Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Who constructed CE 142 - Lee Harvey Oswald or a Detective from the DP?  (Read 72962 times)

Online Tony Fratini

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1445
  • Mr. FRITZ. I wasn't there when that was recovered.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What exactly do they think links the "assassination weapon" to the bag?

Nothing. But that didn't dissuade the FBI nor the WC.

They had no choice nor alternatives to how CE 139 was brought into the TSBD. It was by Lee in CE 142 on 22/11/1963. No matter that no one saw Lee with either item.

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2687
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nothing.

So the WCR is outright lying about that.

Online Tony Fratini

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1445
  • Mr. FRITZ. I wasn't there when that was recovered.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So the WCR is outright lying about that.

John,

here is the WC testimony:

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.

This meant that Cadigan could not associated CE 139 with CE 142 but.....

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.

This meant that Cadigan could not associated CE 139 with CE 142 but.....

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----

This meant that Cadigan could not associated CE 139 with CE 142 but.....

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.

This meant that Cadigan could not associated CE 139 with CE 142 but was unwilling to admit that to the WC otherwise it would destroy a central tenet that Lee brought in CE 139 in CE 142

It was clear that neither the FBI nor the WC were aware that Detective Montgomery had placed a thin flat object into CE 142 that could have left the scratch marks present inside CE 142.

What did the WR state?

Conclusion The preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) told the curtain rod story to Frazier to explain both the return to Irving on a Thursday and the obvious bulk of the package which he intended to bring to work the next day; (2) took paper and tape from the wrapping bench of the Depository and fashioned a bag large enough to carry the disassembled rifle; (3) removed the rifle from the blanket in the Paines' garage on Thursday evening; (4) carried the rifle into the Depository Building, concealed in the bag; and, (5) left the bag alongside the window from which the shots were fired.

Commission, Warren; House Select Committee on Assassinations; Assassination Records Review Board; U.S. Government. Complete Guide to the 1963 JFK Assassination: The Full Text of Three Major Reports - Warren Commission, House Select Committee, and the Assassination Records Review Board - President John F. Kennedy (Kindle Locations 2567-2572). Progressive Management. Kindle Edition.

The WC did not prove 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

So as long as one could fashion a speculative story, one didn't need hard evidence at all.

Partials on CE 142 did not mean Lee constructed CE 142.

Online Tony Fratini

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1445
  • Mr. FRITZ. I wasn't there when that was recovered.
Who had accused Jack Edwin Dougherty of being a co-conspirator and the potential manufacturer of CE 142?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

reference to JED

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Zeon Mason

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
If Oswald constructed the bag, to use as a rifle bag, to be able to carry rifle in to TSBD, with purpose`of using rifle to shoot JFK, one has to wonder what kind of stimulus could have compelled Oswald to utterly abandon his previous hopeful thoughts of reunion with his wife and children, in favor of becoming obsessively compulsed and fixated on shooting JFK?

The fact that at the very least, paper and tape had to have been taken on Thursday afternoon, thus BEFORE, Oswald has any knowledge of the impending rejection he will be receiving from Marina later, then "rejection" cannot be the stimulus.


So back to motive. What is Oswalds motive? He wants to shoot JFK, and then spend a nice weekend with wife and children?


Or did Oswald just go home on Thursday, since he hadnt been able to see wife and children for almost 2 weeks, and he was rejected, so he got some item or items from Paines garage that Thursday night to take back to his boarding room, after returning to work on Friday morning, with BW Frazier?














« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 04:42:42 PM by Zeon Mason »

JFK Assassination Forum


Online Tony Fratini

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1445
  • Mr. FRITZ. I wasn't there when that was recovered.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If Oswald constructed the bag, to use as a rifle bag, to be able to carry rifle in to TSBD, with purpose`of using rifle to shoot JFK, one has to wonder what kind of stimulus could have compelled Oseald to utterly abandon his previous hopeful thoughts of reunion with his wife and children, in favor of becoming obsessively compulsed and fixated on shooting JFK?

The fact that at the very least, paper and tape had to have been taken on Thursday afternoon, thus BEFORE, Oswald has any knowledge of the impending rejection he will be receiveing from Marina later, then that cannot be the stimulus.

It seems quie a contradiction for Oswald, on the one hand, having hopeful anticipation, and therefore, pleasant thoughts of children and wife for possibly 3 day weekend, and the other, suddenly, becoming  fixated on shooting JFK, just from having read a Tues or Wed paper of the motorcade route coincidentally passing by Oswalds place of work.

I agree - it makes no sense at all.

It would have been a very high risk strategy to assume the rifle was still in the garage and then not to arouse the suspicion of being caught in the garage with a rifle in his hands.

As it was, no one saw Lee with either a paper bag nor entering the garage at any time.


Online Michael Capasse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If Oswald constructed the bag, to use as a rifle bag, to be able to carry rifle in to TSBD, with purpose`of using rifle to shoot JFK, one has to wonder what kind of stimulus could have compelled Oseald to utterly abandon his previous hopeful thoughts of reunion with his wife and children, in favor of becoming obsessively compulsed and fixated on shooting JFK?

The fact that at the very least, paper and tape had to have been taken on Thursday afternoon, thus BEFORE, Oswald has any knowledge of the impending rejection he will be receiving from Marina later, then that cannot be the stimulus.

It seems quite a contradiction for Oswald, on the one hand, having had hopeful anticipation, and therefore, pleasant thoughts of children and wife for possibly 3 day weekend, to suddenly, becoming  fixated on shooting JFK, just from having read a Tues or Wed paper of the motorcade route coincidentally passing by Oswalds place of work.

excellent points Zeon...

Mr. TRULY
I would speak to him in the morning when I would come through, and I would say, "Good morning, Lee," and he would say, "Good morning, sir."
I would ask him how he was. Occasionally I would ask about his baby, and he would usually smile a big smile when I asked him how his new baby was. And that was just about the extent of my conversation that I can remember with the boy.

Online Tony Fratini

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1445
  • Mr. FRITZ. I wasn't there when that was recovered.
Did any neighbor of Ruth Paine or LMR see Lee Harvey Oswald with a paper bag on the morning of 22/11/1963?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

We know LMR's mother didn't.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

As was so typical - reports were left ambiguous:(

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 888
Forgive me, Tony.  I haven't been following this thread too closely.  How do you explain Lee Oswald's prints being found on the bag?

Using silver nitrates (standard chemical method), the FBI lab developed one palmprint and one fingerprint on the bag.

According to Sebastian Latona (Supervisor, Latent Fingerprint Section, FBI), the fingerprint was the left index finger of Lee Oswald and the palmprint was the right palm of Oswald.

Was Latona wrong or lying?

« Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 03:19:24 PM by Bill Brown »

Online Tony Fratini

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1445
  • Mr. FRITZ. I wasn't there when that was recovered.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Forgive me, Tony.  I haven't been following this thread too closely.  How do you explain Lee Oswald's prints being found on the bag?

Using silver nitrates (standard chemical method), the FBI lab developed one palmprint and one fingerprint on the bag.

According to Sebastian Latona (Supervisor, Latent Fingerprint Section, FBI), the fingerprint was the left index finger of Lee Oswald and the palmprint was the right palm of Oswald.

Was Latona wrong or lying?

Hi Bill,

If the partial prints were Lee's does that imply he constructed CE 142 or had merely handled it at some stage?

Who saw Lee with CE 142?

I believe that Captain Fritz had shown and challenged Lee with CE 142 during an interrogation session on 22/11/1963. As a result of Lee denying that he knew anything about the paper bag as well as the curtain rod story, BWF and his sister were called back to City Hall that evening. This is where l also believe Fritz directly accused BWF as being a co conspirator and challenged him with CE 142.

Neither BWF (during his polygraph) and LMR IDed an unstained CE 142 as being the paper bag in Lee's possession that morning.

What is of importance was the Fritz never saw CE 142 in situ at the TSBD so how was he aware of both the size and shape of it to challenge Lee with it?

As you are aware - no one, at any stage, saw Lee with any paper, tape, paper bag or package containing a weapon.

The paper bag/curtain rod story came from BWF and his sister. Keep in mind, that there may never had been a paper bag in Lee's possession in the first place.

It would be interesting to see what the questioned neighbors by the FBI did in fact see that morning because a 38 inch x 8.5 inch paper bag was something that can not be hidden.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 12:13:28 AM by Tony Fratini »

JFK Assassination Forum