BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963

[Colin Crow]

Are you thinking of the sandwich which Mr Shelley testified he had seen Mr C. Givens eating up there earlier in the day? Or the chicken which Mr Shelley more vaguely testified "those colored boys" were always eating?

I'm beginning to see why you consider Mr Shelley such a reliable witness, Mr Navarro-----you don't know his testimony very well! 

The chicken that Givens denied having......seems we can have bits of testimony for all seasons......

[Colin Crow]

Mr. BALL - Now, did you find any chicken bones up there or see any?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, I went up later on that day; I believe after we had gotten back from City Hall with someone, I don't remember who it was, one of the officers and they got them.
Mr. BALL - They did what?
Mr. SHELLEY - They got the bones.
Mr. BALL - Where were they?
Mr. SHELLEY - They were on the third--yeah, it would be the third window from the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL - And were they in a sack?
Mr. SHELLEY - Laying on a sack.
Mr. BALL - Laying on a sack?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; with a coke bottle sitting in the window.

That's the part of the testimony I'm referring to. Now, since you're such an expert in Shelley's testimony why don't you show when it was that he saw Givens with a lunch paper sack? Also, tell us why Shelley should not be considered a reliable witness as compared to Dougherty.

So it seems that Shelley was back on the 6th floor before Johnson left with the bones inside the bag at 3pm. He saw the repositioned bones on to of the bag and their final resting place near the third set of windows. Of course we know that a number of officers reported the chicken bones and or bag originally close to the SN.

Just wondering how many bags were fingerprinted in the TSBD that day and by whom? Anyone like to answer?

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin Weidmann: Haughty/Condescending Individual#1
A year or so ago, you said I was not worth posting to, yet here you are.

Buell was shown the fingerprinted bag at another time, when he indicated it could have been the bag he saw. And Randle testified to the bag being a thick wrapping-type paper, not the kind found in grocery stores.

Why are you mentioning Oscar to me? You sound like you want me to chime in on that. Well, the police searched the TSBD long enough to find a high-powered rifle. The casings were a bonus, and the bag not expected. You wouldn't happen to be implying that other rifles and other gun bags should have been expected to be found elsewhere in the TSBD that day, now would you, Lord Haughty?

Buell was shown the fingerprinted bag at another time, when he indicated it could have been the bag he saw.

Oh they showed him the bag numerous times and yet, till this day, he still denies that it was the bag Oswald carried.

And Randle testified to the bag being a thick wrapping-type paper, not the kind found in grocery stores. 

And yet, Randle went to her grave having denied it was the bag Oswald carried all her life

Why are you mentioning Oscar to me? You sound like you want me to chime in on that.

You already did. That's why I mentioned him.

Well, the police searched the TSBD long enough to find a high-powered rifle. The casings were a bonus, and the bag not expected.

You mean, they searched the 6th floor long enough to find those items... yes, they did

You wouldn't happen to be implying that other rifles and other gun bags should have been expected to be found elsewhere in the TSBD that day, now would you, Lord Haughty?

The only one who constantly implies stuff is you!

[Bill Chapman]

A bag made from TSBD materials allegedly found inside the TSBD where Oswald happened to work.
>>> Is that paper flimsy?

Did anyone see Oswald make that bag? No
>>> AOEINNEOA.Yes? Or do you need to be at Oswald's elbow every inch of the way.

Did anyone see that bag in Oswald's possession? No
>>> AOEINNAOE. Yes?

Was there any evidence that there ever was a rifle in that bag? No
>>> Stombaugh couldn't rule out the bag. Yes? Stombaugh couldn't rule out the blanket fibres of the blanket found with Oswald's short & curlies on them. Yes?

Where there other prints on that bag that were not identified? Yes
>>> Were these prints usable as evidence... or simply too smeared, thus putting Oswald's fingerprints in contention. Yes/No?

[Martin Weidmann]

A bag made from TSBD materials allegedly found inside the TSBD where Oswald happened to work.
>>> Is that paper flimsy?

No, but the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry was.

Did anyone see Oswald make that bag? No
>>> AOEINNEOA.Yes? Or do you need to be at Oswald's elbow every inch of the way.

Did anyone see that bag in Oswald's possession? No
>>> AOEINNAOE. Yes?

If you want a reply, please write in a way that others can understand

Was there any evidence that there ever was a rifle in that bag? No
>>> Stombaugh couldn't rule out the bag. Yes? Stombaugh couldn't rule out the blanket fibres of the blanket found with Oswald's short & curlies on them. Yes?

In other words; there is indeed no evidence that there ever was rifle in that bag.

Where there other prints on that bag that were not identified? Yes
>>> Were these prints usable as evidence... or simply too smeared, thus putting Oswald's fingerprints in contention. Yes/No?

The prints were there and them being not good enough for identification leaves the possibility open that others than Oswald could also have touched that bag.

[Richard Smith]

Richard, if you have nothing of any value to add, why don't you simply not post rather than exposing yourself as a complete idiot time after time?

A bag made from TSBD materials allegedly found inside the TSBD where Oswald happened to work.

Did anyone see Oswald make that bag? No
Did anyone see that bag in Oswald's possession? No
Was there any evidence that there ever was a rifle in that bag? No

Where there other prints on that bag that were not identified? Yes

Game over? Nah, game on!

LOL. More idiotic nonsense.  No one saw anyone make the bag made.  That would mean under your bizarre logic that it wasn't made even though it exists.  Oswald was seen carrying a long bag into work that morning.  No other person is reported to have carried any such bag.  Oswald's prints are found on the bag.  The idea that this can be explained away by the fact "that he worked there" is fall on the ground laughing material.  What bad luck LHO had that day at every turn!  His prints are found on the very bag and SN boxes by the very window from which bullet casings from his rifle are found and witnesses confirm they saw a rifle.  No other explanation is ever provided for the bag.  No other employee comes forward to explain or claim it.  There is no apparent work-related purpose for it to be there.  No bag matching Frazier's shorter estimate is ever found or accounted for in any way.  And if there were any doubt whatsoever, Oswald himself denies carrying any long bag.  If he had a bag that morning along the size estimated by Frazier and it contained no incriminating object, why would he lie and deny it?  His incentives would be to insist that he had such a bag and point the DPD to its location if it would provide evidence of his innocence.  Instead he does the exact opposite because the bag he carried contained something he did not want to be associated with.  Now think real hard about what that might be in this case.

[Walt Cakebread]

No, but the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry was.

If you want a reply, please write in a way that others can understand

In other words; there is indeed no evidence that there ever was rifle in that bag.

The prints were there and them being not good enough for identification leaves the possibility open that others than Oswald could also have touched that bag.

Please correct me if I'm wrong....But didn't our old friend Tony Fratini present evidence that Lt Day had made a note on the bag that went to the FBI lab ?   As I recall the note that Day had written said that there was a palm print on the sack and he drew a circle around that area.   But The FBI said they had to use a method that destroyed the bag as evidence to look for prints.

PS....  The part about using that destructive method was simply BS..... Hoover wanted that bag destroyed.

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL. More idiotic nonsense.  No one saw anyone make the bag made.  That would mean under your bizarre logic that it wasn't made even though it exists.  Oswald was seen carrying a long bag into work that morning.  No other person is reported to have carried any such bag.  Oswald's prints are found on the bag.  The idea that this can be explained away by the fact "that he worked there" is fall on the ground laughing material.  What bad luck LHO had that day at every turn!  His prints are found on the very bag and SN boxes by the very window from which bullet casings from his rifle are found and witnesses confirm they saw a rifle.  No other explanation is ever provided for the bag.  No other employee comes forward to explain or claim it.  There is no apparent work-related purpose for it to be there.  No bag matching Frazier's shorter estimate is ever found or accounted for in any way.  And if there were any doubt whatsoever, Oswald himself denies carrying any long bag.  If he had a bag that morning along the size estimated by Frazier and it contained no incriminating object, why would he lie and deny it?  His incentives would be to insist that he had such a bag and point the DPD to its location if it would provide evidence of his innocence.  Instead he does the exact opposite because the bag he carried contained something he did not want to be associated with.  Now think real hard about what that might be in this case.

No one saw anyone make the bag made.  That would mean under your bizarre logic that it wasn't made even though it exists.

And you talk about idiotic nonsense? The fact that nobody saw anyone make the bag merely means that you can not simply claim that Oswald made it, since you have no evidence for that, only wild assumptions.

Everything else in your rant is based on one assumption after another combined with unsubstantiated claims. Making up a narrative out of speculation is easy. You know this because you do it all the time. Backing it up with conclusive evidence is the hard part. And you know that too, as you always fail to do so.