear that Lee carried a long paper sack that morning........

[Bill Chapman]

Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct

That would possibly be true if Randle had not made several other statements, including one under oath, that differ completely from what Bookhout wrote. As it stands all her known statements back up the conclusion that what Bookhout wrote was incorrect.


Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?

You are not making any sense. First you suggest that Frazier and Randle may have lied about the bag to avoid Frazier being regarded as complicit in the murder.

and now you seem to suggest that Frazier could easily have told a lie because of the limited consequence that would have. So, here is my question for you;

If Frazier had nothing to fear to begin with, why would he lie in the first place?

He had the rest of his life to be worried about. That was borne out in the problems he had with the busybodies giving him static about driving the killer to work.

How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.

Best to hedge one's bets given that atmosphere.

[Martin Weidmann]

He had the rest of his life to be worried about. That was borne out in the problems he had with the busybodies giving him static about driving the killer to work.

How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.

Best to hedge one's bets given that atmosphere.

Once again you are not making any sense. An innocent and uninvolved Frazier had no incentive to lie. And most certainly he did not have an incentive to lie and tell the DPD something they didn't want to hear!

The DPD found a bag that was big enough to have contained a broken down rifle. Early on, with Oswald having been arrested, they were convinced they had their man. They also knew that Frazier drove Oswald to work that morning. So, the DPD wanted to hear from Frazier that they had the correct bag and that it was indeed big enough to contain a rifle, right? Telling them exactly that would have gotten Frazier out of trouble, but that would have been a lie!

But he did not tell them that. Instead he claimed, like an innocent person would do, that they had the wrong bag and that Oswald's bag was much smaller. Now, if that was a lie, it was a pretty stupid one, because the DPD could conclude that he was lying to protect Oswald and maybe himself as a complicit.


How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.

Could that possibly include Oswald as well?

[Bill Chapman]

Once again you are not making any sense. An innocent and uninvolved Frazier had no incentive to lie. And most certainly he did not have an incentive to lie and tell the DPD something they didn't want to hear!

The DPD found a bag that was big enough to have contained a broken down rifle. Early on, with Oswald having been arrested, they were convinced they had their man. They also knew that Frazier drove Oswald to work that morning. So, the DPD wanted to hear from Frazier that they had the correct bag and that it was indeed big enough to contain a rifle, right? Telling them exactly that would have gotten Frazier out of trouble, but that would have been a lie!

But he did not tell them that. Instead he claimed, like an innocent person would do, that they had the wrong bag and that Oswald's bag was much smaller. Now, if that was a lie, it was a pretty stupid one, because the DPD could conclude that he was lying to protect Oswald and maybe himself as a complicit.


How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.

Could that possibly include Oswald as well?

Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?

Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'

You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.

I stand by my point that Randle & Buell could have decided to hedge their bets. It would have been the smart move.

[John Iacoletti]

They should have asked LMR about it when she testified.  It could be as simple as she said two feet and Bookhout misheard or misremembered three feet.

[Jerry Freeman]

Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?
 Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'
You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.

Wow ...that was actually a Chap-post?
BWF was a 19 yr old kid at the time. His affidavit was drafted by the Dallas Police [all you have to do is read it]  https://www.google.com/search?q=affidavit+buell+wesley+frazier&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLgoX60_rdAhUqjFQKHWtJC1QQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=1024&bih=646
As you can see from the link there seems to be different versions of the same affidavit.
How did the police appear to have keyed in on Frazier so quickly? Almost like it was in the script.
Police...Tell us about the curtain rods.
BWF.....What curtain rods?
Police...The curtain rods that Oswald brought to work.
BWF.....He did?