Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Walt Cakebread]

This goes back to what I was complaining about on another thread...the slow pace at which new information seeps in. When I went back through the fingerprint evidence in 2015, I discovered that the fingerprint was on the bottom of the bag and the palm print was on the side. I revealed this at that year's Lancer Conference, and demonstrate this in the Shining a Light on the Warren Report section of Chapter 4c at patspeer.com.


P.S. As I crawled through this thread, I was pleasantly surprised to see that John Iaccoletti had made reference to my discovery. So new information does seep in...sometimes... Yeah, John.

But what is the importance of your discovery?.....Can you prove how the prints got on the bag?..... Doesn't just a couple of prints strike you as a bit suspicious?

If Lee had carried that bag his prints should have been all over the place.

[Martin Weidmann]

But what is the importance of your discovery?.....Can you prove how the prints got on the bag?..... Doesn't just a couple of prints strike you as a bit suspicious?

If Lee had carried that bag his prints should have been all over the place.

Wasn't the LN claim that the palmprint was on the bottom of the bag and that it was significant because Frazier saw Oswald carry the bag in his cupped hand?

Pat's discovery blows that one right out of the water, doesn't it?

[Pat Speer]

Wasn't the LN claim that the palmprint was on the bottom of the bag and that it was significant because Frazier saw Oswald carried the bag in his cupped hand?

Pat's discovery blows that one right out of the water, doesn't it?

That's pretty much it. I have no idea if Oswald actually handled that bag, or if there was a rifle in it when he handled it if he did handle it. But we now know that Latona's testimony and the archives' photos prove that the WC misrepresented Latona's testimony to help sell that the bag was the one seen by Frazier. I mean, they had the photos showing where prints A and B were, and they had Latona's testimony about prints A and B. How hard would it have been to get it right, as opposed to getting it wrong and using that mistake to help support their case against Oswald?

[Richard Smith]

That's pretty much it. I have no idea if Oswald actually handled that bag, or if there was a rifle in it when he handled it if he did handle it. But we now know that Latona's testimony and the archives' photos prove that the WC misrepresented Latona's testimony to help sell that the bag was the one seen by Frazier. I mean, they had the photos showing where prints A and B were, and they had Latona's testimony about prints A and B. How hard would it have been to get it right, as opposed to getting it wrong and using that mistake to help support their case against Oswald?

How can you have "no idea if Oswald actually handled that bag" if his prints were found on it? 

[Martin Weidmann]

That's pretty much it. I have no idea if Oswald actually handled that bag, or if there was a rifle in it when he handled it if he did handle it. But we now know that Latona's testimony and the archives' photos prove that the WC misrepresented Latona's testimony to help sell that the bag was the one seen by Frazier. I mean, they had the photos showing where prints A and B were, and they had Latona's testimony about prints A and B. How hard would it have been to get it right, as opposed to getting it wrong and using that mistake to help support their case against Oswald?

Add to this that Frazier was shown the bag allegedly found on the 6th floor, while he was being polygraphed, on Friday evening, and he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry, describing the latter as a thin flimsy sack like the ones you can get from a dime store.

So, all there really is, is a paper bag, made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD at a location where Oswald worked and a whole lot of conjecture and assumptions.

[Bill Chapman]

Pat Speer has done a good job about the paper sack and planting of evidence. You might want to read it and learn something:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4d%3Asackoflies

His bag comparison re Beers is not in any way scientific and does not convince
And the top flap has fallen forward in Beers, and comparing that to the fully laid out bag in an attempt to manipulate proportions reveals yet even more CTer disingenuousness.

[Martin Weidmann]

His bag comparison re Beers is not in any way scientific and does not convince
And the top flap has fallen forward in Beers, and comparing that to the fully laid out bag in an attempt to manipulate proportions reveals yet even more CTer disingenuousness.

Of course, you are in no way biased yourself, right?

[Pat Speer]

How can you have "no idea if Oswald actually handled that bag" if his prints were found on it?

Were his prints found on it? We have the word of an FBI expert, and a police expert supposedly working from photos that were later published and didn't show much more than blobs. I have numerous books on fingerprinting, going back to the forties. These books show readily identifiable prints and matches. The matches presented in the WC's volumes, on the other hand, are little more than blobs. They show nothing. The government has had more than fifty years, moreover, to publish proper photos of the latents, alongside Oswald's prints, and has failed to do so. And the FBI has refused to releases its photos of the trigger guard. So, no, the fingerprint evidence is not a done deal, far from it. Every print connecting Oswald to the sniper's nest or rifle is suspect.

Now, do I think the FBI flat-out lied in its identification? I'd say no. But the provenance of most every print is suspect, starting with the palm print tore from Box D and ending with the palm print purportedly lifted from the rifle.