Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Martin Weidmann]

I was talking about the need to discard some things relating to the case (e.g., witness testimony that is obviously inaccurate), not necessarily physical evidence. Since there is no "non-Oswald" physical evidence, then there is none of that material to discard -- although most CTers have decided to discard all of it by way of calling all of it fake. But, then too, that's the only way they can pretend Oswald was a patsy. So they're pretty much forced to toss all the evidence in the dumpster.

You're not making sense, David.

There is no physical evidence for or against Oswald. There is only physical evidence that is being interpreted for or against Oswald. Take for instance the order coupon for the rifle. In one interpretation it could be against Oswald, because his P.O. Box was used and he potentially wrote the form. On the other hand it could be interpreted for Oswald, because it was A. Hidell who ordered the rifle and not Oswald.

Now let's get back to the paper bag found at the TSBD.

We have two witnesses who both say that the bag found at the TSBD is not the bag they saw Oswald carry. Frazier told the investigators, the bag fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit and he also showed FBI agents to where the bag reached on the backseat of his car and the FBI agents measured the distance as being 27''.

Linnie Mae Randle told FBI against Odum and McNeely she saw Oswald holding a bag at the (folded up) top and carry it next to his leg. If that bag contained a wooden stock of a rifle it would have had to have been at least 34" long, which means it would have hit the ground, as Oswald's legs, measured from his hip, were not not 34" long. As the package didn't hit the ground it is reasonable to assume that the bag was shorter than 34". In fact, the bag that Oswald could have carried in the way Linnie Mae Randle described could not have been much larger than 27".

So, estimates aside, we have two measurements of the package compared to (1) the backseat of Frazier's car and (2) the size of Oswald's leg and a visual comparison of the size of the package in relation to the length of Oswald's arm. That seems pretty definitive to me. But that's not all. On Friday evening, only hours after the event and while he was being polygraphed, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD and he rejected it as the bag he had seen Oswald carry. He described the latter as being "a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased at a dime store".

As far as the bag is concerned that's the evidence interpretation for Oswald. Now, what exactly is there against Oswald?

The bag was (allegedly) found in the sniper's nest. It turned out to be made of materials that are common to the TSBD. Several prints are on the bag, but the only ones that could be identified belong to Oswald, which is somewhat remarkable as we know that at least Detective Montgomery handled the bag also (he unfolded it and carried it out of the building). It was never established that the bag found at the TSBD ever left the building, nor that it ever contained a rifle. So what we are left with is a bag, made from TSBD material, found inside the TSBD with prints of an employee of the TSBD on it.

Now, can you tell me, what plausible reason (other than circular logic) the investigators had to ignore the witness evidence as "mistaken" in favor of the TSBD bag being the one that Oswald carried after all?

[Charles Collins]

The 2002 Sixth Floor video is illuminating for me. And here are a few items that I take away from it.

1. Frazier heard three shots from above his location. Frazier says that there was no more that 15-seconds between the first and last shots. He says that he estimates that there was 8 to 10-seconds between the first two shots, and no more than 5-seconds between the second and third shots.

2. Frazier says that the limo hadn’t gone very far from the time it disappeared from his sight (due to the corner of the front stairs alcove). The fact that he associates that time of disappearance with the first shot suggests to me that the time of the first shot was close to that point in time. A preliminary look at Roberdeau’s map suggests that this was a little before the Z133 timeframe.

3. Frazier only saw the package out of the corner of his eye during a quick glance into the back seat as he was sitting down in the driver’s seat. And he didn’t think any more about it after that.

4. Frazier says the package was made out of brown wrapping paper and tape similar to what they used at the TSBD.

5. After discussing the description of the length of the package vs the length of the rifle controversy with Gary Mack, Frazier asks himself if the rifle was in the bag. His answer is “I don’t know.” I find this particularly interesting after hearing the claims from many CTers that the bag coudn’t have contained the rifle. Here is the man who saw the package and provided the length estimate (that the CT crowd clings so closely to) saying he doesn’t know if the rifle was in the bag. In my opinion, BWF is admitting (in a round about way) that his estimate of the length of the bag might be mistaken. Frazier will most likely never admit this directly, but he certainly leaves that possibility open to interpretation.

6. Frazier’s main reason for not believing LHO was guilty appears to be that LHO liked playing with kids. (Not because the package was too short.)

7. It is very obvious that Frazier became upset with the DPD and how they treated him during questioning on 11/22/63. My opinion is that when they showed him the bag, he was determined to be of no help to the DPD (due to his anger at them). So it appears to me that he probably said the bag was longer than the one he saw in his back seat for potentially two reasons. 1. He didn’t want to willingly accept any possible responsibility for transporting the murder weapon (even though he had no way of knowing what was in the bag). 2. He wanted to be uncooperative due to his anger at the DPD for their treatment of him.

[Martin Weidmann]

The 2002 Sixth Floor video is illuminating for me. And here are a few items that I take away from it.

1. Frazier heard three shots from above his location. Frazier says that there was no more that 15-seconds between the first and last shots. He says that he estimates that there was 8 to 10-seconds between the first two shots, and no more than 5-seconds between the second and third shots.

2. Frazier says that the limo hadn’t gone very far from the time it disappeared from his sight (due to the corner of the front stairs alcove). The fact that he associates that time of disappearance with the first shot suggests to me that the time of the first shot was close to that point in time. A preliminary look at Roberdeau’s map suggests that this was a little before the Z133 timeframe.

3. Frazier only saw the package out of the corner of his eye during a quick glance into the back seat as he was sitting down in the driver’s seat. And he didn’t think any more about it after that.

4. Frazier says the package was made out of brown wrapping paper and tape similar to what they used at the TSBD.

5. After discussing the description of the length of the package vs the length of the rifle controversy with Gary Mack, Frazier asks himself if the rifle was in the bag. His answer is “I don’t know.” I find this particularly interesting after hearing the claims from many CTers that the bag coudn’t have contained the rifle. Here is the man who saw the package and provided the length estimate (that the CT crowd clings so closely to) saying he doesn’t know if the rifle was in the bag. In my opinion, BWF is admitting (in a round about way) that his estimate of the length of the bag might be mistaken. Frazier will most likely never admit this directly, but he certainly leaves that possibility open to interpretation.

6. Frazier’s main reason for not believing LHO was guilty appears to be that LHO liked playing with kids. (Not because the package was too short.)

7. It is very obvious that Frazier became upset with the DPD and how they treated him during questioning on 11/22/63. My opinion is that when they showed him the bag, he was determined to be of no help to the DPD (due to his anger at them). So it appears to me that he probably said the bag was longer than the one he saw in his back seat for potentially two reasons. 1. He didn’t want to willingly accept any possible responsibility for transporting the murder weapon (even though he had no way of knowing what was in the bag). 2. He wanted to be uncooperative due to his anger at the DPD for their treatment of him.

5. After discussing the description of the length of the package vs the length of the rifle controversy with Gary Mack, Frazier asks himself if the rifle was in the bag. His answer is “I don’t know.” I find this particularly interesting after hearing the claims from many CTers that the bag coudn’t have contained the rifle. Here is the man who saw the package and provided the length estimate (that the CT crowd clings so closely to) saying he doesn’t know if the rifle was in the bag. In my opinion, BWF is admitting (in a round about way) that his estimate of the length of the bag might be mistaken. Frazier will most likely never admit this directly, but he certainly leaves that possibility open to interpretation.

There is nothing illuminating here. Just like Frazier answered Bugs, during the mock trial, that he wouldn't have seen the rifle stick out over Oswald's should if it was protruding outward, he honestly states that he doesn't know if the rifle was in the bag or not. It's not up to Frazier to make a determination about what was in the bag or not. He just described the bag he had seen and simply isn't about to make any kind of firm claim about what was in it. That doesn't imply in any way that he somehow admits that his estimate of the size of the bag might be mistaken. That's just your bias interpretation.

7. It is very obvious that Frazier became upset with the DPD and how they treated him during questioning on 11/22/63. My opinion is that when they showed him the bag, he was determined to be of no help to the DPD (due to his anger at them). So it appears to me that he probably said the bag was longer than the one he saw in his back seat for potentially two reasons. 1. He didn’t want to willingly accept any possible responsibility for transporting the murder weapon (even though he had no way of knowing what was in the bag). 2. He wanted to be uncooperative due to his anger at the DPD for their treatment of him.


This is just silly. Frazier was still considered a suspect when they polygraphed him. Not cooperating with the investigators could result in an obstruction of justice charge. Highly unlikely if you haven't done anything wrong.

And he never said the bag was longer than the one he saw Oswald carry. He actually told Lewis and Day that the bag he had seen was a "thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased at a dime store". And, according to Lewis, who took the polygraph, Day believed him, because he instantly started to theorize that Oswald might have had the TSBD bag inside another flimsy bag. Frazier vented his anger after Fritz put before him a pre-typed confession that he wanted him to sign.

[Charles Collins]

5. After discussing the description of the length of the package vs the length of the rifle controversy with Gary Mack, Frazier asks himself if the rifle was in the bag. His answer is “I don’t know.” I find this particularly interesting after hearing the claims from many CTers that the bag coudn’t have contained the rifle. Here is the man who saw the package and provided the length estimate (that the CT crowd clings so closely to) saying he doesn’t know if the rifle was in the bag. In my opinion, BWF is admitting (in a round about way) that his estimate of the length of the bag might be mistaken. Frazier will most likely never admit this directly, but he certainly leaves that possibility open to interpretation.

There is nothing illuminating here. Just like Frazier answered Bugs, during the mock trial, that he wouldn't have seen the rifle stick out over Oswald's should if it was protruding outward, he honestly states that he doesn't know if the rifle was in the bag or not. It's not up to Frazier to make a determination about what was in the bag or not. He just described the bag he had seen and simply isn't about to make any kind of firm claim about what was in it. That doesn't imply in any way that he somehow admits that his estimate of the size of the bag might be mistaken. That's just your bias interpretation.

7. It is very obvious that Frazier became upset with the DPD and how they treated him during questioning on 11/22/63. My opinion is that when they showed him the bag, he was determined to be of no help to the DPD (due to his anger at them). So it appears to me that he probably said the bag was longer than the one he saw in his back seat for potentially two reasons. 1. He didn’t want to willingly accept any possible responsibility for transporting the murder weapon (even though he had no way of knowing what was in the bag). 2. He wanted to be uncooperative due to his anger at the DPD for their treatment of him.


This is just silly. Frazier was still considered a suspect when they polygraphed him. Not cooperating with the investigators could result in an obstruction of justice charge. Highly unlikely if you haven't done anything wrong.

And he never said the bag was longer than the one he saw Oswald carry. He actually told Lewis and Day that the bag he had seen was a "thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased at a dime store". And, according to Lewis, who took the polygraph, Day believed him, because he instantly started to theorize that Oswald might have had the TSBD bag inside another flimsy bag. Frazier vented his anger after Fritz put before him a pre-typed confession that he wanted him to sign.

Frazier is reminded by Gary Mack about the incompatibility of the actual length of the rifle with Frazier’s description of his estimate of the length of the bag. Then shortly thereafter Frazier (the one who actually saw the bag) voluntarily verbally asks himself if the rifle was in the bag. And says that he doesn’t know. This implies that he knows that he might be mistaken about his description of the length of the bag. No biased (or unbiased) interpretation is needed. It is what Frazier himself said on a video recording in 2002.

[Martin Weidmann]

Frazier is reminded by Gary Mack about the incompatibility of the actual length of the rifle with Frazier’s description of his estimate of the length of the bag. Then shortly thereafter Frazier (the one who actually saw the bag) voluntarily verbally asks himself if the rifle was in the bag. And says that he doesn’t know. This implies that he knows that he might be mistaken about his description of the length of the bag. No biased (or unbiased) interpretation is needed. It is what Frazier himself said on a video recording in 2002.

This implies that he knows that he might be mistaken about his description of the length of the bag.

No it doesn't imply that at all. If you interview a person often enough, you're always going to find a comment that raises a question, especially if you are biased. Knowing the man, if he really had the slightest doubt about the size of the package he wouldn't have spent all his life maintaining his description of the bag. You are simply blowing one honest comment, about not knowing if a rifle was in the bag, into something it isn't.

[Charles Collins]

This implies that he knows that he might be mistaken about his description of the length of the bag.

No it doesn't imply that at all. If you interview a person often enough, you're always going to find a comment that raises a question, especially if you are biased. Knowing the man, if he really had the slightest doubt about the size of the package he wouldn't have spent all his life maintaining his description of the bag. You are simply blowing one honest comment, about not knowing if a rifle was in the bag, into something it isn't.

If Frazier was sure that his estimate was not possibly mistaken (as many CTers claim) then he should have answered his own question about whether or not the rifle was in the bag with an unqualified negative. The fact that he said that he doesn’t know means he isn’t sure at all. But if he ever directly admits that he intentionally misled the investigation, he could be criticized or worse.

[Martin Weidmann]

If Frazier was sure that his estimate was not possibly mistaken (as many CTers claim) then he should have answered his own question about whether or not the rifle was in the bag with an unqualified negative. The fact that he said that he doesn’t know means he isn’t sure at all. But if he ever directly admits that he intentionally misled the investigation, he could be criticized or worse.

Amazing what an LN will do to twist and turn something to benefit his case.

Frazier is (and has always been) adamant about his description of the bag and he doesn't know if there was a rifle in it or not.

It is a simple as that. Everything else is just your bias at work.

It's 58 years after the fact and an LN is still struggling to somehow increase the size of the bag so that a rifle can fit in it.