The Brown Paper Bag

[Martin Weidmann]

She correctly remembered that he was not wearing a jacket when he arrived at the rooming house, and that he was wearing a jacket and was in the act of zipping it up when he left the rooming house.

Get over it.

A classic response from a LN who is stuck and has no plausible answer to provide. Instead he just states his opinion which he, narrow minded as he is, considers to be the only correct one.

Roberts was standing with her back turned to the living room trying to get the television to work. That was what she was paying attention to. This means that she did not see Oswald as he walked from his room, through the living room, until he got to the front door to the left of where Roberts was. At best she only saw him for a couple of seconds as he opened the door and walked out. Add to this that she was nearly blind on one eye and consider also that her employer told the WC that Roberts was known for making up stuff, and that's the witness you want to rely on for 100%.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald left the rooming house zipping up a light colored jacket, but there is evidence that suggests Oswald's light colored jacket was in fact in Irving on Friday and not in Oak Cliff!

You've got nothing but a poorly made up opinion. Get over it!

[Tom Graves]

A classic response from a LN who is stuck and has no plausible answer to provide. Instead he just states his opinion which he, narrow minded as he is, considers to be the only correct one.

Roberts was standing with her back turned to the living room trying to get the television to work. That was what she was paying attention to. This means that she did not see Oswald as he walked from his room, through the living room, until he got to the front door to the left of where Roberts was. At best she only saw him for a couple of seconds as he opened the door and walked out. Add to this that she was nearly blind on one eye and consider also that her employer told the WC that Roberts was known for making up stuff, and that's the witness you want to rely on for 100%.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald left the rooming house zipping up a light colored jacket, but there is evidence that suggests Oswald's light colored jacket was in fact in Irving on Friday and not in Oak Cliff!

You've got nothing but a poorly made up opinion. Get over it!

Weidmann wrote:

Without any kind of sound explanation, you say Earlene Roberts was wrong about the color of the jacket but right about Oswald’s leaving the rooming house wearing a jacket. You are making those determinations based on absolutely nothing and for self-serving purposes. Rather than dealing with the evidence honestly, you just twist and turn to make it fit the preferred narrative. It's exactly what the WC did time after time! You don't get to work backwards and assume that the man who was seen wearing a light-colored jacket must have been Oswald. If Oswald didn't leave the rooming house wearing a jacket then the two men must have seen somebody else and not Oswald. Since the defenders of the Warren Commission faith have created their own narrative, in which evidence is misrepresented, not authenticated, and problems are resolved by simply picking the explanation that works the best for the narrative, any unpleasant questions asked about evidence must be about fabricated and planted evidence? All you have shown with your post is that you are completely unable to honestly deal with the actual evidence and clearly live in an alternative reality.

My reply:

The evidence is that Earlene Roberts stated under penalty of perjury that she saw Oswald leave the rooming house wearing (and zipping up!) a jacket. It’s not a big deal that she misremembered the color of the jacket.

The evidence is that a jacket was found under a car about two blocks from the Tippit murder location on the route that the Tippit murderer (Oswald) took while fleeing the scene.

The evidence is that Oswald was no longer wearing a jacket when he was arrested in the Texas Theater.

Question for “useful idiot” (or worse?) Weidmann:

How many bad guys do you figure were involved in the planning, the “patsy-ing,” the fabricating and planting of Oswald-incriminating evidence, the shooting, the getting-away, the alteration of photos, films, and x-rays, and the all-important (and continuing!!!) cover up?

Just a few, or oodles and gobs?

GROK says somewhere between thirty and three hundred.

Does that "work" for you?

[Martin Weidmann]

Weidmann wrote:

Without any kind of sound explanation, you say Earlene Roberts was wrong about the color of the jacket but right about Oswald’s leaving the rooming house wearing a jacket. You are making those determinations based on absolutely nothing and for self-serving purposes. Rather than dealing with the evidence honestly, you just twist and turn to make it fit the preferred narrative. It's exactly what the WC did time after time! You don't get to work backwards and assume that the man who was seen wearing a light-colored jacket must have been Oswald. If Oswald didn't leave the rooming house wearing a jacket then the two men must have seen somebody else and not Oswald. Since the defenders of the Warren Commission faith have created their own narrative, in which evidence is misrepresented, not authenticated, and problems are resolved by simply picking the explanation that works the best for the narrative, any unpleasant questions asked about evidence must be about fabricated and planted evidence? All you have shown with your post is that you are completely unable to honestly deal with the actual evidence and clearly live in an alternative reality.

My reply:

The evidence is that Earlene Roberts stated under penalty of perjury that she saw Oswald leave the rooming house wearing (and zipping up!) a jacket. It’s not a big deal that she misremembered the color of the jacket.

The evidence is that a jacket was found under a car about two blocks from the Tippit murder location on the route that the Tippit murderer (Oswald) took while fleeing the scene.

The evidence is that Oswald was no longer wearing a jacket when he was arrested in the Texas Theater.

Question for “useful idiot” (or worse?) Weidmann:

How many bad guys do you figure were involved in the planning, the “patsy-ing,” the fabricating and planting of Oswald-incriminating evidence, the shooting, the getting-away, the alteration of photos, films, and x-rays, and the all-important (and continuing!!!) cover up?

Just a few, or oodles and gobs?

GROK says somewhere between thirty and three hundred.

Does that "work" for you?

The evidence is that Earlene Roberts stated under penalty of perjury that she saw Oswald leave the rooming house wearing (and zipping up!) a jacket. It’s not a big deal that she misremembered the color of the jacket.

Oh boy... so no witness ever states anything that was untrue "under penalty of perjury" and when she can not identify the jacket because the one she claimed was dark colored she just misremembered? Never mind she also "misremembered" in other statements prior to her testimony. Don't you understand just how pathetic this entire statement is?

Frazier stated under penalty of perjury that the bag he saw Oswald carry fitted between Oswald's armpit and the cup of his hand. Going by your own idiotic claim, this must be the truth, right?

Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Let's see if the LN double standard pops up again.... 

I am not going to respond to the remainder of your post as it is, once again, back ward reasoning for which there is no evidence. You just assume that it was Oswald who dumped the jacket, regardless of what the evidence and facts actually tell you. It is all BS!

Let me ask you this; what happened to your independent logical and critical thinking brain? Were you born without it or did you just become more stupid as you were growing up?

[Tom Graves]

What happened to your independent logical and critical thinking brain? Were you born without it or did you just become more stupid as you were growing up?

Dear Useful Idiot (or Worse?) Weidmann,

Oh boy, Oh boy, Oh boy, Oh boy.

I used to be a zombified-by-KGB-disinformation, tinfoil-hat JFK assassination conspiracy theorist just like you.

What do you think (sic) the number of bad guys was closer to -- thirty, or three hundred?

-- Tom

[Martin Weidmann]

Dear Useful Idiot (or Worse?) Weidmann,

Oh boy, Oh boy, Oh boy, Oh boy.

I used to be a zombified-by-KGB-disinformation, tinfoil-hat JFK assassination conspiracy theorist just like you.

What do you think (sic) the number of bad guys was closer to -- thirty, or three hundred?

-- Tom

Oh boy, our poor LN is stuck again, unable to provide a coherent reply.

Oh well, that's what happens when actual evidence slaps you in the face and destroys your own made up "reality".

I used to be a zombified-by-KGB-disinformation, tinfoil-hat JFK assassination conspiracy theorist just like you.

A claim made by just about every LN I've ever met and just as uncredible as all of them.

But let's say you tell the truth, what made you change over to the dark side?

[John Corbett]

You complete misstate the issue with fibers. Fibers can be matched to an item.

Utter BS. At best fibers can be deemed to be similar.

What a bunch of horse pucky. Fiber evidence is highly probative and is accepted by the courts as bonafide evidence. Fiber evidence was used to convict suspected child serial Wayne Williams in Atlanta. Although he was only convicted for two murders, those convictions were made largely on the basis of the fiber evidence against him.

"Williams was arrested on June 21, 1981, for the murders of Cater and Payne.[10] His trial began on January 6, 1982, in Fulton County. During the two-month trial, prosecutors matched to a number of victims nineteen sources of fibers from Williams' home and car: his bedspread, bathroom, gloves, clothes, carpets, dog, and an unusual trilobal carpet fiber."

He wasn't convicted because the fibers were "similar"

They cannot prove with absolute certainty that a fiber can from a particular item because it is theoretically possible it came from an item with the same type of fibers.

Hilarious! So, now you confirm that fibers can indeed not be matched to a specific item with any kind of certainty.

Certainty is not necessary for fiber evidence to be highly probative. Wayne Williams was not convicted because of the certainty of the fiber matching. It was probative enough for a jury to convict him of two murders and send him to jail for the rest of his life. Once again you stake out the silly position that the evidence against Oswald must reach a level of certainty to have value. It's a good thing our courts don't adopt your position on this matter.

it would be a truly amazing coincidence if the fibers in the bag came from a different item with the same kind of fibers.

So, now we are reduced to a conclusion based on your opinion that it would be a truly amazing concidence if the fibers came from elsewhere.

This is what FBI fiber expert Stombaugh had to say on the subject of fibers;

Mr. DULLES. Or the paper bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Or the paper bag; no, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just one further question. You said something like, "It was possible the fibers could have come from the shirt." Could you estimate the degree of probability that the fibers came from the shirt, the fibers in the butt plate?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, this is difficult because we don't know how many different shirts were made out of this same type of fabric, or for that matter how many identical shirts are in existence.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I gather that, and correct me if I am wrong, that in your area as opposed to the fingerprint area, you prefer to present the facts rather than draw conclusions as to probabilities, is that correct?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. I have been asked this question many times. There are some experts who will say well, the chances are 1 in 1,000, this, that, and the other, and everyone who had said that and been brought to our attention we have been able to prove them wrong, insofar as application to our fiber problems is concerned.
Mr. EISENBERG. You mean prove them wrong in terms of their mathematics?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."

Stombaugh was simply echoing long standing FBI policy not to speculate on probability. When testing any type of evidence, the policy is to find a match is positive, negative, or inconclusive. Fiber evidence is never going to be 100% conclusive nor does it need to be for it to have probative value. If the FBI did not think fiber evidence was probative, why would they even bother hiring experts in that field?

And yet, here you are disagreeing with Stombaugh and making up your own reality!

What did I say that contradicted Stombaugh?

The match is highly probative that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket.

And now we are back to the beginning again. There is nothing probative about fibers.

Tell that to Wayne Williams.

Any claim about a positive match in a court of law would be destroyed by a fibers expert like Stombaugh.

Tell that to Wayne Williams.

But even if you are right and the fibers did come from the blanket, there's still the matter of evidence photos showing the bag and the blanket next to eachother at the DPD evidence room and at the FBI lab. Even worse, in the night after the assassination, FBI agent Vincent Drain carried the evidence from Dallas to Washington in a paper bag! Now, if you want to speculate about fibers, just how big is the possibility of cross contamination?

I suppose cross contamination also caused Oswald's palm and fingerprint to end up on the bag.

[Tom Graves]

Oh boy, our poor LN is stuck again, unable to provide a coherent reply.

Dear Mr. Useful Idiot (or Worse?),

Come on, spit it out.

Was the number of bad guys involved in the conspiracy closer to thirty or three hundred?

-- Tom

[Martin Weidmann]

What a bunch of horse pucky. Fiber evidence is highly probative and is accepted by the courts as bonafide evidence. Fiber evidence was used to convict suspected child serial Wayne Williams in Atlanta. Although he was only convicted for two murders, those convictions were made largely on the basis of the fiber evidence against him.

"Williams was arrested on June 21, 1981, for the murders of Cater and Payne.[10] His trial began on January 6, 1982, in Fulton County. During the two-month trial, prosecutors matched to a number of victims nineteen sources of fibers from Williams' home and car: his bedspread, bathroom, gloves, clothes, carpets, dog, and an unusual trilobal carpet fiber."

He wasn't convicted because the fibers were "similar"

Certainty is not necessary for fiber evidence to be highly probative. Wayne Williams was not convicted because of the certainty of the fiber matching. It was probative enough for a jury to convict him of two murders and send him to jail for the rest of his life. Once again you stake out the silly position that the evidence against Oswald must reach a level of certainty to have value. It's a good thing our courts don't adopt your position on this matter.

Stombaugh was simply echoing long standing FBI policy not to speculate on probability. When testing any type of evidence, the policy is to find a match is positive, negative, or inconclusive. Fiber evidence is never going to be 100% conclusive nor does it need to be for it to have probative value. If the FBI did not think fiber evidence was probative, why would they even bother hiring experts in that field?

What did I say that contradicted Stombaugh?
 

Tell that to Wayne Williams.
 

Tell that to Wayne Williams.

I suppose cross contamination also caused Oswald's palm and fingerprint to end up on the bag.

What a bunch of horse pucky. Fiber evidence is highly probative and is accepted by the courts as bonafide evidence.

You can say that again and again for a thousand more times. It still doesn't make it true.

Fiber evidence was used to convict suspected child serial Wayne Williams in Atlanta. Although he was only convicted for two murders, those convictions were made largely on the basis of the fiber evidence against him.

People get convicted for all sorts of reasons. It's meaningless to compare a case from 1981 to one from 1963. It doesn't help your argument one bit!

Once again you stake out the silly position that the evidence against Oswald must reach a level of certainty to have value.

Nope. Evidence needs to be authenticated. All evidence somebody relies on has some value, it's just that not all evidence is actually proof of something.

Stombaugh was simply echoing long standing FBI policy not to speculate on probability.

Exactly, so why are you speculating on probability?

If the FBI did not think fiber evidence was probative, why would they even bother hiring experts in that field?

The FBI has all sorts of evidence experts. Do you really believe that the result of all their work is probative?

I suppose cross contamination also caused Oswald's palm and fingerprint to end up on the bag.

Two completely different issues. The presence of Oswald's print on the bag says nothing about fiber evidence. You are grasping at straws.

But why are you not willing to address the actual cross contamination possibility? Do you really feel you can put a paper bag and a blanket in one paper bag, carry it to Washington and there would not be one fiber of the blanket found on the bag?