The 19-year-old Frazier appeared twice before the Warren Commission and his initial testimony was obviously considered to be of great importance. It was taken not in Dallas but at the offices of the Commission at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Building, 200 Maryland Avenue NE, Washington, DC. Furthermore, instead of being questioned by just one of the Assistant Counsel, he was honoured by receiving the full works.
Frazier was recalled by the Commission four and a half months after his first examination but on that occasion he attended in Dallas and was asked less than a dozen questions by Assistant Counsel Wesley J Liebeler. Since those questions were concerned with the journey to work on the morning of the assassination they are relevant to this paper and will be dealt with in due course.
Frazier's principal testimony was taken on 11th March 1964 in the presence of Chief Justice Earl Warren; two full members of the Commission (Senator John Sherman and Representative Gerald R Ford); General Counsel J Lee Rankin; five Assistant Counsel (Joseph A Ball, David W Belin, Albert E Jenner, Jr., Wesley J Liebeler and Norman Redlich) and two observers (Charles Murray and Lewis E Powell, Jr.) (32).
One can but speculate on the unfortunate Frazier's state of mind when, alone and many miles from home, he found himself confronted by this august gathering!
Mr Ball led most of this interview and after a considerable amount of preamble, he got around to asking Frazier about his drive home from the Texas School Book Depository after he finished work on the afternoon of Thursday 21st November 1963. Frazier stated that he had agreed to give Lee Harvey Oswald a lift to the Paine house in Irving that day and he had asked Oswald: "Why are you going home today?" Oswald's reply, as remembered and quoted by Frazier, represents one of the major cornerstones in what would have become the prosecution case: "I am going home to get some curtain rods. You know, put in an apartment." (33).
It is vital to note that Frazier is the one and only person ever to attribute the words "curtain rods" to Oswald. Less than half a dozen other people used those words - Linnie Mae Randle, when quoting her brother Frazier, Oswald himself when he denied that he ever made that remark to Frazier plus, of course, some of those questioning him (34). We have only Frazier's word that Oswald gave that as his reason for wanting a lift on that afternoon and on the following morning. Both Ruth Paine (35) and Marina Oswald (36) denied that Oswald had said anything to them about curtain rods.
As agreed, Frazier drove Oswald back to Irving that afternoon, leaving the book depository at 4.40pm and arriving at Irving (as far as can be determined) sometime between 5.20pm and 5.25pm. Mr Ball asked Frazier if any conversation had passed between them during the journey and Frazier could not remember anything being said. It is important to note here that no questions were put to Frazier as to whether Oswald was carrying anything or whether it appeared that he had anything concealed about his person. As we shall see later, if it was Oswald's intention to bring a rifle to work in a large paper bag the following morning, this would be his only opportunity to take the empty bag to Irving.
In reply to a question from Mr Ball, Frazier stated that his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, who lived at the same house, had asked him that evening why he had brought Oswald back to Irving on that particular day. Frazier said: "I told her that he had rode home with me and told her he said he was going to come home and pick up some curtain rods or something." (37).
According to Frazier's testimony, he and Oswald walked to Frazier's car which was parked just outside Frazier's house at a minute or so after 7.21am the following morning. (38). I find it odd that Frazier's very precise recollection of the time - literally to the exact minute after an interim period of three and a half months - was never queried.
Mr Ball asked what happened when they got into the car, and the dialogue continued:
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." (39).
Buell Frazier's nervous state of mind can be judged by those answers. Note, however, that without any prompting, he twice volunteered his impression of the length of the package as being about two feet. That, of course, was not the estimate which Mr Ball was seeking.
MR BALL: "I would like to assign Commission Exhibit No. 364 to a paper sack which the FBI has identified as their C-109 Exhibit. That will be the
Commission's Exhibit No. 364 for identification at this time."
CHAIRMAN: "All right."
(The paper sack referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 364 for identification.)
MR BALL: "Also for the record I would like to announce that prior to - this morning, Mr Cortlandt Cunningham and Charles Killion of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation laboratory, the Ballistics Division, Firearms Division, I guess
it is, broke down, that is unscrewed Commission Exhibit No. 139, an Italian
rifle, and that rifle has been placed in, after being disassembled, has been
placed in Commission's No. 364 for identification, that paper sack."
CHAIRMAN: "All right."
MR BALL: "We have also here before the Commission, Commission No. 142 which is a paper sack which is identified as the FBI's Exhibit No. 10. I think that has its number, exhibit number on it. I have been informed that was 142. My notes show that the brown sack is 142. I think we can call the witness now."
CHAIRMAN: "All right; would you call Mr Frazier, please." (40).
Mr Ball's comment "We have also here before the Commission ........" clearly indicates that both the alleged original paper bag (CE 142) and a replica bag (CE 364) were physically present in the room at that time. Furthermore, note that it was the replica bag into which the disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano was placed!
Does anybody share my opinion that the unfortunate Buell Wesley Frazier was being deliberately set up here? As his admittedly halting testimony indicates, he twice stated that the package he saw on the back seat of his car was only two feet in length. Can it be that the carefully-laid plan was too complex for him and despite having two paper bags before him (including one containing a disassembled Mannlicher), he has produced his "two feet" estimates of its length?
MR BALL: "Anything else said about curtain rods?"
MR FRAZIER: "No, sir; there wasn't."
MR BALL: "Anything else said about the package?"
MR FRAZIER: "No, sir; there wasn't." (41).
In response to Mr Ball's questioning, Frazier said that Oswald did not take his lunch in with him that day. He then went on to explain that after parking his car, he watched as Oswald preceded him towards the Texas School Book Depository. He said that Oswald was carrying the package in his right hand "parallel to his body" with one end of it "under the armpit" and the "other part with his right hand." (42). In an affidavit made on the day of the assassination, Frazier had stated that he had followed Oswald as he entered the book depository through the back door at the Loading Dock (43).
To carry a package about two feet long in this fashion would present no problem. The shortest length which can be achieved with a broken down Mannlicher-Carcano identical to CE 139 (the alleged assassination rifle), however, is 34.8 inches (44). To carry something that long in the manner described by Frazier would require a body height in excess of seven feet and arms like an orang-utan - hardly an accurate description of the 5'9" Lee Harvey Oswald, a slim man who weighed an estimated 150 pounds (ten stone ten pounds) (45).
During the rest of Frazier's testimony, Joseph Ball returned to the question of the length of the paper bag again and again. Frazier, however, refused to be browbeaten and even when the replica bag (CE 364) was specifically shown to him, he stated "No, sir" when asked if it appeared to be the same length as the package on the back seat of his car. He was also a little more explicit concerning the way that Oswald had held the package, saying that "he had it cupped in his hand" (46).
A few minutes later, in respect of what was claimed to be the 'original' bag (CE 142), Frazier repeated what he had said earlier: "I told them that as far as the length there, I told them that it was entirely too long." (47).
It has long been my belief that Buell Wesley Frazier had been 'coached' prior to his appearance before the Commission. I also believe that he became totally confused during his ordeal and that the answers he gave were not the ones which had been expected of him. A man from whom so much had been expected in the quest to confirm the guilt of the deceased Oswald had, instead, proved a severe embarrassment.
Frazier also confirmed that he had never seen Oswald with a similar package (48).
I remain at a loss as to why this brief question-and-answer session was felt necessary. I can only suggest that it may have been an example of what is today known as 'Damage Limitation'.
If Mr Ball and his Commission colleagues were disappointed at Frazier's lack of agreement with their hoped-for estimates of the paper bag's length, imagine how they must have felt when he stated in his testimony that it had been his impression at the time, from the front entrance steps to the book depository, that the shots had been fired from "down there, you know, where that underpass is" (49)
Jack Edwin Dougherty
Dougherty was a fellow TSBD worker (a shipping clerk) and he testified before the Warren Commission in Dallas on 8th April 1964. He stated that he had seen Oswald arrive for work on the morning of the assassination. As his testimony indicates, however, he was unable to confirm that Oswald was carrying anything. After telling Assistant Counsel Joseph A Ball that he (Dougherty) was inside the building by 7.00 am, his testimony on this point went thus:
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." (51).
At this point, it should have been obvious to Mr Ball that this line of questioning was unlikely to elicit the replies he was seeking. After a brief diversion to confirm exactly where Dougherty had been at the time, he returned to it in a very unsubtle way. In my opinion, the following brief exchange represents one of the very worst examples of witness harrassment in this investigation.
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."
MR BALL: "Or, are you guessing?"
MR DOUGHERTY: "I don't think so." (52).
Aware at last that Dougherty was either unable or unwilling to confirm that Oswald had carried a package into the building, Mr Ball moved on to other matters before unexpectedly returning to the subject. Dougherty, however, was not only ready for this - he was also becoming increasingly unhappy with the way he was being harrassed. Now he sought an escape route.
MR BALL: "Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?"
MR DOUGHERTY: "Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did."
MR BALL: "Who said that?"
MR DOUGHERTY: "Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package."
MR BALL: "When did Shelley tell you that?"
MR DOUGHERTY: "Well, it was - the day after it happened." (53).
It is surely obvious to anybody reading that passage that Dougherty had grown tired of his treatment and was anxious to remove the pressure being exerted upon him. We must ask why he did not mention Shelley earlier. As becomes plain when we study Shelley's version of events, Dougherty probably just blurted out the first suitable name which came to mind.
William Hoyt Shelley
Shelley, the Manager of the Miscellaneous Department, had been examined by Mr Ball on 7th April 1964 - the day immediately prior to the Dougherty testimony. Part of that testimony concerning Lee Harvey Oswald was as follows:
MR BALL: "On the 22d of November 1963, did you see him come to work that
morning?"
MR SHELLEY: "No, he was at work when I got there already filling orders." (54).
Other TSBD employees
You will search in vain for any employee of the Texas School Book Depository (other than Buell Wesley Frazier of course) who said that Oswald had been in possession of any sort of package when he arrived at work that morning. Furthermore, nobody ever stated that they had seen him with a package inside the building.
Mrs Linnie Mae Randle
Frazier's married sister, Linnie Mae Randle, testified immediately after him - before the same powerful gathering of Warren Commission 'heavies' and like her brother, she was questioned by Assistant Counsel Joseph A Ball.
After the usual preamble and a few questions about Lee Harvey Oswald and the way he had obtained employment at the book depository, Mr Ball reached the point when Frazier had brought Oswald back to Irving on the Thursday evening. Mr Ball went on to the attack in a very positive way:
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 quickly switched to the following morning as Frazier was preparing to leave for work. He asked Mrs Randle if she had seen Lee:
MRS RANDLE: "I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my drive-way to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport."
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 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."
MR BALL: "And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?"
MRS RANDLE: "No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know, just like you grab something like that."
MR BALL: "And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package
and the package almost touched the ground?"
MRS RANDLE: "Yes, sir." (55).
Possibly unaware of whether or not he had obtained the answer he was seeking, Mr Ball went on to another minor matter before suddenly returning to the package. He showed the replica bag to Mrs Randle and, according to the record, asked a strange question:
MR BALL: "Now, was the length of it any similar, anywhere near similar?"
MRS RANDLE: "Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long."
MR BALL: "I see. You figure about two feet long, is that right?"
MRS RANDLE: "A little bit more."
MR BALL: "Is that about right? That is 28 and a half inches."
MRS RANDLE: "I measured 27 last time."
MR BALL: "You measured 27 once before?"
MRS RANDLE: "Yes, sir" (56).
At this point, perhaps satisfied that he had got Mrs Randle to increase her original estimate of the bag's length from two feet to 27 inches, Mr Ball asked a few inconsequential questions before the witness was dismissed.
It is not a simple matter of sliding the parts of the rifle into a paper bag. My own practical experiments in this field, using a Mannlicher identical to CE 139 plus a reconstructed paper bag, are very revealing (58). The second longest individual component consists of the barrel, the trigger mechanism, the chamber, the scope, etc. All these are predominantly metal and they do not make a smooth, easily-handled item. Several parts, particularly the trigger itself, the foresight, the rearsight, the scope, the safety catch and the rear mounting screw of the tang all protrude at different angles. The length of this assembly is 29.5 inches.
The most practical way to place the disassembled Mannlicher into a suitable paper bag is to put the metal barrel assembly on top of the wooden stock and then slide them into the bag together. This is best done with the barrel pointing rearwards towards the butt plate. The smaller components (wooden top stock, metal collars, sling swivel, trigger guard and five screws) are best dealt with by placing them into a large envelope or something similar and putting that into the paper bag last. I have done this several times with a rifle identical to CE 139 plus a reconstructed paper bag (40 inches long, including a four inch flap).
Something very important results from this treatment - something which I have never seen mentioned in any published work on the Kennedy assassination. When the components of the rifle are removed from the bag, it is found that the first seven or eight inches of the stock show obvious signs of severe scoring and scratching. This is caused by the protruding parts of the barrel assembly - principally the trigger - rubbing against it as the bag is carried or moved. It does not require much imagination to work out the result if the bag has been carried a total of something like 400 metres and has undergone a car journey of 15 miles.
So what is the significance of these facts? Quite simply, no such scratches have ever been reported on the CE 139 rifle. Furthermore, they are not evident on any of the photographs taken of that rifle. To me this provides irrefutable physical evidence that the rifle was never transported in a disassembled state in a long paper bag as has been claimed by the investigative agencies and the Warren Commission!
Commission Exhibit 142 (or, if you prefer, CE 626 - for some unexplained reason the 'original' bag was assigned two exhibit numbers) purports to be the paper bag found by the Dallas Police in the southeast corner of the sixth floor. As we shall see, there is no dispute that it was constructed from wrapping paper and tape available at the Texas School Book Depository (59). For Lee Harvey Oswald to have brought a rifle into the building inside that paper bag it would have been necessary for him to have constructed the bag there. As we can learn from the testimony of FBI Special Agent James C Cadigan and TSBD employee Troy Eugene West, however, he had neither the time nor the opportunity to do this.
FBI Special Agent James C Cadigan
SA Cadigan was based at the Washington, DC FBI laboratory as an examiner of questioned documents. A major part of his expertise was in the field of paper. He testified before the Warren Commission as an expert witness on 3rd and 30th April 1964. On the first occasion, it was in connection with the long paper bag.
He told Assistant Counsel Melvin Aron Eisenberg that he had examined CE 142/626 (the paper bag) in the FBI laboratory on 23rd November 1963, together with samples of paper and tape obtained from the Texas School Book Depository on the day of the assassination (60). An FBI Report sent by J Edgar Hoover to Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry on 23rd November 1963 includes the paragraph: "The paper of the wrapping and the tape, Q10, were found to have the same observable physical characteristics as the known brown wrapping paper and tape, K2, from the Texas Public School Book Depository." (61). That statement obviously pertains to SA Cadigan's examination (FBI exhibit Q10 was the paper bag). Although we have the professional opinion of an accepted expert witness here, the actual significance of his conclusion is worthless if, as I surmise, the paper bag was manufactured from material in the book depository not by Oswald but by somebody else!
He also commented on a series of marks running down the centre of the tape: "I might explain that these are made by a wheel in the paper-tape dispenser ...... As you pull the operating handle that pulls the paper tape from the roll through the machine and over the wetting brush, the wheel, in the process leaves these markings on the tape." (62). As we shall see shortly, these marks are significant.
SA Cadigan goes on to throw some valuable light on why it was felt necessary to construct a replica bag. In fact, he does not wait to be asked about it - as the following exchange shows:
MR CADIGAN: "Do you want me to discuss this replica sack yet?"
MR EISENBERG: "You mentioned a replica bag?"
MR CADIGAN: "Yes."
MR EISENBERG: "Could you explain what that is?"
MR CADIGAN: "Yes; this is Commission Exhibit 364. It is a paper sack similar to Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School Book
Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in Dallas to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit 142 was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and they thought that this would - it wouldn't be fair to the witness to ask "Did you see a bag like that?" So they went to the Texas School Book Depository and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag."
MR EISENBERG: "This was made December 1?"
MR CADIGAN: "December 1, of 1963." (63)
I am astounded at this action on the part of the FBI - and by the fact that one of their agents should openly (almost eagerly) admit what happened. In my eyes, this is tantamount to attempting to pervert the course of justice. What is the point of showing a 'replica' or 'copy' exhibit to a witness? How many similar occurrences were there during this case? How can we be certain that any of the exhibits were really what they purport to be?
SA Cadigan's explanation that the replica bag was needed because the original had been stained during its fingerprint examination does not say much for the forensic skills of those who examined it! His account of the visit to the book depository to construct the bag omits one important fact. 1st December 1963 was a Sunday - a non-working day - so they very conveniently had the place to themselves.
Another part of SA Cadigan's expert testimony concerned his opinions regarding any contents the paper bag may have ever had. This important exchange was as follows:
MR EISENBERG: "Mr Cadigan, did you notice when you looked at the bag whether there were - that is the bag found on the sixth floor, Exhibit 142 -
whether it had any bulges or unusual creases?"
MR CADIGAN: "I was also requested at that time to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or
anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle?"
MR EISENBERG: "Yes?"
MR CADIGAN: "And I couldn't find any such markings." (64).
SA Cadigan was not alone in failing to associate the rifle with the paper bag. There is no testimony or hard evidence to suggest that anybody else could. The aforementioned FBI Report (Hoover/Curry, dated 23rd November 1963) even contained the sentence: "The inside surface of specimen Q10 did not disclose markings identifiable with the rifle, K1." (Q10 was described as "Wrapping paper in shape of a large bag") (65).
An official letter from FBI Director Hoover to J Lee Rankin (General Counsel to the Warren Commission) on 20th August 1964 states, among other things, that the rifle was in a "well-oiled condition" (66). Marina Oswald testified that when they were living at 214 Neely Street, Dallas, she had seen her husband clean his rifle "about four times - about four or five times, I think" (67). Nowhere, however, was it ever reported that any oil-stains were found on the paper bag. The inference behind that is obvious!
Troy Eugene West
One of the most important facts about the paper bag is thast it could only have been made inside the book depository, at the work bench where the materials were kept. It was not possible for Oswald (or anybody else) to smuggle the materials out of the building and make the bag elsewhere. The reason for this becomes obvious with the testimony of the full-time mail wrapper employed at the Texas School Book Depository.
West gave his Warren Commission testimony before Assistant Counsel David W Belin in Dallas on 8th April 1964 (68). West explained that he was the only full-time mail-wrapper employed in the building and that his permanent place of work was at what he described as a "mail wrapping table" on the first floor. All the materials he required - wrapping paper, tape and string - were kept at this table and he never had occasion to leave it. It seems that he even made his coffee and ate his lunch at this table. As he said to Mr Belin: "I never did hardly ever leave the first floor. That is just I stayed there where all my work was, and I just stayed there."
Not even a Presidential motorcade passing the building tempted him away from it. When that happened, at 12.30pm on 22nd November 1963, West was sitting at his work table, halfway through his lunch! (69)
West explained to Mr Belin that the gummed tape was dispensed through a special machine and that the tape was automatically moistened as it was pulled through. There was only one way to obtain unmoistened tape - as would be necessary for the paper bag to have been made elsewhere.
MR BELIN: "If I wanted to pull the tape, pull off a piece without getting water on it, would I just lift it up without going over the wet roller and get the tape
without getting it wet?"
MR WEST: "You would have to take it out. You would have to take it out of the machine. See, it's put on there and then run through a little clamp that holds it down, and you pull it, well, then the water, it gets water on it."
MR BELIN: "Is this an electrical machine or is it just kind of a little apparatus for just pulling it through by hand?"
MR WEST: "Well, it is not electric, no, sir." (70).
Since we know from SA Cadigan's testimony that the tape on the original paper bag showed markings from the tape dispenser, it follows that the bag was manufactured at West's place of work. It was not a case of the materials being removed from the building and the bag being assembled somewhere else.
West's replies to Mr Belin's questions established several vital facts: he knew Oswald by sight; Oswald had never helped him to wrap mail; he was unaware that Oswald had ever borrowed or used any wrapping paper for himself; he had never seen Oswald around the wrapper rolls or the wrapper roll machines (71). Furthermore, he stated that he usually arrived at his place of work around 7.50am - earlier than was normal for Oswald (72).
It would be extremely difficult to suggest any opportunity which Lee Harvey Oswald would have had to put together a long paper bag at Troy Eugene West's table - and that task cannot have been done elsewhere.
The co-owners of the property (Mr and Mrs Johnson) and the housekeeper (Mrs Roberts) testified before the Warren Commission and a study of the Johnsons' testimony clearly tells us all we need to know regarding the question of curtain rods in Oswald's room.
Mrs Arthur Carl (Gladys J.) Johnson
Mrs Johnson was 61 years old at the time of the assassination and she had owned and occupied 1026 North Beckley for 21 years. Her testimony, taken by Assistant Counsel Joseph A Ball in Dallas on the afternoon of 1st April 1964, revealed that the house had 22 rooms and that when Oswald began his tenancy there on 14th October 1963, there were "about 10 or 12" tenants in residence (73).
The subject of curtain rods was covered in a straightforward way and left no doubt that there was no need for Oswald, or anybody else, to provide curtain rods for his room. The relevant questions and answers concerning the room and its windows were as follows:
MRS JOHNSON: "Yes, sir; and it had curtains and venetian blinds."
MR BALL: "What kind of curtains did it have?"
MRS JOHNSON: "Well, it just had side drapes and panels."
MR BALL: "Were the curtains on curtain rods?"
MRS JOHNSON: "Yes, sir."
MR BALL: "They were in the room when he rented it?"
MRS JOHNSON: "Yes, sir."
MR BALL: "Did Oswald ever talk to you about redecorating the room?"
MRS JOHNSON: "No, sir; never mentioned it."
MR BALL: "Did he ever talk to you about putting up new curtains in his room?"
MRS JOHNSON: "No, sir."
MR BALL: "Did he ever tell you he was going to get some curtain rods?"
MRS JOHNSON: "No; he didn't."
MR BALL: "The room had curtain rods on the window when he came in there?"
MRS JOHNSON: "Yes, sir; sure did."
MR BALL: "Also curtains?"
MRS JOHNSON: "Yes, sir." (74).
Arthur Carl Johnson
Arthur Johnson testified immediately after his wife and he confirmed to Assistant Counsel David W Belin what she had told Mr Ball about the room rented to Oswald. The relevant exchange was as follows:
MR JOHNSON: " ..... it was a library room."
MR BELIN: "Does it have any windows in it?"
MR JOHNSON: "It has - uh - three - four windows, I believe."
MR BELIN: "On one side, two sides, three sides?"
MR JOHNSON: "One side."
MR BELIN: "They're all on one side?"
MR JOHNSON: "All on one side."
MR BELIN: "Do you have any curtains on those windows?"
MR JOHNSON: "Yes."
MR BELIN: "Did you have curtains at that time on the windows?"
MR JOHNSON: "Yes."
MR BELIN: "How were the curtains put up - by curtain rods, or by what?"
MR JOHNSON: "Yes. Curtain rods. Yes. They were just regular curtain rods."
MR BELIN: "There were already curtain rods in the room, then, when this O.H. Lee came there - is that correct?"
MR JOHNSON: "Yes, uh-huh." (75).
In addition to confirming the existence of curtain rods prior to 22nd November 1963, Mr Johnson's testimony is also useful in determining the fact that there were four separate windows in the room and that they were all along one wall. In describing the dimensions of the room, he said: "Well, it's just a small room. I believe it's about 8 by 12 , or something like that."
Freelance photographer Gene Daniels
Gene Daniels (possibly Daniel) was a local freelancer who took somewhere around 24 black-and-white still photographs in the area of Dealey Plaza and City Hall on the day of the assassination. The following morning, 23rd November 1963, he took a further 11 photographs of both the interior and exterior of 1026 North Beckley. Nine of these show Mrs Johnson and/or her husband making or standing on Oswald's bed and adjusting the curtains. As indicated by Mr Johnson, the curtains stretch the entire length of the room (76).
I originally understood that these photographs had been taken covertly by Daniels but an interesting passage in Howard Roffman's Presumed Guilty suggests otherwise (77). Roffman quotes dirctly from a letter he received from Daniels on 19th March 1970 as follows:
"I went to the rooming house the following morning (Saturday 23rd November 1963) and requested permission to make a photograph from the landlady. I'm not sure of her name but I don't think she was the owner. We went into the room and she told me she preferred not to have me take any pictures until she put "the curtains back up." She said that newsmen the evening before had disturbed the room and she didn't want anyone to see it messed up. I agreed and stood in the room as she and her husband stood on the bed and hammered the curtain rods back into position. While she did this, I photographed them or possibly just her, I forget right now, up on the bed with the curtain rods etc."
Obviously, the lady in question was the owner, Mrs Johnson. I feel that it is important that Daniels stated in the letter that the Johnsons had hammered the curtain rods back into position - thus indicating that they had indeed been installed already. One is left to wonder exactly what activities the newsmen had been practising the previous evening!
It is important to note that all four curtains appear to be hung from one continuous curtain rod - which must be approximately 12 feet long! (78).
Daniels, like many freelance photographers of the period, used the Black Star Photographic Agency, New York City, for the marketing and distribution of his work (79). I have been given to understand that Daniels' nine photographs taken inside Oswald's room at 1026 North Beckley have been suppressed and remain unpublished (80).
There is nothing in the testimony or evidence of any person - Oswald, his wife, Mrs Paine, the Johnsons, Mrs Roberts, Frazier, Mrs Randle or any of the employees at the book depository - that Oswald was either seeking alternative accommodation or had found some. His weekly rent at 1026 North Beckley ($8.00) had been paid up to date.
Unfortunately, there is no record of this question ever being put directly to him during his lengthy but apparently unrecorded interrogation at the hands of the Dallas police.
Overall conclusion: Lee Harvey Oswald did not fire a rifle at anybody that day!
Return to Main Page
* * *