Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)  (Read 5220 times)

Offline Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 941
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #10 on: May 29, 2019, 05:21:02 PM »
No witness saw Oswald leave the front entrance...

That's evidence...(As if you were seriously looking)...

I'll take Frazier's word over yours...

Both Pierce Allman and Robert MacNeil believe they did. The secret service told Allman that they believe LHO was referring to him in his statement about this while in custody. They, would say that you are wrong.

Offline Steve Logan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2019, 05:30:44 PM »
No witness saw Oswald leave the front entrance...

That's evidence...(As if you were seriously looking)...

I'll take Frazier's word over yours...

Do you take Frazier's word that he didn't observe a motorcycle outfitted white shiny helmeted wearing police officer running at him and by him at the front entrance of the TSBD?

Offline Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3331
Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #12 on: May 29, 2019, 05:32:17 PM »

They never actually saw him go out the front...They just assumed it because the official account inferred it...

If you paid better attention to the evidence Holmes heard Oswald say he was stopped at the front exit and told to step aside...I believe the "supervisor" who OK'ed Oswald as an employee at the front door was actually Shelley and he then helped a known spook out the rear of the Depository knowing he had Intel business he needed to be free from restraint over...

Frazier:   "Oswald never left the Depository by the front door"...

Offline Mark A. Oblazney

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #13 on: May 29, 2019, 05:33:14 PM »
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 shite 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 suggest Buell and Marina have a couple of vodka and tonics to get them on their feet again.  Maybe they'll get a replacement, there's plenty like them to be found.... mongrels, who ain't got a new book, sniffing for tidbits like you...... on the growwwwwwwwwwwnd........ laaaaaaa-la-la-la-laaaaaa........ sigh+  how can either of them stand this?

Offline Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3331
Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #14 on: May 29, 2019, 05:34:12 PM »
Go to minute mark 40:50 of this interview and listen when he says "Before people went back in there were a lot of police around there very quickly...Some with their guns out"...I believe he's talking about Baker...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=61woNu98rlM
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 05:37:16 PM by Brian Doyle »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #15 on: May 29, 2019, 05:51:33 PM »
An intelligent researcher would interpret the lie instead of using it to attack him with a blunt instrument...Frazier didn't tell of seeing Oswald come down Houston street from the rear exit because it was dangerous and conflicted with the official story...Frazier didn't want to get killed...You're attacking the wrong people and should be criticizing the real liars in this situation...You should be attacking the persons who intimidated Frazier and made him hold back the truth...You should be attacking the people who murdered Roger Craig instead of honestly investigating the second Oswald he witnessed...


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #16 on: May 29, 2019, 05:54:30 PM »
My point is that Buell Frazier is a liar.

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?

Quote
And if he claims something that is contrary to the physical and circumstantial evidence his claim should be considered accordingly.

What did Frazier claim that is contrary to the physical and circumstantial evidence?

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #17 on: May 29, 2019, 05:57:23 PM »
Frazier:   "Oswald never left the Depository by the front door"...

Doyle fabrication.  Frazier didn't say that.

Offline Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 941
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #18 on: May 29, 2019, 06:19:08 PM »
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?

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?

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.

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #19 on: May 29, 2019, 06:47:18 PM »
My point is you are avoiding the issue and phrasing it in a way that uses the excuse of accusing Frazier of lying in order to avoid the greater more accurate implications...

The liar here is not Frazier...The liars are the people who intimidated Frazier and caused him to hold back his real witnessing...

Frazier is not a liar...He was a person who was forced to with-hold what he truly witnessed because it exposed the real liars too badly...

That's very silly.  How and why would anyone force Frazier to lie about seeing Oswald leaving after the assassination?  It doesn't matter much whether Oswald exited out the front or somewhere else.  And why would Frazier suddenly volunteer this information later if he was under duress?  If they were going to coerce Frazier to lie it would be about something important like confirming that the bag Oswald carried that morning was large enough to contain the rifle. 
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 06:49:00 PM by Richard Smith »

 

Mobile View