Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Larry Rivera has done some excellent work on Buell Frazier, and he spoke about him at the OIC conference in Santa Barbara last November. Frazier was not just an important witness but a crucial one, and every serious student of the case needs to address his testimony.

Most crucially, Frazier said that Oswald went to work that morning with a long package, which presumably contained the disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. But, Oswald said that all he brought to work that morning was his lunch. 

Now, if you are aware, as I am, that Oswald was innocent and that he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots, then you have no reason to doubt what he said about just bringing his lunch. There was no reason for him to lie about any package. Obviously, if he was innocent, he did not bring a rifle to work. But, if he brought anything else to work, other than a rifle or his lunch, then he would have said so. He would have admitted it. Why not? He wasn't stupid.  He had to know that lying to the police was not in his interest. And if he brought anything at all other than a rile, it had to be innocuous. Therefore, it would have been OK for him to say what it was. He would have said it, and he would said where he put it so that they could retrieve it and resolve the whole matter. That's true whether it was curtain rods, a croquet set, or anything else. He was innocent, so it had to be harmless, hence, there was no reason for him to lie about it. So, the fact that he said that he carried nothing but his lunch means that he carried nothing but his lunch. 

And the other thing that proves it is the fact that nothing else was found. You know he didn't bring a rifle. And any other thing that he might have brought would have been found. But, nothing was found. Therefore, he must have been telling the truth. 

Now, let's look at Frazier's testimony:

Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not when Oswald came back with you on any Monday morning or any weekend did he pack his lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL - He did?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day. 

So, Frazier said that Oswald brought no lunch at all on November 22, but that was not true. Oswald brought a cheese sandwich and an apple from Mrs. Paine's house. He said he ate it in the domino room before the assassination when Junior Jarman and Harold Norman were milling about. Even Vincent Bugliosi accepts what Oswald said about that, and I have never heard anyone doubt it.  

According to Frazier, on the morning of the 22nd, he was eating breakfast and drinking coffee at his sister's house in Irving, and Oswald came up to the window. It was about 7:20 AM. His mother asked "Who is that?" And Frazier said, "That is Lee." And he took it as his sign to skidaddle, so he quickly collected himself, grabbed his lunch, and went out the back door. And Oswald was there at the back door. Then they walked to the car, and each got in. Frazier noticed a long bag on the back seat, which wasn't his, so he asked Oswald about it, and Oswald said it was curtain rods. 

Note that it is implied that the car was open and that Oswald went to it first and deposited the rifle on the back seat, but Frazier said nothing about it. His sister, Lynnie Mae Randle, reported that she saw Oswald put something into the car. But, why didn't Frazier say it? Frazier and his sister were supposedly in the kitchen at the same time with the same view out the window. 

Then, Frazier and Oswald drove to work with no further discussion about the curtain rods and with nothing said about JFK's visit. Then, when they parked in the parking lot, Oswald got out first and tucked the bag under his armpit and down to his hand, and he entered the building well ahead of Frazier. 

Regarding the bag, Frazier said several times that it was a grocery bag. 

MR FRAZIER: "Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?" And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today." That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that."
MR BALL: "What did the package look like?"
MR FRAZIER: "Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of those brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long."
MR BALL: "It was, what part of the back seat was it in?"
MR FRAZIER: "It was in his side over on his side in the far back."
MR BALL: "How much of that back seat, how much space did it take up?"
MR FRAZIER: "I would say roughly around two feet of the seat." 

Note how nervous Frazier was. He was practically incoherent. 

Here is the bag:

That is not a grocery bag. We've all been going to grocery stores our whole lives, and the bags haven't changed that much, and they NEVER looked like that. 

Furthermore, that is much longer than 2 feet, and it is much longer than a man's arm. How could Oswald have tucked that in his armpit and held the bottom in his hand? 

But, here is the biggest problem: How come Frazier was the only one at the TSBD who reported seeing Oswald's bag? A guy walks in carrying a bag like that and nobody sees it? I should think that people would have seen it, and I should think they would have said something, such as, "What have you got there, Lee?" Isn't that just human nature?

And then there is this:

MR BALL: "Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?"
MR DOUGHERTY: "Yes - when he first come into the door."
MR BALL: "When he came in the door?"
MR DOUGHERTY: "Yes."
MR BALL: "Did you see him come in that door?"
MR DOUGHERTY: "Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door - yes."
MR BALL: "Did he have anything in his hands or arms?"
MR DOUGHERTY: "Well, not that I could see of."
MR BALL: "About what time of day was that?"
MR DOUGHERTY: "That was eight o'clock.

Mr. BALL - Did you see him (Oswald) come in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes. 
Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms? 
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively that he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY- I would say that - yes, sir. (6H 376/377)

What? How could anybody not see that bag?

The fact is that Oswald must have passed a lot of people when he entered that building and (supposedly) made his way to the 6th floor to hide that rifle, and every person he passed constitutes a witness who did not see him with it. And that casts a lot of suspicion on Frazier's claim.  

And it is especially likely that someone in a managerial position would have noticed the package and asked about it because they would have wondered if the package had something to do with the place. Was it work-related? Was it something they should know about? 

It was big. It was unusual. It stuck out. So, how come nobody saw it? 

Then, there was this about Oswald's lunch:

Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning? 
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day. 
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he? 
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there. 

Again, that obviously conflicts with what Oswald said about bringing a cheese sandwich and an apple from Mrs. Paine's house. It also conflicts with what Marina said because she said he brought his lunch. And, if he had obtained food from a catering service, surely there would have been witnesses to that. Again, no one has expressed doubt that Oswald brought his cheese sandwich and apple from Mrs. Paine's house. Why would he lie about that? 

So, Frazier's whole account of the morning transit is riddled with incongruities that conflict with other evidence. 

Now, consider Frazier's testimony about the Doorman issue.

Mr. BALL - We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President's car going by.
Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't, because I was back up in this more or less black area here. (previously, he said he was one step down from the top)
Mr. BALL - I see. 
Mr. FRAZIER - Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me. (Doorman was on the top level and therefore could not be 2 or 3 steps down from anybody)
Mr. BALL - Do you recognize this fellow?
Mr. FRAZIER - That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL - Billy?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right
Mr. BALL - Let's take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - In front of you to the right over to the wall?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. (Doorman was was NOT over to the wall; he was in the center. It only looks like he was over to the wall because of parallax.)
Mr. BALL - Is this a Commission exhibit? We will make this a Commission Exhibit No. 369. That is written in. The arrow marks Billy Lovelady on Commission's Exhibit No. 369.

Notice that Frazier offered nothing to provide the basis for his identification of Doorman as Lovelady. He didn't say what he recognized. For instance, he didn't say that he recognized his hair or his clothes or his build or his face or anything else. What identifying feature or features nailed down the identification? What is it about Doorman's image that struck him as being of Lovelady? It is a fair question to ask because he never volunteered it.  WHAT DID HE RECOGNIZE?  And how could he fail to recognize the strong matches to Oswald, whom he drove to work? 

In a case like this, with so much riding on it, you would think that some elaboration would be given. After all, the whole controversy began because people the world over thought that they saw Oswald in the Altgens photo- and they didn't drive him to work that morning or even know him. That's how strong the likenesses were. So, to just glibly say that "that's Billy" without any further elucidation really doesn't cut it. It is unsatisfactory. And the fact that Joseph Ball let it go at that only shows how cagey and cunning and crafty he was about the whole issue. He knew he was walking a tightrope, and he just wanted to get through it. 

So, what really happened? I assume that Oswald just had his lunch with him, and the size of the bag kept growing and growing as the FBI kept pressuring Frazier and his sister about it. All the people at the TSBD who did NOT see Oswald with a bag outnumber Frazier and his sister by a wide margin. Oswald never said a word to Frazier about curtain rods- it was an idea that was put into Frazier's head.

Regarding the Altgens photo, I have stated many times that the top of Lovelady's head, including his forehead and his hairline, what I call his "cap" was transferred to Oswald. And, it was right on top, and we look at people from the top down. So, it made the first impression, and the hairline contributes mightily to a person's looks.

In Frazier's case, that is all it took. He just glossed over the fact that the guy was wearing Oswald's clothes and had Oswald's slender build. 

The bottom line is that Buell Frazier was a totally manipulated witness, and it is warranted to assume that MK-Ultra mind control techniques were applied to him. His testimony about Lovelady being Doorman is completely destroyed by all the photographic and film evidence, including all the corruption contained therein. His testimony about Oswald not bringing lunch is completely untenable, and nobody defends it. And his story about the bag is unsupported by any other witness except his sister. In testifying, she sounded just as rattled as Frazier. Like Frazier, she first estimated the length of the bag as 2 feet, but after some hounding, Joseph Ball got her to extend it to 27 inches. The wooden stock alone of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was 34.8 inches.   

I maintain that Frazier's and his sister's credibility should be rated at zero. Oswald was innocent. He did not own a rifle. He carried nothing to work but his lunch. He never said anything to anybody about curtain rods. He asked Junior Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk because he didn't know that JFK would be passing the building that day. Buell Frazier was brain-washed, just like Sirhan Sirhan.