The Brown Paper Bag

[John Mytton]

From the list of items taken from Ruth Paine's house, there is no items of Oswald's clothing listed. And considering Oswald was living at Beckley street it makes sense for Oswald to keep all his clothes where he spent the majority of his time.

I found it a bit weird that Oswald would wear the same clothes all weekend but according to Ruth, Oswald brought out some underwear and shirts to be washed and then left with clean clothing, so presumably he must have taken some fresh clothes out to Irving as well?

Mr. JENNER - Now, the same question with respect to laundry. That would be laundry largely. I take it from your telling us about you and Marina hanging up clothes in your backyard on the 22d of November that neither you nor she ever sent any laundry out for cleaning or washing.
Mrs. PAINE - No; and Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house, and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with him on Monday.

The owner of the Rooming house says that there was a Washeteria not very far away which Oswald seem to use when he didn't see his wife for some time or I guess for emergencies but otherwise Oswald still made his wife wash his clothes.

Mr. BALL. Let me ask you this: did he, that weekend, that was the weekend before the assassination, on a Saturday, make a trip to a place where they wash clothes?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, I think that he did go across to that washateria. I think he did.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him go any place, go out of the house except for that on that weekend?
Mrs. JOHNSON. That's the only time and I had just forgotten that but I do remember he carried some clothes out of that house that morning and the washateria is right across the street, less than a block.
Mr. BALL. But he left his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. And he wasn't gone long and I didn't see him return with any clothes but I do know he was gone just about long enough to do a wash.







The list of items taken from Beckley street sensibly had Oswald's clothes contained in his room, so why would Oswald keep a solitary jacket at the Paine residence and limit himself to his other jacket, it doesn't make sense and if for whatever reason Oswald didn't end up shooting the President, why would he leave one of his jackets at the Paine's house and again limit himself to having one jacket for another week?





Oswald kept his clothes at the Beckley street rooming house because that is simply logical and wore the same jacket out to Irving and back to work. Leaving a jacket at the Paine's and then swapping his jacket and then leaving another jacket at the Paine's is a bit silly!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

You didn't ask a question. You stated an obvious fact.

{quote]
It could have been anytime that week but Thursday seems the most likely. He could have made it during the lunch break or any time he knew the wrapping station would be unattended.The bag had creases in it so we know it was folded. It could easily have been tucked in his jacket without Frazier seeing it. Had it been discovered, he could have just told Frazier it was for the curtain rods he was going to get.I'm guessing you meant to say until the next morning. We don't know what time he put the rifle in the bag but if it was me, I wouldn't have waited until the last minute. I would have done it the night before after everyone went to bed. 
None of that would have been difficult Yup.


You are deliberately missing the point. The question was how anybody could handle that bag in the way described and only leave one partial print?

"Longevity on Porous Surfaces
Porous materials, such as paper, cardboard, untreated wood, and fabric, absorb the oils and sweat from fingerprints, which can make the prints less visible initially but sometimes more stable within the material itself. On such surfaces, fingerprints may fade within hours or days under normal conditions, especially if exposed to moisture, heat, or physical handling."

If you don't like my source, you are free to provide your own.
If only you could prove that one witness accurately remembered what he saw.
Oswald on the other hand did leave prints on the bag on the 6th floor so we know he handled it.
Since he left his rifle behind, I see no reason he would be concerned about doing the same with the bag.
So why did you cite it as evidence Frazier was accurate in his description of the bag.
That's why the people doing the polygraph test establish a baseline for how nervous the person is to begin with. They look for spikes in the three measurements for indications of deceit.
I know he got the description of the bag wrong and still passed the polygraph which indicates to me he believed his mistaken recollection about the size of the bag.
I've already explained that to you. The subject is started off with mundane questions to establish a base line for his stress level. It's when there are spikes in the stress level that indicate willful deceit.
As best he remembered it. That doesn't establish he remembered what he saw correctly. It's very common for eyewitnesses to get details wrong, especially when the detail wouldn't have seemed important at the time it was observed.


A lie is when you knowingly tell a falsehood. I'm sure Frazier honestly believes what he said he saw. He just didn't accurately remember what he saw. Very common for eyewitnesses to do that. That's been explained to you many times but you refuse to accept that.
This tells me nothing of any significance. But if I understand your argument it is that Frazier lied without knowing that he was lying? What a crock! All this really shows is that you are completely unable to weigh evidence honestly, because your massive bias gets in the way!


You still don't get it. Being honestly mistaken about something is not the same as lying. I never accused Frazier of lying. Why do you keep insisting that I have.
And the bag that was actually found on the 6th floor that was significantly longer than Frazier remembered.
I've already cited a source that indicates prints on a porous surface can disappear in a matter of hours. Oswald would likely have taken the rifle out of the bag sometime around noon. That is the last time he was known to have handled it.
No I haven't. Do you have a reliable source for those reports?
I will as soon as you establish Day freaked out.
Because the accounts of people who were there often conflict with the forensic evidence. I place far more faith in the latter.

You didn't ask a question. You stated an obvious fact.

No, I said you would have to believe there was a rifle stored at Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.

It's pretty obvious that you believe exactly that without being able to provide a shred of proof for it.

"Longevity on Porous Surfaces
Porous materials, such as paper, cardboard, untreated wood, and fabric, absorb the oils and sweat from fingerprints, which can make the prints less visible initially but sometimes more stable within the material itself. On such surfaces, fingerprints may fade within hours or days under normal conditions, especially if exposed to moisture, heat, or physical handling."

If you don't like my source, you are free to provide your own.

Oh, I agree that prints don't last long on certain materials. But in this case there is a partial print left from carrying the package in the cup of his hand, and no print for picking up the parcel from the backseat of Frazier's car, only a moment sooner. Kinda strange, don't you think? How did Oswald manage to pick up that package from the backseat of the car and leave no print? And how did he manage to fold the bag in the sniper's nest and leave no print?

If only you could prove that one witness accurately remembered what he saw.

Don't have to. He passed a polygraph!

Oswald on the other hand did leave prints on the bag on the 6th floor so we know he handled it.

If only you could prove that bag ever left the TSBD to begin with.

Since he left his rifle behind, I see no reason he would be concerned about doing the same with the bag.

Just one more reason for not using a paper bag! If it was Oswald who left the rifle there, he would have been far better off using a duffel bag from Ruth Paine's garage to conceal the rifle in.
That way he could have actually walked out of the building with the rifle. None of it makes any sense.

So why did you cite it as evidence Frazier was accurate in his description of the bag.

Because, even if the polygraph is far from perfect, it doesn't mean it's worthless. Frazier passed the test and you instantly started to look for ways to rather stupidly explain away the result by claiming Frazier could have lied while believing he spoke the truth. You don't even understand just how lame that is? The fact remains that Frazier passed the test and that was enough to cause massive panic by Lt Day!

That's why the people doing the polygraph test establish a baseline for how nervous the person is to begin with. They look for spikes in the three measurements for indications of deceit.

So what? That's what they would have done with Frazier as well, right?

I know he got the description of the bag wrong and still passed the polygraph which indicates to me he believed his mistaken recollection about the size of the bag.

No. You don't know anything of the kind. You just don't want to accept that he got the description of the bag right and thus passed the test.

As best he remembered it. That doesn't establish he remembered what he saw correctly. It's very common for eyewitnesses to get details wrong, especially when the detail wouldn't have seemed important at the time it was observed.

It doesn't mean he remembered it incorrectly. Again... there is no way you can prove that the bag from the 6th floor was the same one Oswald carried. It's all wishful thinking on your part and that is what is causing you to question and doubt anything that destroys your silly opinion. You can be a stubborn as you like, but that still doesn't make you right and it never will.

If I have to chose between Frazier's real time observations and statement and your opinion you always lose!

A lie is when you knowingly tell a falsehood. I'm sure Frazier honestly believes what he said he saw. He just didn't accurately remember what he saw. Very common for eyewitnesses to do that. That's been explained to you many times but you refuse to accept that.

Classic LN If a witness says something I don't like, the witness must be wrong, because my opinion always supersedes what somebody say who was actually there and saw what happened.

You're right. I don't accept your opinion, exactly because it's an opinion for which there isn't a shred of proof. A print on a paper bag made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD where Oswald worked proves nothing and it certainly doesn't prove that this was the bag Oswald carried. You desperately want it to be, just like Ltd Day did on day one, but the facts are clear and the one who doesn't want to accept them is you.

No I haven't. Do you have a reliable source for those reports?

So you don't know the evidence! And yes, I have a reliable source; I have the reports themself! They are available on line. Do some research before you make comments!

Because the accounts of people who were there often conflict with the forensic evidence. I place far more faith in the latter.

No, you place more faith in your opinion which you somehow incorrectly consider to be "forensic evidence".

[Martin Weidmann]

Marina doesn't remember the last time she saw CE163, which is odd considering that CT's believe that CE163 was at the house she was staying at for almost the last two weeks? She also didn't see Oswald get dressed that morning, so she hasn't a clue about what he was wearing.

Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you saw this jacket, Exhibit 163?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember seeing it on the morning of November 22, 1963?
Mrs. OSWALD. The thing is that I saw Lee in the room, and I didn't see him getting dressed in the room. That is why it is difficult for me to say. But I told him to put on something warm on the way to work.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall whether the jacket, Exhibit 163, is something that he put on in your presence at any time that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. Not in my presence.

JohnM

which is odd considering that CT's believe that CE163 was at the house she was staying at for almost the last two weeks?

Really? Which CTs would that be? I've never spoken to one who believes that.

[Martin Weidmann]

From the list of items taken from Ruth Paine's house, there is no items of Oswald's clothing listed. And considering Oswald was living at Beckley street it makes sense for Oswald to keep all his clothes where he spent the majority of his time.

I found it a bit weird that Oswald would wear the same clothes all weekend but according to Ruth, Oswald brought out some underwear and shirts to be washed and then left with clean clothing, so presumably he must have taken some fresh clothes out to Irving as well?

Mr. JENNER - Now, the same question with respect to laundry. That would be laundry largely. I take it from your telling us about you and Marina hanging up clothes in your backyard on the 22d of November that neither you nor she ever sent any laundry out for cleaning or washing.
Mrs. PAINE - No; and Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house, and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with him on Monday.

The owner of the Rooming house says that there was a Washeteria not very far away which Oswald seem to use when he didn't see his wife for some time or I guess for emergencies but otherwise Oswald still made his wife wash his clothes.

Mr. BALL. Let me ask you this: did he, that weekend, that was the weekend before the assassination, on a Saturday, make a trip to a place where they wash clothes?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, I think that he did go across to that washateria. I think he did.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him go any place, go out of the house except for that on that weekend?
Mrs. JOHNSON. That's the only time and I had just forgotten that but I do remember he carried some clothes out of that house that morning and the washateria is right across the street, less than a block.
Mr. BALL. But he left his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. And he wasn't gone long and I didn't see him return with any clothes but I do know he was gone just about long enough to do a wash.







The list of items taken from Beckley street sensibly had Oswald's clothes contained in his room, so why would Oswald keep a solitary jacket at the Paine residence and limit himself to his other jacket, it doesn't make sense and if for whatever reason Oswald didn't end up shooting the President, why would he leave one of his jackets at the Paine's house and again limit himself to having one jacket for another week?





Oswald kept his clothes at the Beckley street rooming house because that is simply logical and wore the same jacket out to Irving and back to work. Leaving a jacket at the Paine's and then swapping his jacket and then leaving another jacket at the Paine's is a bit silly!

JohnM

Oswald kept his clothes at the Beckley street rooming house because that is simply logical and wore the same jacket out to Irving and back to work. Leaving a jacket at the Paine's and then swapping his jacket and then leaving another jacket at the Paine's is a bit silly!

Oswald worked in an extremely dusty warehouse. At the end of the day his clothes must have been full of dust, and so would his jacket be. It makes sense to have one clean jacket in Irving and switch it with the dirty one during every visit. So, leaving the TSBD wearing CE 162 and switching it for a clean CE 163 actually makes a lot of sense.

[John Mytton]

which is odd considering that CT's believe that CE163 was at the house she was staying at for almost the last two weeks?

Really? Which CTs would that be? I've never spoken to one who believes that.

So you don't believe that CE163 was at the Paine's residence prior to Oswald arriving on the 21st, good, finally we're getting somewhere.

JohnM

[Dan O'meara]

Tell me that's not funny.
A dotted outline showing where the evidence should be!
There can be no better example of the staggering incompetence of the DPD's investigation.

I'm assuming the LN narrative runs along the following lines:
Oswald waited for the 6th floor crew to break for lunch and, when he had the floor to himself, he collected the stashed rifle bag and took it to the southeast corner where he prepared the Sniper's Perch. He took the disassembled rifle from the paper bag and placed the now empty bag to one side while he assembled the rifle.

The final report of the Warren Commission is a string of lies, omissions and falsifications designed to demonstrate the pre-ordained Lone Assassin narrative. One of the most brazen lies contained in the report is the claim, made on more than one occasion, that Charles Givens was the last TSBD employee to see Oswald prior to the assassination and that he saw Oswald in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the 6th floor.
The Givens issue has been dealt with in detail by others such as Sylvia Meagher and Pat Speer and there is little doubt this belated addition to his account of events is a pack of lies told at the behest of the WC itself.
But Givens was not the last TSBD employee to see Oswald prior to the assassination - Eddie Piper was.
Piper testified that, as he broke for lunch at 12:00pm, he had a conversation with Oswald ON THE FIRST FLOOR. This makes complete sense when we take into account the collective statements of the floor-laying crew and their elevator race after breaking for lunch. Each day the floor-laying crew would race the elevators down to the first floor after breaking for lunch. The day of the assassination was no different. Charles Givens was in one elevator and the other three members of the crew were in the other. As the race got under way Oswald appeared on the fifth floor asking Givens to let him on the elevator. Givens refused, he was racing after all, so Oswald called after them to make sure to close the gates on the elevator so he could call it back up.
Far from hiding in the shadows, biding his time, Oswald was clearly looking to get down to the first floor. At some point after this Oswald makes his way down to the first floor and has his interaction with Eddie Piper.
The WC Sham brushed all this testimony under the carpet in the final report because they had to disguise a very inconvenient fact - while Oswald was on the first floor having his interaction with Eddie Piper, Bonnie Ray Williams had collected his lunch and made his way back up to the 6th floor where, according to the WC, he took up position just a few yards away from the SN to have his lunch. The importance of this fact was also glossed over in the final report.

So, the WC would have us believe that Oswald carried his disassembled rifle in the paper bag over to the southeast corner and assembled his rifle just a few yards away from Bonnie Ray without being detected!
I'm not really sure how that is possible.

[John Mytton]

Oswald kept his clothes at the Beckley street rooming house because that is simply logical and wore the same jacket out to Irving and back to work. Leaving a jacket at the Paine's and then swapping his jacket and then leaving another jacket at the Paine's is a bit silly!

Oswald worked in an extremely dusty warehouse. At the end of the day his clothes must have been full of dust, and so would his jacket be. It makes sense to have one clean jacket in Irving and switch it with the dirty one during every visit. So, leaving the TSBD wearing CE 162 and switching it for a clean CE 163 actually makes a lot of sense.

We're making a lot of progress today, of course Oswald would want access to clean clothes and wearing a dusty jacket ALL week is absurd, that's why he would keep his back-up jacket with him, so it's accessible. Thanks Martin, you're finally starting to understand!

JohnM