Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Buell Wesley Frazier  (Read 92860 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #160 on: January 16, 2018, 10:41:46 PM »
Advertisement
Maybes are not evidence. Options are not evidence.

You mean like the position that maybe the bag Frazier saw contained a rifle?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #160 on: January 16, 2018, 10:41:46 PM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4236
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #161 on: January 16, 2018, 10:45:35 PM »
Wesley said that the bag he saw Oswald carry was not CE 142.



CE 142 was touched by Oswald.
CE 142 was found in the sniper's nest.
Oswald denied carrying a long package, Frazier and Linnie confirm Oswald carried a long package.
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods, Frazier says Oswald told him the bag contained curtain rods.



JohnM

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #162 on: January 16, 2018, 11:43:58 PM »
CE 142 was touched by Oswald.

So?

Quote
CE 142 was found in the sniper's nest.

Arguable.  The first 5 or 6 officers on the scene didn't see it, it doesn't show in any crime scene photographs and Day, Studebaker, Johnson, and Montgomery didn't agree on where it was found, who found it, or how it was folded.

Quote
Oswald denied carrying a long package, Frazier and Linnie confirm Oswald carried a long package.

How does that prove that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier saw?

Quote
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods, Frazier says Oswald told him the bag contained curtain rods.

How does that prove that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier saw?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #162 on: January 16, 2018, 11:43:58 PM »


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #163 on: September 27, 2018, 07:23:47 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?

Does anybody know how to contact Wes Frazier?    I'd like to talk to him....  Perhaps he could contact me through a message on this forum.

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1656
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #164 on: September 29, 2018, 03:38:11 AM »
Wesley said that the bag he saw Oswald carry was not CE 142.  Do you see a reason for him (then or now) to lie about that?
Yes. To avoid being prosecuted as an accessory to murder.

The Dallas Police spent hours grilling Frazier, trying to get him to confess to knowingly transporting Oswald and his rifle, in that bag.

Under the circumstances, it was natural for Frazier to convince himself that the bag he was presented with could not have been the bag he saw earlier that day. That indeed, the bag he saw was actually too short to carry a rifle at all.

Of course, I don?t think that Frazier was lying. But it would be natural for someone in his position to convince himself that this was not the bag and the bag he saw was too short. And the same goes for his sister who was, I imagine, upset to learn that the information she provided to the police was now being used to try to get her brother to confess.

If this does not count as a reason, what would count as a reason?
« Last Edit: September 29, 2018, 03:56:29 AM by Joe Elliott »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #164 on: September 29, 2018, 03:38:11 AM »


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #165 on: September 29, 2018, 01:20:08 PM »
Walt, I really don't understand why you present this as if it is fact, when it is clearly only what you think happened.


it is clearly only what you think happened.

You and most readers understand that.....So why do I have to post a disclaimer??   

When you get to the bottom line ....EVERYTHING in this case is based on what someone accepts as a fact.....

Unfortunately..... Far too many believe that simply because someone has the badge of authority pinned on their lapel, then that persons word is the gospel truth.

Time after time folks post information that is verified in the WC testimony....  The problem is: The Warren Commission was created by LBJ ....and he intended for it to be a cover up committee.   

This is a KNOWN FACT!

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4993
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #166 on: October 01, 2018, 01:39:24 AM »
Interesting to reread this thread.  The beatdown of the strawman brothers was merciless.   There are a couple of options here:

1) Buell and his sister made up the long bag story.  Oswald told the truth that he carried only his lunch sack. 

Problems:  no logical explanation for Buell and his sister to intentionally lie about Oswald carrying a long bag and the curtain rod story.  If anything, this makes Buell look like he might have some reason to be suspicious of a guy making an unexpected trip and carrying a long, rifle shaped bag to his workplace on the morning that the president was going to drive by his building.  A bag would also have to be planted and Oswald's prints somehow added to it.  Odds of this scenario = zero.

2)  Oswald carried a long bag along the size estimated by Buell.

Problems:  Oswald denied this.  If this long bag had contained something exculpatory, then Oswald would have had every incentive to direct the DPD to his bag.  He didn't.  No bag matching Buell's estimate was ever found or otherwise accounted for in the TSBD.  The longer bag would have to be planted etc.  Odds of this = near zero.

3)  Oswald carried the long bag found on the 6th floor.  His prints are on that bag, it is found next to the SN where Oswald's prints were found along with fired bullet casings from his rifle.  There is no other accounting for that bag being on the 6th floor except in association with the assassination.

Problems:  Oswald denied carrying such a bag.  But he has every reason to lie if it contained the rifle.  Buell and his sister indicated the bag was too short to contain the rifle.  But they didn't have a great look or any reason to take much notice.  They made an honest but erroneous estimate.  The bag itself is the best evidence of its length.  Odds = 99.99 percent that the bag found on the 6th floor is the one Oswald carried to work that morning.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #166 on: October 01, 2018, 01:39:24 AM »


Offline Anthony Clayden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #167 on: October 01, 2018, 03:03:23 AM »
Interesting to reread this thread.  The beatdown of the strawman brothers was merciless.   There are a couple of options here:

1) Buell and his sister made up the long bag story.  Oswald told the truth that he carried only his lunch sack. 

Problems:  no logical explanation for Buell and his sister to intentionally lie about Oswald carrying a long bag and the curtain rod story.  If anything, this makes Buell look like he might have some reason to be suspicious of a guy making an unexpected trip and carrying a long, rifle shaped bag to his workplace on the morning that the president was going to drive by his building.  A bag would also have to be planted and Oswald's prints somehow added to it.  Odds of this scenario = zero.

2)  Oswald carried a long bag along the size estimated by Buell.

Problems:  Oswald denied this.  If this long bag had contained something exculpatory, then Oswald would have had every incentive to direct the DPD to his bag.  He didn't.  No bag matching Buell's estimate was ever found or otherwise accounted for in the TSBD.  The longer bag would have to be planted etc.  Odds of this = near zero.

3)  Oswald carried the long bag found on the 6th floor.  His prints are on that bag, it is found next to the SN where Oswald's prints were found along with fired bullet casings from his rifle.  There is no other accounting for that bag being on the 6th floor except in association with the assassination.

Problems:  Oswald denied carrying such a bag.  But he has every reason to lie if it contained the rifle.  Buell and his sister indicated the bag was too short to contain the rifle.  But they didn't have a great look or any reason to take much notice.  They made an honest but erroneous estimate.  The bag itself is the best evidence of its length.  Odds = 99.99 percent that the bag found on the 6th floor is the one Oswald carried to work that morning.

Richard,

1) LHO's lunch sack may have been the sack described by Buell and his sister. Oswald was poor, staying at some else house. He would have grabbed anything available to reuse. As I have previously pointed out, the sack may have been one that orignally contained curtain rods, which Oswald reused for his lunch. When asked about the lunch sack, he may have responded to Buell with an answer as to its origins (explaining the unusual length) not its current contents.

2) Beull saw the bag on multile occassions, not a single glance. Oswald waited, not far from he car, whilst Buell charged the battery and only proceeded to the TSBD once Buell was on his way. Buell description of Oswald's method of carying the bag does not match either a longer bag nor a bag with the elongated weight distribution of a hidden rifle.

3) You ignored the failure of the DPD to photograph the bag in situ at the crime scene, along with the failure of the earliest DPD members to notice the bag. Surely that warrants a greater degree of uncertainty greater than the 0.01% that you have speculated.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2018, 03:05:14 AM by Anthony Clayden »