Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.  (Read 81894 times)

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3724
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #168 on: March 05, 2020, 12:12:07 AM »
Advertisement
So now the duffel bag idea is not making sense to successfully transport the rifle.
What makes sense is--- Oswald never had a rifle. That would explain the transport issues.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #168 on: March 05, 2020, 12:12:07 AM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3711
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #169 on: March 05, 2020, 12:12:39 AM »
So now the duffel bag idea is not making sense to successfully transport the rifle.

Not into the TSBD “hidden amongst his clothes” as was suggested. Because of its length, it would have stuck out of the bag (not be hidden) and he might be questioned about what it was. Then he would have had to come up with a story anyway (curtain rods wrapped up in a blanket??). The paper bag was a more believable story because it looked similar to the wrapped up curtain rods he likely saw in the garage and what someone might expect curtain rods to be contained in.

Offline Pat Speer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #170 on: March 05, 2020, 12:22:33 AM »
Am I correct in understanding that the fingerprint matches on the bag by the FBI consisted of 11 and 18 points?

No. From chapter 4d:

"Latona's exhibits reflect that there were 9 points of similarity between Oswald's left index finger and the bag fingerprint, 15 points of similarity between Oswald's right palm print and the bag palm print, 11 points of similarity between Oswald's right palm print and the palm print on Box D, 13 points of similarity between Oswald's left palm print and the palm print on Box A, 10 points of similarity between Oswald's right index finger and the fingerprint on Box A, and 11 points of similarity between Oswald's right palm print and the lift from the rifle. And yes, you are correct. Only two of these would have been accepted by most American examiners, and none--not one--would have been accepted by a European examiner.

At least not in '63...  Over the decades that followed, the FBI convinced experts around the world that they needn't count points, and that an expert can just "know" when two prints are a match based upon an individualized and instinctual algorithm built upon the number of similar points, and the rarity of these points (aka "hunch").

This was, of course, a recipe for disaster. It was only a matter of time, after all, before an "expert" or group of "experts" came to the wrong conclusion in a high profile case. The first crack in the dam came in 1997 when four Scottish experts found 16 points of similarity between a latent print found at a crime scene and the print of one of the detectives on the scene, even though the detective claimed she hadn't been in that room. This led to her termination, and a 1999 lawsuit in which she proved the "experts" had made a mistake and that the print was not her own. Now, this was a mistake in which 16 points were identified. By 4 experts. It seemed clear, then, that the FBI, with its looser standards, was capable of making a similar mistake.

It took five years for such a mistake to surface. In 2004, the FBI identified the left index fingerprint of Brandon Mayfield, an American Muslim, as the print of a terrorist behind an explosion in Spain. Even though the FBI could find no evidence Mayfield had visited Spain, or had even left the U.S., ever, he was imprisoned. The Spanish authorities, to their credit, rejected this identification, and kept searching. But the U.S. Government, feeling certain the FBI was correct in their identification, refused to release Mayfield. Weeks passed. Eventually, the Spanish authorities matched the print the FBI claimed was Mayfield's to a known terrorist, and the U.S. government agreed to Mayfield's release. He sued the government and was awarded 2 million dollars. Oops.

No, actually it was more than oops. The FBI''s embarrassing mistake led to its re-appraisal of the sanctity of fingerprint evidence, and to its softening its stance regarding the possibility of a misidentification. In doing so, for that matter, the FBI was finally acknowledging what the scientific community had been whispering for decades. The identification of a suspect's fingerprint at a crime scene isn't the sure-fire proof of guilt it was long claimed to be. It just isn't.


The Myth of Fingerprints (1937-2004)

1. No two fingerprints are alike.
2. Fingerprint examination is a precise science, and fingerprint examiners do not make mistakes.
3. Having one’s prints found at a crime scene is a sure sign of guilt.


The Reality of Fingerprints (2004- )

1. Some fingerprints are so similar that an expert can be fooled.
2. Misidentifications are commonplace.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2020, 12:31:13 AM by Pat Speer »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #170 on: March 05, 2020, 12:22:33 AM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7445
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #171 on: March 05, 2020, 12:31:28 AM »
It was Ruth Paine's conjecture (see my original statement below). I only added my opinion. If Michael remembered doing that, then the most likely answer is that Ruth's conjecture was not correct. The point is that it is possible that LHO could have sent it back disassembled in order to shorten the length so that it would be less likely to be recognized as a rifle. Or simply so that it would fit better in the blanket and/or station wagon.

Going from memory, Ruth Paine has said that she doesn’t remember seeing the rifle in the belongings she transported to her house from New Orleans. And that she suspects the rifle could have been in the duffel bag

It was Ruth Paine's conjecture (see my original statement below). I only added my opinion.

Oh, I could have sworn you started by saying it was your own conjecture...


I didn’t see anything that required rebuttal. Unless I missed it, Mytton hasn’t responded to this thread at all since he posted the first one. This is unusual, I hope he is just busy and is okay.

This is definitely my own conjecture:

Going from memory, Ruth Paine has said that she doesn’t remember seeing the rifle in the belongings she transported to her house from New Orleans. And that she suspects the rifle could have been in the duffel bag. That makes sense to me. LHO could have disassembled it  (so that less of it would stick out of the top of the duffel bag) and further concealed it in the blanket before he packed it into the duffel bag. At some point the disassembled rifle (in the blanket) was removed from the duffel bag and placed on the floor of the Paine’s garage. If this theory is true, then LHO should have had a pretty good idea of how long to make the paper bag in order to conceal the disassembled rifle while transporting it into the TSBD.

Sealing both ends of the paper bag is your idea. It just doesn’t make sense to me that it was necessary or desirable.

And, yeah... you did.

The point is that it is possible that LHO could have sent it back disassembled in order to shorten the length so that it would be less likely to be recognized as a rifle.


Many things are possible. For instance, it's also possible that there was no rifle at all in Ruth Paine's car during the trip from New Orleans to Irving.


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7445
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #172 on: March 05, 2020, 12:36:10 AM »
Lee didn't deny knowledge of THEM ( plural)   He said the onethat Fritz showed him on Saturday, (at about 1:00 pm,)  BEFORE they searched Paines garage ( at about 3:30) was a fake.     Since it is established that CE 133A and CE133B were found in Paines garage at about 3:30 Saturday afternoon..... Then the only photo that they could have shown Lee  was 133c, and  Lee told them it was a fake....

He said the onethat Fritz showed him on Saturday, (at about 1:00 pm,)  BEFORE they searched Paines garage ( at about 3:30) was a fake. 

That would be the one the FBI showed Michael Paine on Friday evening when they wanted to know where the photo was taken, and Paine told him it was Neely Street.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #172 on: March 05, 2020, 12:36:10 AM »


Offline Pat Speer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #173 on: March 05, 2020, 12:38:04 AM »
So this leaves the possibility Day saw the bag in the sniper's nest upon his first arrival, and that he thought he'd get back to it upon his return from the crime lab. But this fails the smell test, seeing as none of those arriving at the sniper's nest before Day's arrival had any recollection of a gun case/bag sitting on the floor of the sniper's nest, and no pictures were taken of it in the sniper's nest, and neither Montgomery nor Day (the two possible finders of the bag) could tell a consistent story regarding where the bag was "discovered."

News reporter Kent Biffle states the bag was discovered before the rifle was located. He mentions "We", this can only be assumed to be the various detectives,


Taken from Biffle's notes  page 6 and 7:

It didn't take the policemen long to find the cartridges by the ambush window. We all stood around staring at the brown wrapping paper found nearby. It was a reasonable conclusion that it held the rifle.
An officer in the northwest corner of the room yelled: "Over here!"

I ran over, dodging down narrow alleys in the stacks of packing crates. I was secure in the knowledge that my theory was materializing. They'd found the body of the gunman, I guessed.
I was let down when the policeman pointed among a jumble of boxes at the hidden rifle. The muzzle and the steel butt plate were barely visible.

Biffle was almost certainly thinking of the lunch sack. From chapter 4c:

Kent Biffle, the only newsman besides Alyea to witness the search of the building, may also have seen this sack. Unlike Weatherford, however, he seems to have confused it with the bag purportedly found in the sniper's nest. In an account purportedly written in March 1964, and subsequently published in the Fall 1998 issue of Legacies, a History Journal For Dallas and North Texas, Biffle claimed that after the rifle shells were found by the "ambush window", "We all stood around staring at the brown wrapping paper found nearby. It was a reasonable conclusion that it held the rifle." Note that he says it was found "nearby," and not right by the window, as later purported by Studebaker. Note also that he says "we all stood around staring" at the wrapping paper, an impossibility if the wrapping paper was sitting folded on the far side of the box purportedly used as a seat by the assassin, in the southeast corner of the building. As shown on the Blind Detective slide, this was an incredibly confined space behind stacks of boxes. The "wrapping paper," should it actually have been found in this location, would not have been visible to more than a few people at a time. Perhaps, then, Biffle saw the bag sometime after it had originally been "found." Perhaps, after its initial "discovery" by Montgomery, wherever it was "discovered," Studebaker placed the bag on the floor in a more accessible location, where it was subsequently viewed by Biffle.

But there's a problem with this scenario as well. In his account, Biffle presents his observation of the bag before he presents the discovery of the rifle. Well, if this was so, why didn't Mooney, Walters, Hill, Craig, Faulkner, Boyd, Fritz or Alyea remember seeing the bag? Was it "found" after they left the area but before the rifle was found?

No, it was not. Det. Marvin Johnson, whose partner L.D. Montgomery was credited with the discovery of the bag, claimed the bag was discovered after he'd witnessed the dusting of the area around the lunch sack. And the record is clear that this didn't occur until after the discovery of the rifle.

So...was Biffle simply mistaken about the bag? Was the sack he'd observed the lunch sack observed by others, only with 20-200 hindsight in which it morphed into the "sack" purported to have held the rifle?

It sure seems so. A Biffle-authored story was published in the 11-23-63 Dallas Morning News. There, he mentioned that a "gnawed piece of fried chicken" and an "empty cold drink bottle"--items found near the lunch bag-- were found near the sniper's nest, but made no mention of a large bag or wrapping paper.

There's also this. Below is an image, (taken from the Owens film), showing the reporters invited up to the sixth floor on the afternoon of the 22nd gathering around the window where Bonnie Ray Williams ate his lunch. They appear to be looking down at something. The man with the tie, in particular, appears to be looking down at where the lunch bag was a few minutes before, before Det.s Johnson and Montgomery took the lunch sack, cigarette pack, and pop bottle to the crime lab.



Well. I'm pretty sure this man is Kent Biffle, pointing out to the other reporters where the lunch sack they'd just seen taken from the building had first been discovered.

Here's a photo of Biffle from 1963.


And finally... Biffle's latter-day story, written months after the shooting, does not begin with his entering the school book depository. Before that, he discusses his racing over to the grassy knoll after the shots. He then relates "The other side of the fence held no gunman. There was just a maze of railroad tracks and three dazed winos. 'What happened?' one asked me." Well, this is just not credible. None of the police officers claiming to have raced back behind the fence after the shots saw these "winos." If Biffle had talked to one of them, and had not bothered to point this man out to a police officer as a possible witness, then he was not much of a citizen, let alone a reporter. The so-called "three tramps" found in a railroad car passing through town, it should be noted, were not discovered till almost 2:00, an hour and a half after the shooting, and were not arrested until a few minutes later. It only follows then that Biffle had used "artistic license" to incorporate them into his story, and that he may have used this same "license" to add the bag into his story. One certainly can't accept his account as credible when he says "we all" stood around staring at the bag, when none of those to first observe the sniper's nest, including his fellow newsman Tom Alyea, had ANY recollection of the bag. It seems probable the bag Biffle was thinking of, then, was not the bag or sack supposedly used to carry Oswald's rifle, but the other bag or sack reportedly found in the building, the lunch bag, which most all the sniper's nest witnesses remembered, and which Biffle alluded to in his initial article in which he mentioned the gnawed chicken and empty bottle.

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7445
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #174 on: March 05, 2020, 12:39:01 AM »
Well, let me see... ummm... maybe he could have transported it on the bus (disassembled) in his duffel bag wrapped in a blanket with one end sticking out....

But that would be hell of a way to "conceal" a rifle he had just used in an attempted murder, don't you think? 


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #174 on: March 05, 2020, 12:39:01 AM »


Offline Colin Crow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1860
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #175 on: March 05, 2020, 12:41:05 AM »
No. From chapter 4d:

"Latona's exhibits reflect that there were 9 points of similarity between Oswald's left index finger and the bag fingerprint, 15 points of similarity between Oswald's right palm print and the bag palm print, 11 points of similarity between Oswald's right palm print and the palm print on Box D, 13 points of similarity between Oswald's left palm print and the palm print on Box A, 10 points of similarity between Oswald's right index finger and the fingerprint on Box A, and 11 points of similarity between Oswald's right palm print and the lift from the rifle. And yes, you are correct. Only two of these would have been accepted by most American examiners, and none--not one--would have been accepted by a European examiner.

At least not in '63...  Over the decades that followed, the FBI convinced experts around the world that they needn't count points, and that an expert can just "know" when two prints are a match based upon an individualized and instinctual algorithm built upon the number of similar points, and the rarity of these points (aka "hunch").

Thanks Pat, I did read somewhere that many experts claim at least 20 points would be deemed necessary for a match.