The Brown Paper Bag

[Jack Nessan]

JC: How about Oswald's palm print on the underside of the barrel. That could only have been placed there with the rifle disassembled.
 
MW: And now you are going to tell us you know exactly when the rifle was disassembled, right?
-------------

Nice John, Weideman finally admits it was LHOs print on his rifle and it is a fact that the FBI matched the bullets and fragments to the rifle. Who cares when he disassembled it. The print proves LHO did disassemble the rifle. His rifle.

By admission, LHO shot JFK. What is left to know?

[Michael Capasse]

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, can you state your full name and position?
Mr. CADIGAN. James C. Cadigan, special agent of the FBI, assigned as an examiner of questioned documents in the laboratory here in Washington.
----------------------------
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you conducted that examination?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
I first saw this paper bag on November 23, 1963, in the FBI laboratory, along with the sample of paper and tape from the Texas School Book Depository obtained November 22, 1963, which is FBI Exhibit D-1.

JohnM

Yes,  James Cadigan:
"....There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument."

[Martin Weidmann]

JC: How about Oswald's palm print on the underside of the barrel. That could only have been placed there with the rifle disassembled.
 
MW: And now you are going to tell us you know exactly when the rifle was disassembled, right?
-------------

Nice John, Weideman finally admits it was LHOs print on his rifle and it is a fact that the FBI matched the bullets and fragments to the rifle. Who cares when he disassembled it. The print proves LHO did disassemble the rifle. His rifle.

By admission, LHO shot JFK. What is left to know?

Oh boy, another LN who doesn't understand what has been written and makes up his own "reality".

[John Corbett]

Oh poor Johnny is still misrepresenting the evidence, as per usual.

You do know that the three photos of Frazier holding a bag are stills from a video interview in which the bags were constructed. It clearly shows that the bag Frazier saw came close to the one he is holding in the first picture. I'm sure you don't like that, but there it is.....

And yet, Frazier still says that's the way Oswald carried the package. So, perhaps the actual package was even shorter than the 24 inch estimate!

There is no proof whatsoever that Linnie Mae ever really said that. This information - and you know this - comes from an FBI FD 302 report, so it was the FBI agent who claimed she said it. To this day, FD 302 reports are for internal use and frequently contain incorrect information.

Not that this would stop you misrepresenting the facts, right?

I'm not foolish enough to think that an eyewitness recollection trumps forensic evidence. The bag in question had Oswald's palm print on it which would be expected if Oswald carried it cupped in his had as demonstrated by Frazier. What is typical with eyewitnesses is they get some things right and some things wrong. To determine which they got right and which they got wrong we need to look at how the eyewitness account squares with other evidence. In some cases, the other evidence will corroborate. In other cases, it will refute it. In still other cases, there might be no evidence which either refutes nor corroborates the eyewitness account. In those instances, the logical conclusion is that the witness might be right or might be wrong. We have corroboration for Frazier's account that Oswald carried the rifle cupped in his palm. There is no evidence that either corroborates or refutes whether or not the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry into the TSBD stuck up above his shoulder. Given that the bag not only had Oswald's palm print on it where it should be and fibers matching the rifle blanket found in the bag, I find it far more compelling to believe the bag Frazier saw and the one found by the sniper's nest are one and the same. You on the other hand prefer to believe that Frazier's account was spot on and that there were two different bags. Obviously, you can't see how unlikely that would be.

The above paragraph is an example of how one goes about weighing evidence. I will gladly put my analysis of the situation against yours any day.

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm not foolish enough to think that an eyewitness recollection trumps forensic evidence. The bag in question had Oswald's palm print on it which would be expected if Oswald carried it cupped in his had as demonstrated by Frazier. What is typical with eyewitnesses is they get some things right and some things wrong. To determine which they got right and which they got wrong we need to look at how the eyewitness account squares with other evidence. In some cases, the other evidence will corroborate. In other cases, it will refute it. In still other cases, there might be no evidence which either refutes nor corroborates the eyewitness account. In those instances, the logical conclusion is that the witness might be right or might be wrong. We have corroboration for Frazier's account that Oswald carried the rifle cupped in his palm. There is no evidence that either corroborates or refutes whether or not the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry into the TSBD stuck up above his shoulder. Given that the bag not only had Oswald's palm print on it where it should be and fibers matching the rifle blanket found in the bag, I find it far more compelling to believe the bag Frazier saw and the one found by the sniper's nest are one and the same. You on the other hand prefer to believe that Frazier's account was spot on and that there were two different bags. Obviously, you can't see how unlikely that would be.

The above paragraph is an example of how one goes about weighing evidence. I will gladly put my analysis of the situation against yours any day.

I'm not foolish enough to think that an eyewitness recollection trumps forensic evidence.

Neither am I, but in this case there is no forensic evidence to trump. At least not in the real world.

The bag in question had Oswald's palm print on it which would be expected if Oswald carried it cupped in his had as demonstrated by Frazier.

There is no "bag in question". All there is, is a bag that you can not place in Oswald's hand when he walked to the TSBD, except of course for your wishful thinking!

What is typical with eyewitnesses is they get some things right and some things wrong. To determine which they got right and which they got wrong we need to look at how the eyewitness account squares with other evidence.

What "other evidence" would that be? You really need to stop thinking that the bag allegedly found at the 6th floor is somehow the same one Oswald carried on Friday morning, but that won't stop you making up your own reality, right?

and fibers matching the rifle blanket found in the bag,

There you go again with the same old fibers BS. You really have a problem understanding reality, don't you. At best fibers can be similar, but they can not be matched to any particular item. Also, when a bag and a blanket are placed next to each other, there is a serious possibility of cross contamination. In this case the bag and blanket were photographed next to each other at the DPD office and at the FBI lab. In what kind of analysis do you dismiss or ignore possible cross contamination of evidence?

I find it far more compelling to believe the bag Frazier saw and the one found by the sniper's nest are one and the same.

Of course you do. Why look at the actual facts when you can make up your own little story. After all, what you believe must be true, right?

You on the other hand prefer to believe that Frazier's account was spot on and that there were two different bags. Obviously, you can't see how unlikely that would be. 

The likelihood of Frazier's observation about the way Oswald carried the bag being correct is far greater than you would like it to be. You are trying to put a bag, which you can't even prove ever left the TSBD, in Oswald's hand regardless of what the only witness who actually saw it says. I bet you can't even explain how unlikely my opinion is.....

The above paragraph is an example of how one goes about weighing evidence.

Nope, it's a prime example of how you try to fit the evidence to a preconceived conclusion.

I will gladly put my analysis of the situation against yours any day.

Isn't it funny how some people say one thing and their actually actions demonstrate the opposite?

You are not analyzing anything. You are making up stories that fit your own flawed opinions. That's why you are completely unable to defend any of the BS claims you post.