The Brown Paper Bag

[Michael Capasse]

  Still, no reason to think the rifle was ever broken down and put into that bag.

[John Corbett]

Still, no reason to think the rifle was ever broken down and put into that bag.

No reason? Seriously? If you were Oswald and you had made a 38 inch bag to conceal your rifle and then discovered your rifle was 40 inches long, not the 36 inch rifle you had ordered, what would you do at that point?

We know for fact that the rifle had been disassembled and handled by Oswald because that is the only way his palm print could have been placed on the underside of the barrel. Oswald's palmprints were on both the rifle and the bag, proof positive that he had handled both. The presence of the fibers on the bag that matched his rifle blanket are prima facie evidence that the bag was used to hold the rifle.

Conspiracy hobbyists taken the ridiculous position that every piece of evidence must be 100% conclusive to be probative and accepted. That is absurd not just in this case but in all cases. Prosecutors base their cases on an accumulation of evidence that is probative but rarely 100% conclusive by itself. There will always be possible alternative explanations for any given piece of evidence but that does not take away from the probative value of the evidence.

I haven't bothered to count them but Vincent Bugliosi identified over 50 pieces of evidence that indicated Oswald was the assassin. Not one of these pieces of evidence is conclusive by itself of Oswald's guilt, but taken collectively, they leave no doubt. When the most likely explanation for any one piece of evidence is that Oswald is guilty, there is no reasonable argument for his innocence when you have that many pieces pointing to his guilt.

In the past, I've drawn an analogy to a jigsaw puzzle. No one piece of the puzzle can tell us what the picture looks like, but the pieces of the puzzle can only fit together one way. When we put the pieces of evidence together, the picture unmistakenly presented is that Oswald was the assassin. It is the only way the individual pieces will fit together. We might have a few missing pieces, such as where to the missed shot go and what did it hit. The biggest missing piece is Oswald's motive. That we will never know for sure, but we can still get a very clear picture of what happened without that piece. Conspiracy hobbyists never want to put the pieces of the puzzle together. They look at one piece and say it doesn't look like anything. Of course it doesn't until you put it together with the other pieces and then the picture becomes crystal clear.

[Michael Capasse]

No reason? Seriously? If you were Oswald and you had made a 38 inch bag to conceal your rifle and then discovered your rifle was 40 inches long, not the 36 inch rifle you had ordered, what would you do at that point?

We know for fact that the rifle had been disassembled and handled by Oswald because that is the only way his palm print could have been placed on the underside of the barrel. Oswald's palmprints were on both the rifle and the bag, proof positive that he had handled both. The presence of the fibers on the bag that matched his rifle blanket are prima facie evidence that the bag was used to hold the rifle.

Conspiracy hobbyists taken the ridiculous position that every piece of evidence must be 100% conclusive to be probative and accepted. That is absurd not just in this case but in all cases. Prosecutors base their cases on an accumulation of evidence that is probative but rarely 100% conclusive by itself. There will always be possible alternative explanations for any given piece of evidence but that does not take away from the probative value of the evidence.

I haven't bothered to count them but Vincent Bugliosi identified over 50 pieces of evidence that indicated Oswald was the assassin. Not one of these pieces of evidence is conclusive by itself of Oswald's guilt, but taken collectively, they leave no doubt. When the most likely explanation for any one piece of evidence is that Oswald is guilty, there is no reasonable argument for his innocence when you have that many pieces pointing to his guilt.

In the past, I've drawn an analogy to a jigsaw puzzle. No one piece of the puzzle can tell us what the picture looks like, but the pieces of the puzzle can only fit together one way. When we put the pieces of evidence together, the picture unmistakenly presented is that Oswald was the assassin. It is the only way the individual pieces will fit together. We might have a few missing pieces, such as where to the missed shot go and what did it hit. The biggest missing piece is Oswald's motive. That we will never know for sure, but we can still get a very clear picture of what happened without that piece. Conspiracy hobbyists never want to put the pieces of the puzzle together. They look at one piece and say it doesn't look like anything. Of course it doesn't until you put it together with the other pieces and then the picture becomes crystal clear.

Blah Blah Blah.
There is no mistaking this rifle for curtain rods and there is no way to carry it without looking like a fishing pole, baseball bat or a RIFLE.
Frazier did not see a rifle.

[John Corbett]

Blah Blah Blah.
There is no mistaking this rifle for curtain rods and there is no way to carry it without looking like a fishing pole, baseball bat or a RIFLE.
Frazier did not see a rifle.

Of course Frazier did not see a rifle. That's why Oswald made the bag so neither Frazier nor anybody else could see the rifle. Did you really need me to explain this to you.

[Michael Capasse]

Of course Frazier did not see a rifle. That's why Oswald made the bag so neither Frazier nor anybody else could see the rifle. Did you really need me to explain this to you.

The rifle will not fit under his arm.
  Did you really need me to explain this to you?

[Martin Weidmann]

No reason? Seriously? If you were Oswald and you had made a 38 inch bag to conceal your rifle and then discovered your rifle was 40 inches long, not the 36 inch rifle you had ordered, what would you do at that point?

We know for fact that the rifle had been disassembled and handled by Oswald because that is the only way his palm print could have been placed on the underside of the barrel. Oswald's palmprints were on both the rifle and the bag, proof positive that he had handled both. The presence of the fibers on the bag that matched his rifle blanket are prima facie evidence that the bag was used to hold the rifle.

Conspiracy hobbyists taken the ridiculous position that every piece of evidence must be 100% conclusive to be probative and accepted. That is absurd not just in this case but in all cases. Prosecutors base their cases on an accumulation of evidence that is probative but rarely 100% conclusive by itself. There will always be possible alternative explanations for any given piece of evidence but that does not take away from the probative value of the evidence.

I haven't bothered to count them but Vincent Bugliosi identified over 50 pieces of evidence that indicated Oswald was the assassin. Not one of these pieces of evidence is conclusive by itself of Oswald's guilt, but taken collectively, they leave no doubt. When the most likely explanation for any one piece of evidence is that Oswald is guilty, there is no reasonable argument for his innocence when you have that many pieces pointing to his guilt.

In the past, I've drawn an analogy to a jigsaw puzzle. No one piece of the puzzle can tell us what the picture looks like, but the pieces of the puzzle can only fit together one way. When we put the pieces of evidence together, the picture unmistakenly presented is that Oswald was the assassin. It is the only way the individual pieces will fit together. We might have a few missing pieces, such as where to the missed shot go and what did it hit. The biggest missing piece is Oswald's motive. That we will never know for sure, but we can still get a very clear picture of what happened without that piece. Conspiracy hobbyists never want to put the pieces of the puzzle together. They look at one piece and say it doesn't look like anything. Of course it doesn't until you put it together with the other pieces and then the picture becomes crystal clear.

The presence of the fibers on the bag that matched his rifle blanket are prima facie evidence that the bag was used to hold the rifle.

This is probably the best reason to not engage any further with this guy. Recently he has been schooled several times about the fact that it is not possible to match fibers with a particular item. Even worse, he has been shown an evidence photo showing the bag and the blanket next to each other with a high risk of cross contamination. And yet, still here he is again spewing the same old crap again.

I get it! I really do! His bible, the WC report tells him that fibers found on or in the bag matched the blanket from Ruth Paine's garage, so he has no choice. He has to blindly accept and follow what the cult book tells him. No sign of an independent or original thought, no critical thinking, just regurgitating the same BS over and over again.

Trying to have a normal conversation with this guy is a complete waste of time.