The Brown Paper Bag

[John Corbett]

presumptuous GARBAGE.
No one has made any claim of identical fibers.

If I'm on a jury... and Defense shows me the picture of the mouth of that bag in contact with the blanket
Or show me that picture of the officer wearing a jacket with his hand up inside that bag....

I reject the fiber evidence as an exact match by the rifle having been in the bag.

This is why we sometimes get hung juries. All the defense needs is one juror who lacks common sense.

[Zeon Mason]

The Brown Paper Bag

I’ve only been able to find CE 142 photo of the bag after it was processed by Latona using the silver nitrate and I can’t see any indication that the open end was ever twisted around the barrel like Dan Rathers bag appears.

There is a CE 626 photo somewhere. Is that a photo of the bag BEFORE the bag got darkened and did it have a palm print in the middle of the bag or was the photo I saw a  Toni Fratini and or an Alan Ford fake photo?

The way Dan Rather carried the package as he walked away , it can’t even be seen BETWEEN his arm and body . Nor  can  the package be seen in the palm of his right hand.

On the other hand when BW Fraziers demonstrated with a bag that is shorter and the top of bag wedged under armpit and bottom in his palm of right hand, it is EASY to see the bag between his arm and body and EASY to see the bottom of the package in the palm of his hand as he walks away.

IDK about Frazier. But I noticed the protruding upper part of the package beyond Dan Rathers shoulder even though it was twisted.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is why we sometimes get hung juries. All the defense needs is one juror who lacks common sense.

one juror who lacks common sense.

You mean a juror who isn't as easily fooled as you are.

Even the possibility of cross contamination alone reduces the evidentiary value of a piece of evidence to a bare minimum. You don't have to like it, but there it is.

[Martin Weidmann]

To believe that the bag found on the 6th floor was the one Oswald carried to the TSBD with a rifle in it on Friday morning, you have to believe;

- There was indeed a rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63
- Oswald figured he needed a paper bag despite the fact that he had far less conspicious duffel bags at Ruth Paine's garage.
- Oswald made the bag at the wrapping department of the TSBD on Thursday afternoon without being seen or being missed from his job on the 6th floor.
- Then he folded the bag and concealed it on his person in such a way that Frazier did not see it.
- Then he took it to Ruth Paine's house and hid it there until the next.
- At some point in time he dismantled the rifle, without anybody noticing, and put the individual pieces in the bag which he now had unfolded. And all that without leaving even one scratch on the inside of the bag.
- Then he carried the bag to Frazier's car and placed it on the back seat.
-  Upon arrival at the TSBD car park, he picked up the package and placed it in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. It was at this time when he left one single parcial print on the package.
- He then took it up to the 6th floor, hid it there somewhere, until he needed the rifle. He then took out the pieces of the weapon and put it together again.
- After that he did not decide to dispose of the bag No, instead he folded it up and allegedly left it in the corner of the sniper's nest.

All that with leaving only one partial print! Go figure.

But there is more;

On Friday evening Detective R.D. Lewis ran a polygraph of Buell Wesley Frazier and found he was being truthful. While being polygraphed Frazier was shown the 6th floor bag and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry, which he described as a crickly brown paper sack. In his FD 302, FBI Vincent E. Drain writes, on 11/29/63, that the DPD is of the opinion that the 6th floor bag was used by Oswald to carry the rifle in. Drain concludes that the paper referred by Lewis is not a gun case at all!

So, you also have to believe that Frazier somehow managed to fool the polygraph and went against the wishes of Day and Fritz to identify the heavy duty paper bag. Not only did he do so while he was still considered to be a suspect but also had no reason to lie about the bag he had seen. At that point in time Frazier wouldn't even be able to know what the significance of the paper bag would be in the future.

Oh, btw, according to the same report by Drain, Lt Day said that the paper sack of the type described by Frazier was not recovered by the Police Department. It's possible, but improbable, that it was recovered by the Homicide Bureau. If so, they do not know anything about it in the Crime Laboratory of the Dallas Police Department. In other words, Day hasn't got a clue what happened or could have happend to the (how Frazier described it, according to Day) "thin, flimsy, sack like the one purchased in a dime store"

Now, I would love to read the LN explanation(s) for the above.


How did Oswald handle that paper bag as described and manage to only leave on partial print?
And how did Frazier manage to fool the polygraph and why would he lie (the polygraph said he told the truth) about the bag he had seen?

[John Corbett]

To believe that the bag found on the 6th floor was the one Oswald carried to the TSBD with a rifle in it on Friday morning, you have to believe;

- There was indeed a rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63

That's easy. Will these get harder as we go?

- Oswald figured he needed a paper bag despite the fact that he had far less conspicious duffel bags at Ruth Paine's garage.

Why would you second guess Oswald's successful choice?
- Oswald made the bag at the wrapping department of the TSBD on Thursday afternoon without being seen or being missed from his job on the 6th floor.

It could have been anytime that week but Thursday seems the most likely. He could have made it during the lunch break or any time he knew the wrapping station would be unattended.

- Then he folded the bag and concealed it on his person in such a way that Frazier did not see it.

The bag had creases in it so we know it was folded. It could easily have been tucked in his jacket without Frazier seeing it. Had it been discovered, he could have just told Frazier it was for the curtain rods he was going to get.

- Then he took it to Ruth Paine's house and hid it there until the next.

I'm guessing you meant to say until the next morning. We don't know what time he put the rifle in the bag but if it was me, I wouldn't have waited until the last minute. I would have done it the night before after everyone went to bed.

- At some point in time he dismantled the rifle, without anybody noticing, and put the individual pieces in the bag which he now had unfolded. And all that without leaving even one scratch on the inside of the bag.

None of that would have been difficult

- Then he carried the bag to Frazier's car and placed it on the back seat.

Yup.

-  Upon arrival at the TSBD car park, he picked up the package and placed it in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. It was at this time when he left one single parcial print on the package.

It's never been established the top of the bag was tucked under his armpit.

- He then took it up to the 6th floor, hid it there somewhere, until he needed the rifle. He then took out the pieces of the weapon and put it together again.
- After that he did not decide to dispose of the bag No, instead he folded it up and allegedly left it in the corner of the sniper's nest.

So?

All that with leaving only one partial print! Go figure.

But there is more;

On Friday evening Detective R.D. Lewis ran a polygraph of Buell Wesley Frazier and found he was being truthful. While being polygraphed Frazier was shown the 6th floor bag and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry, which he described as a crickly brown paper sack. In his FD 302, FBI Vincent E. Drain writes, on 11/29/63, that the DPD is of the opinion that the 6th floor bag was used by Oswald to carry the rifle in. Drain concludes that the paper referred by Lewis is not a gun case at all!

A polygraph can indicate if a person is saying something he knows to be untrue. It measures stress through blood pressure, breathing rate, and a galvanic skit response. If he person believes he is telling the truth, even if he is wrong, there's no reason to think he will show stress.

So, you also have to believe that Frazier somehow managed to fool the polygraph

See above. For Frazier to pass the polygraph, he only had to fool himself which he apparently did.
[quote[
 and went against the wishes of Day and Fritz to identify the heavy duty paper bag. Not only did he do so while he was still considered to be a suspect but also had no reason to lie about the bag he had seen. At that point in time Frazier wouldn't even be able to know what the significance of the paper bag would be in the future.

Exactly which is why we wouldn't expect Frazier to show any stress if he BELIEVED he was telling the truth.

I took a polygraph as a condition for employment once. I was asked a number of mundane questions to establish a baseline for my anxiety level. A polygraph shows spikes in the stress level when a person knowingly lies.

Oh, btw, according to the same report by Drain, Lt Day said that the paper sack of the type described by Frazier was not recovered by the Police Department. It's possible, but improbable, that it was recovered by the Homicide Bureau. If so, they do not know anything about it in the Crime Laboratory of the Dallas Police Department. In other words, Day hasn't got a clue what happened or could have happend to the (how Frazier described it, according to Day) "thin, flimsy, sack like the one purchased in a dime store"

Still relying on Frazier to establish the characteristics of a bag he only glance at.

Now, I would love to read the LN explanation(s) for the above.

What's there to explain? Nothing on your list seems the least bit improbable.

How did Oswald handle that paper bag as described and manage to only leave on partial print?
And how did Frazier manage to fool the polygraph and why would he lie (the polygraph said he told the truth) about the bag he had seen?

Whoever handled that makeshift bag managed to do so while only puting a partial finger print and palm print on the bag. Why couldn't that someone have been the guy who left the prints.

[Martin Weidmann]

That's easy. Will these get harder as we go?
It could have been anytime that week but Thursday seems the most likely. He could have made it during the lunch break or any time he knew the wrapping station would be unattended.The bag had creases in it so we know it was folded. It could easily have been tucked in his jacket without Frazier seeing it. Had it been discovered, he could have just told Frazier it was for the curtain rods he was going to get.I'm guessing you meant to say until the next morning. We don't know what time he put the rifle in the bag but if it was me, I wouldn't have waited until the last minute. I would have done it the night before after everyone went to bed. 
None of that would have been difficultYup.It's never been established the top of the bag was tucked under his armpit.So?A polygraph can indicate if a person is saying something he knows to be untrue. It measures stress through blood pressure, breathing rate, and a galvanic skit response. If he person believes he is telling the truth, even if he is wrong, there's no reason to think he will show stress.See above. For Frazier to pass the polygraph, he only had to fool himself which he apparently did.Still relying on Frazier to establish the characteristics of a bag he only glance at.What's there to explain? Nothing on your list seems the least bit improbable.

Whoever handled that makeshift bag managed to do so while only puting a partial finger print and palm print on the bag. Why couldn't that someone have been the guy who left the prints.

That's easy. Will these get harder as we go?

If it is so easy, why can't you answer the question?

It could have been anytime that week but Thursday seems the most likely. He could have made it during the lunch break or any time he knew the wrapping station would be unattended.The bag had creases in it so we know it was folded. It could easily have been tucked in his jacket without Frazier seeing it. Had it been discovered, he could have just told Frazier it was for the curtain rods he was going to get.I'm guessing you meant to say until the next morning. We don't know what time he put the rifle in the bag but if it was me, I wouldn't have waited until the last minute. I would have done it the night before after everyone went to bed. 
None of that would have been difficult Yup.

You are deliberately missing the point. The question was how anybody could handle that bag in the way described and only leave one partial print?

It's never been established the top of the bag was tucked under his armpit.

Except for the fact that the only witness who actually saw it said so. You just don't like it. On the other hand you have not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the 6th floor bag instead, and there you are instantly accepting that as "fact" when it clearly is anything but!

So?

A killer leaving evidence behind at the crime scene when he easily could have disposed of it and made it disappear, actually makes sense to you?

A polygraph can indicate if a person is saying something he knows to be untrue. It measures stress through blood pressure, breathing rate, and a galvanic skit response. If he person believes he is telling the truth, even if he is wrong, there's no reason to think he will show stress.

Oh boy. Polygraphs are far from perfect, I'll grant you that. But in this case we're dealing with a 19 years old kid who was arrested as a possible suspect in the murder of the President.
If that didn't produce stress, nothing would. Frazier doesn't have to believe he is telling the truth. He just has to tell the truth and when he did he had Lt Day in a massive panic.

See above. For Frazier to pass the polygraph, he only had to fool himself which he apparently did.

And you have of course evidence that Frazier fooled himself? Either that or you're full of it!

Exactly which is why we wouldn't expect Frazier to show any stress if he BELIEVED he was telling the truth.

So, a 19 year old arrested innocently as a suspect for killing the President is somebody you wouldn't expect to show stress. What planet do you live on?

Again, all Frazier had to do is tell the truth and that's what he did. And that's why he passed the polygraph. You seem to imply that he was lying but somehow believed he told the truth about a paper bag? Really?

I took a polygraph as a condition for employment once. I was asked a number of mundane questions to establish a baseline for my anxiety level. A polygraph shows spikes in the stress level when a person knowingly lies.

This tells me nothing of any significance. But if I understand your argument it is that Frazier lied without knowing that he was lying? What a crock! All this really shows is that you are completely unable to weigh evidence honestly, because your massive bias gets in the way!

Still relying on Frazier to establish the characteristics of a bag he only glance at.

Of course. And you rely on the fact that he was wrong without actually any evidence for it, except of course your "opinion"

Whoever handled that makeshift bag managed to do so while only puting a partial finger print and palm print on the bag. Why couldn't that someone have been the guy who left the prints.

No. If Oswald didn't make the bag, it was made by somebody else who did not leave any prints on the bag that were ever found, possibly because he wore gloves.

Have you ever read the reports about how Lt Day freaked out after Frazier passed the polygraph and confimed that the bag he had seen was a flimsy supermarket bag?

As yourself why Day freaked out like that and when you come up with an answer, let me know.

It has always amazed me how LNs have the audacity to think they know more about events they never witnessed than the people who were actually there.

[John Corbett]

That's easy. Will these get harder as we go?

If it is so easy, why can't you answer the question?

You didn't ask a question. You stated an obvious fact.

{quote]
It could have been anytime that week but Thursday seems the most likely. He could have made it during the lunch break or any time he knew the wrapping station would be unattended.The bag had creases in it so we know it was folded. It could easily have been tucked in his jacket without Frazier seeing it. Had it been discovered, he could have just told Frazier it was for the curtain rods he was going to get.I'm guessing you meant to say until the next morning. We don't know what time he put the rifle in the bag but if it was me, I wouldn't have waited until the last minute. I would have done it the night before after everyone went to bed. 
None of that would have been difficult Yup.
[/quote]

You are deliberately missing the point. The question was how anybody could handle that bag in the way described and only leave one partial print?
[/quote]
"Longevity on Porous Surfaces
Porous materials, such as paper, cardboard, untreated wood, and fabric, absorb the oils and sweat from fingerprints, which can make the prints less visible initially but sometimes more stable within the material itself. On such surfaces, fingerprints may fade within hours or days under normal conditions, especially if exposed to moisture, heat, or physical handling."

If you don't like my source, you are free to provide your own.

It's never been established the top of the bag was tucked under his armpit.

Except for the fact that the only witness who actually saw it said so. You just don't like it. On the other hand you have not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the 6th floor bag instead, and there you are instantly accepting that as "fact" when it clearly is anything but!

If only you could prove that one witness accurately remembered what he saw.
Oswald on the other hand did leave prints on the bag on the 6th floor so we know he handled it.

So?

A killer leaving evidence behind at the crime scene when he easily could have disposed of it and made it disappear, actually makes sense to you?

Since he left his rifle behind, I see no reason he would be concerned about doing the same with the bag.
[quote


A polygraph can indicate if a person is saying something he knows to be untrue. It measures stress through blood pressure, breathing rate, and a galvanic skit response. If he person believes he is telling the truth, even if he is wrong, there's no reason to think he will show stress.

Oh boy. Polygraphs are far from perfect,
[/quote]

So why did you cite it as evidence Frazier was accurate in his description of the bag.

 I'll grant you that. But in this case we're dealing with a 19 years old kid who was arrested as a possible suspect in the murder of the President.
If that didn't produce stress, nothing would. Frazier doesn't have to believe he is telling the truth. He just has to tell the truth and when he did he had Lt Day in a massive panic.

That's why the people doing the polygraph test establish a baseline for how nervous the person is to begin with. They look for spikes in the three measurements for indications of deceit.

See above. For Frazier to pass the polygraph, he only had to fool himself which he apparently did.

And you have of course evidence that Frazier fooled himself? Either that or you're full of it!

I know he got the description of the bag wrong and still passed the polygraph which indicates to me he believed his mistaken recollection about the size of the bag.

Exactly which is why we wouldn't expect Frazier to show any stress if he BELIEVED he was telling the truth.

So, a 19 year old arrested innocently as a suspect for killing the President is somebody you wouldn't expect to show stress. What planet do you live on?

I've already explained that to you. The subject is started off with mundane questions to establish a base line for his stress level. It's when there are spikes in the stress level that indicate willful deceit.

Again, all Frazier had to do is tell the truth and that's what he did.

As best he remembered it. That doesn't establish he remembered what he saw correctly. It's very common for eyewitnesses to get details wrong, especially when the detail wouldn't have seemed important at the time it was observed.

And that's why he passed the polygraph. You seem to imply that he was lying but somehow believed he told the truth about a paper bag? Really?

A lie is when you knowingly tell a falsehood. I'm sure Frazier honestly believes what he said he saw. He just didn't accurately remember what he saw. Very common for eyewitnesses to do that. That's been explained to you many times but you refuse to accept that.

I took a polygraph as a condition for employment once. I was asked a number of mundane questions to establish a baseline for my anxiety level. A polygraph shows spikes in the stress level when a person knowingly lies.

This tells me nothing of any significance. But if I understand your argument it is that Frazier lied without knowing that he was lying? What a crock! All this really shows is that you are completely unable to weigh evidence honestly, because your massive bias gets in the way!
[/quote]

You still don't get it. Being honestly mistaken about something is not the same as lying. I never accused Frazier of lying. Why do you keep insisting that I have.

Still relying on Frazier to establish the characteristics of a bag he only glance at.

Of course. And you rely on the fact that he was wrong without actually any evidence for it, except of course your "opinion"

And the bag that was actually found on the 6th floor that was significantly longer than Frazier remembered.

Whoever handled that makeshift bag managed to do so while only puting a partial finger print and palm print on the bag. Why couldn't that someone have been the guy who left the prints.

No. If Oswald didn't make the bag, it was made by somebody else who did not leave any prints on the bag that were ever found, possibly because he wore gloves.

I've already cited a source that indicates prints on a porous surface can disappear in a matter of hours. Oswald would likely have taken the rifle out of the bag sometime around noon. That is the last time he was known to have handled it.

Have you ever read the reports about how Lt Day freaked out after Frazier passed the polygraph and confimed that the bag he had seen was a flimsy supermarket bag?

No I haven't. Do you have a reliable source for those reports?

As yourself why Day freaked out like that and when you come up with an answer, let me know.

I will as soon as you establish Day freaked out.

It has always amazed me how LNs have the audacity to think they know more about events they never witnessed than the people who were actually there.

Because the accounts of people who were there often conflict with the forensic evidence. I place far more faith in the latter.

[Martin Weidmann]

That's easy. Will these get harder as we go?

If it is so easy, why can't you answer the question? Please provide an answer that will allow me to accept there was in fact a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.

It could have been anytime that week but Thursday seems the most likely. He could have made it during the lunch break or any time he knew the wrapping station would be unattended.The bag had creases in it so we know it was folded. It could easily have been tucked in his jacket without Frazier seeing it. Had it been discovered, he could have just told Frazier it was for the curtain rods he was going to get.I'm guessing you meant to say until the next morning. We don't know what time he put the rifle in the bag but if it was me, I wouldn't have waited until the last minute. I would have done it the night before after everyone went to bed. 
None of that would have been difficult Yup.

You are deliberately missing the point. The question was how anybody could handle that bag in the way described and only leave one partial print?

It's never been established the top of the bag was tucked under his armpit.

Except for the fact that the only witness who actually saw it said so. You just don't like it. On the other hand you have not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the 6th floor bag instead, and there you are instantly accepting that as "fact" when it clearly is anything but!

So?

A killer leaving evidence behind at the crime scene when he easily could have disposed of it and made it disappear, actually makes sense to you?

A polygraph can indicate if a person is saying something he knows to be untrue. It measures stress through blood pressure, breathing rate, and a galvanic skit response. If he person believes he is telling the truth, even if he is wrong, there's no reason to think he will show stress.

Oh boy. Polygraphs are far from perfect, I'll grant you that. But in this case we're dealing with a 19 years old kid who was arrested as a possible suspect in the murder of the President.
If that didn't produce stress, nothing would. Frazier doesn't have to believe he is telling the truth. He just has to tell the truth and when he did he had Lt Day in a massive panic.

See above. For Frazier to pass the polygraph, he only had to fool himself which he apparently did.

And you have of course evidence that Frazier fooled himself? Either that or you're full of it!

Exactly which is why we wouldn't expect Frazier to show any stress if he BELIEVED he was telling the truth.

So, a 19 year old arrested innocently as a suspect for killing the President is somebody you wouldn't expect to show stress. What planet do you live on?

Again, all Frazier had to do is tell the truth and that's what he did. And that's why he passed the polygraph. You seem to imply that he was lying but somehow believed he told the truth about a paper bag? Really?

I took a polygraph as a condition for employment once. I was asked a number of mundane questions to establish a baseline for my anxiety level. A polygraph shows spikes in the stress level when a person knowingly lies.

This tells me nothing of any significance. But if I understand your argument it is that Frazier lied without knowing that he was lying? What a crock! All this really shows is that you are completely unable to weigh evidence honestly, because your massive bias gets in the way!

Still relying on Frazier to establish the characteristics of a bag he only glance at.

Of course. And you rely on the fact that he was wrong without actually any evidence for it, except of course your "opinion"

Whoever handled that makeshift bag managed to do so while only puting a partial finger print and palm print on the bag. Why couldn't that someone have been the guy who left the prints.

No. If Oswald didn't make the bag, it was made by somebody else who did not leave any prints on the bag that were ever found, possibly because he wore gloves.

Have you ever read the reports about how Lt Day freaked out after Frazier passed the polygraph and confimed that the bag he had seen was a flimsy supermarket bag?

As yourself why Day freaked out like that and when you come up with an answer, let me know.

It has always amazed me how LNs have the audacity to think they know more about events they never witnessed than the people who were actually there.