Discussion:
Wes Frazier, Linnie Mae Randle, And The Paper Bag
(too old to reply)
David Von Pein
2007-10-14 13:36:34 UTC
Permalink
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/30/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=732&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1NGUBWG88G2Z6#Mx1NGUBWG88G2Z6


DVP SAID:

"And BOTH {Wes Frazier and Linnie Randle} confirmed that the bag found
on the 6th Floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag
they saw Oz carrying on 11/22."


A CTer (RICHARD VAN NOORD) SAID:

"A patent lie, David. So now we're resorting to a complete lie to make
the case? Typical. They said the package was no more than two feet in
length and carried with a cupped hand under the armpit."

DVP NOW SAYS:

In the 1964 motion picture "Four Days In November", Linnie Mae Randle
said the package was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long". That's
30 inches, just a mere 8 inches shorter than the actual length of the
package.

Plus -- There's the fact that both the top and the bottom ends of the
bag were quite possibly "folded" in some manner as Oswald carried the
bag. At least the top of the bag was "folded", per Frazier. (See later
discussion in this post re. Wesley Frazier's November 22nd affidavit,
which involves information concerning the bag's "folds".)

Also -- Randle, in her Warren Commission testimony, said that the bag
she saw Oswald carrying was about "27 inches" long. And 27 inches is,
of course (just like her "2-and-a-half feet" estimate from the movie
"Four Days"), more than two feet, which makes your above statement of
"no more than two feet in length" incorrect (with respect to the
estimates of the bag's length made by Linnie Randle).

Also from Randle's WC session:

JOE BALL -- "You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?"

LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "A little bit more."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm

You might also be interested in the FBI Report filed by James Bookhout
on 11/23/63, which states that Linnie Mae saw Oswald put "a long brown
package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area" of
her brother's Chevrolet sedan.

"3 feet" = 36 inches. The sixth-floor bag was 38 inches long. (And the
lengthiest section of Lee Oswald's Italian-made Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle was 34.8 inches long when it was broken down.)

So, who's telling lies now, Richard? Or don't you even know what these
witnesses said?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm

Wesley Frazier told the WC:

"I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give
and [sic] take a few inches."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm

Via Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit, we find something interesting
regarding the bag's length too:

"Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a
big sack. It must have been about 2 feet long, and the top of the sack
was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of
folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain
rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was
going to bring some curtain rods."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm

The intriguing part of the above affidavit, IMO, is:

"The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack
had been kind of folded under."

Therefore, Frazier is saying via his affidavit comments made on the
very same day he saw Oswald with the paper bag that the "2-foot"-long
bag had at least one of its ends "folded" in some fashion, which would
certainly make the overall length of the bag longer when the bag is
completely unfolded.

Frazier's other "folded" remark in his affidavit is a bit more
ambiguous and hard to figure out.....

"And the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

The "folded under" comment could indicate the bottom being "folded
under", I suppose. But it would seem he's referring to the bulk of the
LENGTH of the bag in that "folded under" comment. I'm not quite sure.

But that could also explain why Frazier said that the full width of
the bag looked too wide when he was shown the unfolded bag by the WC.
If the WHOLE bag, for the most part, had been "folded under" itself in
some fashion, then when Frazier saw Oswald with the bag on November
22, the bag would obviously have looked NOT AS WIDE in Frazier's eyes.

The above "folded" comments in Wes Frazier's November 22nd affidavit
seem to have been overlooked by many CTers who are bent on clearing
dear, sweet Lee Harvey of the Presidential murder he so obviously
committed with the object that was stuffed inside that paper bag (with
multiple "folds") that he put in Frazier's car on the morning of
November 22, 1963.

BTW, a man who is 5'9" tall can't fit a "27-inch" object or a 24-inch
object under his armpit while also cupping it in his hand (unless he's
got monkeys for close relatives). So, the Randle/Frazier estimates as
to the length of the package they saw are almost certainly WRONG--even
from a "CT" POV.

In other words, Frazier can't possibly be exactly correct about BOTH
things -- i.e., "under the armpit and cupped in his right hand" AND
"roughly about two feet long" (via his WC testimony).

Both of those things cannot be 100% true. But CTers like to think that
Frazier's and Randle's bag-length estimates ARE, indeed, spot-on
accurate.

And isn't it funny that the empty 6th-Floor bag just happened to have
the RIGHT PALMPRINT of Lee Oswald on it....perfectly matching the way
Wes Frazier said Oz carried the bag "cupped in his right hand".

The "under the armpit" observation of Frazier's was obviously a
mistake....and he said so, under oath:

VINCENT BUGLIOSI (during the 1986 Docu-Trial in London) -- "Did you
recall how he {Lee Harvey Oswald} was carrying the bag?"

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his
body."

VB -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his body....on the
right side?"

BWF -- "Yes sir. On the right side."

VB -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I think you've
said that in the past."

BWF -- "Yes sir."

VB -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to
this bag?"

BWF -- "That is true."

VB -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body,
and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"

BWF -- "That is true."

www.amazon.com/review/RXCFYPZ5IVRFW

==================

And now a passage from VB's "Reclaiming History" (which Richard will
spit on, naturally, since "RH" is a "fantasy" book, per RVN):

"Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked under Oswald's
armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While Frazier's
description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent in all of
his statements to investigators, it was clearly inferable from his
Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption on his
part based on his limited view.

"Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way
Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that
was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down"
along the inside of Oswald's arm. ....

"Since he could only see this small portion of the package under
Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the
package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it
must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I
don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your
armpit."

"Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's
conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and
over (no less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much
attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it. ....

"In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused. So we
don't even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front
of his body, which Frazier could not see. At the London trial {in
1986} I asked Frazier, "So the bag could have been protruding out in
front of his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it?" and he
responded, "That's true."

"The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather {of
CBS News in June 1967}, who rhetorically told his audience, "You can
decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own
words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of
the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "Reclaiming History" (Via the
Endnotes on CD-ROM)(c.2007)

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/025a3639eb985034

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/118eaf60b3c0c0aa

==================

Anyway, my earlier comment, which was.....

"And BOTH {Randle/Frazier} confirmed that the bag found on the
6th Floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they
saw Oz carrying on 11/22."

.....wasn't referring to the exact LENGTH of the sixth-floor bag
(quite obviously). I was referring to the TYPE and GENERAL LOOK of the
brown paper bag (CE142) that was shown to Frazier and Randle by the
Warren Commission.

Frazier, in his usual confused, odd, and hard-to-understand way of
expressing himself, told the WC that the color of the bag Oswald
carried closely matched the color of the replica bag made by the FBI
for general identification purposes (CE364).

And Frazier said that the untreated and lighter portion of CE142 (the
actual Sniper's-Nest bag) "could have been, and it couldn't have been"
similar to the color of the bag he saw in the back seat of his car on
the morning of November 22nd.*

* = Yes, once more, we're forced to try and figure out some of Wesley
Frazier's rather odd phraseology. But the words "could have been" are
certainly in there. So use your proverbial grain of salt here, as we
should do with all of Frazier's testimony to a certain extent,
especially when he starts to talk in strange ways, which he often did
in front of the WC.

Now, with respect to Linnie Mae Randle's Warren Commission testimony
re. the general look and color of the paper bag:

JOE BALL -- "Looking at this part of the bag which has not been
discolored, does that appear similar to the color of the bag you saw
Lee carrying that morning?"

LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper."

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

==================

I'll offer up this common-sense question once again, because it's
worth repeating numerous times:

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 22nd, 1963 AD).

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.

Can you?
mnhay27
2007-10-14 22:41:06 UTC
Permalink
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/30/ref=cm_cd_et_m...
"And BOTH {Wes Frazier and Linnie Randle} confirmed that the bag found
on the 6th Floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag
they saw Oz carrying on 11/22."
"A patent lie, David. So now we're resorting to a complete lie to make
the case? Typical. They said the package was no more than two feet in
length and carried with a cupped hand under the armpit."
In the 1964 motion picture "Four Days In November", Linnie Mae Randle
said the package was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long". That's
30 inches, just a mere 8 inches shorter than the actual length of the
package.
Plus -- There's the fact that both the top and the bottom ends of the
bag were quite possibly "folded" in some manner as Oswald carried the
bag. At least the top of the bag was "folded", per Frazier. (See later
discussion in this post re. Wesley Frazier's November 22nd affidavit,
which involves information concerning the bag's "folds".)
Also -- Randle, in her Warren Commission testimony, said that the bag
she saw Oswald carrying was about "27 inches" long. And 27 inches is,
of course (just like her "2-and-a-half feet" estimate from the movie
"Four Days"), more than two feet, which makes your above statement of
"no more than two feet in length" incorrect (with respect to the
estimates of the bag's length made by Linnie Randle).
JOE BALL -- "You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?"
LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "A little bit more."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm
You might also be interested in the FBI Report filed by James Bookhout
on 11/23/63, which states that Linnie Mae saw Oswald put "a long brown
package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area" of
her brother's Chevrolet sedan.
"3 feet" = 36 inches. The sixth-floor bag was 38 inches long. (And the
lengthiest section of Lee Oswald's Italian-made Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle was 34.8 inches long when it was broken down.)
So, who's telling lies now, Richard? Or don't you even know what these
witnesses said?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm
"I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give
and [sic] take a few inches."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
Via Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit, we find something interesting
"Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a
big sack. It must have been about 2 feet long, and the top of the sack
was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of
folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain
rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was
going to bring some curtain rods."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm
"The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack
had been kind of folded under."
Therefore, Frazier is saying via his affidavit comments made on the
very same day he saw Oswald with the paper bag that the "2-foot"-long
bag had at least one of its ends "folded" in some fashion, which would
certainly make the overall length of the bag longer when the bag is
completely unfolded.
Frazier's other "folded" remark in his affidavit is a bit more
ambiguous and hard to figure out.....
"And the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
The "folded under" comment could indicate the bottom being "folded
under", I suppose. But it would seem he's referring to the bulk of the
LENGTH of the bag in that "folded under" comment. I'm not quite sure.
But that could also explain why Frazier said that the full width of
the bag looked too wide when he was shown the unfolded bag by the WC.
If the WHOLE bag, for the most part, had been "folded under" itself in
some fashion, then when Frazier saw Oswald with the bag on November
22, the bag would obviously have looked NOT AS WIDE in Frazier's eyes.
The above "folded" comments in Wes Frazier's November 22nd affidavit
seem to have been overlooked by many CTers who are bent on clearing
dear, sweet Lee Harvey of the Presidential murder he so obviously
committed with the object that was stuffed inside that paper bag (with
multiple "folds") that he put in Frazier's car on the morning of
November 22, 1963.
BTW, a man who is 5'9" tall can't fit a "27-inch" object or a 24-inch
object under his armpit while also cupping it in his hand (unless he's
got monkeys for close relatives). So, the Randle/Frazier estimates as
to the length of the package they saw are almost certainly WRONG--even
from a "CT" POV.
In other words, Frazier can't possibly be exactly correct about BOTH
things -- i.e., "under the armpit and cupped in his right hand" AND
"roughly about two feet long" (via his WC testimony).
Both of those things cannot be 100% true. But CTers like to think that
Frazier's and Randle's bag-length estimates ARE, indeed, spot-on
accurate.
And isn't it funny that the empty 6th-Floor bag just happened to have
the RIGHT PALMPRINT of Lee Oswald on it....perfectly matching the way
Wes Frazier said Oz carried the bag "cupped in his right hand".
The "under the armpit" observation of Frazier's was obviously a
VINCENT BUGLIOSI (during the 1986 Docu-Trial in London) -- "Did you
recall how he {Lee Harvey Oswald} was carrying the bag?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his
body."
VB -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his body....on the
right side?"
BWF -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
VB -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I think you've
said that in the past."
BWF -- "Yes sir."
VB -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to
this bag?"
BWF -- "That is true."
VB -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body,
and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
BWF -- "That is true."
www.amazon.com/review/RXCFYPZ5IVRFW
==================
And now a passage from VB's "Reclaiming History" (which Richard will
"Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked under Oswald's
armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While Frazier's
description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent in all of
his statements to investigators, it was clearly inferable from his
Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption on his
part based on his limited view.
"Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way
Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that
was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down"
along the inside of Oswald's arm. ....
"Since he could only see this small portion of the package under
Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the
package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it
must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I
don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your
armpit."
"Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's
conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and
over (no less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much
attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it. ....
"In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused. So we
don't even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front
of his body, which Frazier could not see. At the London trial {in
1986} I asked Frazier, "So the bag could have been protruding out in
front of his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it?" and he
responded, "That's true."
"The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather {of
CBS News in June 1967}, who rhetorically told his audience, "You can
decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own
words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of
the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "Reclaiming History" (Via the
Endnotes on CD-ROM)(c.2007)
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/025a3639eb985034
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/118eaf60b3c0c0aa
==================
Anyway, my earlier comment, which was.....
"And BOTH {Randle/Frazier} confirmed that the bag found on the
6th Floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they
saw Oz carrying on 11/22."
.....wasn't referring to the exact LENGTH of the sixth-floor bag
(quite obviously). I was referring to the TYPE and GENERAL LOOK of the
brown paper bag (CE142) that was shown to Frazier and Randle by the
Warren Commission.
Frazier, in his usual confused, odd, and hard-to-understand way of
expressing himself, told the WC that the color of the bag Oswald
carried closely matched the color of the replica bag made by the FBI
for general identification purposes (CE364).
And Frazier said that the untreated and lighter portion of CE142 (the
actual Sniper's-Nest bag) "could have been, and it couldn't have been"
similar to the color of the bag he saw in the back seat of his car on
the morning of November 22nd.*
* = Yes, once more, we're forced to try and figure out some of Wesley
Frazier's rather odd phraseology. But the words "could have been" are
certainly in there. So use your proverbial grain of salt here, as we
should do with all of Frazier's testimony to a certain extent,
especially when he starts to talk in strange ways, which he often did
in front of the WC.
Now, with respect to Linnie Mae Randle's Warren Commission testimony
JOE BALL -- "Looking at this part of the bag which has not been
discolored, does that appear similar to the color of the bag you saw
Lee carrying that morning?"
LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_...
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_...
==================
I'll offer up this common-sense question once again, because it's
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 22nd, 1963 AD).
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.
Can you?
The real question is whether or not the paper bag was actually found in
the so-called "snipers nest." the paper bag does not appear in any of the
Dallas Police Department's crime scene photographs. Additionally, the
testimony of the three law enforcement officials who were first on the
scene does not support the notion that the bag was found in the "snipers
nest." Dallas Police Sergeant Gerald Hill told the Warren commission, "if
it was found up there on the sixth floor, if it was there, I didn't see
it." (7H65) Deputy Sheriff Roger Dean Craig was asked "Was there any long
sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing, or not?" Craig's
reply was simple and direct, "No; I don't remember seeing any." (6H268)
Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney testified, "No, sir; in my running around up
there, I didn't observe it."(3H289) Further doubt is cast by John B Hicks,
a Dallas police detective who worked in the crime laboratory, was also
asked about the paper bag:

Mr. BALL: Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken
from the Texas School Book Depository building?
Mr. HICKS: Paper bag?
Mr. BALL: Paper bag.
Mr. HICKS: No, sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken
bones or maybe a lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up.
Mr. BALL: Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper;
did you ever see it?
Mr. HICKS: No, sir; I don't believe I did. I don't recall it.
Mr. BALL: I believe that's all, Mr Hicks. (7H289)

The testimony quoted above casts more than "reasonable doubt." Remember,
the bag bore no distinguishing markings from the rifle (there was not even
a trace of oil despite Marina Oswald's testimony that her husband had kept
the rifle well oiled). On top of all that, Oswald had neither the means
nor the opportunity to construct the bag. The bag was made from wrapping
paper and tape from the depository's shipping department. The depository
employee responsible for looking after these materials was Troy Eugene
West. As West testified before the commission, he would almost never leave
his work bench, except to get water for coffee first thing in the morning
before starting work, and was even in the habit of eating his lunch there.
(6H356-63) When West was asked if he had ever seen Oswald "around these
wrapper rolls or wrapper roll machines, or not?" he replied, "No, sir; I
never noticed him being around." (6H360) The commission had established
through FBI agent Cadigan's testimony that the tape used on the paper bag
showed marks from the tape dispenser at West's work station. The
commission was ready to assume that Oswald had taken the paper and the
tape and made the bag elsewhere. However, as West explained, the gummed
tape was automatically moistened as it was dispensed by the machine:

Mr. WEST: Well, we have those machines with the little round ball that we
fill them up with water, and so we set them up. In to other words, I got a
rack that we set them in, and so we put out tape in a machine, and
whenever we pull the tape through, why then the water gets, you know, it
gets water on it as we pull it through. (6H361)

Bearing in mind that the tape bared marks from the dispenser, the
commission wanted to know if the tape could be dispensed without being
moistened:

Mr. BELIN: If I wanted to pull the tape, pull off a piece without
getting water on it, would I just lift it up without going over the
wet roller and get the tape without getting it wet?
Mr. WEST: You would have to take it out. You would have to take it out
of the machine. See, it's put on there and then run through a little
clamp that holds it down, and you pull it, well, then the water, it
gets water on it. (6H361)

Thus the bag would have had to have been constructed at West's
workstation. Since West testified that he had "never" seen Oswald
around and that he "never did hardly ever leave" his work area, Oswald
simply could not have made the paper bag.

The only evidence lone assassin theorists have left to suggest a
connection between Oswald and the bag is the fact that a single
fingerprint and a palm print identified as Oswald's were found on it.
However, it hardly needs to be pointed out how meaningless it is that
a paper bag, said to have been found on the floor where Oswald worked,
had his prints on it.
David Von Pein
2007-10-15 04:17:51 UTC
Permalink
"The only evidence lone assassin theorists have left to suggest a
connection between Oswald and the bag is the fact that a single
fingerprint and a palm print identified as Oswald's were found on it.
However, it hardly needs to be pointed out how meaningless it is that a
paper bag, said to have been found on the floor where Oswald worked, had
his prints on it." <<<


Yeah, it's just totally "meaningless" that an EMPTY paper bag with
Oswald's prints on it was found near the exact window from where an
Oswald-like individual was seen firing a rifle at JFK and the same window
where three shells from Oswald's own gun are also found.

I guess the fact that Oswald's own gun was also found on that same floor
with the shells and the LHO-print-laden bag is also to be considered
completely "meaningless" when we try to figure out who committed this
murder...right?

No wonder so many CTers are unable to solve this case to their rigid,
impossible-to-meet requirements. They can't even figure out the extremely
easy stuff.

P.S./BTW -- Studebaker, Montgomery, and J.C. Day trump all other "I Didn't
See The Bag" police officers.

Do CTers really believe this bag (below) held by Detective L.D. Montgomery
is a "fake" or "phony" bag of some kind? If so, when was it
"manufactured", by whom, and how on Earth did they manage to get Oswald's
prints on it (with the right palmprint on the BOTTOM part of the bag being
particularly interesting, since it perfectly matches Wes Frazier's "cupped
in his right hand" testimony; I guess those cops were really on the ball
when they quickly planted that right palmprint on the bag, perfectly
conforming to Frazier's recollections).

Loading Image...

J.C. Day wrote on the bag --- "Found next to the sixth floor window gun
fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day."

The WC's David Belin asked Day: "When did you write that?"

Day responded: "I wrote that at the time the sack was found before it left
our possession."
mnhay27
2007-10-15 16:35:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by mnhay27
"The only evidence lone assassin theorists have left to suggest a
connection between Oswald and the bag is the fact that a single
fingerprint and a palm print identified as Oswald's were found on it.
However, it hardly needs to be pointed out how meaningless it is that a
paper bag, said to have been found on the floor where Oswald worked, had
his prints on it." <<<
Yeah, it's just totally "meaningless" that an EMPTY paper bag with
Oswald's prints on it was found near the exact window from where an
Oswald-like individual was seen firing a rifle at JFK and the same window
where three shells from Oswald's own gun are also found.
I guess the fact that Oswald's own gun was also found on that same floor
with the shells and the LHO-print-laden bag is also to be considered
completely "meaningless" when we try to figure out who committed this
murder...right?
No wonder so many CTers are unable to solve this case to their rigid,
impossible-to-meet requirements. They can't even figure out the extremely
easy stuff.
P.S./BTW -- Studebaker, Montgomery, and J.C. Day trump all other "I Didn't
See The Bag" police officers.
Do CTers really believe this bag (below) held by Detective L.D. Montgomery
is a "fake" or "phony" bag of some kind? If so, when was it
"manufactured", by whom, and how on Earth did they manage to get Oswald's
prints on it (with the right palmprint on the BOTTOM part of the bag being
particularly interesting, since it perfectly matches Wes Frazier's "cupped
in his right hand" testimony; I guess those cops were really on the ball
when they quickly planted that right palmprint on the bag, perfectly
conforming to Frazier's recollections).
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag2.jpg
J.C. Day wrote on the bag --- "Found next to the sixth floor window gun
fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day."
The WC's David Belin asked Day: "When did you write that?"
Day responded: "I wrote that at the time the sack was found before it left
our possession."
Mr Von Pein, you've carefully side-stepped the point I raised - there
is NO EVIDENCE that the bag was found in the so-called "snipers nest."
David Von Pein
2007-10-16 01:35:26 UTC
Permalink
"Mr Von Pein, you've carefully side-stepped the point I raised --
there is NO EVIDENCE that the bag was found in the so-called "snipers
nest." " <<<


No, I didn't side-step anything. Which is why I earlier said this:

"P.S./BTW -- Studebaker, Montgomery, and J.C. Day trump all other "I
Didn't See The Bag" police officers."

=============

Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.

Mr. BALL. Where?

BOB STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in the southeast corner of the
building, folded.

["Storage room" obviously = "6th Floor of the TSBD".]

=============

Mr. BELIN. What other kind of a sack was found?

J.C. DAY. A homemade sack, brown paper with 3-inch tape found right in the
corner, the southeast corner of the building near where the slugs were
found.

=============

L.D. MONTGOMERY. Right over here is where we found that long piece of
paper that looked like a sack, that the rifle had been in.

Mr. BALL. Does that have a number--that area--where you found that long
piece of paper?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. It's No. 2 right here.

Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the
Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?

Mr. BALL. The paper sack?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?

Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.

Mr. BALL. You picked it up?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr.
Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for
prints.

================

Now....what were you saying about there being "NO EVIDENCE that the bag
was found in the so-called "sniper's nest"?
mnhay27
2007-10-16 12:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Von Pein
"Mr Von Pein, you've carefully side-stepped the point I raised --
there is NO EVIDENCE that the bag was found in the so-called "snipers
nest." " <<<
"P.S./BTW -- Studebaker, Montgomery, and J.C. Day trump all other "I
Didn't See The Bag" police officers."
=============
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
BOB STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in the southeast corner of the
building, folded.
["Storage room" obviously = "6th Floor of the TSBD".]
=============
Mr. BELIN. What other kind of a sack was found?
J.C. DAY. A homemade sack, brown paper with 3-inch tape found right in the
corner, the southeast corner of the building near where the slugs were
found.
=============
L.D. MONTGOMERY. Right over here is where we found that long piece of
paper that looked like a sack, that the rifle had been in.
Mr. BALL. Does that have a number--that area--where you found that long
piece of paper?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It's No. 2 right here.
Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the
Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?
Mr. BALL. The paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?
Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You picked it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr.
Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for
prints.
================
Now....what were you saying about there being "NO EVIDENCE that the bag
was found in the so-called "sniper's nest"?
So, if it was there Mr Von Pein, why was it not seen by the first
officers on the scene? And why was it not photographed in place as it
most certainly should have been had it been found in the "snipers
nest."

And all this crap about how Frazier didn't pay much attention to the
package and it could have been sticking out and he wouldn't have
noticed it is just that - CRAP. Go get yourself a large, bulky package
with the dimensions of the disassembled rifle, carry it with one end
cupped in your hand and the other resting on your shoulder. Then get
someone to stand behind you and see if it is not immediately obvious
just how much is protruding above the shoulder. If Oswald was carrying
the rifle this way, Frazier could not have failed to notice! Try it
yourself. Take some photos. Put them online. Destroy your theory.

And there is absolutely no proof that Oswald manufactured that bag.
What I find interesting is that he would, presumably, have had to have
placed his hands all over the bag to construct it, fold it and place
the rifle inside it, and yet there were only two prints found on it.
And no prints from any of the officers who handled it.
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-16 20:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by mnhay27
Post by David Von Pein
"Mr Von Pein, you've carefully side-stepped the point I raised --
there is NO EVIDENCE that the bag was found in the so-called "snipers
nest." " <<<
"P.S./BTW -- Studebaker, Montgomery, and J.C. Day trump all other "I
Didn't See The Bag" police officers."
=============
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
BOB STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in the southeast corner of the
building, folded.
["Storage room" obviously = "6th Floor of the TSBD".]
=============
Mr. BELIN. What other kind of a sack was found?
J.C. DAY. A homemade sack, brown paper with 3-inch tape found right in the
corner, the southeast corner of the building near where the slugs were
found.
=============
L.D. MONTGOMERY. Right over here is where we found that long piece of
paper that looked like a sack, that the rifle had been in.
Mr. BALL. Does that have a number--that area--where you found that long
piece of paper?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It's No. 2 right here.
Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the
Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?
Mr. BALL. The paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?
Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You picked it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr.
Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for
prints.
================
Now....what were you saying about there being "NO EVIDENCE that the bag
was found in the so-called "sniper's nest"?
So, if it was there Mr Von Pein, why was it not seen by the first
officers on the scene? And why was it not photographed in place as it
most certainly should have been had it been found in the "snipers
nest."
Good point. The DPD certainly took crime scene photos of everything else.
Post by mnhay27
And all this crap about how Frazier didn't pay much attention to the
package and it could have been sticking out and he wouldn't have
noticed it is just that - CRAP. Go get yourself a large, bulky package
with the dimensions of the disassembled rifle, carry it with one end
cupped in your hand and the other resting on your shoulder. Then get
someone to stand behind you and see if it is not immediately obvious
just how much is protruding above the shoulder. If Oswald was carrying
the rifle this way, Frazier could not have failed to notice! Try it
yourself. Take some photos. Put them online. Destroy your theory.
Some has done that already and it is easily visible above the shoulders.
Post by mnhay27
And there is absolutely no proof that Oswald manufactured that bag.
What I find interesting is that he would, presumably, have had to have
placed his hands all over the bag to construct it, fold it and place
the rifle inside it, and yet there were only two prints found on it.
And no prints from any of the officers who handled it.
I'd also like to know when Oswald supposedly took the paper out to
Irving to make a bag and Frazier did not notice and ask him about it.
James K. Olmstead
2007-10-18 02:41:53 UTC
Permalink
I'm taller then 9 1/2 inches......5' 9.5" last time measured after photo
was taken.....174lbs

jko
Here's what a 9 1/2 inch man looks like carrying sams type rifle.
(attached)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mnhay27
Post by David Von Pein
"Mr Von Pein, you've carefully side-stepped the point I raised --
there is NO EVIDENCE that the bag was found in the so-called "snipers
nest." " <<<
"P.S./BTW -- Studebaker, Montgomery, and J.C. Day trump all other "I
Didn't See The Bag" police officers."
=============
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
BOB STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in the southeast corner of the
building, folded.
["Storage room" obviously = "6th Floor of the TSBD".]
=============
Mr. BELIN. What other kind of a sack was found?
J.C. DAY. A homemade sack, brown paper with 3-inch tape found right in the
corner, the southeast corner of the building near where the slugs were
found.
=============
L.D. MONTGOMERY. Right over here is where we found that long piece of
paper that looked like a sack, that the rifle had been in.
Mr. BALL. Does that have a number--that area--where you found that long
piece of paper?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It's No. 2 right here.
Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the
Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?
Mr. BALL. The paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?
Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You picked it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr.
Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for
prints.
================
Now....what were you saying about there being "NO EVIDENCE that the bag
was found in the so-called "sniper's nest"?
So, if it was there Mr Von Pein, why was it not seen by the first
officers on the scene? And why was it not photographed in place as it
most certainly should have been had it been found in the "snipers
nest."
Good point. The DPD certainly took crime scene photos of everything else.
Post by mnhay27
And all this crap about how Frazier didn't pay much attention to the
package and it could have been sticking out and he wouldn't have
noticed it is just that - CRAP. Go get yourself a large, bulky package
with the dimensions of the disassembled rifle, carry it with one end
cupped in your hand and the other resting on your shoulder. Then get
someone to stand behind you and see if it is not immediately obvious
just how much is protruding above the shoulder. If Oswald was carrying
the rifle this way, Frazier could not have failed to notice! Try it
yourself. Take some photos. Put them online. Destroy your theory.
Some has done that already and it is easily visible above the shoulders.
Post by mnhay27
And there is absolutely no proof that Oswald manufactured that bag.
What I find interesting is that he would, presumably, have had to have
placed his hands all over the bag to construct it, fold it and place
the rifle inside it, and yet there were only two prints found on it.
And no prints from any of the officers who handled it.
I'd also like to know when Oswald supposedly took the paper out to Irving
to make a bag and Frazier did not notice and ask him about it.
tomnln
2007-10-18 03:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Sorry for the typo JKO.
Post by James K. Olmstead
I'm taller then 9 1/2 inches......5' 9.5" last time measured after photo
was taken.....174lbs
jko
Here's what a 9 1/2 inch man looks like carrying sams type rifle.
(attached)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mnhay27
Post by David Von Pein
"Mr Von Pein, you've carefully side-stepped the point I raised --
there is NO EVIDENCE that the bag was found in the so-called "snipers
nest." " <<<
"P.S./BTW -- Studebaker, Montgomery, and J.C. Day trump all other "I
Didn't See The Bag" police officers."
=============
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
BOB STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in the southeast corner of the
building, folded.
["Storage room" obviously = "6th Floor of the TSBD".]
=============
Mr. BELIN. What other kind of a sack was found?
J.C. DAY. A homemade sack, brown paper with 3-inch tape found right in the
corner, the southeast corner of the building near where the slugs were
found.
=============
L.D. MONTGOMERY. Right over here is where we found that long piece of
paper that looked like a sack, that the rifle had been in.
Mr. BALL. Does that have a number--that area--where you found that long
piece of paper?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It's No. 2 right here.
Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the
Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?
Mr. BALL. The paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?
Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You picked it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr.
Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for
prints.
================
Now....what were you saying about there being "NO EVIDENCE that the bag
was found in the so-called "sniper's nest"?
So, if it was there Mr Von Pein, why was it not seen by the first
officers on the scene? And why was it not photographed in place as it
most certainly should have been had it been found in the "snipers
nest."
Good point. The DPD certainly took crime scene photos of everything else.
Post by mnhay27
And all this crap about how Frazier didn't pay much attention to the
package and it could have been sticking out and he wouldn't have
noticed it is just that - CRAP. Go get yourself a large, bulky package
with the dimensions of the disassembled rifle, carry it with one end
cupped in your hand and the other resting on your shoulder. Then get
someone to stand behind you and see if it is not immediately obvious
just how much is protruding above the shoulder. If Oswald was carrying
the rifle this way, Frazier could not have failed to notice! Try it
yourself. Take some photos. Put them online. Destroy your theory.
Some has done that already and it is easily visible above the shoulders.
Post by mnhay27
And there is absolutely no proof that Oswald manufactured that bag.
What I find interesting is that he would, presumably, have had to have
placed his hands all over the bag to construct it, fold it and place
the rifle inside it, and yet there were only two prints found on it.
And no prints from any of the officers who handled it.
I'd also like to know when Oswald supposedly took the paper out to Irving
to make a bag and Frazier did not notice and ask him about it.
David Von Pein
2007-10-16 20:55:20 UTC
Permalink
"Go get yourself a large, bulky package with the dimensions of the disassembled rifle, carry it with one end cupped in your hand and the other resting on your shoulder. Then get someone to stand behind you and see if it is not immediately obvious just how much is protruding above the shoulder. If Oswald was carrying the rifle this way, Frazier could not have failed to notice!" <<<
Sure he could. Frazier could have failed to notice the top part of the
rifle package protruding above Oswald's shoulder. Very easily.

Why?

Because Frazier told us this -- "I didn't pay too much attention on
how he carried the package at all."

Now, yes, Frazier did also say "under his arm" to the Warren
Commission in 1964......

"I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he
had it under his arm, and I didn't pay too much attention the way he
was walking, because I was walking along there looking at the railroad
cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars, and I didn't
pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all."

......But Frazier ALSO said this to Vince Bugliosi in 1986 (and CTers
can toss Frazier's under-oath "Mock Trial" testimony in the nearest
trash can if they are so inclined; but I'll still offer it up, because
it IS in the record, albeit just a "Mock Trial" record):

VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
attention to this bag?"

WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true."

BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his
body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
"And there is absolutely no proof that Oswald manufactured that bag. What I find interesting is that he would, presumably, have had to have placed his hands all over the bag to construct it, fold it and place the rifle inside it, and yet there were only two prints found on it. And no prints from any of the officers who handled it." <<<
Then maybe you can provide your complete scenario surrounding the bag
(CE142), and how it was created, by whom, and how it ended up where it
ended up in November 1964 (i.e., IN THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE JOHN F.
KENNEDY MURDER CASE WITH TWO OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S PRINTS ON IT).

Let's hear it. .... Why did it only have Oswald's two prints on it?
(Planted there, right? But when? Where? By whom?)

And SOMEBODY obviously "handled" the bag at some point. What's your CT-
flavored scenario for "No prints on it except the 2 of LHO's"?

Did the cops (or whoever) use gloves? If so, who were those cops who
did that handling of the bag with gloves on? Or were they able to wipe
the paper clean of their fingerprints? (Not easy when it's on rough
paper, is it?)

Can you PROVE that anything shady or suspicious or untoward or
conspiratorial occurred in connection with Commission Exhibit #142?

Let's hear a BETTER and MORE REASONABLE scenario than the "official"
one we've got now....with the official scenario being the best one, of
course; i.e., Oswald takes the bag to work holding Rifle C2766 and
then takes said rifle out of bag on sixth floor, leaving the empty bag
in the SN with his prints on it.

BTW, I'd like to know WHY several of the DPD and Sheriff's officers
failed to get the important memo stating: "WE'RE FRAMING OSWALD ON
NOV. 22, SO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING YOU SAY CONFORMS TO THAT CONCLUSION".

I guess CTers want to pick-and-choose WHICH specific police officers
were liars and/or conspirators. Because it would seem that some of the
policemen who were on the Depository's 6th Floor on November 22nd were
apparently honest men when they told the WC that they saw NO PAPER BAG
in the Sniper's Nest at all, right?

But a much larger percentage of the cops, per certain CTers, were
nothing but JFK-hating scum who wanted the President dead in 1963 and
they desperately wanted a patsy named Oswald framed for that killing.
Right?

But what with pretty much the entire Dallas Police Department (and, I
guess, Dallas County Sheriff's Department as well) being as crooked as
a dog's hind leg, you'd THINK that there wouldn't have been ANY honest
officers left to say, "No, I never saw the bag in the Sniper's Nest".
Right?

PAPER-BAG ADDENDUM..........

I ran across some excellent old posts written by a former regular JFK
Forum participant (Joe Zircon) the other day, and the subject of the
paper bag was being debated in a forum thread from July 2000....with
Joe and John McAdams offering up these very accurate comments:

"Oswald lied about the bag because the bag contained the rifle.
These are unreasonable options -- Curtain rods; camping equipment; no
bag; an empty bag; and a bag containing anything except a rifle. Any
alternative except the rifle can be eliminated on the basis of
Oswald's actions." -- Joe Zircon; July 17, 2000

~~~~~~~~~~~

"Could it be that you have no halfway plausible *alternative* to
the thesis that Oswald carried that gun in to work that day in that
bag?

"Remember, witness testimony is fallible, and we have every
right to discount testimony that implies an absurd scenario.

"So -- are you going to go with "curtain rods"? Or are you going
to go with "lunch"? ....

"If you can't endorse either of those theories, you are stuck
with "rifle"." -- John McAdams; July 16, 2000

=================================================

SOLID VALIDATION THAT OSWALD WAS IN THE SNIPER'S NEST:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/182cecc7c4e37bb2

NOW, ABOUT THOSE "CURTAIN RODS":
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7a460183ae4c6c41

=================================================
tomnln
2007-10-17 00:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Frazier & his Sister saw enough to Both describe it to FBI who
"Measured" both descriptions at 27 inches,
Post by David Von Pein
"Go get yourself a large, bulky package with the dimensions of the
disassembled rifle, carry it with one end cupped in your hand and the
other resting on your shoulder. Then get someone to stand behind you
and see if it is not immediately obvious just how much is protruding
above the shoulder. If Oswald was carrying the rifle this way, Frazier
could not have failed to notice!" <<<
Sure he could. Frazier could have failed to notice the top part of the
rifle package protruding above Oswald's shoulder. Very easily.
Why?
Because Frazier told us this -- "I didn't pay too much attention on
how he carried the package at all."
Now, yes, Frazier did also say "under his arm" to the Warren
Commission in 1964......
"I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he
had it under his arm, and I didn't pay too much attention the way he
was walking, because I was walking along there looking at the railroad
cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars, and I didn't
pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all."
......But Frazier ALSO said this to Vince Bugliosi in 1986 (and CTers
can toss Frazier's under-oath "Mock Trial" testimony in the nearest
trash can if they are so inclined; but I'll still offer it up, because
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
attention to this bag?"
WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true."
BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his
body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
FRAZIER -- "That is true."
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
"And there is absolutely no proof that Oswald manufactured that bag.
What I find interesting is that he would, presumably, have had to have
placed his hands all over the bag to construct it, fold it and place
the rifle inside it, and yet there were only two prints found on it.
And no prints from any of the officers who handled it." <<<
Then maybe you can provide your complete scenario surrounding the bag
(CE142), and how it was created, by whom, and how it ended up where it
ended up in November 1964 (i.e., IN THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE JOHN F.
KENNEDY MURDER CASE WITH TWO OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S PRINTS ON IT).
Let's hear it. .... Why did it only have Oswald's two prints on it?
(Planted there, right? But when? Where? By whom?)
And SOMEBODY obviously "handled" the bag at some point. What's your CT-
flavored scenario for "No prints on it except the 2 of LHO's"?
Did the cops (or whoever) use gloves? If so, who were those cops who
did that handling of the bag with gloves on? Or were they able to wipe
the paper clean of their fingerprints? (Not easy when it's on rough
paper, is it?)
Can you PROVE that anything shady or suspicious or untoward or
conspiratorial occurred in connection with Commission Exhibit #142?
Let's hear a BETTER and MORE REASONABLE scenario than the "official"
one we've got now....with the official scenario being the best one, of
course; i.e., Oswald takes the bag to work holding Rifle C2766 and
then takes said rifle out of bag on sixth floor, leaving the empty bag
in the SN with his prints on it.
BTW, I'd like to know WHY several of the DPD and Sheriff's officers
failed to get the important memo stating: "WE'RE FRAMING OSWALD ON
NOV. 22, SO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING YOU SAY CONFORMS TO THAT CONCLUSION".
I guess CTers want to pick-and-choose WHICH specific police officers
were liars and/or conspirators. Because it would seem that some of the
policemen who were on the Depository's 6th Floor on November 22nd were
apparently honest men when they told the WC that they saw NO PAPER BAG
in the Sniper's Nest at all, right?
But a much larger percentage of the cops, per certain CTers, were
nothing but JFK-hating scum who wanted the President dead in 1963 and
they desperately wanted a patsy named Oswald framed for that killing.
Right?
But what with pretty much the entire Dallas Police Department (and, I
guess, Dallas County Sheriff's Department as well) being as crooked as
a dog's hind leg, you'd THINK that there wouldn't have been ANY honest
officers left to say, "No, I never saw the bag in the Sniper's Nest".
Right?
PAPER-BAG ADDENDUM..........
I ran across some excellent old posts written by a former regular JFK
Forum participant (Joe Zircon) the other day, and the subject of the
paper bag was being debated in a forum thread from July 2000....with
"Oswald lied about the bag because the bag contained the rifle.
These are unreasonable options -- Curtain rods; camping equipment; no
bag; an empty bag; and a bag containing anything except a rifle. Any
alternative except the rifle can be eliminated on the basis of
Oswald's actions." -- Joe Zircon; July 17, 2000
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Could it be that you have no halfway plausible *alternative* to
the thesis that Oswald carried that gun in to work that day in that
bag?
"Remember, witness testimony is fallible, and we have every
right to discount testimony that implies an absurd scenario.
"So -- are you going to go with "curtain rods"? Or are you going
to go with "lunch"? ....
"If you can't endorse either of those theories, you are stuck
with "rifle"." -- John McAdams; July 16, 2000
=================================================
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/182cecc7c4e37bb2
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7a460183ae4c6c41
=================================================
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-17 02:23:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Von Pein
"Go get yourself a large, bulky package with the dimensions of the disassembled rifle, carry it with one end cupped in your hand and the other resting on your shoulder. Then get someone to stand behind you and see if it is not immediately obvious just how much is protruding above the shoulder. If Oswald was carrying the rifle this way, Frazier could not have failed to notice!" <<<
Sure he could. Frazier could have failed to notice the top part of the
rifle package protruding above Oswald's shoulder. Very easily.
Yeah sure. Then I'll say that Frazier could have failed to notice the
package that Oswald took to work that day.
Post by David Von Pein
Why?
Because Frazier told us this -- "I didn't pay too much attention on
how he carried the package at all."
Except when he describes how Oswald carried it.
Post by David Von Pein
Now, yes, Frazier did also say "under his arm" to the Warren
Commission in 1964......
"I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he
had it under his arm, and I didn't pay too much attention the way he
was walking, because I was walking along there looking at the railroad
cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars, and I didn't
pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all."
......But Frazier ALSO said this to Vince Bugliosi in 1986 (and CTers
can toss Frazier's under-oath "Mock Trial" testimony in the nearest
trash can if they are so inclined; but I'll still offer it up, because
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
attention to this bag?"
WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true."
BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his
body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
FRAZIER -- "That is true."
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
"And there is absolutely no proof that Oswald manufactured that bag.
What I find interesting is that he would, presumably, have had to have
placed his hands all over the bag to construct it, fold it and place the
rifle inside it, and yet there were only two prints found on it. And no
prints from any of the officers who handled it." <<<
Post by David Von Pein
Then maybe you can provide your complete scenario surrounding the bag
(CE142), and how it was created, by whom, and how it ended up where it
ended up in November 1964 (i.e., IN THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE JOHN F.
KENNEDY MURDER CASE WITH TWO OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S PRINTS ON IT).
Let's hear it. .... Why did it only have Oswald's two prints on it?
(Planted there, right? But when? Where? By whom?)
And SOMEBODY obviously "handled" the bag at some point. What's your CT-
flavored scenario for "No prints on it except the 2 of LHO's"?
Did the cops (or whoever) use gloves? If so, who were those cops who
did that handling of the bag with gloves on? Or were they able to wipe
the paper clean of their fingerprints? (Not easy when it's on rough
paper, is it?)
Can you PROVE that anything shady or suspicious or untoward or
conspiratorial occurred in connection with Commission Exhibit #142?
Let's hear a BETTER and MORE REASONABLE scenario than the "official"
one we've got now....with the official scenario being the best one, of
course; i.e., Oswald takes the bag to work holding Rifle C2766 and
then takes said rifle out of bag on sixth floor, leaving the empty bag
in the SN with his prints on it.
BTW, I'd like to know WHY several of the DPD and Sheriff's officers
failed to get the important memo stating: "WE'RE FRAMING OSWALD ON
NOV. 22, SO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING YOU SAY CONFORMS TO THAT CONCLUSION".
I guess CTers want to pick-and-choose WHICH specific police officers
were liars and/or conspirators. Because it would seem that some of the
policemen who were on the Depository's 6th Floor on November 22nd were
apparently honest men when they told the WC that they saw NO PAPER BAG
in the Sniper's Nest at all, right?
But a much larger percentage of the cops, per certain CTers, were
nothing but JFK-hating scum who wanted the President dead in 1963 and
they desperately wanted a patsy named Oswald framed for that killing.
Right?
But what with pretty much the entire Dallas Police Department (and, I
guess, Dallas County Sheriff's Department as well) being as crooked as
a dog's hind leg, you'd THINK that there wouldn't have been ANY honest
officers left to say, "No, I never saw the bag in the Sniper's Nest".
Right?
PAPER-BAG ADDENDUM..........
I ran across some excellent old posts written by a former regular JFK
Forum participant (Joe Zircon) the other day, and the subject of the
paper bag was being debated in a forum thread from July 2000....with
"Oswald lied about the bag because the bag contained the rifle.
These are unreasonable options -- Curtain rods; camping equipment; no
bag; an empty bag; and a bag containing anything except a rifle. Any
alternative except the rifle can be eliminated on the basis of
Oswald's actions." -- Joe Zircon; July 17, 2000
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Could it be that you have no halfway plausible *alternative* to
the thesis that Oswald carried that gun in to work that day in that
bag?
"Remember, witness testimony is fallible, and we have every
right to discount testimony that implies an absurd scenario.
"So -- are you going to go with "curtain rods"? Or are you going
to go with "lunch"? ....
"If you can't endorse either of those theories, you are stuck
with "rifle"." -- John McAdams; July 16, 2000
=================================================
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/182cecc7c4e37bb2
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7a460183ae4c6c41
=================================================
mnhay27
2007-10-19 01:41:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Von Pein
"So -- are you going to go with "curtain rods"? Or are you going
to go with "lunch"? ....
"If you can't endorse either of those theories, you are stuck
with "rifle"." -- John McAdams; July 16, 2000
I do not have to endorse either. The paper bag could have been used to
carry anything at any time and been left by just about anyone on the sixth
floor. Oswald could simply have moved it to one side during the course of
perfoming his work duties and left his prints on it. Those behind the
assassination need not have had anything to do with it. There is no
evidence that the bag ever came into cantact with the rifle. And there is
no evidence that the bag was found in the "snipers nest." If it was, it
would have been photographed in place, just like the rifle.

And I'm still waiting to see the photos of your experiment. I'm 5 feet 9
and slightly built, roughly the same as Oswald I should think. I've tried
it several times with a tape measure (which is obviously much slimmer than
the rifle and therefore easier to miss). No one has ever failed to notice
the portion sticking out above my shoulder.
David Von Pein
2007-10-16 00:23:02 UTC
Permalink
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/30/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=749&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx22B8KIGG482F0#Mx22B8KIGG482F0
"The paper {bag} HAD NO ABRASIONS, which, during all other
re-creations, showed it HAD TO LEAVE ABRASION MARKS." <<<


Those silly-willy patsy-framing plotters are at it again, I see --- They
plant a fake paper bag that they want people to think carried Lee Oswald's
rifle, but -- oops! -- they forgot one thing! They forgot to ACTUALLY
PLACE A RIFLE INSIDE THE BAG AT ANY POINT IN TIME, so that the "abrasions"
(as Richard likes to call them) can appear on the bag and also so that
some oil stains will appear on the bag too.

Not to mention the fact that these stupid plotters should have WANTED to
put a rifle in their "fake" bag for another critical reason as well -- to
make sure Oswald's dismantled rifle WOULD FIT INSIDE THE "FAKE" BAG.

Did the lazy plotters just get lucky when it was later discovered that
Oswald's 34.8-inch weapon (when broken down) would, indeed, fit inside the
38-inch "fake" bag that was planted in the Nest (which was a bag that, per
CTers, never had a rifle inside of it any any point in time)?
"Answer this, David: when did he {Oswald} make the bag? I would love
to hear this." <<<


Nobody can know the answer to that question with 100% certainty, of
course, since Mr. Oswald wasn't nice enough to tell us that information
before Jack Ruby took care of him on Sunday morning.

But given the SUM TOTAL of the paper-bag evidence, there can be little
doubt that Oswald DID, indeed, construct that makeshift, handmade paper
bag at some point prior to approximately 7:10 AM on Friday morning,
November 22nd, which was the first time anyone noticed Oswald with a bag
(when Linnie Mae Randle watched LHO approach her house in Irving carrying
a bulky paper package).

Vincent Bugliosi, in his JFK book, says something interesting regarding
this "paper bag" subject that I had never heard postulated before. At one
point in the book's "Lee Harvey Oswald" bio chapter, VB says that when the
Oswalds' personal possessions were being moved from New Orleans to Ruth
Paine's garage in Irving, Texas, in late September 1963, the rifle was
ALREADY wrapped in brown wrapping paper and then placed in the blanket
roll (where it remained until LHO took it out of the blanket on November
21st or 22nd).

Quoting from "Reclaiming History":

"Looking back, Ruth {Paine} realized he {LHO} had been "distinctly"
eager to do the packing. He was probably trying to avoid having her
handle, any more than she had to, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, which he
had disassembled, wrapped in a brown paper package, and tied up in a
blanket. ....

[Via the footnote at the bottom of page #746:]

"But of course someone had to unpack the package when Ruth arrived
in Texas a few days later, and it was her husband Michael, whom she had
called to help her. He was perplexed by the weight and feel of the
contents of the package, thoughts like "camping equipment" and "an iron
pipe" entering his mind. These guesses didn't seem quite accurate to him,
but being the "polite" Quaker he was, and aware of Oswald's "rights to
privacy," he never snooped. He would later say he was satisfied it was
Oswald's rifle." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 746 of "Reclaiming History"
(c.2007)

================

So, per VB's account, the rifle was ALREADY "disassembled" and it was
ALREADY "wrapped in a brown paper package" when Lee Harvey Oswald placed
the rifle atop Ruth Paine's station wagon in September of '63 in New
Orleans, Louisiana.

However, when examining this topic a little further, I really don't think
VB's account can be accurate with respect to the rifle being wrapped in
brown paper when the blanket containing the Mannlicher- Carcano rifle was
moved from New Orleans to the Paine residence in Irving in September.

I now offer up excerpts from Michael Paine's WC testimony:

WESLEY LIEBELER -- "I now show you Commission Exhibit 364, which is a
replica of a sack which was prepared by authorities in Dallas; and I also
show you another sack, which is Commission Exhibit 142, and ask you if you
have ever seen in or around your garage in Irving, Texas, any sacks
similar to those?"

MICHAEL PAINE -- "No, I haven't."

MR. LIEBELER -- "Have you seen any paper in your garage in Irving prior to
November 22, 1963, or at any other place, at your home in Irving, Texas,
that is similar to the paper of which those sacks are made?"

MR. PAINE -- "No, I haven't." ....

MR. LIEBELER -- "When you moved the sacks, the blanket, the package that
was wrapped in the blanket in your garage, were you able to determine
whether or not the object inside the sack was also wrapped in paper?"

MR. PAINE -- "I would have said that it was not. When we practiced
wrapping that rifle yesterday, I would have guessed that any paper around
the barrel in there, which I could feel with some clarity, would have
crinkled."

MR. LIEBELER -- "And to your recollection there was no crinkling in the
package wrapped with the blanket?"

MR. PAINE -- "Yes. It was a very quiet package."

================

But.....

There is also the following testimony from Michael Paine regarding the
length of the object that was inside the blanket roll which was being
stored in Ruth Paine's garage.

This is testimony from Mr. Paine that could very well indicate the
possibility that the rifle WAS, indeed, already disassembled when it was
being stored at the Paine residence, because the overall length of the
paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest on November 22 measured just one inch
longer than the estimate provided by Mr. Paine.

But, then too, it should also be noted, to be perfectly fair, that the
full length of Oswald's rifle when assembled (40.2 inches) was not really
too much longer than this estimate made by Michael Paine:

MR. LIEBELER -- "How long was this package in your estimation?"

MR. PAINE -- "Well, yesterday we measured the distance that I indicated
with my hand; I think it came to 37 inches."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm

================

And then we have this portion of Mrs. Ruth Paine's WC testimony regarding
the length of the blanket roll that she first noticed on the floor of her
garage in late October of 1963 (which is testimony that would tend to lean
toward the probability that the rifle was not dismantled when Ruth saw it
in her garage):

ALBERT JENNER -- "I take it from your testimony that the blanket, when you
first saw it in a garage, was in a configuration in the form of a
package?"

RUTH PAINE -- "It was a long rectangle shape with the ends tucked in."

MR. JENNER -- "Would you be good enough to re-form that blanket so that it
is in the shape and the dimension when you first saw it?"

MRS. PAINE -- "About like so."

MR. JENNER -- "For the record if you please, Mr. Chairman, the length of
the form is just exactly 45 inches, and it is across exactly 12 inches."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_r2.htm

================

And there's Marina Oswald's testimony, which almost certainly supports the
idea that the rifle was not wrapped in brown paper while being stored on
the floor of Ruth Paine's garage:

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

J. LEE 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."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm

================

So, when evaluating and assessing the totality of all of the above
snippets of testimony from the various individuals who saw the rifle
and/or the rolled-up blanket on the floor of the Paine garage, I'm
compelled to think that Mr. Bugliosi is incorrect with respect to his
remarks on page #746 of "Reclaiming History" when VB claims that the rifle
was already wrapped up in brown paper when Lee Harvey Oswald loaded it
into Ruth Paine's car in September 1963.

In the final analysis, I'm convinced beyond any and all reasonable doubt
that Lee Oswald, at some point prior to 7:10 AM on 11/22/63, constructed a
homemade paper bag with which to conceal his Mannlicher- Carcano rifle.

If I had a gun to my head and was being forced to explain just exactly
WHEN Oswald created his makeshift rifle-carrying bag, I'd say this:

Oswald, IMO, most likely took some wrapping paper and tape from the Texas
School Book Depository's first-floor shipping/mailing area on Thursday,
November 21st (which is the same day he asked Wesley Frazier for the
unusual weeknight ride to Ruth Paine's home in Irving).

Yes, it's true that TSBD "mail wrapper" Troy West testified that he had
never seen Oswald hanging around the wrapping-paper area on the first
floor, but I think it's a fair and reasonable assumption to say that
Oswald, in his quest to gain access to the paper and tape, was probably
wise enough to wait until Mr. West had left his work station for a few
minutes.

Perhaps Oswald waited until West went to use the bathroom, which everybody
has to do a few times every single day of their lives. And while West was
temporarily away from his mailing station, Oswald swiped some wrapping
paper and some tape.

And, undoubtedly, LHO folded up the wrapping paper so he could conceal the
paper more easily during his ride to Irving with Frazier on Thursday
evening.

Oswald probably hid the folded paper and tape under his blue jacket that
he certainly wore to work at least one time shortly before November 22nd
(LHO's blue jacket was found in the first-floor "Domino Room" in early
December 1963).

It's also worth mentioning that the bag found on the sixth floor of the
TSBD after the assassination had symmetrical, evenly-spaced folds in
it....just as if someone had folded it up to make its size much smaller
before using it for stashing a 30-plus-inch object (like, say, a
dismantled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle).....

Loading Image...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag2.jpg

I'll also add this re. Troy West and his WC testimony.....

West didn't say that a Depository employee positively COULDN'T have taken
some paper and tape from the workbench/mailing area. In fact, with respect
to the tape, Mr. West specifically told the Warren Commission that
employees "could come get it if they wanted to use it".

More West testimony:

DAVID BELIN -- "Did Lee Harvey Oswald ever help you wrap mail?"

TROY WEST -- "No, sir; he never did."

MR. BELIN -- "Do you know whether or not he ever borrowed or used any
wrapping paper for himself?"

MR. WEST -- "No, sir; I don't."

MR. BELIN -- "You don't know?"

MR. WEST -- "No, I don't."

MR. BELIN -- "Did you ever see him around these wrapper rolls or wrapper
roll machines, or not?"

MR. WEST -- "No, sir; I never noticed him being around."

[Re. the tape dispenser:]

MR. BELIN -- "Could other employees come and pick up some of the tape for
themselves?"

MR. WEST -- "Yes, sir. They could come get it if they wanted to use it;
but all the time it was there where it is supposed to be."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/west.htm
tomnln
2007-10-16 04:05:08 UTC
Permalink
David, you keep stretching a 27 inch bag into a 38 inch bag.

You always did like the big ones.
Post by David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/30/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=749&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx22B8KIGG482F0#Mx22B8KIGG482F0
"The paper {bag} HAD NO ABRASIONS, which, during all other
re-creations, showed it HAD TO LEAVE ABRASION MARKS." <<<
Those silly-willy patsy-framing plotters are at it again, I see --- They
plant a fake paper bag that they want people to think carried Lee Oswald's
rifle, but -- oops! -- they forgot one thing! They forgot to ACTUALLY
PLACE A RIFLE INSIDE THE BAG AT ANY POINT IN TIME, so that the "abrasions"
(as Richard likes to call them) can appear on the bag and also so that
some oil stains will appear on the bag too.
Not to mention the fact that these stupid plotters should have WANTED to
put a rifle in their "fake" bag for another critical reason as well -- to
make sure Oswald's dismantled rifle WOULD FIT INSIDE THE "FAKE" BAG.
Did the lazy plotters just get lucky when it was later discovered that
Oswald's 34.8-inch weapon (when broken down) would, indeed, fit inside the
38-inch "fake" bag that was planted in the Nest (which was a bag that, per
CTers, never had a rifle inside of it any any point in time)?
"Answer this, David: when did he {Oswald} make the bag? I would love
to hear this." <<<
Nobody can know the answer to that question with 100% certainty, of
course, since Mr. Oswald wasn't nice enough to tell us that information
before Jack Ruby took care of him on Sunday morning.
But given the SUM TOTAL of the paper-bag evidence, there can be little
doubt that Oswald DID, indeed, construct that makeshift, handmade paper
bag at some point prior to approximately 7:10 AM on Friday morning,
November 22nd, which was the first time anyone noticed Oswald with a bag
(when Linnie Mae Randle watched LHO approach her house in Irving carrying
a bulky paper package).
Vincent Bugliosi, in his JFK book, says something interesting regarding
this "paper bag" subject that I had never heard postulated before. At one
point in the book's "Lee Harvey Oswald" bio chapter, VB says that when the
Oswalds' personal possessions were being moved from New Orleans to Ruth
Paine's garage in Irving, Texas, in late September 1963, the rifle was
ALREADY wrapped in brown wrapping paper and then placed in the blanket
roll (where it remained until LHO took it out of the blanket on November
21st or 22nd).
"Looking back, Ruth {Paine} realized he {LHO} had been "distinctly"
eager to do the packing. He was probably trying to avoid having her
handle, any more than she had to, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, which he
had disassembled, wrapped in a brown paper package, and tied up in a
blanket. ....
[Via the footnote at the bottom of page #746:]
"But of course someone had to unpack the package when Ruth arrived
in Texas a few days later, and it was her husband Michael, whom she had
called to help her. He was perplexed by the weight and feel of the
contents of the package, thoughts like "camping equipment" and "an iron
pipe" entering his mind. These guesses didn't seem quite accurate to him,
but being the "polite" Quaker he was, and aware of Oswald's "rights to
privacy," he never snooped. He would later say he was satisfied it was
Oswald's rifle." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 746 of "Reclaiming History"
(c.2007)
================
So, per VB's account, the rifle was ALREADY "disassembled" and it was
ALREADY "wrapped in a brown paper package" when Lee Harvey Oswald placed
the rifle atop Ruth Paine's station wagon in September of '63 in New
Orleans, Louisiana.
However, when examining this topic a little further, I really don't think
VB's account can be accurate with respect to the rifle being wrapped in
brown paper when the blanket containing the Mannlicher- Carcano rifle was
moved from New Orleans to the Paine residence in Irving in September.
WESLEY LIEBELER -- "I now show you Commission Exhibit 364, which is a
replica of a sack which was prepared by authorities in Dallas; and I also
show you another sack, which is Commission Exhibit 142, and ask you if you
have ever seen in or around your garage in Irving, Texas, any sacks
similar to those?"
MICHAEL PAINE -- "No, I haven't."
MR. LIEBELER -- "Have you seen any paper in your garage in Irving prior to
November 22, 1963, or at any other place, at your home in Irving, Texas,
that is similar to the paper of which those sacks are made?"
MR. PAINE -- "No, I haven't." ....
MR. LIEBELER -- "When you moved the sacks, the blanket, the package that
was wrapped in the blanket in your garage, were you able to determine
whether or not the object inside the sack was also wrapped in paper?"
MR. PAINE -- "I would have said that it was not. When we practiced
wrapping that rifle yesterday, I would have guessed that any paper around
the barrel in there, which I could feel with some clarity, would have
crinkled."
MR. LIEBELER -- "And to your recollection there was no crinkling in the
package wrapped with the blanket?"
MR. PAINE -- "Yes. It was a very quiet package."
================
But.....
There is also the following testimony from Michael Paine regarding the
length of the object that was inside the blanket roll which was being
stored in Ruth Paine's garage.
This is testimony from Mr. Paine that could very well indicate the
possibility that the rifle WAS, indeed, already disassembled when it was
being stored at the Paine residence, because the overall length of the
paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest on November 22 measured just one inch
longer than the estimate provided by Mr. Paine.
But, then too, it should also be noted, to be perfectly fair, that the
full length of Oswald's rifle when assembled (40.2 inches) was not really
MR. LIEBELER -- "How long was this package in your estimation?"
MR. PAINE -- "Well, yesterday we measured the distance that I indicated
with my hand; I think it came to 37 inches."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm
================
And then we have this portion of Mrs. Ruth Paine's WC testimony regarding
the length of the blanket roll that she first noticed on the floor of her
garage in late October of 1963 (which is testimony that would tend to lean
toward the probability that the rifle was not dismantled when Ruth saw it
ALBERT JENNER -- "I take it from your testimony that the blanket, when you
first saw it in a garage, was in a configuration in the form of a
package?"
RUTH PAINE -- "It was a long rectangle shape with the ends tucked in."
MR. JENNER -- "Would you be good enough to re-form that blanket so that it
is in the shape and the dimension when you first saw it?"
MRS. PAINE -- "About like so."
MR. JENNER -- "For the record if you please, Mr. Chairman, the length of
the form is just exactly 45 inches, and it is across exactly 12 inches."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_r2.htm
================
And there's Marina Oswald's testimony, which almost certainly supports the
idea that the rifle was not wrapped in brown paper while being stored on
MARINA OSWALD -- "I had never examined the rifle in the garage. It was
wrapped in a blanket and was lying on the floor."
J. LEE 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."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
================
So, when evaluating and assessing the totality of all of the above
snippets of testimony from the various individuals who saw the rifle
and/or the rolled-up blanket on the floor of the Paine garage, I'm
compelled to think that Mr. Bugliosi is incorrect with respect to his
remarks on page #746 of "Reclaiming History" when VB claims that the rifle
was already wrapped up in brown paper when Lee Harvey Oswald loaded it
into Ruth Paine's car in September 1963.
In the final analysis, I'm convinced beyond any and all reasonable doubt
that Lee Oswald, at some point prior to 7:10 AM on 11/22/63, constructed a
homemade paper bag with which to conceal his Mannlicher- Carcano rifle.
If I had a gun to my head and was being forced to explain just exactly
Oswald, IMO, most likely took some wrapping paper and tape from the Texas
School Book Depository's first-floor shipping/mailing area on Thursday,
November 21st (which is the same day he asked Wesley Frazier for the
unusual weeknight ride to Ruth Paine's home in Irving).
Yes, it's true that TSBD "mail wrapper" Troy West testified that he had
never seen Oswald hanging around the wrapping-paper area on the first
floor, but I think it's a fair and reasonable assumption to say that
Oswald, in his quest to gain access to the paper and tape, was probably
wise enough to wait until Mr. West had left his work station for a few
minutes.
Perhaps Oswald waited until West went to use the bathroom, which everybody
has to do a few times every single day of their lives. And while West was
temporarily away from his mailing station, Oswald swiped some wrapping
paper and some tape.
And, undoubtedly, LHO folded up the wrapping paper so he could conceal the
paper more easily during his ride to Irving with Frazier on Thursday
evening.
Oswald probably hid the folded paper and tape under his blue jacket that
he certainly wore to work at least one time shortly before November 22nd
(LHO's blue jacket was found in the first-floor "Domino Room" in early
December 1963).
It's also worth mentioning that the bag found on the sixth floor of the
TSBD after the assassination had symmetrical, evenly-spaced folds in
it....just as if someone had folded it up to make its size much smaller
before using it for stashing a 30-plus-inch object (like, say, a
dismantled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle).....
http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/archives.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag2.jpg
I'll also add this re. Troy West and his WC testimony.....
West didn't say that a Depository employee positively COULDN'T have taken
some paper and tape from the workbench/mailing area. In fact, with respect
to the tape, Mr. West specifically told the Warren Commission that
employees "could come get it if they wanted to use it".
DAVID BELIN -- "Did Lee Harvey Oswald ever help you wrap mail?"
TROY WEST -- "No, sir; he never did."
MR. BELIN -- "Do you know whether or not he ever borrowed or used any
wrapping paper for himself?"
MR. WEST -- "No, sir; I don't."
MR. BELIN -- "You don't know?"
MR. WEST -- "No, I don't."
MR. BELIN -- "Did you ever see him around these wrapper rolls or wrapper
roll machines, or not?"
MR. WEST -- "No, sir; I never noticed him being around."
[Re. the tape dispenser:]
MR. BELIN -- "Could other employees come and pick up some of the tape for
themselves?"
MR. WEST -- "Yes, sir. They could come get it if they wanted to use it;
but all the time it was there where it is supposed to be."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/west.htm
a***@maine.rr.com
2007-10-16 00:28:47 UTC
Permalink
"You can decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in
his own words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches
of the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"

exactly - meaning, basically, that we have no idea if Frazier was right or
wrong, how big the package was, etc. So this is completely useless as
evidence to support the idea that Oswald was carrying the rifle in the bag
-

and good, keep citing fingerprint expert Day, who forged the post- death
palm print (or lifted it from the corpse - and spare me the tale about how
he had found it but just didn't tell anybody for a wee - even FBI Agent
Drain said the print was faked) - the Dallas PD was and remained one of
the most corrupt in the country - witness the recent reports about their
new Police Chief and about all the false convictions they have admitted to
in the past, including much faked evidence. And Henry Wade is cited as the
ring leader in this circus of false evidence and false convctions -
David Von Pein
2007-10-16 01:45:37 UTC
Permalink
"The curtains and curtain rods in his {Oswald's} room were very flimsy
and he wanted to put in a different type. .... He forgot them after being
confronted by the cop. He didn't have time to go back and get them before
the police sealed off the building.

DVP SAID:

The people who continually try to shoehorn a conspiracy into the mix when
talking about Oswald's obvious lies re. the "curtain rod" story simply
boil my blood.

Oswald LIED (multiple times!) to Wesley Frazier with respect to the "rods"
-- he lied to Frazier on Thursday, Nov. 21 when he asked Wesley for a ride
to Irving to get "curtain rods" from the Paine home. And LHO lied a second
time about the rods on the morning of November 22nd when he told Frazier
that the bag on Wesley's back seat contained "curtain rods".

How do we know he lied (twice)? Because it's so very obvious that NO
CURTAIN RODS EVER EXISTED IN THAT PACKAGE. None were found in the
Depository and we know Oswald didn't take any curtain rods home with him
on Nov. 22 when he rushed into his roominghouse at approximately 1:00.

Did Oswald just chuck 'em in the trash after taking them into the TSBD?
Why would he do that? And even THAT type of stupid explanation wouldn't
help explain the paper bag with Oswald's extremely- incriminating RIGHT
PALMPRINT on the closed end of the bag!

More common-sense questions to ask re. the "curtain rods":

1.) If Oswald really had curtain rods in the bag (instead of his
rifle)....why the big hurry to collect the rods on THURSDAY night, instead
of LHO's normal Friday visit over the weekend? Was he in such a desperate
need for those rods that he couldn't wait 24 more hours until his regular
Friday visit rolled around?

2.) Why didn't Oswald say a single word to either Ruth Paine or his wife
Marina about coming to Irving on Thursday to get some curtain rods? Per
Wes Frazier, the ENTIRE reason for the Thursday-night trip to Irving was
so LHO could get those rods at the Paine house....and yet Oswald never
mentioned a word to Marina or Ruth about the "rods" being the reason he
visited on Thursday instead of Friday that week. Why?*

* = Common-Sense Answer --- Obviously it's because the "rods" story was a
fabricated one, used as a cover story to appease Wes Frazier. The false
story also is two-pronged....with both "ends" of the trip to Irving
covered by the "curtain rod" tale; i.e., the first lie on Thursday (the
excuse for needing to go to Irving on Thursday instead of Friday) links to
the second "rod" lie on Friday, which explains the package's contents to
the satisfaction of Frazier, so that no more needs to be said about the
seemingly-innocuous contents of the brown paper bag carried into the TSBD
by Oswald.

Pretty smart pre-planned lying on Oswald's part, IMO. Except for one thing
-- he forgot to put a couple of curtain rods in the bag. And why didn't he
do that? If he had taken some ACTUAL curtain rods to work, he could have
HONESTLY maintained that rods WERE in the package, because they WOULD have
been in the package (with the rifle).

In any event, we know that Ruth Paine didn't hear the words "curtain rods"
come out of Oswald's mouth at any time in Nov. 1963, per these words
spoken by Mrs. Paine herself in 1986.....

V. BUGLIOSI -- "While he {Lee Oswald} was at your home did he ask you for
any curtain rods?"

R. PAINE -- "No, he didn't."

BUGLIOSI -- "Did he ever, at ANY time, ask you for curtain rods?"

PAINE -- "No."

BUGLIOSI -- "Was there any discussion between you and him, or you and
Marina, about curtain rods?"

PAINE -- "No."

BUGLIOSI -- "Now you, in fact, DID have some curtain rods in the garage,
is that correct?"

PAINE -- "In the garage...yes."

BUGLIOSI -- "After the assassination, they were still there."

PAINE -- "Yes, that's right."

~~~~~~

How can assassination conspiracists stand there and actually have the gall
to claim that Lee Oswald cannot be tied to the JFK murder?!

For Pete's sake, OSWALD'S PRINTS WERE ON AN EMPTY PAPER BAG IN THE
MURDERER'S WINDOW!

And that's an item (the empty brown bag) that has NO logical reason for
being where it was found (official picture of it or not) in the course of
everyday TSBD business. It's one of THE most incriminating hunks of
evidence against Oswald -- especially since the palmprint on the bag
perfectly aligns with Wesley Frazier's testimony of how Oswald carried a
similar object (a brown paper bag) into the building the very morning of
the assassination.

Frazier's testimony + the bag with Oswald's prints = Oswald was at the
sniper's window at some point on 11/22/63. There is very little doubt
about that fact.

www.amazon.com/review/R3V96ZYL75TFSG
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-19 01:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Von Pein
"The curtains and curtain rods in his {Oswald's} room were very flimsy
and he wanted to put in a different type. .... He forgot them after being
confronted by the cop. He didn't have time to go back and get them before
the police sealed off the building.
The people who continually try to shoehorn a conspiracy into the mix when
talking about Oswald's obvious lies re. the "curtain rod" story simply
boil my blood.
Let's use David's favorite source (oh wait - that may be VB's book) to
hang him. Here's what the WC said about all of this:

We have concluded that Oswald carried a "long and bulk package" on the
morning of November 22 (WCR 131, 133-134) and that he "carried the rifle
into the Depository Building, concealed in the bag" (WCR 137).

The commision therefore found that Mrs. Randle, Frazier and Dougherty were
wrong, although theirs was the only eyewitness testimony available (WCR
131, 133-134). It presented an inaccurate summary of Dougherty's
testimony (WCR 133) and "concluded that Frazier and Randle are mistaken as
to the length of the bag". (WCR 134)

Here they challenge the only witnesses they have when they won't say the
bag was 38 inches long (they stuck to 27"). They stated these witnesses
were in error. Makes you want to believe all 26 volumes doesn't it?
David Von Pein
2007-10-19 05:48:28 UTC
Permalink
"Here they challenge the only witnesses they have when they won't say
the bag was 38 inches long (they stuck to 27"). They stated these
witnesses were in error. Makes you want to believe all 26 volumes doesn't
it?" <<<

DAmn straight it does. Because the WC uses some basic COMMON sense there.

The MOST IMPORTANT information imparted by Randle & Frazier (by far!) is
the FACT they BOTH saw Oswald carrying a "long package" containing
something that seemed kind of "bulky".

When coupled with the EMPTY paper bag that was found after the shooting
(and what WASN'T found--"curtain rods" and LHO's rifle in the Paine garage
where it was known to be stored since Sept.) -- it makes SENSE to think
that Randle/Frazier were simply mistaken as to the overall length of the
"bulky package".

To think that the LENGTH testimony given by R&F should positively trump
the other stuff mentioned (plus the fact that Oswald positively LIED about
certain things re. the "package") is just plain silly.

Common sense CAN be used to solve crimes. In fact, it's very useful. Give
it a try.

g***@gmail.com
2007-10-15 04:11:42 UTC
Permalink
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/30/ref=cm_cd_et_m...
"And BOTH {Wes Frazier and Linnie Randle} confirmed that the bag found
on the 6th Floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag
they saw Oz carrying on 11/22."
"A patent lie, David. So now we're resorting to a complete lie to make
the case? Typical. They said the package was no more than two feet in
length and carried with a cupped hand under the armpit."
In the 1964 motion picture "Four Days In November", Linnie Mae Randle
said the package was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long". That's
30 inches, just a mere 8 inches shorter than the actual length of the
package.
Plus -- There's the fact that both the top and the bottom ends of the
bag were quite possibly "folded" in some manner as Oswald carried the
bag. At least the top of the bag was "folded", per Frazier. (See later
discussion in this post re. Wesley Frazier's November 22nd affidavit,
which involves information concerning the bag's "folds".)
Also -- Randle, in her Warren Commission testimony, said that the bag
she saw Oswald carrying was about "27 inches" long. And 27 inches is,
of course (just like her "2-and-a-half feet" estimate from the movie
"Four Days"), more than two feet, which makes your above statement of
"no more than two feet in length" incorrect (with respect to the
estimates of the bag's length made by Linnie Randle).
JOE BALL -- "You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?"
LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "A little bit more."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm
You might also be interested in the FBI Report filed by James Bookhout
on 11/23/63, which states that Linnie Mae saw Oswald put "a long brown
package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area" of
her brother's Chevrolet sedan.
"3 feet" = 36 inches. The sixth-floor bag was 38 inches long. (And the
lengthiest section of Lee Oswald's Italian-made Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle was 34.8 inches long when it was broken down.)
So, who's telling lies now, Richard? Or don't you even know what these
witnesses said?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm
"I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give
and [sic] take a few inches."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
Via Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit, we find something interesting
"Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a
big sack. It must have been about 2 feet long, and the top of the sack
was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of
folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain
rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was
going to bring some curtain rods."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm
"The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack
had been kind of folded under."
Therefore, Frazier is saying via his affidavit comments made on the
very same day he saw Oswald with the paper bag that the "2-foot"-long
bag had at least one of its ends "folded" in some fashion, which would
certainly make the overall length of the bag longer when the bag is
completely unfolded.
Frazier's other "folded" remark in his affidavit is a bit more
ambiguous and hard to figure out.....
"And the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
The "folded under" comment could indicate the bottom being "folded
under", I suppose. But it would seem he's referring to the bulk of the
LENGTH of the bag in that "folded under" comment. I'm not quite sure.
But that could also explain why Frazier said that the full width of
the bag looked too wide when he was shown the unfolded bag by the WC.
If the WHOLE bag, for the most part, had been "folded under" itself in
some fashion, then when Frazier saw Oswald with the bag on November
22, the bag would obviously have looked NOT AS WIDE in Frazier's eyes.
The above "folded" comments in Wes Frazier's November 22nd affidavit
seem to have been overlooked by many CTers who are bent on clearing
dear, sweet Lee Harvey of the Presidential murder he so obviously
committed with the object that was stuffed inside that paper bag (with
multiple "folds") that he put in Frazier's car on the morning of
November 22, 1963.
BTW, a man who is 5'9" tall can't fit a "27-inch" object or a 24-inch
object under his armpit while also cupping it in his hand (unless he's
got monkeys for close relatives). So, the Randle/Frazier estimates as
to the length of the package they saw are almost certainly WRONG--even
from a "CT" POV.
In other words, Frazier can't possibly be exactly correct about BOTH
things -- i.e., "under the armpit and cupped in his right hand" AND
"roughly about two feet long" (via his WC testimony).
Both of those things cannot be 100% true. But CTers like to think that
Frazier's and Randle's bag-length estimates ARE, indeed, spot-on
accurate.
And isn't it funny that the empty 6th-Floor bag just happened to have
the RIGHT PALMPRINT of Lee Oswald on it....perfectly matching the way
Wes Frazier said Oz carried the bag "cupped in his right hand".
The "under the armpit" observation of Frazier's was obviously a
VINCENT BUGLIOSI (during the 1986 Docu-Trial in London) -- "Did you
recall how he {Lee Harvey Oswald} was carrying the bag?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his
body."
VB -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his body....on the
right side?"
BWF -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
VB -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I think you've
said that in the past."
BWF -- "Yes sir."
VB -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to
this bag?"
BWF -- "That is true."
VB -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body,
and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
BWF -- "That is true."
www.amazon.com/review/RXCFYPZ5IVRFW
==================
And now a passage from VB's "Reclaiming History" (which Richard will
"Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked under Oswald's
armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While Frazier's
description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent in all of
his statements to investigators, it was clearly inferable from his
Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption on his
part based on his limited view.
"Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way
Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that
was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down"
along the inside of Oswald's arm. ....
"Since he could only see this small portion of the package under
Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the
package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it
must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I
don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your
armpit."
"Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's
conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and
over (no less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much
attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it. ....
"In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused. So we
don't even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front
of his body, which Frazier could not see. At the London trial {in
1986} I asked Frazier, "So the bag could have been protruding out in
front of his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it?" and he
responded, "That's true."
"The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather {of
CBS News in June 1967}, who rhetorically told his audience, "You can
decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own
words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of
the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "Reclaiming History" (Via the
Endnotes on CD-ROM)(c.2007)
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/025a3639eb985034
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/118eaf60b3c0c0aa
==================
Anyway, my earlier comment, which was.....
"And BOTH {Randle/Frazier} confirmed that the bag found on the
6th Floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they
saw Oz carrying on 11/22."
.....wasn't referring to the exact LENGTH of the sixth-floor bag
(quite obviously). I was referring to the TYPE and GENERAL LOOK of the
brown paper bag (CE142) that was shown to Frazier and Randle by the
Warren Commission.
Frazier, in his usual confused, odd, and hard-to-understand way of
expressing himself, told the WC that the color of the bag Oswald
carried closely matched the color of the replica bag made by the FBI
for general identification purposes (CE364).
And Frazier said that the untreated and lighter portion of CE142 (the
actual Sniper's-Nest bag) "could have been, and it couldn't have been"
similar to the color of the bag he saw in the back seat of his car on
the morning of November 22nd.*
* = Yes, once more, we're forced to try and figure out some of Wesley
Frazier's rather odd phraseology. But the words "could have been" are
certainly in there. So use your proverbial grain of salt here, as we
should do with all of Frazier's testimony to a certain extent,
especially when he starts to talk in strange ways, which he often did
in front of the WC.
Now, with respect to Linnie Mae Randle's Warren Commission testimony
JOE BALL -- "Looking at this part of the bag which has not been
discolored, does that appear similar to the color of the bag you saw
Lee carrying that morning?"
LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_...
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_...
==================
I'll offer up this common-sense question once again, because it's
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 22nd, 1963 AD).
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.
Can you?
Whether the ends of the bag seen by Randle were folded or not is a non-
issue, as Oswald couldn't have folded the end of the rifle itself. What
are the proportions of the bag when it holds the rifle, David? And what
are the proportions of the bag described by Frazier and Randle? By my
estimation, the paper bag as originally photographed is more than TWICE as
big as the bag described by Frazier. Now, Frazier saw the bag on his back
seat, and made an estimation of its size based on how much space it
covered. What are the odds the bag was really TWICE that size? It's
certainly possible, but is it likely?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...