Buell Wesley Frazier

[Walt Cakebread]

All this discussion about the size of the bag when the WC failed to support their claim that a bag was ever found in the alleged SN.

What bag?

It doesn't matter whether you or I like the invention of the bag.....  The authorities created it as part of the tale (aka cover up) and that garbage has taken firm root in the legend.   

There definitely was a bag found ....Day spotted it because it was SHAPED LIKE A GUN CASE....  And it probably was constructed from a different paper than the book wrappers, which drew Day's attention to it.   At the time he spotted the gun case shaped paper sack Roy Truly was at his side. Day turned to Truly and asked if he'd ever seen the gun case shaped paper sack before.....Naturally, Truly denied ever having seen the sack.

Day said that after he displayed the gun case shaped sack to Roy Truly he folded it up and put it in his pocket and never displayed it to anybody else.  I 've long believed that Day showed that sack to Fritz and they realized it was too small to hold the Carcano....   Fritz was reported to have said..." Well he must have broke it down then, and I'm sure he did"  after it was pointed out that the bag was too small to have been used to smuggle the Carcano into the TSBD.

It was probably at this point that Detective Day decided to create the huge paper sack that Detective LD Montgomery carried from the TSBD.

[Bill Chapman]

Randle estimates 36" package first-day

Nope.. Bookhout wrote that this was Randle's estimate. Prove she actually said it!

Futhermore, if what Bookhout wrote in his FB 302 is true, Randle committed perjury in her WC testimony. Was she ever prosecuted?

Make up your own reality as much as you like, but the only two witnesses who ever saw the bag Oswald carried say your reality is wrong, regardless of what Bookhout wrote!

We'll never know if Randle's estimate was a spoken one or not. Bookout did not make that distinction as far as I know. Where you there?

People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.

Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.

That's my reality.

[Martin Weidmann]

We'll never know if Randle's estimate was a spoken one or not. Bookout did not make that distinction as far as I know. Where you there?

People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.

Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.

That's my reality.

We'll never know if Randle's estimate was a spoken one or not. Bookout did not make that distinction as far as I know


Exactly right. And that's why you don't get to assume that what Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 was indeed correct.

People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.

Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.

What kind of weird "logic" is this? When you are innocent and uninvolved there is no reason to lie about anything. Lying under such circumstances could only make you look guilty and get you into trouble.

[Bill Chapman]

We'll never know if Randle's estimate was a spoken one or not. Bookout did not make that distinction as far as I know


Exactly right. And that's why you don't get to assume that what Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 was indeed correct.

People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.

Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.

What kind of weird "logic" is this? When you are innocent and uninvolved there is no reason to lie about anything. Lying under such circumstances could only make you look guilty and get you into trouble.

'You don't get to assume that what Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 was indeed correct'
>>> Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct

'What kind of weird "logic" is this? When you are innocent and uninvolved there is no reason to lie about anything. Lying under such circumstances could only make you look guilty and get you into trouble'
>>> Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?

[Martin Weidmann]

'You don't get to assume that what Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 was indeed correct'
>>> Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct

'What kind of weird "logic" is this? When you are innocent and uninvolved there is no reason to lie about anything. Lying under such circumstances could only make you look guilty and get you into trouble'
>>> Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?

Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct

That would possibly be true if Randle had not made several other statements, including one under oath, that differ completely from what Bookhout wrote. As it stands all her known statements back up the conclusion that what Bookhout wrote was incorrect.


Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?

You are not making any sense. First you suggest that Frazier and Randle may have lied about the bag to avoid Frazier being regarded as complicit in the murder.

People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.

Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.

That's my reality.

and now you seem to suggest that Frazier could easily have told a lie because of the limited consequence that would have. So, here is my question for you;

If Frazier had nothing to fear to begin with, why would he lie in the first place?

[Walt Cakebread]

Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct

That would possibly be true if Randle had not made several other statements, including one under oath, that differ completely from what Bookhout wrote. As it stands all her known statements back up the conclusion that what Bookhout wrote was incorrect.


Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?

You are not making any sense. First you suggest that Frazier and Randle may have lied about the bag to avoid Frazier being regarded as complicit in the murder.

and now you seem to suggest that Frazier could easily have told a lie because of the limited consequence that would have. So, here is my question for you;

If Frazier had nothing to fear to begin with, why would he lie in the first place?

I believe that BWF lied to avoid becoming a accessory ....( because he had transported the weapon to the site) I believe the police told BFW that Lee Oswald had told them that the sack he carried that morning contained curtain rods. ( In reality Lee had said nothing of the kind) BWF could see no harm in confirming Lee's story (which was not Lee's story, but a tale invented by the police)  So BWF confirmed that Lee had told him the sack held curtain rods.   Thereby supporting his friend Lee, and clearing himself of any accessory charge.

The police submitted BWF to a phony "lie dector test and told him that he'd passed the test because the machine indicated that he was telling the truth about the paper sack.  ( even though the lie detector test was a complete scam)

The cops now knew they had a witness who would swear that Lee carried a long paper sack that morning........

[Bill Chapman]

Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct

That would possibly be true if Randle had not made several other statements, including one under oath, that differ completely from what Bookhout wrote. As it stands all her known statements back up the conclusion that what Bookhout wrote was incorrect.


Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?

You are not making any sense. First you suggest that Frazier and Randle may have lied about the bag to avoid Frazier being regarded as complicit in the murder.

and now you seem to suggest that Frazier could easily have told a lie because of the limited consequence that would have. So, here is my question for you;

If Frazier had nothing to fear to begin with, why would he lie in the first place?

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.