Then went inside with the curtain rods

[John Iacoletti]

Because Oswald was carrying a package.
Frazier would have to assume other people might have seen him carrying the package (Ruth Paine, Marina, neighbours etc.)
How would it look if Frazier denied seeing a package at all that others had seen Oswald carrying to his car?

All he would have to say is that he never saw any package.  How would they prove differently?  The Paine house wasn't close enough to the Randle house for Ruth or Marina to have seen him go to Frazier's car anyway (unless they followed him).  It makes no sense in a CYA scenario to admit seeing any package. 

[John Iacoletti]

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.

Last time I checked, "not being aware of what was happening" is not a crime.

[John Iacoletti]

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

Because he told the truth. Because he did nothing wrong.

How does deliberately undersizing the bag that he saw, inventing a story about how the package was carried. and falsely calling the paper flimsier than the paper in CE 142 (in your proposed scenario) constitute telling the truth?

[Jerry Freeman]

How does deliberately undersizing the bag that he saw, inventing a story about how the package was carried. and falsely calling the paper flimsier than the paper in CE 142 (in your proposed scenario) constitute telling the truth?

That one threw me too

[Bill Chapman]

Polygraph-testing remains controversial to this day: For example, an honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious.

Buell barely had a pulse, FFS
Not one of the most excitable people in town.

[Dan O'meara]

All he would have to say is that he never saw any package.  How would they prove differently?  The Paine house wasn't close enough to the Randle house for Ruth or Marina to have seen him go to Frazier's car anyway (unless they followed him).  It makes no sense in a CYA scenario to admit seeing any package.

So, Oswald shows up with a long package.
Later that day the world hears that he's shot the President.
Ruth and Marina tell the police he left that morning to walk half a block to the Randle house with a long package.
One of the neighbours notices a man putting a long package into a car across the street.
But Frazier tells the police there was no long package.

What would the police think in this scenario?
Might they think BWF was lying?

By shortening the length of the bag BWF can be accused of being 'mistaken', that's not a crime.
But lying about there being no package? That is a crime.
I'm surprised you don't see the difference.

"It makes no sense in a CYA scenario to admit seeing any package."


It makes no sense to risk becoming an accessory to he murder of the President.
Why on earth would it even cross his mind to do such a thing?
I know it's only a proposed scenario but I'm trying to keep it realistic John.
Do you really think there might be a scenario where Frazier decides to take that kind of chance?
I certainly don't.

[Dan O'meara]

Because he told the truth. Because he did nothing wrong.


How does deliberately undersizing the bag that he saw, inventing a story about how the package was carried. and falsely calling the paper flimsier than the paper in CE 142 (in your proposed scenario) constitute telling the truth?

You must excuse me John.
I didn't realise the questions Frazier was asked during his polygraph were public knowledge.
I'm sure I read somewhere that they weren't available but they must be because you are such a stickler for having your details right and you know so much about the case.
Please direct me to the transcript of Frazier's polygraph and I'll most certainly retract that point.