This is simple:
Frazier - Oswald carried a long bag that was not his lunch. Oswald tells him it contains curtain rods. "I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day."
Oswald - tells the DPD he carried his lunch and not curtain rods (i.e. any long bag such as described by Frazier).
Put the statements together and the conclusion is that one or the other is lying. It is impossible to reconcile the statements and descriptions as Dishonest John pathetically tries. Frazier clearly and directly, with Oswald's confirmation, rules out that Oswald carried his lunch that morning. Any honest person with an ounce of intelligence would not suggest that a bag such as that described by Frazier was his ordinary "little" lunch sack. It's over two feet long! If there were even a scintilla of doubt, we also have Oswald's confirmation to Frazier that he is not carrying his lunch in the bag. "I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day."
Thus, who is lying and why? What incentive does Frazier, a dumb teenager, have to lie about whether Oswald carried his lunch or a long bag that morning? None. What incentive does Oswald have to lie about whether he carried a long bag? If it contained something exculpatory - like curtain rods - he has every incentive to tell the truth and admit that he did. If it contains something incriminating - like a rifle - he has every incentive to lie. What did he do? He lied. This is not rocket science unless you are dishonest - like Crooked John or biased. The facts and circumstances are crystal clear.
Put the statements together and the conclusion is that one or the other is lying. Completely agree.... One of the two is not being truthful...... And I believe that person is Wes Frazier. But this does not mean that Frazier had any malicious intent.
In some ways he also was / is a victim of the corrupt DPD. They had told him that Lee Oswald had told them that yes he had carried a long sack that morning and the sack contained curtain rods, but in reality Lee had said nothing of the kind. He told them he carried his lunch in a bag ....
The cops had told Frazier that Oswald had carried the rifle in Fraziers car that morning and they could charge him with being an accessory to murder. They said that Lee had said that carried curtain rods in a long sack .... Frazier realized that if he supported the curtain rod story he could not be charged with being an accessory. so he agreed that Lee had told him that the long sack contained curtain rods.
Then to insure that Frazier wouldn't recant the story the forced him to take a sham lie detector test.... And they centered the subject of the test, on the paper sack.
When they were done they said that he'd passed with flying colors , and they were convinced that he was telling the truth. In reality the polygraph was totally worthless because a polygraph cannot be administered to a person who is under stress.
To this very day Frazier believes that the polygraph verified and supported the tale that he's been given by the DPD.
