Jump to content


Spartacus

WCR and FBI state bag not from TSBD supplies


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 David Josephs

David Josephs

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,606 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nor Cal
  • Interests:History, Imagery, Music, the Ocean

Posted 17 November 2010 - 09:23 PM

Since the Warren Commission report states the FBI made a replica bag from TSBD supplies and that the paper and tape used for their bag "IS DIFFERENT" than the Q10 paper bag taken supposedly taken from the TSBD,

Why are we still having this discussion? DVP - is the WC wrong here?
Was Oswald now supposed to have made it elsewhere? Probably when he was replacing the rope sling/strap on the rifle?

So not only does he not make the bag, nor is it the same as the bag he brings to work, but wherever this bag came from it somehow gets photographed begin removed from the TSBD.

A number of Dallas' finest are in the TSBD well before anyone else.... Sawyer comes to mind first...

DJ



#2 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 November 2010 - 11:13 PM

Since the Warren Commission report states the FBI made a replica bag from TSBD supplies and that the paper and tape used for their bag "IS DIFFERENT" than the Q10 paper bag taken supposedly taken from the TSBD,

Why are we still having this discussion? DVP - is the WC wrong here?
Was Oswald now supposed to have made it elsewhere? Probably when he was replacing the rope sling/strap on the rifle?

So not only does he not make the bag, nor is it the same as the bag he brings to work, but wherever this bag came from it somehow gets photographed begin removed from the TSBD.

A number of Dallas' finest are in the TSBD well before anyone else.... Sawyer comes to mind first...

DJ



David, that test was for the replica sack...the OFFICIAL replica sack. The sack found in the building was sent to Washington along with a paper sample from the roll in the building on 11-22. These supposedly matched. A week or so later, however, the FBI tried to get Buell Frazier to say the bag he saw Oswald carry into the building could have been the bag in Washington. To do this, they showed him a replica sack made from materials taken from the building. Now this, on the surface was a bit odd, since Frazier had been shown what was supposedly the actual bag on the night of the 22nd, and refused to ID the bag. But it's excusable, I suppose, in that they also showed this replica sack to Randle, Truly, and Ruth Paine, as I recall. Anyhow, none of them would ID the sack. This sack was then sent back to Washington and tested. It was found then that the paper didn't match the sample taken from the building, as the roll of paper had been changed between 11-22 and the date the Dallas FBI created the replica sack..

BTW, the confusion created by these tests infected Vincent Bugliosi as well. As discussed here:

Proof the FBI Changed Documents and that Vincent Buyglios Was Wrong

#3 David Josephs

David Josephs

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,606 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nor Cal
  • Interests:History, Imagery, Music, the Ocean

Posted 18 November 2010 - 12:54 AM

Let me see if I follow:

- a sack is pulled from the TSBD by Montgomery on 11/22/63
- samples of paper are taken from the TSBD wrapping table and sent with the bag to Washington 11/22/63 ??
These supposedly match (based on which report/source?)
- FBI takes TSBD materials from the wrapping table and makes a replica bag 11/29/63 ??

- 11/30/63 Day tells Drain, as quoted in the "changed" FBI report.... paper Truly gave then on 11-22 "is found to be not identical"
to the paper gun case found at the scene.


THE PAPER/TAPE FROM THE "ORIGINAL" BAG DOES NOT MATCH THE PAPER SAMPLE GIVEN BY TRULY ON 11-22
(from the same linked article you offered)

- Paper and Tape from the TSBD wrapping table as of 11-22-63 had been replaced with different tape and paper...
this change would be of paper and tape that is significantly different from the paper and tape available on 11-22?
How can this be Pat? An entirely new supply of tape and paper was opened? Wasn't there an existing stock of both that
would have been the same as those being replaced? BOTH items are completely different?

- The replica Sack DOES NOT MATCH the paper and tape sample taken with the ORIGINAL BAG on 11-22
Again, the replacement paper and tape was NOT the same as what was replaced because ????
- The replica Sack DOES NOT MATCH the paper and tape of the "original" bag in evidence 12/27/63

Changing a roll of paper does not change the type of tape used nor SHOULD it materially change the type of paper.
Reading further in Gemberling's report we find that Studebaker was ordered by Day to take the samples and that
there were 4 rolls of paper at the station at the time. a 25% chance of getting the right one and yet somehow, the same person who
supposedly finds the bag and photos everything but the bag - guess correctly since Truly later says that all 4 rolls COULD have been expended and replaced since the fall is such a busy time.

The sample the FBI takes on Dec 1 is still from the same lot of paper and tape yet is so different from the "original" bag it is very obvious. Are you comfortable with Studebaker picking exactly the right roll and tape dispenser as to MATCH the bag when any other roll would NOT match?

http://www.maryferre...3&relPageId=186

#4 Duke Lane

Duke Lane

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Universally loved and admired for his keen wit, sharp intellect, loathsome egoism, and awe-inspiring self-delusion, Lane studies the JFK assassination from afar, offers few opinions, and generally keeps to himself.

Posted 18 November 2010 - 07:38 AM

David, that test was for the replica sack...the OFFICIAL replica sack. The sack found in the building was sent to Washington along with a paper sample from the roll in the building on 11-22. These supposedly matched. A week or so later, however, the FBI tried to get Buell Frazier to say the bag he saw Oswald carry into the building could have been the bag in Washington. To do this, they showed him a replica sack made from materials taken from the building. Now this, on the surface was a bit odd, since Frazier had been shown what was supposedly the actual bag on the night of the 22nd, and refused to ID the bag. But it's excusable, I suppose, in that they also showed this replica sack to Randle, Truly, and Ruth Paine, as I recall. Anyhow, none of them would ID the sack. This sack was then sent back to Washington and tested. It was found then that the paper didn't match the sample taken from the building, as the roll of paper had been changed between 11-22 and the date the Dallas FBI created the replica sack..

Pat, great essay! I wish I could write as succinctly, but everyone knows I'm an airbag! ;) Never accused of using a paragraph when a page was available....

What I have always found intriguing is how a bunch of desk jockeys in DC were so able to make "field" determinations remotely, often improving upon facts actually gathered in the field. We can start with JEH determining which shots hit whom and when, and segue into how anyone at HQ was able to determine both that the lab had made an error and Day an incorrect statement.

The issue of the replica bag is innocent enough as far as it goes: how can you ask someone to identify something that doesn't any longer look like it did when it was first seen (whenever that was)? Presuming a blackish discoloration from fingerprinting dusts, how can someone who saw a brown bag be expected to identify it? As long as it was identified as a replica, I'd think it would hold up as an exhibit, tho' probably provided that the original was also shown. Of course, it might otherwise require an objection from opposing counsel, of which there was none.

(Why don't "fact finding panels" have Devil's Advocates? Even the Catholic Church has that in the beatification process - created the concept, MOF! - which seems redundant in light of the pope's infallibility in matters of faith ... which is probably not unlike JEH, come to think of it.)

I've also always found it intriguing how when the only people who could identify a fact, thing, or event, didn't identify it, and were deemed to be mistaken. Some things, I guess, were simply self-evidently obvious such that the true facts could be discerned without asking. Which makes me wonder why they bothered.

I'm sure, in any case, that the lack of identification of a replica bag had nothing to do with the quantity or quality of "observable characteristics" since, to most people, the only such "observable characteristics," besides shape and size, are typically color and material. Was it paper in both cases? Was the paper brown? I'm guessing that nobody was wondering about whether the thread count or mil weight was within specs.

But finding that it was .001 mil thicker and the weave slightly different at the lab must have put someone's mind at ease: "well, that explains why they couldn't identify it!"

Hence, they were merely "mistaken." No harm, no foul.

One wonders, too, why they didn't just take all of what was left of the roll of paper on the bench on 11/22 (or over the weekend: it's not like any more was used after the shooting!) instead of a mere sample, or try to head off some of the shipments that had been made earlier in the week before they were delivered or opened. But alas ....

The trouble with making changes to things is that once the process is begun, where does it stop? How can one be sure? From the sounds of it, it is as if the Feebs expected that when an "error" was found and "corrected," people would simply remove the offending page and replace it with the amendment, like a misprint in a textbook. In this case, it is a summary report presumably authored by SA Drain (but neither recalled or authenticated by him, apparently), which must(?) have been based upon something other than a lab tech simply turning to him and saying "yup, all observable characteristics are the same," end of story. If so, what and where are the original laboratory source documents? Surely they would clear the matter up, wouldn't they?

(Ah, here they are: filed right beside "analysis, spectrographic, bullets, results of" where they're supposed to be!)

Such a convoluted trip is difficult to follow for me; can we put it into some sort of chronological/evidentiary order that'll clear it up some? Something like (with made-up data here):

- Paper bag constructed of TSBD materials, date unknown
- Sample from TSBD provided to Drain, 11/22
- Paper sack turned over to Drain by Day, 11/23
- Drain to lab with bag and sample, 11/23
- Drain writes summary report, 11/24

- report states observable characteristics "not identical" to bag

- summary report provided to Gemberling, 11/25
- Gemberling circulates report, 11/26
- HQ FBI issues AIRTEL with "errors" noted, 11/27
- etc.

Ultimately, even the summary reports cannot and do not establish the authenticity of the bag (other than, perhaps, its origin at TSBD) or put it in Oswald's possession. For those of us in America, we recognize that this is all that it takes to convict, and hope that if ever we're dragged into a court of law, we'll be afforded the same justice. But then, if we're in court, we wouldn't be there if we weren't guilty, so why we don't just cut out the charade of trials is beyond me other than, perhaps, to ensure that defense attorneys can make a living by pulling their shenanigans in front of a jury to get the guilty off.

Did I say that right?

Or was I thinking of the other guy's point of view, the one that's not in the courtroom?

Gosh, I'm so easily confused .... :huh:

#5 Duke Lane

Duke Lane

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Universally loved and admired for his keen wit, sharp intellect, loathsome egoism, and awe-inspiring self-delusion, Lane studies the JFK assassination from afar, offers few opinions, and generally keeps to himself.

Posted 18 November 2010 - 08:56 AM

THe question also entails this: what paper are they talking about? As Pat has shown, there is not a photo taken on the 22nd of any paper bag supposedly taken from the TSBD that matches Frazier's description.

ANd as David points out it is strange that the FBI then had to prepare a "replica" bag to take the place of the original one.

Question: What was the replica bag based upon?

The last one is easy: it was based on the bag that DPD said was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD which they held out as evidence.

The part about the need for a replica was suggested in my previous post.

As to the first, well, there we leave the well-marked path, no? What bag indeed.


One would think that people who feel so much of this stuff constitutes a real case against Oswald would be able to trace things with the same exactitude as they undoubtedly hope the cops and prosecutors would against them if they were accused of something. Instead they're ready to convict on what they probably pray the prosecution would have against them - nothing - if they were in the dock, and call it rock-solid.

It's actually amazing how low the threshold is to have a "legally sufficient" case, and to that extent there's no question that there is, indeed, a "legally sufficient" case against Oswald, one that, with ineffective counsel, he might well be convicted in. Henry Wade could probably have done it ... but then, we've seen of late the real quality of the evidence he had in very many cases: many of them were guilty merely because he said they were. Like them, we all wish we cold spend 20 years in the slammer so we can be exonerated by future technology, too. (Guess it beats Death Row, tho'.)

So what about that bag?
  • Nobody saw Oswald take the paper or tape or construct the bag
  • The person who had custody of it said that it was virtuall impossible for Oswald (or anyone) to have taken it during work hours
  • As best as may be determined, Oswald had no access to the building other than during working hours
  • The materials were not seen by his landlady or, presumably, any of the residents at 1026, including the owners
  • They were not seen or noticed (e.g., as a bulge beneath Oswald's jacket) by Buell Frazier on the way out to Irving
  • Neither Marina nor Ruth Pain saw or noticed the materials when Oswald arrived or during the course of the evening
  • Neither of them saw him doing anything in the garage (not to mention anything about a gun)
  • Buell Frazier saw a package, but stated it was not like the bag in evidence
  • Ditto his sister Linnie Mae Randle
  • Frazier described Oswald carrying the package he did have in a way inconsistent with one containing an MC rifle
  • Frazier did not observe Oswald to bring the package into the TSBD
  • The only person who observed Oswald entering the building was "sure" he did not see anything in Oswald's hands on entry
  • Nobody else saw anything (other than a clipboard and book stock) in Oswald's possession all day
  • Nobody saw a package similar to the evidence bag in the TSBD prior to the shooting
  • Nobody saw a package similar to the evidence bag in Oswald's possession
  • The bag was not photographed in any location within the TSBD, especially not at the supposed site of the shooting
These facts do not add up to the conclusion that Oswald was in any way connected with the bag in evidence, much less that he actually possessed it at any time; additional facts - a lack of any gun-oil residue from the "well-oiled" Mannlicher-Carcano rifle being chief - do not establish that the supposed murder weapon was associated with that bag, wherever it was found or whatever its origin.

Wherever someone may claim that all of these considerations do not amount to a "reasonable doubt" about Oswald's possession of said bag, clearly the "preponderance of evidence" - a lesser standard of proof - argues clearly against it, and there is no verifiable evidence to refute any of that preponderance.

Lacking a means for Oswald to secret a weapon from where it was supposedly kept hidden in a garage in Irving, either on Friday the 22nd of November or on any other date, and into the TSBD, we are left to prove that he got it into the building and up to the sixth floor some other way on perhaps some other day. There is no evidence, however, to support any such inference.

Only by accepting the unsupportable as true and incontroverible fact - that Oswald did, some how, some way, some day, get that rifle into that building and onto that floor - can we accept as fact that the paper sack was used by him to do so on that date and time to accomplish what he "must" have done. That must be supported by some evidence leading up to the fact, and not merely by a presumed fait accompli, i.e., "he got the gun there, so that 'must' have been how he did it."

American jurisprudence - and yes, even Texas jurisprudence - dictates that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Without such proof that he did as has been claimed - got the gun into the building in that sack - then the sack must be excluded as evidence since it has no established connection to the crime or to the defendant.

Without a means to get the weapon inside, there remains to be proven that he did bring the weapon inside which, lacking the "accepted" means, is a difficult proposition. Then, of course, there is the question of his possession of the weapon which, even if one accepts the supposition of his wife (who could not be compelled to testify against him in an actual trial, and must be therefore excluded as a witness) and Ruth Paine that it was in Ruth's garage (which was not directly observed by anyone, ever, including by Michael Paine), another difficult task.

Only if the conclusion is accepted before the proof is made - only if we accept that the deed was done before we try to establish how and when it was done - can we "convict" Oswald of murder. And if we accept that conclusion before the proof is offered, well, does it really matter what the "proof" is when we already "know" it was done? Any proof will do as long as some sense can be made of it, enough that we can sleep at night and tell our kids to "always be true" in the morning.

All this rigarmarole with paper bags and replicas and lab tests and reports only shows two things: (1) how necessary proof was and the extent to which some people went to establish what they offered as valid and acceptable, and (2) that the proof was so weak that they had to go to that extent.

Why else would they?

Without it, you can't make Oswald a murderer. Or at least, you can't make him a lone and unaided murderer.

Edited by Duke Lane, 18 November 2010 - 09:03 AM.


#6 David Josephs

David Josephs

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,606 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nor Cal
  • Interests:History, Imagery, Music, the Ocean

Posted 18 November 2010 - 08:38 PM

The bag is folded in half along it's 3.5'-4' length

ALL the paper at the TSBD is 24" wide, the "bag" is 8" wide yet there does not appear to be 3 folds vertically.
Where is the excess paper from folding a 24" wide paper into an 8" width while having enough left over to either fold over either one of the ends and then tape it (still leaves excess paper since the vertical taped part does not reach the end of the paper - 3 8" folds)

Exhibit 14 and 4 from FBI's 12-9-93 report, CD1 (per Pat Speer) shows the bag split open with what only appears to be a single fold
yet we can also see from the split image, the tape from the reverse side showing thru the paper.... or is it?




As we see, there's only the one strip of tape yet the way the bag is split open is very confusing. As I write in the image, the inside view of the bag could not show the tape in the same position as its mirror image from the outside. Something is up. The way it looks, the LEFT side of the bag is split since when opened, the tape is still at the center, yet if split at the left, the tape would be on the right side of the opened bag. Strange.




Finally, I found this instructional drawing on how to make a Paper bag from a single sheet of paper. It shows the extra fold in the first step that matches the FBI bag's taped, overlap fold (yet at 24" wide there should have been quite a bit of excess paper, 8" folded once, 16" and then a bit extra for the taped flap... not 24" of paper and the "flap" is perfectly straight, like the sides of the 24" roll.

http://chestofbooks....ems-Part-3.html



How exactly was this bag made with 24" wide paper, and more importantly when was it made and how did it get into the TSBD?

I offer this:
Mr. BELIN. Where did you park your car?
Mr. SAWYER. In front of the Texas School Book Depository.
Mr. BELIN. In front of the main entrance there?
Mr. SAWYER. In front of the main entrance.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. SAWYER. Immediately went into---well, talked to some of the officers around there who told me the story that they had thought some shots had come from one of the floors in the building, and I think the fifth floor was mentioned, but nobody seemed to know who the shots were directed at or what had actually happened, except there had been a shooting there at the time the President's motorcade had gone by.
And I went with a couple of officers and a man who I believed worked in the building. The elevator was just to the right of the main entrance, and we went to the top floor, which was pointed out to me by this other man as being the floor that we were talking about. We had talked about the fifth floor. And we went back to the storage area and looked around and didn't see anything.
Mr. BELIN. Now you took an elevator up, is that correct?
Mr. SAWYER. That's right.
Mr. BELIN. The route that you took to the elevator, you went to the front door?
Mr. SAWYER. Right.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. SAWYER. We got into the elevator. We run into this man.
...we NEVER again hear about this “man” who immediately after the assassination is exiting the elevator from the 4th or 5th floor....

Mr. BELIN. Well, when you say you got into the elevator, where was the elevator as you walked in the front door?
Mr. SAWYER. It was to the right.
Mr. BELIN. To the right?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Was it a freight elevator or a passenger elevator?
Mr. SAWYER. The best of my recollection, it was a passenger elevator.
Mr. BELIN. Did you push for the top button in that elevator?
Mr. SAWYER. Well, I don't know who pushed it, but we went up to the top floor.
Mr. BELIN. You went up to the top floor that the elevator would go to?
Mr. SAWYER. That's right.
Mr. BELIN. You got off, and were there officers there?
Mr. SAWYER. There was one or two other officers with me.
...These two do NOT return to ground level with Sawyer – wonder what they’re doing?

Mr. BELIN. Now when you got off, you say you went into the back there into a warehouse area?
Mr. SAWYER. Storage area; what appeared to be a storage area.
Mr. BELIN. Did you go into any place other than a warehouse or storage area?
Mr. SAWYER. No.
Mr. BELIN. Was there anything other than a warehouse or storage area there?
Mr. SAWYER. Well, to one side I could see an office over there with people in it. Some women that apparently were office workers.
Mr. BELIN. Now Inspector, what did you do then?
Mr. SAWYER. Well, I didn't see anything that was out of the ordinary, so I immediately came back downstairs to check the security on the building.
Mr. BELIN. When you say check the security on the building, what do you mean by that?
Mr. SAWYER. Well, to be sure it was covered off properly, and then posted two men on the front entrance with instructions not to let anyone in or out.
Mr. BELIN. What about the rear entrance?
Mr. SAWYER. We'll, I also had the sergeant go around and check to be sure that all of those were covered, although he told me that they were already covered.
Mr. BELIN. When was the order given to cover the front entrance of the building?
Mr. SAWYER. Well, they had it covered when I got there. There were officers all around the front. The only thing I don't think had been done by the time I got there, was the instructions not to let anybody in or out.
Mr. BELIN. All right, now, did you give the instructions not to let anyone in or out?
Mr. SAWYER. I did.
Mr. BELIN. Did you give those instructions before or after you came down from the fourth floor or top floor?
Mr. SAWYER. After I got down.
Mr. BELIN. So your procedure, if I understand it, was this. You were driving on Main Street when you heard Sheriff Decker on the radio?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes.



Mr. BELIN. You got to the elevator, went up, looked around back there. How long did you spend up there at the top floor that the elevator took you to?
Mr. SAWYER. Just took a quick look around and made sure there was nobody hiding on that floor. I doubt if it took over a minute at the most. this has to be one of the more absurd answers and lack of followup there is.... not only do they not ask about the man coming off the elevator but a 1 minute "Search" by 3 DP officerss and then leaves 2 DP officers behind. We have Baker's guy on the stairs between the 3rd and 4th floors, the man getting off the elevator and 2 officers roaming the upper floors of the TSBD before ANYONE else gets there
Mr. BELIN. To go up and look around and come down?
Mr. SAWYER. To look around on the floor. How long it took to go up, it couldn't have been over 3 minutes at the most from the time we left, got up and back down.
Mr. BELIN. Then that would put it around no sooner than 12:37, if you heard the call at 12:34?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir.

After Baker, this seems to be the first batch of Dallas Police in the building...
Where DID that bag come from??

#7 David Andrews

David Andrews

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,550 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 November 2010 - 09:37 PM

Wesley Buell Frazier: any damn fool knows the difference between light, rattling curtain rods in a paper sack vs. a rifle with wooden stock, even when putatively disassembled, when either is inside his pickup truck cab.

Edited by David Andrews, 18 November 2010 - 09:38 PM.


#8 Guest_Tom Scully_*

Guest_Tom Scully_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 November 2010 - 09:44 PM

I recently reviewed the narrative of SA Drain and the two contradictory report pages on or about 29 November, describing the FBI lab test results on the original "bag" compared to samples of paper and tape taken from the TSBD wrapping station on 22 November and sent to the FBI lab that day.

What emerged was that public discovery took place, some years later, that the pertinent page of Drain's report was changed from a "no match" of the 22 November paper samples compared to the bag sent at the same time to the lab, to a "yes match", not long after Drain filed his report, at the direction of FBI officials in Washington.

SA Drain claimed to know nothing of the change in the report page until sometime in the 1980's, and he curiously maintained that he had filed the page in the report describing a "yes match", and had made no change, nor been informed that any change would be made.

Along with this narrative was the observation that SA Drain had experienced no reprimand or other negative
feedback or punishment of any kind for what had to be considered, it it were true, a very serious reporting error on his part, in a department known for frequent and even petty reprimands. Compare this to how Hosty was given "special" negative treatment by Hoover.

I decided not to post about it because there seems no way to determine whether Drain's report page was actually changed from a non-match to a match, especially because he does not seem to have been disciplined for making such a serious error, reinforcing his claim that he filed the details correctly the first time.

Edited by Tom Scully, 18 November 2010 - 09:46 PM.


#9 J. Raymond Carroll

J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 18 November 2010 - 10:57 PM

Frazier had been shown what was supposedly the actual bag on the night of the 22nd, and refused to ID the bag.


Pat, you will probably call me a lazy sod, and I deserve it. But do you have a cite handy for this statement, or can you you tell me where to look?

Thank you.

#10 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2010 - 06:39 AM


Frazier had been shown what was supposedly the actual bag on the night of the 22nd, and refused to ID the bag.


Pat, you will probably call me a lazy sod, and I deserve it. But do you have a cite handy for this statement, or can you you tell me where to look?

Thank you.


There's an investigation of the bag in CD7 pages 289-300 that you might find interesting. The statement of the DPD polygraph operator RD Lewis is particularly interesting.
http://www.maryferre...8&relPageId=298

I discuss this investigation in chapter 2 at patspeer.com, which is written from the perspective of an FBI agent:



On 12-1-63 we read another report about another roadblock. The FBI still can't figure out how Oswald, or anyone, got the rifle used to kill Kennedy into the building. On 11-29, agent Vincent Drain followed up on Buell Frazier and his refusal to ID the paper bag found in the sniper's nest as the bag Oswald had brought to work. He talked to Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz, who confirmed that Frazier had told him on the day of the shooting that the bag he saw was "about two feet in length, and of brown paper." (CD7, p290). He talked to Dallas Detective R.D. Lewis, who confirmed that Frazier, while being given a polygraph test, "was shown what appeared to be a homemade brown heavy paper gun case." Lewis stated further that "Frazier said that it was possible this was the case, but he did not think it resembled it. He stated that the crinkly brown paper sack that Oswald had when he rode to work with him that morning was about two feet long." Detective Lewis also told Drain "that if this was not identical to the sack that was turned over to the Bureau, it is possible that Oswald may have thrown it away." (CD7, p291). Apparently, Lewis believed Frazier.

And he was not alone. In the FBI's assassination file (62-109060 sec.14 p123-125) we see an 11-29 memo from Agent Hadley in Dallas to Assistant Director Alex Rosen in Washington. It states that Dallas Crime Lab chief "Lt. Day stated that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald by dismantling the rifle could have placed it in the thick, brown sack folded over and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack." This memo notes the impossibility of this, however, and continues "however, the entire package would have been longer than two feet since the stock of the rifle alone was over two feet." This shows us that the Dallas PD is, at least at this point, ready to accept that the bag found in the sniper's nest was not the bag seen by Frazier or Randle. This in itself is intriguing.

The Dallas Police Department's and print media's desire to close the case, particularly as it relates to the paper bag and its use by Oswald to bring the rifle into the building, is further demonstrated by a 12-1 article in the Philadelphia Bulletin, describing the events of 11-22. This article describes the morning's events as follows: "Oswald picked the blanket roll off the floor and put it on a white leather chair. He was busy with the bundle for perhaps ten minutes, police said. From it, they added, he took the bolt-action rifle which was used to kill the President. Police said he transferred the rifle from the roll to a brown paper bag." Later in the article, Buell Frazier, who gave Oswald a ride to work, further describes the bag: "As they drove off, Frazier said, he glanced to the back seat where he saw a paper-wrapped bundle. 'He said, yes, it was his--and he muttered something about curtain rods,' said Frazier. As a matter of fact, said Frazier, Oswald had told him the day before that he would be bringing some rods to exchange them for other rods he wanted for his room at Mrs. Johnson's. 'It didn't look to me as a rifle ought to be,' said Frazier. 'It seemed to me it should have been longer. If it was a rifle, he had taken it apart, to put it together in the warehouse." A few paragraphs later, the article returns to the bag one last time: "Frazier doesn't remember what Oswald did with the paper-wrapped bundle. 'I just lost track of it,' he said, although I guess he took it out of the car because I didn't see it again." Well, this is quite puzzling, Frazier has signed a statement saying he saw Oswald remove the package from the car, and carry it into the building, and now he says he "guesses" Oswald took it out of the car? Someone's playing games. Either Frazier is lying to the press, for no apparent reason, or the writer of this article is twisting his words to hide that he got a good look at the bag and felt quite sure the "paper-wrapped bundle" was much smaller than a bag holding the rifle.That the article allows Frazier's assertion that the rifle had to have been broken down to fit inside the bag, sack, or bundle, but fails to tell its readers that the bag described by Frazier was a foot shorter than the rifle, even when the rifle was broken down, and that Frazier had refused to ID the bag found near the sniper's nest as the bag he saw in Oswald's possession, suggests that the writers and their sources in the Dallas Police were more concerned with telling a seamless tale than in getting at the truth.

The New York Times, in an article published the day before, was even worse. The Times avoided the problems with the bag by reporting: "Mr. Frazier noticed that Oswald put a long package wrapped in brown paper sacks into the back seat, saying it was curtain rods. Evidence showed he had removed it from the Paine garage, where he had kept it with his other belongings wrapped in a blanket. Only the blanket was there when the police came to check. Mr. Frazier said Oswald carried the long package into the depository building and that was the last he saw of him before the assassination." This, disturbingly, not only avoids the sticky issue that the "long" package described by Frazier was not nearly long enough to have held the rifle, but completely misinforms its readers by asserting there was any evidence whatsoever that the "long package" had ever been in the garage. That the "long package" had been wrapped in the blanket sitting on the garage floor for almost two months, was either pure speculation, or deliberate misinformation. (The FBI had already tested the paper sack and found it to match the paper sample taken from the roll in use at the depository on 11-22. They would soon determine that the depository changed rolls every few days, and that, accordingly, the sack or bag had most probably been created within 24 hours of the shooting.)

On 12-2-63, we find out that Dallas FBI agents Odum and McNeely, desperate to get around the problem created by Frazier's refusal to ID the bag, have visited the school book depository, gathered up some paper and some tape, and created a replica sack to show those who knew Oswald. Significantly, the report on their actions of the day before tells us the "paper was described as "60 pound paper, 24 inches wide" and that the tape was "gummed, brown paper tape, three inches wide, made on 60 pound paper stock." (CD7, p292). It also tells us that after creating the sack, they took it, along with the original sack, which had been stained by the FBI during testing, over to show Ruth Paine, at whose home Oswald had stayed the night before the shooting. She "advised that she does not recall seeing Lee Oswald in possession of any sack resembling either of these sacks, nor does she recall seeing him in possession of paper or tape of the type used on either of these sacks." (CD7, p293). Perhaps hoping he would change his mind, they then showed these sacks to Buell Frazier. In their 12-2 report, Odum and McNeeley re-tell Frazier's story. They write: "As he started to drive out of the yard, Frazier glanced back and noticed a long package, light brown in color, lying on the back of the rear seat and extending from approximately the right rear door to about the center of the seat...Frazier designated an approximate spot on the back seat where he felt the package extended to from the right rear door and measurement by Special Agents Bardwell D. Odum and Gibbon E. McNeeley determined that this spot was 27 inches from the inside of the right door, indicating that Frazier estimates that as the length of the package." They then recount Frazier's recollection of how Oswald carried the package into the building: "Oswald had this package under his right arm, one end of this package being under his armpit and the other end apparently held with his right fingers...Frazier stated that when he saw this package under the arm of Oswald, he reached the conclusion that the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores." They then describe showing Frazier the replica sack. Agent Odum held the sack under his arm, and they measured how much of the sack was visible to Frazier, when held under his arm. It was 9" by 1". According to Odum's report, Frazier then advised Odum "that he now realizes that his conclusion that the sack was thin, crinkly paper, of the type used in Five and Ten Cent stores, was based to a considerable extent upon the fact that the color of the sack was a very light brown as compared with the type of dark brown paper used for heavier grocery sacks. He noted that the color of the replica sack was the same color as the package which he had seen in possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963." Odum then shows Frazier the original sack. He writes: "Frazier examined the original 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." This is incredibly disingenuous, and fails to note that Frazier was shown this sack, on the night of the shooting, before it had been discolored by the FBI's tests, and had refused to identify it as the sack or bag brought into work by Oswald. Odum then reports: "Frazier indicated on the replica sack the estimated width of the package in possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, and this was found to be an approximate width of six inches". (CD7, 294-297).

They then showed the sack to Frazier's sister, Linnie Mae Randle. She also has her doubts about the sack. Odum reports: "Mrs. Randle states that at the time she saw Oswald walking across the street, he was carrying a long package wrapped in brown paper or a brown sack in his right hand. It appeared to contain something heavy. She stated that it was long but did not touch the ground as he walked across the street. She examined a replica of the sack...She stated that this was the same kind of paper that made up the sack or package that she saw Oswald carrying, and was the same heavy grade of paper, since she recalls noting that there was something heavy in the sack when she saw it, and it was the same color paper as the sack she had seen on the morning of November 22, 1963. She was shown the original paper sack...She stated that if the original sack was previously the same color as the replica sack, that the original sack could have been the one which she saw Oswald carrying on the morning of November 22, 1963...The action of Oswald walking across Westbrook Street was re-enacted by Special Agent McNeeley, carrying the replica sack...in accordance with Mrs. Randle's observations, Special Agent McNeeley grasped the top of the sack with his hand...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. She demonstrated the width of the sack as it appeared to her, noting that it did have something bulky in it originally. Her designation on the replica sack was found to be 8 1/2 inches for the width of the original package she had seen Oswald carrying." (CD7, p298-299). Here, once again, Odum acts as though the recollection of the witness is consistent with the sack carried by Oswald being the sack found in the sniper's nest. This just isn't true. Two witnesses saw the sack. The FBI performed two tests to determine the length of the sack seen by the witnesses. They put the replica sack in Frazier's back seat. This confirmed for Frazier that the sack he saw was about 27 inches long. They then re-enacted Oswald walking across the street to get Randle's best estimate of the length of the sack. This led her to conclude the sack she saw was...27 inches long. We've seen some evidence photos. The sack found in the sniper's nest was 38 inches long, approximately 40% longer than the sack described by both Frazier and Randle. We've also seen photos of the original sack, as it was brought out of the school book depository. It appears to have been well over 10 inches in width.

This gets us thinking. We do a quick comparison of photos of the bag as it was removed from the depository, and these convince us the bag was actually about 10.75 inches wide. Okay. The bag in these photos is also about 38 inches long. If the bag holding the rifle was 38 by 10.75, however, it would have covered 408.5 sq. inches on the back seat of Frazier's car. The sack described by Frazier, meanwhile, is 27 x 6, 162 sq. inches...This means that the bag shown Frazier was TWO AND A HALF TIMES as large as the bag he recalled seeing in Oswald's possession. No wonder he'd refused to ID the bag.

Edited by Pat Speer, 19 November 2010 - 06:40 AM.


#11 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2010 - 06:51 AM

I think Pat is understating his own work here.

Although its true that the FBI concluded that the paper came from the TSBD, this was in spite of the fact that Hoover had two memos prepared on this which said two different things. One that it did and one that it did not.

THe question also entails this: what paper are they talking about? As Pat has shown, there is not a photo taken on the 22nd of any paper bag supposedly taken from the TSBD that matches Frazier's description.

ANd as David points out it is strange that the FBI then had to prepare a "replica" bag to take the place of the original one.

Question: What was the replica bag based upon?


To be clear, Jim, the FBI sent the DPD a report on the 24th that said the bag matched the sample. Drain, however, who ferried the bag both to and from Washington, and then back again on the 26th, wrote a report on the 29th that said it didn't match. This was what Hoover had Shanklin change. While I'm willing to accept that Drain had simply remembered the test results incorrectly, I'm less willing to accept that the FBI would just have him rewrite his report without investigating WHY he made such a mistake. As this report also claimed what Drain knew to be false--that Lt. Day had found the bag and that no one else (which would include Buell Frazier!) had been shown the bag, I suspect the 11-29 report was actually written to deceive the Warren Commission. Just a hunch.

#12 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2010 - 07:09 AM

David, your post number 8 is excellent.

Again, where did the replica bag come from? Why does it not resemble the pictures Pat has on his site?

Tom, good work also.

If you noted, Lee Farley and Tom Hume are also doing fine work on the sack sent to the Paines right prior to the assassination.

I am really beginning to think this is a key to the case.


Yep...I've been adding a bit to my chapter on the bag...and will probably add some more.

Posted Image

Posted Image

#13 Jack White

Jack White

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 19 November 2010 - 07:11 AM

Everyone always ignores this question, which I have asked every time this subject returns.

What is the rigid "thing" inside the paper sack which holds it upright?

A good theory might be that something "inconvenient" is being smuggled out of the TSBD
right under the noses of annoying newsmen.

Jack

Attached Files



#14 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2010 - 07:14 AM

Here's yet another look at the light of Day...

Posted Image

#15 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2010 - 07:24 AM

Everyone always ignores this question, which I have asked every time this subject returns.

What is the rigid "thing" inside the paper sack which holds it upright?

A good theory might be that something "inconvenient" is being smuggled out of the TSBD
right under the noses of annoying newsmen.

Jack


I'm not sure, Jack, but, as the bag collapsed within seconds of the Allen Photo, it didn't stretch all the way to the top of the bag. A 30 inch piece of the windowsill was taken from the building by the DPD and later sent to the FBI. Could that be what Montgomery is holding? Well, then why did he never admit as much?

Was the bag created by the DPD to cover the piece of the windowsill? Did they only decide afterward to pretend this bag carried the rifle?

The mystery lingers...

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users