(PART 79)



[The initials of FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd are on Bullet CE399 in the National Archives.] You just can't see them in the NARA photos.


This has now gone beyond absurdity.

Davey Boy, everyone here is still waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is. Something you never ever do. In other words...go to Travelocity, book a flight and a hotel room, and go ahead and do what you have been saying you would do for ages:

Prove John Hunt is a liar [when Hunt said that Elmer Todd's initials are definitely not on the CE399 bullet].


Yeah, right, Jimbo. Like the NARA is going to allow me to just waltz right in and examine CE399.

Get real.

Fact is: John Hunt DID NOT examine the bullet itself. He examined the same photos that have been posted in this very thread. And those photos (as good as they might be) are not definitive proof that Todd did not mark CE399.

Plus: There are TWO separate (and corroborating) official FBI documents that tell us that Elmer Todd DID mark the bullet (CD7 and CE2011). And CD7 confirms that Todd marked the bullet on the day of the assassination itself.

Spit on those records if you want to; call them fake if you want to (and you do want to, naturally). But I'm not willing to do so. Period.


And here you have the same pattern repeated: "I am going to prove all those critics deluded." Well, go ahead and do it then. And if you have no intention of doing it, then please leave. Since it's just more of your empty bombast: Sound and fury signifying nothing.


Pot...meet Pa Kettle.

Reminder: Jim D. is a person who seriously thinks that Jim Garrison was right re the JFK case. And Jimbo's also a person who is deluded enough to actually think that BOTH Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just MADE UP the paper bag that each of those witnesses said they saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63.

Talk about "empty bombast...sound and fury signifying nothing". Jim and all other conspiracy theorists have a patent on such bombast.

Another LNer at another forum asked a good question a few months back when he asked: What have the JFK conspiracy theorists really accomplished? Anything of significance whatsoever? (Other than "bombast" and speculative theorizing that never ends?)

Food for thought as the 50th approaches.


Don't ever compare me with you, since my work on this case emanates from the sum total of the evidence.


Jim just keeps getting funnier by the day.

The "sum total of the evidence" somehow indicates, in Jim DiEugenio's bizarre "Guilty Is Really Innocent" world, that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of all three of the following crimes:

1.) JFK's murder.
2.) J.D. Tippit's murder.
3.) The attempted murder of Major General Edwin Walker.

Oh, my poor bladder!


You leave important points out, you source from unreliable literature and people, and then you come to a conclusion that is simply untenable in light of the facts.


Have SOME pity on my funny bone, will ya Jimmy?

Can it GET any better on a "Pot/Kettle" scale than this?

The above hunk of mindboggling crackpottery comes from a man (J. DiEugenio) who actually thinks John Armstrong and Jim Garrison are "reliable" people when it comes to the JFK case. And Armstrong is a man who, need I remind anyone listening to me now, actually claims that there were TWO Lee Oswalds AND two Marguerite Oswalds.


A great example of this, perhaps the best of all, is your support of a book that had not been published!! Simply because you knew what the bottom line would be!


Oh, yeah, Jim. The fact that I turned out to be correct about Vincent Bugliosi's excellent book really has me wanting to hang my head in shame for singing its praises in advance of its 2007 release. (You're a hoot.)


What was in it [Bugliosi's book] did not matter. At all. As long as it supported your obsolete view of the case. This proves beyond any doubt that the evidence does not matter a whit to you. Not one iota. Which is why your arguments have no credibility.


My arguments are just as valid and supportable today as they were in 2005 and 2006 when I was touting Mr. Bugliosi's yet-to-be-released JFK tome.

And since when are FACTS considered "obsolete", Jimmy? You're as phony as a D.A. named Garrison if you truly believe that ALL of the evidence against your favorite "patsy" named Lee Harvey was faked/planted/whitewashed/manufactured/etc.

You can't even muster up enough common sense and reasoned thinking to acknowledge that even ONE single piece of evidence that hangs Oswald is legitimate. Can you? Not one! That's beyond pathetic. It's insane. You and Garrison were made for each other alright.


Everything I write about the Garrison inquiry in my upcoming book is profusely footnoted to both the original NODA memos, trial testimony, and interviews I did with those involved. Plus the declassified ARRB record of what the CIA and FBI did to block Garrison's case. When you actually note something to the primary sources in this matter, instead of Dave Reitzes, Lambert, and Phelan, or some other nutty, and in the case of Phelan, lying, shill I will listen to what you have to say. Until then--which will be never--you are just doing your usual over the top bloviating.


When it comes to the assassination of President Kennedy, I would sooner believe anything uttered by any of those individuals you named than to believe ANYTHING written or spoken by virtually any conspiracy theorist (especially the all-knowing, all-perfect James DiEugenio of Los Angeles, California). The day one of your silly theories is proven even halfway accurate is the day that Hades freezes rock solid.


You know about as much about the Garrison case as you do electrical engineering.


I don't need to memorize the Garrison fiasco chapter-and-verse. And the main reason for that is something I said to you in previous correspondence; and it's still true today, of course, although you're not sensible enough to realize I'm 100% correct about it. Allow me to repeat it:

"Even if we were to make the assumption (just for the sake of this particular discussion, although I'm not conceding this to be a true fact at all) that Lee Oswald WAS acquainted with the various "New Orleans" characters that Jim DiEugenio thinks LHO was acquainted with in the summer of 1963 (e.g., Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy Banister).....that would still be a million miles away from proving that ANY of those New Orleans characters had ANY INVOLVEMENT, IN ANY WAY, WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN DALLAS ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963.

"And the reason the above paragraph is the truth is because (once Perry Russo's lie is tossed aside, as it must be) there isn't a shred of evidence that CONNECTS any of those New Orleans individuals to the planning and/or carrying out of the murder of John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. No evidence whatsoever.

"Everything Lee Harvey Oswald did on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 indicates that he was a LONE ASSASSIN in Dallas. And that fact would still be true even IF Oswald had been pals with ALL of the three previously-named New Orleans-based people (Shaw, Ferrie, and Banister).

"In other words -- Where is Jim DiEugenio's (or anyone's) BRIDGE and/or UMBILICAL CORD that allows conspiracy theorists to make the grand leap from this --- LEE HARVEY OSWALD KNEW CLAY SHAW, DAVID FERRIE, AND GUY BANISTER --- to this --- SHAW, FERRIE, AND BANISTER WERE CO-CONSPIRATORS IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY?

"Given the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists of ONLY OSWALD'S GUILT in the assassination of JFK, such a monumental leap of faith like the one suggested above is, to put it bluntly, monumentally ridiculous."
-- DVP; July 31, 2009


Uh, Davey Boy, this does not work here like it does [at] Duncan [MacRae's] fruity site. You have to supply facts and evidence. What, you are afraid to do so? Typical.


It's yet another hilarious statement from the King Of The Evidence Manglers.

Jimmy actually seems to think that I never "supply facts and evidence" when talking about my lone-assassin beliefs in the JFK and Tippit cases. In actuality, nothing could be a bigger falsehood than that. I cite evidence (mixed with common sense) almost constantly. Jim must have taken in too much of that California smog again today.



Linnie [Randle] could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision.


Jimbo seems to think that Linnie Mae Randle needed to have X-ray vision in order to watch Lee Oswald walk across the street from her kitchen window.

In this example of Jim's eagerness to take that paper bag out of Oswald's hands at any costs, Jimbo is willing to look like a total and complete idiot by suggesting that the ONLY time Mrs. Randle observed Lee Harvey Oswald carrying a paper bag on November 22, 1963, was when she opened her kitchen door to look inside the carport.

But, of course, if that's what Jimbo was trying to pass off as the truth here, he's dead wrong, because we all know that Randle saw Oswald with the bag when Oswald was walking toward the Randle house and as he was crossing Westbrook Street, heading toward Linnie Mae's driveway [2 H 248]:

JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you see Lee [Oswald]?"

LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "Yes, I did."

MR. BALL -- "Where did you see him?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport."

MR. BALL -- "What street did he cross to go over?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "He crossed Westbrook."

MR. BALL -- "And you saw him walking along, did you?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "Yes, sir."

MR. BALL -- "Was he carrying any package?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "Yes, he was."

MR. BALL -- "What was he carrying?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it."


[Paper Bag Addendum -- Click HERE to see my thoughts about what I think happened with respect to the carport and Linnie Mae's "X-ray vision".]


And this is based on the WC's own evidence. Just look at the photos of the layout of the house. Do you think she had x-ray vision? Please tell us. If not, then just be quiet.


Maybe it is YOU who should have kept quiet on this Randle issue, Jimmy. (Just like you should have also remained silent when discussing the Post Office regulations concerning possible ways that Oswald could have picked up his revolver.) Because it seems fairly obvious that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, or you just want to totally ignore the Warren Commission testimony of Mrs. Randle that I just cited extensively above, which is testimony that proves she saw Lee Oswald carrying a long brown paper package on the morning of JFK's assassination.

You can either face that obvious fact, or you can continue to pretend that Linnie Mae and her brother, Buell Wesley Frazier, were "forced" (Jimbo's word from a Black Op Radio show) by the Dallas Police to fabricate a story about seeing LHO with a bag.


Now, in the TSBD, who else besides Wesley testified to seeing Oswald with that long paper bag under his arm?


There is no other person who witnessed that event. But so what? I don't find it strange that nobody else saw Oswald that day with the bag. After all, there wasn't anybody else in the car with Wesley and Oswald on their drive to work. And after getting into the building, I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that Lee did everything in his power to HIDE the rifle package from everybody else in the building, if he could do so, which he obviously DID do, because nobody saw any such brown paper package in the building all morning.

But, again, I would EXPECT that to happen given the circumstances. After all, Lee was planning on killing the President in a few hours with the contents of that paper bag, so I think it's also reasonable to conclude that he wouldn't want to draw attention to himself or the package by standing up on Troy West's wrapping table and shouting "Hey everybody! It's me, Lee! Just wanted y'all to know I've arrived here at work! And, lookie what I've got here! It's my rifle! I brought it from Irving today! Just wanted everybody to know!"


What about the mom? Ignore her too, right?


If you're referring to Linnie's and Wesley's mother (Essie Mae Williams), no, I haven't ignored her at all. She only saw Lee at the kitchen window AFTER he had already put his package into Wesley's car. So why do you think she's a critical witness here? She isn't.

[Also see THIS POST again for more discussion about Wes Frazier's mother.]


Why was the bag not photographed in situ? And why does the bag in evidence not match the one the Fraziers said they saw?


See these articles:



In addition to the above articles on the paper bag, I'll add this:

Even though no picture of the bag was taken by the DPD that shows the bag in the Sniper's Nest, there were multiple police officers who testified that they DID see a paper bag lying on the floor in the southeast corner window on the sixth floor before the bag was picked up. Four of those officers are:

L.D. Montgomery [7 H 97]
Robert Studebaker [7 H 143-144]
J.C. Day [4 H 267]
Marvin Johnson [7 H 103]

It's fairly obvious, of course, why conspiracy clowns like DiEugenio feel the need to distance themselves from the reality concerning that brown paper bag. Because if those conspiracists were to actually face the stubborn truth about the bag (with that truth being: it was Lee Harvey Oswald's homemade bag and Oswald carried his rifle, inside that bag, into the Book Depository Building), then those conspiracists would be forced to admit that their precious "patsy" had probably taken that gun to work in order to shoot somebody with it on the day President Kennedy came to town.

What other reasonable and logical conclusion could anyone come to after they've admitted to themselves the obvious truth -- that Lee Oswald did, in fact, walk into the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, with a rifle wrapped in brown paper?


Why did Frazier lie about following Oswald into the TSBD that day?


Huh? You think he lied about that? Are you suggesting that Wesley DIDN'T go into the back door of the Depository shortly after Oswald had entered that same door?

Please elaborate. I love science fiction.


Frazier's story about following LHO into the TSBD was contradicted by Shields, who said he parked the car by himself that morning and then walked to the building alone.


That's a mighty weak argument, Jim.

That scenario of Buell Frazier parking the car "by himself" and walking to the building "alone" is, essentially, correct (when factoring in the fact that Oswald got out of the car first and started to walk ahead of Wesley Frazier toward the TSBD, with Frazier remaining in his car to charge the battery).

Given those circumstances, a person (like Shields) might very well have thought Frazier was "alone" when he walked toward the building, with Oswald walking some 50 feet ahead of Frazier. Because, as mentioned, essentially Frazier WAS "alone" when he walked to the building on that particular day. And Shields could have thought Frazier parked the car "alone", because Frazier did get out of the car ALONE--i.e., not at the same time as Oswald.

Is this the best you've got, Jimbo? If so, it's awfully lousy, because you've also got to get around the testimony of Linnie Randle too. After all, she DID definitely see LHO on the morning of November 22, right? (I assume you don't think she was lying about merely SEEING Oswald that day, do you?)

And what other possible reason would Lee have had to come to the Randle house on November 22 other than to catch his usual ride to work with fellow TSBD employee Wes Frazier?

Do you want to propose a theory, perhaps, that has Oswald riding only PART of the way to work with Frazier....with Frazier then kicking Lee out of the car a mile or so before they reached the Depository parking lot?

Even an Anybody But Oswald nutcase like you isn't THAT silly....are you James?


Maybe because of what happened to him [Wesley Frazier] on the night of the 22nd? Why not tell that story Davey Boy?


Why not just listen to Wesley tell his own story (in this nice long 2-hour interview from 2002).

By far the biggest "bombshell" in that 2002 interview is when Buell says he actually SAW Oswald walking on Houston Street about 5 to 10 minutes AFTER the assassination. THAT probably ought to be the biggest thing you scold Frazier for, because that statement totally contradicts his 11/22/63 affidavit.


You are so afraid to tell the whole story since you know if you do it shows what an agenda driven fanatic you really are. In fact, with you, it's so bad it's a case of mythomania. You live in a habitual dream world in which you think you are pulling over something on someone. You are not. You are kidding one person: You.


The pot/kettle stuff never stops flowing from Jimmy's huge mouth. Never. Everybody just read that last quote of DiEugenio's once more--and then after reflecting on some of Jimbo's obsessive "Anybody But Oswald" ramblings (e.g., Oswald was innocent of everything; there was NO paper bag at all; Armstrong's theory is a good one; Garrison's case against Shaw was a good one; etc.), ask yourself who it is who truly is the "agenda driven fanatic" who lives in a "dream world".

I rest my case.




On December 1, 1963 Frazier appeared to change his story about how Oswald got out in front of him on the walk to the TSBD. As Lee Farley wrote...now there was no mention of him gunning his engine to charge his battery after driving to work. Frazier now told Bardwell Odum that he slowed down to gaze at some welders working on the railroad tracks as LHO got out about fifty feet ahead of him.

The idea, of course, is that somehow LHO had to hide that package from Frazier. Whether it's engine charging, or welder watching, that is a part of the story.

Of course, as others have noted, e.g. Sylvia Meagher, no one else saw Oswald with his furtive package.


If one reads back on this thread, Frazier told the SS a modified story about why he walked behind Oswald--welders vs charging the car.

Lee Farley...has also pointed out another instance where that story was modified.


Absolute nonsense, Jim. You're just LOOKING for an excuse--any excuse--to dismiss portions of Buell Frazier's testimony. Frazier always maintained that he walked behind Oswald because OSWALD decided to walk ahead of him by about 50 feet. It wasn't FRAZIER'S decision to walk behind him---it was Oswald's.

And in every interview I've ever seen with Frazier, he's always said that TWO things occurred after he parked his car that morning....

1. He charged his battery.


2. He leisurely strolled into work (behind Oswald) and as he was walking he said (in his Warren Commission testimony)....

"I just walked along and I just like to watch them switch the cars, so eventually he [Lee Oswald] kept getting a little further ahead of me and by that time we got down there pretty close to the Depository Building there, I say, he would be as much as, I would say, roughly 50 feet in front of me, but I didn't try to catch up with him because I knew I had plenty of time, so I just took my time walking up there. .... I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all."

Now, it's true that Frazier didn't mention anything about watching any "welders" by the railroad tracks in the above testimony, but each version of his story does contain some "watching" on the part of Frazier. And if you ask me, those two "versions" of Buell Frazier's account of his actions are mighty similar in general content --- i.e., he is slowly walking toward the TSBD and is "watching" some activity by some men in the railroad yards.

Now, Jim, you don't REALLY think those two accounts of Frazier's story are a million miles apart, do you? If so, you are hereby awarded this week's "Nitpickers" trophy.


BTW, referring to the DVP discussion above, I do not recall any mention in Linnie's testimony about hearing anything.

Therefore, it remains a mystery as to why she would look out that window and beyond that, how she could claim to see LHO through the slats, a car and if the car is pointed in the direction the WC says, another car.


There is an FBI report in which Linnie Mae Randle talks about what she heard when she looked out her kitchen door on the morning of 11/22/63. That statement is in Randle's interview of December 1, 1963 [Warren Commission Document No. 7]....

"...she [Mrs. Randle] turned back to the sink after hearing the car door shut."


It's worth noting something else that appears in FBI Agent Bardwell D. Odum's 12/1/63 interview of Buell Wesley Frazier. Quoting from Odum's FBI report [also in Commission Document No. 7]:

"Frazier examined the original [brown paper sack] found by the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building on November 22, 1963, and stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the sack or package which he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but that he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack."

BTW, Linnie Mae Randle said the same thing about the original paper bag (see this page of CD7).

The "original" paper bag, with two of Lee Oswald's fingerprints on it, is 38 inches long.

So much for the bag being only "27 inches" or "2 feet" long.


David, please show us where Linnie Mae said the bag was 38" long.

Note--Not what she is reported to have said by the FBI.


Linnie Mae, of course, never said the bag was exactly 38 inches long. But she did come mighty close to it on one occasion [see later discussion regarding the Bookhout report].

In the two filmed interviews I've heard with Mrs. Randle, she once said (in the 1964 David Wolper film) that Oswald's bag was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long" [see video clip below]....

In the other filmed interview (in 1967 for CBS-TV; at the 11:14 mark in this video), Randle said the bag was "about 27 inches long".

Now, both of those estimates are still quite a bit shorter than 38 inches, of course. But the 12/1/63 FBI interview I spoke of earlier is quite revealing and important, in my opinion, because when Mrs. Randle was shown the "original" paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (which is, indeed, a 38-inch bag), she did tell Bardwell Odum and one other FBI agent that the "original" bag could have been the same one she saw Oswald carrying. Now, why would she have said something like that to the FBI if the bag she saw on November 22nd had really been almost a foot shorter than the 38-inch "original" bag she was shown by the FBI?

Yes, I know you wouldn't trust the FBI any further than you could hurl them, but just "for the record", there's another FBI report from the day of the assassination itself, in which Mrs. Randle told the FBI's James Bookhout that the bag she saw Oswald carrying was "approximately 3 feet" (36 inches) in length. And that's her very first approximation of the bag's size, which, of course, is by far the best estimate she ever gave as to the length of the package (IMO). And if you want to think Jim Bookhout was just making up tall tales in his 11/22/63 interview with Linnie Mae, then go right ahead and think that. It's a free country. But please don't ask me to follow you down that rabbit hole.


Glad you can't show where she said it. And glad to see that you believe the FBI were shining light of truth.

[Quoting from Commission Document 7; emphasis is Ray Mitcham's:]

“The replica [paper sack] was shortened by folding the open top down to reach the desired length. Then, in accordance with Mrs. Randle's observations, Special Agent McNeely grasped the top of this sack with his hand, much like a right handed batter would pick up a baseball bat when approaching the plate. When the proper length of the sack was reached according to Mrs. Randle's estimate, it was measured and found to be 27 inches long.”


Thanks Ray.

The other part is almost funny. In that FBI document, you will see that Linnie testified to things she could not have seen. To much more of an extent than she told the WC. Davey then excerpted 12 words and cut all the previous stuff that was not possible out. Which then, of course, would make those 12 words quite dubious in themselves.

As Mark Lane once said, when a nation is forced into accepting a series of absurdities, it will result in tragedy.


Reprise (for CTers to ignore again)....


Notice in the last sentence, the two dependent clauses begun with the words "if" and "could".

Thanks for posting that David.


Thanks for totally missing the point, Jim.

That point being:

If the bag that Linnie Mae Randle saw Lee Oswald carrying had REALLY been quite a bit shorter than the "original" bag she was later shown, then there should have been no "ifs" and "coulds" about it in Randle's mind—i.e., the "original" bag (via those conditions) could not possibly have been the bag Linnie Mae saw on Nov. 22, regardless of the bag's COLOR.

But instead of saying to the FBI agents something like this....

Regardless of the color issue, there's no way in the world this "original" bag you are showing me now could be the same one I saw Oswald carrying on Nov. 22nd, because this "original" bag is way too long.

....she, instead, tells the FBI agents that the "original" bag she was being shown is still in the mix of possible bags that Lee Oswald "could have been" carrying on November 22nd.

Do conspiracy theorists think that Mrs. Randle just TOTALLY IGNORED the LENGTH of the "original" bag when she said that the original sack was still a candidate for the one she saw Oswald toting on 11/22? Was she ONLY concerned with the COLOR of the bags at that point in time in her FBI interview? In other words, she knew the original bag was much too long, but she was unable to concentrate on two separate aspects of the bag at the same time (color and length), so she said "could have been" with respect to the color only, all the while totally forgetting that this "original" bag in front of her was entirely too big. Is that what some conspiracists want to contend?

In addition....

There's also the fact that the amount of Oswald's bag that was available to view from Randle's perspective on Nov. 22 was very likely a few inches less than the bag's overall length of 38 inches. It was "folded" in some manner, as Wesley Frazier said in his 11/22/63 affidavit:

"The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under." -- Buell Wesley Frazier


I can finally state the question I wanted to ask.

These pics are in the WC volumes....

The FBI took them fairly early in the proceedings.

If one reads the WC testimony of Wesley and his sister, I do not recall one question based on the obvious contradictions the pics make with her story.

Does anyone else?

The obvious question is why?

But beyond that, this is my complaint with the first generation critics: I don't recall any of them asking about this either. They just accepted the testimony of both. And they proceeded to do what Ray [Mitcham] is doing, ask questions about the length of the bag. Instead of the much more serious question: How the heck could Linnie have seen Oswald through the car, the slats, and another car?


Agreed, James. .... Linnie Mae is said to have seen Oswald through the narrow slats shown in the photos, and behind Frazier's car which is almost impossible to discern through the slats. Certainly throws a lot of doubt over her testimony.


But, Ray (and James D.), if the idea promoted by conspiracists is true and the paper bag story is total fiction, then wouldn't you think that Buell Wesley Frazier, in his recent interviews, would be ready to shout from the rooftops: "The Dallas police made me pretend I saw Lee Oswald with a package! But the truth is: there was never any large paper bag at all!" ??

Why, in all the years since the assassination of JFK, has Buell Frazier never once said anything like the simulated quote presented above?

After all, Buell has been quite vocal in his public interviews about his belief that there was NO WAY the package could have contained a rifle. So he's certainly not being "controlled" by any evil forces that would like him to keep spouting the "Lone Assassin Government line". So why is Buell still insisting he saw Oswald with a package if, as many conspiracy theorists advocate, there never was a bag in the first place? Especially in light of Buell's more recent tale about Captain Will Fritz, which is a story I find a little hard to completely accept, particularly the part where Frazier says that Fritz raised a hand to physically strike him. So, given that tale now being told by Mr. Frazier, it's even more difficult to believe that Wesley's actions and words are being controlled by anyone who wants to quell all talk of conspiracy or cover-up.

Do CTers think that Mr. Frazier just cannot allow himself to tell the truth after all these years---even though he, himself, is really (when it comes right down to it, based on a number of things he has said in his interviews over the years) a believer in a conspiracy himself?


Since many CTers think that Buell Wesley Frazier is a great big liar when it comes to the topics of "The Paper Bag" and "The Curtain Rod Story", then I'm wondering what in the world would make him have any desire at all to voluntarily put himself in a position where he would need to lie his ass off whenever the interviewer brings up the subjects of the paper package and those phantom curtain rods?

Do CTers think Buell was paid a whole lot of money to do those interviews and lie like a cheap rug every single time? Or was Buell doing it just because he enjoyed the idea of lying in front of hundreds of people (and on camera for the Internet streams)?

Bottom Line (IMHO & FWIW) --- The conspiracy theorists who keep insisting that Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle saw no large-ish paper bag in the possession of Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63 are just plain nuts.


Leave it to DVP to do a Bugliosi on us.

He does not answer the question I posed: Which is, why did the WC not ask either witness about the contradiction the pics clearly demonstrate? That is a matter of simple spatial relationships. In fact, the obvious thing to have done would have been for the WC to take the witnesses to the location and taken a gander themselves to test it first.

Instead, he does his usual VB style pivot towards the factor of motivation. Which is a matter of human psychology, something that is much more murky and hidden, especially in a case of this magnitude and complexity.


Such a Warren Commission Q&A session with Randle and/or Frazier would have had very little (probably ZERO) impact on a conspiracy theorist of your ilk, James. Because, regardless of what the answers to the WC questions would have been regarding Linnie Mae's ability or inability to see through the slats, you've got your mind made up (based on a variety of your other bogus allegations) that there really was no large brown paper package in Lee Oswald's hands AT ALL on 11/22/63. Nothing, at this point, is going to ever change your mind about that fanciful "No Bag" theory.

Along similar lines, nothing at this point is likely to change your mind regarding your equally-as-silly and nonsensical "The Baker/Oswald Lunchroom Encounter Never Happened" and "Howard Brennan Never Attended A Police Line-up" theories as well. (I'm noticing a trend in recent years among Internet conspiracy theorists—it's the "I'm Going To Pretend This Event Never Happened At All, Even Though Multiple Witnesses Verified It Really Did Happen" syndrome. Quite a curious ailment/syndrome indeed.)

As far as the question you asked ("...why did the WC not ask either witness about the contradiction the pics clearly demonstrate?")....

Since hindsight is, of course, always 20/20, there are a lot of things that now, 54 years later, we can look back on concerning the Warren Commission's investigation and ask ourselves questions about. Such as....

Why didn't they ask him/her this question?


Why wasn't this or that witness called upon to testify?


Why didn't the Commission do a timed re-creation of Victoria Adams' post-shooting movements?

or (one of my pet peeves with the WC):

Why on Earth didn't the Commission perform a third re-creation of Oswald's post-assassination movements, and this time have Oswald's stand-in running from the Sniper's Nest to the second floor, in order to establish the absolute minimum amount of time that was required to travel between those two points in the TSBD, instead of merely doing tests at two different "walking" speeds?

and a thousand other "Why didn't they...?" questions.

And, I guess, the question Jim D. asked above about Linnie Mae Randle and the carport slats would be another of those thousand questions that could be placed on such a "hindsight" list.

I don't know why the Commission didn't ask that exact question when Linnie Mae testified. But, without feeling the burden of assigning a "sinister" motive to the Commission's intent and actions, my guess would be that they just felt it wasn't necessary to grill Linnie Mae about the "slats" topic. She said she saw certain things through the carport, and the Commission accepted those answers as truthful ones. After all, if Linnie Mae really couldn't see anything at all through the slats in her carport, why would she lie to the Commission about something that could so easily be discovered to be a lie?

And this photo definitely shows that there is enough of a gap between the slats in the carport wall for a person to see at least a portion of what is on the other side of the carport. So this whole topic is really a non-issue, IMO.

For the record, here's the Warren Commission testimony of Linnie Mae Randle dealing with the topic of Randle seeing Oswald go to Frazier's car....

Mr. BALL. Did you see him go to the car?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.

Mr. BALL. What did he do?

Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down, so I closed the door. I didn't recognize him as he walked across my carport and I at that moment I wondered who was fixing to come to my back door, so I opened the door slightly and saw that it--I assumed he was getting in the car, but he didn't, so he come back and stood on the driveway.

Mr. BALL. He put the package in the car.

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I don't know if he put it on the seat or on the floor, but I just know he put it in the back.


Senator COOPER. Did you see Lee Oswald place the package in the automobile?

Mrs. RANDLE. In the automobile. I do not know if he put it on the seat or on the floor.

Senator COOPER. I mean, did you see him throw open the door?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. When he placed the package in there, do you remember whether he used one hand or two?

Mrs. RANDLE. No; because I only opened the door briefly, and what made me establish the door on Wesley's car, it is an old car and that door, the window is broken and everything and it is hard to close, so that cinched in my mind which door it was, too. But it was only briefly that I looked.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, could I ask--how far away were you? You were at the kitchen door and the automobile was in the driveway, what was the distance between yourself and Mr. Oswald?

Mrs. RANDLE. Sir, I don't know. The carport will take care of two cars, and then Wesley's car was on the other side of the carport, so that would be three car lengths plus in-between space.

Mr. JENNER. Car widths?

Mrs. RANDLE. Car widths, excuse me.



The following section of Linnie Mae Randle's WC testimony is quite interesting as well, in that it demonstrates that Linnie Mae was aware of Lee Oswald's curtain rod story as early as Thursday afternoon or evening, November 21st. In other words, if this testimony below is the absolute truth, which I believe it to be (but many conspiracists must think this is just another in a series of lies coming from the mouth of Mrs. Randle), then the "curtain rod" story could not have been a story that was created by Frazier or the Dallas Police after the assassination had occurred....

Mr. BALL. Do you remember anything about curtain rods?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.

Mr. BALL. What do you remember about that?

Mrs. RANDLE. He had told Wesley--

Mr. BALL. Tell me what Wesley told you.

Mrs. RANDLE. What Wesley told me. That Lee had rode home with him to get some curtain rods from Mrs. Paine to fix up his apartment.

Mr. BALL. When did Wesley tell you that?

Mrs. RANDLE. Well, that afternoon I suppose I would have had to ask him, he wouldn't have just told me.

Mr. BALL. You mean that night?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. After he came home?

Mrs. RANDLE. I was on my way to the store. So I probably asked him when I got back what he was doing riding home with him on Thursday afternoon.

Mr. BALL. You think that was the time that Wesley told you--

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; after I got back home.

Mr. BALL. That Lee had come home to get some curtain rods?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, I am sure he told me that.
[DVP's emphasis.]


David Von Pein
October 3, 2012
August 6, 2015
March 18-20, 2018