Basic facts that seem like conspiracy-killers to me

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Can anyone explain why Jim persists in making a fool of himself by insisting he has people like me and Steve on Ignore and then responding to almost everything we say with some lame excuse as to why he saw it?

 

What you say here is factually incorrect. I skim through (or at least least notice) all your posts. I read all of Jim's. His response rate to you is rather low.

 

16 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I likewise don't know what wit Jim thinks he's exhibiting by referring to me as the "Arizona drug advisor."

 

He's mocking you. Just like what you do to most everybody here.

 

16 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

For some reason, little old Lone Nutter Lance really, really, REALLY bothers Jim.

 

Don't flatter yourself.

 

[David Von Pein]

57 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

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

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

Plus....

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

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

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

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

 

Edited January 23, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

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

Plus....

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

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

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

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

 

I go through the witnesses one by one on my website. NONE of the first responders on the scene who said they saw the shells before the arrival of Fritz recalled seeing the bag. Fritz himself said he failed to see the bag, even though, as I've demonstrated ad nauseam, he was photographed standing within inches of its purported location in the Alyea film. There are six witnesses to the bag in the sniper's nest, as I recall. (Day made statements indicating he was there but ultimately admitted he wasn't.) We have Montgomery and Johnson who claimed Monty discovered the bag while Johnson watched. And then there's Day's assistant Studebaker who made out that he was there as well. The official story, apparently, is that Monty found it while Johnson watched, and that they then called Studebaker over--who had the camera on him, but somehow failed to take a picture of the bag. Well, this is a problem from the start--as this could only have happened 20 minutes or more after the discovery of the sniper's nest. But it gets worse. Belin was so desperate for confirmation he wrangled Sims, one of Fritz's assistants, into saying he saw the bag, but his testimony was a mess. And he didn't stop there. As first demonstrated on my website, Belin went to Dallas with no plans on interviewing two motorcycle officers--they never filed reports on the shooting, and their names did not appear on any list. But he ended up taking their testimony anyhow--because clearly he saw the problem, and had begged for help from the DPD. So he questioned them real quick to say they saw the bag, even though they had never stood in the sniper's nest, and had no contemporaneous reports or notes saying they saw the bag. The problem is that they seemed confused over what bag they saw--whether it was the lunch bag or the rifle bag. 

In short, then, the bag story rests purely on the shoulders of Montgomery, Johnson, Studebaker, and Day--whose stories kept changing. A defense attorney would have destroyed them on the stand. Heck, I could have destroyed them on the stand and I was little more than a baby at the time. (A joke.)  

From patspeer.com, chapter 4c:

Shining a Light on Sims

The 4-6-64 testimony of Dallas detective Richard N. Sims reflects that he too was confused.

When asked if he'd seen the paper bag found in the depository, Sims testified:

Mr. SIMS. Well, we saw some wrappings--a brown wrapping there.

Mr. BALL. Where did you see it?

Mr. SIMS. It was there by the hulls.

Mr. BALL. Was it right there near the hulls?

Mr. SIMS. As well as I remember--of course, I didn't pay too much attention at that time, but it was, I believe, by the east side of where the boxes were piled up---that would be a guess--I believe that's where it was.

Mr. BALL. On the east side of where the boxes were would that be the east?

Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir; it was right near the stack of boxes there. I know there was some loose paper there.

Mr. BALL. Was Johnson there?

Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir; when the wrapper was found Captain Fritz stationed Montgomery to observe the scene there where the hulls were found.

Mr. BALL. To stay there?

Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. That was Marvin Johnson and L. D. Montgomery who stayed by the hulls?

Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir; they did. I was going back and forth, from the wrapper to the hulls.

(7H158-186).

Let's stop right here. With the high-lighted statement, Sims either mis-spoke or was misquoted. He almost certainly meant to say "when the rifle was found", and not "when the wrapper was found," and that he "was going back and forth, from the rifle to the hulls" and not "from the wrapper to the hulls." The wrapper and the hulls were, after all, but a few feet apart...at least according to Studebaker... In any event, it's silly in the extreme to assume Sims was going back and forth between the wrapper and the hulls, and that this somehow shores up that he saw a "wrapper" in the sniper's nest.

And no, I'm not kidding. Here is the pertinent section of Sims' report on his activities for 11-22-63: "At 1:20 PM. Lt. J.C. Day and Det. R. L. Studebaker arrived on the sixth floor. Capt. Fritz asked Lt. Day to take pictures of the hulls and the surrounding area. About 1;25 P.M. someone called for Capt. Fritz, and he left Det. L.D. Montgomery and Marvin Johnson to stay with the hulls. Capt. Fritz, Sims and Boyd went over to near the stairway where one of the officers had called Capt. Fritz. Someone said the gun had been found... Sims went back to where Lt. Day was and told him the gun had been found. Lt. Day or Det. Studebaker took another picture of the hulls and said they had already taken pictures of the scene. Sims picked up the empty hulls, and Lt. Day held an envelope open while Sims dropped them in the envelope. Lt. Day then walked over to where the rifle had been found." (24H319-322).

So, yes indeed, Sims did go back and forth between the rifle and the hulls. And did not go back and forth between a wrapper and the hulls.

Still, what a mess! In his testimony, Sims acknowledged that Detectives Johnson and Montgomery were stationed by the hulls (which were found by the sniper's nest) and seemed to be aware that they "found" a bag, but never mentioned witnessing the "discovery" of this bag.. Sims also described the "bag" as "loose paper," and not as a carefully folded and taped piece of wrapping paper in the shape of a gun case. He also "guessed" the location where the bag was found.

This suggests then that Sims had but a vague recollection that some paper was found, or was supposedly found, but had no real recollection of its appearance or of its discovery, even though he had stood but a few feet from the bag's purported location when picking up the hulls from the sniper's nest. Well, this, in turn, reinforces that either no one placed much importance on the "bag" when it was first observed in the depository, and that its possible importance only became apparent later on, or that Sims was trying to support that a bag was found in the sniper's nest when he had actually never seen one.

In any event, it seems likely Sims stood in the corner before the arrival of Day and Studebaker, and even before Johnson and Montgomery were assigned to guard this location...but nevertheless had no clear recollection of a bag's being in this corner.

In further support of this conclusion, moreover, it should be noted Detective Sims' report on his activities on the day of the assassination makes no mention whatsoever of the bag or its discovery. And that's not even to mention that Sims left the depository with Capt. Fritz and Det. Boyd,, and that neither Fritz nor Boyd had any recollection of Sims (or anyone else) telling them about this bag before they left the building.

Now, should one wish to believe Sims' vague recollections of a bag or wrapper when asked about it 4 1/2 months after the assassination are authoritative, and clear evidence the bag was found in the sniper's nest as claimed by Studebaker, Montgomery, Johnson, and Day, then one should be informed that Sims also testified that he didn't know who took custody of the hulls found in the sniper's nest, even though it was, according to everyone else...HIM...and that, as a result, he was forced to return to the stand and claim he'd since been reminded that he'd carried the hulls around in his pocket all day on 11-22-63, and that he now remembered his doing so.

What a witness!

Hello? Anyone?

On 4-9-64, Warren Commission counsel David Belin took the testimony of Dallas Motorcycle officers Clyde Haygood and E.D. Brewer,. They claimed to have been on the sixth floor during the search of the depository, and to have seen an "approximately rifle length" and "relatively long" paper sack, respectively, in the southeast corner of the building.

Unfortunately, however, their stories just muddied the waters...

Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?

Mr. HAYGOOD. Went up to another location there.

Mr. BELIN. You saw some shells there?

Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Where did you see them?

Mr. HAYGOOD. They were there under the window.

Mr. BELIN. Which window?

Mr. HAYGOOD. On the southeast corner.

Mr. BELIN. South side or east side?

Mr. HAYGOOD. On the southeast corner facing south.

Mr. BELIN. See any paper bags or anything around there?

Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes; there was a lunch bag there. You could call it a lunch bag.

Mr. BALL. Where was that?

Mr. HAYGOOD. There at the same location where the shells were.

Mr. BELIN. Was there a coke bottle or anything with it?

Mr. HAYGOOD. Dr. Pepper bottle.

Mr. BELIN. See any long bags which would be a foot or foot and a half or more long?

Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes; just a plain brown paper bag with tape in the corner.

Mr. BELIN. What tape?

Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes; there was just brown paper tape on it. Just a brown paper bag with paper tape. It had been taped up.

Mr. BELIN. How long was that, if you can remember?

Mr. HAYGOOD. The exact length, I couldn't say. It was approximately rifle length. (6H296-302).

Hmmm... Although Haygood claimed he saw both the lunch sack and the paper bag, there are a number of problems with his account. First, he claimed he saw the lunch sack by the rifle shells. This is a blow to his credibility, as the lunch sack was actually photographed two aisles over. Belin then pressed Haygood to see if he remembered seeing a bag a foot and a half or so long--the approximate length of the bag now in the archives when folded over--and Haygood remembered the bag as being "approximately rifle length." This suggests, then, that Haygood, as Biffle--if Biffle actually did see the bag--only saw it after it had been "discovered" and moved to a new location by Montgomery...which does little to suggest it was actually on the floor of the sniper's nest as claimed.

Brewer was even less help.

Mr. BELIN. Did you go and take a look at the cartridge cases?

Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. How many cartridge cases did you see?

Mr. BREWER. Three.

Mr. BELIN. Where were they?

Mr. BREWER. They were there under, by the window.

Mr. BELIN. What window?

Mr. BREWER. In the southeast corner of the building, facing south.

Mr. BELIN. See anything else there at the time by the window?

Mr. BREWER. Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece of chicken.

Mr. BELIN. Anything else?

Mr. BREWER. A drink bottle.

Mr. BELIN. What bottle?

Mr. BREWER. A cold drink bottle, soda pop bottle.

Mr. BELIN. Anything else?

Mr. BREWER. In relation to what?

Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else in the southeast corner?

Mr. BREWER. There was a paper, relatively long paper sack there.

Mr. BELIN. Where was that?

Mr. BREWER. It was there In the southeast corner.

Mr. BELIN. Under the window?

Mr. BREWER. No, sir. To the left of it. To the east of it.

Mr. BELIN. To the left as you faced the window?

Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Did the window come right up next to the corner there, do you remember?

Mr. BREWER. No, sir; it didn't come up next to the corner. It was offset.

Mr. BELIN. Can you remember how far at all, or not?

Mr. BREWER. No, sir; I don't remember the exact distance of it.

Mr. BELIN. Was any part of the paper sack under the window, If you remember or not? That long paper sack?

Mr. BREWER. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember anything about what the sack looked like?

Mr. BREWER. Well, it was assumed at the time that it was the sack that the rifle was wrapped up in when it was brought into the building, and it appeared that it could have been used for that.

Mr. BELIN. Well, you mean you assumed that before you found the rifle?

Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir; I suppose. That was discussed.(6H302-308).

Notice that Brewer, as Haygood, seems to think the lunch sack was found by the shells. They were thereby similarly confused. Notice also that Brewer does not describe the paper bag or the timing of its discovery, but "supposes" that it was found before the rifle and that people immediately assumed it had been used to carry the rifle. Well, that's pretty silly. If the bag was folded over, as claimed by Studebaker, or folded twice, as claimed by Johnson, people would not immediately associate it with having been used to carry a rifle, particularly in that the rifle had supposedly not yet been discovered, and could very well have been stashed in a gun case. As we've seen, Captain Fritz testified that the bag was not "found" or discussed while he was in the southeast corner of the building. He also indicated he was not aware of it at any time before leaving the building. His testimony, moreover, was supported by Detective Boyd, who arrived and left with Fritz, and who also had no recollection of the bag. If the bag had been discovered, dusted, and discussed before the discovery of the rifle, or even before Fritz left the building shortly thereafter, certainly someone more involved in the investigation than common motorcycle officers like Haygood and Brewer would have remembered this fact, and have remembered it long before 4 1/2 months after the assassination.

There's also this: Haygood and Brewer were not included on the 3-24-64 list of witnesses to be deposed for the commission in Dallas. There is little of substance in their testimony, beyond their claiming they saw the bag in the sniper's nest. This, then, suggests the possibility they were called primarily for that reason--to support that the bag was where their fellow Dallas Police Department employees Montgomery, Johnson, Studebaker, and Day claimed it to have been, and suggest it's just a coincidence it was previously overlooked by Dallas Sheriff's Deputies Mooney, Walters, Craig, McCurley, and Faulkner. To wit, an undated list of Warren Commission deposition assignments (found on the website of Commission counsel Howard Willens) lists the reasons various witnesses are to be called, and makes note that both Haygood and Brewer saw the paper bag in the southeast corner of the sixth floor.

And this even though neither Haygood nor Brewer had written a report claiming as much...

Well, pardon me, but this suggests that Belin had put the word out that he needed witnesses to come forward and claim they'd seen the bag in the building, and that he got but two takers on his offer-- two motorcycle cops whose observations and recollections had been held in such low regard by their superiors that they hadn't even been asked to write a report on the events of the day.

Now note that both Haygood and Brewer described the sniper's nest, and placed the lunch sack in the sniper's nest, but were then prodded by Belin with an "anything else?" into saying they'd also seen a long paper bag in the sniper's nest. Yep, this was coaxed testimony, if not suborned perjury.

Now, to be clear, Belin and the Warren Commission were but the first in a long line of Oswald accusers to employ smoke and mirrors and/or lie, so they could use the bag against Oswald.

First Day Evidence, a 1993 book written by Gary Savage, the nephew of Dallas Crime Lab Detective Rusty Livingston, is a product of this tradition. On page 155, Savage relates "When the sniper's nest was first discovered by Mooney, a paper bag approximately 42" long by 8" wide lay folded in the extreme southeast corner of the sixth floor to the left of the window." Now, this is a two-fer. Not only does Savage conceal that Mooney swore he saw no such bag in the corner, he conceals that the length of the bag was not 42" (which would be long enough to conceal the rifle), but 38" (too short to conceal the rifle, which thereby necessitates that the rifle was brought into the building while disassembled).

But wait, Savage wasn't done. On page 156, Savage finishes his trick by assuring his readers that "the testimony of many officers placed the bag in the corner window when it was originally found."

No, not many, and not really.

So...why the desperation?

I mean, the bag was most assuredly initialed upon discovery, and shown to those who'd initialed it in sworn testimony, so they could authenticate it as the bag they'd discovered.

Right?

Nope.

 

Edited January 23, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Steve Roe]

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You are correct in thinking that the rifle and bag would have been allowed into evidence. But you should realize that entering that bag into evidence could have been a disaster, as bad as entering the glove into evidence at the O.J. trial. There are tremendous problems with the bag, that a competent defense attorney would have been able to use to raise reasonable doubt. First and foremost, none of the discoverers of the sniper's nest saw it, even though it was purportedly laying right out in the open within inches of where they had been standing. There are also issues with who found it, when it was found, and precisely where it was found. It's as big a mess as you can imagine. At times, I ponder what I would have done if I'd been tasked with arguing for Oswald's guilt. I would avoid the bag supposedly found in the building, much as the WC ended up avoiding the chicken lunch the original reports claimed Oswald had left behind in the sniper's nest, and the reports of Oswald at the firing range. It's a problem. You don't need it. And you're better off avoiding it. 

Pat, I think David Von Pein addressed your concerns about the bag in Oswald's sniper nest. Your sensible answer about the rifle and bag being entered into evidence is correct in my view. As David has pointed out in another post, the bag was folded, not spread out in full length. There are no issues with the bag as I see it. 

The bag of course would be discussed in the trial as it relates to Buell Frazier and Linne Mae Randle seeing it. Perhaps Frazier, if he took the stand (most likely) would dispute the length of the bag. That's for the jury to weigh the evidence. First and most importantly, the bag was found in the sniper's nest. That would weigh heavily on the jurors when they hear the evidence. 

Well, you maybe correct when you say you don't need the bag to convict Oswald as there were so many other things that point to his guilt. But it most certainly in my mind would have been discussed in the trial. 

[Steve Roe]

33 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I go through the witnesses one by one on my website. NONE of the first responders on the scene who said they saw the shells before the arrival of Fritz recalled seeing the bag. Fritz himself said he failed to see the bag, even though, as I've demonstrated ad nauseam, he was photographed standing within inches of its purported location in the Alyea film. There are six witnesses to the bag in the sniper's nest, as I recall. (Day made statements indicating he was there but ultimately admitted he wasn't.) We have Montgomery and Johnson who claimed Monty discovered the bag while Johnson watched. And then there's Day's assistant Studebaker who made out that he was there as well. The official story, apparently, is that Monty found it while Johnson watched, and that they then called Studebaker over--who had the camera on him, but somehow failed to take a picture of the bag. Well, this is a problem from the start--as this could only have happened 20 minutes or more after the discovery of the sniper's nest. But it gets worse. Belin was so desperate for confirmation he wrangled Sims, one of Fritz's assistants, into saying he saw the bag, but his testimony was a mess. And he didn't stop there. As first demonstrated on my website, Belin went to Dallas with no plans on interviewing two motorcycle officers--they never filed reports on the shooting, and their names did not appear on any list. But he ended up taking their testimony anyhow--because clearly he saw the problem, and had begged for help from the DPD. So he questioned them real quick to say they saw the bag, even though they had never stood in the sniper's nest, and had no contemporaneous reports or notes saying they saw the bag. The problem is that they seemed confused over what bag they saw--whether it was the lunch bag or the rifle bag. 

In short, then, the bag story rests purely on the shoulders of Montgomery, Johnson, Studebaker, and Day--whose stories kept changing. A defense attorney would have destroyed them on the stand. Heck, I could have destroyed them on the stand and I was little more than a baby at the time. (A joke.)  

From patspeer.com, chapter 4c:

Shining a Light on Sims

The 4-6-64 testimony of Dallas detective Richard N. Sims reflects that he too was confused.

When asked if he'd seen the paper bag found in the depository, Sims testified:

Mr. SIMS. Well, we saw some wrappings--a brown wrapping there.

Mr. BALL. Where did you see it?

Mr. SIMS. It was there by the hulls.

Mr. BALL. Was it right there near the hulls?

Mr. SIMS. As well as I remember--of course, I didn't pay too much attention at that time, but it was, I believe, by the east side of where the boxes were piled up---that would be a guess--I believe that's where it was.

Mr. BALL. On the east side of where the boxes were would that be the east?

Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir; it was right near the stack of boxes there. I know there was some loose paper there.

Mr. BALL. Was Johnson there?

Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir; when the wrapper was found Captain Fritz stationed Montgomery to observe the scene there where the hulls were found.

Mr. BALL. To stay there?

Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. That was Marvin Johnson and L. D. Montgomery who stayed by the hulls?

Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir; they did. I was going back and forth, from the wrapper to the hulls.

(7H158-186).

Let's stop right here. With the high-lighted statement, Sims either mis-spoke or was misquoted. He almost certainly meant to say "when the rifle was found", and not "when the wrapper was found," and that he "was going back and forth, from the rifle to the hulls" and not "from the wrapper to the hulls." The wrapper and the hulls were, after all, but a few feet apart...at least according to Studebaker... In any event, it's silly in the extreme to assume Sims was going back and forth between the wrapper and the hulls, and that this somehow shores up that he saw a "wrapper" in the sniper's nest.

And no, I'm not kidding. Here is the pertinent section of Sims' report on his activities for 11-22-63: "At 1:20 PM. Lt. J.C. Day and Det. R. L. Studebaker arrived on the sixth floor. Capt. Fritz asked Lt. Day to take pictures of the hulls and the surrounding area. About 1;25 P.M. someone called for Capt. Fritz, and he left Det. L.D. Montgomery and Marvin Johnson to stay with the hulls. Capt. Fritz, Sims and Boyd went over to near the stairway where one of the officers had called Capt. Fritz. Someone said the gun had been found... Sims went back to where Lt. Day was and told him the gun had been found. Lt. Day or Det. Studebaker took another picture of the hulls and said they had already taken pictures of the scene. Sims picked up the empty hulls, and Lt. Day held an envelope open while Sims dropped them in the envelope. Lt. Day then walked over to where the rifle had been found." (24H319-322).

So, yes indeed, Sims did go back and forth between the rifle and the hulls. And did not go back and forth between a wrapper and the hulls.

Still, what a mess! In his testimony, Sims acknowledged that Detectives Johnson and Montgomery were stationed by the hulls (which were found by the sniper's nest) and seemed to be aware that they "found" a bag, but never mentioned witnessing the "discovery" of this bag.. Sims also described the "bag" as "loose paper," and not as a carefully folded and taped piece of wrapping paper in the shape of a gun case. He also "guessed" the location where the bag was found.

This suggests then that Sims had but a vague recollection that some paper was found, or was supposedly found, but had no real recollection of its appearance or of its discovery, even though he had stood but a few feet from the bag's purported location when picking up the hulls from the sniper's nest. Well, this, in turn, reinforces that either no one placed much importance on the "bag" when it was first observed in the depository, and that its possible importance only became apparent later on, or that Sims was trying to support that a bag was found in the sniper's nest when he had actually never seen one.

In any event, it seems likely Sims stood in the corner before the arrival of Day and Studebaker, and even before Johnson and Montgomery were assigned to guard this location...but nevertheless had no clear recollection of a bag's being in this corner.

In further support of this conclusion, moreover, it should be noted Detective Sims' report on his activities on the day of the assassination makes no mention whatsoever of the bag or its discovery. And that's not even to mention that Sims left the depository with Capt. Fritz and Det. Boyd,, and that neither Fritz nor Boyd had any recollection of Sims (or anyone else) telling them about this bag before they left the building.

Now, should one wish to believe Sims' vague recollections of a bag or wrapper when asked about it 4 1/2 months after the assassination are authoritative, and clear evidence the bag was found in the sniper's nest as claimed by Studebaker, Montgomery, Johnson, and Day, then one should be informed that Sims also testified that he didn't know who took custody of the hulls found in the sniper's nest, even though it was, according to everyone else...HIM...and that, as a result, he was forced to return to the stand and claim he'd since been reminded that he'd carried the hulls around in his pocket all day on 11-22-63, and that he now remembered his doing so.

What a witness!

Hello? Anyone?

On 4-9-64, Warren Commission counsel David Belin took the testimony of Dallas Motorcycle officers Clyde Haygood and E.D. Brewer,. They claimed to have been on the sixth floor during the search of the depository, and to have seen an "approximately rifle length" and "relatively long" paper sack, respectively, in the southeast corner of the building.

Unfortunately, however, their stories just muddied the waters...

Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?

Mr. HAYGOOD. Went up to another location there.

Mr. BELIN. You saw some shells there?

Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Where did you see them?

Mr. HAYGOOD. They were there under the window.

Mr. BELIN. Which window?

Mr. HAYGOOD. On the southeast corner.

Mr. BELIN. South side or east side?

Mr. HAYGOOD. On the southeast corner facing south.

Mr. BELIN. See any paper bags or anything around there?

Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes; there was a lunch bag there. You could call it a lunch bag.

Mr. BALL. Where was that?

Mr. HAYGOOD. There at the same location where the shells were.

Mr. BELIN. Was there a coke bottle or anything with it?

Mr. HAYGOOD. Dr. Pepper bottle.

Mr. BELIN. See any long bags which would be a foot or foot and a half or more long?

Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes; just a plain brown paper bag with tape in the corner.

Mr. BELIN. What tape?

Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes; there was just brown paper tape on it. Just a brown paper bag with paper tape. It had been taped up.

Mr. BELIN. How long was that, if you can remember?

Mr. HAYGOOD. The exact length, I couldn't say. It was approximately rifle length. (6H296-302).

Hmmm... Although Haygood claimed he saw both the lunch sack and the paper bag, there are a number of problems with his account. First, he claimed he saw the lunch sack by the rifle shells. This is a blow to his credibility, as the lunch sack was actually photographed two aisles over. Belin then pressed Haygood to see if he remembered seeing a bag a foot and a half or so long--the approximate length of the bag now in the archives when folded over--and Haygood remembered the bag as being "approximately rifle length." This suggests, then, that Haygood, as Biffle--if Biffle actually did see the bag--only saw it after it had been "discovered" and moved to a new location by Montgomery...which does little to suggest it was actually on the floor of the sniper's nest as claimed.

Brewer was even less help.

Mr. BELIN. Did you go and take a look at the cartridge cases?

Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. How many cartridge cases did you see?

Mr. BREWER. Three.

Mr. BELIN. Where were they?

Mr. BREWER. They were there under, by the window.

Mr. BELIN. What window?

Mr. BREWER. In the southeast corner of the building, facing south.

Mr. BELIN. See anything else there at the time by the window?

Mr. BREWER. Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece of chicken.

Mr. BELIN. Anything else?

Mr. BREWER. A drink bottle.

Mr. BELIN. What bottle?

Mr. BREWER. A cold drink bottle, soda pop bottle.

Mr. BELIN. Anything else?

Mr. BREWER. In relation to what?

Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else in the southeast corner?

Mr. BREWER. There was a paper, relatively long paper sack there.

Mr. BELIN. Where was that?

Mr. BREWER. It was there In the southeast corner.

Mr. BELIN. Under the window?

Mr. BREWER. No, sir. To the left of it. To the east of it.

Mr. BELIN. To the left as you faced the window?

Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Did the window come right up next to the corner there, do you remember?

Mr. BREWER. No, sir; it didn't come up next to the corner. It was offset.

Mr. BELIN. Can you remember how far at all, or not?

Mr. BREWER. No, sir; I don't remember the exact distance of it.

Mr. BELIN. Was any part of the paper sack under the window, If you remember or not? That long paper sack?

Mr. BREWER. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember anything about what the sack looked like?

Mr. BREWER. Well, it was assumed at the time that it was the sack that the rifle was wrapped up in when it was brought into the building, and it appeared that it could have been used for that.

Mr. BELIN. Well, you mean you assumed that before you found the rifle?

Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir; I suppose. That was discussed.(6H302-308).

Notice that Brewer, as Haygood, seems to think the lunch sack was found by the shells. They were thereby similarly confused. Notice also that Brewer does not describe the paper bag or the timing of its discovery, but "supposes" that it was found before the rifle and that people immediately assumed it had been used to carry the rifle. Well, that's pretty silly. If the bag was folded over, as claimed by Studebaker, or folded twice, as claimed by Johnson, people would not immediately associate it with having been used to carry a rifle, particularly in that the rifle had supposedly not yet been discovered, and could very well have been stashed in a gun case. As we've seen, Captain Fritz testified that the bag was not "found" or discussed while he was in the southeast corner of the building. He also indicated he was not aware of it at any time before leaving the building. His testimony, moreover, was supported by Detective Boyd, who arrived and left with Fritz, and who also had no recollection of the bag. If the bag had been discovered, dusted, and discussed before the discovery of the rifle, or even before Fritz left the building shortly thereafter, certainly someone more involved in the investigation than common motorcycle officers like Haygood and Brewer would have remembered this fact, and have remembered it long before 4 1/2 months after the assassination.

There's also this: Haygood and Brewer were not included on the 3-24-64 list of witnesses to be deposed for the commission in Dallas. There is little of substance in their testimony, beyond their claiming they saw the bag in the sniper's nest. This, then, suggests the possibility they were called primarily for that reason--to support that the bag was where their fellow Dallas Police Department employees Montgomery, Johnson, Studebaker, and Day claimed it to have been, and suggest it's just a coincidence it was previously overlooked by Dallas Sheriff's Deputies Mooney, Walters, Craig, McCurley, and Faulkner. To wit, an undated list of Warren Commission deposition assignments (found on the website of Commission counsel Howard Willens) lists the reasons various witnesses are to be called, and makes note that both Haygood and Brewer saw the paper bag in the southeast corner of the sixth floor.

And this even though neither Haygood nor Brewer had written a report claiming as much...

Well, pardon me, but this suggests that Belin had put the word out that he needed witnesses to come forward and claim they'd seen the bag in the building, and that he got but two takers on his offer-- two motorcycle cops whose observations and recollections had been held in such low regard by their superiors that they hadn't even been asked to write a report on the events of the day.

Now note that both Haygood and Brewer described the sniper's nest, and placed the lunch sack in the sniper's nest, but were then prodded by Belin with an "anything else?" into saying they'd also seen a long paper bag in the sniper's nest. Yep, this was coaxed testimony, if not suborned perjury.

Now, to be clear, Belin and the Warren Commission were but the first in a long line of Oswald accusers to employ smoke and mirrors and/or lie, so they could use the bag against Oswald.

First Day Evidence, a 1993 book written by Gary Savage, the nephew of Dallas Crime Lab Detective Rusty Livingston, is a product of this tradition. On page 155, Savage relates "When the sniper's nest was first discovered by Mooney, a paper bag approximately 42" long by 8" wide lay folded in the extreme southeast corner of the sixth floor to the left of the window." Now, this is a two-fer. Not only does Savage conceal that Mooney swore he saw no such bag in the corner, he conceals that the length of the bag was not 42" (which would be long enough to conceal the rifle), but 38" (too short to conceal the rifle, which thereby necessitates that the rifle was brought into the building while disassembled).

But wait, Savage wasn't done. On page 156, Savage finishes his trick by assuring his readers that "the testimony of many officers placed the bag in the corner window when it was originally found."

No, not many, and not really.

So...why the desperation?

I mean, the bag was most assuredly initialed upon discovery, and shown to those who'd initialed it in sworn testimony, so they could authenticate it as the bag they'd discovered.

Right?

Nope.

 

Pat, let's face facts. There was a bag found in the sniper's nest. You can play one witness off each other as long as you want. Now do you really think there was something sinister about the bag? I'm sure you don't subscribe to the nutty theory the DPD went downstairs and fashioned the bag to frame Oswald?

[Pat Speer]

6 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Pat, let's face facts. There was a bag found in the sniper's nest. You can play one witness off each other as long as you want. Now do you really think there was something sinister about the bag? I'm sure you don't subscribe to the nutty theory the DPD went downstairs and fashioned the bag to frame Oswald?

Day said he went downstairs and tore off a piece of paper as a sample, yes? So when did this happen? By all scenarios, he was upstairs (at a time no one had seen the bag) and then left the building with the rifle. So when did he go downstairs to check the paper? Did he put the rifle down somewhere when he messed with the paper? Was the bag with him at this time?  And, if so, why is there no corroborative testimony from Truly or anyone working at the TSBD..."Yeah, I saw Lt. Day come down with the bag and compare it to our paper, and then take a sample." We have Day's word he did this--but not when--and we have Studebaker, his assistant, saying he was there as well, but Day concealed Studebaker's involvement when first asked about this. Why? 

The "official" story has so many holes you can't count 'em, and its because Specter/Ball/Belin refused to get to the bottom of this stuff.

So let's say Day left the bag and paper sample at the depository when he left with the rifle. Why, then, was it another hour or so before Montgomery and Johnson left with the bag? And why didn't they take the paper sample with them? And why was the bag never photographed by the DPD until AFTER it had been sent to the FBI, and AFTER Oswald's prints had supposedly been found on it? Was the DPD that incompetent/reluctant to photograph evidence? Really? 

If you can't smell a rat here then I strongly suggest you buy a rat terrier. They're nice dogs and they're quite good at sniffing out rats. 

[Steve Roe]

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I suspect there's more to it. He was stating that that was why he was brought in, sure, but implicit in this is that that is why the evidence led to him. A patsy is someone who's been made to be a fall guy, by design. This suggests there is evidence against this person. So I read Oswald's statement as an acknowledgement there is evidence against him, and that he has been framed. He was not asserting he was just an innocent walking down the street. And that all the evidence against him was being made up afterwards. He was stating he was framed as part of a plot--because of his background. 

 

Well Ok Pat. First of all, do you really think Oswald was so stupid, dumb and clueless to be framed with his own rifle? How does that work? I've been waiting on that answer for years.

I give Oswald more credit than that. He was no dummy, far from it. 

And here's the kicker Pat, as you say his background, why did Oswald want John Abt, noted CPUSA defense lawyer to represent him? If he wasn't a communist, which I don't think he was, a self-proclaimed Marxist would be a more accurate description, then why pick John Abt? 

Bottom line, Oswald was being investigated in a straight up homicide. The commie stuff came out later in the interrogations. 

Pat, let's do a gut-check here, so I can understand your position.

Do you think Oswald was completely innocent of murdering the President and gunning down Officer Tippit?

You know my position. 

[Pat Speer]

2 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Well Ok Pat. First of all, do you really think Oswald was so stupid, dumb and clueless to be framed with his own rifle? How does that work? I've been waiting on that answer for years.

I give Oswald more credit than that. He was no dummy, far from it. 

And here's the kicker Pat, as you say his background, why did Oswald want John Abt, noted CPUSA defense lawyer to represent him? If he wasn't a communist, which I don't think he was, a self-proclaimed Marxist would be a more accurate description, then why pick John Abt? 

Bottom line, Oswald was being investigated in a straight up homicide. The commie stuff came out later in the interrogations. 

Pat, let's do a gut-check here, so I can understand your position.

Do you think Oswald was completely innocent of murdering the President and gunning down Officer Tippit?

You know my position. 

My position is not secret. I suspect Oswald was innocent of killing Kennedy, and was set up. But I think he was involved in something--perhaps he was told someone was gonna roll a protest banner down from the window, or something equally innocuous. But he was involved in something.

I think he realized he'd been set up, and fled. I suspect as well that he killed Tippit while in flight, and that he may have had good reason to do so, as Tippit may not have been as innocent as we would like to believe. 

I think/know the WC was a whitewash. 

[Pat Speer]

10 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Well Ok Pat. First of all, do you really think Oswald was so stupid, dumb and clueless to be framed with his own rifle? How does that work? I've been waiting on that answer for years.

I give Oswald more credit than that. He was no dummy, far from it. 

And here's the kicker Pat, as you say his background, why did Oswald want John Abt, noted CPUSA defense lawyer to represent him? If he wasn't a communist, which I don't think he was, a self-proclaimed Marxist would be a more accurate description, then why pick John Abt? 

Bottom line, Oswald was being investigated in a straight up homicide. The commie stuff came out later in the interrogations. 

Pat, let's do a gut-check here, so I can understand your position.

Do you think Oswald was completely innocent of murdering the President and gunning down Officer Tippit?

You know my position. 

Oswald would want an attorney who would give him a fair shake, and not hold his background as a commie symp/leper against him. This makes perfect sense. if I was a leper, I would want a doctor who'd had experience dealing with lepers, and not one who thought they were icky. Wouldn't you? 

As far as the rifle, it's clear to me that whoever removed it from the garage wanted it to look like it was still in the blanket. Would Oswald have done as much on the morning of the shooting? It's possible. It's possible he was worried Marina would notice it missing. But would she alert the authorities if she did? I don't see that as a real concern. It's more likely by far that someone had taken it before the evening of the 21st, and was hoping Oswald wouldn't notice its absence. The Paines, after all, were purportedly unaware of the rifle's existence. So their noticing the blanket was empty would probably just bring a shrug. These were Quakers, after all, who never locked their garage, or, presumably, their house. 

[Steve Roe]

14 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

My position is not secret. I suspect Oswald was innocent of killing Kennedy, and was set up. But I think he was involved in something--perhaps he was told someone was gonna roll a protest banner down from the window, or something equally innocuous. But he was involved in something.

I think he realized he'd been set up, and fled. I suspect as well that he killed Tippit while in flight, and that he may have had good reason to do so, as Tippit may not have been as innocent as we would like to believe. 

I think/know the WC was a whitewash. 

Ok thanks for making your position clear. 

We do agree it was Oswald's rifle found on the 6th floor. Also, we agree Oswald killed Officer Tippit. 

Just wanted to answer the Lt. JC Day question you asked about the wrapping paper sample when it was taken. Day left the rifle bag with officers at the TSBD when he left the building and caught a ride with, I believe Bardum Odum if I recall right, of the FBI going back to City Hall. Day had the rifle and locked it up for safekeeping. Day went back to the TSBD to process the rest of the crime scene. He had to take measurements and sketches, etc. That's when he took the sample of the wrapping paper on the 1st floor. 

After Day completed his crime scene investigation at the TSBD, he went back to City Hall with the wrapping paper sample and started checking for prints on the rifle in the Crime Lab. He was later instructed to stop processing the rifle and turn it over to the FBI. 

[Ron Ege]

20 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

He certainly wasn't a "lone nut". Part of the plot? Maybe, but not likely. Ben's "false flag" piggyback operation makes some sense to me.

Charles - and Ben - thanks.

The "false flag" theory is a distinct possibility - especially in light of everything we have come to know about Oswald's link to the world of intelligence.  Maybe some believe Senator Schweiker to have been a CTer, but I would have a difficult time being convinced.

Senator Richard S. Schweiker's (Rep, PA) statement, in 1975, on CBS's Face the Nation:

"We don't know what happened, but we do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there are the fingerprints of intelligence."

The senator's statement was in direct contravention of the official government/WCR stance that Oswald was just simply a "lone nut".

Does it not maybe follow, as Ben (and maybe others, before?) has suggested - that conceivably, Oswald could've been convinced to becoming part of a "false flag" operation - viewing it as part of his "patriotic duty"?

Or, even more simply, as has also been proffered, completely innocent of any role, whatsoever, in the assassination - totally unaware that he had been set up, in large part by the now pretty evident "off the official books" intelligence world's building of his "legend" bona fides as a pro-communist/pro-Castro supporter - which was key to buttressing its eventual conspiratorial plan to blame Cuba, and at the least, using it as a cause celebre to invade the island and retake it? 

Either way, the building of the "legend" and then eventually tying Oswald to the assassination did not have to be preplanned.  For its intelligence gathering purposes regarding Castro/Cuba, Oswald's role as a pro-communist/pro-Castro supporter, at the time, was useful in and of itself. 

And when the decision was made to assassinate the president, Oswald was just selected as the convenient, "useful idiot". 

The implication, within Oswald's statement, "I'm just a patsy", could have been either and, if I may opine, could be anyone's inference, therefrom.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Ron Ege

[Steve Roe]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

These were Quakers, after all, who never locked their garage, or, presumably, their house. 

Pat, you already know I don't buy that someone broke into Ruth Paine's garage and took Oswald's rifle. I found this to be an extremely far-fetched theory. 

There were two accesses to the garage, one on the outside garage door and one door inside the home that leads to the garage. 

Ruth Paine was asked that question about her outside garage being locked in the Clay Shaw trial. Sorry Pat, it was locked. You may want to scrap that theory. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1298#relPageId=25&search=Paine_locked garage

[Tom Gram]

6 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Pat, you already know I don't buy that someone broke into Ruth Paine's garage and took Oswald's rifle. I found this to be an extremely far-fetched theory. 

There were two accesses to the garage, one on the outside garage door and one door inside the home that leads to the garage. 

Ruth Paine was asked that question about her outside garage being locked in the Clay Shaw trial. Sorry Pat, it was locked. You may want to scrap that theory. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1298#relPageId=25&search=Paine_locked garage

Hypothetically, if someone did want to break into the Paine house, they could have cased the place from the vacant house directly next door at 2511 West Fifth St. I haven’t seen any information on who owned that house at the time, etc., and it was never checked for evidence - but I’ve always thought that was kind of interesting. 
 

 

Mr. STERN. Can you show us from Exhibit 430 approximately where you parked your car that day if you recall? 

Mr. HOSTY. I don't recall specifically. I do recall that her station wagon was parked in the driveway. There was another car in front of the house, and it is my recollection that I parked, perhaps, here.

There is another house right next door here which was vacant, and I believe I parked in front of the vacant house right next door. 

So I think the vacant house is right behind the tree in the center of this photo: 

[James DiEugenio]

Pat does a nice job on that paper bag baloney.

But to give someone else credit for doing an equally nice job:  the reason I got on to this was by reading No Case to Answer, an anthology of writings by he late British police inspector, Ian Griggs.  In that book he has an interesting essay called "The Paper Bag that Never Was".  This is over thirty pages on the subject of that bag that was not photographed in situ.

Like Pat, Griggs goes through the testimony of Johnson and Montgomery, Studebaker and Sims.

Pat is correct, these guys would have been torn up on the stand.  To give just one example: "Detective Montgomery totally failed to corroborate Detective Johnson's claim that he (Montgomery) had picked up the long paper bag and unfolded it.  He stated that he did not touch it, but perhaps Studebaker did."

Big Stop sign right there. Anyone one can see just from those two sentences that one guy is passing the buck on to the next one.  No one wants to be the first witness to an exhibit that likely was not there.

Edited January 23, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

As per Lancie, thanks Sandy. This is why i call him the Arizona drug advisor:

https://www.wmicentral.com/news/navajo_county/lance-payette-named-drug-attorney-of-the-year/article_e5dffa72-d247-5c80-80f3-a6175bdb44ca.html

If he can show me that there are really two lawyers with the same name in that state and he is not this guy, i will withdraw the accusation.

The reason I bring it up is this:  that story reveals that Lance would know all about the admissibility rules in court proceedings.  For example, in California, they are called 402 hearings.  But Henry Lee assured me that every state has these proceedings: where the defense is allowed to challenge pieces of evidence in advance of it being presented to the jury.  So for him to assume that all of the Warren Commission case would be allowed in court is, to me, the height of either hypocrisy, or simply deliberate obtuseness. If Oswald had a good defense lawyer he would be calling these kinds of hearings all day long for a week on end, morning and afternoon.

As per having Lance on ignore, yes I do, along with several others here, like Roe and Von Pein.  But when someone else quotes them, I have to look at their  "stuff"..

BTW, the whole thing about someone breaking into Paine's garage is so silly I cannot really think that people here take it seriously. If you buy Marina, and they have to, she originally said that the rifle Oswald had did not have a scope on it.  So how would that  help the conspirators frame Oswald?  It would actually exculpate him.   

Just like this whole nonsense about that paper bag does.

"Conspiracy Killers" yeah sure, what a joke.

 

 

Edited January 23, 2023 by James DiEugenio