A new look at paper bags, curtain rods, and Oswald

[Greg Doudna]

What did Oswald take to work on the morning of Nov 22, 1963?

A first fact is that Oswald removed his rifle from the Ruth Paine garage on the morning of Nov 11, 1963 when Ruth was gone that morning, borrowed Michael Paine's blue-and-white Olds parked in front of Ruth's house, and Lee drove himself and Marina with their two children to a gunsmith to have the scope, which had come with the rifle and then had been removed by Oswald, reinstalled on it. The gunsmith trip was necessary because the threads were stripped requiring retapping, best done by a gunsmith. The reason for the scope installation was not for his personal use but because he was preparing the rifle for a conveyance. See the argument and evidence for this at https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop-109-pdf.pdf. 

A second fact is that the rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD on Nov 22, 1963 had been Oswald's, and Oswald was the next-to-last party in possession of that rifle prior to the assassination. (Oswald will not have been the last party in possession of the rifle before the assassination if his intention on Nov 11 to prepare the rifle for a conveyance was accomplished.)

A third fact is that the rifle went from Oswald's scope reinstallation on Nov 11 and the rifle's removal from the garage on that date, to being on the 6th floor of the TSBD implicated in the assassination of JFK, by Nov 22, possibly by means of the party to whom Oswald conveyed the rifle. 

A fourth fact is that Oswald routinely took paper bags with him to work whenever Buell Frazier drove him from Irving. He did so to carry his lunch. Therefore that he did so on Fri Nov 22 is not in itself unusual. What was different was the paper bag's length, but not his carrying a paper bag to work.

A fifth fact is Oswald's paper bag on Nov 22 was longer than normal for carrying his lunch. This is established from the testimonies of Buell and Linnie Mae Frazier. They told what they saw--Oswald carrying a paper bag of a certain length. 

A sixth fact is that unanimous testimony of those who saw the bag that Oswald carried rules out that that paper bag could have carried the rifle, which is 34" even if disassembled. This point on the length of the bag has been underestimated but is strong. There are the estimates of Buell and Linnie Mae as to lengths; the manner Linnie Mae saw Oswald carrying it holding it at the top and the bottom not hitting the ground; the way Buell saw him carry it cupped in his right hand with the top under his right shoulder; the FBI measurement of how far on Frazier's car's back seat Frazier marked its length when seeing it laying there (FBI measurement by the rear car seat method: 27"); the DPD both having Buell and Linnie Mae estimate with their hands, and also by making physical paper replicas, reconstructions of the bag's length, over and over and over the DPD had them do this (according to Buell) ... ca. 25-27", not 38". 

A seventh fact is that Buell Frazier's testimony in particular is so firm and so steadfast that it is either correct or he has been dishonest, but it is not reasonable that he was mistaken by that magnitude of error (of mistaking a 38" bag for a 25-27" length which Frazier has said from day one is accurate to within about an inch on his estimate).

In other words, in addition to no non-circular positive evidence for identifying the paper bag Oswald carried to work that morning with the 38" paper bag of TSBD paper found in the TSBD--and unanimous opposing witness testimony as to its length and rejection of such an identification--if one holds to an identification of the two paper bags it also is difficult to avoid the necessity to assume Buell Frazier actually lied at the outset, and was not simply mistaken, to insist and describe a 38" length was only 25-27" as he did. (The simpler solution is they simply are not the same paper bags, and Frazier was not lying but truthful.)  

An eighth fact is that there was a large paper bag, 38" long, made from TSBD wrapping paper, noticed and found near the shell hulls at the 6th floor of the TSBD, which was associated with the rifle (by apparent fibers association with the blanket of Oswald in Ruth Paine's garage in which the rifle had been stored), and associated with Oswald (by a palm print and a fingerprint). So the FBI lab.

But a ninth fact is there is no evidence whatsoever that identifies the smaller bag of ca. 25-27" length (Buell Frazier), or ca. 27" length (Linnie Mae Randle), with the larger 38" TSBD-wrapping paper bag. The lengths were significantly different from testimony of every witness who saw the paper bag Oswald carried that morning, with no witness and no forensic evidence testifying to an identification of those two bags. And Buell Frazier repeatedly said the paper bag Oswald brought with him in the car that morning looked like a lightweight retail store bag, not the 38" handmade one from heavier-duty TSBD wrapping paper.

(To emphasize this ninth point: there has been some controversy over the find circumstances and chain of custody of the large, 38", TSBD-wrapping paper bag believed associated with the rifle. That entire set of issues is bypassed here, because no relevance is established in terms of grounds for identifying that 38" bag as the paper bag Oswald brought to work that morning, which is the subject under discussion. The testimonies of both witnesses who saw the bag Oswald brought to work that morning are opposed to such an identification, and no witness or forensic evidence identifies them. It is not an argument that the identification is necessary to account for how the rifle got into the TSBD building, since there were 11 days and a possible if not likely further party intervening between Oswald's removal of the rifle on Nov 11 from Ruth Paine's garage, to prepare it for a conveyance, and the date of the assassination. If Oswald remains a possibility for the means of entrance of that rifle into the TSBD, given that he was the next-to-last in possession and worked in the TSBD, the Nov 11 date for Oswald's preparation of the rifle for conveyance means neither Oswald nor Nov 22 are the only possibilities for how the rifle got there. The rifle could have been brought in any of those eleven days, by a possessor of that rifle after Oswald.)

And a tenth fact is that in all likelihood it can be excluded that Oswald's paper bag on Nov 22 contained curtain rods either, no matter what he may have told Buell Frazier. Oswald himself under interrogation denied that it contained curtain rods. He said that bag contained his lunch. The only reason for curtain rods entering the Oswald paper bag discussion at all is solely Buell Frazier who said that is what Oswald told him the bag contained (and he may have told that to Linnie Mae the night of Thu Nov 21), plus the plausibility that a ca. 27" paper bag is about the right length to carry curtain rods. 

Note that the sole evidence that Oswald claimed curtain rods is the same witness whose testimony LNers resolutely reject concerning the length of that paper bag, Buell Frazier. On the basis of no witness or forensic testimony, some insist Frazier was mistaken on the length, but right (not mistaken) in claiming Oswald said it was curtain rods. 

The evidence weighing against curtain rods in Oswald's paper bag from Irving that morning is: Oswald's room on N. Beckley had no need for curtain rods of a length that could be carried in a 25-27" paper bag (there was a bent super-long single curtain rod in Oswald's room photographed a day later, but that was a much longer length); Oswald never mentioned anything about curtain rods to Ruth Paine (Oswald is not known to have stolen property from Ruth otherwise); no curtain rods are known to have turned up at the TSBD; there is no corroboration that Oswald was carrying curtain rods; and if Oswald had carried curtain rods it makes sense that he would say so to his interrogators instead of denying it. And last but not least, an assumption of curtain rods is not necessary to account for the 25-27" length of the paper bag, or indicated from that length.

Synthesis

These ten points deliver a conclusion that what was in Oswald's paper bag from Irving that morning was, as he said to his interrogators, his lunch, full stop. Oswald denied it was curtain rods to his interrogators when asked. The only reason there is no record he directly denied it was a disassembled rifle in the paper bag is because there is no record he was asked that question.

(Side point: Is it even clear that Oswald ever was told that any rifle, let alone his own, had been found on the 6th floor of his workplace? Marina was shown the rifle on Fri evening, and the entire world other than Oswald knew through news reporting about the rifle found in the TSBD and then reports that it had been traced to Oswald. But did Oswald know that during the two days before he was killed? He was not shown the rifle, and is there record in any interrogators' notes or news footage that Oswald was told that a rifle had been found on the 6th floor and traced to him? Oswald was asked if he had ever owned a rifle and he said he had neither owned nor possessed one since returning from the Soviet Union. He denied any mail-order purchase even in the case of the revolver which he did not deny owning. In the case of the revolver, he gave a different story that he had obtained it from a retail store in Fort Worth in the spring of 1963. That particular prevarication is of interest because it was not for the motive of denying he had the handgun, but only of where he had obtained it. Why conceal that? Was a role as a government informant or sting operation, perhaps related to the Dodd Subcommittee investigation of mail-order firearms purchases, in the background and Oswald was preserving cover of that? If Oswald's case had gone to trial would he through an attorney have argued that he did not consider that rifle personally his, but a government agency's? And that he had dissembled about ordering it by mail on similar grounds as the government dissembling about involvement in plans to invade Cuba--to protect an undercover operation? Did Oswald even expect his case to come to trial, or did he anticipate release prior to trial from intervention which did not happen in time for him? Some things may never be known due to his untimely death.)

Neither rifle nor curtain rods: the lunch solution

The lunch explanation of the contents of his paper bag brought to work with him, which was Oswald's own answer to his interrogators, is plausible. Oswald never denied he had an over-size length paper bag for his lunch, but explained (reasonably) that bag sizes vary and one used what was available. Oswald said he had had a cheese sandwich, a banana and an apple for lunch. It would be unusual if Oswald had not brought his lunch with him. Never mind what Frazier said Oswald said, this is the reality: Oswald normally brought his lunch, said he did so that day, never told his interrogators otherwise, and the 25-27" x 6" (Buell) or x 8" (Linnie Mae) width paper bag is the size of paper bags for baguettes or certain kinds of bread such as Italian or French bread. Both the ways in which Linnie Mae and Buell saw him carrying it are consistent with how one would carry a lunch in such a bag--either holding it by the top and the bottom almost reaches the ground (what Linnie Mae saw in Irving), or, perhaps to avoid the bottom risking hitting the ground, carrying it with the right palm cupped under it and the upper part of the bag held by his upper arm against his upper body as he walked (what Buell saw in Dallas). 

On whether Buell was truthful in telling of Oswald saying it was curtain rods, and that Oswald said curtain rods was the reason for his trip to Irving, that is a judgment call but I judge it is likely true. Buell asking Oswald the reason for the unexpected trip on a Thursday is a reasonable question of curiosity from a driver, and it is equally believable that Oswald might not wish to disclose his personal business so made up a reason: "curtain rods", perhaps drawing from some mention from an earlier time about curtains or curtain rods. (Note when Oswald was told Buell had said he said curtain rods, Oswald answered Buell must be confusing it with an earlier occasion, slightly different from a simple denial.) Buell on another occasion said the reason Oswald went out on Thursday night, not Friday, was because Oswald planned to take a driving test that weekend. Frazier would not have then known the real reason, in terms of innocent explanation unrelated to planning to kill JFK, was he had missed the previous weekend with his wife and children in Irving (due to Ruth Paine's girl's birthday party), and, separately, Marina was angry with him and apparently was not speaking to him over the phone. Oswald, described by Buell as not very talkative anyway, may have told Buell "curtain rods" rather than "Marina is angry with me and that is why I am going to try to work things out with her". There could even have been a further reason still: had Lee come into unexpected money? Marina in Irving had nearly $180, the equivalent of ca. $1800 in today's money, in cash in her room, from Lee, after the assassination. Had that $180 cash been saved over time, or given Marina the night before, or some combination of both?

Marina told of Lee having urged her to rent an apartment with him that weekend, promising to buy Marina a washing machine, etc.--things which involved immediate outlays of large sums of money--which would be consistent if Lee had come into money, and hoped to have his family reunited under one roof that weekend, to go out Thursday night, cash in hand, to arrange it with Marina.

In short, the timing of the trip to Irving, the reason for dissembling to Buell over the reason for the trip (the bogus "curtain rods" reason), and the variable size of the paper bag for his lunch, are all of those reasonably explained as coincidences and unrelated to the JFK assassination. It is not necessary to suppose Oswald was plotting to assassinate Kennedy in explanation of any of those three things which are amenable to mundane, everyday explanation.

The evasive leaving from the TSBD following the assassination, on the other hand, is not mundane, everyday behavior but is also not necessarily indicative of Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination, as distinguished from an unusual reaction for other reason, such as, e.g. suspecting he had been set up or was in danger of being killed by the assassins of JFK (https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/T-Jackets-112.pdf).

Postscript on the 38" paper bag made from TSBD paper

On the 38" TSBD paper bag claimed to be associated with the rifle on the 6th floor, one possibility is that 38" paper bag was made by Oswald at an earlier time, perhaps toward the end of the week ending Fri Nov 8, and then taken to Irving with him on his person, for the purpose of holding what Oswald believed at that time was his 36" length Mannlicher-Carcano (not disassembled). Oswald had ordered a 36" Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, and is it possible he still had not noticed or realized that the one he had been shipped was actually 40", not 36"? Thinking it was 36" (the length he had ordered), he would make the bag 38" to fully enclose it. The FBI match of the paper of the 38" bag to the Nov 22 TSBD paper roll on the first floor TSBD (but not to TSBD paper sampled on Nov 26) can be accounted for if either the particular roll sampled on Nov 22 (there were four rolls in simultaneous use?) had also been in use Nov 8, or more than one roll was from the same batch of paper, across a time span of 14-15 or so days. There was a non-match of a sample of TSBD paper on Nov 26 to both the 38" bag and a sample of TSBD paper of Nov 22, but that does not necessarily mean a paper match was not possible from an earlier time over a duration longer than 4 days. 

Oswald would have made the 38" bag at TSBD say around Thu or Frid Nov 7-8 in preparation for a planned removal of the rifle from the garage in Irving on Nov 11. He would have used TSBD wrapping paper and the 3" tape there since that was free and nothing else was easily available. He would have designed the paper bag to enclose the whole rifle, but he did not have the rifle in hand to check the size was right when making the bag. He would have discovered the 38" bag did not completely cover the 40" rifle only on Nov 11 in Irving. Since he was spending money for which he had worked hard for a reinstallation of a scope that he did not like or use, and since he never practiced shooting with the rifle after spending money to have the scope reinstalled and sighted, that is consistent with the purpose being a conveyance. How the logistics of such a conveyance might have worked is unknown--there is a black hole of information between Nov 11 and Nov 22 concerning whereabouts and custody of the rifle, after the rifle was removed from Oswald's belongings in Ruth Paine's garage on the morning of Nov 11. There is no knowledge the rifle was ever returned to Ruth Paine's garage after its removal from that garage on Nov 11.

In default of a better explanation (such as meeting someone for a handover that day), I assume after the scope reinstallation had been done and the rifle sighted-in by Dial Ryder at the Irving Sport Shop on Nov 11, that Oswald--who with Marina and their children was driving Michael Paine's second car (a blue-and-white Olds without either Michael's or Ruth Paine's knowledge)--drove to a bus station and put the rifle in a rented storage locker. The rifle would be in the 38" paper bag with the 40" rifle sticking out of the open top of the bag by 2".

The conveyance of the rifle could then occur by means of Oswald giving the key to the storage locker to someone.

Oswald could have told whoever was buying it from him, as an enhancement of value, that he had just had the rifle sighted in and told the person where, at the Irving Sport Shop. That could be the mechanism for the information that an anonymous caller called in to both the FBI and the press, the weekend of the assassination, with the anonymous tip that Oswald had had the rifle sighted-in at a gun shop in Irving (easily found by the FBI, and that tip is how Dial Ryder entered the story when the FBI made inquiries). 

The rifle then went into the TSBD at some point prior to the morning of Nov 22, 1963, sighted-in and not disassembled, and the 38" paper bag entered with it, though not necessarily brought in by Oswald, but rather by the ones in last possession of the rifle, the one or ones to whom Oswald had sold it.

And naturally Oswald's fingerprints would be on the rifle since it had been his, and on the 38" paper bag under this reconstruction, even though Oswald may not have been responsible for either of those items going to the 6th floor of the TSBD.

For all we know the rifle sale or conveyance on the part of Oswald some time on or after Nov 11, 1963, could have been in continuation of informant or "sting" work being done by Oswald for an agency, that backfired in the assassination when Oswald found himself set up to be implicated by means of the rifle connection. 

Again the key essential point, that which I regard as a fact established, is the scope reinstallation by Oswald on that rifle on the morning of Nov 11, 1963 (link again: https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop-109-pdf.pdf). In that article I wrote in the conclusion how Dial Ryder of the Irving Sport Shop was caught up in the saga by sheer accident.

But Dial Ryder is not the point, is beside the point. I should have brought out in that conclusion instead the point that actually matters: the rifle, the Mannlicher-Carcano, did not leave Ruth Paine's garage on Nov 22, but eleven days earlier on Nov 11. And Oswald was not the last possessor of that rifle prior to the assassination, but its next-to-last possessor. 

It is possible the assassination was done by the last possessors of that rifle, not the next-to-last one. 

That is the point that matters. 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[David Von Pein]

36 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

These ten points deliver a conclusion that what was in Oswald's paper bag from Irving that morning was, as he said to his interrogators, his lunch...

JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that
looked like a lunch package that morning?"

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "You know like I told you earlier...he didn't take his
lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where
was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day."

MR. BALL -- "He told you that that day, did he?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Right. That is right. So I assumed he was going to buy
it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys
do. They don't bring their lunch, but they go out and buy their lunch
there."

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

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?

Care to guess at what those odds might be? They must be close to "O.J. DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22, 1963).

I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), which was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63.

I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it.
 

Edited October 16, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Conspiracy theorists need to somehow explain away the devastatingly incriminating evidence against Lee Oswald known as CE142 (the EMPTY paper bag that was found in the Sniper's Nest with two of Oswald's prints on it).

Most conspiracists like to cry foul when discussing that brown paper sack, claiming that the police were up to no good and created a fake bag in order to frame Oswald with it. But such arguments fall short in the "proof it happened" department. Way short.

But it's obvious why CTers feel the need to distance themselves from the reality of that paper bag. Because if those conspiracy believers were to actually face the stubborn reality concerning the bag (with that reality being: It was Oswald's homemade bag and Oswald took his rifle to work in that bag), then those CTers would be forced to admit that their precious "patsy" had probably taken that gun to work in order to shoot somebody with it on the day when JFK came to town.

What other reasonable and logical conclusion could anyone (CTer or otherwise) come to after they've admitted to themselves the obvious truth: That Lee Oswald did, in fact, walk into the Book Depository on November 22, 1963, with a rifle wrapped in brown paper?

Another pesky item that conspiracists need to "explain away" is the "curtain rod" lie that was told by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it couldn't be more obvious (to a reasonable and rational person, that is) that Oswald DID, indeed, lie to Wesley Frazier (and later to the police after he was arrested) concerning the curtain rods. Oswald never had any curtain rods, of course.

And why on Earth would Oswald want to lie about the contents of that brown paper package? Again, the answer couldn't be more obvious: He wanted to DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM THE MURDER WEAPON.

 

[David Von Pein]

Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle were obviously mistaken as to the precise length of Oswald's paper bag.

To believe otherwise is to believe that the brown paper bag Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63 was a different brown paper bag from the EMPTY brown paper bag that was found in the TSBD which had OSWALD'S PRINTS ON IT.

Is a reasonable and sensible person supposed to actually believe that Oswald took a large-ish bag with him into work on November 22 that was 27 inches long, with that bag then disappearing without a trace between 8:00 AM and early- to mid-afternoon on the same day (November 22)?

And then are we supposed to believe that a similar-looking BROWN PAPER BAG (EMPTY!) turned up in the exact place from which a gunman fired shots at JFK, with this coincidence occurring (incredibly) on the very same day that Oswald carried a 27-inch BROWN PAPER BAG into the very same building where a 38-inch BROWN PAPER BAG was discovered WITH OSWALD'S PALMPRINT AND FINGERPRINT on it?

A reasonable person can arrive at only one reasonable conclusion here:

The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on the morning of the assassination was the very same paper bag that was seen lying (empty!) in the Sniper's Nest by Lt. Carl Day and Robert Studebaker of the DPD on November 22, 1963.

Accepting any other scenario other than the scenario I just mentioned in the above paragraph is to accept a scenario that lacks all fundamental logic and common sense.

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Sean Coleman]

Fundamental logic & common sense abundant in the following…..

 

Theres more, too much more.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Sean Coleman

[Jean Ceulemans]

Has Wes been asked if he told such a thing to Detective Rose ?

From what I have read so far on Rose I don't trust him, but ya never know.  Rose was allegetly also present when a polygraph test was taken from Wes, the polygraph test with the lost results that is...  

 

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Has Wes been asked if he told such a thing to Detective Rose ?

From what I have read so far on Rose I don't trust him, but ya never know.  Rose was allegetly also present when a polygraph test was taken from Wes, the polygraph test with the lost results that is...  

 

FWIW, Gus Rose was exposed as a dirty cop in The Thin Blue Line. 

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?

Care to guess at what those odds might be? They must be close to "O.J. DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22, 1963).

I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), which was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63.

I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it.
 

And I wonder what the odds are of

1. Both Frazier and his sister being wrong about the size of the bag, and saying it was the size of a bag of curtain rods.

2. The Paines' thinking there had been a package of curtain rods in their garage, and finding only loose rods later. 

3. Some curtain rods being tested by the DPD before any were retrieved from Mrs. Paine's garage.

4. Someone changing the dates on the paperwork for these rods, as if to conceal the actual timing of their discovery. 

5. The curtain rods being damaged at Oswald's room when first inspected by the DPD. 

6. No follow-up being performed by the WC once this last fact came to light. 

[Greg Doudna]

David von Pein, please respond to my starting point or fact #1, the evidence I cited Oswald's rifle was removed from the Ruth Paine garage on the morning of Mon Nov 11, 1963, with no evidence the rifle was in the garage again or in Oswald's physical custody after Nov 11, but may have been conveyed to a different person in that time frame.

I am saying both the rifle and the 38" paper bag were Oswald's, that the 38" paper bag had been made by Oswald from TSBD paper, ca. Fri Nov 8, for the purpose of holding what Oswald thought was his 36" (but which actually was 40" length) Mannlicher-Carcano for use when he intended to remove it from the garage on Mon Nov 11.

I am not sure you read or understood my argument from the first point forward, even though I wrote it as clearly as I knew how. I am saying Oswald took his rifle out of his belongings stored in Ruth's garage on Nov 11 to get the scope reinstalled for purpose of a conveyance. I wrote a detailed paper establishing that fundamental fact referred to in my point one, which is critical to all that follows.

The 38" paper bag was with the rifle on Nov 11, and the 38" paper bag stayed with the rifle from Nov 11 forward, but they did not necessarily stay with Oswald. The 38" paper bag, with the rifle, ended up on the 6th floor of the TSBD on Nov 22. Who put those there and when become the questions, and there are more possibilities than just Oswald, given that Oswald may not have been the final possessor of rifle and 38" paper bag prior to the assassination.   

If Oswald's intended conveyance of his rifle with the associated 38" paper bag he made to carry it, happened at any point between Nov 11 and Nov 22, then Oswald becomes the next to last, but not last, possessor of the rifle and 38" paper bag, and may not have been the possessor of either the rifle or the 38" paper bag by the time of the assassination.

Please address what I have written, or if you are going to go off firing away at high volume against what others (but not I) have written in this thread, please make clear you are addressing others and not responding to what I have said.

Your separate point of claiming vanishingly small odds that a single person could make a large paper bag out of TSBD wrapping paper to hold a rifle, and the very same person bring his lunch to work in a smaller paper bag of a different size, is rejected. Of course one person can have more than one paper bag for different purposes. The burden of proof in this case is to show differently, but neither witness nor forensic testimony established an identification of the 38" paper bag (to hold the rifle) with the 26" x 7" bread-bag-like paper bag in which Oswald may have brought his lunch, and the only witnesses who saw Oswald's 26" paper bag that morning negatively refuted that it was the 38" rifle-paper-bag on the basis of credible testimony as to its size. Therefore it is by no means as cut-and-dried as you represent. 

You did not respond to the explanation suggested for why Oswald might have falsely told Frazier in response to his inquiry that his purpose for his trip to Irving was about curtain rods (i.e. a white lie told to avoid discussion with Buell of his personal marital affairs). That was suggested by Jeremy Bojczuk at http://www.22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-curtain-rods.

If you intend to substantively discuss what I wrote, I ask that you read it first.

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

And I wonder what the odds are of

1. Both Frazier and his sister being wrong about the size of the bag, and saying it was the size of a bag of curtain rods.

2. The Paines' thinking there had been a package of curtain rods in their garage, and finding only loose rods later. 

3. Some curtain rods being tested by the DPD before any were retrieved from Mrs. Paine's garage.

4. Someone changing the dates on the paperwork for these rods, as if to conceal the actual timing of their discovery. 

5. The curtain rods being damaged at Oswald's room when first inspected by the DPD. 

6. No follow-up being performed by the WC once this last fact came to light. 

Pat, for some time I have pondered over some of the interesting things you bring out in your discussion of the curtain rods issue on your website, and separately the 38" paper bag. I appreciate the massive amount of original work you have done and posted on your website.

I recently restudied your analyses of the 38" paper bag, the lack of photos and anomalies in the witness testimonies thereof, but in the end I came to think that was not created on Nov 22 for some other purpose, then repurposed (one of the explanations proposed), but rather actually was somewhere on the floor or on the boxes of that 6th floor originally mistaken for trash paper with an incompetence explanation for the lack of an in situ photograph. (This was discussed by you in your 4c, https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4c-shining-a-light-on-day.) I also have no problem with fingerprints of Oswald on either the rifle or the 38" paper bag since I believe both were Oswald's on the weekend of Nov 11, 1963, but that both rifle and paper bag may have been conveyed into the hands of someone else by Oswald at some point after the morning of Mon Nov 11. 

Incidentally, can you answer, if you know, one minor question (just for interest's sake): is there evidence or corroboration that Oswald ever was informed or told that his rifle had been found on the 6th floor? We have all assumed so since everyone else in the world knew that, but is it verified that Oswald knew that? 

On the curtain rods (your 4h, https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4h-the-curtain-rod-story), your chapter made me wonder if Oswald might indeed have lifted two curtain rods from the Ruth Paine garage lying loose above Michael Paine's workbench. That would then agree with both the ca. 26-27" length of the paper bag (that length being a fact whatever that bag contained) and also what Lee told Buell. However my main problem with that is (a) it does not explain Lee's denial to interrogators that he carried curtain rods; (b) it makes no sense in rational terms why Oswald would need curtain rods of that size; and even if equivocally (c) the matter of no curtain rods reported found at TSBD.

I do not think the multiple interrogators' reports conspired to fabricate Oswald's denial on that, and although there is a damaged super-long curtain rod in that photo of Lee's room the day after the assassination, the size isn't right for two lifted curtain rods from Ruth Paine's garage to solve. If you had some better explanation of the first two points (a and b) I could see it, but I doubt any good explanation of the first two points exists. Therefore the "white lie" explanation that Lee, not wishing to tell of his personal marital issues with Marina (she angry and not speaking to him by phone), told Buell that even though it wasn't true, becomes the default plausible innocent explanation. As someone else has noted (I cannot recall where I read it or who said it), Oswald could even have purposely after having told Buell that on Thursday, picked out any old thing to put in a 27" paper bag the next day to support his white lie story to Buell.

If, however, there was something to an Oswald lifting of two curtain rods from the Ruth Paine garage idea (in which she originally had 4 curtain rods as Michael Paine said, 2 or 4, instead of 2 as the normally-accurate but still fallible Ruth Paine might mistakenly have remembered), and Lee lifted 2 of them leaving 2 in the garage to be found there by the Warren Commission ... since an actual need for curtain rods by Lee seems a stretch, and since Lee was not otherwise a thief of items from Ruth Paine's garage ... I suppose another line of speculation could be that either Lee did not think 2 loose curtain rods mattered (yet he still did not ask Ruth Paine if they mattered or if he could have them!), or better, intended to return them? (Borrowed for the purpose of consistency with his white-lie explanation to Buell as to the reason for the trip to Irving? Denied to his interrogators due to the complications of explaining why he stole from Ruth Paine? [not necessarily because of an accusation that he had carried a rifle in that paper bag, which Oswald may not have been aware was the suspicion or the reason for the question?].)

The whole assumption that a 26" or 27" x 7" store lightweight paper bag was unusual for carrying a lunch--which is what David von Pein goes on about--just seems insubstantial, given that the only witnesses who saw it unanimously said it was not the size or identified with the 38" paper bag, and that size lightweight paper bag was not unusual, as Frazier said, it was like in any grocery store, and therefore would be within the range of and mundane for use in carrying a lunch. As Oswald was reported to have said when asked why he picked that size, he said one does not always use an exact size but what is available, in terms of paper bags, and that is reasonable.

The owner of Hutch's Mart about 0.8 (?) miles south of Ruth Paine's house claimed that a walking Oswald came in to his store several times in mornings just after 7 am to buy milk and bread and rolls there. Although there are some problems with Leonard Hutchison's testimony and especially the dates he estimated, it could be Hutchison was referring to Oswald shopping there, walking there on certain Saturday or weekday mornings not later than Nov 11, 1963. (The logistics and timing and witness testimonies will not however allow such an excursion of Oswald to have occurred the morning of Nov 22--the timing is too tight that morning for that.) 

But the point there is that Hutchison said Oswald bought bread, and the ca. 26 x 7 paper bag size could agree with a French or Italian bread purchase of Oswald, say early on a Saturday morning if he walked there from Ruth's house and back. It is a possible source of that size paper bag which Oswald could have reused for carrying to work Nov 22, although Ruth herself may also have had a small number of paper bags of varying sizes from shopping excursions available for Lee to use to pack his lunch. 

Long story short, I came to the conclusion that actual curtain rods in the paper bag Nov 22 seemed like a rabbit hole that was insubstantial, and that the "curtain rods" and the ca. 26" length of the paper bag that morning could have been an actual coincidence that was made into something that it wasn't, starting from Linnie Mae Randle's telling police in Irving her suspicion that maybe that "long" paper bag Oswald was carrying that morning might have held a rifle. Even though from all of Buell Frazier's evidence, which evidently held up under polygraph examination, it didn't.

I concluded this could be one instance of how, when someone is under heavy police suspicion, mundane everyday accidents and coincidences (e.g. Oswald picking up a longer paper bag that morning at Ruth Paine's house for his lunch) become escalated into narrative storytellings in which innocent as well as guilty people can be broad-brush suspected. The same genre of mistake and damage that CT's have made on innumerable innocent persons who have come under the crosshairs of suspicion, even though actually innocent.

I love this capsule summary from Postal Inspector Harry Holmes in Sneed, No More Silence, of police logic as carried out by Captain Fritz:

"[Fritz] was crude and had farmerish ways and mannerisms, but as far as I was concerned he was really an outstanding criminal investigator. Fritz abhorred publicity, wanted to get the job done, send the guy to the penitentiary and go on to the next one ..."

(Not, find out if the guy was innocent. The logic seemed to be, wring the suspect for a confession by any means possible which Fritz had a reputation for being very good at obtaining, on the assumption that if the suspect was actually innocent he would resist the best efforts of the Dallas Police's finest in getting that confession...)

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Pat, for some time I have pondered over some of the interesting things you bring out in your discussion of the curtain rods issue on your website, and separately the 38" paper bag. I appreciate the massive amount of original work you have done and posted on your website.

I recently restudied your analyses of the 38" paper bag, the lack of photos and anomalies in the witness testimonies thereof, but in the end I came to think that was not created on Nov 22 for some other purpose, then repurposed (one of the explanations proposed), but rather actually was somewhere on the floor or on the boxes of that 6th floor originally mistaken for trash paper with an incompetence explanation for the lack of an in situ photograph. (This was discussed by you in your 4c, https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4c-shining-a-light-on-day.) I also have no problem with fingerprints of Oswald on either the rifle or the 38" paper bag since I believe both were Oswald's on the weekend of Nov 11, 1963, but that both rifle and paper bag may have been conveyed into the hands of someone else by Oswald at some point after the morning of Mon Nov 11. 

Incidentally, can you answer, if you know, one minor question (just for interest's sake): is there evidence or corroboration that Oswald ever was informed or told that his rifle had been found on the 6th floor? We have all assumed so since everyone else in the world knew that, but is it verified that Oswald knew that? 

On the curtain rods (your 4h, https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4h-the-curtain-rod-story), your chapter made me wonder if Oswald might indeed have lifted two curtain rods from the Ruth Paine garage lying loose above Michael Paine's workbench. That would then agree with both the ca. 26-27" length of the paper bag (that length being a fact whatever that bag contained) and also what Lee told Buell. However my main problem with that is (a) it does not explain Lee's denial to interrogators that he carried curtain rods; (b) it makes no sense in rational terms why Oswald would need curtain rods of that size; and even if equivocally (c) the matter of no curtain rods reported found at TSBD.

I do not think the multiple interrogators' reports conspired to fabricate Oswald's denial on that, and although there is a damaged super-long curtain rod in that photo of Lee's room the day after the assassination, the size isn't right for two lifted curtain rods from Ruth Paine's garage to solve. If you had some better explanation of the first two points (a and b) I could see it, but I doubt any good explanation of the first two points exists. Therefore the "white lie" explanation that Lee, not wishing to tell of his personal marital issues with Marina (she angry and not speaking to him by phone), told Buell that even though it wasn't true, becomes the default plausible innocent explanation. As someone else has noted (I cannot recall where I read it or who said it), Oswald could even have purposely after having told Buell that on Thursday, picked out any old thing to put in a 27" paper bag the next day to support his white lie story to Buell.

If, however, there was something to an Oswald lifting of two curtain rods from the Ruth Paine garage idea (in which she originally had 4 curtain rods as Michael Paine said, 2 or 4, instead of 2 as the normally-accurate but still fallible Ruth Paine might mistakenly have remembered), and Lee lifted 2 of them leaving 2 in the garage to be found there by the Warren Commission ... since an actual need for curtain rods by Lee seems a stretch, and since Lee was not otherwise a thief of items from Ruth Paine's garage ... I suppose another line of speculation could be that either Lee did not think 2 loose curtain rods mattered (yet he still did not ask Ruth Paine if they mattered or if he could have them!), or better, intended to return them? (Borrowed for the purpose of consistency with his white-lie explanation to Buell as to the reason for the trip to Irving? Denied to his interrogators due to the complications of explaining why he stole from Ruth Paine? [not necessarily because of an accusation that he had carried a rifle in that paper bag, which Oswald may not have been aware was the suspicion or the reason for the question?].)

The whole assumption that a 26" or 27" x 7" store lightweight paper bag was unusual for carrying a lunch--which is what David von Pein goes on about--just seems insubstantial, given that the only witnesses who saw it unanimously said it was not the size or identified with the 38" paper bag, and that size lightweight paper bag was not unusual, as Frazier said, it was like in any grocery store, and therefore would be within the range of and mundane for use in carrying a lunch. As Oswald was reported to have said when asked why he picked that size, he said one does not always use an exact size but what is available, in terms of paper bags, and that is reasonable.

The owner of Hutch's Mart about 0.8 (?) miles south of Ruth Paine's house claimed that a walking Oswald came in to his store several times in mornings just after 7 am to buy milk and bread and rolls there. Although there are some problems with Leonard Hutchison's testimony and especially the dates he estimated, it could be Hutchison was referring to Oswald shopping there, walking there on certain Saturday or weekday mornings not later than Nov 11, 1963. (The logistics and timing and witness testimonies will not however allow such an excursion of Oswald to have occurred the morning of Nov 22--the timing is too tight that morning for that.) 

But the point there is that Hutchison said Oswald bought bread, and the ca. 26 x 7 paper bag size could agree with a French or Italian bread purchase of Oswald, say early on a Saturday morning if he walked there from Ruth's house and back. It is a possible source of that size paper bag which Oswald could have reused for carrying to work Nov 22, although Ruth herself may also have had a small number of paper bags of varying sizes from shopping excursions available for Lee to use to pack his lunch. 

Long story short, I came to the conclusion that actual curtain rods in the paper bag Nov 22 seemed like a rabbit hole that was insubstantial, and that the "curtain rods" and the ca. 26" length of the paper bag that morning could have been an actual coincidence that was made into something that it wasn't, starting from Linnie Mae Randle's telling police in Irving her suspicion that maybe that "long" paper bag Oswald was carrying that morning might have held a rifle. Even though from all of Buell Frazier's evidence, which evidently held up under polygraph examination, it didn't.

I concluded this could be one instance of how, when someone is under heavy police suspicion, mundane everyday accidents and coincidences (e.g. Oswald picking up a longer paper bag that morning at Ruth Paine's house for his lunch) become escalated into narrative storytellings in which innocent as well as guilty people can be broad-brush suspected. The same genre of mistake and damage that CT's have made on innumerable innocent persons who have come under the crosshairs of suspicion, even though actually innocent.

I love this capsule summary from Postal Inspector Harry Holmes in Sneed, No More Silence, of police logic as carried out by Captain Fritz:

"[Fritz] was crude and had farmerish ways and mannerisms, but as far as I was concerned he was really an outstanding criminal investigator. Fritz abhorred publicity, wanted to get the job done, send the guy to the penitentiary and go on to the next one ..."

(Not, find out if the guy was innocent. The logic seemed to be, wring the suspect for a confession by any means possible which Fritz had a reputation for being very good at obtaining, on the assumption that if the suspect was actually innocent he would resist the best efforts of the Dallas Police's finest in getting that confession...)

Could the curtain rods story be a white lie? Of course. I always assumed it was before digging into the dirt. 

I'd assumed the Paines had checked to see if rods were missing after hearing of Oswald's story, and had found no rods missing. This turned out to be false. They didn't check for months and then were surprised to find only loose rods, not the packaged rods they'd thought they had. 

I'd assumed Oswald's room had no need for curtain rods. This turned out to be false. It needed new curtain rods, but his landlady assumed the rods were damaged by the DPD when inspecting the room. 

I'd assumed there was a clear record showing that the only rods provided the DPD or FBI were the rods obtained from Mrs. Paine's garage. But this was also false, as there is a DPD evidence slip for rods with a date preceding the discovery of the rods in Mrs. Paine's garage...that was altered before publication by the WC.

This leads me to believe the rods story is true.

As far as Fritz...I wish I could find the source, but I remember reading somewhere that the character Hank Quinlan in the classic film Touch of Evil was based on Fritz--a bachelor, with no life outside his job, who was a marginal detective with a great conviction record, due to his interrogation "skills", which quite often led to confessions, which were frequently helped along by falsified evidence. IOW, he would "magnify" the amount of evidence against a suspect he assumed was guilty in order to elicit a confession. Assuming as much, we can only assume his right-hand in this was Lt. Day.  

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

4 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

David von Pein [sic], please respond to my starting point or fact #1, the evidence I cited Oswald's rifle was removed from the Ruth Paine garage on the morning of Mon Nov 11, 1963, with no evidence the rifle was in the garage again or in Oswald's physical custody after Nov 11, but may have been conveyed to a different person in that time frame.

Seems like a mighty weak theory to me. And many (most) of the things on your 10-item list that you've labelled as "facts" are, of course, not really "facts" at all. They are merely your own opinions and suspicions.

Like nearly all JFK conspiracy theories, Greg Doudna's latest effort is full of guesswork and speculation, and is merely another attempt by a conspiracist to avoid the obvious. With that "obvious" being (IMO):

Oswald brought his own rifle to work with him on Nov. 22 (after an unusual Thursday-night trip to Irving), with Oswald himself then using that rifle to shoot JFK from the sixth floor of the Depository.*

* With Oswald unquestionably lying to Wesley Frazier about his real reason for going out to Irving on Thursday night. (The curtain rod story being the provable lie that he told to Frazier.)

But at least you (Greg Doudna) have found a way to get that rifle out of Ruth Paine's garage without anyone needing to break into the garage in order to steal it (as some CTers have theorized). You certainly deserve a point for that.

But via your theory, if Oswald himself didn't bring the rifle into the TSBD, who do you think did? Do you think it might have been one of Oswald's fellow TSBD employees? Or was it a stranger? Any idea at all?

Related thoughts:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/two-things-that-prove-oswald's-guilt

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

David v. P., could you give a specific response to my point #1? 

The response you gave is not specific to #1 and is just boilerplate: speak third person as if I am not in the room, call all the points lumped together (not just the first) “weak” without specifics, throw in the obligatory mantra “like all conspiracy theorists” followed by stock list of all-purpose putdowns, reassert party line conclusion. 

Generic response. Can be applied to anything sight unseen. Saves time—no reading or thinking required. 

On your mantra “like all CT theorists”, I am curious: do you consider every defense attorney opposing a prosecutor’s case a CT? Do you consider Innocence Project cases CT activity? Serious question, please answer and please say why.

Do you regard any argument making a case for reasonable doubt of Oswald’s guilt, by definition, to be CT and their authors by definition CTs? Why?

Can you conceive of a possible argument for innocence or reasonable doubt of Oswald in the cases of Walker, Tippit, or JFK which you would not consider justly labeled CT?

I am asking you to address my point #1 citing my paper on the Irving Sport Shop Oswald scope reinstallation on the basis of specifics and without Pavlovian-response-invoking namecallings such as “like all CT’s” and other objectionable rhetorical devices. 

On your final question on who I think brought the rifle into the TSBD if not Oswald, I do not know. As a general statement I am skeptical the TSBD building was as non-porous to access to outsiders or strangers in the days or weeks prior to Nov. 22 as sometimes supposed. This was not a situation of sign-in sheets, security officer checking people in and out, etc. I do not assume there must have been a confederate employee inside TSBD in order to suppose an infiltration of rifle and shooter, speaking hypothetically. If there was a confederate inside employee I would assume it necessarily would be a recent hire. 

[David Von Pein]

Greg,

If Oswald had actually given his rifle to somebody else between Nov. 11 and 22, then Oswald would have certainly told the police that very important fact after he was arrested and charged with committing a murder that he (under those conditions) very likely never committed.

Would Oswald have had every reason under the sun to admit to the cops that he had given his rifle to another person prior to Nov. 22 if such a rifle transaction was actually the truth? Yes, of course he would. (Especially after being shown the backyard photo on Nov. 23.)

But did Oswald say anything to the authorities about some other person coming into possession of his Carcano rifle? No, he didn't.

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by David Von Pein