Revelations

[David Josephs]

And yet, after all that, the stalwart defense of his buddy, defying the government authorities, testifying under oath 2 times, claiming he knows Oswald's being framed, and after 50 years of opportunities to come clean, Frazier still doesn't say, "Oswald was right there in the doorway with me." I wonder why that is.

Are you of the opinion he didn't say it or

that he did and was told in so many words that he could be arrested as an accomplice if he kept to that story.


I truly do not believe we understand the power over the common citizen the DPD, Sheriff and FBI had in the early 60's.

If Wesley truly believed Ozzie was FRAMED... do you honestly believe that same fate could not await him - even if just in his mind?

May also be why the wording was so very careful and nothing deeper was asked, "Did you see Oswald 'at the time of the shooting'"

Since everyone was looking down Elm - or at least most everyone - the answer to THAT question was "no" in every case.



Not a single person is quoted as saying Oswald was on that landing - despite being asked if they saw Oswald any time after the shooting. Yet it seems to me if he was on the 1st floor and was the first man listed on the police TSBD roster, he should have been seen by someone before Roger Craig. He was asked about the location of a phone I believe.


Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worked there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we stared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there.
Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And before you went back into the Building no police officer came up the steps and into the building?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it.


"How about afterward" was not asked ...
Wesley was allowed back into the building without a second thought...

Mr. BALL - Did they ask you where you had been at the time the President passed?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; they had. I told them I was out on the steps there.
Mr. BALL - Asked you who you were with?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I told them and naturally Mr. Shelley and Billy vouched for me and so they didn't think anything about it.
Mr. BALL - Did you hear anybody around there asking for Lee Oswald?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I didn't.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Sidebar A: Mr. Doyle, should you venture in and the spirit moves you to post, by all means feel free to do so; however, out of respect for this Forum, and the sentiments expressed by Mr. DiEugenio in the now closed thread "Heads Up", and subsequently locked by Magda Hassan, let's try to refrain from straying off topic here, setting our focus more upon what Mr. Frazier shares than adding any conjecture, speculation, etc. to his remarks as it may or may not apply to Prayer Man. In fairness, I'll hold myself to the same standard.

I'm not sure I would dare venture another round of your serious approach towards the evidence and 'sentiments' again after your last showing.

You should warn Drew too because of the firm trigonometry 'conjecture and speculation' he added that Jim saved us from addressing due to the mathematical "politicizing" Jim was protesting.

In fairness, I'll hold myself to the same standard.

You don't have to feel guilty over your trolling Alan. It succeeded at what it intended.

Brian, if you think that for five seconds I was only referring to Ford and David, you are dead wrong.

It was you who dragged that whole "PM is a woman" over here and took Duncan's bait: hook, line and sinker.

When you got everyone pissed off at you to the point you became so obnoxious it was intolerable, you then went over into the Belly of the Beast, Duncan's forum, and started trashing me.

Then you come over here, and start doing the same thing over again--and you call Alan a troll? In all this time, you have gotten one person to even half buy into your self-proclaimed Newtonian science proclamations, which according to you, should be inscribed with the sacredness of E=mc 2. Maybe they buy that at Duncan's nest, but not here.

And BTW, the other stuff of metaphysical certitude, like Fratini, or whatever his name is, has been attacked vociferously at ROKC. But see that is not serious for you, right? Everyone at ROKC is sub human. But not Fratini or Duncan right?

So stop calling people trolls--and ignoring the fact that this debate has been politicized, and you were a big part of it.

LET US DROP IT RIGHT NOW BRIAN. Now please go over to Duncan's and tell them how I stopped you from proving with utter mathematical certainty your latest ideas about the pixel picture.

Which I am convinced now we will never know the truth about until we get the original. Which they are trying to do at ROKC.

Can we now get back to Wesley Frazier? Who I think is a very complex and compromised witness.

[Alan Ford]

Hear!, hear! Talk about a level playing field! Fair is fair. So indicative of an authority w/integrity ::

That said...

Sidebar: @Mr. Josephs, your sensible comments are spot on ----->

I truly do not believe we understand the power over the common citizen the DPD, Sheriff and FBI had in the early 60's.

If Wesley truly believed Ozzie was FRAMED... do you honestly believe that same fate could not await him - even if just in his mind?

May also be why the wording was so very careful and nothing deeper was asked, "Did you see Oswald 'at the time of the shooting'"

Since everyone was looking down Elm - or at least most everyone - the answer to THAT question was "no" in every case.

There are more than a few examples in this case where the authorities intimidated witnesses or outright lied themselves. Some even actively participated in the "F" word Mr. Frazier mentions, frame, as in framing an innocent man who committed no wrong, but simply fell victim to an evil plot hatched by sinister snakes at many levels of the "investigation" ...

Here, courtesy of the remarkable Bill Simpich via MFOrg (drawn from his masterful piece State Secrets) is the word frame in action ---->

One final suspicious event revolves around Wesley Buell Frazier, the only Oswald acquaintance who was arrested in Dallas on November 22, and how chief polygraph examiner Paul Bentley claimed to know nothing about him. Bentley was the man at the Texas Theatre arrest scene who lied about taking Oswald's wallet from his back pocket. Frazier sometimes gave Oswald a ride to or from work, and drove him to work that morning. Frazier was the only man to claim that Oswald had carried "curtain rods" in a bag to the Texas School Book Depository. Frazier owned a British Enfield 303, a rifle mysteriously identified by NBC as the murder weapon on November 22 before the story settled around the Mannlicher-Carcano. At about 6:45 pm, Frazier was arrested and picked up for questioning by the Dallas police.

Was Frazier being set up as a possible patsy? One pristine Enfield 303 bullet on a stretcher would have done the job.
Frazier was taken into custody right after Oswald had vehemently denied Frazier's curtain rod story during interrogation. Oswald said the only package he carried to work was his bag lunch, containing cheese, bread, fruit and apples. An FBI report shows that Frazier was given a polygraph at about midnight by R.D. Lewis, the other examiner for the police department, and was then released. We do know that Frazier stated that he did not think that the paper bag found by the police was what Oswald used to carry his curtain rods. As Frazier and his sister were the only ones who ever saw Oswald carrying any kind of brown paper package, and as Frazier by far had the best look, the handmade paper bag "found" at the book depository could not be used as evidence.

Several members of the Dallas police methodically lied about knowing about the "phantom polygraph" even though it was a matter of public record.
A voice stress analysis conducted by George O'Toole, a former chief of the CIA's Problems Analysis Branch, showed chief polygraph examiner Paul Bentley lying about not knowing that Frazier was polygraphed. Even if you don't accept voice stress analysis, it's impossible to believe that Bentley would forget such a significant incident. Why would Bentley lie about this polygraph, even when someone else actually conducted it? The man who conducted the polygraph, R. D. Lewis, claimed he couldn't remember it either. As stated in the FBI report, "the Dallas Police Department (was) of the opinion the brown, heavy paper was used by Oswald to carry the rifle into the building where he was working." The results of Frazier's polygraph killed that theory. Bentley wanted to see Oswald go down.[ 52 ] As mentioned in Chapter 6, even FBI agent Barrett has now labeled Bentley as a liar.

The problem with this case isn't a CT (critical-thinkers) problem. The problem all along is the BIG lie.

Somewhere in all of this, Buell Wesley Frazier should dig deep down within and do some serious soul searching and come clean. No more lies...

[Jim DiEugenio]

Wesley Frazier is curious because of more than one thing.

First, he insists that Oswald brought the long paper bag into the TSBD that day. But, as Sylvia Meagher said, no one else at the TSBD saw it. No one. And if you find the claim about the Dallas Police failing to photograph the gun sack in situ dubious, then this becomes a real problem for Frazier.

Second, is the story about following Oswald into the building that day as Oswald skipped a bit ahead of him. Yet, accordion to Ed Shields, Frazier stayed behind and gunned his engine while Oswald had been dropped off already.

Third, how on earth could Linnie Mae Randle have seen the gun sack from the position she said she was in at the house that day? That photo is in the WC. When this fell apart, the story was that she saw him through the wood slats in the garage approach the car. Two problems: she did not say that in her WC deposition. Second, it is hard to believe she saw through those slats to see what was in Oswald's hands on the far side of the car.

Fourth, as I said previously, Frazier's interview with Moriarty about locking his care very night--except that night-- is weird.

(I won't comment on the whole PM imbroglio. Like I said, that will not be decided until we see the original or the first generation.)

I have always thought that Frazier is one of the key witnesses who should be called if there is a reopening of the case.

I could go on and on, and I did in my two most recent books.

[Michael Cross]

And yet, after all that, the stalwart defense of his buddy, defying the government authorities, testifying under oath 2 times, claiming he knows Oswald's being framed, and after 50 years of opportunities to come clean, Frazier still doesn't say, "Oswald was right there in the doorway with me." I wonder why that is.

Reading this post Mr Phipps, it is definitely not off topic! It is in reference to Mr Frazier's testimony! ​ JMO. FWIW.

Perhaps because he wasn't. Perhaps because Frazier feared for his life if he said he was. There were a couple of untimely deaths just as people were about to testify before the HSCA (pulling that from memory - correct me if I have the wrong investigation). Perhaps whoever PM was wasn't there long enough for Frazier to see. All possible IMO.

[Albert Doyle]

Brian, if you think that for five seconds I was only referring to Ford and David, you are dead wrong.

It was you who dragged that whole "PM is a woman" over here and took Duncan's bait: hook, line and sinker.

When you got everyone pissed off at you to the point you became so obnoxious it was intolerable, you then went over into the Belly of the Beast, Duncan's forum, and started trashing me.

Then you come over here, and start doing the same thing over again--and you call Alan a troll? In all this time, you have gotten one person to even half buy into your self-proclaimed Newtonian science proclamations, which according to you, should be inscribed with the sacredness of E=mc 2. Maybe they buy that at Duncan's nest, but not here.

And BTW, the other stuff of metaphysical certitude, like Fratini, or whatever his name is, has been attacked vociferously at ROKC. But see that is not serious for you, right? Everyone at ROKC is sub human. But not Fratini or Duncan right?

So stop calling people trolls--and ignoring the fact that this debate has been politicized, and you were a big part of it.

LET US DROP IT RIGHT NOW BRIAN. Now please go over to Duncan's and tell them how I stopped you from proving with utter mathematical certainty your latest ideas about the pixel picture.

Which I am convinced now we will never know the truth about until we get the original. Which they are trying to do at ROKC.

Can we now get back to Wesley Frazier? Who I think is a very complex and compromised witness.

Jim,


I can't answer this because it is unfair to allow one side to have a bold print say and the other to be pre-emptively silenced at your word. Plus there is a totally arbitrary warning that has been issued that "causing trouble" can be used as justification for site action.


Drew presented some very reasonable and simple math that backs what I wrote that has merit outside all of the negative associations you are using to ignore it. I would be glad to debate this with you on a fair playing field where you were not allowed to simply come in and back one side and shut the discussion down as you have done. Drew called for an answer for it and was ignored. If you are pretending that didn't happen you are denying reality. Honestly Jim, your mocking of that math is something I would expect from ROKC and not one of the assassination world's best minds.


Jim, honestly. Have you looked at the content on ROKC? You're not seriously backing that in public against my seriously argued, intelligent posts? The content is idiotic trolling and talking about penis sizes etc. Go read it yourself. This is the group you endorse??? Have you lost your mind?


I suspect that you are motivated by the fact you spoke at ROKC and don't want to admit you may have put CTKA's weight behind a group whose main claim to fame can be disproved by one simple analysis. No man is above good argument and no man is above good evidence Jim. I'm sorry. Last time I mentioned that I had a little vacation from the site. But if you look at the site's definition that is what is supposed to rule here.


Sure, let's drop this. And let's see what's behind your words in a fair debate on a fair playing field where you can't skip answering good evidence like you've done here.

[Alan Ford]

Wesley Frazier is curious because of more than one thing.

First, he insists that Oswald brought the long paper bag into the TSBD that day. But, as Sylvia Meagher said, no one else at the TSBD saw it. No one. And if you find the claim about the Dallas Police failing to photograph the gun sack in situ dubious, then this becomes a real problem for Frazier.

Second, is the story about following Oswald into the building that day as Oswald skipped a bit ahead of him. Yet, accordion to Ed Shields, Frazier stayed behind and gunned his engine while Oswald had been dropped off already.

Third, how on earth could Linnie Mae Randle have seen the gun sack from the position she said she was in at the house that day? That photo is in the WC. When this fell apart, the story was that she saw him through the wood slats in the garage approach the car. Two problems: she did not say that in her WC deposition. Second, it is hard to believe she saw through those slats to see what was in Oswald's hands on the far side of the car.

Fourth, as I said previously, Frazier's interview with Moriarty about locking his care very night--except that night-- is weird.

(I won't comment on the whole PM imbroglio. Like I said, that will not be decided until we see the original or the first generation.)

I have always thought that Frazier is one of the key witnesses who should be called if there is a reopening of the case.

I could go on and on, and I did in my two most recent books.

You state/share more than a few valid points here, Mr. DiEugenio, but should you venture back this way at some point, please consider sharing the specific titles of your works here in the event any "Guests" not familiar with them may at least have a reference point.

What I would have given to watch the wrongfully accused's sharp legal counsel--in his/her closing arguments--hammer away at how was it possible that only one person saw Mr. Oswald with an oddly shaped package in tow that morning....Isn't that like a robber going into a crowded, busy bank and only one teller actually remembers the time of the hold up?!

Nice catch too @ the oddity surrounding that one lone occasion where Mr. Frazier fails to lock his car door. Just had to coincide w/the "truth" as he knew it eh

[Alan Ford]

And yet, after all that, the stalwart defense of his buddy, defying the government authorities, testifying under oath 2 times, claiming he knows Oswald's being framed, and after 50 years of opportunities to come clean, Frazier still doesn't say, "Oswald was right there in the doorway with me." I wonder why that is.

Reading this post Mr Phipps, it is definitely not off topic! It is in reference to Mr Frazier's testimony! ​ JMO. FWIW.

Perhaps because he wasn't. Perhaps because Frazier feared for his life if he said he was. There were a couple of untimely deaths just as people were about to testify before the HSCA (pulling that from memory - correct me if I have the wrong investigation). Perhaps whoever PM was wasn't there long enough for Frazier to see. All possible IMO.

A valid point, Mr. Cross, at the fear factor. What a paralyzing fear it must have been then, and is now today.

Just watched a video recently, where Mr. Frazier makes it very clear that he had a larger duty of allegiance to something much bigger than himself, conveying within the video that where he could handle, quote, "whatever happens to me", he didn't want anything whatsoever to happen to his family.

As much as I do hope he would reconsider at some point before leaving this realm, I do respect his position on protecting his family at all costs.

Meanwhile, Mr. Frazier leaves us with these words, quote, "Put yourself in my place, and maybe you'll understand why I did what I did."

Meaning what, Mr. Frazier? Care to elaborate further sir? C'mon, tell us...say what you mean, mean what you say.

[Drew Phipps]

Frazier's (and his sister's) continued insistence that they saw a paper bag (supporting the official version) but too small to conceal the alleged murder weapon (refuting the official version) means one of two things: a) It's the truth; or, b) it's some story that they either made up (implying advance knowledge of the assassination), or were told to tell the cops prior to the cops learning that the alleged murder weapon wouldn't fit into that small a bag (implying that whoever told them to say that thought that a different weapon, perhaps a Mauser, was used in the assassination).

If a), then Oswald participated on some level with the assassination, even if those "curtain rods" don't add up to a MC 91/38. One might suppose that Oswald brought a different gun to work, one that DID fit into the paper bag, and was unaware that HIS personal rifle would be planted at the scene.

If b), then they (Fraziers) can't change their story at any time afterwards, or the whole cover-up falls apart; and they are either prime suspects in an assassination conspiracy, or witnesses with first hand knowledge of the coverup.

I personally don't think the story is true, for the reasons that Jim D. cites above, among others. I think Frazier and Linnie Mae were "sweated" until they told a story that the DPD/DCSO believed would implicate Oswald but, (because whoever "sweated" the statement out of them didn't know all the facts) now actually tends to exonerate him.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Alan: You state/share more than a few valid points here, Mr. DiEugenio, but should you venture back this way at some point, please consider sharing the specific titles of your works here in the event any "Guests" not familiar with them may at least have a reference point.


​I wrote about this in Reclaiming Parkland, rather extensively. (See pages 175-87)

Boy the following is really interesting:

Meanwhile, Mr. Frazier leaves us with these words, quote, "Put yourself in my place, and maybe you'll understand why I did what I did."

Meaning what, Mr. Frazier? Care to elaborate further sir? C'mon, tell us...say what you mean, mean what you say.


​Can you post this interview?