Two Wallets? Nope.

[Michael Capasse]

Mytton'scusess
Frazier lied about the size of the bag; except when he was mistaken.
  another lame excuse by John Mytton, not in the official record  -- collect them all !

[John Mytton]

Mytton'scusess
Frazier lied about the size of the bag; except when he was mistaken.
  another lame excuse by John Mytton, not in the official record  -- collect them all !

When I agree with what's in the official record you hate me.
When I disagree with what's in the official record you hate me.

At least you're consistent! LOL!

Anyway, the WC Report and the Official Volumes isn't the Bible written by the word of God, and I'm allowed to disagree with certain insignificant aspects and in this case regarding Frazier, it ultimately doesn't matter what Frazier says about the size of the bag, because;

The bag was the perfect size for the rifle.
The bag had multiple Oswald prints.
The bag was discovered in the Sniper's nest next to the relatively fresh Oswald prints.
The bag was on the other side of the floor where Oswald's rifle was found.
The bag's location in Frazier's car was lied about by Oswald, because obviously the bag was too big to carry it on his lap.
The Bag's contents were lied about by Oswald who said to Frazier that the contents were curtain rods and told the Police the bag contained his lunch.











JohnM

[Lance Payette]

A classic example of someone who didn't pay much attention is Buell Wesley Frazier, he repeatedly says that he never payed much attention to the paper sack and why should he have, they were just innocuous "curtain rods" in a plain brown paper bag and when Frazier did see Oswald holding the bag in his famous recollection that has now become CT gospel of "armpit to cupped hand" that was only from a distance and from behind. But I have a sneaking suspicion that naïve Frazier initially never did pay much attention to the bag but as the horror of the events became clear and his sudden realization that he transported Oswald with his rifle to work, Frazier in an effort to distance himself from the assassination, started "remembering" events a little differently.

Mr. BALL - All right. When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.

Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.

Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.

Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.

Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--

And to be honest I don't blame Frazier he was just a 19 year old kid who was used by a killer, in fact I think others also saw the brown paper package but just kept their mouths shut, Dougherty who was another well intentioned but not quite all there employee, testified to the following. Even though Dougherty's testimony was a bit bonkers, this should have been followed up.

Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did.
Mr. BALL - Who said that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.

JohnM

Yes, Frazier's testimony was what first alerted me to this CT game. The number of times he said "I really wasn't paying much attention" literally leaps off the page. Then we factor in the reality that there was utterly no reason for him to have been paying much attention. Yet it is now conspiracy gospel that Oswald was carrying a package tucked under his armpit that was too short to be the rifle.

I think we do have to be somewhat impressed with Frazier and Randle sticking to their guns (pun?) about the package being too short. It seemingly would have been easy for them to cave in on that. Of course, that cuts both ways - the WC (supposedly) could intimidate doctors and other witnesses into toeing the party line, but not folksy Buell and Linnie Mae - really? Frazier is instructive in another way: his pathetic metamorphosis into the story he tells today should be instructive as to how seriously to take any of these latter-day tales.

I'm always struck by real-life incidents. Try to recall what you had for lunch yesterday, or what your wife (or maybe you!) was wearing yesterday. Unless your wife was wearing a Weidmann Beer t-shirt, it isn't easy. Yet everyone connected with the events of 11-22 is assumed by the CT community to have had a photographic memory. If their recall fits the CT narrative, it becomes conspiracy gospel. If not, they are lying because someone "got to them." And on it goes.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

When I agree with what's in the official record you hate me.
When I disagree with what's in the official record you hate me.

At least you're consistent! LOL!

Anyway, the WC Report and the Official Volumes isn't the Bible written by the word of God, and I'm allowed to disagree with certain insignificant aspects and in this case regarding Frazier, it ultimately doesn't matter what Frazier says about the size of the bag, because;

The bag was the perfect size for the rifle.
The bag had multiple Oswald prints.
The bag was discovered in the Sniper's nest next to the relatively fresh Oswald prints.
The bag was on the other side of the floor where Oswald's rifle was found.
The bag's location in Frazier's car was lied about by Oswald, because obviously the bag was too big to carry it on his lap.
The Bag's contents were lied about by Oswald who said to Frazier that the contents were curtain rods and told the Police the bag contained his lunch.

JohnM

They believe in two Oswalds, two shooters, two autopsies, two Zapruder films, why not two John Myttons?

It's always 1964 with the conspiracy believers. As if the Warren Commission is the only investigation we've had into the assassination. Sixty plus years of investigations by several generations of Americans in the government and outside of it. Investigative reporters, scholars, historians have all looked, directly and indirectly, into the assassination. Histories of the CIA, the FBI have been done. Biographies on the major figures have been compiled.

All of this additional information, it fills half a library, volumes of it. Should we simply dismiss all of this as just "the Warren Commission?"

[Martin Weidmann]

When I agree with what's in the official record you hate me.
When I disagree with what's in the official record you hate me.

At least you're consistent! LOL!

Anyway, the WC Report and the Official Volumes isn't the Bible written by the word of God, and I'm allowed to disagree with certain insignificant aspects and in this case regarding Frazier, it ultimately doesn't matter what Frazier says about the size of the bag, because;

The bag was the perfect size for the rifle.
The bag had multiple Oswald prints.
The bag was discovered in the Sniper's nest next to the relatively fresh Oswald prints.
The bag was on the other side of the floor where Oswald's rifle was found.
The bag's location in Frazier's car was lied about by Oswald, because obviously the bag was too big to carry it on his lap.
The Bag's contents were lied about by Oswald who said to Frazier that the contents were curtain rods and told the Police the bag contained his lunch.


JohnM

All this is based on the assumption that the bag found at the 6th floor of the TSBD was the same one that Oswald carried earlier that day.
There is no evidence for that and on Friday evening Frazier denied it was the same bag.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes, Frazier's testimony was what first alerted me to this CT game. The number of times he said "I really wasn't paying much attention" literally leaps off the page. Then we factor in the reality that there was utterly no reason for him to have been paying much attention. Yet it is now conspiracy gospel that Oswald was carrying a package tucked under his armpit that was too short to be the rifle.

I think we do have to be somewhat impressed with Frazier and Randle sticking to their guns (pun?) about the package being too short. It seemingly would have been easy for them to cave in on that. Of course, that cuts both ways - the WC (supposedly) could intimidate doctors and other witnesses into toeing the party line, but not folksy Buell and Linnie Mae - really? Frazier is instructive in another way: his pathetic metamorphosis into the story he tells today should be instructive as to how seriously to take any of these latter-day tales.

I'm always struck by real-life incidents. Try to recall what you had for lunch yesterday, or what your wife (or maybe you!) was wearing yesterday. Unless your wife was wearing a Weidmann Beer t-shirt, it isn't easy. Yet everyone connected with the events of 11-22 is assumed by the CT community to have had a photographic memory. If their recall fits the CT narrative, it becomes conspiracy gospel. If not, they are lying because someone "got to them." And on it goes.

The LN double standard at work. Earlene Roberts, who had poor vision to begin with, said she didn't pay much attention to Oswald as she was concentrating on getting the TV to work. yet the LNs insist that her testimony about Oswald wearing a jacket was 100% accurate, despite the fact that Roberts couldn't identify the jacket shown to her at her testimony because the one she had seen was darker.

Isn't it amazing how that "didn't pay much attention" stuff works....

[John Mytton]

The LN double standard at work. Earlene Roberts, who had poor vision to begin with, said she didn't pay much attention to Oswald as she was concentrating on getting the TV to work. yet the LNs insist that her testimony about Oswald wearing a jacket was 100% accurate, despite the fact that Roberts couldn't identify the jacket shown to her at her testimony because the one she had seen was darker.

Isn't it amazing how that "didn't pay much attention" stuff works....

Sure Earlene had a little trouble with her eyesight but she wasn't blind, and that's why there was a slight discrepancy remembering the exact shade of the jacket which by the way she saw in a different environment and therefore used words like "seems" and "I won't be sure". Thanks for pointing out the fact about Earlene's eyesight because ironically it helps the LNer case more than the CT allegation!

Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?

But she sure did remember the specific action of Oswald zipping up the jacket!!

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Mr. BALL. He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.

And guess what the jacket in evidence is a zipper type, how about that!



And many other eyewitnesses at the Tippit crime scene remembered Oswald wearing a grey/tan jacket, and at the Texas Theater when Oswald was photographed outside, he had NO jacket. Oops!

Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.

Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.

Mr. BELIN. Was the jacket open or closed up?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was open.

Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.

Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

They believe in two Oswalds, two shooters, two autopsies, two Zapruder films, why not two John Myttons?

It's always 1964 with the conspiracy believers. As if the Warren Commission is the only investigation we've had into the assassination. Sixty plus years of investigations by several generations of Americans in the government and outside of it. Investigative reporters, scholars, historians have all looked, directly and indirectly, into the assassination. Histories of the CIA, the FBI have been done. Biographies on the major figures have been compiled.

All of this additional information, it fills half a library, volumes of it. Should we simply dismiss all of this as just "the Warren Commission?"

Thanks Steve, I totally agree, there has been a heck of a lot of research and investigations in this case, probably more than any other murder in history, and 60+ years later there is still only one narrative that fits from beginning to end, Oswald did it!

JohnM