Buell Wesley Frazier

[Martin Weidmann]

The totality of evidence confirms that Frazier described the bag to the best of his ability but got it wrong.  What is so difficult to understand about that?  The bag was found.  We therefore know exactly how long it was without estimates or speculation.  You appear to suggest that it was somehow impossible for Frazier to get it wrong but imagine the counter narrative that you are implying in accepting that premise.  You have a planted bag, Oswald denying for some inexplicable reason carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier, the complete disappearance of the two foot long bag, the bizarre notion that the conspirators forgot to plant the bag found, the coincidence of Oswald making an unexpected trip to the Paine home on Thursday and then carrying a long bag to work on Friday (how did the fantasy conspirators depend upon that?), somehow getting Oswald's prints on the bag.  It's very clear what happened from the facts and evidence.  No serious historian disputes that the bag found on the 6th floor was used by Oswald to carry the rifle.  Only in fantasy-land does this type of discussion happen. But if you disagree, please send your evidence of a conspiracy to the NY Times and ask for their opinion.  Let us know how that works out.

So, you can not answer my questions.... I figured as much!


The totality of evidence confirms that Frazier described the bag to the best of his ability but got it wrong. 

No.. The totality of the available evidence is partly based on the assumption that Oswald brought a rifle into the TSBD. Without that a large part of the case would instantly collapse. And so Frazier and Randle had to be "mistaken" as a matter of necessity.

Have you ever wondered why Frazier is today still saying the same thing as he was saying on day 1? He has nothing to gain or lose by saying that he could have been mistaken, but he never did. He always maintained that he did not see Oswald carry the bag that is now in evidence! The reason for that IMO is that he knows beyond any doubt that he is right!

The bag was found.  We therefore know exactly how long it was without estimates or speculation.

No... A bag was found.... and as far as estimates go, you seem to have a reading problem because nobody is talking about that, except you of course.

You appear to suggest that it was somehow impossible for Frazier to get it wrong but imagine the counter narrative that you are implying in accepting that premise.  You have a planted bag, Oswald denying for some inexplicable reason carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier, the complete disappearance of the two foot long bag, the bizarre notion that the conspirators forgot to plant the bag found, the coincidence of Oswald making an unexpected trip to the Paine home on Thursday and then carrying a long bag to work on Friday (how did the fantasy conspirators depend upon that?), somehow getting Oswald's prints on the bag.

More hand waving! I don't suggest anything of the kind. That's just you looking for an argument you think you can crush with pathetic rhetoric.

I am saying that the record shows that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag and he instantly denied that it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. The polygraph did not prove him wrong! Frazier also told investigators, that the bag he had seen Oswald carry in the morning of the same day was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".

You seem to be unable or unwilling to deal with these facts... Why is that?

No serious historian disputes that the bag found on the 6th floor was used by Oswald to carry the rifle.

Pathetic argument to make. ... Let me guess; any historian who disagrees with you is not serious, right?

Only in fantasy-land does this type of discussion happen.

As you are taking part in the discussion, do you like being in fantasy-land by choice?


 

[Richard Smith]

So, you can not answer my questions.... I figured as much!


The totality of evidence confirms that Frazier described the bag to the best of his ability but got it wrong. 

No.. The totality of the available evidence is partly based on the assumption that Oswald brought a rifle into the TSBD. Without that a large part of the case would instantly collapse. And so Frazier and Randle had to be "mistaken" as a matter of necessity.

Have you ever wondered why Frazier is today still saying the same thing as he was saying on day 1? He has nothing to gain or lose by saying that he could have been mistaken, but he never did. He always maintained that he did not see Oswald carry the bag that is now in evidence! The reason for that IMO is that he knows beyond any doubt that he is right!

The bag was found.  We therefore know exactly how long it was without estimates or speculation.

No... A bag was found.... and as far as estimates go, you seem to have a reading problem because nobody is talking about that, except you of course.

You appear to suggest that it was somehow impossible for Frazier to get it wrong but imagine the counter narrative that you are implying in accepting that premise.  You have a planted bag, Oswald denying for some inexplicable reason carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier, the complete disappearance of the two foot long bag, the bizarre notion that the conspirators forgot to plant the bag found, the coincidence of Oswald making an unexpected trip to the Paine home on Thursday and then carrying a long bag to work on Friday (how did the fantasy conspirators depend upon that?), somehow getting Oswald's prints on the bag.

More hand waving! I don't suggest anything of the kind. That's just you looking for an argument you think you can crush with pathetic rhetoric.

I am saying that the record shows that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag and he instantly denied that it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. The polygraph did not prove him wrong! Frazier also told investigators, that the bag he had seen Oswald carry in the morning of the same day was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".

You seem to be unable or unwilling to deal with these facts... Why is that?

No serious historian disputes that the bag found on the 6th floor was used by Oswald to carry the rifle.

Pathetic argument to make. ... Let me guess; any historian who disagrees with you is not serious, right?

Only in fantasy-land does this type of discussion happen.

As you are taking part in the discussion, do you like being in fantasy-land by choice?

Painful.  Doesn't it bother you that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way?  And that your hero Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag?  That's a rhetorical question since I know the answer.  Why would a polygraph matter if Frazier was honestly answering the question but got it wrong?  LOL  Good grief.  You can't possibly be that dense. Frazier was being honest but got it wrong.  He did not lie.  Whew.  This goes back to the CTer inability to distinguish a lie from an honest mistake. Very humorous.  Of course if the polygraph had suggested that Frazier was lying then you would be lecturing us on how they are unreliable.  Like handwriting analysis or any evidence that links Oswald to this crime.

[Martin Weidmann]

Painful.  Doesn't it bother you that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way?  And that your hero Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag?  That's a rhetorical question since I know the answer.  Why would a polygraph matter if Frazier was honestly answering the question but got it wrong?  LOL  Good grief.  You can't possibly be that dense.  I was trying to have some mercy on you but you are too stupid to understand. Frazier was being honest but got it wrong.  He did not lie.  Whew.  This goes back to the CTer inability to distinguish a lie from an honest mistake. Very humorous.  Of course if the polygraph had suggested that Frazier was lying then you would be lecturing us on how they are unreliable.  Like handwriting analysis or any evidence that links Oswald to this crime.

Doesn't it bother you that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way? 

No... because there is no record of anybody ever looking for such a bag or that Oswald was even asked where he left the bag he had brought his lunch in. And absence of evidence is no evidence of absence! All there is, is a comment by R.D. Lewis, who took Frazier's polygraph, that Oswald could simply have thrown away such a flimsy bag and he was right.

Doesn't it bother you that Fritz told Detective Montgomery to guard the sniper's nest until the Crime Scene officers (Day and Studebaker) arrived, yet when these men got there the bag was not in the position it allegedly was found in? It was never photographed in situ and according to Montgomery the paper bag was actually sitting on a box in folded up condition?

And that your hero Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag?

Oswald is not my hero, so cut the pathetic dramatics. And we don't know what Oswald really said, do we now?

Why would a polygraph matter if Frazier was honestly answering the question but got it wrong?

What did Frazier get wrong? That the heavy bag shown to him was not the "thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" he had seen Oswald carry?

Good grief.  You can't possibly be that dense.  I was trying to have some mercy on you but you are too stupid to understand.Frazier was being honest but got it wrong.  He did not lie.  Whew. This goes back to the CTer inability to distinguish a lie from an honest mistake. Very humorous.  Of course if the polygraph had suggested that Frazier was lying then you would be lecturing us on how they are unreliable.  Like handwriting analysis or any evidence that links Oswald to this crime.
 .

Ah... here come the usual insults and more hand waving.... Always a sign of weakness!

What exactly did Frazier get wrong? 

Frazier saw Oswald carry a thin, flimsy dime store bag and when he was shown a heavy bag made from wrapping materials he denied that this was Oswald's bag.

Can you imagine how this would play out in a court with Frazier on the stand as a witness?

Prosecutor: Mr. Frazier I show you a paper bag found at the TSBD. Do you recognize this bag?
Frazier: No, I had never seen it before until DPD officers showed it to me on 11/22/63
Prosecutor: Are you absolutely sure you have never seen this bag before?
Frazier: Yes
Prosecutor: Let me ask you in a different way; Did you see Lee Harvey Oswald carry this bag at any time?
Frazier: No
Prosecutor: How can you be so sure?
Frazier: Well, for one, this bag is too large to be the bag I saw Oswald carry. His bag was much smaller. It was so small that he could carry it in the palm of his hand and tucked under his armpit. But that's not all. The bag I saw Oswald carry was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store. The bag you show me is made of heavy duty wrapping paper. There is no way this is the bag I saw Oswald carry....
Prosecutor: No further questions....

[Rick McTague]

The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw the bag Oswald had is a classic example of, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.

Buell and Linnie saw Oswald carrying a long bag to work on the morning of November 22. That is bad. This only makes Oswald look guilty. Why is he carrying a long package into work on that day, of all days?

But, the solution is the focus on some minutiae. Both witnesses remember the bag being a bit too short. If taken as the absolute truth, it means Oswald did not bring his rifle in to work that day.

But can we take this as the absolute truth? Couldn?t the witnesses have been off on the exact length of the bag. Particularly since neither had any reason at the time to carefully note the exact length of the bag?

Also, CTers ignore that both witnesses had reasons for underestimating the length of the bag. Buell was accused of being an accessory to a murder. Because he had driver the accused assassin and his rifle to the plaza. Neither Buell nor Linnie, his sister, wanted this to happen. So naturally, they both have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag. If the bag is too short to hold the rifle, then Buell cannot be charged.

So, this argument by CTers ignores three points.

1.   The witnesses could be off a bit on the exact length of the bag.


2.   Both witnesses have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag.


3.   CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.

Which rifle was in the bag though?  The 7.62 Mauser several police officers saw or the MC held up barehanded for the cameras?

[Walt Cakebread]

I mentioned this before but it looks like a case of people ignoring it or they didn't see it.

Harold Weisburg, who is held in high esteem in the CT community, gave this presentation below on the Church Committee.

At around the 1 hour and 20 second mark Weisburg makes a statement that the reason that the DPD gave Frazier a polygraph

test was to see if Frazier was, as Weisburg puts it, laying Marina Oswald. Weisburg goes on to state that  Frazier said yes and

the polygraph proved him as telling the truth. Any comments?

Any comments?

Yes.....You've clearly got some weird obsession with sex.....  Many of your posts contain sex ....

[Walt Cakebread]

Which rifle was in the bag though?  The 7.62 Mauser several police officers saw or the MC held up barehanded for the cameras?

Neither.....Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randall said that the paper sack that Lee carried was too small......

[Richard Smith]

Doesn't it bother you that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way? 

No... because there is no record of anybody ever looking for such a bag or that Oswald was even asked where he left the bag he had brought his lunch in. And absence of evidence is no evidence of absence! All there is, is a comment by R.D. Lewis, who took Frazier's polygraph, that Oswald could simply have thrown away such a flimsy bag and he was right.

Doesn't it bother you that Fritz told Detective Montgomery to guard the sniper's nest until the Crime Scene officers (Day and Studebaker) arrived, yet when these men got there the bag was not in the position it allegedly was found in? It was never photographed in situ and according to Montgomery the paper bag was actually sitting on a box in folded up condition?

And that your hero Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag?

Oswald is not my hero, so cut the pathetic dramatics. And we don't know what Oswald really said, do we now?

Why would a polygraph matter if Frazier was honestly answering the question but got it wrong?

What did Frazier get wrong? That the heavy bag shown to him was not the "thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" he had seen Oswald carry?

Good grief.  You can't possibly be that dense.  I was trying to have some mercy on you but you are too stupid to understand.Frazier was being honest but got it wrong.  He did not lie.  Whew. This goes back to the CTer inability to distinguish a lie from an honest mistake. Very humorous.  Of course if the polygraph had suggested that Frazier was lying then you would be lecturing us on how they are unreliable.  Like handwriting analysis or any evidence that links Oswald to this crime.
 .

Ah... here come the usual insults and more hand waving.... Always a sign of weakness!

What exactly did Frazier get wrong? 

Frazier saw Oswald carry a thin, flimsy dime store bag and when he was shown a heavy bag made from wrapping materials he denied that this was Oswald's bag.

Can you imagine how this would play out in a court with Frazier on the stand as a witness?

Prosecutor: Mr. Frazier I show you a paper bag found at the TSBD. Do you recognize this bag?
Frazier: No, I had never seen it before until DPD officers showed it to me on 11/22/63
Prosecutor: Are you absolutely sure you have never seen this bag before?
Frazier: Yes
Prosecutor: Let me ask you in a different way; Did you see Lee Harvey Oswald carry this bag at any time?
Frazier: No
Prosecutor: How can you be so sure?
Frazier: Well, for one, this bag is too large to be the bag I saw Oswald carry. His bag was much smaller. It was so small that he could carry it in the palm of his hand and tucked under his armpit. But that's not all. The bag I saw Oswald carry was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store. The bag you show me is made of heavy duty wrapping paper. There is no way this is the bag I saw Oswald carry....
Prosecutor: No further questions....

Ugh.  So many wasted words.  You have suggested that Frazier must be correct in his estimate of the bag's length citing the polygraph that he did not indicate lie.  As though the polygraph is the hand of God determining the truth.  This is simple.  Pay attention for once.  If Frazier truly believed the bag he was shown was not the bag, then the polygraph would indicate he was not lying EVEN if he was wrong.  It determines - when accurate - whether a person is lying not whether what they are saying is accurate.  Thus, if Frazier believed it, then it would not register as a "lie" in the polygraph even if he was wrong.  A person can testify honestly but erroneously. So if you believe that little green men are visiting you and take a polygraph test to that effect it will show that you are not lying.  That does not mean that little green mean are visiting you though.  Can you comprehend that obvious distinction?  I have never disputed that Frazier believed it was a shorter bag.  That is his testimony.  But the totality of evidence proves he is wrong.