Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[Gary Craig]

Ergo; the photograph showing the blanket and the bag together was either taken prior to 7:30 a.m. November 23, 1963 or during Stombaugh's examination

Since it's obvious that the photo shows that blanket was in contact with the paper sack then any blanket fiber found in the sack could have been deposited there at the rime the two items were together.....So the blanket fiber in the paper sack s useless as evidence....

The significance of fibers from the blanket in the bag would be that they were transfered from the Carcano,
which allegedly was wrapped in it for months. However since no fibers from the blanket were found on the rifle the logical explanation is cross contamination or worse the planting of evidence. IMO

[Walt Cakebread]

The significance of fibers from the blanket in the bag would be that they were transfered from the Carcano,
which allegedly was wrapped in it for months. However since no fibers from the blanket were found on the rifle the logical explanation is cross contamination or worse the planting of evidence. IMO

since no fibers from the blanket were found on the rifle

You're right there was not a single blanket fiber found on the Carcano.....Which is an astronomical improbability ( maybe impossible) if that rifle had been wrapped in that blanket....   

IMO that rifle was NOT ever wrapped in that blanket.....But Marina at least thought that "SOMETHING" like rifle was in that blanket...as did Mike Paine....   

Can anybody think of a plausible explanation for no fibers being found on the rifle?   I'm familiar with carcanos and they all have sharp points and irregularities that would snag a loosely woven blanket.   So there should have been TUFTS of blanket material on that rifle.......( The FBI claimed that a tuft of shirt material was found clinging to the butt of the rifle, so tufts of blanket should definitely have been adhering to the rifle) 

[Walt Cakebread]

since no fibers from the blanket were found on the rifle

You're right there was not a single blanket fiber found on the Carcano.....Which is an astronomical improbability ( maybe impossible) if that rifle had been wrapped in that blanket....   

IMO that rifle was NOT ever wrapped in that blanket.....But Marina at least thought that "SOMETHING" like rifle was in that blanket...as did Mike Paine....   

Can anybody think of a plausible explanation for no fibers being found on the rifle?   I'm familiar with carcanos and they all have sharp points and irregularities that would snag a loosely woven blanket.   So there should have been TUFTS of blanket material on that rifle.......( The FBI claimed that a tuft of shirt material was found clinging to the butt of the rifle, so tufts of blanket should definitely have been adhering to the rifle)

Either the rifle was carefully cleaned by wiping it with a lint free cloth and a vacuum cleaner...or it was NOT the rifle that had been in the blanket....

Personally I lean toward the cleaning and vacuuming of the rifle ....   But that would mean that it had been removed from the garage prior to 11/22/63.   ( A distinct possibility because the only reference to the presence of the rifle in the blanket was by Marina and she said she had seen it several weeks prior to 11/22/63....)

[John Iacoletti]

Stombaugh examined the bag on the 23rd.  Day testified that the photo was taken on the the 26th, as they were turning that evidence over to the FBI for the 2nd time.  Therefore, Stombaugh analyzed the bag three days BEFORE the photo, that you posted in an attempt to show contamination, was even taken.  Prove Day was wrong about the date?

Prove that Day was right about the date.  It's your claim.  I understand that you believe anything a cop says (as long as it fits your biases anyway), but that doesn't prove that it's actually true.  What was the basis of Day's identifying the date?  Let me pick a random photo on your phone or camera or photo album from months ago and see it you can identify what date it was taken.

As for the "other photo", no one here has shown that it was taken before Stombaugh examined those two items.  Therefore, why mention it?

No one here has shown that the other photo was taken after Stombaugh examined those two items.  Why the double standard?  Why are items of evidence being set out on tables together at any time?

What we have here is a piece of evidence that could have been contaminated by improper evidence handling and some fibers on a bag that can't even be uniquely tied to a blanket, and that somehow shows that a particular rifle was in that particular bag?  In what universe?

[John Iacoletti]

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11479#relPageId=2&tab=page

You'll find the date that the photo was taken on page 6.

Thanks Tim.

[Bill Brown]

The bag was stained very dark by the method of esting the FBI used on 11/23/63..... If the bag isn't stained dark the photo was taken PRIOR to the testing....

Means nothing.

There was a period of time between when Stombaugh analyzed the bag and when Latona put the silver nitrate on it.

Just because the bag in the photo does not have the silver nitrate on it doesn't automatically mean that Stombaugh has yet to analyze it.

[Tim Nickerson]

Means nothing.

There was a period of time between when Stombaugh analyzed the bag and when Latona put the silver nitrate on it.

Just because the bag in the photo does not have the silver nitrate on it doesn't automatically mean that Stombaugh has yet to analyze it.

Very true Bill.

[Bill Brown]

Prove that Day was right about the date.  It's your claim.  I understand that you believe anything a cop says (as long as it fits your biases anyway), but that doesn't prove that it's actually true.  What was the basis of Day's identifying the date?  Let me pick a random photo on your phone or camera or photo album from months ago and see it you can identify what date it was taken.

No one here has shown that the other photo was taken after Stombaugh examined those two items.  Why the double standard?  Why are items of evidence being set out on tables together at any time?

What we have here is a piece of evidence that could have been contaminated by improper evidence handling and some fibers on a bag that can't even be uniquely tied to a blanket, and that somehow shows that a particular rifle was in that particular bag?  In what universe?

Prove that Day was right about the date.  It's your claim.  I understand that you believe anything a cop says (as long as it fits your biases anyway), but that doesn't prove that it's actually true.  What was the basis of Day's identifying the date?  Let me pick a random photo on your phone or camera or photo album from months ago and see it you can identify what date it was taken.

No.  You prove that Day was wrong about the date the photo was taken.

I already told you that the significance of the date for Day was that the photo was being taken as they were turning over the evidence to the FBI for the 2nd time.

No one here has shown that the other photo was taken after Stombaugh examined those two items.  Why the double standard?

Just because you haven't followed along doesn't mean there is a double standard.

This is real simple, to those who have paid attention.

The photo was posted in an attempt to supposedly show that there was evidence contamination.

What we have here is a piece of evidence that could have been contaminated by improper evidence handling and some fibers on a bag that can't even be uniquely tied to a blanket, and that somehow shows that a particular rifle was in that particular bag?  In what universe?

Straw man.