Jump to content
The Education Forum

The paper sample taken from the building by the DPD


Recommended Posts

I've recently been looking at the possibility the paper bag purportedly used by Oswald to bring the rifle into the building was created by the DPD that night. Lt. Day admitted taking a sample of paper from the TSBD, but never says the size of this sample. The FBI tested this sample and found it to match the paper in the bag. The WC photograph of this sample, however, is of a badly torn piece of paper, roughly 11 by 22.

Outside of CE 677, are there any other photos of the paper sample, in which it is clearly identified? I've seen FBI photos where there is paper in the background, but nothing to say what the paper supposedly represents.

Any help appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Pat:

A quick reply...

There are two reports......I guess technically three.....

""In 1980, researcher Gary Shaw discovered what appeared to be another copy of the FBI report while examining documents in the National Archives. However, the newly discovered version stated that the paper sack did NOT have the same observable characteristics as the test sample:""

Below the reports and Don Roberdeau's info.....

See......

The Paper Sack

http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/papersac.htm

Did you ever come across that Golz article.......??

Pat :""I'm sorry that I started this thread with a faulty comparison, but it is proving most interesting. Gary Mack sent me an e-mail saying that Vincent Drain was contacted by Earl Golz when Gary Shaw first found the second document. He says that Drain ADMITTED writing the document, but claimed he'd written two different documents while waiting for the test results, one claiming the bag matched and one claiming it didn't. He told Golz that he thought he destroyed the one found in the Archives, after the results came in.

I think there's a problem with this excuse. Cadigan tested the bag on the 23rd. The results were furnished on the 23rd. Drain's report on the evidence was prepared on the 26th. Bernice, or Jack, what is the date on the bottom of this report? At the top it says 11-30 but that could be the date it was typed up. What is the date at the bottom? If it was written up after the 23rd it proves Drain to be inaccurate in his recollection to Golz, and possibly a xxxx.

Does anyone have the Golz article? Drain's exact words could be helpful.""

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0#entry113961

B......

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Bernice. I just noticed that in Bugliosi's book he gets around the two versions of the same report problem by claiming they are two different reports about two different pieces of paper, one on the sample removed on 11-22 and one on the simulated bag made on the 1st. What nonsense! I have my own questions on this report--why does everyone cite Shaw as finding it in the Archives? Isn't it still there? If so, in what file? If not, did anyone else ever see it?

I recently picked up where I left off last August. In chapter 2 at patspeer.com I have a slide entitled Not Exactly in the Bag, which shows that the bag described by Frazier was less than half the size of the bag pulled from the building. In chapter 3 I have another slide entitled Ye Old Switcheroo? which once again shows that the bag pulled from the building was way too small. Finally, on chapter 4 I have a third slide, entitled Most Definitely Not in the Bag, in which I recreate the photo of Montgomery leaving the building, but with a bag 8 inches wide. It's clear the bag in the original photo is much much wider, probably 12 inches wide.

In the article at the link you provided there are a couple of imaqes whose provenance would be helpful if known. The Dallas photo with the paper...where can that be found? The other photo which arouses my curiosity is the one with a bag right by the gun, with the bag seemingly shorter than the one now in the Archives. Where did that come from?

Any help appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Bernice. I just noticed that in Bugliosi's book he gets around the two versions of the same report problem by claiming they are two different reports about two different pieces of paper, one on the sample removed on 11-22 and one on the simulated bag made on the 1st. What nonsense! I have my own questions on this report--why does everyone cite Shaw as finding it in the Archives? Isn't it still there? If so, in what file? If not, did anyone else ever see it?

I recently picked up where I left off last August. In chapter 2 at patspeer.com I have a slide entitled Not Exactly in the Bag, which shows that the bag described by Frazier was less than half the size of the bag pulled from the building. In chapter 3 I have another slide entitled Ye Old Switcheroo? which once again shows that the bag pulled from the building was way too small. Finally, on chapter 4 I have a third slide, entitled Most Definitely Not in the Bag, in which I recreate the photo of Montgomery leaving the building, but with a bag 8 inches wide. It's clear the bag in the original photo is much much wider, probably 12 inches wide.

In the article at the link you provided there are a couple of imaqes whose provenance would be helpful if known. The Dallas photo with the paper...where can that be found? The other photo which arouses my curiosity is the one with a bag right by the gun, with the bag seemingly shorter than the one now in the Archives. Where did that come from?

Any help appreciated.

Hey Pat:

Da Bug gets around, whatever he has a mind to...whatever and whenever.....just like the W/C...they just skip on

by it......imo..

I will have a look at the Ye Old Switcherro, great title...got a link ??

I have gone into my folders and found a bit more info,

gathered along the way...The photos of Montgomery do not comply with what later is written within the w/c..

as to size..If I recall correctly..but then what does...In the Det Montgomery photos, that particular bag is wider..

The Dallas photo with the paper ?? I had another look, but do not see which you mean...

Unless the photo showing the rifle on the table......that is from the DPD files...

The bag by the gun I have no idea....here is the email address for contact.....

jfkresearch@mail.com ....re Jerry McLeer's article..

re The Paper Sack, I am sure they will supply that info..

FWTAW......some you may have.......B......

STUDEBAKER, ROBERT LEE

Sources: CE 3131; CE 3145; CD 897, pp. 158, 167-168; CD 1497; HSCA Vol 6, p. 153; Whitewash I, Weisberg, pp. 73, 79-83, 190

Mary's

Comments: Detective, Crime Scene Search Section, Identification Bureau, Dallas Police Department. Described place where paper bag was found as "in southeast corner [of TSBD 6th floor] lying in 16" space between cardboard box and south wall." See Studebaker Photograph No. 26. Died April 7, 1994.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...ult&id=9211

DRAIN, VINCENT E.

CE 3131; CD 5, p. 129; CD 205, p. 120; Whitewash I, Weisberg, 73, 148

Special Agent FBI. Hand-carried rifle to Washington night of 11/22/63. Drain signed FBI report that paper bag found on 6th floor of TSBD WAS identical to Kraft paper used by shipping department of TSBD. Vincent's brother, Lee Drain, was Secretary-Treasurer of Republic National Bank, Dallas.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...ult&id=3438

Wesley Liebeler staff attorney W/C memos

-----The Long and Bulky Package-----

1. The last sentence states: "Frazier could easily have been mistaken when he stated that Oswald held the bottom of the bag cupped in his hand, or when he said that the upper end was tucked under the armpit." On the very next page of the galleys, in the discussion of the prints that appeared on the paper bag, it is stated that the palmprint was "found on the closed end of the bag. It was from Oswald's right hand in which he carried the long package as he walked from Frazier's car to the building."

I am advised that the palmprint is right on the end of the bag, just where it would be if Oswald had carried it cupped in his hand. If we say in the discussion of prints that that print was put on the bag when he carried it to the TSBD [the Book Depository Building] (which we don't quite do) and if the print is where it would be if he carried it cupped in his hand, then we must face up on the preceding page and admit that Frazier was right when he said that that is the way Oswald carried it. If the print story is right and the implication left there as to when the print was put on the bag is valid, Frazier could not have been mistaken when he said Oswald carried the bottom of the bag cupped in his hand. (11 HSCA 225; 9/6/64 memo)

2. The last paragraph of this section is misleading when it attempts to show the falsity of the curtain rod story by stating that Oswald's room at 1026 North Beckley had curtains, and does not take account of the fact that Frazier specifically testified that Oswald said he wanted the curtain rods to put in an apartment. This takes on added significance when we remember that Oswald was talking about renting an apartment so that his family could live in Dallas with him. That aspect of the problem should be specifically treated if we are going to mention the fact that his roominghouse had curtains. (11 HSCA 225; 9/6/64 memo)

PAPER BAG, Q-10 -----Gary Shaw

CE 2723; CD 5, p. 129

3/19/64 attempt by J. Edgar Hoover to explain two conflicting reports on samples of paper from TSBD compared to "gun" bag. On 11/30/63, Lt. Day wrote: "....This paper was examined by the FBI Laboratory and found to have the same observable characteristics as the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case which was found near the scene of the shooting on the sixth floor..." This page was paginated on the typewriter. Years later, Gary Shaw received another p. 129 among documents completely unrelated. This page was paginated by hand (as were the other approximately 500 pages of CD 5) and Lt. Day had written: "....This paper was examined by the FBI laboratory and found not to be identical with the paper gun case found at the scene of the shooting. The Dallas police have not exhibited this to anyone else..."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...ult&id=7301

Below is from a Mike Griffith article, I do have his permission to post his info, as long as nothing is changed within, and he is given the credit due.

Sylvia Meagher discusses some of the problems with these items:

The Commission . . . offered no firm physical evidence of a link between the paper bag and the rifle. The [Warren] Report does not mention the negative examination made by FBI expert James Cadigan. Cadigan said explicitly that he had been unable to find any marks, scratches, abrasions, or other indications that would tie the bag to the rifle. Those negative findings assume greater significance in the light of an FBI report (CE 2974) which states that the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository was in a well-oiled condition. It is difficult to understand why a well-oiled rifle carried in separate parts [as the WC claimed] would not have left distinct traces of oil on the paper bag, easily detected in laboratory tests if not with the naked eye. The expert testimony includes no mention of oil traces, a fact which in itself is cogent evidence against the Commission's conclusions.

Equally significant, there were no oil stains or traces on the blanket in which a well-oiled rifle ostensibly had been stored--not for hours but for months. This serves further to weaken, if not destroy, the Commission's arbitrary finding that the Carcano rifle had been wrapped in that blanket until the night before the assassination. (Meagher 62)

In fact, although the paper bag was allegedly found in the sniper's nest, incredibly, the Dallas police "failed" to take a crime-scene photograph of the bag lying in the nest! The bag does not appear in any of the pictures that were taken of the sniper's nest that afternoon. Some WC apologists have suggested that Lt. Day and Detective Studebaker, the two policemen who took snapshots of the nest, didn't photograph the bag because they didn't notice it. This is surely a farfetched explanation.

The bag, which the Commission said measured 38" x 8" and was allegedly shaped "like a gun case," would have been in plain view and could not possibly have been "missed" or "overlooked." Since Day and Studebaker "noticed" the three spent shells lying on the floor, it strains the imagination to think they would not have noticed the 38" x 8" bag lying in the same small area. (Rusty Livingston, a former Dallas Police Crime Lab detective, says the bag was about 42 inches long. In a photo of the bag, which was taken long after it was "discovered," the bag is seen to measure 38 inches in length, although there appears to be a four-inch flap folded over on the left edge of the bag.)

The bag, say some WC supporters, was folded and thus was not easy to spot. But three of the policemen who saw a bag in the nest gave no indication that it was folded; they said it was a small bag and that a partially eaten chicken leg was lying beside it. One police officer specifically described the bag he saw as a small manufactured bag, such as the kind found in a grocery store's produce department. Another policeman described it as an ordinary lunch bag.

The other explanation offered by WC apologists to explain the "failure" to photograph the bag is that the bag was "accidentally" removed from the nest before it could be photographed. However, the police officer who supposedly removed the bag prematurely indicated that no evidence was removed until AFTER Day and Studebaker "took pictures and everything" (7 H 97). As one studies the WC testimony about the bag, one is struck by the utter confusion and contradiction in the accounts. The accounts differ markedly about where the bag was located, who found it, what it looked like, whether or not it was folded, whether or not it was even a "bag" at all, when it was removed from the sniper's nest, and who handled it.

It should be mentioned that for some reason the bag did not leave the TSBD until three hours after it was supposedly discovered. The small paper bag seen in the sniper's nest probably had nothing to do with the long bag that was later presented as evidence by the Dallas police. Many researchers believe that the police and/or federal agents made the long bag partly with paper that Oswald had previously handled in an effort to strengthen the case against him. This would explain why only two of Oswald's prints were found on the bag (more should have been found), why the bag was devoid of gun oil even though the Carcano was well oiled when discovered, and why the bag did not leave the Depository for three hours.

Faulty Evidence : Mike Griffith

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id184.htm

Frazier Bag,,,,,

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...absPageId=73558

Bag replica

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=160

Here are the Montgomery photos, in case.....the first comparing LHO to the rfile was done by John Dolva...

and Short bag, lightened .....

B.....

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Bernice. I just noticed that in Bugliosi's book he gets around the two versions of the same report problem by claiming they are two different reports about two different pieces of paper, one on the sample removed on 11-22 and one on the simulated bag made on the 1st. What nonsense! I have my own questions on this report--why does everyone cite Shaw as finding it in the Archives? Isn't it still there? If so, in what file? If not, did anyone else ever see it?

Pat, it is true that the sample had the same characteristics as the original while the replica had slightly different characteristics. This was put down to the replica coming from a different roll than the original and sample. So far, so good for the Bug, but in making his case, how on earth does he get around the fact that both documents quite obviously refer to the sample, and that both are dated prior to the creation of the replica?

The two versions of the report are remarkable in other ways, as well.

"He [Day] stated the manager, Mr Truly, saw this bag at the time it was taken into possession by Lt Day. Truly, according to day, had not seen this bag before. No one else viewed it." This could be taken two ways: No one else viewed it prior to it being found OR no one else viewed it period. Either way, there is a substantial problem for the official claims.

"The Dallas Police have not exhibited this to anyone else." At first glance, it's not terribly clear whether this is referring to the original bag, or the sample paper. However, later in the report - but in continuing the same subject, it states, "This bag was returned..." Problem is, the bag was allegedly exhibited to someone - Buell Frazier at the time of his alleged polygraph.

"No one has identified this bag to the Dallas Police Department." That's actually a true statement. Frazier did not identify it when shown. Maybe that's the reason for the denial above that it was ever shown to anyone in the first place.

I recently picked up where I left off last August. In chapter 2 at patspeer.com I have a slide entitled Not Exactly in the Bag, which shows that the bag described by Frazier was less than half the size of the bag pulled from the building. In chapter 3 I have another slide entitled Ye Old Switcheroo? which once again shows that the bag pulled from the building was way too small. Finally, on chapter 4 I have a third slide, entitled Most Definitely Not in the Bag, in which I recreate the photo of Montgomery leaving the building, but with a bag 8 inches wide. It's clear the bag in the original photo is much much wider, probably 12 inches wide.

In the article at the link you provided there are a couple of imaqes whose provenance would be helpful if known. The Dallas photo with the paper...where can that be found? The other photo which arouses my curiosity is the one with a bag right by the gun, with the bag seemingly shorter than the one now in the Archives. Where did that come from?

Any help appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg and Bernice, this is what I've got so far on the bag. Some of the early chapters on my webpage are written from the perspective of an all-seeing FBI agent. I did this to show that the FBI's early conclusions are not only in opposition to what we know now, but to what they should have known then.

From patspeer.com, chapter 2.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter2%3Alooking...eeyesofanall-se

Not Exactly in the Bag

"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.

On 12-2-63, we find out that agents Odum and McNeely, desperate to get around this roadblock, had visited the school book depository on the day before. There they gathered up some paper and some tape, and created a replica sack to show those who knew Oswald. Significantly, this report 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). They then took the original sack, which had been stained by the FBI during testing, and this replica sack, 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. As the paper roll in the school book depository, according to Odum and McNeeley's report, was 24 inches wide, and there has been no report of the edges of the bag having been cut, or of scraps of this paper having been found in the garage where the rifle was stored, the bag was most likely this 24 inches folded in half, and taped along its edge. This means it was 12 inches wide when laying flat. If it had held the disassembled rifle, of course, it would have bulged up in the middle. We do a quick test with some books and a newspaper to determine the width of this bag, when holding a rifle, as it would have been seen by Frazier and Randle. It would have appeared 10 inches wide, or thereabouts. If the bag when holding a rifle was 38 by 10, however, it would have covered 380 sq. inches on the back seat of Frazier's car. The sack described by Frazier, meanwhile, is 27 x 6, 162 sq. inches...LESS THAN HALF this size! No wonder he'd refused to ID the bag."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From patspeer.com, chapter 3

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter3%3Alooking...nspecter%27seye

Ye Olde Switcheroo?

On 4-6-64, the Commission takes the testimony of Dallas Detective Robert Studebaker. He briefly discusses the finding of the bag found in the sniper's nest. He offers no explanation for why he failed to photograph this bag where it was found. This bag we should recall, is believed to have been used by Oswald to bring the assassination rifle in to work. The only witnesses to Oswald with a bag, however, have insisted the bag carried by Oswald was far smaller than this bag. Studebaker testifies the bag he found was "I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long" and "Approximately 8 inches" wide. (7H137-149). This catches our attention. On 3-11-64, Counsel Joe Ball had got one of the two witnesses to see Oswald with a bag, Buell Frazier, who'd previously said the bag he saw was 5 or 6 inches wide, to agree that the bag he saw could have been as wide as the bag found in the sniper's nest. Ball then got the second witness, Linnie Mae Randle, to testify that the width of the bag found in the sniper's nest was "about right." Of the bag found in the sniper's nest, Ball said, furthermore, that "This package is about the span of my hand, say 8 inches." This suggests the package shown both Frazier and Randle was about 8 inches wide.

There's a huge problem with this. Photographs of the bag pulled from the sniper's nest on the day of the assassination suggest it was about a foot wide. An FBI memo on the creation of a replica bag, furthermore, states that the paper used was 24 inches wide (CD7, p292). One can only assume the paper would have been folded in half to make the bag, and that the resulting bag would be 12 inches wide like in the photos, right? The words of a 12-2-63 FBI report on the showing of this replica sack to Randle are also telling. When discussing her impression of the package she saw on 11-22, it states "Her designation on the replica sack was found to be 8 1/2 inches for the width of the original package she'd seen Oswald carrying." (CD7, p299). She couldn't have designated an 8 1/2 inch width on a package only 8 inches wide, now could she? From this it seems clear that someone or some group, possibly the FBI in unison with the Warren Commission, has pulled some evidentiary origami, and has altered the proportions of the bag between early December, 1963, and March, 1964.

That someone might be James Cadigan, the FBI's paper expert, who testified only 3 days before Studebaker. When asked if he found any marks inside the bag on 11-23 that could tie it to the rifle, he testified: "I couldn't find any such markings." When asked if one could make an inference from this he testified further that: "I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag, it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun. The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument." When asked further if, assuming the rifle had not been wrapped in cloth, it should have left marks of some sort, he replied: "The absence of markings to me wouldn't mean much. I was looking for markings I could associate. The absence of marks, the significance of them, I don't know." (4H89-101). Clearly, Cadigan and his superiors were not the curious sort. They had Oswald's rifle. Within a few more days they had a replica bag. All they had to do was put the rifle in the bag and re-enact Oswald's trip to work and see if the bag was scratched or marked by the grease on Oswald's gun. That they failed to do so, and that the Warren Commission failed to ask them to do so, reveals either their incredible incompetence or deliberate negligence.

One might suspect the latter. While Cadigan has testified that the tape found on the paper bag was 25/1000 of an inch wider than a tape sample taken from the depository on 11-22, only to say that this doesn't really matter, he has failed to provide any measurements for the bag he studied, both inside and out. Why wasn't he asked this? Why has Ball asked Studebaker about the size of an object he only saw for a minute, when only days before he had Cadigan, who'd studied this object in detail, at his disposal, and had failed to ask him? And is it a coincidence that Studebaker has said the bag he found in the sniper's nest was 8 inches wide, and that the bag now being shown to witnesses is 8 inches wide, when the bag pulled from the sniper's nest was clearly much wider? Has someone pulled a switcheroo? Are the FBI and the Dallas detectives in cahoots? Is Ball in on it? The testimony on the bag couldn't smell any worse if the bag had been wrapped around day-old fish.

From chapter 4 at patspeer.com

Most Definitely Not in the Bag

Should one think the commission's failure to clear up how the shots were fired was an isolated failure, one should be reminded that, as the Dallas Police, the Secret Service and the FBI before them, the Warren Commissioners were unable to figure out how Oswald (or anyone) got the assassination rifle into the building. The only two people to see Oswald with a bag on 11-22, Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle, after all, both testified that the bag they saw in his possession was way too small to have held the rifle. The Warren Commission, not surprisingly, assumed they were mistaken.

But the problem with the bag, when compounded by other factors, elevates the case to what many believe is a reasonable doubt. Consider that Jack Dougherty, the only one to see Oswald come into the building, didn't even recall his carrying a small package, let alone a large package, when he came inside. Consider that no one else saw Oswald with a package in the building. Consider that the paper bag purportedly used by Oswald to transport the rifle to work was made from materials found within the school book depository, and was apparently, due to the nature of the tape's being all torn from one piece and its being automatically moistened as it was pulled from the machine, made on the premises. Consider that the company' s shipper, Troy West, testified that Oswald had never worked at his shipping table, and that people didn't just come up and use his shipping paper and tape, and that, besides, he was always at his shipping table, even during lunch. Consider that nobody else saw Oswald take paper or tape from the table on 11-21, or at any other time. Consider that Buell Wesley Frazier, who gave Oswald a ride home on 11--21, didn't notice a large paper package in Oswald's possession, or any stiffness in Oswald's movements to suggest he was hiding such a package under his shirt. Consider as well that Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine, two grown women living in a tiny house, failed to notice such a stiffness in Oswald's behavior when he came home from work, and failed to see the bag in the house or in the garage, after he arrived. Consider that there is no photograph of the bag where it was purportedly found near the sniper's nest. Consider that the bag removed from the building, and as photographed by the Dallas Morning News, Dallas Times-Herald, and Fort Worth Star-Telegram, appears to be far wider than the bag placed into evidence by the FBI.

Now take the next step and consider that the paper bag was, according to the report of the Dallas Detective who found it, L.D. Montgomery, initialed by Detectives Robert Studebaker, Marvin Johnson, and himself upon discovery in the sniper's nest (24H314), and that none of them were asked to verify their initials or even shown the bag when testifying before the Commission on 4-6-64.

Now consider the testimony of Lt. J.C. Day on 4-22-64:

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."

Well, why is there no mention of the other men's initials on this sack? Day had been called away to inspect the rifle on the other side of the building at the time the bag was found. Day's statement that he wrote his name on the bag "at the time the bag was found before it left our possession" can therefore be taken as a suggestion that he wrote his name on it sometime later that day, before it was given to the FBI. Could the sack initialed by Day have been a different sack entirely?

Amazingly, yes. Consider the next section of Lt. Day's testimony:

Mr. BELIN. Did you ever get the kind of sample used at the School Book Depository?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, I had the bag listed as----

Mr. BELIN. Commission Exhibit 626 or 142.

Mr. DAY. On the first floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and I noticed from their wrapping bench there was paper and tape of a similar--the tape was of the same width as this. I took the bag over and tried it, and I noticed that the tape was the same width as on the bag.

Mr. BELIN. Did it appear to have the same color?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. All right. Then what did you do?

Mr. DAY. Sir?

Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?

Mr. DAY. I directed one of the officers standing by me, I don't know which, to get a piece of the tape and a piece of the paper from the wrapping bench.

Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 677, I will ask you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. This is the tape and paper collected from the first floor in the shipping department of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. Does this have any identification marks on it?

Mr. DAY. It has my name, "J. C. Day, Dallas Police Department," and also in my writing, "Shipping Department."

Mr. BELIN. Any other writing on there that you recognize?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; Detective Studebaker, who was with me, and in his writing it says, "Paper sample from first floor, Texas School Book Depository, Studebaker, 11-22-63." The tape also has Studebaker's writing on it, "Tape sample from first floor." (4H 249-278)

There is no mention of the size of this sample. As it was not considered evidence, furthermore, it was not even photographed by the Dallas Police in its original state (as far as I've been able to ascertain). An 11-26-63 report by the FBI's Vincent Drain on his flights from and to Dallas with the primary evidence, moreover, notes that "sample of brown paper used by Texas School Book Depository and brown tape used by Texas School Book Depository were not returned since Chief Curry stated these were not evidence and had only been sent to the FBI Laboratory for comparison purposes." (CD5 p161). As this decision was made before the FBI gained jurisdiction over the case it suggests that the Dallas Police were not particularly concerned about the samples at this time. Perhaps they'd felt they could have the FBI testify that the sample paper and sample tape matched the bag and tape placed into evidence without having the samples placed into evidence as well. Or perhaps this indicates that the FBI, having helped the Dallas Police with the creation of a new and improved bag complete with Oswald's fingerprints, thought it a waste of time and an unnecessary risk to send back to Dallas a sample far smaller than the sample originally obtained by Day, and as seen by other Dallas detectives not in on their scam.

Adding to this possibility is that, on June 9, 1964, as a response to a May 20th Warren Commission request, the FBI took the paper bag back to Dallas, and inadequately traced back its chain of custody. While the chain of custody on the other items brought back to Dallas--the various bullets, cartridges, and bullet fragments related to the assassination, and even the blanket used by Oswald to store his rifle in the Paine family's garage--were traced back to the first ones to discover them, the brown paper bag was never shown to Montgomery, Johnson, or Studebaker, the three men who first saw the bag in the depository, and who reportedly initialed it on the premises. It was shown to just one man: Lt. J.C. Day. The words to this report are as follows:

"On June 9, 1964, Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Crime Laboratory of the Dallas Police Department, Dallas, Texas, was exhibited the wrapping-paper bag, C10, by Special Agent Vincent E. Drain, Federal Bureau of Investigation. After examining this bag, Lieutenant Day advised he could positively identify this bag as the one he and Detective R.L. Studebaker found on the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Lieutenant Day stated this paper bag was marked on November 22, 1963 by him. This bag was subsequently delivered on November 22, 1963 to Special Agent Vincent E. Drain for transmittal to the Laboratory of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington D.C., for examination." (24H418).

Notice that there's no mention of Montgomery and Johnson, the detectives who, according to the Dallas Police Department's own records, found the bag and took it over to the crime lab. (24H260). Notice also that Day says only that he marked the bag on the 22nd, not that he marked it on the scene. Notice as well that the agent tracing the chain of evidence, Vincent Drain, was the one who first took the bag to Washington, and the one who later claimed returning the paper sample to Dallas was unnecessary. Day's claim that he found the bag, and Drain's failure to track down Montgomery and Johnson, and even Studebaker--who'd previously testified that they'd found the bag--is undoubtedly suspicious to those even slightly prone to suspicion.

But, wait, it gets even more suspicious. Drain had discussed the bag with Day at an earlier time as well. An 11-30-63 report by Drain on an 11-29-63 interview of Day reveals:

"Lt. Carl Day, Dallas Police Department, stated he found the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case near the scene of the shooting on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He stated the manager, Mr. Truly, saw this bag at the time it was taken into possession by Lt. Day. Truly, according to Day, had not seen this bag before. No one else viewed it. Truly furnished similar brown paper from the roll that was used in packing books by the Texas School Book Depository. This paper was examined by the FBI Laboratory and found to have the same observable characteristics as the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case which was found near the scene of the shooting of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The Dallas Police have not exhibited this to anyone else. It was immediately locked up by Day, kept in his possession until it was turned over to FBI agent Drain for transmittal to the Laboratory. It was examined by the Laboratory, returned to the Dallas Police Department November 24, 1963, locked up in the Crime Laboratory. This bag was returned to Agent Drain on November 26, 1963, and taken back to the FBI Laboratory.

Lt. Day stated no one has identified this bag to the Dallas Police Department." (CD5, p129).

Beyond offering us yet another witness purported to have seen the bag in the depository not shown the bag at a later date by either the Warren Commission or FBI (Roy Truly) this report has numerous, undoubtedly suspicious, errors. Not only does it say Day found the bag, it says no one else viewed it. There's no mention at all of Montgomery, Johnson, and Studebaker. The report also errs in that it says the bag was "immediately locked up by Day", and that it was not exhibited to anyone else. This conceals that on this same day, 11-29-63, Drain interviewed Dallas detective R.D. Lewis, who acknowledged giving Buell Wesley Frazier a polygraph in which Frazier was shown the bag and refused to identify it as the bag he saw Oswald carry into the building. (CD7, p291). Is it just a coincidence that Drain's report on Day, containing false information, was written up on 11-30, and included in the FBI report of 11-30, and that Drain's report on Lewis, conducted on the same day, wasn't written up till 12-1 and forwarded to Washington till 12-10, after the completion of the 12-9 summary report given to the President and Warren Commission, and leaked to the press?

The report on R.D. Lewis presents another problem as well, though not an insurmountable one. Although Day testified that "the sack was released on November 22 to the FBI about 11:45 p.m." Lewis claimed it was shown to Frazier during Frazier's polygraph examination. Well, when was this polygraph examination? Drain's report on Lewis doesn't say. According to the report of Officers Rose, Stovall, and Adamcik, the detectives tasked with picking up Frazier after the shooting, however, "R.D. Lewis arrived on the fourth floor about 11:20 PM and conducted the polygraph examination until approximately 12:10 AM 11-23-63." (21H602). Unless Frazier was shown the bag towards the beginning of his examination, he would have to have been shown a different bag than the one released to the FBI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great job, Pat. I should have read your article before replying. Would have saved telling you things you had already spotted for yourself.

I can only really supplement the following section by quoting how I wrote about this in my own article:

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."

The FBI takes over the handling of Frazier

On December 1, (the same day that Drain interviewed Lewis) Bardwell ("Bob") Odum and Gibbon McNeely interviewed Frazier at his place of residence. During the interview, Frazier showed them where the bag extended to when he saw it on the back seat of his car. This measured 27 inches - three inches more than the estimate he had given police. An improvement. Frazier then repeated what he'd said during his polygraph - that at the time he saw it being carried by Oswald, he'd concluded that the package was wrapped "in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by 5 and 10 cent stores". But this time, he added that reflecting upon the matter, he realized that he'd reached this conclusion when he'd observed the package under Oswald's arm as Oswald was turned with his back to him. Odum, using a replica sack made from material at the TSBD, reconstructed the scene, which showed the closest Frazier had got to Oswald was 12 feet, and that the visible area of the package from Frazier's vantage point measured nine inches by one inch. He also now stated that his conclusion about the sack being made of crinkly paper from a 5 and dime was based to a "considerable extent" upon the fact that the color of the sack was a very light brown as compared with the very dark brown paper used for heavier grocery sacks, and that the color of the replica was the same color as the one he'd seen in Oswald's possession. But the FBI cannot have it both ways. By reconstructing how Frazier described Oswald carrying the bag in order to convince the witness he was probably mistaken about it being made of cheap, crinkly paper, the FBI by extension, was admitting the rifle was not inside the bag, as the broken down Mannlicher-Carcano is simply far too long to be carried in that manner. On the other hand, if they had insisted Oswald carried the bag in some other way, then they would have no basis to suggest Frazier's initial description was inaccurate. In any case, Frazier had seen Oswald's bag up close inside the car.

What I thought I included with that, but apparently forgot to, was pointing out that Frazier, in describing the replica bag as the same color as the one Oswald had, actually further strengthened the case that the "original" was not Oswald's - though no doubt it was meant to suggest the opposite. Reason being, Cadigan stated in testimony that the replica was a different color to the original.

Oh wait! One more thing.. a comment on all those references to the bag looking like a gun case - you quote one:

"Lt. Carl Day, Dallas Police Department, stated he found the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case..."

The obvious question is why it did not remind Frazier or Randle of a gun case.

But they weren't alone in that lack of ability to see what the DPD saw.

In the FBI report on Lewis, they claim he (Lewis) only refers to it as a gun case because the DPD is of the opinion the brown heavy paper was used to carry the rifle...the paper referred to by Lewis is not a gun case at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...