JFK Assassination Forum

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".

Nonsense.  The time stamps on the police tapes are not "bad evidence" at all.  You don't understand them; that doesn't make them "bad".


Again, you basically asked me to speculate and I admit I am only giving my opinion.  Seems simple enough but only a Kook would take issue with it.


Again, in her Warren Commission testimony, she said traffic was coming.  She did not say it was a police car.  If you want to rely on the FBI report as if it's gospel, then we can also agree then that Randle indeed said the bag was three feet long.  This is simple stuff, really.  So, which is it for you?

By the way, the FBI agent who interviewed Markham in March of '64 was Barrett (as you originally stated), not Bookhout (as you are now stating).


In your opinion.  Obviously that was not Markham's opinion, as she tells us she had to wait for traffic to pass before trying to cross.


You don't know what "get your bus" means and you certainly don't know how Markham interpreted the question.  The bottom line is that Markham never says she caught a bus at 1:15 and no amount of you putting words into her mouth will change this.

Nonsense.  The time stamps on the police tapes are not "bad evidence" at all.  You don't understand them; that doesn't make them "bad".

I understand them alright. I just don't agree with your opinion.

Again, you basically asked me to speculate and I admit I am only giving my opinion.  Seems simple enough but only a Kook would take issue with it.

Typical LN talk. I asked you to help me out by explaining why Markham would risk missing her bus by waiting at the corner of 10th and Patton after the car(s) had passed.
You then started speculating and you did so in a self-serving way, like you always do. Your speculations are not facts! It's that simple.

Again, in her Warren Commission testimony, she said traffic was coming.  She did not say it was a police car.  If you want to rely on the FBI report as if it's gospel, then we can also agree then that Randle indeed said the bag was three feet long.  This is simple stuff, really.  So, which is it for you?

Apparently you want to rely fully on witness testimony because you are desperate to get Tippit's police car out of the overall picture, despite the fact that his car was there and did pass the intersection. But if you want to rely solely on WC testimony, let's go that way. That means of course that Roberts couldn't identify CE 162 and thought that the jacket she had seen was darker. It means that Frazier saw Oswald carry the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit and it means that Randle provided a far more accurate estimate of the size of the package than Barrett wrote. Are you happy with that?

By the way, the FBI agent who interviewed Markham in March of '64 was Barrett (as you originally stated), not Bookhout (as you are now stating).

I stand corrected. My bad.

In your opinion.  Obviously that was not Markham's opinion, as she tells us she had to wait for traffic to pass before trying to cross.

And where exactly does she say that also included Tatum's car? Or are you simply making that up?

You don't know what "get your bus" means and you certainly don't know how Markham interpreted the question.

Her answer in her WC testimony is clear enough;

Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.

And you swear by WC testimony, right?

The bottom line is that Markham never says she caught a bus at 1:15 and no amount of you putting words into her mouth will change this.

So, now you want verbatim quotes. As I said before.... you are playing word games (again). You can deny reality as much as you like but normal same people know exactly what somebody says she "gets" or "caught" her bus at 1:15 PM.

Besides, she made it very very clear that she needed to be at the bus stop every day at 1:15 PM, regardless if she got or caught a bus or jumped on the back of a bike! Deal with it!

As surely everyone in this excellent forum knows, CE-399 is the Western Cartridge slug identified by the WC as the bullet that passed through JFK's neck, then Gov. JBC's chest, through JBC's right wrist, and then burrowed into JBC's thigh.

CE-399 then fell out of JBC's thigh at some point, most likely when he was disrobed in Trauma Room 2, in Parkland Hospital, in preparation for surgery.

JBC described CE-399 this way:

 “In History Shadow” (1994)-- “the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher, and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed through my back, chest and wrist and worked itself loose from my thigh.”

OK, so CE-399 had worked is way out of JBC's thigh, inside Trauma Room 2, and a nurse pocketed the slug.

Now, hospitals by law must report bullet wounds, and save all related evidence, for obvious and good reasons.

See this:

Yes, in the United States and many other jurisdictions, hospitals are legally required to report gunshot wounds to law enforcement. Furthermore, if a bullet or other foreign object is removed from a patient during treatment, it is considered physical evidence and must be preserved, documented, and handed over to police.
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
 +2
Here are the key details regarding these obligations:
1. Mandatory Reporting Requirements
Legal Obligation: In 48 of 50 US states, healthcare providers are mandated to report ballistic injuries, regardless of whether the injury is acute or was sustained in the past.
What is Reported: Hospitals must report the patient’s name (if known), the nature of the wound, and the circumstances of treatment.
When to Report: Reporting is often required immediately, or as soon as possible without interfering with patient care.
Exceptions: In some cases, if a patient is unconscious, the reporting is mandatory.
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
 +3
2. Saving and Handling Bullet Evidence
If a bullet, projectile, or fragment is removed from a patient, hospitals have strict protocols to ensure the chain of custody is maintained:
Evidence Preservation: Removed bullets, clothing with gunshot residue, or other fragments are considered evidence and must be kept secure.
Proper Handling: Staff are instructed not to clean the bullet, to use rubber-tipped forceps to avoid adding new marks, and to package it for forensic analysis.
Documentation: Evidence must be labeled to identify it as coming from that specific patient, along with the date and time of removal.
Handover: The items are turned over to the police or kept according to a policy that allows them to be transferred to law enforcement.
Sage Journals
Sage Journals
 +3
3. Legal Protection for Hospitals
Immunity: Hospitals and employees who report in good faith are generally immune from civil or criminal liability.
| WA.gov
| WA.gov
 +1
4. Exceptions to Removal
Medical Necessity: Surgeons do not remove a bullet solely for evidence; they only remove it if it is medically necessary (e.g., causing infection, pain, or damaging tissue). If the bullet is left in the body, it is usually documented, and the patient may be informed that law enforcement may request it later.
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
 +2
In summary, the medical team's primary goal is to save the patient's life, but they are legally obligated to act as agents in preserving evidence for law enforcement when treating gunshot victims. 

---30---

And so, the Trauma 2 nurse put the CE-399 bullet, that fell from JBC's thigh, into an evidence envelope, and handed it over to the Dallas Police Department, right?

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

Groden would have seen the original Wiegman in the 1990s before the Prayerman theory was developed as far as I understand it. So Groden possibly never even looked for the Prayerman figure when he had the opportunity to do so.

Isn't Lovelady supposed to be walking down the elm street extension in the Wiegman/Darnell film? So no one is putting Lovelady at the doorway in the Wiegman film anyway.

This would mean that the only known living person to have viewed the original Wiegman film, Groden, quiet possibly never even looked at the figure in the doorway that later developed into the Prayerman theory.

Either that or he did look at the figure that would later become known as Prayerman and determined it was not Oswald and proceeded to mistake the figure as being Lovelady.