Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[John Iacoletti]

Some other case is immaterial.

Bull. What was the Dallas PD’s and DA’s motive to railroad Adams and suppress evidence in Adams’ case? To get a conviction!

[John Iacoletti]

Weatherford saw the bag.

Which bag though? The chicken lunch bag?

[Ross Lidell]

Bull. What was the Dallas PD’s and DA’s motive to railroad Adams and suppress evidence in Adams’ case? To get a conviction!

So John: Is this Adams' case linked to the Assassination of John F. Kennedy? If not it's immaterial.

[Martin Weidmann]

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?

It is you who doesn't understand. Regardless of the gravity of the offense, they are both still equally illegal.

As I have already answered that I don't think DPD officers were "in on it" (they didn't need to be for the WC fairytale to be contrived), I am not going to continue
this pointless conversation just because - as the Brits say - you want to be a clever dick.

[Martin Weidmann]

So John: Is this Adams' case linked to the Assassination of John F. Kennedy? If not it's immaterial.

You're so desperate to make the flawed argument that no DPD officer would break the law in the Kennedy case for fear of the consequences.

John has shown you quite clearly that DPD officers have in fact broken the law in at least one other case, regardless of the consequences, so why would they do it there and not in the Kennedy case? Evidence tampering is a nearly every day occurrence as frequently demonstrated by the release of innocent prisoners who were in jail due to prosecutorial misconduct.

And there is in fact persuasive evidence that DPD officers did tamper with evidence one way or the other, so your entire argument is going nowhere...

[Colin Crow]

Which bag though? The chicken lunch bag?

The investigation was far from exhaustive. What a mess, after 4 months to sort a sequence of events hardly any corroboration for anything. They were tasked with clarifying and failed. Not an official narrative that makes sense. At least we have established that the bag was only ever sealed at one end and was at the wrapping table with Studebaker before it left the building. It was likely photographed by accident some time it left the building laying unfolded on boxes some distance west of its "discovery" position. Looks pretty flat with no indication of carrying anything bulky or heavy.

[Pat Speer]

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?

Here's the section of chapter 4C in which I quote back Day's statements to prove he wasn't present when the bag was "discovered".

Day's post-1964 statements on the bag, in fact, confirm he was not actually present when the bag was "discovered."

A summary of Day's 10-18-77 interview with HSCA investigators Harold Rose and Al Maxwell (HSCA record 180-10107-10176) relates: "Lt. Day stated that he remembers the brown wrapping paper in the S.E. corner and stated that he believes his office processed it and it went with the other evidence to the F.B.I."

He "believes"? Really?

In 1992, when asked by researcher Denis Morissette if he knew who found the bag, Day similarly responded: "I don't know. It was on the floor next to and north of the box Oswald was sitting on when I arrived at the 6th floor. My men and I collected the bag at this place. As far as I know it had not been moved by any officers." Note that he never describes his initial spotting and inspection of the bag, or his dusting and signing the bag. He says only that there was a bag, that it was collected by his men, and that it was found by... someone... north of the sniper's seat. (His testimony had been that it was south of the sniper's seat, directly in the corner.)

In 1996, in an oral history recorded for The Sixth Floor Museum, moreover, Day had the chance to set the record straight and once again offered smoke. When asked why the bag hadn't been photographed, he responded "There should be a picture of it somewhere." When then asked by interviewer Bob Porter where the bag had been found, he replied "To the best of my knowledge, it was to the right on the floor of where he was sitting, on the box that I showed you a minute ago. It may have been the right, it may have been the left, but there was a bag there." When Porter pointed out that "left" would mean the corner (where Day had testified the bag was discovered), moreover, Day surprised him, and once again asserted that the bag had been found north of the sniper's seat. He responded "Yes, in the corner out back towards the north side of the building, where you headed up to it." He then admitted "I didn’t know anything about a bag at that time. There was a bag laying there...Later examination indicated that it was a bag had been made out of wrapping paper. It appeared to be shipping paper...Of course at that time, we didn’t know anything about Oswald, didn’t know anything about what happened. There was a bag there and it was collected."

Now, this, of course, supports that Day hadn't actually seen the bag where he claims it was found, and that others were, in fact, responsible for its collection in the depository.

This likelihood is further supported by Day's recollection to Larry Sneed, published in 1998, moreover. Day is reported to have told Sneed that "Also found on the sixth floor, as I recall, near the shell area, was a paper bag. It should have been photographed, but for some reason, apparently wasn't."

In fact, in what was to become his final word on the subject, in a 7-11-06 interview with The Sixth Floor Museum, Day came as close to admitting perjury as one can come. In opposition to his Warren Commission testimony that he'd signed the paper bag or sack "at the time the sack was found," Day ultimately admitted that when he and Studebaker left the sniper's nest to go photograph the rifle on the other side of the building "They had posted guards or something around it and they didn't have the sense to leave things alone. And they'd got in there and picked up a sack that was in this corner. And we didn't get a picture of it. But there was a sack right in that corner...the brown paper bag. It was the one he was supposed to have brought curtain rods in. Well, they picked it up while I was gone, and I didn't get a picture of it while it was sitting there."

[Colin Crow]

Here's the section of chapter 4C in which I quote back Day's statements to prove he wasn't present when the bag was "discovered".

Day's post-1964 statements on the bag, in fact, confirm he was not actually present when the bag was "discovered."

A summary of Day's 10-18-77 interview with HSCA investigators Harold Rose and Al Maxwell (HSCA record 180-10107-10176) relates: "Lt. Day stated that he remembers the brown wrapping paper in the S.E. corner and stated that he believes his office processed it and it went with the other evidence to the F.B.I."

He "believes"? Really?

In 1992, when asked by researcher Denis Morissette if he knew who found the bag, Day similarly responded: "I don't know. It was on the floor next to and north of the box Oswald was sitting on when I arrived at the 6th floor. My men and I collected the bag at this place. As far as I know it had not been moved by any officers." Note that he never describes his initial spotting and inspection of the bag, or his dusting and signing the bag. He says only that there was a bag, that it was collected by his men, and that it was found by... someone... north of the sniper's seat. (His testimony had been that it was south of the sniper's seat, directly in the corner.)

In 1996, in an oral history recorded for The Sixth Floor Museum, moreover, Day had the chance to set the record straight and once again offered smoke. When asked why the bag hadn't been photographed, he responded "There should be a picture of it somewhere." When then asked by interviewer Bob Porter where the bag had been found, he replied "To the best of my knowledge, it was to the right on the floor of where he was sitting, on the box that I showed you a minute ago. It may have been the right, it may have been the left, but there was a bag there." When Porter pointed out that "left" would mean the corner (where Day had testified the bag was discovered), moreover, Day surprised him, and once again asserted that the bag had been found north of the sniper's seat. He responded "Yes, in the corner out back towards the north side of the building, where you headed up to it." He then admitted "I didn’t know anything about a bag at that time. There was a bag laying there...Later examination indicated that it was a bag had been made out of wrapping paper. It appeared to be shipping paper...Of course at that time, we didn’t know anything about Oswald, didn’t know anything about what happened. There was a bag there and it was collected."

Now, this, of course, supports that Day hadn't actually seen the bag where he claims it was found, and that others were, in fact, responsible for its collection in the depository.

This likelihood is further supported by Day's recollection to Larry Sneed, published in 1998, moreover. Day is reported to have told Sneed that "Also found on the sixth floor, as I recall, near the shell area, was a paper bag. It should have been photographed, but for some reason, apparently wasn't."

In fact, in what was to become his final word on the subject, in a 7-11-06 interview with The Sixth Floor Museum, Day came as close to admitting perjury as one can come. In opposition to his Warren Commission testimony that he'd signed the paper bag or sack "at the time the sack was found," Day ultimately admitted that when he and Studebaker left the sniper's nest to go photograph the rifle on the other side of the building "They had posted guards or something around it and they didn't have the sense to leave things alone. And they'd got in there and picked up a sack that was in this corner. And we didn't get a picture of it. But there was a sack right in that corner...the brown paper bag. It was the one he was supposed to have brought curtain rods in. Well, they picked it up while I was gone, and I didn't get a picture of it while it was sitting there."

Thanks Pat. There is a statement somewhere from Day that he did no processing of the paper and tape samples and mentions that was done by the FBI. He indicates that he could perform a matching of ends at that time and that it was a tedious process but it could be done. Do you recall where this statement was? I only read it yesterday and am struggling to find it in my files.