JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Buell Wesley Frazier
Walt Cakebread:
Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Walt Cakebread on January 07, 2018, 02:07:13 PM ---Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
--- End quote ---
Actually, the record shows that Frazier was shown the paper bag from the TSBD while he was being polygraphed in the evening hours of 11/22/63. Frazier not only failed to identify the bag but also added that the bag Oswald had carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
A memo from 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;
"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"
The obvious question is why Day was so desperate to explain the discrepancy between the heavy bag allegedly found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the flimsy bag Frazier had seen that he would come up with this theory. Even more so, if he really had found Oswald's prints on the heavy bag and the MC rifle......
Denis Morissette:
Someday, you will figure out that one. Maybe by 2039? Truth will set you free.
Bill Brown:
--- Quote from: Walt Cakebread on January 07, 2018, 02:07:13 PM ---Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
--- End quote ---
If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle? Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?
Silly conspirators.
Joe Elliott:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version