The Brown Paper Bag

[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?

[Bill Brown]

It isn't worth much.

Indeed there is. Bookhout wrote the FD 302 for internal use. Randle never saw it and it can hardly be described as evidence.
But even if it could be considered to be evidence, it contradicts all other statements Randle ever made and it's only mentioning an estimation.

Isn't the LN clan allergic to estimates?

There is no way a 36 inch bag would fit between Oswald armpit and the cup of his hand, and it would have been impossible to be carried they way Randle described and not hit the ground.

You're flogging a dead horse.

Bookhout wrote the FD 302 for internal use. Randle never saw it and it can hardly be described as evidence.
But even if it could be considered to be evidence, it contradicts all other statements Randle ever made and it's only mentioning an estimation.

Yes but the difference is the "three feet long" estimate is made BEFORE she was aware that Buell (her brother) was going to insist that the package was only two feet long.

Bookhout's report is wrong or she changed the length of the bag.

There is no way a 36 inch bag would fit between Oswald armpit and the cup of his hand

Surely you're aware that Frazier admitted several times that he didn't pay too much attention to the bag.  Are you sure it isn't possible that the top of the bag did not protrude out in front of Oswald's shoulder?

...and it would have been impossible to be carried they way Randle described and not hit the ground.

Specifically, what did Randle say which would make it impossible for Oswald to carry the bag and it not touch the ground?

[John Mytton]

it would have been impossible to be carried they way Randle described and not hit the ground.

 



JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

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

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

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

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

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.

Only in your feeble mind. You have been schooled on the fact that there is no such thing as fibers matching with a particular object, but you won't learn, will you? Secondly, you don't know which shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning, so even if the fibers on the rifle butt matched that shirt, you still are nowhere near proving who fired the rifle. And as far as Oswald's prints on boxes go, the guy worked on the 6th floor and part of his job was to handle boxes and move them around. It would be a surprise if no prints were found.

If this is what you consider to be "evidence", you really need to consider getting another hobby!

We have a plethora of evidence

Now, there's a typical Mytton use of words. The resemblance is remarkable! Probably just a coincidence, though....

[John Corbett]

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.

Only in your feeble mind. You have been schooled on the fact that there is no such thing as fibers matching with a particular object, but you won't learn, will you?

I don't need schooling from some one who doesn't know what he is talking about. If fibers can't be matched to an object, why would the FBI have a division that matches fibers to objects. Furthermore, suspected serial child killer Wayne Williams was convicted primarily on fiber matching and has already served 45 years in prison for that conviction. Without the fiber matching, the prosecutors wouldn't have had a case to take to trial. The reason fiber matching isn't 100% conclusive is that unlike fingerprint and ballistic matching, it is theoretically possible a matching fiber could have come from an identical object, even though that is a remote possibility.

Wayne Williams lawyers filed an appeal making the same claims you are about fiber evidence. The appeals court rejected the claim. Even though fiber evidence is not 100% conclusive, it is still highly probative when one considers the unlikelihood it came from an identical object to the one in question. You would have us believe it's just a coincidence that the fibers found on Oswald's rifle and in the rifle bag matched Oswald's shirt and blanket. If that is the case, Oswald had to be the unluckiest SOB that ever lived.

Secondly, you don't know which shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning, so even if the fibers on the rifle butt matched that shirt, you still are nowhere near proving who fired the rifle. And as far as Oswald's prints on boxes go, the guy worked on the 6th floor and part of his job was to handle boxes and move them around. It would be a surprise if no prints were found.

I can't believe Oswald's shitass luck. Not only did the fibers on the rifle and the bag match his shirt and his blanket, when he went back to his rooming house to change shirts, he just happened to pick the one that was identical to the one the real shooter was wearing.

If this is what you consider to be "evidence", you really need to consider getting another hobby!

It only seems like evidence to people with common sense.

We have a plethora of evidence

Now, there's a typical Mytton use of words. The resemblance is remarkable! Probably just a coincidence, though....

You do seem to believe in amazing coincidences.