Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Martin Weidmann]

I assume you're talking about this extraordinary document posted by Alan:


For me, the importance of this document is that there could hardly be a clearer example of tampering with the processing of evidence.
I find it hard to believe an honest mistake has led to the same document being given different release dates.
It seems to be a doctored document and, as such, can hardly be viewed as being reliable in any way.
The submitted date (3/15/64) can be taken with a pinch of salt.
The question is - what did the person(s) creating this document hope to achieve?

This doesn't make any sense. The DPD document is part of the official record. There is no logical or plausible purpose for this document to exist, except of course for a fingerprint examination of curtain rods that were provided to the DPD identification bureau on 3/15/64.

The original doesn't have to be doctored, simply because Lt Day wrote a different release date on the copy that found it's way into the WC evidence. To question the entire document as unreliable seems to be a selfserving exercise.

There is no reason to take the submittion date with a pinch of salt. The submittion date is the same on the original and the copy, the document is part of the official evidence, and even you can't think of a good reason for such a document to be forged.

To me, your "logic" seems to be designed to simply dismiss an inconvenient document.

[Richard Smith]

Frazier isn't inventing the package.
He isn't inventing he was told they were curtain rods.

Indeed. He didn't invent a story and simply told the truth.

I still don't understand how you can claim, on the one hand, that Frazier, at some point early on, understood he could be in trouble and needed to concoct a story with his sister, yet on the other hand confirm that Oswald told investigators exactly what really happened.

There is an obvious contradiction there.

What did he have to worry about?  LOL. Let's see. Frazier drove the person suspected of assassinating the President who he knew was carrying a long, narrow bag that could have contained the murder weapon.   Old Ned Spangler just held Booth's horse for a couple of minutes and nearly was hung for it.  Should Spangler have worried?  I think Oswald did carry a long bag and that he did tell Frazier it contained curtain rods.  But if the curtain rod story was fabricated by Frazier, the purpose would be to show that he had asked Oswald about the contents of the bag and the explanation that he was given (i.e. that it contained curtain rods) seemed plausible to him.  That gives Frazier cover to not be suspicious.  He becomes just a good ole boy in Gomer Pyle bliss.  How was he to know?  If, however, he didn't have any explanation about Oswald carrying such a strange bag that morning, it might beg the question as to whether he should have been more aware of what was happening. 

[Martin Weidmann]

What did he have to worry about?  LOL. Let's see. Frazier drove the person suspected of assassinating the President who he knew was carrying a long, narrow bag that could have contained the murder weapon.   Old Ned Spangler just held Booth's horse for a couple of minutes and nearly was hung for it.  Should Spangler have worried?  I think Oswald did carry a long bag and that he did tell Frazier it contained curtain rods.  But if the curtain rod story was fabricated by Frazier, the purpose would be to show that he had asked Oswald about the contents of the bag and the explanation that he was given (i.e. that it contained curtain rods) seemed plausible to him.  That gives Frazier cover to not be suspicious.  He becomes just a good ole boy in Gomer Pyle bliss.  How was he to know?  If, however, he didn't have any explanation about Oswald carrying such a strange bag that morning, it might beg the question as to whether he should have been more aware of what was happening.

So many words and so little significant information. The bottom line is that Frazier told the DPD he saw Oswald carry a bag that fitted between the cup of his hand and under his armpit and that Oswald had told him it contained curtain rods.

Shortly before midnight Frazier was polygraphed by Detective R.D. Lewis. While being polygraphed he told the same story and was shown the bag found at the TSBD which he denied was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. The polygraph result was that Frazier was being truthful and he was released from custody.

You can speculate, in your usual selfserving way, as much as you want, but the facts are that Frazier simply told DPD what happened and passed a polygraph while doing it.

Had he known everything you guys claim he knew and had he been really concerned he might have tried to change his story to minimize his involvement, but as it stands he just told the DPD what really happened. Go figure!

[Colin Crow]

The first mention of a bag/package arises between Adamcik and LMR. Apparently she knows about the curtain rods but fails to mention them. For some reason she was suspicious. The curtain rods are first mentioned by Frazier that evening when asked about Oswald carrying a package.

[Dan O'meara]

You seem to be deliberately complicating the scenario I'm proposing.

Not really. The scenario doesn't make any sense.

The scenario, which is obviously speculation, is meant to account for as many factors as possible relating to the curtain rod affair.
The point is that Frazier only alters one aspect of what actually happened - the size of the bag. That's all.
Everything else happened as he testified.

No. Frazier actually doesn't change anything. He tells exactly what happened, that he saw Oswald carry a bag, that he was told it contained curtain rods and that Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and underneath his armpit.

In other words, even if your speculation is true, that Frazier at some point somehow started to believe that Oswald had actually brought a broken down rifle of 34,8" in that paper bag (which Frazier denies to this day), it did not motivate him to change anything in his story.

Your entire convoluted theory seems to have as it's sole purpose that Frazier at some point knew or understood that Oswald had brought a rifle to work that Friday. It's not only highly speculative but it's also something that Frazier has denied from day one.

"In other words, even if your speculation is true, that Frazier at some point somehow started to believe that Oswald had actually brought a broken down rifle of 34,8" in that paper bag (which Frazier denies to this day), it did not motivate him to change anything in his story."


I'm not saying Oswald brought a "broken down rifle" in the bag. That's your addition.
He brought a fully assembled rifle.
That's what motivated Frazier to change his story.

"Your entire convoluted theory seems to have as it's sole purpose that Frazier at some point knew or understood that Oswald had brought a rifle to work that Friday. It's not only highly speculative but it's also something that Frazier has denied from day one."

Frazier changed one small detail in his story - the length of the long package Oswald brought with him.
You may find this "convoluted" but I don't. I find it incredibly easy to understand.

Oswald had no need for curtain rods.
He never mentioned curtain rods to anyone other than Frazier.
He didn't bring curtain rods with him that day. But he did bring a long package.
The 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage were still there after the assassination.
The rifle Marina saw in the blanket was gone.
How do you explain all this?

[Martin Weidmann]

"In other words, even if your speculation is true, that Frazier at some point somehow started to believe that Oswald had actually brought a broken down rifle of 34,8" in that paper bag (which Frazier denies to this day), it did not motivate him to change anything in his story."


I'm not saying Oswald brought a "broken down rifle" in the bag. That's your addition.
He brought a fully assembled rifle.
That's what motivated Frazier to change his story.

That makes even less sense. Even the bag found at the TSBD wouldn't be big enough to contain a fully assembled rifle. What is your evidence for this claim?

"Your entire convoluted theory seems to have as it's sole purpose that Frazier at some point knew or understood that Oswald had brought a rifle to work that Friday. It's not only highly speculative but it's also something that Frazier has denied from day one."

Frazier changed one small detail in his story - the length of the long package Oswald brought with him.
You may find this "convoluted" but I don't. I find it incredibly easy to understand.

And how do you explain that Frazier passed a polygraph test on Friday evening?

Oswald had no need for curtain rods.
He never mentioned curtain rods to anyone other than Frazier.
He didn't bring curtain rods with him that day. But he did bring a long package.

How in the world do you know what Oswald needed or not?

The 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage were still there after the assassination.

And what makes you believe that the two sets of curtain rods were the only ones? What if there was a third set in Oswald's belongings? There has to be an explanation for the set of curtain rods that were given to the DPD to check for fingerprints on 03/15/64.

The rifle Marina saw in the blanket was gone.
How do you explain all this?

One week after returning from New Orleans, which was late September, Marina pulled back part of the blanket and saw what she believed to be a wooden stock of a rifle. Now even if that was true, and it was a rifle, how do you know it was the MC rifle and how do you know it was not removed earlier and thus still there on 11/21/63? The answer is easy; You don't.

You are making a lot of factual statements which in reality are only mere selfserving speculation.

[Dan O'meara]

This doesn't make any sense. The DPD document is part of the official record. There is no logical or plausible purpose for this document to exist, except of course for a fingerprint examination of curtain rods that were provided to the DPD identification bureau on 3/15/64.

The original doesn't have to be doctored, simply because Lt Day wrote a different release date on the copy that found it's way into the WC evidence. To question the entire document as unreliable seems to be a selfserving exercise.

There is no reason to take the submittion date with a pinch of salt. The submittion date is the same on the original and the copy, the document is part of the official evidence, and even you can't think of a good reason for such a document to be forged.

To me, your "logic" seems to be designed to simply dismiss an inconvenient document.

If you don't find this document suspicious then we have a different way of measuring such things, a different "logic".
If you've got a "logical" explanation for this document I'd like to hear it because I don't have a clue what's going on with it.
In what way do you imagine this document is "inconvenient"?
What does your "logic" tell you about why Oswald would help himself to some curtain rods that day?