Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.  (Read 96727 times)

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #512 on: March 19, 2020, 07:13:49 PM »
Advertisement
There was another thread about some  documents that indicate curtain rods were returned to Mrs Paines garage and referencing a 27” length package
There is a discrepancy of the date on that document about the rods found and being “returned” on a date when Mrs Paine was on vacation

This suggests to me that Oswald DID ACTUALLY take the 27”package of blinds and rods that Mrs Paine DID have on a shelf in the garage , on Friday morning Nov 22/63 and that was the package Buell saw Oswald able to carry between armpit and palm of hand

That package Oswald probable left in the Annex roofed portion of loading dock as he entered the outer door and BEFORE he entered the rear door to TSBD proper, thus why Jack Dougherty saw no package in Oswalds hands

That package may not have beendiscovered until the date on that document which is about a month after Nov 22 and so they HAD no choice but return that package to Paines garage while she was onvacation, then stage a fake return when Mrs Paine has returned to “make sure” that Oswald had not taken any package from the garage

'Faked'

Are you sure you can't also work 'planted' or 'altered in some way' into this
« Last Edit: March 19, 2020, 07:25:53 PM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #512 on: March 19, 2020, 07:13:49 PM »


Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #513 on: March 19, 2020, 07:29:11 PM »
Says the guy who has no evidence whatsoever that a rifle was in that bag or in any bag.

Appeals to ridicule are no substitute for evidence.

Appeals to ridicule are no substitute for evidence.

It's all Charles Collins has... opinions and nothing to support or to defend them except for the opinions of others quoted from books, which he may or may not support himself....

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #514 on: March 19, 2020, 07:30:43 PM »
The bag: What are the chances? Yep, all long bags in 1963 were mandated to carry blanket fibers
« Last Edit: March 19, 2020, 07:33:55 PM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #514 on: March 19, 2020, 07:30:43 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #515 on: March 19, 2020, 08:11:08 PM »
"blanket fibers".  LOL.

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #516 on: March 19, 2020, 09:03:53 PM »
The bag: What are the chances? Yep, all long bags in 1963 were mandated to carry blanket fibers

Your lack of actual knowledge about the evidence in this case is astounding.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #516 on: March 19, 2020, 09:03:53 PM »


Offline Ross Lidell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #517 on: March 19, 2020, 10:52:10 PM »
Huh? I didn't raise anything of the kind.... You seem to be talking to the wrong guy.

And, for what it is worth, I don't think that Dallas cops were in on the assassination before, during or after the fact. What I do believe is possible is that they didn't have to be "in on it" for the WC narrative to be construed.

Marty,

I was fooled by the double-quote: J. Freeman and you. Off my game because of concern about the China-virus pandemic.

But surely any deliberate suppression of evidence or enhancement of evidence (by the Dallas police) would be highly illegal? When is it incompetence and when is it an offense?
« Last Edit: March 19, 2020, 10:54:59 PM by Ross Lidell »

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #518 on: March 19, 2020, 11:20:23 PM »
Your lack of actual knowledge about the evidence in this case is astounding.

Chappue could care less that he's grossly ignorant about the fundamentals ......He's just an ignorant troll.....

Offline Colin Crow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1860
Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #519 on: March 19, 2020, 11:30:06 PM »
You wanted corroboration that they stood around and talked about the bag and you got it.

Studebaker did not first pick up the bag Montgomery did.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag.
Mr. BELIN. Where was this found?
Mr. JOHNSON. Right in the corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. On what floor?
Mr. JOHNSON. Sixth floor.
Mr. BELIN. Which corner?
Mr. JOHNSON. Southeast corner.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know who found it?
Mr. JOHNSON. I know that the first I saw of it, L. D. Montgomery, my partner, picked it up off the floor, and it was folded up, and he unfolded it.
Mr. BELIN. When it was folded up, was it folded once or refolded?
Mr. JOHNSON. It was folded and then refolded. It was a fairly small package.

Mr. JOHNSON. No; other than like I said, my partner picked it up and we unfolded it and it appeared to be about the same shape as a rifle case would be. In other words, we made the remark that that is what he probably brought it in.
That is why, the reason we saved it.

It is not quite that simple. Patrick Jackson solved the mystery of why the bag was not photographed . They had picked it up and moved it. Biffle confirms the event.

No mention of Studebaker doing anything first.

I have no doubt the bag was on the sixth floor Jack. I propose that the picture shows the bag at some time around 2pm or so. The rifle was found about 1.22pm (from memory). As for using Johnson to claim that Biffle's claim the bag wa found before the rifle I have already said that Johnson indicates this happened after Studebaker had returned from assisting Day with the rifle. After he had finished processing evidence where Johnson was (pop bottle and chicken lunch).


So you have no corroboration of Biffle seeing the bag before the gun was found. No one said there was a reporter there and Biffle did not name anyone. An unconfirmed, uncorroborated anecdote not offered as an official statement or under oath.

And as for using Johnson.....

Mr. BELIN. Your testimony then is that all the sack would have been east of the pipes. Is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSON. I would say that the sack was folded up here and it was east of the pipes in the corner. To the best of my memory, that is where my partner picked it up. I was standing there when he picked it up.
Mr. BELIN. You were standing there when he picked it up?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, because the Crime Lab was already finished where I was, and I had already walked off to where he was.

Johnson gave us the best indication when this occurred. He was assigned an area west of the SN, essentially guarding the chicken lunch remnants, outside the arranged boxes. Once Studebaker returned following the departure of Day with the rifle, Studebaker processed the bottle and lunch sack. Johnson then moved to where Montgomery was inside the SN. This is when Montgomery "discovered" the bag.

The bag was used to cover the inital wooden strip removed from a SN window. The bag was originally made to transport the rifle back to City Hall. That plan was abandoned by Carl Day. He hints at the use of paper to protect crime evidence for transport. The Crime Scene guy routinely bring bags etc with them for transporting evidence to the lab for processing. They had no such bag big enough to do so. There are pictures of the rifle and other evidence sitting on a large sheet of paper. Why do you think they put paper under the evidence to photograph it?

Did Day initially think it was a good idea to wrap the rifle up and then abandon the idea?

"Just looking at it I thought the chances were slim that we’d find any prints on the rifle itself. It had what we call a wartime
finish on the barrel which would lift out of the stock. That type of surface didn’t take prints well, nor did the wood stock which was too course or rough. You’ve got to have a smooth, fairly clean surface before the ridges will leave an impression. If it’s rougher than the ridges of the finger, you’re not going to find anything there.

At that time, just through casual observation, it didn’t look too promising. It wasn’t the place to try to do any fingerprint work since it’s a rather lengthy process and we had other things to do. So I decided to carry the gun back to the office at City Hall, store it under lock and key, examine it under ideal conditions, and get to it when I could. I didn’t have anything to wrap it up with at the time, so I carried it out making sure that I didn’t touch anything other than the strap. Besides, you had to be careful in wrapping stuff because if there were any prints, you’re liable to smear them just from the wrapping."

Carl Day from No More Silence

« Last Edit: March 19, 2020, 11:33:19 PM by Colin Crow »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
« Reply #519 on: March 19, 2020, 11:30:06 PM »