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

Author Topic: Buell Wesley Frazier  (Read 22339 times)

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #270 on: October 10, 2018, 06:49:07 PM »
Nice work Jerry Freeman.  Never saw that.  Still reading this whole thing...  I don't want to be premature.

Note that at least one of those are from Ripley's Believe it or Not
BTW, they claim to have Oswald's toe tag, along with the machine & tools used to embalm him
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 07:21:39 PM by Bill Chapman »

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #271 on: October 11, 2018, 02:13:11 AM »

Note that at least one of those are from Ripley's Believe it or Not
BTW, they claim to have Oswald's toe tag, along with the machine & tools used to embalm him


Note that at least one of those are from Ripley's Believe it or Not

It's still an affidavit signed by a notary public, so what exactly is your point?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 10:16:53 AM by Martin Weidmann »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #271 on: October 11, 2018, 02:13:11 AM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #272 on: October 11, 2018, 05:51:45 AM »
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?


There is no verbatim record of what Oswald said!

Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'

Why would that raise eyebrows for an investigator? It's fairly common for people not to pay much attention to most what is around them. More than anything else it sounds like a build in safety measure to me, as it gave Frazier some protection to being pinned down too solidly to a statement. And, of course, it could well be true.

You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.

No, I didn't ignore that at all. A 19 year old kid who knows he hasn't done anything wrong, has no reason to lie to police. An innocent indivual doesn't usually lie to try and get out of trouble. Besides, if he was going to lie, why not tell investigators what they wanted to hear; i.e. that the bag they had was indeed the bag he saw Oswald carry?

I stand by my point that Randle & Buell could have decided to hedge their bets. It would have been the smart move.


I disagree. The move would have been just as stupid as you standing by that point!

There is no verbatim record of what Oswald said!
>>>He said the bag he was carrying contained his lunch. Buell says different. You can't have it both ways. Either Buell or Oswald lied about that. Again, who do you think was lying about curtain rods: Buell or Oswald?

Why would that raise eyebrows for an investigator?
>>> Did I say would, or could? You need to stop misrepresenting what I said.

No, I didn't ignore that at all. A 19 year old kid who knows he hasn't done anything wrong, has no reason to lie to police.
>>> This particular 19yo 'kid' was sharp enough to recognize a fist being raised by an apparently irate officer who seemed intent on getting Buell's signature on a confession.

An innocent indivual doesn't usually lie to try and get out of trouble
>>> An innocent individual who is physically threatened by police?

Besides, if he was going to lie, why not tell investigators what they wanted to hear; i.e. that the bag they had was indeed the bag he saw Oswald carry?
>>> It would be folly to admit that. He would then have to explain why he never considered the package seemed big enough to carry a broken down rifle, on a day when the POTUS would be driving right past their workplace.

I disagree. The move would have been just as stupid as you standing by that point!
>>> So because you disagree with me I'm stupid, huh. You must have all the answers. Can't wait for your press conference.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 05:55:38 AM by Bill Chapman »

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #273 on: October 11, 2018, 10:32:33 AM »
There is no verbatim record of what Oswald said!
>>>He said the bag he was carrying contained his lunch. Buell says different. You can't have it both ways. Either Buell or Oswald lied about that. Again, who do you think was lying about curtain rods: Buell or Oswald?

Why would that raise eyebrows for an investigator?
>>> Did I say would, or could? You need to stop misrepresenting what I said.

No, I didn't ignore that at all. A 19 year old kid who knows he hasn't done anything wrong, has no reason to lie to police.
>>> This particular 19yo 'kid' was sharp enough to recognize a fist being raised by an apparently irate officer who seemed intent on getting Buell's signature on a confession.

An innocent indivual doesn't usually lie to try and get out of trouble
>>> An innocent individual who is physically threatened by police?

Besides, if he was going to lie, why not tell investigators what they wanted to hear; i.e. that the bag they had was indeed the bag he saw Oswald carry?
>>> It would be folly to admit that. He would then have to explain why he never considered the package seemed big enough to carry a broken down rifle, on a day when the POTUS would be driving right past their workplace.

I disagree. The move would have been just as stupid as you standing by that point!
>>> So because you disagree with me I'm stupid, huh. You must have all the answers. Can't wait for your press conference.

He said the bag he was carrying contained his lunch.

Did you hear Oswald say that? Since there is no verbatim record of what Oswald said, you must have heard him say that yourself, right?

Did I say would, or could? You need to stop misrepresenting what I said.

There was no misrepresentation. You said; "That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows" and I asked you why it would. In other words, I was asking you why you feel it "could raise investigator eyebrows" It is not my problem if you don't comprehend what is written.

But let's see if you understand this; by saying "could raise" you implicitely leave the possibility open that it could also be "couldn't raise", which in turn makes your entire argument completely invalid and useless.

This particular 19yo 'kid' was sharp enough to recognize a fist being raised by an apparently irate officer who seemed intent on getting Buell's signature on a confession.

First of all, as far as I can recall, nowhere in Frazier's story is there a fist being raised, so I have no idea where you got that bit of information from. Secondly, Frazier claims that when Fritz presented him with a written confession for him to sign, he stood up to Fritz and said "no", which clearly shows he was not letting Fritz intimidate him.

And yet you basically say that Frazier would have felt intimidated and that's why he lied and told them what they did not want to hear?  BS: Do you see the flaw in this "logic"?

It would be folly to admit that. He would then have to explain why he never considered the package seemed big enough to carry a broken down rifle, on a day when the POTUS would be driving right past their workplace.

This is just plain stupid. You've got two guys driving to work on a regular basis and just because the President comes to town, one of those guys is supposed to suspect the other of carrying a concealed weapon for the purpose of killing Kennedy? Are you for real?

So because you disagree with me I'm stupid, huh.

Nope. Where did I say that? Do you have a comprehension problem? The fact that I disagree with you has nothing to do with you being stupid. Your argument being stupid has to do with your argument being stupid.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 12:29:27 PM by Martin Weidmann »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #273 on: October 11, 2018, 10:32:33 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4782
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #274 on: October 11, 2018, 04:48:40 PM »
Just because their alleged accounts differ, that doesn't necessarily mean that one of them is lying.

Online Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1320
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #275 on: October 12, 2018, 01:09:41 AM »
Blah Blah
Why suck up a bunch of web space quoting the affidavit that the police wrote?
I provided the link and we've all read it.
Now it is/or is it? obvious that BWF was grilled before Fritz [according to his notes] asked Oswald about curtain rods...
I can't find a better photo of RATher holding the curtain rods----

Again---
Quote
Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
In other words, there was no package ;)

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #275 on: October 12, 2018, 01:09:41 AM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #276 on: October 14, 2018, 05:10:02 AM »
Why suck up a bunch of web space quoting the affidavit that the police wrote?
I provided the link and we've all read it.
Now it is/or is it? obvious that BWF was grilled before Fritz [according to his notes] asked Oswald about curtain rods...
I can't find a better photo of RATher holding the curtain rods----

Again--- In other words, there was no package ;)

Tell us why Rather showing that the 34.8" bag cannot be held in the palm and under the armpit is the only aspect of the Rather bag demo you seem interested in.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2018, 05:29:50 AM by Bill Chapman »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #277 on: October 14, 2018, 05:12:26 AM »
Just because their alleged accounts differ, that doesn't necessarily mean that one of them is lying.

Yes it does

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #277 on: October 14, 2018, 05:12:26 AM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #278 on: October 14, 2018, 05:25:46 AM »

First of all, as far as I can recall, nowhere in Frazier's story is there a fist being raised, so I have no idea where you got that bit of information from.

Buell Wesley Frazier and his interrogation by Will Fritz


« Last Edit: October 14, 2018, 09:44:33 PM by Bill Chapman »

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #279 on: October 14, 2018, 02:19:16 PM »
Buell Wesley Frazier and his interrogation by Will Fritz


Hang on a minute. You claimed;


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.


The video shows that Fritz presented Frazier with a written confession to sign early on and got angry when Frazier stood up to him and refused to sign it.

Only after Fritz left (and Frazier said he never saw him again) was Frazier being interrogated for hours!

What I don't understand and you likely can not explain is why would Frazier feel so intimidated during the later interrogation that he lied about the bag, when he had already shown no sign of being intimidated by Fritz?

 

Mobile View