Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[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?

[Walt Cakebread]

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

It had what we call a wartime finish on the barrel

Detective Liar Day could get away with blatant lies like this because most folks were ignorant and didn't know that what he was saying was a lie.

A "war time finish" is a dull non reflective finish.....  The process to create that finish was called "Parkerizing"    and the Mannlicher Carcano did not have a parkerized finish.   The carcano has a blued steel finish like many hunting rifles.    And that surface does in fact take and hold fingerprints.