Does everyone know what these pics are about?

[Paz Marverde]

3 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

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

Unless he was 6'8" - that's not possible given the 34" minimum length....

Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27" last time. 
Mr. BALL. You measured 27" once before? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir. 

David,

thanks as always for your interesting, constructive post. You are among the ones here making to visit this Forum a worth effort 

[David Josephs]

Thanks Paz...

I try to proceed under the assumption that not everyone knows every little detail...  and try to put the info in context...

DJ

(shout out to Bart for his wonderful posts and excellent essays...    )

[David Von Pein]

Worth a reprise....

I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?

I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-tinged explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63.

I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it.

Edited March 19, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Thomas Graves]

12 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Worth a reprise....

I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?

I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-tinged explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63.

I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it.

David,

Couldn't it have been "planted" after the fact?

--  TG 

[David Von Pein]

5 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

David,

Couldn't it have been "planted" after the fact?

Then what happened to the bag that Oswald REALLY DID take into the building on 11/22? Did it just vanish? And what happened to the contents of Oswald's real bag as well? He certainly didn't leave the building with any large-ish bag (unless he ditched it in a dumpster between 411 Elm and McWatters' bus).

And you, Tommy, surely don't subscribe to the ridiculous "Oswald Had No Large Bag At All On 11/22 & Frazier/Randle Just MADE UP The Bag From Whole Cloth" theory, do you?

Edited March 19, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Thomas Graves]

3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Then what happened to the bag that Oswald REALLY DID take into the building on 11/22? Did it just vanish?

And you, Tommy, surely don't subscribe to the ridiculous "Oswald Had No Large Bag At All On 11/22 & Frazier/Randle Just MADE UP The Bag From Whole Cloth" theory, do you?

David,

 

Hmm.

Good point.

(Please don't let anyone know that I'm your CIA-appointed "straight man.")

Laughing Out Loud

 

--  TG 

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

DVP - please offer the authentication for that bag...   

Chain of Custody or whatever you like... but get it from workbench to Irving to the garage, to the Frazier's to the TSBD and beyond...
and then explain to us why this man is lying about what he saw.  I'll start with finding and taking the bag....

Montgomery is the man holding the bag and photographed in front of the TSBD - yet he did not pick up the rifle bag....

Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?
Mr. BALL. The paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?
Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You picked it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints.

 

How about the men on the 6th floor ?

Mr. BELIN. Did you take it down to the station with you?
Mr. DAY. I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left. I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in.
 

Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was doubled - it was a piece of paper about this long and it was doubled over. 
Mr. BALL. How long was it, approximately? 
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't know - I picked it up and dusted it and they took it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I have seen of it, and I don't know. 
Mr. BALL. Did you take a picture of it before you picked it up? 
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No. 
Mr. BALL. Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took? 
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; it doesn't show in any of the pictures. 

Mr. BALL. Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas School Book Depository building? 
Mr. HICKS. Paper bag? 
Mr. BALL. Paper bag. 
Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken bones or maybe a lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up. 
Mr. BALL. Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper; did you ever see it? 
Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I don't believe I did. I don't recall it.

Fingerprints Dave?   Seems quite a lot turns up after all the items are returned from DC and the FBI lab....  

Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything, any print of any kind, in connection with the processing of this?
Mr. DAY. No legible prints were found with the powder, no.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether any legible prints were found by any other means or any other place?
Mr. DAY. There is a legible print on it now. They were on there when it was returned to me from the FBI on November 24.  (really the 26th)

 

 

Maybe someone saw Oswald enter that morning?

Mr. BALL - Did you see him 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 - Did he come in with anybody?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
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.
Mr. BALL - You saw him come in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - The back door on the first floor? 
Mr. DOUGHERTY - It was in the back door.
 

 

[David Von Pein]

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

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

Should I believe that all 4 of the above officers were liars with regard to the "large paper bag" topic?

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

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

Re: Jack Dougherty.....

I noticed that David J. left out this important part of Dougherty's WC testimony....

Dougherty said he only saw Oswald enter the back door "out of the corner of my eye" [6 H 377].

Therefore, why would Dougherty have been expected to notice anything in Oswald's hands? He could have easily missed seeing the package because he wasn't really LOOKING at Oswald at all.

And yet, to hear conspiracy theorists tell it, Dougherty is a rock-solid witness whose testimony positively PROVES Oswald never had any package with him on 11/22/63.

It's pathetic.

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Thomas Graves]

8 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

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

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

Should I believe that all 4 of the above officers were liars with regard to the "large paper bag" topic?

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

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

Re: Jack Dougherty.....

I noticed that David J. left out this important part of Dougherty's WC testimony....

Dougherty said he only saw Oswald enter the back door "out of the corner of my eye" [6 H 377].

Therefore, why would Dougherty have been expected to notice anything in Oswald's hands? He could have easily missed seeing the package because he wasn't really LOOKING at Oswald at all.

And yet, to hear conspiracy theorists tell it, Dougherty is a rock-solid witness whose testimony positively PROVES Oswald never had any package with him on 11/22/63.

It's pathetic.

 

David,

Playing Devil's Advocate again:

"Either that, or to sell it to Gerry Patrick Hemming."

--  TG 

[David Josephs]

How many different bags were needed Dave?

 

 

Dave... look at something OUT OF THE CORNER OF YOUR EYE....

Now tell us you haven't a clue what you saw...   he was asked half dozen times if he was sure he did see Oswald and did not see anything in his hands...   this is the best you can do "authenticating" the evidence?

David...  you did not authenticate anything at all.   Instead you focus on something that does not change a thing...
So let's try to focus Dave...

Get the bag:  Made, brought to Irving, put the disassembled rifle in it, retrieve said bag and rifle and clip and ammo Friday morning, bring it all over to Frazier, put it in the backseat of the car and only take up 2 feet (Frazier testimony), take it again and walk unnoticed with it into the TSBD, hide it somewhere, retrieve it, reassemble the rifle, load the rifle, align the scope, and be ready to fire when JFK arrives...

Talking to me about Dougherty and his inability to SEE is kind of lame Dave....  but I can see that's the best you got... 

2nd page, the FBI needed to change DAY's statement about the paper being the same...  replica K2, despite using the same paper dispenser, did NOT have the same characteristics as the "original"...  nor was it like ANY of the paper at the TSBD, and the TAPE was the wrong size and it too didn't match...

So once again David...  AUTHENTICATE THE BAG as real evidence - that it was actually in the corner, ever in MONTGOMERY's hands and why there are so many different bags around

 

 

Only a LNer could take this, combine it with the length and Frazier's lies about what he sees as Ozzie walks away and conclude the man put a 40" bag in the backseat of Frazier's car...

Mr. BALL. When you went down there what did you find? 
Mr. HICKS. Lieutenant Day--well, first I saw Chief Lumpkin, who told me Lieutenant Day was there in the building and to report to him on the sixth floor, I believe it was and he and Detective Studebaker, I believe it was were the two that were still on that particular floor. 
Mr. BALL. Day and Studebaker? 
Mr. HICKS. Yes. 
Mr. BALL. Did you do some work with them? 
Mr. HICKS. Yes; there was--well, no. Lieutenant Day was dusting several items around there for fingerprints at the time and Mr. Studebaker had taken some pictures and was still taking a few others. I assisted him in moving the equipment back and forth and I don't know, I don't believe I actually took any of the pictures upstairs; however, I was there when some of them were taken. 

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by David Josephs

[David Von Pein]

@David J. ---

There weren't "so many different bags around". There were just 2 -- Oswald's original (CE142) and the one "replica" bag (CE364).

CE677 isn't a "bag", of course. It's just a piece of sample paper from the TSBD. So I have no idea why that would be included in your "bags montage".

Anyway, all of the bags that you, David Josephs, think are "different" bags are, in fact, the very same CE142 bag.

And Lt. Carl Day's handwritten message and signature on the CE142 bag pretty much "authenticates" it (as far as I'm concerned). Much the same way that Lt. J.C. Day's name being scratched into the stock of the Carcano rifle will forever authenticate (to my satisfaction) the fact that the CE139 rifle was definitely the one and only rifle found on the 6th floor of the Book Depository.

The chain of possession for the rifle, in fact, pretty much BEGINS and ENDS with Lt. J.C. Day, since that rifle never left his possession up until 11:45 PM CST on 11/22. What more do CTers want as far as "chain of custody" for the rifle? It was a perfect "1 person" chain on 11/22/63. It can't possibly get any better than that from a "minimizing the chain of possession" standpoint.

You, of course, require more "authentication" for everything. Much more. But nothing would ever satisfy your "authentication" needs. Would it, David? You can admit it.

The great thing about my stance as far as ALL of the JFK case evidence is concerned is the fact that I, as a "Lone Nutter", don't require ANY liars within the Dallas Police Department (or the FBI, or the Secret Service, or the Warren Commission, or the HSCA, etc., etc.). Whereas, you, David Josephs, if your various theories about the evidence being tainted are true, require MANY different liars within all of the above-named law enforcement agencies and investigative organizations. You require at least FOUR liars within the DPD with respect to just the "paper bag" issue alone (Studebaker, Day, Montgomery, and Johnson).

But, in my opinion, when a theory requires so many alleged liars and "cover-up" agents, I think it might be time to consider abandoning the Conspiracy ship. But it seems that many CTers adhere to a policy that is just the opposite. They seem to like the motto: The More Liars, The Better. (Go figure.)

Edited March 19, 2018 by David Von Pein

[David Josephs]

3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And Lt. Carl Day's handwritten message and signature on the CE142 bag pretty much "authenticates" it.

no David, it does not...

if the Chain begins and ends with DAY, there is a serious problem with Custody since he says he left it there for two other men who both do not take responsibility for it...

Help us out here Dave... where have you ever seen Day's writing on CE142?  And why renumber ce142 to ce636 after the FBI treats it for fingerprints?

CE626 below, inverted...  where is Day's writing again?  I can see it on the "replica" in the post above and on the scrap of paper...

I'm not saying they lied... just that whatever it was in that corner, it had nothing to do with Oswald, a trip in Frazier's car or a rifle...  when you can make those connections, let us know...

btw, answer one simple question....

When did he make the bag and bring it home... ?

[David Von Pein]

More lies here....right David J.? ....

Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142.
Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any identification on that to so indicate?
Mr. DAY. It has my name on it, and it also has other writing that I put on there for the information of the FBI.
Mr. BELIN. Could you read what you wrote on there?
Mr. DAY. "Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day."
Mr. BELIN. When did you write that?
Mr. DAY. I wrote that at the time the sack was found before it left our possession.
Mr. BELIN. All right, anything else that you wrote on there?
Mr. DAY. When the sack was released on November 22 to the FBI about 11:45 p.m., I put further information to the FBI reading as follows: "FBI: Has been dusted with metallic magnetic powder on outside only. Inside has not been processed. Lieut J. C. Day."

-------------------------------------

As for when LHO constructed his handmade CE142 paper bag ----

It's just a guess (since Oswald didn't deign to tell us this info before Ruby shot him), but I'd guess he made the bag at the Paine house (in the garage) on Thursday night, 11/21. (The light was left on in the garage that night, remember. Or was Ruth Paine lying about that too?)

I would have been interested in searching the Paine trash cans to see if maybe some scraps of brown paper were discarded by Oswald on 11/21. But, AFAIK, there wasn't a search of Ruth Paine's trash containers. (Was there? I don't think there was.)

[David Josephs]

I have no doubt he believes he wrote on paper related to the assassination...  trouble is, DAY saying so doesn't make it so...

More importantly Dave... connect the bag to Oswald, the rifle and the ride to work...

Now my favorite part.... 

The closest person to that bag NOT in the DPD is WESLEY...  his sister claimed it to be 27.5" long (2 feet 3.5 inches).  Why is your star witness telling us this bag could not possibly hold a 34" rifle and metal parts...??

Spin this from FRAZIER Dave...  We'd agree the paper to wrap books is much thicker and sturdier than a grocery store paper sack...  Why is Wesley here describing a LITTLE SACK as opposed to a three and a half foot heavy paper and thick tape (ever see tape on a lunch sack?) or the rattling of the rifle parts as they drove to work?

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 these 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. 

As for people telling their version of the truth... you're never drinking from that trough despite being led to it repeatedly...  we understand.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-on-november-22-1963   you might read this and give some thought to the few days prior to the 22nd and his GRAND PLAN...

[David Von Pein]

2 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

The closest person to that bag NOT in the DPD is WESLEY...  his sister claimed it to be 27.5" long (2 feet 3.5 inches).  Why is your star witness telling us this bag could not possibly hold a 34" rifle and metal parts...??

That's exactly the question you need to be asking people like Jim DiEugenio and Ian Griggs, who think Frazier just MADE UP the whole paper bag story from whole cloth. But if that was so, then why on Earth would Frazier (and his sister too, who was also a big fat l-i-a-r, per DiEugenio) want to claim that his MAKE BELIEVE bag was TOO SHORT to hold the thing that was obviously supposed to go into that bag--LHO's gun? It makes no sense from the POV of the CTers who think the bag was a pure invention.

But from my POV, all I need to believe in is that Buell Frazier was simply mistaken about some things relating to the bag. He didn't scrutinize the bag, he didn't measure it. And he admitted in 1986 that Oswald might have carried the bag in a different (non-armpit) way on 11/22.