The Fiber Evidence

[Gil Jesus]

https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1791/fiber-evidence

Edited Sunday at 11:25 AM by Gil Jesus

[Benjamin Cole]

Good ol' Gil Jesus. 

Parsing the evidence, as a robust and adequate defense counsel should have, lo those many years ago. 

The lesson: never trust a government investigation, and trust even less a partisan or expedient government investigation.

The courts are hardly perfect.

But unless an able defense is also presenting evidence and witnesses, and cross-examining witnesses, and scrutinizing "evidence" and ably presenting alternative or non-official or non-partisan narratives ...then what you have is a show trial or kangaroo court. 

One may wish to honor a show trial or kangaroo court, as it flatters one's biases. Certainly many establishment types, in media and elsewhere, embraced the WC findings. 

Tread carefully. 

 

 

 

[Micah Mileto]

This and the fingerprints may be the best evidence for fabricated evidence. Even better than the medical evidence.

[Pat Speer]

As mentioned by Gil, this is something I've spent some time on. 

I have two things to add. 

Gil reported that no fibers from the blanket were found on the rifle. But I don't think he mentioned that Stombaugh was specifically asked to search the weapon to see if he could find fibers from the blanket, and found none, but found instead the magical tuft of shirt fibers wrapped around the butt plate on top of fingerprint powder. Hmmm.

The other thing is this. Not only was there an insufficient number of fibers found in or on the bag to associate it with the blanket, John Hunt found an FBI photo in the archives proving the bag and blanket were placed together on a counter in the crime lab, which may have resulted in the few blanket fibers that were found in or on the bag. 

This photo is below. 

Edited June 17 by Pat Speer

[Sean Coleman]

48 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

As mentioned by Gil, this is something I've spent some time on. 

I have two things to add. 

Gil reported that no fibers from the blanket were found on the rifle. But I don't think he mentioned that Stombaugh was specifically asked to search the weapon to see if he could find fibers from the blanket, and found none, but found instead the magical tuft of shirt fibers wrapped around the butt plate on top of fingerprint powder. Hmmm.

The other thing is this. Not only was there an insufficient number of fibers found in or on the bag to associate it with the blanket, John Hunt found an FBI photo in the archives proving the bag and blanket were placed together on a counter in the crime lab, which may have resulted in the few blanket fibers that were found in or on the bag. 

This photo is below. 

Is that the bag atop an open roll of brown wrapping paper? Amazing. 
At least the office boy got a chance to squeeze in a quick nap….

[Gil Jesus]

On 6/10/2024 at 10:01 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

Good ol' Gil Jesus. 

Parsing the evidence, as a robust and adequate defense counsel should have, lo those many years ago. 

The lesson: never trust a government investigation, and trust even less a partisan or expedient government investigation.

The courts are hardly perfect.

But unless an able defense is also presenting evidence and witnesses, and cross-examining witnesses, and scrutinizing "evidence" and ably presenting alternative or non-official or non-partisan narratives ...then what you have is a show trial or kangaroo court. 

One may wish to honor a show trial or kangaroo court, as it flatters one's biases. Certainly many establishment types, in media and elsewhere, embraced the WC findings. 

Tread carefully. 

 

 

 

And to add insult to injury, the FBI found NO EVIDENCE that ANY RIFLE was ever in the bag. 

"There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument." ( Testimony of John Cadigan, 4 H 97 )

Cadigan testified that only two ways the rifle could have been in this bag and left no markings:

a.) if the metal parts were wrapped in cloth preventing them from having contact with the bag, or

b.) if the rifle had been nearly still in the bag.

"it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn’t moved too much." ( ibid. )

Neither of these were the case. The rifle was never wrapped in cloth and a broken-down 34 inch rifle would have had 4 inches to move around in a 38 inch bag. It would have moved around in the bag as Oswald hand carried it to the Randle residence. It would have bounced around in the back seat of Wesley Frazier's car as he drove through the dirt parking lot of the TSBD. Then it would have moved around as Oswald removed it from the back seat and hand carried into the building. A lot of moving around and no markings.

So the absence of markings is proof that the rifle was never in the bag. And because the rifle was never in the bag, it was never the transfer vehicle of the blanket fibers into the bag.

Without evidence that the “gunsack” ever contained the depository rifle, there's no evidence that the rifle transferred the blanket fibers into the bag. How do you get the fibers from the rifle into the bag if you can't prove that the rifle was ever in the bag ?

You speculate. And that's what the Commission's supporters do.
 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

And to add insult to injury, the FBI found NO EVIDENCE that ANY RIFLE was ever in the bag. 

"There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument." ( Testimony of John Cadigan, 4 H 97 )

Cadigan testified that only two ways the rifle could have been in this bag and left no markings:

a.) if the metal parts were wrapped in cloth preventing them from having contact with the bag, or

b.) if the rifle had been nearly still in the bag.

"it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn’t moved too much." ( ibid. )

Neither of these were the case. The rifle was never wrapped in cloth and a broken-down 34 inch rifle would have had 4 inches to move around in a 38 inch bag. It would have moved around in the bag as Oswald hand carried it to the Randle residence. It would have bounced around in the back seat of Wesley Frazier's car as he drove through the dirt parking lot of the TSBD. Then it would have moved around as Oswald removed it from the back seat and hand carried into the building. A lot of moving around and no markings.

So the absence of markings is proof that the rifle was never in the bag. And because the rifle was never in the bag, it was never the transfer vehicle of the blanket fibers into the bag.

Without evidence that the “gunsack” ever contained the depository rifle, there's no evidence that the rifle transferred the blanket fibers into the bag. How do you get the fibers from the rifle into the bag if you can't prove that the rifle was ever in the bag ?

You speculate. And that's what the Commission's supporters do.
 

The "gunsack" sure is curious. No one ever saw such a long gunsack, until after the JFKA. 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

Is that the bag atop an open roll of brown wrapping paper? Amazing. 
At least the office boy got a chance to squeeze in a quick nap….

No. Look in the foreground. The paper sack supposedly used by Oswald to carry the rifle has been placed directly on top of the blanket in which the rifle was supposedly concealed in the garage. Now, no one knows the timing of this photo. But one would assume it was shortly after these items had arrived and before they could be bagged and isolated. 

So... did the couple of fibers found in or on the bag which matched the blanket fibers come from this contamination? We'll never know.

But if this photo had surfaced during a trial, the blanket fibers found in or on the bag argument would have been sunk. 

[Jean Ceulemans]

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

No. Look in the foreground. The paper sack supposedly used by Oswald to carry the rifle has been placed directly on top of the blanket in which the rifle was supposedly concealed in the garage. Now, no one knows the timing of this photo. But one would assume it was shortly after these items had arrived and before they could be bagged and isolated. 

So... did the couple of fibers found in or on the bag which matched the blanket fibers come from this contamination? We'll never know.

But if this photo had surfaced during a trial, the blanket fibers found in or on the bag argument would have been sunk. 

What is clear are the many folds in the bag... Folded so small like one would have taken it from... to... unnoticed in a jacket or so, to be used later on.  

Edited June 18 by Jean Ceulemans
Typo

[Pat Speer]

20 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

What is clear are the many foldings in the bag... Folded so small like one would have taken it from... to... unnoticed in a jacket or so, to be used later on.  

If you're interested in performing a re-enactment, I would find that informative. When I asked Frazier if he thought Oswald could have smuggled a folded up bag of this size on his body and got in and out of the car without Frazier's noticing, he said "That did not happen." He agreed that this paper was crinkly and would became stiff when folded over. It was too big to fit in a pocket. So the only way Oswald could have smuggled this without Frazier's noticing was inside his shirt, presumably stuffed into the back of his shirt. So...could he have sat down in the car and got back out without such a thing being obvious. A re-enactment might be useful. 

[Ken Davies]

Excellent points , Pat. 

[Jean Ceulemans]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

If you're interested in performing a re-enactment, I would find that informative. When I asked Frazier if he thought Oswald could have smuggled a folded up bag of this size on his body and got in and out of the car without Frazier's noticing, he said "That did not happen." He agreed that this paper was crinkly and would became stiff when folded over. It was too big to fit in a pocket. So the only way Oswald could have smuggled this without Frazier's noticing was inside his shirt, presumably stuffed into the back of his shirt. So...could he have sat down in the car and got back out without such a thing being obvious. A re-enactment might be useful. 

Yet, why would he hide it if he was to show it the next day anyway, and already had "curtain rods" mentioned.  Unless, he wasn´t supposed to take paper from work?

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Yet, why would he hide it if he was to show it the next day anyway, and already had "curtain rods" mentioned.  Unless, he wasn´t supposed to take paper from work?

That's true. 

Joseph Ball was the number one proponent among the WC's lawyers for doing pre-interviews--to ask the witnesses questions and then avoid the more problematic answers when on the record a bit later. Frazier claimed he and his sister were harassed essentially by Ball, who was trying to get them to change their recollections about the size of the bag. Presumably, Ball knew as well that in the WC's operating theory Oswald had the bag on him when Frazier drove him home on the 21st. And yet he never asked Frazier anything about this on the record, if I recall. In any event, I suspect they did talk about it in a roundabout way and that Ball then avoided asking anything about this when the cameras were rolling, so to speak. 

I can still recall, moreover, the look on Frazier's face when I explained to him that the WC's scenario included Oswald transporting the bag in Frazier's car on the 21st. He was incredulous. No one had ever explained that to him. After staring into space for a second he looked me in the eyes and said "THAT did not happen." 

Edited June 17 by Pat Speer

[Jean Ceulemans]

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

That's true. 

Joseph Ball was the number one proponent among the WC's lawyers for doing pre-interviews--to ask the witnesses questions and then avoid the more problematic answers when on the record a bit later. Frazier claimed he and his sister were harassed essentially by Ball, who was trying to get them to change their recollections about the size of the bag. Presumably, Ball knew as well that in the WC's operating theory Oswald had the bag on him when Frazier drove him home on the 21st. And yet he never asked Frazier anything about this on the record, if I recall. In any event, I suspect they did talk about it in a roundabout way and that Ball then avoided asking anything about this when the cameras were rolling, so to speak. 

I can still recall, moreover, the look on Frazier's face when I explained to him that the WC's scenario included Oswald transporting the bag in Frazier's car on the 21st. He was incredulous. No one had ever explained that to him. After staring into space for a second he looked me in the eyes and said "THAT did not happen." 

I don´t have that kind of paper, but will try to get some. But I have a little trouble finding the actual spec´s on that bag? A lot of descriptions are rather vague.   I know paper has an ID based on the weight (/per surface), but can´t find that in this case, at least not were I have been looking, I would think they had such things established in a lab.

Anyway, folding it over and over, will probably not work. But folding it zig-zag however should/could do the trick.

Looking at the picture it´s possible someone tried the first, but decided finally to use the latter method, having created some extra folds and crinkles.

 

Edited June 18 by Jean Ceulemans

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I don´t have that kind of paper, but will try to get some. But I have a little trouble finding the actual spec´s on that bag? A lot of descriptions are rather vague.   I know paper has an ID based on the weight (/per surface), but can´t find that in this case, at least not were I have been looking, I would think they had such things established in a lab.

Anyway, folding it over and over, will probably not work. But folding it zig-zag however should/could do the trick.

Looking at the picture it´s possible someone tried the first, but decided finally to use the latter method, having created some extra folds and crinkles.

 

Keep in mind that this is supposedly the same bag... (It's hard for me to visualize this folded up and tucked inside a shirt.)

 

Edited June 18 by Pat Speer