Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[John Mytton]

Nice comeback, Bro!

I can understand why you won't confront the issue, but it's extremely relevant and crucial to our understanding of this entire event, why would Oswald make an unusual midweek trip to retrieve a specific item and then suddenly leave immediately after the assassination, and in Oswald's unexplained haste to remove himself from the scene of the crime, he absentmindedly leaves the obviously very important item at work?
But perhaps his real worry was to get the the rooming house as quickly as possible and retrieve his revolver and then scoot over to the Texas Theatre so he wouldn't miss a minute of two World War Two movies? Yeah, that must be it!



JohnM

[Michael Capasse]

FBI James Cadigan:
"There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument."

[John Mytton]

FBI James Cadigan:
"There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument."

Seriously Capasse, you're going to cherry pick FBI evidence, the same FBI that we debated for days regarding their involvement in a "conspiracy", the same FBI that is claimed to have altered testimony and fabricated evidence, that FBI! WOW!
Talk about desperate.

Anyway here's Cadigan's testimony in context and let's let the readers come to their own conclusion.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, did you notice when you looked at the bag whether there were---that is the bag found on the sixth floor, Exhibit 142--whether it had any bulges or unusual creases?
Mr. CADIGAN. I was also requested at that time to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. CADIGAN. And I couldn't find any such markings.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I don't see actually, I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag, it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun. The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any absence of markings or absence of bulges or absence of creases which would cause you to say that the rifle was not carried in the paper bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is whether it had been wrapped or not wrapped?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is something I can't say.
Mr. DULLES. Would the scratches indicate there was a hard object inside the bag, as distinct from a soft object that would make no abrasions or scratches?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, if you were to characterize it that way, yes. I mean there were a few scratches here. What caused them, I can't say. A hard object; yes. Whether that hard object was part of a gun----
Mr. DULLES. I understand.
Mr. CADIGAN. And so forth----
Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure you understood a question I asked one or two questions ago.
I just want to make clear here if the gun was not wrapped in a cloth--let's assume hypothetically that the gun was not wrapped in a cloth and was, also hypothetically, inserted into this is paper bag. Is there any absence of marks which would lead you to believe that this hypothesis I just made couldn't be--that is, that it couldn't be inserted, without a covering, into the paper bag without leaving more markings than were present?
Mr. CADIGAN. No. The absence of markings to me wouldn't mean much. I was looking for markings I could associate. The absence of marks, the significance of them, I don't know.

BTW the most powerful evidence for the bag carrying the rifle is the size of the bag that perfectly fits the rifle, and this is a subject that is always avoided by CT's, I wonder why??



JohnM

[Michael Capasse]

Seriously Capasse, you're going to cherry pick FBI evidence, the same FBI that we debated for days regarding their involvement in a "conspiracy", the same FBI that is claimed to have altered testimony and fabricated evidence, that FBI! WOW!
Talk about desperate.

Anyway here's Cadigan's testimony in context and let's let the readers come to their own conclusion.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, did you notice when you looked at the bag whether there were---that is the bag found on the sixth floor, Exhibit 142--whether it had any bulges or unusual creases?
Mr. CADIGAN. I was also requested at that time to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. CADIGAN. And I couldn't find any such markings.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I don't see actually, I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag, it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun. The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any absence of markings or absence of bulges or absence of creases which would cause you to say that the rifle was not carried in the paper bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is whether it had been wrapped or not wrapped?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is something I can't say.
Mr. DULLES. Would the scratches indicate there was a hard object inside the bag, as distinct from a soft object that would make no abrasions or scratches?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, if you were to characterize it that way, yes. I mean there were a few scratches here. What caused them, I can't say. A hard object; yes. Whether that hard object was part of a gun----
Mr. DULLES. I understand.
Mr. CADIGAN. And so forth----
Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure you understood a question I asked one or two questions ago.
I just want to make clear here if the gun was not wrapped in a cloth--let's assume hypothetically that the gun was not wrapped in a cloth and was, also hypothetically, inserted into this is paper bag. Is there any absence of marks which would lead you to believe that this hypothesis I just made couldn't be--that is, that it couldn't be inserted, without a covering, into the paper bag without leaving more markings than were present?
Mr. CADIGAN. No. The absence of markings to me wouldn't mean much. I was looking for markings I could associate. The absence of marks, the significance of them, I don't know.

BTW the most powerful evidence for the bag carrying the rifle is the size of the bag that perfectly fits the rifle, and this is a subject that is always avoided by CT's, I wonder why??

JohnM

  Like I said, NO reason to believe that rifle was ever broken down and put into that bag.

Mr. BALL - The dark bag is Commission Exhibit No. 142. When you were shown this bag, do you recall whether or not you told the officers who showed you the bag--did you tell them whether you thought it was or was not about the same length as the bag you saw on the back seat?

Mr. FRAZIER - I told them that as far as the length there, I told them that was entirely too long.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Seriously Capasse, you're going to cherry pick FBI evidence, the same FBI that we debated for days regarding their involvement in a "conspiracy", the same FBI that is claimed to have altered testimony and fabricated evidence, that FBI! WOW!
Talk about desperate.

Anyway here's Cadigan's testimony in context and let's let the readers come to their own conclusion.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, did you notice when you looked at the bag whether there were---that is the bag found on the sixth floor, Exhibit 142--whether it had any bulges or unusual creases?
Mr. CADIGAN. I was also requested at that time to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. CADIGAN. And I couldn't find any such markings.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I don't see actually, I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag, it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun. The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any absence of markings or absence of bulges or absence of creases which would cause you to say that the rifle was not carried in the paper bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is whether it had been wrapped or not wrapped?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is something I can't say.
Mr. DULLES. Would the scratches indicate there was a hard object inside the bag, as distinct from a soft object that would make no abrasions or scratches?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, if you were to characterize it that way, yes. I mean there were a few scratches here. What caused them, I can't say. A hard object; yes. Whether that hard object was part of a gun----
Mr. DULLES. I understand.
Mr. CADIGAN. And so forth----
Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure you understood a question I asked one or two questions ago.
I just want to make clear here if the gun was not wrapped in a cloth--let's assume hypothetically that the gun was not wrapped in a cloth and was, also hypothetically, inserted into this is paper bag. Is there any absence of marks which would lead you to believe that this hypothesis I just made couldn't be--that is, that it couldn't be inserted, without a covering, into the paper bag without leaving more markings than were present?
Mr. CADIGAN. No. The absence of markings to me wouldn't mean much. I was looking for markings I could associate. The absence of marks, the significance of them, I don't know.

BTW the most powerful evidence for the bag carrying the rifle is the size of the bag that perfectly fits the rifle, and this is a subject that is always avoided by CT's, I wonder why??


JohnM

Any scratches found were made by the curtain rods anyway, John. You know the routine.

The leftwing conspiracists seem to have, unlike the rightwingers, some affinity towards Oswald, some need to defend him, a kinship. My guess is that they view him as "on our side" and a victim of the rightwing Cold War militarists. A sort of a leftwing version of the Jewish Alfred Dreyfuss. They have a need to defend him. I don't see that with the rightwing conspiracists.

[Michael Capasse]

Any scratches found were made by the curtain rods anyway, John. You know the routine.

The leftwing conspiracists seem to have, unlike the rightwingers, some affinity towards Oswald, some need to defend him, a kinship. My guess is that they view him as "on our side" and a victim of the rightwing Cold War militarists. A sort of a leftwing version of the Jewish Alfred Dreyfuss. They have a need to defend him. I don't see that with the rightwing conspiracists.

What does this even mean?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Here's Michel Gagne's characterization of the Left's view of Oswald. I think this is mostly correct but instead of the "wealthy establishment" it was, in this view of the assassination, the "Cold War anti-communist hysterics", the "national security state", the McCarthyites that used him. They say either he was pretending to be a leftist (this is the Garrisonite claim) or he was a leftist victim. The conspiracy Right, it seems to me, doesn't have this view of him.

[John Mytton]

Like I said, NO reason to believe that rifle was ever broken down and put into that bag.

Mr. BALL - The dark bag is Commission Exhibit No. 142. When you were shown this bag, do you recall whether or not you told the officers who showed you the bag--did you tell them whether you thought it was or was not about the same length as the bag you saw on the back seat?

Mr. FRAZIER - I told them that as far as the length there, I told them that was entirely too long.

Huh? How does 30 some inches become over 44 inches, Frazier's size estimates are not worth the paper they're written on, the fact that both Linnie and Wesley saw a long brown package that was later discovered with Oswald's prints and perfectly fitted the rifle is only the evidence that counts.
Actual physical evidence always, always trumps people's memories and Frazier repeatedly told the commission that he never payed much attention to the bag, sorry Capasse but that's all folks!

Q: What kind of rifle did you use in the Service?
A: An M14.
Q: Approximately how long was the M14 that you used?
A: I believe the correct length is 30 some odd inches long?
Q: 30 something inches long?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever break that rifle down?
A: Yes, sir, I broke it down many times.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb3.htm



Oswald's prints on the bag.



Oswald only brought his lunch to work! Hilarious!



JohnM