BUELL, LINNIE, LHO, AND THE BAG
David Von Pein
DVP SAID:
"And BOTH {Wes Frazier and Linnie Randle} confirmed that the bag found
on the 6th Floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag
they saw Oz carrying on 11/22."
RICHARD V.N. SAID:
"A patent lie, David. So now we're resorting to a complete lie to make
the case? Typical. They said the package was no more than two feet in
length and carried with a cupped hand under the armpit."
DVP NOW SAYS:
In the 1964 motion picture "Four Days In November", Linnie Mae Randle
said the package was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long". That's
30 inches, just a mere 8 inches shorter than the actual length of the
package.
Plus -- There's the fact that both the top and the bottom ends of the
bag were quite possibly "folded" in some manner as Oswald carried the
bag. At least the top of the bag was "folded", per Frazier. (See later
discussion in this post re. Wesley Frazier's November 22nd affidavit,
which involves information concerning the bag's "folds".)
Also -- Randle, in her Warren Commission testimony, said that the bag
she saw Oswald carrying was about "27 inches" long. And 27 inches is,
of course (just like her "2-and-a-half feet" estimate from the movie
"Four Days"), more than two feet, which makes your above statement of
"no more than two feet in length" incorrect (with respect to the
estimates of the bag's length made by Linnie Randle).
Also from Randle's WC session:
JOE BALL -- "You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?"
LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "A little bit more."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm
You might also be interested in the FBI Report filed by James Bookhout
on 11/23/63, which states that Linnie Mae saw Oswald put "a long brown
package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area" of
her brother's Chevrolet sedan.
"3 feet" = 36 inches. The sixth-floor bag was 38 inches long. (And the
lengthiest section of Lee Oswald's Italian-made Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle was 34.8 inches long when it was broken down.)
So, who's telling lies now, Richard? Or don't you even know what these
witnesses said?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm
Wesley Frazier told the WC:
"I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give
and [sic] take a few inches."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
Via Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit, we find something interesting
regarding the bag's length too:
"Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a
big sack. It must have been about 2 feet long, and the top of the sack
was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of
folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain
rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was
going to bring some curtain rods."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm
The intriguing part of the above affidavit, IMO, is:
"The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack
had been kind of folded under."
Therefore, Frazier is saying via his affidavit comments made on the
very same day he saw Oswald with the paper bag that the "2-foot"-long
bag had at least one of its ends "folded" in some fashion, which would
certainly make the overall length of the bag longer when the bag is
completely unfolded.
Frazier's other "folded" remark in his affidavit is a bit more
ambiguous and hard to figure out.....
"And the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
The "folded under" comment could indicate the bottom being "folded
under", I suppose. But it would seem he's referring to the bulk of the
LENGTH of the bag in that "folded under" comment. I'm not quite sure.
But that could also explain why Frazier said that the full width of
the bag looked too wide when he was shown the unfolded bag by the WC.
If the WHOLE bag, for the most part, had been "folded under" itself in
some fashion, then when Frazier saw Oswald with the bag on November
22, the bag would obviously have looked NOT AS WIDE in Frazier's eyes.
The above "folded" comments in Wes Frazier's November 22nd affidavit
seem to have been overlooked by many CTers who are bent on clearing
dear, sweet Lee Harvey of the Presidential murder he so obviously
committed with the object that was stuffed inside that paper bag (with
multiple "folds") that he put in Frazier's car on the morning of
November 22, 1963.
BTW, a man who is 5'9" tall can't fit a "27-inch" object or a 24-inch
object under his armpit while also cupping it in his hand (unless he's
got monkeys for close relatives). So, the Randle/Frazier estimates as
to the length of the package they saw are almost certainly WRONG--even
from a "CT" POV.
In other words, Frazier can't possibly be exactly correct about BOTH
things -- i.e., "under the armpit and cupped in his right hand" AND
"roughly about two feet long" (via his WC testimony).
Both of those things cannot be 100% true. But CTers like to think that
Frazier's and Randle's bag-length estimates ARE, indeed, spot-on
accurate.
And isn't it funny that the empty 6th-Floor bag just happened to have
the RIGHT PALMPRINT of Lee Oswald on it....perfectly matching the way
Wes Frazier said Oz carried the bag "cupped in his right hand".
The "under the armpit" observation of Frazier's was obviously a
mistake....and he said so, under oath:
VINCENT BUGLIOSI (during the 1986 Docu-Trial in London) -- "Did you
recall how he {Lee Harvey Oswald} was carrying the bag?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his
body."
VB -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his body....on the
right side?"
BWF -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
VB -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I think you've
said that in the past."
BWF -- "Yes sir."
VB -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to
this bag?"
BWF -- "That is true."
VB -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body,
and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
BWF -- "That is true."
www.amazon.com/review/RXCFYPZ5IVRFW
==================
And now a passage from VB's "Reclaiming History" (which Richard will
spit on, naturally, since "RH" is a "fantasy" book, per RVN):
"Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked under Oswald's
armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While Frazier's
description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent in all of
his statements to investigators, it was clearly inferable from his
Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption on his
part based on his limited view.
"Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way
Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that
was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down"
along the inside of Oswald's arm. ....
"Since he could only see this small portion of the package under
Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the
package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it
must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I
don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your
armpit."
"Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's
conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and
over (no less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much
attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it. ....
"In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused. So we
don't even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front
of his body, which Frazier could not see. At the London trial {in
1986} I asked Frazier, "So the bag could have been protruding out in
front of his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it?" and he
responded, "That's true."
"The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather {of
CBS News in June 1967}, who rhetorically told his audience, "You can
decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own
words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of
the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "Reclaiming History" (Via the
Endnotes on CD-ROM)(c.2007)
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/025a3639eb985034
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/118eaf60b3c0c0aa
==================
Anyway, my earlier comment, which was.....
"And BOTH {Randle/Frazier} confirmed that the bag found on the
6th Floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they
saw Oz carrying on 11/22."
.....wasn't referring to the exact LENGTH of the sixth-floor bag
(quite obviously). I was referring to the TYPE and GENERAL LOOK of the
brown paper bag (CE142) that was shown to Frazier and Randle by the
Warren Commission.
Frazier, in his usual confused, odd, and hard-to-understand way of
expressing himself, told the WC that the color of the bag Oswald
carried closely matched the color of the replica bag made by the FBI
for general identification purposes (CE364).
And Frazier said that the untreated and lighter portion of CE142 (the
actual Sniper's-Nest bag) "could have been, and it couldn't have been"
similar to the color of the bag he saw in the back seat of his car on
the morning of November 22nd.*
* = Yes, once more, we're forced to try and figure out some of Wesley
Frazier's rather odd phraseology. But the words "could have been" are
certainly in there. So use your proverbial grain of salt here, as we
should do with all of Frazier's testimony to a certain extent,
especially when he starts to talk in strange ways, which he often did
in front of the WC.
Now, with respect to Linnie Mae Randle's Warren Commission testimony
re. the general look and color of the paper bag:
JOE BALL -- "Looking at this part of the bag which has not been
discolored, does that appear similar to the color of the bag you saw
Lee carrying that morning?"
LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0269a.jpg
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0492b.jpg
==================
I'll offer up this common-sense question once again, because it's
worth repeating numerous times:
I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT
brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON
IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?
Care to guess at what those odds might be? They must be close to "O.J.
DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by
the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same
bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey
Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22nd, 1963 AD).
I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted
explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper
bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), which
was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place
where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's
Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's
window on 11/22/63.
I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation
for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the
assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it.
Can you?
David Von Pein
>>> "David: It was a WELL OILED gun. Get over it. And the interior of the bag showed no abrasion marks from the gun. The paper bag is doubtful AT BEST." <<<
Richard,
Why don't you go about the impossible task of proving that there HAD
to be oil stains on that paper bag if Oswald's rifle had been inside
that bag.
That should put some mileage on your sneakers, especially since you
can never, ever "prove" such a thing.
This "oil" argument kinda reminds me (in a similar way) of the
argument I heard a CT-Kook make a few years ago re. the paper bus
transfer found in Oswald's pocket.
The kook asked the question: Why are there no creases or folds of any
kind in that bus transfer after having been supposedly handled by
Oswald on Nov. 22?
The kook went on to make the bold claim -- That's just impossible for
there NOT to be any kind of marks or folds or a single crease in that
transfer! Therefore, it MUST have been PLANTED! It's not a real
transfer given to Oswald by McWatters! It's obvious!
There's a parallel to the "oil stain" argument here, as I am sure you
can detect.
IOW, a kook makes a bold claim that something is "Utterly Impossible
Because I Say It Is!"...and then it's up to the "LNers" to go about
proving that the CT-Kook claim is wrong.
Backward thinking there, in my view.
YOU go about showing that there HAS TO BE OIL IN A PAPER BAG THAT
CARRIES A RIFLE 100% OF THE TIME.
If you cannot prove that, you're not in a very good position to say,
definitively, that Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle would have HAD to leave
oil residue on that bag in the Sniper's Nest in November 1963....are
you?
David Von Pein
RE: LINNIE MAE RANDLE AND HER "PACKAGE" OBSERVATIONS:
===============================================
"At about 7:10 AM in the morning, I was preparing lunches, when I saw
a man, whom I later learned was Mr. Oswald, approaching my house with
a package approximately 2-and-a-half feet long." -- LINNIE MAE RANDLE;
AS SHE NARRATED HER OWN ACCOUNT OF EVENTS FOR THE 1964 FILM "FOUR DAYS
IN NOVEMBER".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.video/msg/5093634b419405d5
"2-and-a-half feet long" = 30 inches.
The empty bag found below the SN window = 38 inches.
Linnie Mae was only off by a little more than half-a-foot. And she
certainly didn't have the slightest reason to scrutinize the
dimensions of that paper bag Oswald was carrying at the time she
noticed it (approx. 7:10 AM CST on Nov. 22, 1963).
Put yourself in Linnie's place --- i.e., you see a guy with a paper
package. You have no reason to think to yourself at 7:10 AM (5+ hours
before JFK is shot) that this guy with this package might be up to no
good and might have a weapon inside that bag.
Therefore, why would you (or anybody in this same innocuous situation)
say to yourself: Gee, I think I'd better mentally "measure" the length
of that package, just in case I'm called upon to provide its
dimensions to the authorities at a later date.
Linnie Mae Randle's "2-and-a-half feet long" estimate is fairly close
to the length of the empty 38-inch-long bag (with Lee Harvey Oswald's
prints on it) that was found abandoned in the Depository's Sniper's
Nest on the afternoon of Nov. 22nd.
Also --- I'm not entirely sure of the exact date that Randle made
those verbal comments for David Wolper's "Four Days In November" movie
(which is a film, btw, that was made just months after the
assassination, and which had its New York City premiere on October 7,
1964, a mere 13 days after the completed Warren Report was handed over
to LBJ). .....
http://imdb.com/title/tt0059197/releaseinfo
So, it's possible that those filmed comments by Randle could have
preceded her 1964 WC testimony, which is official testimony that
includes these remarks:
Mrs. RANDLE -- "What I remember seeing is about this long, sir, as I
told you it was folded down so it could have been this long."
Mr. BALL -- "I see. You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?"
Mrs. RANDLE -- "A little bit more."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm
(And note how Joe Ball actually mentions a SHORTER length to Randle --
"about 2 feet long" -- just before she corrects him slightly with, "a
little bit more".)
David Von Pein
>>> "So, Frazier's testimony doesn't really tell us much of anything, right? He says there was a bag. Well, the man presumably had on a shirt and pants, too, but those don't make him an assassin, either." <<<
Oh, for Pete sake.
1.) Oz carries bulky brown bag into TSBD (and definitely lies about
its contents).
2.) An EMPTY brown bag WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS is in SN after the
shooting.
3.) Oswald's rifle is on the same 6th Floor after the shooting.
Logically, what was in that EMPTY bag with Oz's prints? (Which is an
empty bag located under the same window where an Oz-like human being
was firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at JFK.)
Gee, that's a hard-to-figure-out mystery...huh?
For most CTers...I guess it's harder than building The Pyramids.
~smirk~
================
"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL
doubt THAT OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!!
"And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious.
As far as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under
his armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how
Oswald was carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to.
"At this point if we had nothing else....nothing else....how much do
you need?....if we had NOTHING else....this would be enough to prove
Oswald's guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt. But there's so much more."
-- Vince Bugliosi
David Von Pein
>>> "They forgot that they would have to have a container that Oswald could have used to carry the rifle into the building. When the question arose..."How did he get the rifle into the building?"...they were forced to improvise, and grabbed a book wrapper, and claimed that was how he'd smuggled the gun into the building." <<<
LOL. Boy, what a bunch of goofball Patsy-Framers you've got there.
They go to the ADVANCED trouble of faking photos of Oswald, placing
"imposter Oswalds" all over the place, and God-knows what else to
frame
their dupe prior to 11/22 -- but then when the big day arrives -- they
"forgot" about the paper bag. And they evidently "forgot" to plant the
right rifle too. (Because how does planting a Mauser help out the
Patsy
plot?)
And just think -- people like Walt actually BUY into this nonsense.
Reprise.....
>>> "They {the goofy plotters with I.Q.s of 5 each} were forced to improvise, and grabbed a book wrapper, and claimed that was how he'd smuggled the gun into the building." <<<
And it just so happened that Oswald DID take a bulky paper bag into
work that very same day. How convenient for the idiot plotters that
Oswald was willing to frame himself in this manner.
Beaver Cleaver could have mapped out a "Patsy" plot better than the
way
Walt says it occurred.
Well, as they say....one's born every minute I guess.
aeffects
9,876th post DVP quotes himself....... LMFAO what-a-fraud
David Von Pein
Must be 3:30.
~checks watch~
Yep.
Kook time once more.
Healy's more reliable than an expensive Rolex.
YoHarvey
There is no ambiguity in the testimony of Buell or Linnie. Of course,
the kooks will typically MAKE up whatever they choose.
aeffects
not to mention, accurate.... carry on, son!
YoHarvey
Son? Any son of yours would either have committed suicide or had sex
with sister Chandra. It's no doubt a family characteristic.