Crime Scene Investigator - Dallas

[Todd W. Vaughan]

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

Yes, I just found it and was going to post it. Thanks.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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.

Pat: Thank you for the research on this, but I must admit I am having trouble getting my head around it.

So you are suggesting that the bag Day took from the TSBD (as seen in photographs) is not the same as the bag entered in evidence. But if a bag WAS found, but not photographed in situ, why would it need to be replaced with another bag? Are you suggesting that the bag Day removed (as seen in photos) did not have a palmprint, so Day (or someone) replaced it with a bag that DID have Oswald's palmprint?

[Pat Speer]

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.

Pat: Thank you for the research on this, but I must admit I am having trouble getting my head around it.

So you are suggesting that the bag Day took from the TSBD (as seen in photographs) is not the same as the bag entered in evidence. But if a bag WAS found, but not photographed in situ, why would it need to be replaced with another bag? Are you suggesting that the bag Day removed (as seen in photos) did not have a palmprint, so Day (or someone) replaced it with a bag that DID have Oswald's palmprint?

There was a bag found in the building and removed by Det. Montgomery. This is almost certainly NOT the bag currently in the archives. The bag currently in the archives was most logically made from the "paper sample" sent the FBI on the evening of the shooting, that was never measured, never photographed, and never returned. There is a photo of this "sample" in the WC photos, but it is just a few inches of paper, almost certainly not the full sample.

[John Dolva]

There's another photo of relevance as well, + whatever bag it is it had two sides. Part of the problem is working out exactly which side is which, allow for photgrammetry and orientation and where exactly are the folds. Then rebuild it/them, properly, the right paper.

[William Kelly]

As for the bag found on the Sixth Floor in the Sniper's Nest next to the pipes and the box the shooter allegedly sat on, - is it forensically possible for the bag to have contained the rifle without leaving any oil stain whatsoever?

[John Dolva]

It's cellulose, and cellulose absorbs oil.

Oil also adheres to fine glossed paper.

Just like the oils on a body part adhers to paper, that's why you can lift fingerprints. Though possibly the micro-porosity of machie oil is greater? Interesting question, William.

[Neville Gully]

I stumbled across this analysis of the bag on Duncan's forum.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...ic,1769.45.html

[Pat Speer]

I stumbled across this analysis of the bag on Duncan's forum.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...ic,1769.45.html

Thanks. Neville, for bringing that up. Colin has squeezed the photo of the bag outside the building to make it look more like the bag in the Archives. The actual proportions of the bag are shown below.

[Neville Gully]

Pat,

it seems that Colin's analysis, if I read it correctly was to

1) reduce the perspective of the TSBD photo

2) adjust the length of the bag without changing the width so that both bags are identical. This would remove the shortening effect of perspective.

3) placing the 2 bags side by side

The interesting artifact is the stained area common to both bags at about the same position (red circles). This seems to indicate they are the same bag. However the TSBD bag is much more wrinkled and nothing like the "well pressed" appearance of the WC exhibit.

[Guest John Gillespie]

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

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

5) DiEugenio says his research has led to discussion of a third rifle, more appropriately identified as a first rifle, found before the Mauser.

14) "We're trying to decide whether he hanged himself in his cell or he died trying to escape."

JG

Edited February 16, 2010 by John Gillespie

[Mark Knight]

CSI Dallas -

Intentional or Negligent?

Was it intentional or negligence ...

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

BK

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

5) DiEugenio says his research has led to discussion of a third rifle, more appropriately identified as a first rifle, found before the Mauser.

JG

OK, you got me hooked. Tell me more about this THIRD [first?] rifle discovery...or direct me to more information, please.

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

it seems that Colin's analysis, if I read it correctly was to

1) reduce the perspective of the TSBD photo

2) adjust the length of the bag without changing the width so that both bags are identical. This would remove the shortening effect of perspective.

3) placing the 2 bags side by side

The interesting artifact is the stained area common to both bags at about the same position (red circles). This seems to indicate they are the same bag. However the TSBD bag is much more wrinkled and nothing like the "well pressed" appearance of the WC exhibit.

The bag in the press photos was taken almost straight on, with very little distortion. It was the bag in the evidence photo he used---a current photo, not in the WC's records--that was distorted by the angle of the photo. But rather than accounting for that mild distortion, he ASSUMED the width of the bags would match if he corrected the distortion, and then squashed the photo he acknowledged was not distorted to match the proportions of the distorted bag in the evidence photo.

Fortunately, there are other evidence photos in which no distortion is evident... and these, IMO, prove the bag removed from the building to be an entirely different bag than the one photographed by the FBI the next day and now in the archives.

[Guest John Gillespie]

CSI Dallas -

Intentional or Negligent?

Was it intentional or negligence ...

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

BK

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

5) DiEugenio says his research has led to discussion of a third rifle, more appropriately identified as a first rifle, found before the Mauser.

JG

OK, you got me hooked. Tell me more about this THIRD [first?] rifle discovery...or direct me to more information, please.

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

Hi Mark,

I apologize for not having the specific Black Op Radio archived program from 2009 on which I heard Jim DiEugenio say this. But I have written to the email address on his CTKA site and gotten a response on another matter, so I recommend dropping him a line.

Good Luck,

JG

[Evan Marshall]

CSI Dallas -

Intentional or Negligent?

Was it intentional or negligence ...

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

BK

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

5) DiEugenio says his research has led to discussion of a third rifle, more appropriately identified as a first rifle, found before the Mauser.

JG

OK, you got me hooked. Tell me more about this THIRD [first?] rifle discovery...or direct me to more information, please.

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

Hi Mark,

I apologize for not having the specific Black Op Radio archived program from 2009 on which I heard Jim DiEugenio say this. But I have written to the email address on his CTKA site and gotten a response on another matter, so I recommend dropping him a line.

Good Luck,

JG

I don't know when Dallas went to the CSI concept but my dept, Detroit PD, went to it in 1971 and I was in the 1st class for CSI. Prior to that in Detroit, Central Photo would do the pictures, Latent Prints would handle print evidence and the Crime Lab would handle the blood and other body fluids. We went to a CSI approach because there was a tendency to miss stuff. My partner and I handled a number of mutliple homcides and homicide was much happier the way they were handled by one unit.

Dallas Pd certainly deserves alot of criticism for their work on this case, but perhaps a portion of the problem was a number of different people from different units responsible for various components of the scene. We often spent 24hrs or more processing a scene with the thoroughness required and we never had a dead President.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Evan Marshall

[William Kelly]

CSI Dallas -

Intentional or Negligent?

Was it intentional or negligence ...

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

BK

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

5) DiEugenio says his research has led to discussion of a third rifle, more appropriately identified as a first rifle, found before the Mauser.

JG

OK, you got me hooked. Tell me more about this THIRD [first?] rifle discovery...or direct me to more information, please.

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

Hi Mark,

I apologize for not having the specific Black Op Radio archived program from 2009 on which I heard Jim DiEugenio say this. But I have written to the email address on his CTKA site and gotten a response on another matter, so I recommend dropping him a line.

Good Luck,

JG

I don't know when Dallas went to the CSI concept but my dept, Detroit PD, went to it in 1971 and I was in the 1st class for CSI. Prior to that in Detroit, Central Photo would do the pictures, Latent Prints would handle print evidence and the Crime Lab would handle the blood and other body fluids. We went to a CSI approach because there was a tendency to miss stuff. My partner and I handled a number of mutliple homcides and homicide was much happier the way they were handled by one unit.

Dallas Pd certainly deserves alot of criticism for their work on this case, but perhaps a portion of the problem was a number of different people from different units responsible for various components of the scene. We often spent 24hrs or more processing a scene with the thoroughness required and we never had a dead President.

You know, I was thinking of you and Bob Danello when I was making up this list.

Bob is a former Cherry Hill NJ PD Lt who teaches CSI at the local police academy and is a founding member of COPA.

I was also going to ask you, Bob and Tink Thompson to go over the Dallas crime scenes in a CSI mode to see if anything was missed - or discarded to see if they can be followed up on now.

I know it's a bit late, but I thought it would be an interesting exercise.

Bill Kelly