The Brown Paper Bag

[Martin Weidmann]

Not according to our courts. I have served on four juries, two criminal and two civil. In the judge's final instructions to the jury, they are told to draw logical inferences from the evidence. IOW, USE COMMON SENSE.

As it applies to this issue, had the case gone to trial, the jury would have been presented the evidence of the fiber matching. They would have had to ask themselves, how likely was it that the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle were from an identical shirt to the one Oswald was wearing when arrested. They would have to ask themselves how likely it was that the fibers from the bag were from a blanket identical to the one Oswald kept his rifle wrapped in. A logical inference is that the rifle fibers came from the shirt the rifle's owner was wearing when he was arrested. A logical inference would be that the bag fibers came from the blanket owned by the person whose prints were on the bag. When coupled with all the other evidence of Oswald's guilt, those are the only logical conclusions a reasonable person could reach.

If you want to cling to the theoretical possibility the fibers came from identical objects to the ones associated with Oswald, that is your right. Any thinking person who is interested in the truth of JFKA and is not determined to argue for Oswald's innocence, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, would understand how ridiculously unlikely those fibers came from objects not owned by Oswald.

The jury in the Wayne Williams case had to make similar judgements about the fiber evidence presented by the prosecution. They had no trouble finding him guilty and sending him to jail for the rest of his life, based primarily on the fiber evidence. They had no problem concluding there was no reasonable doubt that the fibers came from objects associated with Williams. They weren't assuming. They were making sound, common sense judgements. The fact that the spree of child murders in Atlanta ended when Williams was taken into custody vindicates their verdict.

Not according to our courts. I have served on four juries, two criminal and two civil. In the judge's final instructions to the jury, they are told to draw logical inferences from the evidence. IOW, USE COMMON SENSE.

Logical inferences are the result of valid reasoning.

Common sense is far more speculative. That's why the judge uses "logical inferences" and not common sense.

how likely was it that the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle were from an identical shirt to the one Oswald was wearing when arrested.

And how exactly do you know if the shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested is the same as the one he was wearing at the TSBD on Friday morning.
Or is it perhaps more likely that Oswald changed shirt after wearing it in a dirty warehouse for four hours?

They would have to ask themselves how likely it was that the fibers from the bag were from a blanket identical to the one Oswald kept his rifle wrapped in.

Or they would have to wonder if there possibly had been cross contamination between the bag and blanket as they were photographed lying next to each other at the DPD office and the FBI Lab.

[Michael Capasse]

Not according to our courts. I have served on four juries, two criminal and two civil. In the judge's final instructions to the jury, they are told to draw logical inferences from the evidence. IOW, USE COMMON SENSE.

As it applies to this issue, had the case gone to trial, the jury would have been presented the evidence of the fiber matching. They would have had to ask themselves, how likely was it that the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle were from an identical shirt to the one Oswald was wearing when arrested. They would have to ask themselves how likely it was that the fibers from the bag were from a blanket identical to the one Oswald kept his rifle wrapped in. A logical inference is that the rifle fibers came from the shirt the rifle's owner was wearing when he was arrested. A logical inference would be that the bag fibers came from the blanket owned by the person whose prints were on the bag. When coupled with all the other evidence of Oswald's guilt, those are the only logical conclusions a reasonable person could reach.

presumptuous GARBAGE.
No one has made any claim of identical fibers.

If I'm on a jury... and Defense shows me the picture of the mouth of that bag in contact with the blanket
Or show me that picture of the officer wearing a jacket with his hand up inside that bag....

I reject the fiber evidence as an exact match by the rifle having been in the bag.

[John Corbett]

presumptuous GARBAGE.
No one has made any claim of identical fibers.

If I'm on a jury... and Defense shows me the picture of the mouth of that bag in contact with the blanket
Or show me that picture of the officer wearing a jacket with his hand up inside that bag....

I reject the fiber evidence as an exact match by the rifle having been in the bag.

This is why we sometimes get hung juries. All the defense needs is one juror who lacks common sense.

[Zeon Mason]

The Brown Paper Bag

I’ve only been able to find CE 142 photo of the bag after it was processed by Latona using the silver nitrate and I can’t see any indication that the open end was ever twisted around the barrel like Dan Rathers bag appears.

There is a CE 626 photo somewhere. Is that a photo of the bag BEFORE the bag got darkened and did it have a palm print in the middle of the bag or was the photo I saw a  Toni Fratini and or an Alan Ford fake photo?

The way Dan Rather carried the package as he walked away , it can’t even be seen BETWEEN his arm and body . Nor  can  the package be seen in the palm of his right hand.

On the other hand when BW Fraziers demonstrated with a bag that is shorter and the top of bag wedged under armpit and bottom in his palm of right hand, it is EASY to see the bag between his arm and body and EASY to see the bottom of the package in the palm of his hand as he walks away.

IDK about Frazier. But I noticed the protruding upper part of the package beyond Dan Rathers shoulder even though it was twisted.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is why we sometimes get hung juries. All the defense needs is one juror who lacks common sense.

one juror who lacks common sense.

You mean a juror who isn't as easily fooled as you are.

Even the possibility of cross contamination alone reduces the evidentiary value of a piece of evidence to a bare minimum. You don't have to like it, but there it is.

[Martin Weidmann]

To believe that the bag found on the 6th floor was the one Oswald carried to the TSBD with a rifle in it on Friday morning, you have to believe;

- There was indeed a rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63
- Oswald figured he needed a paper bag despite the fact that he had far less conspicious duffel bags at Ruth Paine's garage.
- Oswald made the bag at the wrapping department of the TSBD on Thursday afternoon without being seen or being missed from his job on the 6th floor.
- Then he folded the bag and concealed it on his person in such a way that Frazier did not see it.
- Then he took it to Ruth Paine's house and hid it there until the next.
- At some point in time he dismantled the rifle, without anybody noticing, and put the individual pieces in the bag which he now had unfolded. And all that without leaving even one scratch on the inside of the bag.
- Then he carried the bag to Frazier's car and placed it on the back seat.
-  Upon arrival at the TSBD car park, he picked up the package and placed it in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. It was at this time when he left one single parcial print on the package.
- He then took it up to the 6th floor, hid it there somewhere, until he needed the rifle. He then took out the pieces of the weapon and put it together again.
- After that he did not decide to dispose of the bag No, instead he folded it up and allegedly left it in the corner of the sniper's nest.

All that with leaving only one partial print! Go figure.

But there is more;

On Friday evening Detective R.D. Lewis ran a polygraph of Buell Wesley Frazier and found he was being truthful. While being polygraphed Frazier was shown the 6th floor bag and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry, which he described as a crickly brown paper sack. In his FD 302, FBI Vincent E. Drain writes, on 11/29/63, that the DPD is of the opinion that the 6th floor bag was used by Oswald to carry the rifle in. Drain concludes that the paper referred by Lewis is not a gun case at all!

So, you also have to believe that Frazier somehow managed to fool the polygraph and went against the wishes of Day and Fritz to identify the heavy duty paper bag. Not only did he do so while he was still considered to be a suspect but also had no reason to lie about the bag he had seen. At that point in time Frazier wouldn't even be able to know what the significance of the paper bag would be in the future.

Oh, btw, according to the same report by Drain, Lt Day said that the paper sack of the type described by Frazier was not recovered by the Police Department. It's possible, but improbable, that it was recovered by the Homicide Bureau. If so, they do not know anything about it in the Crime Laboratory of the Dallas Police Department. In other words, Day hasn't got a clue what happened or could have happend to the (how Frazier described it, according to Day) "thin, flimsy, sack like the one purchased in a dime store"

Now, I would love to read the LN explanation(s) for the above.


How did Oswald handle that paper bag as described and manage to only leave on partial print?
And how did Frazier manage to fool the polygraph and why would he lie (the polygraph said he told the truth) about the bag he had seen?

[John Corbett]

To believe that the bag found on the 6th floor was the one Oswald carried to the TSBD with a rifle in it on Friday morning, you have to believe;

- There was indeed a rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63

That's easy. Will these get harder as we go?

- Oswald figured he needed a paper bag despite the fact that he had far less conspicious duffel bags at Ruth Paine's garage.

Why would you second guess Oswald's successful choice?
- Oswald made the bag at the wrapping department of the TSBD on Thursday afternoon without being seen or being missed from his job on the 6th floor.

It could have been anytime that week but Thursday seems the most likely. He could have made it during the lunch break or any time he knew the wrapping station would be unattended.

- Then he folded the bag and concealed it on his person in such a way that Frazier did not see it.

The bag had creases in it so we know it was folded. It could easily have been tucked in his jacket without Frazier seeing it. Had it been discovered, he could have just told Frazier it was for the curtain rods he was going to get.

- Then he took it to Ruth Paine's house and hid it there until the next.

I'm guessing you meant to say until the next morning. We don't know what time he put the rifle in the bag but if it was me, I wouldn't have waited until the last minute. I would have done it the night before after everyone went to bed.

- At some point in time he dismantled the rifle, without anybody noticing, and put the individual pieces in the bag which he now had unfolded. And all that without leaving even one scratch on the inside of the bag.

None of that would have been difficult

- Then he carried the bag to Frazier's car and placed it on the back seat.

Yup.

-  Upon arrival at the TSBD car park, he picked up the package and placed it in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. It was at this time when he left one single parcial print on the package.

It's never been established the top of the bag was tucked under his armpit.

- He then took it up to the 6th floor, hid it there somewhere, until he needed the rifle. He then took out the pieces of the weapon and put it together again.
- After that he did not decide to dispose of the bag No, instead he folded it up and allegedly left it in the corner of the sniper's nest.

So?

All that with leaving only one partial print! Go figure.

But there is more;

On Friday evening Detective R.D. Lewis ran a polygraph of Buell Wesley Frazier and found he was being truthful. While being polygraphed Frazier was shown the 6th floor bag and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry, which he described as a crickly brown paper sack. In his FD 302, FBI Vincent E. Drain writes, on 11/29/63, that the DPD is of the opinion that the 6th floor bag was used by Oswald to carry the rifle in. Drain concludes that the paper referred by Lewis is not a gun case at all!

A polygraph can indicate if a person is saying something he knows to be untrue. It measures stress through blood pressure, breathing rate, and a galvanic skit response. If he person believes he is telling the truth, even if he is wrong, there's no reason to think he will show stress.

So, you also have to believe that Frazier somehow managed to fool the polygraph

See above. For Frazier to pass the polygraph, he only had to fool himself which he apparently did.
[quote[
 and went against the wishes of Day and Fritz to identify the heavy duty paper bag. Not only did he do so while he was still considered to be a suspect but also had no reason to lie about the bag he had seen. At that point in time Frazier wouldn't even be able to know what the significance of the paper bag would be in the future.

Exactly which is why we wouldn't expect Frazier to show any stress if he BELIEVED he was telling the truth.

I took a polygraph as a condition for employment once. I was asked a number of mundane questions to establish a baseline for my anxiety level. A polygraph shows spikes in the stress level when a person knowingly lies.

Oh, btw, according to the same report by Drain, Lt Day said that the paper sack of the type described by Frazier was not recovered by the Police Department. It's possible, but improbable, that it was recovered by the Homicide Bureau. If so, they do not know anything about it in the Crime Laboratory of the Dallas Police Department. In other words, Day hasn't got a clue what happened or could have happend to the (how Frazier described it, according to Day) "thin, flimsy, sack like the one purchased in a dime store"

Still relying on Frazier to establish the characteristics of a bag he only glance at.

Now, I would love to read the LN explanation(s) for the above.

What's there to explain? Nothing on your list seems the least bit improbable.

How did Oswald handle that paper bag as described and manage to only leave on partial print?
And how did Frazier manage to fool the polygraph and why would he lie (the polygraph said he told the truth) about the bag he had seen?

Whoever handled that makeshift bag managed to do so while only puting a partial finger print and palm print on the bag. Why couldn't that someone have been the guy who left the prints.