Buell Wesley Frazier

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Buell Wesley Frazier  (Read 519817 times)

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8212
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #252 on: October 09, 2018, 08:43:18 PM »
He had the rest of his life to be worried about. That was borne out in the problems he had with the busybodies giving him static about driving the killer to work.

How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.

Best to hedge one's bets given that atmosphere.

Once again you are not making any sense. An innocent and uninvolved Frazier had no incentive to lie. And most certainly he did not have an incentive to lie and tell the DPD something they didn't want to hear!

The DPD found a bag that was big enough to have contained a broken down rifle. Early on, with Oswald having been arrested, they were convinced they had their man. They also knew that Frazier drove Oswald to work that morning. So, the DPD wanted to hear from Frazier that they had the correct bag and that it was indeed big enough to contain a rifle, right? Telling them exactly that would have gotten Frazier out of trouble, but that would have been a lie!

But he did not tell them that. Instead he claimed, like an innocent person would do, that they had the wrong bag and that Oswald's bag was much smaller. Now, if that was a lie, it was a pretty stupid one, because the DPD could conclude that he was lying to protect Oswald and maybe himself as a complicit.


How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.

Could that possibly include Oswald as well?

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #253 on: October 09, 2018, 11:09:01 PM »
Once again you are not making any sense. An innocent and uninvolved Frazier had no incentive to lie. And most certainly he did not have an incentive to lie and tell the DPD something they didn't want to hear!

The DPD found a bag that was big enough to have contained a broken down rifle. Early on, with Oswald having been arrested, they were convinced they had their man. They also knew that Frazier drove Oswald to work that morning. So, the DPD wanted to hear from Frazier that they had the correct bag and that it was indeed big enough to contain a rifle, right? Telling them exactly that would have gotten Frazier out of trouble, but that would have been a lie!

But he did not tell them that. Instead he claimed, like an innocent person would do, that they had the wrong bag and that Oswald's bag was much smaller. Now, if that was a lie, it was a pretty stupid one, because the DPD could conclude that he was lying to protect Oswald and maybe himself as a complicit.


How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.

Could that possibly include Oswald as well?

Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?

Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'

You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.

I stand by my point that Randle & Buell could have decided to hedge their bets. It would have been the smart move.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 11:13:14 PM by Bill Chapman »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #254 on: October 10, 2018, 12:11:46 AM »
They should have asked LMR about it when she testified.  It could be as simple as she said two feet and Bookhout misheard or misremembered three feet.

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3723
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #255 on: October 10, 2018, 02:00:02 AM »
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?
 Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'
You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.
Wow ...that was actually a Chap-post?
BWF was a 19 yr old kid at the time. His affidavit was drafted by the Dallas Police [all you have to do is read it]  https://www.google.com/search?q=affidavit+buell+wesley+frazier&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLgoX60_rdAhUqjFQKHWtJC1QQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=1024&bih=646
As you can see from the link there seems to be different versions of the same affidavit.
How did the police appear to have keyed in on Frazier so quickly? Almost like it was in the script.
Police...Tell us about the curtain rods.
BWF.....What curtain rods?
Police...The curtain rods that Oswald brought to work.
BWF.....He did?

 

Offline Richard Rubio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 294
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #256 on: October 10, 2018, 04:18:19 AM »
Nice work Jerry Freeman.  Never saw that.  Still reading this whole thing...  I don't want to be premature.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 04:22:21 AM by Richard Rubio »

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8212
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #257 on: October 10, 2018, 06:47:18 AM »

Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?

Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'

You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.

I stand by my point that Randle & Buell could have decided to hedge their bets. It would have been the smart move.

Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?


There is no verbatim record of what Oswald said!

Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'

Why would that raise eyebrows for an investigator? It's fairly common for people not to pay much attention to most what is around them. More than anything else it sounds like a build in safety measure to me, as it gave Frazier some protection to being pinned down too solidly to a statement. And, of course, it could well be true.

You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.

No, I didn't ignore that at all. A 19 year old kid who knows he hasn't done anything wrong, has no reason to lie to police. An innocent indivual doesn't usually lie to try and get out of trouble. Besides, if he was going to lie, why not tell investigators what they wanted to hear; i.e. that the bag they had was indeed the bag he saw Oswald carry?

I stand by my point that Randle & Buell could have decided to hedge their bets. It would have been the smart move.


I disagree. The move would have been just as stupid as you standing by that point!

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #258 on: October 10, 2018, 12:41:37 PM »
Once again you are not making any sense. An innocent and uninvolved Frazier had no incentive to lie. And most certainly he did not have an incentive to lie and tell the DPD something they didn't want to hear!

The DPD found a bag that was big enough to have contained a broken down rifle. Early on, with Oswald having been arrested, they were convinced they had their man. They also knew that Frazier drove Oswald to work that morning. So, the DPD wanted to hear from Frazier that they had the correct bag and that it was indeed big enough to contain a rifle, right? Telling them exactly that would have gotten Frazier out of trouble, but that would have been a lie!

But he did not tell them that. Instead he claimed, like an innocent person would do, that they had the wrong bag and that Oswald's bag was much smaller. Now, if that was a lie, it was a pretty stupid one, because the DPD could conclude that he was lying to protect Oswald and maybe himself as a complicit.


How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.

Could that possibly include Oswald as well?

Could that possibly include Oswald as well?

There's not a shred of doubt in my mind that Henry Wade was a key cretin in the framing of Lee Oswald....