Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Martin Weidmann]

Just reiterating the same lazy contrarian nonsense over and over again?  Tiresome.  Everything is "conjecture" and "assumptions."  Nothing in human history could ever be proven using this form of "logic."  There was nothing strange about that bag?  It was three feet long and made by someone.  It had nothing in it.  It was next to the SN.  It wasn't just found anyplace in the building (i.e. "Oswald's place of work").  It was found on the very floor next to the very location from which witnesses saw a rifle sticking out the window!  The exact crime scene.  Good grief.  Aren't you embarrassed to claim something like that? If not, please God let Roger be on my jury if I ever commit a crime. 

Just reiterating the same lazy contrarian nonsense over and over again?  Tiresome.  Everything is "conjecture" and "assumptions." 

Said he, just before he started reiterating the same conjecture and assumptions again.... and without any evidence to back it up.

The bag is only "strange" to you because you need it to be "strange" as that makes it more suspicious than it really is. What it is in fact is a bag made from materials used by the TSBD and found inside the TSBD without a shred of evidence for when it was made, who made it and that it ever left the TSBD.

And the reason that there is no explanation for this bag after 50 plus years of the most investigated crime in history is because - wait for it - no one ever "investigated that angle."  Wow.  And how would you know this?  The building was searched.  They found this bag during the search.  Maybe they didn't find another shorter  strange bag because it wasn't there instead of not investigating it.  And your explanation for some other employee not coming forward to explain the bag is that they would not want to be a witness?  Embarrassing.  How about this?  No one came forward to explain the bag because it belonged to Oswald and no one else who worked there had anything to do with it?  Or how about this?  Go through the various photos from the TSBD and find a similar bag that would confirm it was just an "ordinary" bag that was used for some unspecified work purpose in the TSBD.  If it is not a strange or unusual bag to be there, then there should ample evidence that it is just an ordinary bag as you claim as supported with abundant similar examples from the building.  Get back to us on your "research" Roger.

And how would you know this? 

Prove me wrong. Show me the reports about the building being searched for the flimsy sack that Frazier said he saw.

How about this?  No one came forward to explain the bag because it belonged to Oswald and no one else who worked there had anything to do with it?

Sure, that's one of the possibilities... it's just not the only one. But isn't speculating to reach a predetermined conclusion fun, right? You may not understand this, but you've just proven my point about it being speculation rather than fact. Well done 

If it is not a strange or unusual bag to be there, then there should ample evidence that it is just an ordinary bag as you claim as supported with abundant similar examples from the building.

Moving the goalposts again? ... Where did I say the bag was not unusual or that it was ordinary? You do understand that it could be unusual or not ordinary without it being a "strange" bag, right?

[John Iacoletti]

So many words.  Honestly, ask yourself if you really believe that finding this strange bag that can't be accounted for in any other way, in its location near the SN with Oswald's prints on it is not evidence of anything.

Classic argument from ignorance.  "Richard" is a poster-child for logical fallacies.

  At the very least, the totality of circumstances lends itself to the conclusion that this was the bag Oswald carried that morning whatever false doubt that you wish to interject as to its contents.

No, the totality of evidence is that it was not the same bag.  You only get where you are by ignoring what the only two people to see the bag said about it.

  His prints are on the bag, he carried a long bag that morning, no other bag matching Frazier's description was ever found or accounted for, no explanation for this bag ever came from any other employee or person with access to that floor, it is found at the crime scene next to the SN which also had Oswald's prints.

As predicted, you just repeat the same mantra over and over again.

Harold Norman's lunch sack was never found or accounted for.  BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER LOOKED FOR EITHER.  By your "logic", CE 142 must have been it too.

  So why was this bag there?  How did it get there?  Did some other TSBD employee construct and use such a bag and then just not ever mention it even after it was widely publicized to have been used to carry the rifle that assassinated the president?  Whew.  What happened to the shorter bag you apparently believe Oswald carried pursuant to Frazier's estimate?  Let me guess.  You have no idea.  Why did Oswald lie to the police about carrying his lunch that day and not a bag as described by Frazier?  Let me guess.  You have no idea.

"I don't know" is the only honest answer.  Why do you feel the need to make things up so that you have a comforting answer instead of just admitting that you don't know?

  What happened to Oswald's rifle since it is missing when the police search the Paine's garage?

"Oswald's rifle".  LOL.

Are you talking about CE 139?  I think you forgot to demonstrate how you know that it was ever in the Paine's garage.  Another comforting answer you made up to avoid saying "I don't know"?

[John Iacoletti]

Just reiterating the same lazy contrarian nonsense over and over again?  Tiresome.

Not nearly as tiresome as you reiterating the same lazy baseless conjecture over and over again.

  Everything is "conjecture" and "assumptions."  Nothing in human history could ever be proven using this form of "logic."

Historians generally admit it when they are just guessing.

There was nothing strange about that bag?  It was three feet long and made by someone.  It had nothing in it.  It was next to the SN.

And you know that it was next to the SN....how?

Another conjecture has been made that Day and Studeba ker constructed CE 142 to carry the rifle out in.  And guess what?  It has more evidence to support it than your conjecture.

Aren't you embarrassed to claim something like that? If not, please God let Roger be on my jury if I ever commit a crime. 

Who's Roger?

[Richard Smith]

Just reiterating the same lazy contrarian nonsense over and over again?  Tiresome.  Everything is "conjecture" and "assumptions." 

Said he, just before he started reiterating the same conjecture and assumptions again.... and without any evidence to back it up.

The bag is only "strange" to you because you need it to be "strange" as that makes it more suspicious than it really is. What it is in fact is a bag made from materials used by the TSBD and found inside the TSBD without a shred of evidence for when it was made, who made it and that it ever left the TSBD.

And how would you know this? 

Prove me wrong. Show me the reports about the building being searched for the flimsy sack that Frazier said he saw.

How about this?  No one came forward to explain the bag because it belonged to Oswald and no one else who worked there had anything to do with it?

Sure, that's one of the possibilities... it's just not the only one. But isn't speculating to reach a predetermined conclusion fun, right? You may not understand this, but you've just proven my point about it being speculation rather than fact. Well done 

If it is not a strange or unusual bag to be there, then there should ample evidence that it is just an ordinary bag as you claim as supported with abundant similar examples from the building.

Moving the goalposts again? ... Where did I say the bag was not unusual or that it was ordinary? You do understand that it could be unusual or not ordinary without it being a "strange" bag, right?

The same old, tired defense attorney nonsense.  So the bag was not strange but also not ordinary?  You are going to dicker with whether it was "strange" vs "unusual"?  Wow.  Inspector Clouseau is on the case. Here is the definition of "strange":  unusual or surprising in a way that is unsettling or hard to understand." 

Let us apply that definition to this bag.  It is three feet long, made by someone, empty, found at the scene of the crime (not just somewhere at Oswald's place of employment), with Oswald's prints on it, right next to the SN boxes also with his prints on it, on the same floor as Oswald's rifle, and near bullet casings fired from his rifle.  It also is the only known such bag in the building as there are no similar bags depicted in any photos.  No other TSBD employee has their prints on that bag.  Just unlucky Lee.  It's just a mystery bag from some unknown source that Oswald had the misfortune to touch because he worked there (even though no other employee touched it)!  Double wow.  That is low brow defense attorney nonsense where someone knows a client is stone cold guilty and is trying to convince just one rube juror that up is down.  It doesn't work in the real world.  Check your history books.  It was and forever remains "Oswald's bag."

[John Iacoletti]

The same old, tired defense attorney nonsense.

In response to your same old, tired prosecuting attorney nonsense?

Let us apply that definition to this bag.  It is three feet long, made by someone,

Brilliant, so far.

empty, found at the scene of the crime

Stop pretending like you know where it was found.  You don't even know who found it or when.

(not just somewhere at Oswald's place of employment), with Oswald's prints on it, right next to the SN boxes also with his prints on it, on the same floor as Oswald's rifle, and near bullet casings fired from his rifle.

Stop pretending like you know it was Oswald's rifle.

  It also is the only known such bag in the building as there are no similar bags depicted in any photos.

Hilarious.  That bag isn't even detected in any photos.  At least not where you claim it was found.

  No other TSBD employee has their prints on that bag.

Stop pretending like you know that either.

[Martin Weidmann]

The same old, tired defense attorney nonsense.  So the bag was not strange but also not ordinary?  You are going to dicker with whether it was "strange" vs "unusual"?  Wow.  Inspector Clouseau is on the case. Here is the definition of "strange":  unusual or surprising in a way that is unsettling or hard to understand." 

Let us apply that definition to this bag.  It is three feet long, made by someone, empty, found at the scene of the crime (not just somewhere at Oswald's place of employment), with Oswald's prints on it, right next to the SN boxes also with his prints on it, on the same floor as Oswald's rifle, and near bullet casings fired from his rifle.  It also is the only known such bag in the building as there are no similar bags depicted in any photos.  No other TSBD employee has their prints on that bag.  Just unlucky Lee.  It's just a mystery bag from some unknown source that Oswald had the misfortune to touch because he worked there (even though no other employee touched it)!  Double wow.  That is low brow defense attorney nonsense where someone knows a client is stone cold guilty and is trying to convince just one rube juror that up is down.  It doesn't work in the real world.  Check your history books.  It was and forever remains "Oswald's bag."

You make a poor excuse of a prosecutor. You don't even know the basics of a prosecution, so let me remind you.

Instead of constantly whining about the defense not agreeing with you and calling them names for pointing out the massive holes in your story, you actually need to prove your case. You can not simply say to the jury; "never mind all the little things that don't add up, just ignore that I don't have answers to some crucial questions and sometimes just make up stuff as I go along and most of all disregard all the evidence that does not point to the defendant, instead just believe the story, filled with speculations, conjecture and assumptions, I just conjured up".

That is low brow defense attorney nonsense where someone knows a client is stone cold guilty and is trying to convince just one rube juror that up is down.  It doesn't work in the real world.

No it doesn't. A defense attorney that knows a client is guilty can not mislead the court by claiming he is innocent. The mere fact that you do not know this, tells us all we need to know about your courtroom "expertise". Perhaps you should watch a bit less television or movies! And btw, trying to convince just one juror is exactly what the job of a defense lawyer is...... Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, Richie 

Check your history books.  It was and forever remains "Oswald's bag."

Huh? That's funny... my history book says that Oswald was the alleged killer but that his guilt was never established beyond a reasonable doubt. And there was nothing about a bag.... 

[John Iacoletti]

"Richard" went to the Bugliosi school of prosecution.  Try to ridicule your opposition and act like that somehow bolsters your own argument.  Throw in some righteous indignation for good measure.