Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Colin Crow]

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.

Thanks Pat. Of course where the lunch remnants finished up is not where they were first discovered. BRW was eating his lunch in the SN until about 12.25pm. Gerald Hill is the most likely candidate to have "tidied" the evidence somewhat before leaving the TSBD. I also suspect Johnson of moving the chicken lunch remnants westward before Studebaker processed them.

[Walt Cakebread]

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.

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.

Yes, I'd agree IF  If that's the way it happened....But I suspect that it was Michael Paine who presented the BY photo (133c) to the authorities.....Not the other way around.    Think about it..... Why would the police ask Micheal Paine about where a photo was taken?

I'l tell you why.... Because Paine presented the photo... and then they asked him if he knew where it was taken.

[Zeon Mason]

From what photos I’ve seen , the palm print on the bag is near the taped EDGE such that 4 fingers are extending BEYOND the edge

None of those fingerprints were apparently found on the opposite side of the bag which is odd if the hand was gripping the package, those fingers are wrapped around a cylindrical volume if rifle parts inside the bag

This suggests the palm print was placed on the bag while it was FLAT

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

Yes, I'd agree IF  If that's the way it happened....But I suspect that it was Michael Paine who presented the BY photo (133c) to the authorities.....Not the other way around.    Think about it..... Why would the police ask Micheal Paine about where a photo was taken?

I'l tell you why.... Because Paine presented the photo... and then they asked him if he knew where it was taken.

Actually, it was an FBI agent who showed the photo to Paine, not the police.

Your scenario doesn't really make much sense to me, Walt, because if Paine had given the FBI or the police the photograph on Friday evening, he would have had to explain where he got it, wouldn't he? Also, it would make his claim that he did not know Oswald had a rifle impossible.

[Walt Cakebread]

Actually, it was an FBI agent who showed the photo to Paine, not the police.

Your scenario doesn't really make much sense to me, Walt, because if Paine had given the FBI or the police the photograph on Friday evening, he would have had to explain where he got it, wouldn't he? Also, it would make his claim that he did not know Oswald had a rifle impossible.

he would have had to explain where he got it, wouldn't he?

How do you know that he didn't simply tell them that Lee had gave him the photo.....  Do you doubt that Lee gave a photo to De Morhenschildt?   

Also, it would make his claim that he did not know Oswald had a rifle impossible.

Paine denied that he knew that Lee had a rifle on 11/22/63??   

[Charles Collins]

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

Even in today’s paranoid world with all the security measures, etc., people travel with firearms. As long as they aren’t in their carry-on items they are permissible. And there wasn’t exactly an active dragnet of police activity looking for Walker’s attacker when LHO traveled to New Orleans. So, no..,

[Martin Weidmann]

Even in today’s paranoid world with all the security measures, etc., people travel with firearms. As long as they aren’t in their carry-on items they are permissible. And there wasn’t exactly an active dragnet of police activity looking for Walker’s attacker when LHO traveled to New Orleans. So, no..,

You are missing the point. Sure, many people travel with firearms, but how many of those have just used that weapon to shoot somebody? It's about Oswald's frame of mind. Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it....

But it is once again clear that you are using biased speculation to try to shape the narrative towards your own opinion.

[Martin Weidmann]

he would have had to explain where he got it, wouldn't he?

How do you know that he didn't simply tell them that Lee had gave him the photo.....  Do you doubt that Lee gave a photo to De Morhenschildt?   

Also, it would make his claim that he did not know Oswald had a rifle impossible.

Paine denied that he knew that Lee had a rifle on 11/22/63??

How do you know that he didn't simply tell them that Lee had gave him the photo.

I don't, but then I also don't know if he had a photograph to give to begin with.

Do you doubt that Lee gave a photo to De Morhenschildt?

I have some reservations about that, yes....

Paine denied that he knew that Lee had a rifle on 11/22/63??

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you ever observe or hear prior to the assassination that Lee Oswald had been practicing with a rifle?
Mr. PAINE - No, I didn't know prior to the assassination, we didn't know he had a rifle. I had supposed from my conversation with him back on Neely Street that he would like to have a rifle but I didn't gather that he did.
Mr. LIEBELER - Aside from whether or not you knew that he had a rifle, did you ever hear or observe him practicing with a rifle?
Mr. PAINE - No, I did not.