The Brown Paper Bag

[John Corbett]

It has been stated a number of times on in this thread and others that Oswald's palm print was on the middle of the paper bag found in the sniper's nest. That didn't sound right to me but because I hadn't dealt directly with this issue in at least five years, I left that claim go unchallenged. After going to the WCR to check it out, I find that my memory was correct. The palm print was on the bottom of the bag.

From page 135 of the WCR:
"Oswald's fingerprint and palmprint found on bag.--Using a standard chemical method involving silver nitrates 180 the FBI Laboratory developed a latent palmprint and latent fingerprint on the bag. (See app. X, p. 565.) Sebastian F. Latona, supervisor of the FBI's Latent Fingerprint Section, identified these prints as the left index fingerprint and right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.181 The portion of the palm which was identified was the heel of the right palm, i.e., the area near the wrist, on the little finger side.182 These prints were examined independently by Ronald G. Wittmus of the FBI,183 and by Arthur Mandella, a fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department. 184 Both concluded that the prints were the right palm and left index finger of Lee Oswald. No other identifiable prints were found on the bag.185

Oswald's palmprint on the bottom of the paper bag indicated, of course, that he had handled the bag. Furthermore, it was consistent with the bag having contained a heavy or bulky object when he handled it since a light object is usually held by the fingers.186 The palmprint was found on the closed end of the bag. It was from Oswald's right hand, in which he carried the long package as he walked from Frazier's car to the building.187"

The palm print at the bottom of the bag is consistent with the way Frazier said Oswald carried the bag, cupped in his right hand. In providing this cite, I have done something Martin Wiedmann has consistently refused to do. I have provided corroboration for a portion of Frazier's statement regarding how Oswald carried the bag. Frazier's description of how Oswald carred the bag was half right. That's more than we can say for Marty.

[Martin Weidmann]

Back for a second for bit of fun;

You posted this, right;

You are the last person I would want schooling me. You are at the head of the dunce class.It's not my homework. It's yours. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You obviously can't meet that burden so you try to shift it to me. Why would I search for something that you made up out if thin air. If you had a source for this story, you would have no trouble providing it but you won't because you can't.Why do you keep lying. I've provided solid evidence for everything I've stated. The fact you refuse to accept the evidence is a reflection on you, not me.If these reports actually existed, you would have no trouble providing them.

I didn't know how to post images on this forum, but I've had some help, so here is the evidence that you said didn't exist.



 

Consider yourself schooled!

[John Corbett]

Back for a second for bit of fun;

You posted this, right;

I didn't know how to post images on this forum, but I've had some help, so here is the evidence that you said didn't exist.



 

Consider yourself schooled!

OK. I was wrong. You didn't make this up. You just lied about it. Earlier, you stated:

"The fact remains that Frazier passed the test and that was enough to cause massive panic by Lt Day"

Please point out anything in either document you posted that Day exhibited "massive panic". Sounds like Day's reaction was rather matter of fact.

[Martin Weidmann]

An honest forensic officer follows the evidence where it leads him.

A corrupt forensic officer, who thinks he has a "gun sack" but is then confronted with a credible witness, who is being polygraphed, who not only denies the "gun sack" was the one Oswald carried but also described the actual bag as flimsy, would desperately look for a way to explain the "gun sack" by claiming it's possible that Oswald placed the heavy duty "gun sack" in the flimsy bag Frazier described despite the fact that the heavy duty sack is far bigger than the flimsy bag.

That's not following the evidence, it's desperately trying to keep in play the heavy duty bag. So, much for an honest investigation. Of course, Day panicked, but they are not going to write that in a official report, are they now? Frazier said that Captain Fritz wanted to hit him for not identifying the heavy duty bag. That's the corrupt DPD for you!

Btw, this Lt Day is the same guy who days after the facts, when Oswald was dead and buried, produced a palmprint he claimed he had found on the rifle. The FBI found no trace of such a print and Latona said it was nearly impossible to take a print of a surface and leave no trace at all.

[Martin Weidmann]

OK. I was wrong. You didn't make this up. You just lied about it. Earlier, you stated:

"The fact remains that Frazier passed the test and that was enough to cause massive panic by Lt Day"

Please point out anything in either document you posted that Day exhibited "massive panic". Sounds like Day's reaction was rather matter of fact.

The honest way of dealing with it was to admit you made a mistake and leave it at that. I would have accepted and respected that and moved on.

The crappy LN way is to try to weasel out of it by making up some bogus issue.

You got schooled and even if your arrogant ego has a problem with it, take your loss and I won't embarrass you further.

You're a little man who thinks he knows everything better than everybody else, but you walked straight into this one which shows you really know nothing at all.

So far, I've been kind to you. You tried to test me once and failed miserably. Care to test me again?

[Martin Weidmann]

Duplicate

[John Corbett]

The honest way of dealing with it was to admit you made a mistake and leave it at that. I would have accepted and respected that and moved on.

The crappy LN way is to try to weasel out of it by making up some bogus issue.

You got schooled and even if your arrogant ego has a problem with it, take your loss and I won't embarrass you further.

You're a little man who thinks he knows everything better than everybody else, but you walked straight into this one which shows you really know nothing at all.

So far, I've been kind to you. You tried to test me once and failed miserably. Care to test me again?

The honest way of dealing with it was to admit you made a mistake and leave it at that. I would have accepted and respected that and moved on.

The crappy LN way is to try to weasel out of it by making up some bogus issue.

You got schooled and even if your arrogant ego has a problem with it, take your loss and I won't embarrass you further.

You're a little man who thinks he knows everything better than everybody else, but you walked straight into this one which shows you really know nothing at all.

So far, I've been kind to you. You tried to test me once and failed miserably. Care to test me again?

You've been exposed as a liar. The letter that you claimed showed Day had shown a "massive panic" doesn't say anything the remotely indicates anything of the sort. You simply fabricated the part about Day panicking about Frazier's polygraph. Why don't you just admit your deceit and move on.