David Von Pein

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

If the bag was sitting on those boxes the whole time and not discovered until later that would explain a lot - but why would the DPD make up some elaborate story about it being found in the corner? There are plenty of examples of law enforcement covering up their own incompetence in this case, but this just seems a bit excessive.

The DPD didn't "make up" anything. The bag was first found folded up and on the floor near the pipes in the far southeast corner of the sixth floor. It was then picked up and unfolded and placed on the boxes surrounding the Sniper's Nest. It was then photographed by the DPD (with that photo later becoming CE508).

But, of course, the purpose of the CE508 photograph was most certainly not an effort to document the paper bag. (That's fairly obvious, seeing as how nobody on Earth even noticed that the bag was sitting on top of those boxes until 56 years later.) The bag just happened to show up (just barely) in one of the crime scene photos.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Really? You don't think that could be any sort of paper lying there? 

I mean, wrapping paper in the TSBD was like cow pies on the King Cattle Ranch in Texas.  

Nonsense. It's the SIZE and the SHAPE of the paper bag that's the key (of course). How many hunks of TSBD wrapping paper shaped like the one on top of those boxes do you think were in the building at that moment on 11/22?

The likely answer to that question is: 1 (which is the same one Lee Oswald brought to work in Buell Frazier's car that morning).

Important Paper Bag Addendum....

On October 22, 2019, Patrick Jackson (in this post at Duncan MacRae's JFK Assassination Forum), noticed something in one of the original DPD photographs taken on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on 11/22/63 that apparently nobody else had ever noticed prior to that time in 2019. Jackson noticed that the empty paper bag (which became Commission Exhibit No. 142) was actually visible in this picture (also seen below) which shows the boxes around the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest.

The paper bag, with its creases and folds plainly visible, is sitting on top of some of the Sniper's Nest boxes. I've drawn a blue box around the paper bag, which has been, quite literally, hiding in plain sight for over 50 years:

And here's an extra-large zoomed-in version of the photo, produced in 2019 by Patrick Jackson, highlighting the paper bag on top of the boxes (click to enlarge):



The Warren Commission utilized the above photograph showing the outside of the Sniper's Nest as Commission Exhibit No. 508. And the back side of the original photograph taken by the Dallas Police Department indicates that that photo was taken on "11-22-63" on "6th floor, 411 Elm, SE Corner where shots fired from window".

And here's another high-quality version of the very same photo (from the Dallas Municipal Archives). Click for a bigger view:



So, the above 11/22/63 photo showing an empty paper bag sitting atop boxes which are bordering the Sniper's Nest (which is a location just a few feet from where the police originally discovered the folded-up paper sack) is providing pretty good evidence for CE142 being a legitimate and valid piece of evidence in the JFK murder case.

Because if there was never any paper bag found near the Sniper's Nest at all on November 22nd, as many CTers claim, then how can they explain the presence of what certainly looks like the CE142 bag sitting on top of those SN boxes on November 22?

After looking at the above picture, will conspiracists now contend that the evil DPD cops decided to haul their "fake" paper bag back up to the sixth floor and place it atop the Sniper's Nest boxes?

But if the evil Dallas cops did something like that, why in the world wouldn't they have wanted to take a photograph of the fake bag in the place where they say it was originally discovered (the far southeast corner, on the floor)?

In my opinion, the above photo of the bag creates quite a problem for the many conspiracy theorists who currently reside in the "There Was Never Any Paper Bag Found On The Sixth Floor On November 22nd" club.

Lots More "Paper Bag" Discussion:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/#The-Paper-Bag

57 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Seriously, David, there's no way they could have missed this. One of them? Maybe. All of them? No way.

Why you're saying "all of them" missed it is mystifying (and just dead wrong too). I already linked to the testimony of FOUR different DPD officers who said the bag was there. And I think there are 2 others who said they saw it too.

Plus....

I haven't checked every officer's testimony in this regard, but let me repeat something I said in my last post (which certainly might apply to several officers):

Isn't it possible that some of the officers who said they didn't see the bag simply were never in a position to see the bag at all? Maybe some of those officers were at least partially blocked out by the Sniper's Nest boxes, so they didn't have a good view of the far southeast corner.

Plus, according to Marvin Johnson, the bag was folded over TWICE, not just once, which made it (per Johnson) "a fairly small package".

Shouldn't those two things I just mentioned at least be considered as possible explanations for why more people failed to see the bag that 4 to 6 other officers absolutely confirmed WAS there on 11/22?

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Quoting the late Sherry Feister, how could those cops not have seen that package.  They were standing on it.  😝

I think it's quite possible that the police officers who later said they did not see any paper bag on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building might have actually physically seen the bag on the floor but simply didn't associate it with "evidence" in the JFK case.

Maybe they thought it was merely a piece of trash lying in the corner (akin to the many cigarette butts that were littering the TSBD floorboards; and I don't think every one of those cigarette butts was retrieved as "evidence" by the Dallas Police Department), and therefore even though some of those officers (the ones who stood right in the Sniper's Nest itself) must have caught at least a glimpse of the bag, it was something that just didn't register in their minds as anything of importance that they should retain in their memory.

We must also remember that the bag was not found directly underneath the sniper's window. It was found east of the window, as indicated in Commission Exhibit No. 1302.

According to Dallas Police Detective Robert Studebaker, who saw the paper bag lying on the floor before he himself picked it up, the bag was located "in the southeast corner of the building, in the far southeast corner, as far as you can get is where it was" [Studebaker; WC Testimony; at 7 H 144].

Studebaker also testified [at 7 H 143-144] that when he saw and picked up the bag (or "sack") in the corner of the sixth floor, it was "folded" and "doubled over".

And according to DPD Officer Marvin Johnson [at 7 H 103], the bag he saw in the corner was "folded and then refolded. It was a fairly small package":

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

JOSEPH BALL -- "Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?"

ROBERT L. STUDEBAKER -- "Yes sir."

MR. BALL -- "Where?"

MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Storage room there—in the southeast corner of the building—folded."

[Later...]

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 -- "Was it near the window?"

MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. BALL -- "Which way from the window?"

MR. STUDEBAKER -- "It was east of the window."

MR. BALL -- "Over in the corner?"

MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Over in the corner—in the southeast corner of the building, in the far southeast corner, as far as you can get is where it was." [Emphasis added by DVP.]

[...]

DAVID BELIN -- "Did you find anything else up in the southeast corner of the sixth floor? We have talked about the rifle, we have talked about the shells, we have talked about the chicken bones and the lunch sack and the pop bottle by that second pair of windows. Anything else?"

MARVIN JOHNSON -- "Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was [sic] wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag."

MR. BELIN -- "Where was this found?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "Right in the corner of the building."

MR. BELIN -- "On what floor?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "Sixth floor."

MR. BELIN -- "Which corner?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "Southeast corner."

MR. BELIN -- "Do you know who found it?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "I know that the first I saw of it, L.D. Montgomery, my partner, picked it up off the floor*, and it was folded up, and he unfolded it."

MR. BELIN -- "When it was folded up, was it folded once or refolded?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "It was folded and then refolded. It was a fairly small package." [Emphasis added by DVP.]

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

* This part of Marvin Johnson's testimony conflicts with that of L.D. Montgomery. Montgomery testified [at 7 H 98] that it was Detective Studebaker who physically picked the bag up off of the floor.

There are other possible explanations for why some of the officers did not notice the bag, such as:

They weren't in a position to see the bag at all (which would certainly be the explanation for those officers who never actually stepped INSIDE the Sniper's Nest area itself prior to the bag being picked up on 11/22/63).

Or:

Perhaps some of the policemen in question just simply weren't as observant as other officers, and for one reason or another they missed seeing the paper bag in the far southeast corner of the 6th floor.

But there's ample testimony from multiple other police officers who said they did see the bag to indicate that the paper bag (CE142) was most definitely found on the sixth floor of the Depository on November 22nd.

Do conspiracy theorists really think all of these officers were lying when they each testified that they saw the bag on the 6th floor?:

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

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have Roe on ignore, but when he quotes me I have to read his...writing.

Huh??

Why would you be forced to read a post from someone whose posts you can't even see in the first place because you've got that person (e.g., Roe) on Ignore? That makes no sense.

And in the past, DiEugenio has also claimed on multiple occasions that he's forced to read posts written by LNers that he has on Ignore because other CTers have quoted those ignored LNers. But that's also a silly statement, because Jim obviously isn't being forced to read a damn thing written by anybody at any time. He can very easily and swiftly simply glide right past anything written by an LNer.

And for the longer LNer posts that appear in a CTer's Quote Box, DiEugenio most certainly isn't being forced to click the "Expand" link, which he certainly would have to do in order to read the full LNer post. But Jim obviously does click "Expand" nonetheless.

So Jim's constant whining about having to read all those dreadful LNer posts just because a CTer has quoted them is nothing but another great big crock dredged up by Mr. JFK Revisited.

.......

11:21 AM, Nov. 24, 1963:

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/06/kennedy-gallery-099.html

2 minutes ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

Again it’s all perspective. From mine, he’s exactly right - he WAS taken in because he lived in the Soviet Union. His background is EXACTLY why he was chosen as the patsy.

So, you do think the DPD knew---as of 1:51 PM CST on 11/22/63---about Oswald having lived in Russia from 1959 to 1962? Is that right, Michaleen?

4 minutes ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

From my POV, the “commie fanatic, and sociopathic loser who just wanted to be somebody” was telling the WORLD he was NOT involved in the shooting but had been framed.

But listen to Oswald's ENTIRE Patsy statement, Michaleen. Who is it that Oswald is saying here is turning him into a patsy? Or don't you think these two sentences, which were uttered one right after the other by LHO, should be connected in any way at all?....

"They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!"

23 minutes ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

So your interpretation is right because it's yours?

No, Steve's interpretation is right because it's simply, well, right. Unless you want to now theorize that the DPD, at the precise time of Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater, did have knowledge of the fact that Oswald lived in Russia.

Because unless you want to go down that road, then it couldn't be more obvious that Lee Harvey Oswald's "I'm just a patsy" statement was nothing but a dodge and a bald-faced lie. And that's because he was blaming the DPD for his "Patsy" status. He wasn't accusing the CIA or David Ferrie or Clay Shaw or anyone else of making him the "patsy". He was accusing only the people who have "taken me in" --- and that was the Dallas Police Department.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/03/oswalds-patsy-lie.html

2 hours ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

Amazing he can...go undetected on a floor with people....

And yet no CTer seems to think it "amazing" that the real killer(s) (i.e., total strangers to everyone who worked in the TSBD) managed to do that very thing ("go undetected on a floor with people").

Funny, huh?

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Holy smokes, Lance. Catch up. I debunked that almost ten years ago.

~sigh~ Now we're treated to one of Pat Speer's frequent "Holy cow! Get real, Lance/DVP! I debunked that nonsense years ago!" declarations.

When, in fact, Pat hasn't "debunked" a single one of the Warren Commission's (Lone Nut) conclusions. He only thinks he's done some "debunking".

To give credit where credit is due, however, Pat did do some "debunking" in 2009 concerning one small aspect of the JFK case revolving around some incorrect information written by author Vincent Bugliosi in his book "Reclaiming History" (which was an issue concerning the conflicting paper bag documents written by Vincent Drain of the FBI---discussed at my site here).

But as far as actually "debunking" (i.e., proved to be wrong) any of the major topics or theories or pieces of actual evidence connected with the JFK and Tippit murder cases, Patrick J. Speer has not debunked a single thing. And that is a fact.

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

This is one comical problem with Conspiracy World. Literally NOTHING - from Oswald’s school days ... to his defection to the USSR ... to his return to the U.S. ... to his purchase of the rifle ... to the Walker incident ... to his employment at the TSBD ... to his assassination of JFK ... to his escape ... to the Tippit killing and his arrest ... to Ruby's murder of him - is as it seems on its face. NOTHING the FBI, DPD, Postal Service or Bethesda autopsy team did was as it seems. Indeed, NOTHING about ANY aspect of the assassination was as it seems.

What you just said about "Conspiracy World" is oh so true, Lance. As far as I can recall, about the only piece of evidence connected to the whole case (including the Tippit murder) that most conspiracy theorists are willing to accept as real and legitimate evidence might be the Oswald fingerprints that were found on the boxes deep inside the Sniper's Nest.

And the only reason CTers accept those prints as being legit is because they will insist that those particular prints don't really indicate "guilt" on the part of Lee Oswald at all.

Whenever the subject of those box prints comes up, I'm always treated to the "Well, he worked there" excuse, with CTers forever ignoring the rather incriminating portions of the boxes where some of those fresh prints were found (such as the Oswald palmprint found on the box LHO probably utilized as a chair).

And speaking of the "Nothing Is Ever What It Seems To Be" Conspiracy Club, Lance's post above reminded me of this exchange from a few years back:

"James Gordon seems to want to come up with SOME type of excuse so that he won't have to call Governor Connally's movements what they really are -- "flinching", "arm-raising", and "grimacing". Conspiracy theorists do the exact same kind of crap with JFK's forward head movement between frames 312 and 313. They say it's merely a "blur", or some kind of "video anomaly". It can't REALLY be the President's head moving forward though, they'll say. But how many of these "It's not really what it seems to be" excuses is one excuse too many?" -- DVP; May 13, 2015
 

Dozens of newspaper highlights from JFK's 34 months as President:

Newspaper articles just after Jack Ruby's death in early January 1967 (click to enlarge):

On 1/19/2023 at 7:35 AM, Joe Bauer said:

Jim Di said in the interview above that Stone's JFK should have won so many more Academy Awards than it did. That pressure from sinister outside forces kept it from doing so.

If there had been an Oscar category for "The Most Embellished & Purely Fictional Scenes", then Oliver's film would have been a shoo-in for that award. 😊

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Love Frazier's two toned, white topped, "spats" type loafers shown in this reenactment.

Frazier had a little "Elvis" coolness back in the day didn't he?

Yes, I think so too. I like the loafers as well.

Could it be, Karl, that you're simply mistaken when you call CE718 a "fake" photograph?

Plus: If you are to be considered correct about the gun's position in the photo, can you possibly explain just how the people who planted the "unidentifiable" gun managed to twist it like a pretzel before they laid it down in the box stacks?

Or do you merely think the Photo Fakers screwed up when they added the rifle to a rifleless picture? (After all, the Photo Faking Team was awfully busy that day, with dozens of photos and films to fake before sundown.)

6 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

I picture Frazier and Oswald constantly big eyed praying this sputtering, rattling, oil burning and black exhaust spewing rust bucket wouldn't just die on the way to and from work!

Wouldn't be surprised if Oswald was embarrassed to be seen riding in that junker. Maybe that's why he jumped out of it as soon as they arrived at the lot behind the TXSBD that Friday morning, and leaving his friend Frazier behind to make sure the engine actually stopped when he turned off the key?

Oh, I don't know about that, Joe. In the filmed re-enactment (seen below) that Buell Frazier performed for David Wolper's movie cameras (which occurred sometime prior to October of 1964), Buell's ten-year-old Chevrolet sedan seems to be running pretty smoothly and quietly (based on what we can hear during the limited time when the microphone actually picks up the sounds of the car's engine just after Frazier gets in the car and starts it).

But maybe Wolper's film crew just got lucky and the 1954 Chevy* was having a good day when this re-creation scene was filmed.

* The narration in the Wolper film has the wrong model year for Frazier's vehicle. The narrator, Richard Basehart, says it's a 1953 model. But as we can see from Buell's ownership papers, it's actually a '54 model. I've always wondered why that mistake was made by the Wolper crew, especially since they had Buell Frazier right there with them for this re-enactment scene, and Buell should have been able to tell the film crew that his car was a '54 and not a '53. But maybe Buell just plain forgot and told them it was a '53. That's what I think probably happened.

3 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

why any wc defender would argue this matter is closed factually, other than to mislead people, seems odd.  It is certainly incorrect.  Unless you believe a scientific factual conclusion can be based upon a great deal of speculation.  I can assure you that in the courtroom it does not work that way.   Please add this to your blog so other opinions can be considered by the public.  

My blog article already fully acknowledges the "speculative" nature of some of my beliefs regarding the Connally bullet fragments (such as in the two excerpts below). But given the testimony of Connally's doctors plus a look at Connally's pre-operative X-rays, it's my opinion that no reasonable person could possibly come to the conclusion that John Connally ever had more than 2 grains of metal present in his body at any time on November 22, 1963 (after Bullet CE399 fell out of his leg, that is).

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

"The distinct possibility exists that John B. Connally went to his grave with a mere TWO tiny bullet fragments left in his whole body (one in the thigh and one in his wrist). The latter part about the wrist is slightly speculative, but comes from a good source: the WC testimony of Dr. Charles F. Gregory." --DVP; December 18, 2011

"The number of bullet fragments that John Connally took with him to his grave is not a definitive number, and I'll readily admit that fact. But I think a good case can be made for only TWO tiny fragments of metal being left in Connally's whole body when combining the testimony of all the doctors involved in Governor Connally's treatment--Drs. Charles Gregory, Robert Shaw, and Tom Shires." --DVP; July 15, 2014