Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Colin Crow]

No CE 142 is not key to anything.

It is key to the CT argument that the DPD or FBI or some mysterious entity planted it. Patrick Jackson’s identification of it in that photo helps to dispel that one.

I do believe that I had seen it before and wondered what it was. But I didn’t correlate it with the bag until Patrick pointed it out.

Why do you can represent someone else’s argument? Why the need for anyone to plant it?

[Colin Crow]

No CE 142 is not key to anything. If it had been destroyed it would not change anything. It is nothing more than a distraction and adds nothing to the understanding of the assassination. The rifle is the key piece of information and can't be explained away. People stated they saw LHO bring a long bag to the TSBD on the morning of 11/22. LHO could have burned the bag and nothing would be different.

The bag never was at the first floor wrapping table. It does not matter who discovered the bag as the bag can clearly be seen in the photo in the SN thanks to Patrick Jackson. Kent Biffle stated the bag was present in the SN prior to the discovery of the rifle.

I don’t see Biffle's testimony or contemporaneous police statement anywhere......Pat Speer has discussed Biffle in depth. Biffle was mistaken.

[Martin Weidmann]

No CE 142 is not key to anything. If it had been destroyed it would not change anything. It is nothing more than a distraction and adds nothing to the understanding of the assassination. The rifle is the key piece of information and can't be explained away. People stated they saw LHO bring a long bag to the TSBD on the morning of 11/22. LHO could have burned the bag and nothing would be different.

The bag never was at the first floor wrapping table. It does not matter who discovered the bag as the bag can clearly be seen in the photo in the SN thanks to Patrick Jackson. Kent Biffle stated the bag was present in the SN prior to the discovery of the rifle.

No CE 142 is not key to anything. If it had been destroyed it would not change anything. It is nothing more than a distraction and adds nothing to the understanding of the assassination.

Actually it does add to the understanding of the assassination as the WC claimed it was used by Oswald to bring the rifle into the building. Without it, you have no explanation on how Oswald could have gotten a rifle, allegedly stored in Irving, into the TSBD without Frazier seeing it.

The rifle is the key piece of information and can't be explained away.

Wrong again. The rifle by itself proves very little. It can't even be determined that it was actually fired that day and it most certainly doesn't connect to Oswald as the alleged owner. The only item that actually does that is the opinion of a handwriting expert who examined the handwriting on a Klein's order form.

People stated they saw LHO bring a long bag to the TSBD on the morning of 11/22. LHO could have burned the bag and nothing would be different.

Except for the fact that there would be no proof or explanation on how Oswald brought the rifle into the building, when he only had one opportunity to do so!

The bag never was at the first floor wrapping table.

First of all; how in the world would you know that? And secondly, wrong again. The bag was made from TSBD materials and the tape used made it impossible for the bag to be made elsewhere. The bag was must certainly at the first floor wrapping table at some point in time.


It does not matter who discovered the bag as the bag can clearly be seen in the photo in the SN thanks to Patrick Jackson.

Yes, it can be seen in the photo, but that tells us nothing about how it got there and when. The photo also disproves the claim by the WC that the bag was found folded up on the floor at the other side of the S/N

Kent Biffle stated the bag was present in the SN prior to the discovery of the rifle.

So what?

[Jack Nessan]

I don’t see Biffle's testimony or contemporaneous police statement anywhere......Pat Speer has discussed Biffle in depth. Biffle was mistaken.

Pat was mistaken. Biffles notes were taken on 11/22

[Colin Crow]

Pat was mistaken. Biffles notes were taken on 11/22

So who were all those guys staring at the bag when the gun was found? What did they say?

[Colin Crow]

Mr. DAY. On the first floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and I noticed from their wrapping bench there was paper and tape of a similar--the tape was of the same width as this. I took the bag over and tried it, and I noticed that the tape was the same width as on the bag.
Mr. BELIN. Did it appear to have the same color?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Then what did you do?
Mr. DAY. Sir?
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. DAY. I directed one of the officers standing by me, I don't know which, to get a piece of the tape and a piece of the paper from the wrapping bench.

Seems the bag was there Jack. When did this occur? On his way out with the rifle?

Perhaps Jack missed this? Anyone else want to offer an opinion?

[Walt Cakebread]

No CE 142 is not key to anything. If it had been destroyed it would not change anything. It is nothing more than a distraction and adds nothing to the understanding of the assassination.

Actually it does add to the understanding of the assassination as the WC claimed it was used by Oswald to bring the rifle into the building. Without it, you have no explanation on how Oswald could have gotten a rifle, allegedly stored in Irving, into the TSBD without Frazier seeing it.

The rifle is the key piece of information and can't be explained away.

Wrong again. The rifle by itself proves very little. It can't even be determined that it was actually fired that day and it most certainly doesn't connect to Oswald as the alleged owner. The only item that actually does that is the opinion of a handwriting expert who examined the handwriting on a Klein's order form.

People stated they saw LHO bring a long bag to the TSBD on the morning of 11/22. LHO could have burned the bag and nothing would be different.

Except for the fact that you there would be no proof or explanation on how Oswald brought the rifle into the building, when he only had one opportunity to do so!

The bag never was at the first floor wrapping table.

First of all; how in the world would you know that? And secondly, wrong again. The bag was made from TSBD materials and the tape used made it impossible for the bag to be made elsewhere. The bag was must certainly at the first floor wrapping table at some point in time.


It does not matter who discovered the bag as the bag can clearly be seen in the photo in the SN thanks to Patrick Jackson.

Yes, it can be seen in the photo, but that tells us nothing about how it got there and when. The photo also disproves the claim by the WC that the bag was found folded up on the floor at the other side of the S/N

Kent Biffle stated the bag was present in the SN prior to the discovery of the rifle.

So what?

 The bag was made from TSBD materials and the tape used made it impossible for the bag to be made elsewhere. 

Roy Truly gave the FBI a sample of the paper from the book wrapping table in the 1st floor shipping department and the FBI lab examined it and compared it to the paper of the bag that was allegedly found in what was imagined to be a "Sniper's Nest"......

A report written by FBI agent Vince Drain on 11/29/63 states..... Quote: " The paper was examined by the FBI laboratory and found not to be identical with the paper gun case that was found at the scene of the shooting".....Unquote

[Colin Crow]

Mr. DAY. On the first floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and I noticed from their wrapping bench there was paper and tape of a similar--the tape was of the same width as this. I took the bag over and tried it, and I noticed that the tape was the same width as on the bag.
Mr. BELIN. Did it appear to have the same color?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Then what did you do?
Mr. DAY. Sir?
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. DAY. I directed one of the officers standing by me, I don't know which, to get a piece of the tape and a piece of the paper from the wrapping bench.

Seems the bag was there Jack. When did this occur? On his way out with the rifle?

And while we wait, anyone want to suggest when Day had the opportunity to notice the wrapping bench and paper prior to the discovery of the bag he took to the table on the first floor?