I agree Charles. How long did he claim to be at the hospital visiting his step-father? How long was it in reality? What topic do you think he discussed that afternoon before being taken into police custody?
I'm not sure that necessarily means he lied. It might be a question of semantics. The information in these affidavits appears to be prompted in part by a list of questions as many of them read similarly. The police are investigating the assassination. That occurs at 12:30. Thus, it would not be unreasonable to interpret a question about seeing Oswald that day figuratively when it is relevant to the crime (i.e. did he see Oswald in the building acting suspiciously prior to 12:30) rather than literally (did he see Oswald later that day after the crime was over). Is it possible that he made up or was mistaken about seeing Oswald after the fact? Sure. I think stories grow over time. And he may have come to believe he saw Oswald after the assassination.
I do find it strange that he apparently didn't realize why the police wanted to talk with him and came to the hospital to take him into the station. He even seems angry about that. By that point, he should have had a good idea that he had driven the assassin and his weapon to the TSBD. He had even talked to his sister from the hospital. I bet that was an interesting conversation. My recollection is that he has never been crystal clear about when he came to know that Oswald was the suspect. He mentions hearing the name Lee Oswald on the radio as he is driving to the hospital but appears to suggest uncertainty about whether it is the same "Lee" he drove to work. I believe he indicated that he didn't even know Oswald's last name until after the assassination. His sister seems a bit brighter than Buell though. She may have told him he was in deep spombleprofglidnoctobunse and discussed on the phone call how to downplay any allegation that Frazier should have been a little more suspicious that day. So their story goes that he doesn't pay much attention to the bag, underestimates its size, there is no discussion of the president's upcoming visit with Oswald during the drive even though the motorcade is coming by their building and it must have been the main news story of the day (and the radio is on while they drive to work). He is just a good boy giving a co-worker a ride. How was he to know?
I'm not sure that necessarily means he lied. It might be a question of semantics. The information in these affidavits appears to be prompted in part by a list of questions as many of them read similarly. The police are investigating the assassination. That occurs at 12:30. Thus, it would not be unreasonable to interpret a question about seeing Oswald that day figuratively when it is relevant to the crime (i.e. did he see Oswald in the building acting suspiciously prior to 12:30) rather than literally (did he see Oswald later that day after the crime was over). Is it possible that he made up or was mistaken about seeing Oswald after the fact? Sure. I think stories grow over time. And he may have come to believe he saw Oswald after the assassination.
I do find it strange that he apparently didn't realize why the police wanted to talk with him and came to the hospital to take him into the station. He even seems angry about that. By that point, he should have had a good idea that he had driven the assassin and his weapon to the TSBD. He had even talked to his sister from the hospital. I bet that was an interesting conversation. My recollection is that he has never been crystal clear about when he came to know that Oswald was the suspect. He mentions hearing the name Lee Oswald on the radio as he is driving to the hospital but appears to suggest uncertainty about whether it is the same "Lee" he drove to work. I believe he indicated that he didn't even know Oswald's last name until after the assassination. His sister seems a bit brighter than Buell though. She may have told him he was in deep spombleprofglidnoctobunse and discussed on the phone call how to downplay any allegation that Frazier should have been a little more suspicious that day. So their story goes that he doesn't pay much attention to the bag, underestimates its size, there is no discussion of the president's upcoming visit with Oswald during the drive even though the motorcade is coming by their building and it must have been the main news story of the day (and the radio is on while they drive to work). He is just a good boy giving a co-worker a ride. How was he to know?
My point is that Buell Frazier is a liar.
And if he claims something that is contrary to the physical and circumstantial evidence his claim should be considered accordingly.
Just a consistency check here: are you saying that any witness who reports conflicting information at different times is necessarily a liar and therefore has no credibility?
What did Frazier claim that is contrary to the physical and circumstantial evidence?
No, Buell Frazier's credibility has been damaged by his clear and blatant lie is all I am saying.
What did Frazier claim that is contrary to the physical and circumstantial evidence?
The length of the package that LHO brought into the TSBD on 11/22/63.
I'm trying to determine if you are special pleading where Frazier is concerned, because a lot of witnesses made conflicting statements: Marina, Givens, Brennan, Poe, Euins, Markham just to name a few.
What "physical and circumstantial evidence" is contrary?
Each one has to be taken as a unique instance and analyzed in context.
What "physical and circumstantial evidence" is contrary?
here are a few:
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html (https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html)
What is the "context" for assuming that Frazier was lying (intentionally stating something he knew to be untrue) either time? And why doesn't the same standard apply to say Marina? Or do you also think Marina was a liar with no credibility?
The WC didn't know that CE 142 was the same bag that Frazier saw, and neither do you.
The context is a sworn affidavit of 11/22/63 stating clearly that he "did not see LHO after about 11:00 AM today." That is either true or a lie. If it is true then his statement in the 7/13/2013 interview is a lie.
Frazier claims that it isn't. His claim is at odds with the circumstantial evidence that tends to show that it is.
Really? Do you define "lie" as any statement that is untrue, regardless of the person's intent? That would be interesting...
What circumstantial evidence tends to show that CE 142 is the bag that Frazier saw? Just your supposition that it must be?
No. But it is crystal clear that Buell Frazier is blatantly and intentionally lying. Do you claim otherwise?
See the list above. Like I said earlier, you can choose to believe Buell Frazier if you wish.
So two times under oath on a witness stand in a court of law he states he never saw Oswald after the shooting and never states he left the stairs.
Yes. What makes it "crystal clear" to you?
The "list above" was just a WC conclusion based on a supposition. What is the evidence that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier saw? Is there any at all?
I have explained it already. What is your claim otherwise.
The list includes evidence. But you refuse to acknowledge it. Why? Have you reached a different conclusion?
(1) the circumstances surrounding Oswald's return to Irving, Tex., on Thursday, November 21, 1963,
(2) the disappearance of the rifle from its normal place of storage,
(3) Oswald's arrival at the Depository Building on November 22, carrying a long and bulky brown paper package,
(4) the presence of a long handmade brown paper bag near the point from which the shots were fired,
and (5) the palmprint, fiber, and paper analyses linking Oswald and the assassination weapon to this bag.
Steve, can you point out the testimonies where he stated he never saw Oswald after the shooting and where he ever said that he didn't leave the stairs?John,
John,
It's in both his testimonies to the Warren Commission and the Shaw Trail> If you need me to post the testimonies I will.
You haven't explained why it's "crystal clear" to you that Frazier is "blatantly and intentionally lying".
No, the WC is doing what you are doing: assuming that CE 142 must be the bag that Frazier saw because a couple of Oswald's prints were (allegedly) found on it.
Yes, I've come to a different conclusion. Namely that there is no evidence that CE 142 is the bag that Frazier saw, and that there is no evidence that CE 142 or the bag that Frazier saw ever contained the CE 139 rifle or any other rifle.
Furthermore, the claims in your "list" aren't even accurate.
A look at all of the circumstances shows that 1) it was not the first time that Oswald came to Irving on a different day of the week, 2) he wasn't able to come the previous weekend because of a birthday party, 3) he tried to make up with Marina and convince her to move to Dallas with him
There is no evidence of this being any rifle's "normal place of storage".
....which according to the only people who saw it was NOT CE 142.
...which appears in no crime scene photographs, and was not seen "near the point from which the shots were fired" (as if that has even been demonstrated) by the first 5 or 6 law enforcement officers on the scene.
There is no fiber or paper analysis "linking Oswald and 'the assassination weapon' (as if that has even been demonstrated) to this bag". At best, all you can say (if the print analysis was accurate -- and it's completely impossible for anyone else to verify) is that Oswald touched the paper that CE142 was made out of at some unspecified time. How that makes it the same bag Frazier saw is anybody's guess.
This isn't difficult.
Fritz and Holmes testified that Oswald told them that he never had curtain rods.
Frazier testified that Oswald said he was carrying curtain rods.
Fritz and Holmes testified that Oswald said he carried his lunch on his lap.
Frazier testified that Oswald's package was on the back seat of his car.
Who had an incentive to lie, the guy with an alibi verified by photographic evidence or the guy with no alibi who owned the rifle on the 6th floor? Hmmmm?
JohnM
This isn't so easy. Are you repeating the same stuff and expecting a different outcome?
Frazier shown CE142 on the night of the 22nd, undertook polygraph and apparently passed......go figure. Wonder if he said not paying attention then.
This isn't so easy.
Are you repeating the same stuff and expecting a different outcome?
Frazier shown CE142 on the night of the 22nd, undertook polygraph and apparently passed......go figure. Wonder if he said not paying attention then.
Wrong!
Sorry if the actual evidence is so inconvenient but it is what it is.
Huh? Frazier had no choice but to admit that Oswald carried CE142 and Frazier being the simpleton who no doubt believed that "lie detector" tests were faultless told the truth.
JohnM
Wrong!
Sorry if the actual evidence is so inconvenient but it is what it is.
Huh? Frazier had no choice but to admit that Oswald carried CE142 and Frazier being the simpleton who no doubt believed that "lie detector" tests were faultless told the truth.
JohnM
I read somewhere that lie detectors only work if you believe they do.....QED.
Much like nitrate tests and the threat of violence, lie detectors were used as a bluff to extract information. And don't forget that Oswald who like Frazier wasn't exactly bright, also refused a Polygraph.
JohnM
Frazier had no choice but to admit that Oswald carried CE142
except for the fact that Frazier never ever admitted any such thing, you are absolutely right Thumb1:
Frazier shown CE142 on the night of the 22nd, undertook polygraph and apparently passed......go figure.
JohnM
A memo from FBI agent James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, reveals the desperation of Lt. Day after Frazier failed to identify the heavy bag found at the TSBD. Anderton writes that, according to Lt Day, Frazier described the bag Oswald had carried as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". The memo then goes on to say;
"Lt. Day states that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald, by dismantling the rifle, could have placed it in the thick brown sack folder over, and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack"
Mr. BALL. Looking at this part of the bag which has not been discolored does that appear similar to the color of the bag you saw Lee carrying that morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper.
Mr. BALL. What was he carrying?
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me.
JohnM
The opinion of a witness who never got close enough to the bag to make such a determination. That's what you are going with?
How far away was Linnie Mae?
JohnM
After all if Oswald didn’t bring it to the TSBD that morning who could have?
Huh?, it was only Oswald;
The rifle was his.
He had no alibi.
He immediately left and went berserk trying to get a ride.
He killed a cop.'
He tried to kill more cops.
He lied repeatedly during his interrogation.
The evidence is clear.
JohnM
Indeed, but you missed the part where Frazier denied that CE142 was the bag he had seen Oswald carry.
At 11.30 pm on 11/22/63 Frazier was being polygraphed by DPD detective R.D. Lewis. During this session, Frazier was shown the paper bag that had been found at the TSBD, which at that time (except for the fact that it had been dusted in vain for prints at the TSBD) was still in its original state. Frazier could not identify the bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry, some 16 / 17 hours earlier and the polygraph did not register an anomaly.
According to a report by FBI agent Vincent Drain, dated December 1, 1963, the polygrapher R.D. Lewis stated that Frazier had told him that the "crickly brown paper sack" Oswald had carried did not resemble the ?home made heavy paper gun case? the DPD officers had shown him. Drain added that Lewis referred to the bag as "paper gun case" because the DPD is of the opinion the brown heavy paper was used by Oswald to carry the rifle into the building?.
A memo from FBI agent James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, reveals the desperation of Lt. Day after Frazier failed to identify the heavy bag found at the TSBD. Anderton writes that, according to Lt Day, Frazier described the bag Oswald had carried as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". The memo then goes on to say;
"Lt. Day states that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald, by dismantling the rifle, could have placed it in the thick brown sack folder over, and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack"
Wow. A polygraph does not work like a crystal ball discerning what actually happened. At best, it measures whether an individual knows they are not telling the truth. If Frazier honestly, but erroneously believed this wasn't the bag then he would be not be lying in his own mind even if he was wrong. He would be mistaken but not lying because he would believe he was telling the truth. That doesn't tell us that Oswald did not carry this bag but that Frazier didn't believe it was the same bag. If I believe someone has blue eyes and given a polygraph and it turns out they have brown eyes, it would not register as a lie if I confirmed they had blue eyes. That would not, however, change the actual facts. The "desperation" here is your own and not that of the DPD who had enough evidence to convict Oswald a thousand times over.
If you can convince yourself that Buell Frazier isn’t a liar after seeing the evidence that I pointed out, then it isn’t surprising that you could convince yourself that there isn’t any evidence concerning the bag. But your weak excuses for denying the obvious are not convincing to me.
Huh?, it was only Oswald;
The rifle was his.
He had no alibi.
He immediately left and went berserk trying to get a ride.
He killed a cop.'
He tried to kill more cops.
He lied repeatedly during his interrogation.
The evidence is clear.
Wow. A polygraph does not work like a crystal ball discerning what actually happened. At best, it measures whether an individual knows they are not telling the truth. If Frazier honestly, but erroneously believed this wasn't the bag then he would be not be lying in his own mind even if he was wrong. He would be mistaken but not lying because he would believe he was telling the truth. That doesn't tell us that Oswald did not carry this bag but that Frazier didn't believe it was the same bag.
The "desperation" here is your own and not that of the DPD who had enough evidence to convict Oswald a thousand times over.
Frazier never said he saw Oswald come from the rear exit of the Depository. That's just something you made up.
So basically you can't explain how you know that Frazier was "blatantly and intentionally lying" -- you just "know" it.
Watch (and listen) to the specified section of the video interview that I linked to in my original post. He most certainly does.
I explained it at least twice. Although it requires no explanation. You just refuse to comprehend.
He most certainly does not. Provide the actual quote of him saying that he he saw Oswald come from the rear exit of the Depository. He said he saw Oswald walking alongside the building on the Houston street side.
You claimed that it was "crystal clear" that "Buell Frazier is blatantly and intentionally lying", and your only "explanation" is that his 11/22/63 affidavit is seemingly in conflict with his later interviews with Mack and Fagin.
But how do conflicting statements necessarily show "blatant and intentional lying"?
That isn't what I said.
The context is a sworn affidavit of 11/22/63 stating clearly that he "did not see LHO after about 11:00 AM today." That is either true or a lie. If it is true then his statement in the 7/13/2013 interview is a lie. And if the affidavit is not true, then it is a lie. Either way he is a liar.
It most certainly is. This is what you said:
What you never explained is why you are assuming a non-truth must be a "blatant and intentional lie".
I stand corrected. Coming from the direction of the rear exit is what I was thinking. Thanks for the correction. ::)
You are generalizing. I am specifically talking about this case.
Why are you equivocating? What about this specific case enables you to determine that Frazier was ""blatantly and intentionally lying"?
What makes you think that he wasn’t?
It doesn't necessarily follow that one of those statements is a "blatant and intentional lie".
You're the one who made the claim -- stop trying to shift the burden. I agree with you that at face value, one of those statements has to be untrue. It doesn't necessarily follow that one of those statements is a "blatant and intentional lie".
Yeah, kinda like Marina's statements, huh?
Liar = teller of untruths
blatant = obvious
intentional = knowing
Which of these do you not understand?
I backed up my claim with evidence (affidavit and video of interview).
That seems to sufficient to everyone but you.
If you are claiming that my claim is wrong. Then at least tell me what the heck you think is wrong with it.
I understand them all, thanks. Except your first claim is flat out wrong. All lies are untruths, but not all untruths are lies.
When did you demonstrate that Frazier knew that one of these statements was untrue?
No, you merely showed that the statements were contradictory. You forgot the blatant and intentional part.
Whatever gave you that idea? Do you think everybody here agrees that Frazier blatantly and intentionally lied?
It's unsubstantiated because it assumes facts not in evidence. Namely that Frazier knowingly made a false statement.
Not my claim. Look it up in the dictionary and argue with them. That is exactly where I got it.
When did you demonstrate that Frazier knew that one of these statements was untrue?
How could he possibly not.
Name the dictionary that says that all untruths are lies.
lie2
/lī/
noun: lie; plural noun: lies
1. an intentionally false statement.
Really Charles? That's your demonstration of intent? Does your world view not recognize innocent mistakes or ambiguous statements?
The affidavit says "I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today, and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor". He could very well have meant that he didn't see Lee again prior to or during the motorcade. Why do you jump to malicious intent?
My claim: Liar = teller of untruths
Too bad for you that he didn't indicate anything of the sort. And he has had over 55-years to dispute this. If that is your claim, you need to support it with something besides your imagination.
That's correct. Where you go off the rails is then concluding that because Frazier told an untruth, he is therefore a liar.
Uh...if you think Frazier "was blatantly and intentionally lying" then you need to support it with something besides your imagination.
There’s another alternative. Gary Mack, as curator of the 6th floor museum had become both friend and confidant to BF. I had asked Gary about inconsistency’s in statements by Frazier throughout the years. He told me bluntly as the years passed, Frazier was a beaten and demoralized individual. Drinking, his inability to find and hold a job, to find any happiness in his life all impacted his mind and memory 50 years after the event. Gary had said he was a decent human being and part of the tragedy of 11/22/63.
The interview of 7/13/2103 shows a lot of rambling by Frazier. I have seen too many good people fall victim to alcohol abuse. It can destroy people and affect their loved ones dramatically. Thanks for the comments. I will keep them in mind and hope for the best for Frazier.
Think how bad it would be for Buell if he had confirmed the WC bag size.
___EDITED___
This quoted post reminds me of words of a great song from JoeSouth, that hopefully I quote correctly, for those quick to label BuellWesleyFrazier as a liar...
"Before you abuse,
Criticize and accuse,
Walk a mile in my shoes".
Right on.
Armchair "experts" passing judgement about somebody they don't know
Regarding anything JFK assassination, YOU people never quit. How much do YOU believe Gary was being paid as curator? Seems each time somebody flips from the dark side YOU people attack. It’s part of your illness.
I once told my son the old adage "Never judge a man till you've walked a mile in his shoes."
His reply? "Good idea, dad, because by the time he finds out you've got his shoes, you'll be a mile away."
You just can't win with kids. :)
It’s part of your illness.
And attacking or scoffing people just because they disagree with you is part of your illness.
You wouldn't just happen to be suggesting that your son came up with that line on his own, now would you Ray?
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/971878-before-you-judge-a-man-walk-a-mile-in-his
;)
Gary’s belief was: “there may have been a conspiracy but I can’t prove it nor can anybody else”.
Where did I imply that he did? There you go again, reading something in that wasn't there.
He probably read it from the same source the same as you did.
Mack said he always believed there was a conspiracy but lost most of his original zeal when he read conspiracy books and found they left out inconvenient facts, or words to that effect. He still believed that Oswald was involved in a conspiracy, though. CTers continue to claim that he changed his mind about there being a conspiracy.
This is Gary "Badgeman" Mack?
You didn't present it in such a way that would lead one to think that someone else other than your son originated the punch line.
Gary’s belief was: “there may have been a conspiracy but I can’t prove it nor can anybody else”.
As it happens I thought it was his original quip. I wasn't aware that Billy Connolly had originated it if he did. (Maybe he heard it from my son :D.
I do apologise if I confused you, Bill, but then that's not very hard to do.
Blahblahblahfreakingblah.
Bottom line: You made it look like your son originated the joke. Stop dodging.
Hilarious coming from the guy who posts words from Bill Brown and Vince Bugliosi with no attribution.
I've straightened out my miscue with Bill Brown.
And by all means, do point out where I've posted anything from Bug that hasn't long-since been widely-known, embedded jargon in JFK-assassination culture.
Is this an exact quote from Gary Mack?
“there may have been a conspiracy but I can’t prove it nor can anybody else”
Yes, it is Michael, Gary said it to me many times via email. It was a stock expression Gary always used to anyone that asked him. I know for a fact he said exactly the same to many, many others. If he ever used it publicly I'm not sure. Gary was a CT thru and thru but he was a CT who didn't tolerate lies, mistakes and crap from other CT's, that's why he was so disliked by many of them.
If he ever used it publicly I'm not sure.
Yes, he did.