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

[Greg Doudna]

I have been thinking there were only three options for what was in Oswald's bag of length ca. 26" or 27" length that morning:

• the 34" broken-down rifle in twelve pieces, then assembled by Oswald somewhere in the building with ability to accurately fire the same morning without sighting-in (which disagrees with and arguably is excluded on the strength of Buell Frazier's credibility on the measurement), or
• 27" curtain rods (pro: length matches. pro: is what Oswald claimed was in the bag according to Buell Frazier. con: makes no sense. con: he did not ask Ruth Paine for permission to take any curtain rods belonging to her), or
• his lunch (pro: he normally carried a lunch to work in a paper sack. con: he told Buell Frazier it was not his lunch but curtain rods)

In the interest of consideration of all alternatives, without prejudicing which one is preferred, I think a fourth possibility should be added to the list:

• something else in the 26 or 27" bag either with or without curtain rods. 

No, I have no idea what that could be. But I am perceiving that if the rifle is excluded, it is not then a matter of either lunch or curtain rods, those two possibilities only. There are four theoretical possibilities on the table, not just three.

[Greg Doudna]

"The Man Who Drove Oswald to Work on Nov. 22, 1963"

[or, the size of the paper bag of Oswald the morning of Nov 22 according to the testimony on the record]

https://nypost.com/2008/11/23/the-man-who-drove-oswald-to-work-on-nov-22-1963/

"(. . .) [Buell Wesley] FRAZIER was questioned vigorously by police – accused of being involved in the plot to kill Kennedy – and even told falsely by police officers that Oswald had named him as a co-conspirator. 

"After 12 intense hours at the police department, he was allowed to take a polygraph test, passed it impressively and was released. 

"The fact that Frazier helped train Oswald at his new job and had driven him to Irving several times soon faded from most people’s memories. But another factor remained noteworthy. 

"Officials assumed that the package Oswald carried to work that morning was the Italian-made rifle he used to kill Kennedy. 

"Frazier still doesn’t believe it. 

"When Oswald got in his car that morning, Frazier hardly noticed the bundle he laid on the back seat. 

" 'He told me he was taking some curtain rods for his room,' Frazier said. 'I didn’t think much about it.' 

"Frazier parked his car behind the depository building and revved his engine for a few moments, charging his low battery, and watched Oswald walk about 200 yards into the building with the package under his arm. 

"In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Frazier said the brown paper package Oswald carried that morning was too short to contain a rifle. Oswald cupped the package in his hand, he said, and it fit under his armpit. 

"In Washington, Frazier said, he was 'pressured' to change his recollection. In the days afterward, he was badgered by the media, harassed by people who didn’t understand his relationship with Oswald and even became fearful for his life. 

"His testimony was important because investigators had proven that Oswald bought the rifle used in the JFK slaying and they had found a matching palm print on the blunt end of the rifle, but they had no proof that he had it with him that day. 

"Randle, who was also a leading witness, said recently that when she and Frazier testified before the Warren Commission, 'they tried to get us to say that package was much longer than we recalled, but that wasn’t true.' 

"The commission kept pushing, Frazier said. 

“ 'I know what I saw,' he said, 'and I’ve never changed one bit.' 

"Hundreds of conspiracy theories have spawned thousands of books and articles since the tragedy, but the official investigation concluded that Oswald shot Kennedy and acted alone. 

"The Warren Commission cited eyewitnesses to the shooting, and the later assault of Officer J.D. Tippit and the fact that Oswald had bought the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle for $12.95 from a Chicago mail-order house. 

"A brown paper sack with an Oswald palm and fingerprint on it was found close to the sixth-floor window where Oswald sat in wait that day. 

"No curtain rods were ever found in the depository, and Oswald’s room in Oak Cliff already had curtains. 

"In a book he’s writing, Frazier describes how he and his sister assembled packages with wrapping paper for hours, trying to show Warren Commission lawyers the size of the package Oswald carried that day. 

"In its report, released in the fall of 1964, the commission said, 'The Warren Commission has weighed the visual recollection of Frazier and Mrs. Randle against the evidence here presented . . . and has concluded that Frazier and Randle are mistaken as to the length of the bag.' 

"The FBI lab reported that the disassembled rifle stock measured just under 35 inches long, and the homemade bag measured 38 inches. 

“ 'I wasn’t surprised,' Frazier said. 'They seemed to have a prearranged agenda when they questioned Linnie and me. Our refusal to agree with their agenda simply caused them to state that we were mistaken.' " 

Edited October 19, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Marcus Fuller]

Is it possible that the curtain rod/gun sack was the result of an FBI arts and crafts session and some less than truthful testimony by Frazier and his sister? 

I don't know what curtain rods from that time/location would look like but I'm guessing they would look and sound more like a bag of tent poles or steel tubing rather than the less uniform size and shapes of various rifle parts.

[Jean Ceulemans]

3 hours ago, Marcus Fuller said:

Is it possible that the curtain rod/gun sack was the result of an FBI arts and crafts session and some less than truthful testimony by Frazier and his sister? 

I don't know what curtain rods from that time/location would look like but I'm guessing they would look and sound more like a bag of tent poles or steel tubing rather than the less uniform size and shapes of various rifle parts.

Hehe, that´s exactly how michael paine described the blanket that contained the rifle in his garage (steel tent poles)

Edited October 19, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Marcus Fuller]

3 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Hehe, that´s exactly how michael paine described the blanket that contained the rifle in his garage (steel tent poles)

Did they even manage to prove that a rifle had been wrapped inside the blanket? If I saw a blanket in a garage I'm not sure my first thought would be, 'I bet there's a rifle in that', even if I had lived in 1960's Texas! 

[David Von Pein]

21 minutes ago, Marcus Fuller said:

Did they even manage to prove that a rifle had been wrapped inside the blanket? If I saw a blanket in a garage I'm not sure my first thought would be, 'I bet there's a rifle in that', even if I had lived in 1960's Texas! 

Marcus,

Lee's wife, Marina, testified that she personally saw the rifle inside the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage. So it wasn't merely a wild GUESS on the part of Marina that a rifle was in the blanket.

Many conspiracy theorists, naturally, think Marina Oswald was telling a bunch of lies when she testified in the following manner in early 1964:

MARINA OSWALD -- After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.

[Later....]

Mr. RANKIN. After your husband returned from Mexico, did you examine the rifle in the garage at any time?

Mrs. OSWALD. I had never examined the rifle in the garage. It was wrapped in a blanket and was lying on the floor.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?

Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.

Mr. RANKIN. When was that?

Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.

Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.

 

Edited October 20, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Marcus Fuller]

Thanks for the info David. I'm not sure what I think of Marina at the moment, at least from what I've learnt so far. She seemed to me like the type of person who would wind Lee up to the point of him giving her a slap. I don't condone that type of thing obviously. If I went by my gut I'd say that with her husband dead, two kids and no money coming in I'm sure she would have been happy to throw Lee under the proverbial bus if it meant not being deported and getting a few $$, but my gut doesn't obviously count for anything on here lol

 

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Marcus Fuller said:

If I went by my gut I'd say that with her husband dead, two kids and no money coming in I'm sure she would have been happy to throw Lee under the proverbial bus if it meant not being deported and getting a few $$, but my gut doesn't obviously count for anything on here.

But given the situation Marina Oswald was confronted with after the assassination ---- her husband is dead, she has no money, very few friends, speaks very little English, and she's now on her own and living in a country that's foreign to her ---- can you think of one good reason under the sun WHY she would be afraid (or unwilling) to go back to her native Russia?

In other words, why on Earth would she have been afraid of being "deported"?

The "Marina Was Afraid Of Being Deported" line of reasoning has never made any sense to me at all. But apparently it does make sense to most conspiracy theorists. But I would think that Marina would have been anxious and eager to get back to her USSR homeland, which is where her family and friends were located.

Marina did later say that she did want to remain in the United States. But the notion that has been advanced over the years by various conspiracy theorists that she was deathly afraid of being "deported" back to the Soviet Union (and therefore she lied her ass off on numerous occasions in her Warren Commission testimony in order to avoid deportation) is, in my opinion, a totally ridiculous and illogical notion.

 

Edited October 20, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Andrews]

What do we make of the bag addressed to the wrong Oswald location, held at the post office and discovered after his death?  Did someone really need to connect him with a rifle bag?  Could he have ordered it at a gun shop?

Some discussion of bags, rods, and the Frazier-Randle family in this video.  Brings up issues if not solving them to everyone's satisfaction:

Oswald: What I'm really lookin' for is something to carry this thing in, but I can't afford a case.

Gunsmith: Well, I'm all outta paper sacks.  Like me to mail you one?

Oswald: Sure.  Here's two bits and a fake address.

Edited October 20, 2023 by David Andrews

[Jean Ceulemans]

11 hours ago, Marcus Fuller said:

Did they even manage to prove that a rifle had been wrapped inside the blanket? If I saw a blanket in a garage I'm not sure my first thought would be, 'I bet there's a rifle in that', even if I had lived in 1960's Texas! 

delete

Edited October 20, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Bill Brown]

On 10/16/2023 at 1:50 AM, Greg Doudna said:

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. 

 

"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."

 

Carried tucked up underneath his arm pit?

 

[Bill Brown]

On 10/16/2023 at 10:34 AM, Pat Speer said:

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

 

Not necessarily.

Wrong?  Yes.  Dirty?  How so?

 

[Pat Speer]

17 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Not necessarily.

Wrong?  Yes.  Dirty?  How so?

 

You are correct. Dirty implies that he was bribed. My recollection is that he used a number of unethical tactics when trying to coerce a confession from Adams--that he, essentially, fell in love with the idea Adams was the killer, despite the bulk of the evidence pointing to Harris. 

I remember thinking that someone so in love with his theories, and so manipulative, would have little problem cooking up fake evidence against the likes of Oswald. 

[Greg Doudna]

16 hours ago, David Andrews said:

What do we make of the bag addressed to the wrong Oswald location, held at the post office and discovered after his death?  Did someone really need to connect him with a rifle bag?  Could he have ordered it at a gun shop?

Some discussion of bags, rods, and the Frazier-Randle family in this video.  Brings up issues if not solving them to everyone's satisfaction:

Oswald: What I'm really lookin' for is something to carry this thing in, but I can't afford a case.

Gunsmith: Well, I'm all outta paper sacks.  Like me to mail you one?

Oswald: Sure.  Here's two bits and a fake address.

 

Edited October 20, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You are correct. Dirty implies that he was bribed. My recollection is that he used a number of unethical tactics when trying to coerce a confession from Adams--that he, essentially, fell in love with the idea Adams was the killer, despite the bulk of the evidence pointing to Harris. 

I remember thinking that someone so in love with his theories, and so manipulative, would have little problem cooking up fake evidence against the likes of Oswald. 

 

Rose (and others) were fooled by Harris.  That didn't make them dirty or the type who would "cook up fake evidence" against a suspect.  Rose didn't "cook up fake evidence" against Adams.

 

I think you're confusing prosecutorial misconduct (which certainly existed in this case) with a certain homicide detective being the type who would commit the same type of misconduct.

 

Adams should have been allowed to sue the county because of Mulder's (the Prosecutor) misconduct during the trial but that is not to say that Rose "cooked up fake evidence".

 

Once you accept that Rose did not "cook up fake evidence" against Adams, then you realize that none of this relates to the Kennedy assassination since Mulder was not around in 1963.

 

Edited October 20, 2023 by Bill Brown