The Brown Paper Bag

[John Corbett]

He was sure of both and he was wrong about both.

And you know this, how?

Your opinion doesn't trump witness testimony!

My opinion doesn't but forensic evidence does. The bag Frazier saw was found by the sniper's nest and measured to be 38 inches, significantly longer than Frazier's estimate. I'll take the judgement of a tape measure over an estimate Frazier made after glancing at the bag. By his own admission, he said he didn't pay too much attention to Oswald as he was carrying the bag toward the TSBD.

[Martin Weidmann]

I am right because I am able to weigh evidence. I know forensic evidence outweighs eyewitness testimony because the latter has been proven to be unreliable. Forensic evidence, on the other hand, can be tested and retested. If the person doing the testing has made a mistake, it will be there for all to see. The forensic evidence of Oswald's guilt has withstood the test of time. It's as valid today as they day it was collected and analyzed. The WC took the unusual step of getting second opinions regarding the findings of the FBI regarding the forensic evidence. Palm and fingerprint evidence was analyzed by the New York City fingerprint division. Recovered bullets and shells from both the JFKA and the Tippit murder were examined by the sate of Illinois crime labs. The only disagreement I know of is that the Illinois crime lab believed one of the bullets taken from Tippit's body could be positively matched to Oswald's revolver. The FBI found none of the bullets could be matched because the barrel of Oswald's .38 was oversized for the ,38 Special bullets. The true diameter of a .38 Special is .357 which is why a .357 can fired .38 Special ammo. I wouldn't put a .357 Magnum round in a .38 revolver.

I am right because I am able to weigh evidence.

Sorry, but you're wrong because you haven't got a clue about weighing evidence. Stop fooling yourself, as you are not fooling anybody else.

I know forensic evidence outweighs eyewitness testimony because the latter has been proven to be unreliable

BS.. in this case there is no forensic evidence to trump eyewitness testimony. Even if forensic evidence connects shells and bullet fragments to a rifle it tells you nothing about who shot the rifle.

Eye witness is mostly unreliable, but not in every case!

The forensic evidence of Oswald's guilt has withstood the test of time.

No it hasn't, because it doesn't exist

Everything else you have written is BS and needs no reply

[John Corbett]

I am right because I am able to weigh evidence.

Sorry, but you're wrong because you haven't got a clue about weighing evidence. Stop fooling yourself, as you are not fooling anybody else.

This coming from a guy who has absolute faith in eyewitness testimony over what the forensic evidence tells us.

I know forensic evidence outweighs eyewitness testimony because the latter has been proven to be unreliable

BS.. in this case there is no forensic evidence to trump eyewitness testimony. Even if forensic evidence connects shells and bullet fragments to a rifle it tells you nothing about who shot the rifle.

The bullet and shells don't tell us who fired the rifle butt the fibers on the bullet plate of the rifle that matched Oswald's shirt and Oswald's prints on the boxes in the sniper's nest do. It's truly amazing anyone would ignore those facts and continue to argue for Oswald's innocence. We have a plethora of evidence that points to Oswald's guilt and not a scrap of evidence that points to anybody else.

Eye witness is mostly unreliable, but not in every case!

Tell us why you think it is more reliable in this case.

The forensic evidence of Oswald's guilt has withstood the test of time.

No it hasn't, because it doesn't exist

"There is none so blind as he who will not see."

Everything else you have written is BS and needs no reply

That works out well because you don't seem to have one.

[Zeon Mason]

Is there any photo of the paper bag that CLEARLY shows WHERE on the bag that the palm print was found?

I found CE 142 but CE 626 seems to be missing. CE 142 is too dark to see anything distinct.

I’m asking because I recall having seen a photo in  threads past of the bag that had the palm print on the MIDDLE of the bag and for the past 15 years that was a fact uncontested by anyone here on this forum to the best of my memory.

It may have been from an old Toni Fratini or Alan Ford thread back before even the PrayerMan saga. I’d like to confirm that the photo existed because otherwise I’m either experiencing a Mandela false memory  effect or there has been revision of WC exhibits and WC testimony.

If the palm print was found at the bottom
Of the bag , then that’s even MORE reason to believe Fraziers description of the bag being Parallel straight up and down with the bottom in Oswald’s right hand and the top under his armpit without any part of the bag seen (noticed) protruding above Oswald’s  shoulder.

Whether the middle or the bottom,  It is still questionable if all other prints from Oswald’s hand touching this bag multiple times while making it, taping it , folding it and unfolding it, and while carrying the rifle in the bag multiple times, would  have 100% evaporated leaving not even a trace.

There were about 3 hours from 8:30 am till 12:00pm that the earlier prints of Oswald could possibly have 100% evaporated but according to Latona even with evaporation, the silver nitrate treatment has good chances of exposing partial prints.

And the last 4 times that Oswald touched the would have been from 12:15-12:28 less than about 20 minutes before the SN was visited by Luke Mooney.

And then , interestingly no prints were found from the person  who first lifted this bag from its alleged location laying folded on the floor in the SN. And who actually was the person who first removed this bag from the floor anyway?