Rolling Readers & Murdered Leaders

[Rob Caprio]

"Oswald's prints on the boxes prove he was in that window, but they can't prove when he was there exactly."

Sorry Bill, it does nothing of the kind. It may prove he handled the boxes, but it doesn't prove he was there.

Bingo Ray. The FBI expert couldn't say how old the prints were either. LHO worked there so of course he touched boxes.

[Rob Caprio]

Yep. Just a coincidence that Oswald's prints were found in a position that would indicate handling the box in such a way so as to position it in a precise direction; ie straight down Broadway.

The prints are worthless. The FBI expert admitted without examining LHO's hands, and he never did, he was simply taking what were CLAIMED to be LHO's prints and going from there.

[Martin Weidmann]

Describe this 'questionable validity' of yours and keep in mind that the angled tip of the front-most box was seen in Dilliard seconds after the final shot.

Re any 'evasiveness' from me, you've just answered that yourself in this comment to Charles:
Martin@Charles: "If I recall correctly, Alyea's film of the area also does not show the paper bag in situ, nor it's removal from the sniper's nest, which either indicates that the bag wasn't there to begin with or it was already removed by somebody"

Brilliant "logic"!

You claim that the photo was taken with the boxes in situ. For that claim to be true and of any value you need to presume that the crime scene was not previously contaminated, but you have in fact no way of knowing if anybody had messed with the scene already. In fact, by claiming at the same time that the paper bag had already been removed, you seem to accept and are in fact arguing that somebody did in fact tamper with the scene before the photo was taken, making your initial claim completely invalid.

Why in the world would anybody remove evidence from a crime scene before a picture of that scene was taken? And if the paper bag was indeed removed, who removed it and for what purpose? And how in the world can you be sure that anything in the photo is in fact in situ and authentic, when you already accept that evidence was removed from the scene prior to the picture being taken? 
 

[Martin Weidmann]

You haven't changed your very annoying habit of trying to tell people that they said something that they didn't say. Bill didn't say nobody messed with the crime scene before that picture was taken. He said the boxes were photographed in the position they were found before removing them for fingerprinting.

Yes, he did say that, but he presented the photograph as proof that the items were in situ, to support his claim that the prints on the boxes were pointing in a particular direction.

If you can't read between the lines or understand the connection between his first comment and the presentation of the picture, that's really not my problem, is it now?

Bill seems to have accepted since that at least the paper bag was removed from the scene prior to the photograph being taken. In my book removing evidence from a crime scene is evidence tampering and a contamination of the crime scene. Do you agree?

So, in your mind, what is the value of a picture taken of an already contaminated crime scene? Is there any way to determine that the contamination of the crime scene was limited to the removal of one item?

[Thomas Graves]

In "the Sniper's Nest"... LOL! There is no evidence supporting that there was a Sniper's Nest at 12:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963, therefore, the rest of your post is nothing but hypothetical.

Caprio,

Had there really been a sniper's nest at that window at 12:30, what kind of evidence of it would you reasonably expect to exist?

A well-exposed 35mm color film taken from that part of the sixth floor at the time, accompanied by notarized statements from the photographer and his or her helpers?

Or ... gasp ... boxes arranged in that configuration with ... gasp ... the sniper's fingerprints on them?

-- MWT 

[Bill Chapman]

The prints are worthless. The FBI expert admitted without examining LHO's hands, and he never did, he was simply taking what were CLAIMED to be LHO's prints and going from there.

Name the expert and provide a link to that.

[Richard Smith]

Bingo Ray. The FBI expert couldn't say how old the prints were either. LHO worked there so of course he touched boxes.

Poor Oswald was certainly an unlucky guy.  Time and again the evidence points back to him due random bad luck.  Let's see he is the only TSBD employee to leave prints on the boxes.  Others worked there but Oswald's are the only employee prints they find.  What are the odds?  And his prints are on the bag and rifle.  More bad luck.  And he has no credible alibi like almost every other person who worked there.  And he flees the scene.  Gets a pistol.  Happens to cross paths with the murder of a police officer less than an hour later (the only DPD officer killed within a several year period).  He has the same two brands of ammo as Tippit's killer.  He apparently looked just like the real killer.  So much bad luck.

[Gary Craig]

If there had been a thousand pictures taken of the bag, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to CTers.  They would then claim it was planted there or that it has no probative value in proving Oswald's guilt ("silly and irrelevant").  Some genius would ask if everyone who carried a long bag to work was a presidential assassin (as though there were no context to this bag).  How do we know this?  Because Oswald's rifle was found and photographed and they still go down that rabbit hole clinging to any straw.  No photo was taken.  Great - let's argue despite the assurance of multiple detectives that it wasn't there.  If a photo had been taken, then it's on to plan B without missing a beat and suggest it was planted, Oswald's prints just happened to be on it because he worked there etc.  A photo has no value when taken.  Only when not taken.  Round and round down the rabbit hole.

"If there had been a thousand pictures taken of the bag, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to CTers.  They would then claim it was planted there or that it has no probative value in proving Oswald's guilt ("silly and irrelevant")."

True. Since the bag in the archives contains zero forensic evidence of ever holding the TSBD Carcano and the 2 people who saw LHO carrying something that morning both describe a bag 27 inches long - too short to have carried the TSBD Carcano - the logical conclusion would be planted evidence.