JFK Assassination Forum

Brian, Repeat Request -  3rd Time Of Asking

Could you please ask contact Sarah's family again and record via Audio the question and answer to a simple question, ie, "Is the lady with the scarf Sarah Stanton?"

Do not ask any leading questions which might influence their conclusion, and include any pre and post question and answer conversations.

They know what she really looked like.

We, the members of this Forum, including yourself, don't know what she really looked like at various stages of her life from viewing just one photograph.

It's a simple request I am asking of you.

It is important to question everything.

There is no room for arrogance or personal ego to dictate what is investigated and what is not.

This is a viable question that requires a simple yes, no, or could be answer, irrespective of how good You, Me, Kamp, Stancac, the man on the Moon, or anyone else thinks they are at photo analysis.

If you refuse to do it, and it's your choice,  please let me know and send me via PM the contact details and I'll ask them the question myself.

I'll do it Duncan but I seriously disagree...

I wish someone would please explain to me why we are using precious access time to ask these witnesses if a person who is on the landing 20 minutes after the shots, according to the time of the imagery, is their relative Sarah Stanton? The well known record has Stanton inside Westbrook's office "bull-pen" at that point being detained by the cops for statements...

There is no way that dark sleeve that goes half way up Scarf Lady's forearm would not be detectable in Darnell if Prayer Man were Scarf Lady...And the sheet white of her scarf would be impossible to not be seen in Darnell too...Can't be her Duncan - but I'll ask...Best done on a weekday...

But we do know what her height was and her waist thickness, forearm etc...We also know that Frazier located her as looking at him when Calvery was at the steps..In my opinion, no one who was seriously looking at the Prayer Man evidence would ignore the other evidence...

Anyone familiar with the original Prayer Man theory will feel their jaw drop to the floor all over again at the depth of ignorance revealed in your question. The theory stipulated that Baker encountered LHO on the FIRST floor! He was LHO's alibi! THAT's why we see him putting his head down in the DPD hallway footage!

Ah ha...Sure...Baker encountered Oswald in the foyer and the many people who ducked-in to the Depository at the same time all missed him? Oh, wait...I remember now...The men in black made them all stay quiet...

The Oswald in the utility closet seen by Campbell was minutes later after Campbell had gone to the Knoll...Prayer Man cultists ignore the timing of this Oswald, or the fact he would be hanging in the lobby unwitnessed by anyone else for several minutes, and try to conflate him with an imaginary witnessing by Baker of Oswald in the lobby that Parker and Murphy invented out of thin air and persons like Alan are now referencing as fact and calling those who question it "ignorant"...

I have been posting for years that since Prayer Man is still on the landing in Couch/Darnell that, hypothetically, if Prayer Man were Oswald he would have ducked back into the lobby right about the same time as Baker if Baker were to theoretically encounter him in the lobby...If you run this scenario through it means Oswald would have to squeeze through the entrance right along with several other people including Baker...Prayer Man lunatics ignore this necessary scenario and simply suggest their Prayer Man script without ever owning up to the impossibility of how their suggestions would necessarily have to play out...Oswald would have so much exposure to witnesses at that point that it would be impossible for him to not have been noticed by many more witnesses, including Truly...Prayer Man nuts hold firm on Carolyn Arnold glimpsing Oswald in the foyer from way out front but then equally hold that many people mingled with Oswald in the foyer after the shots and no one mentioned it...You can see the awareness of the Prayer Man cultists of this in the fact they try to stall Baker from entering by suggesting he didn't go straight in...Just like with the lunch room encounter, when the Prayer Man cultists are aware the evidence is going against them Parker gets out his evidence-revising magic wand and starts making major revisions of the core evidence to try to slip his nutty Prayer Man theory through the evidence barriers he is aware refutes it...This crazy theory has now become a membership requirement of the Conspiracy community overseen by mob boss Jim DiEugenio who directs the censorship of those who call him out on this nutty-ness by lesser heads who do Jim's dirty work for him in order to compensate for their own lack of ability...





     

       "...ripped THROUGH his back......". This statement is Incorrect. Humes probed JFK's BACK Wound and the depth of said wound ended at the first knuckle on his finger. The location of the BACK Wound is corroborated by: (1) The JFK Autopsy Face Sheet, (2) JFK Autopsy Photo, (3) JFK Dress Shirt, & (4) JFK Suit Coat. The JFK BACK Wound had absolutely Nothing to do with the Neck Wound or the movement of his hands during the assassination.

  Since that is what you believe, Storing, go for it.   I will use common sense and accept the fact that bullet that entered the back exited the throat,  based on the evidence.   You go ahead and continue to live in denial, and base your case on flimsy, conspiracy tripe.  You haven't read everything on the back wound, or you would know why the wound only went as far as the first knuckle, so I take your reasoning with the usual grain of salt.  Oh, and yes, the movement of his arms and hands DID have everything to do with the back wound.

Only two people saw him with the bag, LMR and Frazier. Where was the bag when he encountered Dougherty? He had hidden the bag by the time he encountered Dougherty.

He threw away the paper bag that he had with him in a waste disposal bin in the Northern Annex. What ever he did with a paper bag - was irrelevant - because testimonial recollections by the two witnesses that saw Lee Harvey Oswald that morning - can not place CE 142 into his hands.

If you don't think LHO brought the rifle in the bag explain its presence on the 6th floor.

My aim, from the beginning, was to determine if Lee Harvey Oswald brought CE 139 in CE 142 on the morning of 22/11/1963 - he didn't.

No idea how CE 139 was placed on the 6th floor. Do you know it was in the blanket on 21/11/1963? How?

LHO's palm print was on the rifle same as the bag.

How old was the palm print on CE 139? Why didn't the FBI find one when Day stated there were traces still on it?

A partial palm print on CE 142 doesn't indicate that Lee Harvey Oswald constructed it.

his rifle being on the 6th floor tells the story.

So if someone was going to "set up" Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination what would you leave up on the 6th floor? A rifle?

Cadigan explained why they did not show the bag. Give them credit for realizing an ID of a replica bag was silly and pointless.

Then why make one?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this is Commission Exhibit 364. It is a paper sack similar to Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School Book Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in Dallas to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit 142 was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and they thought that this would--it wouldn't be fair to the witness to ask "Did you see a bag like that?" So they went to the Texas School Book Depository and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was made December 1?
Mr. CADIGAN. December 1, of 1963.

Why wasnt anyone who saw a paper bag or loose paper or wrappings shown the unstained replica as a visual prompt?

Now, the WC DID use CE 364 (the replica bag)

Mr. JENNER - Exhibiting to you Commission Exhibit No. 364, is the wrapping paper that you have in your home as heavy as that?
Mrs. PAINE - I don't believe it is quite that heavy and it certainly isn't quite that long. Well, it could have been cut the otherway, couldn't it, possibly?

Mr. LIEBELER - I now show you Commission Exhibit 364 which is a replica of a sack which was prepared by authorities in Dallas, and I also show you another sack which is Commission Exhibit 142, and ask you if you have ever seen in or around your garage in Irving, Tex., any sacks similar to those?
Mr. PAINE - No; I haven't.

Note how your argument about why the replica paper bag wasnt shown to Biffle et al is blown out of the water:

Mr. LIEBELER - I show you Commission Exhibit 364, which is a replica of a paper sack or package which was found in the School Book Depository, after the assassination. I point out to you that Commission 364 is merely a replica of the actual sack that was found. The actual sack that was found is Commission Exhibit 142, and it has now been discolored because it has been treated by the FBI for fingerprints.
Mr. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - But there is a part of the package that has not been treated, and I ask you if that part of 142 that has not been treated is similar to Commission Exhibit 364 as far as color and texture are concerned. I want you to examine both of these pieces of paper in any event.


What Belin and Ball did with EVERY other Detective (apart from Day) who saw and didn't see "a paper bag" was to withhold CE 142 and CE 364 from them.

The reason was obvious.

Mr. THORNE. Exhibit 142 is some kraft paper, brown wrapping paper.
Mrs. OSWALD. It wasn't brown before.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see that before?
Mrs. OSWALD. The FBI questioned me about this paper, but I don't know--I have never seen it.
Mr. RANKIN. At one time it was kraft color, before they treated it to get fingerprints.
Did you ever see anything like that?
Mrs. OSWALD. Everybody sees such paper. But I didn't see that with Lee.
Mr. RANKIN. You have never seen anything like that around the house, then?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. We have wrapping paper around the house.
Mr. RANKIN. That Exhibit 142 is more than just wrapping paper. It was apparently made up into a sack or bag.
Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't see it.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see him make up a bag or sack or anything like that, to hold a rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 142, for identification.)

So looks like Marina was the first to see the stained CE 142 during her testimony.

The people who NEVER saw Lee Harvey Oswald with a paper bag (Ruth, Michael and Marina) were SHOWN the replica or a stained CE 142 and the Detectives who "saw" a paper bag on the 6th floor of the TSBD (apart from Day) were NOT.

You call this a thorough investigation seeking the "truth", Jack?

Give them credit for realizing an ID of a replica bag was silly and pointless.

See above, Jack

+The bag was made to be shown to people who had no knowlwdge of it.

+LHO hid the bag while entering the TSBD but still was not seen carrying the curtain rods by Dougherty.



JN- You answered your own question again. The bag was made to see if people, the Paines and Marina, who never said they seen the bag had seen anything similar. They wanted to know if the Paines and Marina had ever seen LHO ever have a bag or paper of that nature.


------------------------


Only two people saw him with the bag, LMR and Frazier. Where was the bag when he encountered Dougherty? He had hidden the bag by the time he encountered Dougherty.

He threw away the paper bag that he had with him in a waste disposal bin in the Northern Annex. What ever he did with a paper bag - was irrelevant - because testimonial recollections by the two witnesses that saw Lee Harvey Oswald that morning - can not place CE 142 into his hands.

JN-LHO hid the package in the waste bin not disposed of the paper and kept the rods? This is the type of answer that leaves a big hole in the whole story. And the curtain rods?  Dougherty never said he seen just the curtain rods. Frazier was right behind him.

------------------------------------

If you don't think LHO brought the rifle in the bag explain its presence on the 6th floor.

My aim, from the beginning, was to determine if Lee Harvey Oswald brought CE 139 in CE 142 on the morning of 22/11/1963 - he didn't.

JN-The rifle was used to assassinate JFK. The bag never shot anybody. If the bag had never been found it doesn't change the fact the rifle was found on the 6th floor and matched to the physical evidence.

-------------------------------------------------

No idea how CE 139 was placed on the 6th floor. Do you know it was in the blanket on 21/11/1963? How?

JN-It is known it was no longer anywhere but on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

--------------------------------------------

LHO's palm print was on the rifle same as the bag.

How old was the palm print on CE 139? Why didn't the FBI find one when Day stated there were traces still on it?

A partial palm print on CE 142 doesn't indicate that Lee Harvey Oswald constructed it.


JN-It doesn't? What does it mean?

----------------------------

his rifle being on the 6th floor tells the story.

So if someone was going to "set up" Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination what would you leave up on the 6th floor? A rifle?


JN-I thought you did not believe there was a conspiracy. Studebaker was just making a bag for Day to use? Now LHO is being set up. These two thoughts don't mutually support each other.


-----------------------------




Cadigan explained why they did not show the bag. Give them credit for realizing an ID of a replica bag was silly and pointless.

Then why make one?

JN-To show The Paines and Marina to see if they remembered Lee having anything like it. Remember they never knew about a bag or ever claimed to have seen it.

----------------------------------


Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this is Commission Exhibit 364. It is a paper sack similar to Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School Book Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in Dallas to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit 142 was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and they thought that this would--it wouldn't be fair to the witness to ask "Did you see a bag like that?" So they went to the Texas School Book Depository and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was made December 1?
Mr. CADIGAN. December 1, of 1963.

Why wasnt anyone who saw a paper bag or loose paper or wrappings shown the unstained replica as a visual prompt?


JN-I think you have answered your own question if you just look at who was shown the bag and why.



-------------------------------------------------


Now, the WC DID use CE 364 (the replica bag)


Mr. JENNER - Exhibiting to you Commission Exhibit No. 364, is the wrapping paper that you have in your home as heavy as that?
Mrs. PAINE - I don't believe it is quite that heavy and it certainly isn't quite that long. Well, it could have been cut the otherway, couldn't it, possibly?

Mr. LIEBELER - I now show you Commission Exhibit 364 which is a replica of a sack which was prepared by authorities in Dallas, and I also show you another sack which is Commission Exhibit 142, and ask you if you have ever seen in or around your garage in Irving, Tex., any sacks similar to those?
Mr. PAINE - No; I haven't.

Note how your argument about why the replica paper bag wasnt shown to Biffle et al is blown out of the water:

JN-No how is it?

JN-He is talking to the Paines who never knew of the bags existence.



-----------------------


Mr. LIEBELER - I show you Commission Exhibit 364, which is a replica of a paper sack or package which was found in the School Book Depository, after the assassination. I point out to you that Commission 364 is merely a replica of the actual sack that was found. The actual sack that was found is Commission Exhibit 142, and it has now been discolored because it has been treated by the FBI for fingerprints.
Mr. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - But there is a part of the package that has not been treated, and I ask you if that part of 142 that has not been treated is similar to Commission Exhibit 364 as far as color and texture are concerned. I want you to examine both of these pieces of paper in any event.


What Belin and Ball did with EVERY other Detective (apart from Day) who saw and didn't see "a paper bag" was to withhold CE 142 and CE 364 from them.

JN-The reason was obvious.

Mr. THORNE. Exhibit 142 is some kraft paper, brown wrapping paper.
Mrs. OSWALD. It wasn't brown before.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see that before?
Mrs. OSWALD. The FBI questioned me about this paper, but I don't know--I have never seen it.
Mr. RANKIN. At one time it was kraft color, before they treated it to get fingerprints.
Did you ever see anything like that?
Mrs. OSWALD. Everybody sees such paper. But I didn't see that with Lee.
Mr. RANKIN. You have never seen anything like that around the house, then?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. We have wrapping paper around the house.
Mr. RANKIN. That Exhibit 142 is more than just wrapping paper. It was apparently made up into a sack or bag.
Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't see it.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see him make up a bag or sack or anything like that, to hold a rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 142, for identification.)

So looks like Marina was the first to see the stained CE 142 during her testimony.

The people who NEVER saw Lee Harvey Oswald with a paper bag (Ruth, Michael and Marina) were SHOWN the replica or a stained CE 142 and the Detectives who "saw" a paper bag on the 6th floor of the TSBD (apart from Day) were NOT.

You call this a thorough investigation seeking the "truth", Jack?

JN-Yes, it makes perfect sense to show people who never seen or knew of the bag if they had seen at anytime LHO possess something similar.

JN-Remember they were trying to conduct an investigation. You are conducting a witch hunt.


--------------------------------------------

Give them credit for realizing an ID of a replica bag was silly and pointless.

See above, Jack


======================================


The first question is obvious. You can answer that one for yourself.

The second question. Marina and the Paines said they had not see LHO with anything like the paper and the bag.  Mooney, Hill,  and Fritz is unknown.

 

"once upon a time"

Let me halt your own fairy tale right there Jack.

What is the importance for the proper documentation (including photography) of items considered to be crime scene evidence?

How do you know that CE 142 was considered crime scene evidence by either Day or Studebaker?

What is the importance for the proper conducting of interrogations by the presence of either a stenographer and/or a tape recorder?

Were the interrogations of Lee Harvey Oswald properly documented over the three days of questioning?

How do you know what was or wasnt shown to Lee Harvey Oswald during the interrogations?

If as you state there was no conspiracy intended then how then did everything in this story end up going so wrong from such an innocent begining.

I will give you a BIG hint Jack.

Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything, any print of any kind, in connection with the processing of this?
Mr. DAY. No legible prints were found with the powder, no.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether any legible prints were found by any other means or any other place?
Mr. DAY. There is a legible print on it now. They were on there when it was returned to me from the FBI on November 24.

Mr. BALL. You say you dusted it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. With that magnetic powders.
Mr. BALL. Did you lift any prints?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. There wasn't but just smudges on it - is all it was. There was one little ole piece of a print and I'm sure I put a piece of tape on it preserve it.
Mr. BALL. Well, then, there was a print that you found on it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes; just a partial print.
Mr. BALL. The print of a finger or palm or what?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. You couldn't tell, it was so small.
Mr. BALL. But you did dust it and lift some print?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, did you examine the outside of this paper bag----
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Exhibit 142 and also 626, to see if there were any foreign items on the suffice?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what did you find?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found that the bag had previously been dusted for latent fingerprints because I found traces of what appeared to be fingerprint powder on it. I was using white gloves at the time I examined this and the gloves became quite soiled from the fingerprint powder.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find anything else?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; nothing on the outside of the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. How did you conduct that examination, by the way?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. With a low-power microscope.

Strombaugh just proved Studebaker's recollections to be WRONG. There also was no mention of the three signatures by Studebaker, Montgomery and Johnson (right next to the right hand palm print) which I proved were not on the paper bag in the FBI crime lab photo of CE 142.


get the designation CE 142 with supposedly Fritz applied LHO finger and palm prints on it?

The paper bag was handed over to the FBI and it was the FBI that found the two partials AFTER Lee was interrogated by Fritz on 22/11/1963. The paper bag was also shown to BWF and LMR.

What happened to the bag seen by Biffle and the detectives Weatherford, Sims, Montgomery and Johnson which was thought by them to have held the rifle?

Where does it state that Biffle, Weatherford and Sims actually saw a 38 inch paper bag - folded or otherwise in the SE corner? Their descriptions are vague and contradictory. Maybe they should have been shown the bag they thought they saw? Before you wave your arms around - there WERE sections of the paper bag that were not stained to reveal the in situ colour of the paper.

Montgomery and Johnson ABSOLUTELY saw CE 142 - no dispute about that. Question is when? There is no time stamp when CE 142 was first seen by anyone. No one recorded it and it doesn't appear on a map drawn of the 6th floor. However CE 139 is on it, but not the paper container that some Detectives thought contained the rifle.

So, without speculating, what is the history of the paper bag before 3 pm when it was photographed outside the TSBD?

The recollections from testimony are vague, contradictory and for the most part non-collaborative.

The issue for Day, Studebaker, the WC and the FBI was the lack of an in situ photo as well as the lack of proper documentation of CE 142.

That is FACT not fairy tale.

The italics were a little rough. I cleaned it up a bit. A short summary

+Why would Day and Studebaker dust a bag you claimed Studebaker made while Day was standing there with the rifle?

+ Biffle , Weatherford, Montgomery all seen the bag before the rifle was found.



----------------------


"once upon a time"

Let me halt your own fairy tale right there Jack.

What is the importance for the proper documentation (including photography) of items considered to be crime scene evidence?

How do you know that CE 142 was considered crime scene evidence by either Day or Studebaker?

What is the importance for the proper conducting of interrogations by the presence of either a stenographer and/or a tape recorder?

Were the interrogations of Lee Harvey Oswald properly documented over the three days of questioning?

How do you know what was or wasnt shown to Lee Harvey Oswald during the interrogations?

If as you state there was no conspiracy intended then how then did everything in this story end up going so wrong from such an innocent begining.

I will give you a BIG hint Jack.

Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything, any print of any kind, in connection with the processing of this?
Mr. DAY. No legible prints were found with the powder, no.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether any legible prints were found by any other means or any other place?
Mr. DAY. There is a legible print on it now. They were on there when it was returned to me from the FBI on November 24.

Mr. BALL. You say you dusted it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. With that magnetic powders.
Mr. BALL. Did you lift any prints?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. There wasn't but just smudges on it - is all it was. There was one little ole piece of a print and I'm sure I put a piece of tape on it preserve it.
Mr. BALL. Well, then, there was a print that you found on it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes; just a partial print.
Mr. BALL. The print of a finger or palm or what?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. You couldn't tell, it was so small.
Mr. BALL. But you did dust it and lift some print?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, did you examine the outside of this paper bag----
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Exhibit 142 and also 626, to see if there were any foreign items on the suffice?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what did you find?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found that the bag had previously been dusted for latent fingerprints because I found traces of what appeared to be fingerprint powder on it. I was using white gloves at the time I examined this and the gloves became quite soiled from the fingerprint powder.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find anything else?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; nothing on the outside of the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. How did you conduct that examination, by the way?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. With a low-power microscope.

Strombaugh just proved Studebaker's recollections to be WRONG. There also was no mention of the three signatures by Studebaker, Montgomery and Johnson (right next to the right hand palm print) which I proved were not on the paper bag in the FBI crime lab photo of CE 142.


get the designation CE 142 with supposedly Fritz applied LHO finger and palm prints on it?

The paper bag was handed over to the FBI and it was the FBI that found the two partials AFTER Lee was interrogated by Fritz on 22/11/1963. The paper bag was also shown to BWF and LMR.

JN-Can you see the flaw in the thinking? So the bag that was innocently made by Studebaker, with Day watching while holding the rifle, is dusted by Studebaker and  Day for prints? Why would they do this if they made the bag?


-------------------------------------------------

What happened to the bag seen by Biffle and the detectives Weatherford, Sims, Montgomery and Johnson which was thought by them to have held the rifle?

Where does it state that Biffle, Weatherford and Sims actually saw a 38 inch paper bag - folded or otherwise in the SE corner? Their descriptions are vague and contradictory. Maybe they should have been shown the bag they thought they saw? Before you wave your arms around - there WERE sections of the paper bag that were not stained to reveal the in situ colour of the paper.

JN-Get real. They are going to guess the length of the bag in a statement of what they saw?


---------------------------------------------


Montgomery and Johnson ABSOLUTELY saw CE 142 - no dispute about that. Question is when? There is no time stamp when CE 142 was first seen by anyone. No one recorded it and it doesn't appear on a map drawn of the 6th floor. However CE 139 is on it, but not the paper container that some Detectives thought contained the rifle.

JN-No---Biffle seen the bag before the rifle was found. Weatherford seen the bag and left Mooney to watch before the rifle was found.  The rifle was found while Mooney was watching the SN up until Studebaker and Day arrived, which is before the rifle was found. Montgomery was watching the SN and seen the bag before the rifle was found. The whole basis for Studebaker making a bag was to protect the rifle as Day transported it. All these people seen the bag before the rifle was even found.

------------------------------------------------

So, without speculating, what is the history of the paper bag before 3 pm when it was photographed outside the TSBD?

JN-It is seen by Weatherford, Biffle, Montgomery before the rifle was found.

-----------------------------------------

The recollections from testimony are vague, contradictory and for the most part non-collaborative.

JN-No--that works both ways. With this form of logic people can never be believed no matter what the subject or what they are trying to relate.



------------------------------------


The issue for Day, Studebaker, the WC and the FBI was the lack of an in situ photo as well as the lack of proper documentation of CE 142.

That is FACT not fairy tale.


JN-No fact and a fairy tale usually has a point. This is turning into a rambling diatribe where the logical progression of the story does not flow from one thought to the next and one statement does not lead to or support the next. The premise offered was Studebaker innocently made a bag. That premise is never proven or for that matter ever stated again. A bag innocently made by Studebaker while Day was there holding the rifle would never have been dusted for prints by Studebaker and Day.