The Brown Paper Bag

[Martin Weidmann]

A sock puppet among us?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4306.0.html

JohnM

A sane person would have let it go, but not Johnny....

He thinks he's being nasty, but all he really is, is an easily triggered fool with a delusion of grandeur complex.

Keep responding, Johnny. I can do with a good laugh

[Martin Weidmann]

Do you think all of the evidence against Oswald in the Tippit Case was fabricated and planted, too?

Or was some of it just more "weird coincidence"?

I see you are running away as fast as you can from the white/grey jacket questions. One can only wonder why, but it's really no surprise.

What evidence in de Tippit case are you talking about?

[John Mytton]

Too bad the bag didn't go to Washington Friday night.

Jim Marrs:
"When the Dallas evidence was shipped to the FBI laboratory early on November 23, there was no mention of the paper bag.
Instead, Dallas FBI agent-in-charge J. Gordon Shanklin mentioned the blanket, which he suggested was used to carry the
rifle into the Depository."

https://web.archive.org/web/20120502231526im_/http://www.giljesus.com/stovall_A.JPG

Jim Marrs??

You've got to be joking?

Mr. EISENBERG. If there are no further questions on the shirt, I will move on to another item.
Mr. Stombaugh, I now hand you a homemade paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142, which parenthetically has also received another Exhibit No. 626, and ask you whether you are familiar with this item?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that have your mark on it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. At the time I examined this, it was to be treated for latent fingerprints subsequent to my examination, and in a case like this I will not put a mark on the item itself because my mark might cover a latent fingerprint which is later brought up, and therefore obscure it.
In this particular instance, I made a drawing of this bag on my notes with the various sizes and description of it to refresh my memory at a later date.
Mr. EISENBERG. And it is--looking at those notes and as you remember now-- this is the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this bag has an area of very light-brown color, and the greater portion of the area is a quite dark-brownish color. What was the color when you originally received it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. When I originally received this it was a light-brown color.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which is at one end of the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. One end of the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. The tape is also two colors, one a lightish brown and the other a darkish brown. What color was the tape when you received it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. The tape also was light brown.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you turn the bag over? Was it the color that shows as a lighter yellowish-type of brown?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; a yellow-brown shade.
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive it, by the way, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was received on November 23, 7:30 a.m, 1963.









JohnM

[John Mytton]

A sane person would have let it go, but not Johnny....

He thinks he's being nasty, but all he really is, is an easily triggered fool with a delusion of grandeur complex.

Keep responding, Johnny. I can do with a good laugh

Every time I ring my bell, you salivate like Pavlov's dog!



JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Every time I ring my bell, you salivate like Pavlov's dog!



JohnM

Did somebody mention delusion of grandeur?

Still desperately trying to turn this fiasco around, I see! Thanks for the laugh and keep 'm coming!

[Michael Capasse]

  Still, no reason to think the rifle was ever broken down and put into that bag.

[John Corbett]

Still, no reason to think the rifle was ever broken down and put into that bag.

No reason? Seriously? If you were Oswald and you had made a 38 inch bag to conceal your rifle and then discovered your rifle was 40 inches long, not the 36 inch rifle you had ordered, what would you do at that point?

We know for fact that the rifle had been disassembled and handled by Oswald because that is the only way his palm print could have been placed on the underside of the barrel. Oswald's palmprints were on both the rifle and the bag, proof positive that he had handled both. The presence of the fibers on the bag that matched his rifle blanket are prima facie evidence that the bag was used to hold the rifle.

Conspiracy hobbyists taken the ridiculous position that every piece of evidence must be 100% conclusive to be probative and accepted. That is absurd not just in this case but in all cases. Prosecutors base their cases on an accumulation of evidence that is probative but rarely 100% conclusive by itself. There will always be possible alternative explanations for any given piece of evidence but that does not take away from the probative value of the evidence.

I haven't bothered to count them but Vincent Bugliosi identified over 50 pieces of evidence that indicated Oswald was the assassin. Not one of these pieces of evidence is conclusive by itself of Oswald's guilt, but taken collectively, they leave no doubt. When the most likely explanation for any one piece of evidence is that Oswald is guilty, there is no reasonable argument for his innocence when you have that many pieces pointing to his guilt.

In the past, I've drawn an analogy to a jigsaw puzzle. No one piece of the puzzle can tell us what the picture looks like, but the pieces of the puzzle can only fit together one way. When we put the pieces of evidence together, the picture unmistakenly presented is that Oswald was the assassin. It is the only way the individual pieces will fit together. We might have a few missing pieces, such as where to the missed shot go and what did it hit. The biggest missing piece is Oswald's motive. That we will never know for sure, but we can still get a very clear picture of what happened without that piece. Conspiracy hobbyists never want to put the pieces of the puzzle together. They look at one piece and say it doesn't look like anything. Of course it doesn't until you put it together with the other pieces and then the picture becomes crystal clear.