The Brown Paper Bag

[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?

[Martin Weidmann]

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. That's all. All evidence a party 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?

[John Mytton]

Yawn!

Here we go again with Weidmann the Legal Layman now becoming a Forensic Specialist Layman, what a Goofball!

Famous Cases Solved by Fiber Evidence

Wayne Williams (Atlanta Child Murders, 1981): This is considered the first major case solved primarily by fiber evidence. Yellow-green nylon carpet fibers and violet acetate fibers found on several victims matched the carpet and bedspread in Williams' home and car.

The Yorkshire Ripper (Peter Sutcliffe, 1981): Specialized fibers, specifically unique bank-note-like fibers found on several victims, helped link crimes together and matched clothes, ropes, and the car of Peter Sutcliffe, supporting his murder convictions.

Timothy Evonitz (2001): The serial killer was linked to the murders of Virginia girls Kati and Kristin Lisk and Sophia Silva through unique blue fibers found on the bodies, which matched a blanket and other items found in his car and home.

Jeffrey Macdonald (1970): The Army doctor was convicted of murdering his family after fiber evidence from his pajamas was found in the mouth of a victim and throughout the crime scene, contradicting his claims of fighting off attackers.

The Oswald shirt fiber evidence had 3 types of fibers on Oswald's rifle matching the three types of fibers on his shirt and is just another piece of evidence linking Oswald to the rifle.
Oswald ordered the rifle.
Oswald purchased the rifle.
Oswald was sent the rifle.
Oswald was photographed with the rifle.
And a team of amateur Johnnie Cochran wannabes could never refute this reality! LOL!



And as for the blanket fiber in, not(as claimed by the dishonest Weidmann) on Oswald's rifle bag would take a number of experiments to calculate the probability of a magic fiber penetrating the bag.

In the following photo we see the opening of the bag sitting on top of the blanket and since there is no timestamp we don't know at what stage this photo was taken, was the bag already analysed? Was the photo taken in Dallas on the 22nd and if so how far into the bag was a fiber found? Was the bag folded when sent to Washington? Our resident Forensic Layman says that all the evidence was sent in a single bag, which wouldn't surprise me considering the level of scientific forensics at the time, and if so how far into the bag was the fiber and as I said was the bag folded?
I'm guessing without these issues being fully addressed, a real Johnnie Cochran and the best fiber forensic scientists could bring up some doubt but the fact remains that the Oswald prints on the rifle sized bag will forever link the bag to Oswald.



JohnM

[John Mytton]

Duplicate

[Martin Weidmann]

Yawn!

Here we go again with Weidmann the Legal Layman now becoming a Forensic Specialist Layman, what a Goofball!

Famous Cases Solved by Fiber Evidence

Wayne Williams (Atlanta Child Murders, 1981): This is considered the first major case solved primarily by fiber evidence. Yellow-green nylon carpet fibers and violet acetate fibers found on several victims matched the carpet and bedspread in Williams' home and car.

The Yorkshire Ripper (Peter Sutcliffe, 1981): Specialized fibers, specifically unique bank-note-like fibers found on several victims, helped link crimes together and matched clothes, ropes, and the car of Peter Sutcliffe, supporting his murder convictions.

Timothy Evonitz (2001): The serial killer was linked to the murders of Virginia girls Kati and Kristin Lisk and Sophia Silva through unique blue fibers found on the bodies, which matched a blanket and other items found in his car and home.

Jeffrey Macdonald (1970): The Army doctor was convicted of murdering his family after fiber evidence from his pajamas was found in the mouth of a victim and throughout the crime scene, contradicting his claims of fighting off attackers.

The Oswald shirt fiber evidence had 3 types of fibers on Oswald's rifle matching the three types of fibers on his shirt and is just another piece of evidence linking Oswald to the rifle.
Oswald ordered the rifle.
Oswald purchased the rifle.
Oswald was sent the rifle.
Oswald was photographed with the rifle.
And a team of amateur Johnnie Cochran wannabes could never refute this reality! LOL!



And as for the blanket fiber in, not on Oswald's rifle bag would take a number of experiments to calculate the probability of a magic fiber penetrating the bag.

In the following photo we see the opening of the bag sitting on top of the blanket and since there is no timestamp we don't know at what stage this photo was taken, was the bag already analysed? Was the photo taken in Dallas on the 22nd and if so how far into the bag was a fiber found? Was the bag folded when sent to Washington? Our resident Forensic Layman says that all the evidence was sent in a single bag, which wouldn't surprise me considering the level of scientific forensics at the time, and if so how far into the bag was the fiber and as I said was the bag folded?
I'm guessing without these issues being fully addressed, a real Johnnie Cochran and the best fiber forensic scientists could bring up some doubt but the fact remains that the Oswald prints on the rifle sized bag will forever link the bag to Oswald.



JohnM

Bla bla bla bla bla bla

Mr. Fiber expert (wannabe) talks... and says nothing of any significance whatsoever.

Oh well, at least he agrees that the cross contamination issue was never really addressed and could bring up doubt. That's something.

But then he goes off the rails, by making some weird argument that Oswald's print on the bag links the bag to Oswald. Duh!

Desperation seems to be setting in.....

Let's just tell it as it really is. To a LN it doesn't matter how weak or pathetic a piece of evidence is, as long as there is a minimal possibility of linking a piece of evidence (authenticated or not) to Oswald it is absolute proof that Oswald killed JFK and Tippit. There's no reason, no middle ground, no honesty... all that matters is that Oswald must be the lone killer at all costs. Every idiot has an opinion, I guess....

[Martin Weidmann]

Duplicate

[John Mytton]

Oh well, at least he agrees that the cross contamination issue was never really addressed and could bring up doubt. That's something.

See Martin, this is the difference between you and me, I really don't care who Killed Kennedy, I wasn't even born when it happened and thus have always approached this completely neutral with absolutely no bias.
I examine every piece of evidence scientifically, logically, use advanced mathematical probability and rely on some of the finest forensic analysists in the World.

Whereas you being a feral dog without a bone, have some sort of psychotic belief that virtually every piece of evidence must have some sort of flaw, you demand evidence that would require a time machine so you could see any action with your own eyes and if this was the case, superheroes like yourself would make the legal system obsolete but here in the real world we depend on the judicial process.

As I proved, your insane idea that "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" must include "conclusive evidence" was beyond absurd, and shows why from the very start you were debating from a position of idiocy, and this total miscomprehension of even the most basic legal theory totally explains why you don't accept logical criminal arguments. 

JohnM