Jump to content
The Education Forum

Crime Scene Investigator - Dallas


William Kelly
 Share

Recommended Posts

CSI Dallas -

Intentional or Negligent?

Was it intentional or negligence

1) That the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest boxes were moved before being officially photographed by the crime scene investigators?

2) That the three shells were picked up from the floor by Capt. Will Fritz before being officially photographed by the crime scene investigators?

3) That the paper wrapping paper was not seen by the first to arrive and was said to have been removed before being officially photographed by crime scene investigators?

4) That the chicken bones and Dr. Pepper pop bottle were not seen by the first to arrive and were moved before being officially photographed by crime scene investigators, and have since disappeared?

5) That the rifle found on the Sixth Floor of the TSBD was misidentified as a "Mauser" by three officers in their official reports?

6) That the scene of the crime – the TSBD was not officially declared "secure" until over an hour after the last shot was fired and long after the assassin(s) had escaped?

7) That the officer who found a jacket allegedly discarded by Tippit's fleeing killer was never identified?

8) That the names and addresses of the witnesses to the arrest of the suspect and patrons of the Texas Theater were never taken, or the list has disappeared?

9) That after being searched, interrogated and placed in a lineup, four bullets were found in the pocket of the leading suspect Lee Harvey Oswald?

10) That no transcript or recordings were taken of the interrogations of Oswald?

11) That while in custody Oswald spoke on the phone for 30 minutes to someone who has never been identified?

12) That Jack Ruby was permitted to shoot and kill Oswald while in Dallas police custody?

13) That the limo was not impounded for proper forensic examination?

14) That the body of the victim was never secured for proper forensic autopsy?

15) That the prime suspect's clipboard was found on the sixth floor weeks later?

16) That it was weeks before the prime suspect's other jacket - worn on the day of the murder was found by the window of the first floor lunchroom, where the suspect claimed to have been at the time of the assassination?

And there's probably more. These were just off the top of my head.

Well, were these just negligent cops not doing their jobs as they were trained to do?

Or were these intentional screw ups purposely done in order to thwart justice?

What do you think?

An inquisitive mind wants to know.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

CSI Dallas -

Intentional or Negligent?

Was it intentional or negligence

1) That the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest boxes were moved before being officially photographed by the crime scene investigators?

2) That the three shells were picked up from the floor by Capt. Will Fritz before being officially photographed by the crime scene investigators?

3) That the paper wrapping paper was not seen by the first to arrive and was said to have been removed before being officially photographed by crime scene investigators?

4) That the chicken bones and Dr. Pepper pop bottle were not seen by the first to arrive and were moved before being officially photographed by crime scene investigators, and have since disappeared?

5) That the rifle found on the Sixth Floor of the TSBD was misidentified as a "Mauser" by three officers in their official reports?

6) That the scene of the crime – the TSBD was not officially declared "secure" until over an hour after the last shot was fired and long after the assassin(s) had escaped?

7) That the officer who found a jacket allegedly discarded by Tippit's fleeing killer was never identified?

8) That the names and addresses of the witnesses to the arrest of the suspect and patrons of the Texas Theater were never taken, or the list has disappeared?

9) That after being searched, interrogated and placed in a lineup, four bullets were found in the pocket of the leading suspect Lee Harvey Oswald?

10) That no transcript or recordings were taken of the interrogations of Oswald?

11) That while in custody Oswald spoke on the phone for 30 minutes to someone who has never been identified?

12) That Jack Ruby was permitted to shoot and kill Oswald while in Dallas police custody?

13) That the limo was not impounded for proper forensic examination?

14) That the body of the victim was never secured for proper forensic autopsy?

15) That the prime suspect's clipboard was found on the sixth floor weeks later?

16) That it was weeks before the prime suspect's other jacket - worn on the day of the murder was found by the window of the first floor lunchroom, where the suspect claimed to have been at the time of the assassination?

And there's probably more. These were just off the top of my head.

Well, were these just negligent cops not doing their jobs as they were trained to do?

Or were these intentional screw ups purposely done in order to thwart justice?

What do you think?

An inquisitive mind wants to know.

BK

Yes, Bill it smells to high heaven, and can not possibly be excused by the assumption of many that the DPD didn't know any better. They DID know better. So why did they screw-up so tragically? I suspect that at least part of this list was not a screw-up, but a cover story designed to hide what really happened.

FWIW, the paper bag was supposedly never photographed by the DPD until it was sent BACK to the FBI on the 26th. The disappearance of the lunch sack containing the chicken bones, which WERE, if I recall, seen by the first officer on the scene, Mooney, is not as problematic, but is also interesting. I mean, if they assumed THIS bag was the lunch bag of the sniper, why didn't they forward it to the FBI for silver nitrate testing, as they did with a piece of wrapping paper they assumed top have held the rifle... I mean, what's the difference? So why the different treatment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was photographed on a different floor?

(The bullets were found in Lees pocket while in the corridor waiting for the lineup, and, afaik, without witnesses to the finding.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CSI Dallas -

Intentional or Negligent?

Was it intentional or negligence

1) That the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest boxes were moved before being officially photographed by the crime scene investigators?

2) That the three shells were picked up from the floor by Capt. Will Fritz before being officially photographed by the crime scene investigators?

3) That the paper wrapping paper was not seen by the first to arrive and was said to have been removed before being officially photographed by crime scene investigators?

4) That the chicken bones and Dr. Pepper pop bottle were not seen by the first to arrive and were moved before being officially photographed by crime scene investigators, and have since disappeared?

5) That the rifle found on the Sixth Floor of the TSBD was misidentified as a "Mauser" by three officers in their official reports?

6) That the scene of the crime – the TSBD was not officially declared "secure" until over an hour after the last shot was fired and long after the assassin(s) had escaped?

7) That the officer who found a jacket allegedly discarded by Tippit's fleeing killer was never identified?

8) That the names and addresses of the witnesses to the arrest of the suspect and patrons of the Texas Theater were never taken, or the list has disappeared?

9) That after being searched, interrogated and placed in a lineup, four bullets were found in the pocket of the leading suspect Lee Harvey Oswald?

10) That no transcript or recordings were taken of the interrogations of Oswald?

11) That while in custody Oswald spoke on the phone for 30 minutes to someone who has never been identified?

12) That Jack Ruby was permitted to shoot and kill Oswald while in Dallas police custody?

13) That the limo was not impounded for proper forensic examination?

14) That the body of the victim was never secured for proper forensic autopsy?

15) That the prime suspect's clipboard was found on the sixth floor weeks later?

16) That it was weeks before the prime suspect's other jacket - worn on the day of the murder was found by the window of the first floor lunchroom, where the suspect claimed to have been at the time of the assassination?

And there's probably more. These were just off the top of my head.

Well, were these just negligent cops not doing their jobs as they were trained to do?

Or were these intentional screw ups purposely done in order to thwart justice?

What do you think?

An inquisitive mind wants to know.

BK

Bill,

my firm belief is that these guys were used to framing people (and some of those may have even been guilty! :lol: ). They were also used to not having to be careful about it, leading to certain amount of slopiness in the execution of the frames.

Another one: What was the name of the witness who reported the Tippit suspect running into the church?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could it take more than 30 minutes to find the SN after Brennan, Euins and Worrell had all independantly reported the location to police outside the TSBD within minutes of the shots being fired?

Mooney only stumbled on the SN after returning to search the 6th Floor a second time. He saw the chicken bones and bag in the SN FWIW.

Just as well the DP has "officer friendly",Tippit, the "poor dumb cop" who managed to find the assassin all by himself with just a general description about the same time the SN was stumbled on. Amazing feat of policework considering his fellow officers' "Keystone Cops" antics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CSI Dallas -

Intentional or Negligent?

Was it intentional or negligence

1) That the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest boxes were moved before being officially photographed by the crime scene investigators?

2) That the three shells were picked up from the floor by Capt. Will Fritz before being officially photographed by the crime scene investigators?

3) That the paper wrapping paper was not seen by the first to arrive and was said to have been removed before being officially photographed by crime scene investigators?

4) That the chicken bones and Dr. Pepper pop bottle were not seen by the first to arrive and were moved before being officially photographed by crime scene investigators, and have since disappeared?

5) That the rifle found on the Sixth Floor of the TSBD was misidentified as a "Mauser" by three officers in their official reports?

6) That the scene of the crime – the TSBD was not officially declared "secure" until over an hour after the last shot was fired and long after the assassin(s) had escaped?

7) That the officer who found a jacket allegedly discarded by Tippit's fleeing killer was never identified?

8) That the names and addresses of the witnesses to the arrest of the suspect and patrons of the Texas Theater were never taken, or the list has disappeared?

9) That after being searched, interrogated and placed in a lineup, four bullets were found in the pocket of the leading suspect Lee Harvey Oswald?

10) That no transcript or recordings were taken of the interrogations of Oswald?

11) That while in custody Oswald spoke on the phone for 30 minutes to someone who has never been identified?

12) That Jack Ruby was permitted to shoot and kill Oswald while in Dallas police custody?

13) That the limo was not impounded for proper forensic examination?

14) That the body of the victim was never secured for proper forensic autopsy?

15) That the prime suspect's clipboard was found on the sixth floor weeks later?

16) That it was weeks before the prime suspect's other jacket - worn on the day of the murder was found by the window of the first floor lunchroom, where the suspect claimed to have been at the time of the assassination?

And there's probably more. These were just off the top of my head.

Well, were these just negligent cops not doing their jobs as they were trained to do?

Or were these intentional screw ups purposely done in order to thwart justice?

What do you think?

An inquisitive mind wants to know.

BK

Yes, Bill it smells to high heaven, and can not possibly be excused by the assumption of many that the DPD didn't know any better. They DID know better. So why did they screw-up so tragically? I suspect that at least part of this list was not a screw-up, but a cover story designed to hide what really happened.

FWIW, the paper bag was supposedly never photographed by the DPD until it was sent BACK to the FBI on the 26th. The disappearance of the lunch sack containing the chicken bones, which WERE, if I recall, seen by the first officer on the scene, Mooney, is not as problematic, but is also interesting. I mean, if they assumed THIS bag was the lunch bag of the sniper, why didn't they forward it to the FBI for silver nitrate testing, as they did with a piece of wrapping paper they assumed top have held the rifle... I mean, what's the difference? So why the different treatment?

I beleive that the paper bag appears in a photograph of items the DPD released to the FBI taken the night of the 22nd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CSI Dallas -

Intentional or Negligent?

Was it intentional or negligence

1) That the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest boxes were moved before being officially photographed by the crime scene investigators?

2) That the three shells were picked up from the floor by Capt. Will Fritz before being officially photographed by the crime scene investigators?

3) That the paper wrapping paper was not seen by the first to arrive and was said to have been removed before being officially photographed by crime scene investigators?

4) That the chicken bones and Dr. Pepper pop bottle were not seen by the first to arrive and were moved before being officially photographed by crime scene investigators, and have since disappeared?

5) That the rifle found on the Sixth Floor of the TSBD was misidentified as a "Mauser" by three officers in their official reports?

6) That the scene of the crime – the TSBD was not officially declared "secure" until over an hour after the last shot was fired and long after the assassin(s) had escaped?

7) That the officer who found a jacket allegedly discarded by Tippit's fleeing killer was never identified?

8) That the names and addresses of the witnesses to the arrest of the suspect and patrons of the Texas Theater were never taken, or the list has disappeared?

9) That after being searched, interrogated and placed in a lineup, four bullets were found in the pocket of the leading suspect Lee Harvey Oswald?

10) That no transcript or recordings were taken of the interrogations of Oswald?

11) That while in custody Oswald spoke on the phone for 30 minutes to someone who has never been identified?

12) That Jack Ruby was permitted to shoot and kill Oswald while in Dallas police custody?

13) That the limo was not impounded for proper forensic examination?

14) That the body of the victim was never secured for proper forensic autopsy?

15) That the prime suspect's clipboard was found on the sixth floor weeks later?

16) That it was weeks before the prime suspect's other jacket - worn on the day of the murder was found by the window of the first floor lunchroom, where the suspect claimed to have been at the time of the assassination?

And there's probably more. These were just off the top of my head.

Well, were these just negligent cops not doing their jobs as they were trained to do?

Or were these intentional screw ups purposely done in order to thwart justice?

What do you think?

An inquisitive mind wants to know.

BK

Yes, Bill it smells to high heaven, and can not possibly be excused by the assumption of many that the DPD didn't know any better. They DID know better. So why did they screw-up so tragically? I suspect that at least part of this list was not a screw-up, but a cover story designed to hide what really happened.

FWIW, the paper bag was supposedly never photographed by the DPD until it was sent BACK to the FBI on the 26th. The disappearance of the lunch sack containing the chicken bones, which WERE, if I recall, seen by the first officer on the scene, Mooney, is not as problematic, but is also interesting. I mean, if they assumed THIS bag was the lunch bag of the sniper, why didn't they forward it to the FBI for silver nitrate testing, as they did with a piece of wrapping paper they assumed top have held the rifle... I mean, what's the difference? So why the different treatment?

I beleive that the paper bag appears in a photograph of items the DPD released to the FBI taken the night of the 22nd.

Yes, But only after it had been moved and replaced to where it was supposed to have been. - BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CSI Dallas -

Intentional or Negligent?

Was it intentional or negligence

1) That the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest boxes were moved before being officially photographed by the crime scene investigators?

2) That the three shells were picked up from the floor by Capt. Will Fritz before being officially photographed by the crime scene investigators?

3) That the paper wrapping paper was not seen by the first to arrive and was said to have been removed before being officially photographed by crime scene investigators?

4) That the chicken bones and Dr. Pepper pop bottle were not seen by the first to arrive and were moved before being officially photographed by crime scene investigators, and have since disappeared?

5) That the rifle found on the Sixth Floor of the TSBD was misidentified as a "Mauser" by three officers in their official reports?

6) That the scene of the crime – the TSBD was not officially declared "secure" until over an hour after the last shot was fired and long after the assassin(s) had escaped?

7) That the officer who found a jacket allegedly discarded by Tippit's fleeing killer was never identified?

8) That the names and addresses of the witnesses to the arrest of the suspect and patrons of the Texas Theater were never taken, or the list has disappeared?

9) That after being searched, interrogated and placed in a lineup, four bullets were found in the pocket of the leading suspect Lee Harvey Oswald?

10) That no transcript or recordings were taken of the interrogations of Oswald?

11) That while in custody Oswald spoke on the phone for 30 minutes to someone who has never been identified?

12) That Jack Ruby was permitted to shoot and kill Oswald while in Dallas police custody?

13) That the limo was not impounded for proper forensic examination?

14) That the body of the victim was never secured for proper forensic autopsy?

15) That the prime suspect's clipboard was found on the sixth floor weeks later?

16) That it was weeks before the prime suspect's other jacket - worn on the day of the murder was found by the window of the first floor lunchroom, where the suspect claimed to have been at the time of the assassination?

And there's probably more. These were just off the top of my head.

Well, were these just negligent cops not doing their jobs as they were trained to do?

Or were these intentional screw ups purposely done in order to thwart justice?

What do you think?

An inquisitive mind wants to know.

BK

Yes, Bill it smells to high heaven, and can not possibly be excused by the assumption of many that the DPD didn't know any better. They DID know better. So why did they screw-up so tragically? I suspect that at least part of this list was not a screw-up, but a cover story designed to hide what really happened.

FWIW, the paper bag was supposedly never photographed by the DPD until it was sent BACK to the FBI on the 26th. The disappearance of the lunch sack containing the chicken bones, which WERE, if I recall, seen by the first officer on the scene, Mooney, is not as problematic, but is also interesting. I mean, if they assumed THIS bag was the lunch bag of the sniper, why didn't they forward it to the FBI for silver nitrate testing, as they did with a piece of wrapping paper they assumed top have held the rifle... I mean, what's the difference? So why the different treatment?

I beleive that the paper bag appears in a photograph of items the DPD released to the FBI taken the night of the 22nd.

I assume that a meeting was held with the DPD/secret service where Fritz/Curry were advised they will not be supplying the protection of the president of any kind . Who was present? .Were some of the unidentified SS men running interference? the SS? agent on the grassy knoll holding people back, The SS? agent that Craig gave his observations to .If the DPD were told they would not be needed for security, then after the shooting it would be up to the SS? to conduct and steer the investigation after all who would want to take the responsibilty on when you were'nt required in the first place .I think that the DPD took a step back and just became the foot soldiers for their controllers they gather the evidence and give it to the SS? we will take it from here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Partly they were directed by prominent Dallas persons, to what extent? Perhaps a scrutiny of the DCC top memberhip , and lower rung members, if found, could help with the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Partly they were directed by prominent Dallas persons, to what extent? Perhaps a scrutiny of the DCC top memberhip , and lower rung members, if found, could help with the answer.

There maybe a civil list or maybe in the local papers some event attended by all? .Its certainly worth a look ,No doubt we would find Mr Byrd owner of the TSBD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CSI Dallas -

Intentional or Negligent?

Was it intentional or negligence

1) That the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest boxes were moved before being officially photographed by the crime scene investigators?

2) That the three shells were picked up from the floor by Capt. Will Fritz before being officially photographed by the crime scene investigators?

3) That the paper wrapping paper was not seen by the first to arrive and was said to have been removed before being officially photographed by crime scene investigators?

4) That the chicken bones and Dr. Pepper pop bottle were not seen by the first to arrive and were moved before being officially photographed by crime scene investigators, and have since disappeared?

5) That the rifle found on the Sixth Floor of the TSBD was misidentified as a "Mauser" by three officers in their official reports?

6) That the scene of the crime – the TSBD was not officially declared "secure" until over an hour after the last shot was fired and long after the assassin(s) had escaped?

7) That the officer who found a jacket allegedly discarded by Tippit's fleeing killer was never identified?

8) That the names and addresses of the witnesses to the arrest of the suspect and patrons of the Texas Theater were never taken, or the list has disappeared?

9) That after being searched, interrogated and placed in a lineup, four bullets were found in the pocket of the leading suspect Lee Harvey Oswald?

10) That no transcript or recordings were taken of the interrogations of Oswald?

11) That while in custody Oswald spoke on the phone for 30 minutes to someone who has never been identified?

12) That Jack Ruby was permitted to shoot and kill Oswald while in Dallas police custody?

13) That the limo was not impounded for proper forensic examination?

14) That the body of the victim was never secured for proper forensic autopsy?

15) That the prime suspect's clipboard was found on the sixth floor weeks later?

16) That it was weeks before the prime suspect's other jacket - worn on the day of the murder was found by the window of the first floor lunchroom, where the suspect claimed to have been at the time of the assassination?

And there's probably more. These were just off the top of my head.

Well, were these just negligent cops not doing their jobs as they were trained to do?

Or were these intentional screw ups purposely done in order to thwart justice?

What do you think?

An inquisitive mind wants to know.

BK

Yes, Bill it smells to high heaven, and can not possibly be excused by the assumption of many that the DPD didn't know any better. They DID know better. So why did they screw-up so tragically? I suspect that at least part of this list was not a screw-up, but a cover story designed to hide what really happened.

FWIW, the paper bag was supposedly never photographed by the DPD until it was sent BACK to the FBI on the 26th. The disappearance of the lunch sack containing the chicken bones, which WERE, if I recall, seen by the first officer on the scene, Mooney, is not as problematic, but is also interesting. I mean, if they assumed THIS bag was the lunch bag of the sniper, why didn't they forward it to the FBI for silver nitrate testing, as they did with a piece of wrapping paper they assumed top have held the rifle... I mean, what's the difference? So why the different treatment?

I beleive that the paper bag appears in a photograph of items the DPD released to the FBI taken the night of the 22nd.

Yes, But only after it had been moved and replaced to where it was supposed to have been. - BK

TODD; I beleive that the paper bag appears in a photograph of items the DPD released to the FBI taken the night of the 22nd.

BILL: Yes, But only after it had been moved and replaced to where it was supposed to have been. - BK

No, the photograph I am referring to was taken at the DPD and is of several items of evidence sitting atop a desk or counter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, the paper bag was supposedly never photographed by the DPD until it was sent BACK to the FBI on the 26th. The disappearance of the lunch sack containing the chicken bones, which WERE, if I recall, seen by the first officer on the scene, Mooney, is not as problematic, but is also interesting. I mean, if they assumed THIS bag was the lunch bag of the sniper, why didn't they forward it to the FBI for silver nitrate testing, as they did with a piece of wrapping paper they assumed top have held the rifle... I mean, what's the difference? So why the different treatment?

I beleive that the paper bag appears in a photograph of items the DPD released to the FBI taken the night of the 22nd.

Sorry, there is no such photograph. While the DPD took multiple photos of the gun on 11-22, there are no DPD pictures of the bag until they returned the bag on the 26th. I am 99% positive the bag was created by the DPD, or the FBI, with Lt. Day's knowledge.

From Chapter 4d at patspeer.com:

There is an even stranger circumstance. The only photo of the paper bag in the Dallas Police Archives is a photo in box 12 folder 7 file 1.

The description for this photo in the DPD Archives reads "Photograph of the evidence sent to the FBI. Date unknown." The bag in this photo appears to be about 8 inches wide and could quite possibly be the bag in the FBI and Warren Commission photos. The bag appears to be discolored, however, which suggests that this is a photo of the bag after its return from the FBI Crime Laboratory, where it had been discolored by silver nitrate. Sure enough, this photo can also be found in the FBI files (62-109060 Sec EBF, Serial 1866, p73). Here, however, on the page just before, the back of the photo is presented, and bears the date 11-26-63.

Should one find that unconvincing, one should know that this photo also makes an appearance in Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry's 1969 book JFK Assassination File. Here it is listed as "Evidence released to the FBI Laboratory for tests." No date is provided. Fortunately, however, Curry lists all the items in the photograph, and this tells us what we need to know. Item #5 is listed as "Textile fibers found on the left side of the butt plate of the recovered rifle." These fibers were officially undetected in Dallas, and only discovered during an examination in the FBI Crime Lab on 11-23. This proves that this photograph was taken after the return of the evidence to Dallas. More telling, Item #2 is "Oswald's right palm print found on a book carton which was part of the sniper's perch in the book depository." This palm print wasn't provided the FBI till the 26th. A close look at the piece of cardboard holding this palm print, moreover, reveals that it has the signature of Lt. J.C. Day along the bottom. Photos taken on the 25th of the sniper's nest, with this piece of cardboard re-attached to its box, reveal that Day had not yet signed the cardboard. This proves it then, several times over--the only photo of the paper bag in the Dallas Archives is a photo of evidence shipped out on the 26th.

Should one still have doubts, however, one should consider the Warren Commission testimony of Lt. Day. When presenting this photo as exhibit CE 738, Day readily admitted he'd taken the photo on the 26th. The Warren Commission, in turn, entitled this exhibit "Photograph of property released by the Dallas Police Department to the FBI on November 26, 1963." So why did the Dallas crime scene investigators not only fail to photograph the paper bag when found on the scene in the school book depository, but at any time prior to Oswald's death?

Something's undoubtedly wrong here.

The mind-numbing level of this "wrongness" only gets stronger, however, when one reads the captions to the photos in Curry's book. Here, after confidently presenting evidence such as "the 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, C2766, with a four power scope which was recovered from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository", and captioning the fibers in the evidence photo mentioned above as "Textile fibers found on the left side of the butt plate of the recovered rifle," Curry equivocates on the status of the bag in the photo. He writes "A paper bag probably constructed from wrapping paper and tape at the Texas School Book Depository...This is probably the same bag which was found on the sixth floor by investigators." Yes, you read that right. He says "probably." If Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry doubted that the bag returned from Washington was the bag found in the building, then why the heck shouldn't we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting points. I'd like to adress the photo of the bag being carried out and the one discolored and refold it as well as use shadows, imprints (using sotware) to try to percieve what the bag had contained. Past attempts have yielded suggestive results but nothing conclusive. However, there are oddities afa I can see. (or could when I tried it some time ago), at all times one should be familiar with the dead letter package but not take it too seriously.

edit: add There are quite a range of curiosities about the dead letter envelope and its contents. The attempted explanations all fall short imo, so I've gone a bit esoteric on that one, ranging as far as the jungles of northern Costa Rica to Bahama resorts, put a tin hat on and realised that the non existent address was at least a near spot on anagram for assassinate and that the image sized correctly and the shape (paper has a quality of assuming characteristic imprints of contents) of a correctly resized and twirled around over the highlighted indicators of imprints one can see a snubnose, to the MSC references to HomeCraft and looking into its associations and location in relation to New Jersey. ...

part of my findings at that time was that correctly resized according to the type of curtain rods there is a clear indication of just that and there is also a imprint of a broken down rifle. Odd. I kinda shelved all notions and that the package matched a particular curtain folded and stacked in dimension and number as avilable by mail order at that time. Then there's the fabled second revolver that, by contemporary accounts, had been from the stash of locally held drop guns (theres southern hospitality for you) and a switcheroo under way. (This could be what dealyed that which then could not be denied)

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, the paper bag was supposedly never photographed by the DPD until it was sent BACK to the FBI on the 26th. The disappearance of the lunch sack containing the chicken bones, which WERE, if I recall, seen by the first officer on the scene, Mooney, is not as problematic, but is also interesting. I mean, if they assumed THIS bag was the lunch bag of the sniper, why didn't they forward it to the FBI for silver nitrate testing, as they did with a piece of wrapping paper they assumed top have held the rifle... I mean, what's the difference? So why the different treatment?

I beleive that the paper bag appears in a photograph of items the DPD released to the FBI taken the night of the 22nd.

Sorry, there is no such photograph. While the DPD took multiple photos of the gun on 11-22, there are no DPD pictures of the bag until they returned the bag on the 26th. I am 99% positive the bag was created by the DPD, or the FBI, with Lt. Day's knowledge.

From Chapter 4d at patspeer.com:

There is an even stranger circumstance. The only photo of the paper bag in the Dallas Police Archives is a photo in box 12 folder 7 file 1.

The description for this photo in the DPD Archives reads "Photograph of the evidence sent to the FBI. Date unknown." The bag in this photo appears to be about 8 inches wide and could quite possibly be the bag in the FBI and Warren Commission photos. The bag appears to be discolored, however, which suggests that this is a photo of the bag after its return from the FBI Crime Laboratory, where it had been discolored by silver nitrate. Sure enough, this photo can also be found in the FBI files (62-109060 Sec EBF, Serial 1866, p73). Here, however, on the page just before, the back of the photo is presented, and bears the date 11-26-63.

Should one find that unconvincing, one should know that this photo also makes an appearance in Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry's 1969 book JFK Assassination File. Here it is listed as "Evidence released to the FBI Laboratory for tests." No date is provided. Fortunately, however, Curry lists all the items in the photograph, and this tells us what we need to know. Item #5 is listed as "Textile fibers found on the left side of the butt plate of the recovered rifle." These fibers were officially undetected in Dallas, and only discovered during an examination in the FBI Crime Lab on 11-23. This proves that this photograph was taken after the return of the evidence to Dallas. More telling, Item #2 is "Oswald's right palm print found on a book carton which was part of the sniper's perch in the book depository." This palm print wasn't provided the FBI till the 26th. A close look at the piece of cardboard holding this palm print, moreover, reveals that it has the signature of Lt. J.C. Day along the bottom. Photos taken on the 25th of the sniper's nest, with this piece of cardboard re-attached to its box, reveal that Day had not yet signed the cardboard. This proves it then, several times over--the only photo of the paper bag in the Dallas Archives is a photo of evidence shipped out on the 26th.

Should one still have doubts, however, one should consider the Warren Commission testimony of Lt. Day. When presenting this photo as exhibit CE 738, Day readily admitted he'd taken the photo on the 26th. The Warren Commission, in turn, entitled this exhibit "Photograph of property released by the Dallas Police Department to the FBI on November 26, 1963." So why did the Dallas crime scene investigators not only fail to photograph the paper bag when found on the scene in the school book depository, but at any time prior to Oswald's death?

Something's undoubtedly wrong here.

The mind-numbing level of this "wrongness" only gets stronger, however, when one reads the captions to the photos in Curry's book. Here, after confidently presenting evidence such as "the 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, C2766, with a four power scope which was recovered from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository", and captioning the fibers in the evidence photo mentioned above as "Textile fibers found on the left side of the butt plate of the recovered rifle," Curry equivocates on the status of the bag in the photo. He writes "A paper bag probably constructed from wrapping paper and tape at the Texas School Book Depository...This is probably the same bag which was found on the sixth floor by investigators." Yes, you read that right. He says "probably." If Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry doubted that the bag returned from Washington was the bag found in the building, then why the heck shouldn't we?

I'm looking into this but 62-109060 Sec EBF, Serial 1866, p73 does not show that photograph.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=73

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, the paper bag was supposedly never photographed by the DPD until it was sent BACK to the FBI on the 26th. The disappearance of the lunch sack containing the chicken bones, which WERE, if I recall, seen by the first officer on the scene, Mooney, is not as problematic, but is also interesting. I mean, if they assumed THIS bag was the lunch bag of the sniper, why didn't they forward it to the FBI for silver nitrate testing, as they did with a piece of wrapping paper they assumed top have held the rifle... I mean, what's the difference? So why the different treatment?

I beleive that the paper bag appears in a photograph of items the DPD released to the FBI taken the night of the 22nd.

Sorry, there is no such photograph. While the DPD took multiple photos of the gun on 11-22, there are no DPD pictures of the bag until they returned the bag on the 26th. I am 99% positive the bag was created by the DPD, or the FBI, with Lt. Day's knowledge.

From Chapter 4d at patspeer.com:

There is an even stranger circumstance. The only photo of the paper bag in the Dallas Police Archives is a photo in box 12 folder 7 file 1.

The description for this photo in the DPD Archives reads "Photograph of the evidence sent to the FBI. Date unknown." The bag in this photo appears to be about 8 inches wide and could quite possibly be the bag in the FBI and Warren Commission photos. The bag appears to be discolored, however, which suggests that this is a photo of the bag after its return from the FBI Crime Laboratory, where it had been discolored by silver nitrate. Sure enough, this photo can also be found in the FBI files (62-109060 Sec EBF, Serial 1866, p73). Here, however, on the page just before, the back of the photo is presented, and bears the date 11-26-63.

Should one find that unconvincing, one should know that this photo also makes an appearance in Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry's 1969 book JFK Assassination File. Here it is listed as "Evidence released to the FBI Laboratory for tests." No date is provided. Fortunately, however, Curry lists all the items in the photograph, and this tells us what we need to know. Item #5 is listed as "Textile fibers found on the left side of the butt plate of the recovered rifle." These fibers were officially undetected in Dallas, and only discovered during an examination in the FBI Crime Lab on 11-23. This proves that this photograph was taken after the return of the evidence to Dallas. More telling, Item #2 is "Oswald's right palm print found on a book carton which was part of the sniper's perch in the book depository." This palm print wasn't provided the FBI till the 26th. A close look at the piece of cardboard holding this palm print, moreover, reveals that it has the signature of Lt. J.C. Day along the bottom. Photos taken on the 25th of the sniper's nest, with this piece of cardboard re-attached to its box, reveal that Day had not yet signed the cardboard. This proves it then, several times over--the only photo of the paper bag in the Dallas Archives is a photo of evidence shipped out on the 26th.

Should one still have doubts, however, one should consider the Warren Commission testimony of Lt. Day. When presenting this photo as exhibit CE 738, Day readily admitted he'd taken the photo on the 26th. The Warren Commission, in turn, entitled this exhibit "Photograph of property released by the Dallas Police Department to the FBI on November 26, 1963." So why did the Dallas crime scene investigators not only fail to photograph the paper bag when found on the scene in the school book depository, but at any time prior to Oswald's death?

Something's undoubtedly wrong here.

The mind-numbing level of this "wrongness" only gets stronger, however, when one reads the captions to the photos in Curry's book. Here, after confidently presenting evidence such as "the 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, C2766, with a four power scope which was recovered from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository", and captioning the fibers in the evidence photo mentioned above as "Textile fibers found on the left side of the butt plate of the recovered rifle," Curry equivocates on the status of the bag in the photo. He writes "A paper bag probably constructed from wrapping paper and tape at the Texas School Book Depository...This is probably the same bag which was found on the sixth floor by investigators." Yes, you read that right. He says "probably." If Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry doubted that the bag returned from Washington was the bag found in the building, then why the heck shouldn't we?

I'm looking into this but 62-109060 Sec EBF, Serial 1866, p73 does not show that photograph.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=73

The photocopy of the photo is on Page 72 and the text Pat refers to is on page 71

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...