Rolling Readers & Murdered Leaders

[John Mytton]

They obviously think it’s evidence.......fail to photograph in place. Then remove from the building upside down and contaminating the inside with something. Are they trying to get all those fibres out before the FBI can check?

As for the window strip. You need to ask which one was originally removed. The left or right. Which way did the cops in the SN believe the assassin fired before 3 pm? Facing towards the underpass or towards Houston?

They obviously think it’s evidence.......fail to photograph in place. Then remove from the building upside down and contaminating the inside with something. Are they trying to get all those fibres out before the FBI can check?

Geez Colin, it's easy to take weak jabs at Policing from over half a century ago but how does any of that change the fact that 6 Police Officers testified to seeing a long Paper bag with Oswald's prints right next a large box which also had Oswald's fingerprints, how much evidence do you need??

JohnM

[Colin Crow]

Geez Colin, it's easy to take weak jabs at Policing from over half a century ago but how does any of that change the fact that 6 Police Officers testified to seeing a long Paper bag with Oswald's prints right next a large box which also had Oswald's fingerprints, how much evidence do you need??

JohnM

Sorry to evoke gravity John but Richard Smith felt it appropriate to "use the force" to explain how an unsealed paper bag end could be folded so that an 8 lb rifle could be contained during transport. Had the Dallas police never heard of it?

Weak jabs eh....seems the process of photographing evidence in place was known to Studebaker, he did do that for the other pieces of evidence didn’t he? Shells, rifle, lunch sacks, pop bottles and boxes. There is even news film of some of these being dusted but no bag. Why not the wrapper that all felt so strongly was used to transport a rifle? He even dusted it for prints didn’t he? Found a partial print and taped it, right.

Or we getting our bags confused? Perhaps the long sack was made to hold the rifle and the rifle had actually been inside. Made from materials on the first floor just like the FBI determined. When was it made? When it was in the SN were Oswald's prints on it? It was taken to HQ at 3pm and locked away until given to Vince Drain wasn’t it? No one else saw it according to the documentation. Oh, except for Buell Frazier, just before Drain took it. No one else though. After all, the police wouldn’t confront the accused with material evidence would they.

[Richard Smith]

Sorry to evoke gravity John but Richard Smith felt it appropriate to "use the force" to explain how an unsealed paper bag end could be folded so that an 8 lb rifle could be contained during transport. Had the Dallas police never heard of it?

Weak jabs eh....seems the process of photographing evidence in place was known to Studebaker, he did do that for the other pieces of evidence didn’t he? Shells, rifle, lunch sacks, pop bottles and boxes. There is even news film of some of these being dusted but no bag. Why not the wrapper that all felt so strongly was used to transport a rifle? He even dusted it for prints didn’t he? Found a partial print and taped it, right.

Or we getting our bags confused? Perhaps the long sack was made to hold the rifle and the rifle had actually been inside. Made from materials on the first floor just like the FBI determined. When was it made? When it was in the SN were Oswald's prints on it? It was taken to HQ at 3pm and locked away until given to Vince Drain wasn’t it? No one else saw it according to the documentation. Oh, except for Buell Frazier, just before Drain took it. No one else though. After all, the police wouldn’t confront the accused with material evidence would they.

If you believe Oswald was framed, what difference would it make had the bag been photographed?  The rifle and shells were photographed and CTers still believe those were planted.  I'm not sure how photographing the bag moves the ball or how not photographing it makes any difference.  It's difficult to also understand what is being suggested.   That Oswald didn't carry a long bag that day?  That Frazier lied about this for some unknown reason.  That the conspirators/police behind the frame up of Oswald forgot to plant it, but then it suddenly occurred to them after months or years of planning.  And that they constructed one and somehow got six DPD members to lie about it but for some reason couldn't photograph it on the 6th floor?  That counter narrative doesn't add up to anything plausible. It's grasping at straws. We will never know for certain why it wasn't photographed.  My best guess is that the authorities were not initially looking for a bag or paying it much attention.  The floor was full of stuff.  They are looking for a gun, shells, a suspect.  It takes them a while to link the bag to the assassin.  Maybe it gets moved around during the search etc.  Memories get confused because they didn't take much notice, it gets moved, some notice it but others do not.  Who knows?  The fact remains that Oswald carried a long bag, this is the only such bag found, it has Oswald's prints on it, it is located next to the SN.  I don't think it takes Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots.  The implication, however, that it was planted necessitates a wildly implausible scenario.

[Gary Craig]

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=40395&relPageId=86

Lillian Mooneyham
a.Dallas County clerk watching motorcade from Judge King's windows on the second floor, southwest corner, Criminal
Courts Building, with Mrs. Rose Clark and Jeanette hooker.
b.Heard three shots(?)
c.Heard first shot;saw President slump; thought it was Firecracker.
d.Second and third shots were closer together.
e.Saw Mrs. Kennedy climb on back of car.
f.Mooneyham went Judge Hyer's windows on the third floor of Records Building.
g.People running to pergola.
h.41/2 to 5 minutes after shots she sees man standing behind some boxes on the 6th floor, TSBD.

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

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=69117

"The panel studied two photographs taken within minutes of the assassination. While no human face or form could be detected
in the sixth floor southeast window, the panel was able to conclude that a stack of boxes had been rearranged during the
interval of the taking of the two photographs."

 

[Martin Weidmann]

If you believe Oswald was framed, what difference would it make had the bag been photographed?  The rifle and shells were photographed and CTers still believe those were planted.  I'm not sure how photographing the bag moves the ball or how not photographing it makes any difference.  It's difficult to also understand what is being suggested.   That Oswald didn't carry a long bag that day?  That Frazier lied about this for some unknown reason.  That the conspirators/police behind the frame up of Oswald forgot to plant it, but then it suddenly occurred to them after months or years of planning.  And that they constructed one and somehow got six DPD members to lie about it but for some reason couldn't photograph it on the 6th floor?  That counter narrative doesn't add up to anything plausible. It's grasping at straws. We will never know for certain why it wasn't photographed.  My best guess is that the authorities were not initially looking for a bag or paying it much attention.  The floor was full of stuff.  They are looking for a gun, shells, a suspect.  It takes them a while to link the bag to the assassin.  Maybe it gets moved around during the search etc.  Memories get confused because they didn't take much notice, it gets moved, some notice it but others do not.  Who knows?  The fact remains that Oswald carried a long bag, this is the only such bag found, it has Oswald's prints on it, it is located next to the SN.  I don't think it takes Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots.  The implication, however, that it was planted necessitates a wildly implausible scenario.

The implication, however, that it was planted necessitates a wildly implausible scenario.

Planted by whom? Don't you first need to determine that before you dismiss it als a "wildly implausible scenario"?

[Richard Smith]

The implication, however, that it was planted necessitates a wildly implausible scenario.

Planted by whom? Don't you first need to determine that before you dismiss it als a "wildly implausible scenario"?

No.  The implications of the bag being planted necessitate an implausible alternative chain of events regardless of "who" was responsible.  And it is difficult to understand how anyone other than the DPD could have been responsible for planting the bag since they are the ones who controlled the crime scene, claimed to have seen it next to the SN, recovered it, and found Oswald's prints on it.  Are you saying someone else could have done all that?  The bag is photographed coming out of the building shortly after 2PM.  So who else had access and control of the evidence within the TSBD to do all that before the bag emerges at that time?

[Martin Weidmann]

No.  The implications of the bag being planted necessitate an implausible alternative chain of events regardless of "who" was responsible.  And it is difficult to understand how anyone other than the DPD could have been responsible for planting the bag since they are the ones who controlled the crime scene, claimed to have seen it next to the SN, recovered it, and found Oswald's prints on it.  Are you saying someone else could have done all that?  The bag is photographed coming out of the building shortly after 2PM.  So who else had access and control of the evidence within the TSBD to do all that before the bag emerges at that time?

Are you saying someone else could have done all that?

I don't know. You seem to believe only the DPD could have done it. I'm not so sure. The bag they allegedly found was made from materials common to the TSBD. For all we know, it could have been on the 6th floor for days and Oswald, just like others, could have touched it there. After all, it was a location where he and others worked and there were unidentifiable prints on the bag as well, right?

[Colin Crow]

No.  The implications of the bag being planted necessitate an implausible alternative chain of events regardless of "who" was responsible.  And it is difficult to understand how anyone other than the DPD could have been responsible for planting the bag since they are the ones who controlled the crime scene, claimed to have seen it next to the SN, recovered it, and found Oswald's prints on it.  Are you saying someone else could have done all that?  The bag is photographed coming out of the building shortly after 2PM.  So who else had access and control of the evidence within the TSBD to do all that before the bag emerges at that time?

Who is claiming the bag was planted?

I think we can agree the crime scene was less than securely controlled.

We have a number of police officers documented to have found it.....surely it can only be one. I believe Montgomery gets that nod.

They did not find Oswald's prints on the bag. That was the FBI on the 23rd.

The bag came out at 3pm.

Can you give us an idea when (approximately) it was discovered?