Rolling Readers & Murdered Leaders

[Richard Smith]

The implication, however, that it was planted necessitates a wildly implausible scenario.

Planted by whom? Don't you first need to determine that before you dismiss it als a "wildly implausible scenario"?

No.  The implications of the bag being planted necessitate an implausible alternative chain of events regardless of "who" was responsible.  And it is difficult to understand how anyone other than the DPD could have been responsible for planting the bag since they are the ones who controlled the crime scene, claimed to have seen it next to the SN, recovered it, and found Oswald's prints on it.  Are you saying someone else could have done all that?  The bag is photographed coming out of the building shortly after 2PM.  So who else had access and control of the evidence within the TSBD to do all that before the bag emerges at that time?

[Martin Weidmann]

No.  The implications of the bag being planted necessitate an implausible alternative chain of events regardless of "who" was responsible.  And it is difficult to understand how anyone other than the DPD could have been responsible for planting the bag since they are the ones who controlled the crime scene, claimed to have seen it next to the SN, recovered it, and found Oswald's prints on it.  Are you saying someone else could have done all that?  The bag is photographed coming out of the building shortly after 2PM.  So who else had access and control of the evidence within the TSBD to do all that before the bag emerges at that time?

Are you saying someone else could have done all that?

I don't know. You seem to believe only the DPD could have done it. I'm not so sure. The bag they allegedly found was made from materials common to the TSBD. For all we know, it could have been on the 6th floor for days and Oswald, just like others, could have touched it there. After all, it was a location where he and others worked and there were unidentifiable prints on the bag as well, right?

[Colin Crow]

No.  The implications of the bag being planted necessitate an implausible alternative chain of events regardless of "who" was responsible.  And it is difficult to understand how anyone other than the DPD could have been responsible for planting the bag since they are the ones who controlled the crime scene, claimed to have seen it next to the SN, recovered it, and found Oswald's prints on it.  Are you saying someone else could have done all that?  The bag is photographed coming out of the building shortly after 2PM.  So who else had access and control of the evidence within the TSBD to do all that before the bag emerges at that time?

Who is claiming the bag was planted?

I think we can agree the crime scene was less than securely controlled.

We have a number of police officers documented to have found it.....surely it can only be one. I believe Montgomery gets that nod.

They did not find Oswald's prints on the bag. That was the FBI on the 23rd.

The bag came out at 3pm.

Can you give us an idea when (approximately) it was discovered?

[John Iacoletti]

Too bad Oswald's rifle was found on the same floor

You mean the rifle with questionable documentation, which you can not show was ever in Ruth Paine's garage and which Marina, according to her first day affidavit, couldn't identify? Is that the rifle you mean?

the actual Murder Weapon

And you know this, how?

He doesn't.  He thinks that if he repeats the same claim over and over again that it somehow becomes "evidence".

[John Iacoletti]

The panel thought the sunlit boxes in the background seen in the open window in Powell were added to the scene when compared with the Dillard photograph take a minute before. But 3D demonstrates the sunlit boxes are the same in both photographs.

Are you suggesting that the HSCA photographic panel didn't understand simple perspective?  Wouldn't that call their other conclusions into question?

[John Mytton]

Are you suggesting that the HSCA photographic panel didn't understand simple perspective?  Wouldn't that call their other conclusions into question?

Wouldn't that call their other conclusions into question?

WHAT? Another illogical self serving Iacoletti generalization but sure if you want, go ahead and discard all their studies of multiple photographs showing cardboard box positioning.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

WHAT? Another illogical self serving Iacoletti generalization but sure if you want, go ahead and discard all their studies of multiple photographs showing cardboard box positioning.

Did they or did they not conclude that the boxes were repositioned after the shooting?  Do you agree with their conclusion?