Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Jack Nessan]

Thanks for the reply Jerry. Trying to identify the "discoverer" of the bag is a rabbit hole. This result is a clear failure for an "exhaustive" investigation for such a key piece of evidence. Note the dates on the reports you posted. We know the bag spent some time in two locations  with Studebaker in the TSBD on the 22nd November. On the sixth floor and at the first floor wrapping table. Question is in what order?

The bag is not a key piece of evidence. LHO was seen carrying a long sack to the TSBD on 11/22. If Oswald had destroyed the bag it would not have changed the fact his rifle was matched to the shells and bullet and fragments and that LHO's rifle was found between the boxes on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

[Colin Crow]

The bag is not a key piece of evidence. LHO was seen carrying a long sack to the TSBD on 11/22. If Oswald had destroyed the bag it would not have changed the fact his rifle was matched to the shells and bullet and fragments and that LHO's rifle was found between the boxes on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Of course it’s a key piece Jack. Oswald was accused of carrying a bag that morning. The FBI claimed his prints were on it. The FBI claimed it was produced from material available in the TSBD, likely the day before. It ties him to the schooling scene.

Anything else I wrote in the post you responded to that you disagree with?

[Jerry Organ]

If a really old rifle hull was discovered behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll, it would have to be considered irrelevant because it wasn't discovered immediately on the day of the assassination and there's no chain of evidence. Same with any new evidence such as the Babushka Lady photo or an assassin's confession.

[Colin Crow]

If a really old rifle hull was discovered behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll, it would have to be considered irrelevant because it wasn't discovered immediately on the day of the assassination and there's no chain of evidence. Same with any new evidence such as the Babushka Lady photo or an assassin's confession.

So what was the chain of evidence for CE142? That was entered into evidence within a few hours. Who gave it to who? Who was the first to open it? Was it open and then folded first?

[Jerry Organ]

So what was the chain of evidence for CE142? That was entered into evidence within a few hours. Who gave it to who? Who was the first to open it? Was it open and then folded first?

The witnesses to some supposed fence shot are in the same vague category.

[Jack Nessan]

Of course it’s a key piece Jack. Oswald was accused of carrying a bag that morning. The FBI claimed his prints were on it. The FBI claimed it was produced from material available in the TSBD, likely the day before. It ties him to the schooling scene.

Anything else I wrote in the post you responded to that you disagree with?

No CE 142 is not key to anything. If it had been destroyed it would not change anything. It is nothing more than a distraction and adds nothing to the understanding of the assassination. The rifle is the key piece of information and can't be explained away. People stated they saw LHO bring a long bag to the TSBD on the morning of 11/22. LHO could have burned the bag and nothing would be different.

The bag never was at the first floor wrapping table. It does not matter who discovered the bag as the bag can clearly be seen in the photo in the SN thanks to Patrick Jackson. Kent Biffle stated the bag was present in the SN prior to the discovery of the rifle.

[Charles Collins]

No CE 142 is not key to anything. If it had been destroyed it would not change anything. It is nothing more than a distraction and adds nothing to the understanding of the assassination. The rifle is the key piece of information and can't be explained away. People stated they saw LHO bring a long bag to the TSBD on the morning of 11/22. LHO could have burned the bag and nothing would be different.

The bag never was at the first floor wrapping table. It does not matter who discovered the bag as the bag can clearly be seen in the photo in the SN thanks to Patrick Jackson. Kent Biffle stated the bag was present in the SN prior to the discovery of the rifle.

No CE 142 is not key to anything.

It is key to the CT argument that the DPD or FBI or some mysterious entity planted it. Patrick Jackson’s identification of it in that photo helps to dispel that one.

I do believe that I had seen it before and wondered what it was. But I didn’t correlate it with the bag until Patrick pointed it out.

[Colin Crow]

The witnesses to some supposed fence shot are in the same vague category.

We are talking about trained police here regarding the bag. Why gaslight this to a vague grassy knoll situation?  This is the official investigation result. Seems they dropped the ball (no pun intended). Obviously we have differing standards when analysis of the sequence of events.