3 x 5 Index Card that is item # 14 On the List

[Dan O'meara]

I wasn't aware that plain brown wrapping paper came in shades that different.

Yes it does....There are many shades of "brown paper...   And there are several different weights of brown paper.

The photo seems to show a HEAVY weight ( thick) brown paper....  But Buell Frazier has always maintained that the brown paper sack that he saw on the rear seat of his car, was FLIMSY LIGHT WEIGHT brown paper.

He has not always maintained it "was FLIMSY LIGHT WEIGHT brown paper.

Mr. FRAZIER - Right. You have seen, not a real light color but you know normally, the normal color about the same color, you have seen these kinds of heavy duty bags you know like you obtain from the grocery store, something like that, about the same color of that, paper sack you get there.

Where does he say it was flimsy?

[Pat Speer]

No list was made on 11-22-63. The list on 24H260 was the list created on 11-26-63. And yes, it's been altered. The DPD sent two shells over on 11-26-63, and one later. Someone--it's not clear who--then changed the inventory list to reflect that three shells were sent over. Perhaps they knew there had been three and had assumed the two was a mistake.

In any event, if the goal had been to fool someone, they failed. The WC sent the FBI out to talk to Fritz Sims and Day and filed numerous reports explaining how it came to be that only two of the three shells were sent to Washington on the 22nd and 26th.

[Walt Cakebread]

No list was made on 11-22-63. The list on 24H260 was the list created on 11-26-63. And yes, it's been altered. The DPD sent two shells over on 11-26-63, and one later. Someone--it's not clear who--then changed the inventory list to reflect that three shells were sent over. Perhaps they knew there had been three and had assumed the two was a mistake.

In any event, if the goal had been to fool someone, they failed. The WC sent the FBI out to talk to Fritz Sims and Day and filed numerous reports explaining how it came to be that only two of the three shells were sent to Washington on the 22nd and 26th.

No list was made on 11-22-63.

Is this position realistic??

[Pat Speer]

No list was made on 11-22-63.

Is this position realistic??

I tend to accept the official story when it smells to high heaven.

The official story holds that the DPD released a number of items to the FBI on 11-22-63 without making a list or receiving a signed receipt. The FBI subsequently discussed these items in Airtels and made a report on these items but no signed list was ever discussed or produced. There is a note on one of the DPD crime lab reports that some of the items were released to Vince Drain that evening, but this is not a complete list of what was supposedly released.

But one of the problems exposed by this mess is the palm print reportedly cut from Box D, the seat box. This was reportedly removed from the box on the afternoon of the 22nd, and verified as Oswald's print that evening. And yet this print was not sent to the FBI for verification that evening. Nor was it photographed in situ in the building. Nor was it photographed at the DPD that evening. Nor is there  an 11-22-63 DPD report in which this verification is noted. There is simply a claim that they removed it from a box found in the sniper's nest, and that it matched Oswald's palm print. I must admit I'm a skeptic.

[Walt Cakebread]

I tend to accept the official story when it smells to high heaven.

The official story holds that the DPD released a number of items to the FBI on 11-22-63 without making a list or receiving a signed receipt. The FBI subsequently discussed these items in Airtels and made a report on these items but no signed list was ever discussed or produced. There is a note on one of the DPD crime lab reports that some of the items were released to Vince Drain that evening, but this is not a complete list of what was supposedly released.

But one of the problems exposed by this mess is the palm print reportedly cut from Box D, the seat box. This was reportedly removed from the box on the afternoon of the 22nd, and verified as Oswald's print that evening. And yet this print was not sent to the FBI for verification that evening. Nor was it photographed in situ in the building. Nor was it photographed at the DPD that evening. Nor is there  an 11-22-63 DPD report in which this verification is noted. There is simply a claim that they removed it from a box found in the sniper's nest, and that it matched Oswald's palm print. I must admit I'm a skeptic.

I've posted about this,, and expressed my views, until I'm tired of talking about it....   I believe that the original evidence list  as typed up to accompany the photos of the evidence....  The photos show only two spent rifle shells and that's what is listed on the original list.    Later when the FBI were working a shell game and they returned the evidence to the DPD the DPD simply altered a photo copy of that original evidence list.   The altered photo copy even states that the .38 cal pistol was released to the FBI on 11-22-63 and it was released again on 11-26-63.  The entry on the original list simply said:... 1 --..38 cal pistol 2" barrel.   And furthermore ....On the night of the murder the DPD didn't know anything about the rifle ....They only knew that it was a 6.5mm rifle of Italian manufacture....and that's how it was described on the original list for 11-22-63.  They learned later that the rifle was a "Carcano Carbine" which they added to the altered photocopy on 11-26-63.   

[John Iacoletti]

He has not always maintained it "was FLIMSY LIGHT WEIGHT brown paper.

Mr. FRAZIER - Right. You have seen, not a real light color but you know normally, the normal color about the same color, you have seen these kinds of heavy duty bags you know like you obtain from the grocery store, something like that, about the same color of that, paper sack you get there.

Where does he say it was flimsy?

Note that all he says here is that it was the same color as the heavy duty bags, not that it was itself a heavy duty bag.

The "flimsy" characterization comes from this Anderton memo of 11/22.

[Walt Cakebread]

Note that all he says here is that it was the same color as the heavy duty bags, not that it was itself a heavy duty bag.

The "flimsy" characterization comes from this Anderton memo of 11/22.

I can't access the memo....  But I know that Frazier has said many times that the paper bag that he saw was made from FLIMSY (light weight ) paper