Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.  (Read 76172 times)

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #520 on: March 19, 2020, 11:38:09 PM »
Advertisement
Marty,

I was fooled by the double-quote: J. Freeman and you. Off my game because of concern about the China-virus pandemic.

But surely any deliberate suppression of evidence or enhancement of evidence (by the Dallas police) would be highly illegal? When is it incompetence and when is it an offense?

Off my game because of concern about the China-virus pandemic.

Or you were simply babbling away without paying much attention to what you were doing.

But surely any deliberate suppression of evidence or enhancement of evidence (by the Dallas police) would be highly illegal?

So is driving through a red traffic light. Are you by any chance under the mistaken impression that every single police officer always abides by the law?

When is it incompetence and when is it an offense?

When evidence is tampered with it is always an offense regardless if the person doing it is imcompetent or not.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #520 on: March 19, 2020, 11:38:09 PM »


Offline Ross Lidell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #521 on: March 19, 2020, 11:51:53 PM »
Off my game because of concern about the China-virus pandemic.

Or you were simply babbling away without paying much attention to what you were doing.

But surely any deliberate suppression of evidence or enhancement of evidence (by the Dallas police) would be highly illegal?

So is driving through a red traffic light. Are you by any chance under the mistaken impression that every single police officer always abides by the law?

But surely any deliberate suppression of evidence or enhancement of evidence (by the Dallas police) would be highly illegal?

When is it incompetence and when is it an offense?

When evidence is tampered with it is always an offense regardless if the person doing it is imcompetent or not.

So is driving through a red traffic light. Are you by any chance under the mistaken impression that every single police officer always abides by the law?

Going through a red-light: Misdemeanor

Suppression of evidence in a criminal case: Felony

Or you were simply babbling away without paying much attention to what you were doing.

Were you? Or should the third letter of your surname be changed to another vowel.

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #522 on: March 20, 2020, 12:13:36 AM »
So is driving through a red traffic light. Are you by any chance under the mistaken impression that every single police officer always abides by the law?

Going through a red-light: Misdemeanor

Suppression of evidence in a criminal case: Felony

Or you were simply babbling away without paying much attention to what you were doing.

Were you? Or should the third letter of your surname be changed to another vowel.

Going through a red-light: Misdemeanor

Suppression of evidence in a criminal case: Felony


Same difference... both are just as illegal.

Were you? Or should the third letter of your surname be changed to another vowel?

Babbling again?

You could have simply owned up to the mistake instead of making some silly excuse. And now you're trying to make it about me.... Pathetic!

« Last Edit: March 20, 2020, 12:15:34 AM by Martin Weidmann »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #522 on: March 20, 2020, 12:13:36 AM »


Offline Ross Lidell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #523 on: March 20, 2020, 12:23:03 AM »
Going through a red-light: Misdemeanor

Suppression of evidence in a criminal case: Felony


Same difference... both are just as illegal.

Were you? Or should the third letter of your surname be changed to another vowel?

Babbling again?

You could have simply owned up to the mistake instead of making some silly excuse. And now you're trying to make it about me.... Pathetic!

Same difference... both are just as illegal.

Not the same difference. Think about the differences in the consequences of being convicted and sentenced.

Running a red-light... not a criminal offense: Monetary fine.

Suppressing evidence (accessory after the fact to murder - Texas 1963)... a criminal offense: Execution in the electric chair.

Now do you understand?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2020, 02:21:52 AM by Ross Lidell »

Offline Colin Crow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1860
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #524 on: March 20, 2020, 01:53:23 AM »
To Pat Speer.....I believe I saw a reference that you said in an oral history interview that Carl Day virtually admitted that he did not see the bag on the sixth floor. Can you confirm?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #524 on: March 20, 2020, 01:53:23 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #525 on: March 20, 2020, 04:10:32 AM »
Same difference... both are just as illegal.

Not the same difference. Think about the differences in the consequences of being convicted and sentenced.

Running a red-light... not a criminal offense: Monetary fine.

Suppressing evidence (accessory after the fact to murder - Texas 1963)... a criminal offense: Execution in the electric chair.

Now do you understand?

If you are suggesting that they wouldn’t do that because it’s a crime, I’d suggest you study the case of Randall Dale Adams.

Offline Ross Lidell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #526 on: March 20, 2020, 04:59:56 AM »
If you are suggesting that they wouldn’t do that because it’s a crime, I’d suggest you study the case of Randall Dale Adams.

Some other case is immaterial.

Motive John: What was the motive for Dallas Police Officers to become accessories "before, during and after the fact" to the murder of John F. Kennedy?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #526 on: March 20, 2020, 04:59:56 AM »


Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #527 on: March 20, 2020, 05:05:39 AM »
I have no doubt the bag was on the sixth floor Jack. I propose that the picture shows the bag at some time around 2pm or so. The rifle was found about 1.22pm (from memory). As for using Johnson to claim that Biffle's claim the bag wa found before the rifle I have already said that Johnson indicates this happened after Studebaker had returned from assisting Day with the rifle. After he had finished processing evidence where Johnson was (pop bottle and chicken lunch).


So you have no corroboration of Biffle seeing the bag before the gun was found. No one said there was a reporter there and Biffle did not name anyone. An unconfirmed, uncorroborated anecdote not offered as an official statement or under oath.

And as for using Johnson.....

Mr. BELIN. Your testimony then is that all the sack would have been east of the pipes. Is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSON. I would say that the sack was folded up here and it was east of the pipes in the corner. To the best of my memory, that is where my partner picked it up. I was standing there when he picked it up.
Mr. BELIN. You were standing there when he picked it up?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, because the Crime Lab was already finished where I was, and I had already walked off to where he was.

Johnson gave us the best indication when this occurred. He was assigned an area west of the SN, essentially guarding the chicken lunch remnants, outside the arranged boxes. Once Studebaker returned following the departure of Day with the rifle, Studebaker processed the bottle and lunch sack. Johnson then moved to where Montgomery was inside the SN. This is when Montgomery "discovered" the bag.

The bag was used to cover the inital wooden strip removed from a SN window. The bag was originally made to transport the rifle back to City Hall. That plan was abandoned by Carl Day. He hints at the use of paper to protect crime evidence for transport. The Crime Scene guy routinely bring bags etc with them for transporting evidence to the lab for processing. They had no such bag big enough to do so. There are pictures of the rifle and other evidence sitting on a large sheet of paper. Why do you think they put paper under the evidence to photograph it?

Did Day initially think it was a good idea to wrap the rifle up and then abandon the idea?

"Just looking at it I thought the chances were slim that we’d find any prints on the rifle itself. It had what we call a wartime
finish on the barrel which would lift out of the stock. That type of surface didn’t take prints well, nor did the wood stock which was too course or rough. You’ve got to have a smooth, fairly clean surface before the ridges will leave an impression. If it’s rougher than the ridges of the finger, you’re not going to find anything there.

At that time, just through casual observation, it didn’t look too promising. It wasn’t the place to try to do any fingerprint work since it’s a rather lengthy process and we had other things to do. So I decided to carry the gun back to the office at City Hall, store it under lock and key, examine it under ideal conditions, and get to it when I could. I didn’t have anything to wrap it up with at the time, so I carried it out making sure that I didn’t touch anything other than the strap. Besides, you had to be careful in wrapping stuff because if there were any prints, you’re liable to smear them just from the wrapping."

Carl Day from No More Silence

Weatherford saw the bag.

Weatherford
"....I came down to the 6th floor and while searching this floor, Deputy Luke Mooney said, "here are some shells". I went over to where he was and saw 3 expended rifle shells, and a sack on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the cartons which was used as a sort of barricade, advising Mooney to preserve the scene for the Crime Lab"

Biffle took 150 pages of notes. It is assumed the reference to Pages 6 and 7 were about the rifle and the bag from his notes. Simply choosing who to believe in the face of so much contradictory evidence is not proof of anything. Nobody was interested in identifying other participants of the search.



Johnson states Montgomery picked it up. Montgomery states Studebaker picked it up. Weatherford states he saw the bag, but in the end the bag is on the box and nobody seems to know how it got there. Biffle simply states he saw it and they were standing around  talking about it being the bag used to carry the rifle. Then the rifle was found. Why would anyone take the time to tell the world Biffle was there when they never mention any one else being there like say Gerald Hill or Weatherford or Mooney. Johnson states "we" were talking about it being used to carry the rifle. If you don't want to believe it was already up on the box then it simply could have been seen lying on the floor by Biffle and the others. Either way it was noticed before the rifle was discovered. It was never dusted for prints until after the rifle was discovered.
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag.


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.

Somebody obviously picked the bag up and placed it on the box. All descriptions of the original location of the bag are on the floor.