Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Colin Crow]

Thanks Pat. There is a statement somewhere from Day that he did no processing of the paper and tape samples and mentions that was done by the FBI. He indicates that he could perform a matching of ends at that time and that it was a tedious process but it could be done. Do you recall where this statement was? I only read it yesterday and am struggling to find it in my files.

I found it. From No More Silence, Carl Day.

"Also found on the sixth floor, as I recall, near the shell area, was a paper bag. It should have been photographed, but for some reason, apparently wasn’t. The story that I received later was that when this man came to work that morning he was carrying something wrapped in shipping or wrapping paper or brown roll paper. In the shipping room on the first floor, there were one or
two rolls of that paper. We took the end pieces off those rolls for possible comparison with the bag that was found. It would have been a tedious job, but on other cases I’ve had occasion to match the ends of two pieces of paper. If you can find the right place, they’ll match up, even if it’s torn off. We had possession of that bag, but I didn’t have a chance to work with it due to events that later occurred."

Sounds like they took a sample to match ends. He claimed "end pieces" but only one roll sample was removed. Did he really think the end would match up with the bag? Or did he know that the roll they used to make the bag would have a matching end?

[Ross Lidell]

You're so desperate to make the flawed argument that no DPD officer would break the law in the Kennedy case for fear of the consequences.

John has shown you quite clearly that DPD officers have in fact broken the law in at least one other case, regardless of the consequences, so why would they do it there and not in the Kennedy case? Evidence tampering is a nearly every day occurrence as frequently demonstrated by the release of innocent prisoners who were in jail due to prosecutorial misconduct.

And there is in fact persuasive evidence that DPD officers did tamper with evidence one way or the other, so your entire argument is going nowhere...

John has shown you quite clearly that DPD officers have in fact broken the law in at least one other case, regardless of the consequences, so why would they do it there and not in the Kennedy case?

That's a non sequitur.

[Martin Weidmann]

John has shown you quite clearly that DPD officers have in fact broken the law in at least one other case, regardless of the consequences, so why would they do it there and not in the Kennedy case?

That's a non sequitur.

That's a non sequitur.

You don't know what you are talking about.

If you want to argue for argument's sake, you're going to have to find somebody else to bore to death with your BS

[Ross Lidell]

That's a non sequitur.

You don't know what you are talking about.

If you want to argue for argument's sake, you're going to have to find somebody else to bore to death with your BS

Non sequitur: A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

In other words: Because some members of the Dallas PD allegedly "broke the law" in a case sometime previous to the tragic events of 22 November 1963: It does not follow that they (the same ones or others) would become accessories before, during or after the fact to the murder of John F. Kennedy.

The consequences of the latter are many orders of magnitude greater than the former. Therefore you need to suggest a motive for Dallas PD officers risking the possibility of being prosecuted and convicted for a capital crime. Police officers would be aware of the terror experienced by those criminals who have been executed in the electric chair and not want to suffer that fate.

[John Iacoletti]

Ross, both cases involved the same police department in capital murder cases. Why would the potential consequences be any different?

[Martin Weidmann]

Non sequitur: A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

In other words: Because some members of the Dallas PD allegedly "broke the law" in a case sometime previous to the tragic events of 22 November 1963: It does not follow that they (the same ones or others) would become accessories before, during or after the fact to the murder of John F. Kennedy.

The consequences of the latter are many orders of magnitude greater than the former. Therefore you need to suggest a motive for Dallas PD officers risking the possibility of being prosecuted and convicted for a capital crime. Police officers would be aware of the terror experienced by those criminals who have been executed in the electric chair and not want to suffer that fate.

Non sequitur: A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

In other words: Because some members of the Dallas PD allegedly "broke the law" in a case sometime previous to the tragic events of 22 November 1963: It does not follow that they (the same ones or others) would become accessories before, during or after the fact to the murder of John F. Kennedy.

Stop googling fancy words you don't understand and can not place in the right context. I know what a non sequitur is and it doesn't apply here, simply because I made no statement offering a conclusion for you to dispute. I merely asked you a question and the fact that you play games rather than answering it is all I need to know. And besides, tampering with evidence doesn't make you become an accessory to the murder.

The consequences of the latter are many orders of magnitude greater than the former. Therefore you need to suggest a motive for Dallas PD officers risking the possibility of being prosecuted and convicted for a capital crime. Police officers would be aware of the terror experienced by those criminals who have been executed in the electric chair and not want to suffer that fate.

Yes, that's the agenda you have been pushing from the beginning; "those nice DPD officers wouldn't have done such a bad thing for fear of the consequences" and it is total BS for four simple reasons; (1) tampering with evidence can surely get an officer into trouble but it will not get him the death penalty, as it doesn't automatically make an officer a co-conspirator to a murder, (2) the frame of mind of an indivual is not such that he always considers possible consequences before he does something he feels he needs to do to achieve a goal, (3) police officers tampering with evidence are not always found out instantly and even less so if they all have eachothers back and (4) there is plausible and persuasive evidence that DPD officers did in fact tamper with evidence in the JFK case, which makes your entire point moot.

So, your entire little drama routine of "they wouldn't have done it for fear of the electric chair" is simply pathetically stupid.

[John Iacoletti]

(1) tampering with evidence can surely get an officer into trouble but it will not get him the death penalty, as it doesn't automatically make an officer a co-conspirator to a murder,

Martin is correct. Texas Penal Code, section 37.09:

Sec. 37.09.  TAMPERING WITH OR FABRICATING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.  (a)  A person commits an offense if, knowing that an investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, he:
(1)  alters, destroys, or conceals any record, document, or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in the investigation or official proceeding;  or
(2)  makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation or official proceeding.
(b)  This section shall not apply if the record, document, or thing concealed is privileged or is the work product of the parties to the investigation or official proceeding.
(c)  An offense under Subsection (a) or Subsection (d)(1) is a felony of the third degree, unless the thing altered, destroyed, or concealed is a human corpse, in which case the offense is a felony of the second degree. An offense under Subsection (d)(2) is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c-1)  It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) or (d)(1) that the record, document, or thing was visual material prohibited under Section 43.261 that was destroyed as described by Subsection (f)(3)(B) of that section.
(d)  A person commits an offense if the person:
(1)  knowing that an offense has been committed, alters, destroys, or conceals any record, document, or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in any subsequent investigation of or official proceeding related to the offense; or
(2)  observes a human corpse under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that an offense had been committed, knows or reasonably should know that a law enforcement agency is not aware of the existence of or location of the corpse, and fails to report the existence of and location of the corpse to a law enforcement agency.
(e)  In this section, "human corpse" has the meaning assigned by Section 42.08.

[Jerry Freeman]

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, did you notice when you looked at the bag whether there were---that is the bag found on the sixth floor, Exhibit 142--whether it had any bulges or unusual creases?
Mr. CADIGAN. I was also requested at that time to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. CADIGAN. And I couldn't find any such markings.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan1.htm

Did Mr Jim Cadigan special agent of the FBI blow his lines there?
Also I was wrong about 6 lb of alleged hardware in this bag...it was some 8 lbs that left no bulge marks or creases according to SA Cadigen.
Still not answered....How could Oswald have walked willy nilly into the building and yet no one at all inside noticed him carrying anything?