Archive for September, 2009

LEE HARVEY OSWALD: NOT GUILTY! THE PAPER BAG EVIDENCE

This paper bag was supposed to have hidden the killer rifle, but the rifle was carried out by itself...what is inside this paper bag? The Mauser rifle that was first described? (But wait--the Italian bullet HULLS found in the sniper's nest didn't match a German rifle! Another rifle had to take the Mauser's place --an Italian one. The Mauser 'morphed' into a Mannlicher-Carcano. )LEE HARVEY OSWALD: NOT GUILTY!
AGAIN AND AGAIN, EVIDENCE PROVING LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS FRAMED has been ignored by the bought-and-sold media. It’s in the ‘conspiracy’ books they don’t want you to read. remember, if Oswald was framed and a cover-up was conducted, the government was responsible. Even after decades, the government still pretends Oswald is guilty.
THE PAPER BAG THAT THE PUBLIC WAS TOLD HID THE ‘KILLER RIFLE’ IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF PLANTED EVIDENCE THAT WAS USED. WHAT’S INSIDE THAT BAG? THE ‘KILLER RIFLE’ WAS TAKEN OUT SEPARATELY. NOBODY KNOWS WHAT’S HOLDING THE BAG UP, BUT WE KNOW THAT THE FIRST RIFLE FOUND WAS A MAUSER, IDENTIFIED AS SUCH BY TWO SEASONED DALLAS POLICE OFFICERS (ONE OF THEM, ROGER CRAIG, A FORMER POLICEMAN OF THE YEAR IN DALLAS, LATER ‘KILLED HIMSELF’ BUT DESPITE THREATS AND HARASSMENT INSISTED THE RIFLE WAS A MAUSER. HE KNEW HIS FIREARMS AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN. BUT THE HULLS FOUND, LINED UP IN A ROW, AT THE SNIPER’S NEST, DIDN’T FIT THE MAUSER. THEY FIT AN ITALIAN RIFLE. SO THE MAUSER ‘VANISHED’ AND AN ITALIAN RIFLE APPEARED — A RIFLE ONLY APPROXIMATELY LIKE THE ONE IN THE ‘BACKYARD PHOTOS’ OF OSWALD THAT CONVINCED THE PUBLIC OSWALD WAS GUILTY, AS IT’S SEVERAL INCHES SHORTER AND HAS A DIFFERENT SLING MOUNT. (See YOUTUBE — and information from researcher Jack White)
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR PHOTO ON THE COVER OF LIFE MAGAZINE, HOLDING A RIFLE YOU NEVER OWNED, BUT TRACED TO YOU THROUGH A FAKE NAME AND YOUR FAKED HANDWRITING? HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE YOUR HEAD PASTED ONTO SOMEBODY ELSE’S BODY, AND WHEN YOU PROTEST THAT THE PHOTO ISN’T YOU, NOBODY LISTENS?
I KNEW LEE OSWALD. I AM DEDICATED TO PROVING HIS INNOCENCE. VISIT HTTP://WWW.JUDYTHVARYBAKER.COM TO LEARN MORE.

<img src="John F. Kennedy, JFK, Dealey Plaza, grassy knoll,” alt=”This schematic proves Lee Oswald was framed!” />Go to http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq248/DRoberdeau/th_DISASSEMBELEDrifleBAG_121204.gifto see the full-sized schematic proving Oswald was framed.

MEANWHILE, JUST TO GET STARTED– READ ABOUT THE PAPER BAG ‘EVIDENCE’ USED TO FRAME OSWALD:

==THE PAPER BAG==EVIDENCE PROVING OSWALD WAS FRAMED
THANK YOU TO JOURNALIST AND BEST-SELLING AUTHOR JIM MARRS FOR PERMISSION TO PRESENT THIS EVIDENCE TO THE PUBLIC, FROM HIS BOOK CROSSFIRE, THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY, WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE OLIVER STONE FILM “JFK.”
TO SEE MORE EVIDENCE PROVING OSWALD WAS INNOCENT, VISIT GOOGLE GROUPS “LEE HARVEY OSWALD FACT-CHECK COMMITTEE.” THE MATERIAL PRESENTED BELOW COMES FROM THAT SITE:
——————————————-

The Paper Bag (described as having hidden the killer rifle)

Here is the Frazier-paper bag issue as I presented in my book “Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy.”
Jim

Another major piece of evidence against Oswald was a brown paper bag reportedly discovered in the Texas School Book Depository on the afternoon of the assassination‑although it is not depicted in any of the crime scene photographs. The Warren Commission claimed the bag was used by Oswald to transport the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from a home in Irving, Texas, to the Depository on the morning of November 22, 1963.
If this bag indeed belonged to Oswald and if it could be traced to the Depository, it becomes strong evidence of Oswald’s guilt. But again, upon closer inspection, this piece of evidence becomes highly questionable. First, while the Oswald rifle was found to be well oiled, there is absolutely not trace of gun oil on the paper bag.
Second, federal authorities claimed to have found cloth fibers on the bag that matched those of a blanket used to wrap the rifle at the Irving home. However, a Dallas police photograph of assassination evidence shows the bag touching the blanket, thus producing the incrimination fiber evidence. To add credence to this idea, the FBI found no traces of paper bag particles on the rifle.
When the Dallas evidence was shipped to the FBI laboratory early on November 23, there is no mention of the paper bag. Instead, Dallas FBI agent-in-charge J. Gordon Shanklin mentioned the blanket, which he suggested was used to carry the rifle into the Depository.
Both Wesley Frazier and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, testified that Oswald took a paper bag to work with him on the morning of the assassination. However, both said they did not believe the bag they saw was like the one showed them by the Warren Commission. Frazier said Oswald told him the bag contained curtain rods for his room in Dallas. Frazier also said Oswald carried the package into the Depository tucked under his arm, with one end cupped in this hand and the other under his armpit.
Since the disassembled rifle measured thirty-five inches long, it would have been impossible for someone of Oswald’s height to carry it in this position.
Jack Dougherty, a Depository employee who saw Oswald arrive for work, said he had seen no bag.
Yet the paper bag was a necessary piece of evidence, for if Oswald did not carry the rifle into the Depository on November 22, then it must have gotten there in some other manner. This possibility opened too many areas of investigation. But if Oswald fashioned the bag from wrapping paper at the Depository—as the Warren Commission concluded—how did he get it to the Irving home, where he spent the night before the assassination?
Frazier, who drove Oswald to Irving, repeatedly said Oswald had no package with him at that time. The Commission decided Oswald must have hidden the paper bag in his jacket, although there was no reason to do so and despite the discomfort and rustling noise sure to have been made by a 42-inch-by-18-inch folded paper bag.
This whole issue is further clouded by the discovery of a duplicate FBI report that claims two opposite facts concerning the paper bag.
In a November 29, 1963 report released with other FBI documents in 1968, Agent Vincent Drain wrote:

This paper was examined by the FBI laboratory and found to have the same observable characteristics as the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case which was found near the scene of the shooting on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.
This paper was examined by the FBI laboratory and found to have the same observable characteristics as the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case which was found near the scene of the shooting on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.

In 1980, researcher Gary Shaw discovered what appeared to be this same FBI report in the National Archives. It bore the same dates and the same identification number—Dallas 89-43.
However, in this version of Drain’s report, it stated: “This paper was examined by the FBI laboratory and found not to be identical with the paper gun case found at the scene of the shooting.”
When pressed for an explanation of the two opposite versions of the same report, William Baker, the FBI’s assistant director of the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, told researcher Edgar F. Tatro the version that states Depository paper and the paper bag are not the same was “inaccurate.” Baker said the inaccuracy in Drain’s original report was caught at FBI headquarters and the Dallas office was instructed to “make corrections at that time.” He added that the “inaccurate” report was mistakenly passed along to the Warren Commission. Baker concluded: “We hope the above explanation resolves the problem.”
Far from resolving the problem of identical FBI reports that state opposite facts, this incident raises the question of how many other assassination documents stated one thing and were subsequently “revised.” And if there do exist “revised” documents in federal files, how would anyone know’ unless the originals accidentally slip out, as in this case?
Considering all of the above and considering that not one of the lawmen who searched the Depository mentioned finding the bag in their testimony, the evidence of the paper bag must be viewed skeptically.
——————————————
IAN GRIGGS WROTE A FINE PIECE ABOUT ‘THE PAPER BAG THAT NEVER WAS.’ BELOW IS A LENGTHY EXCERPT:

The Paper Bag that Never Was
by Ian Griggs

* * *

An examination of the evidence which suggests
that the paper bag in which Lee Harvey Oswald
is alleged to have brought a rifle into the
Texas School Book Depository never existed

——————————————————————————–

Mr Ball: “Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas School Book Depository building?”
Detective John Hicks (DPD Crime Lab): “No, sir; I did not.” (7H 289)
Mr Belin: “Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing or not?”
Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig: “No; I don’t remember seeing any.” (6H 268)

Mr Ball: “Does the sack show in any of the pictures you took?”
Detective Robert Studebaker: “No; it doesn’t show in any of the pictures.” (7H 144)

“The Dallas police did an extremely capable job of documenting with photographs the crime scene that had just been discovered.” (Extract from First Day Evidence by Gary Savage: The Shoppe Press, Monroe, Louisiana; 1993 – pages 145/146)

Mr Ball: “Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?”
Mr Jack Dougherty (TSBD employee): “Yes – when he first come into the door.”
Mr Ball: “Did he have anything in his hands or arms?”
Mr Dougherty: “Well, not that I could see of.”
Mr Ball: “In other words, you would say positively that he had nothing in his hands?”
Mr Dougherty: “I would say that – yes, sir.” (6H 376/377)

“Lt Day recalls that on evening of 11/22/63, about 11.30p.m. one of Captain FRITZ’ officers requested that he show this thick brown sack to a man named FRAZIER. Lt. DAY said that FRAZIER was unable to identify this sack and told him that a sack he observed in the possession of OSWALD early that morning was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like one purchased in a dime store.” (FBI memo, 29 November 1963)

—–
The Importance of the Paper Bag to the Warren CommissionThe final verdict of the Warren Commission (and I use the word ‘verdict’ deliberately) was that “the shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald.” (1) An essential part of the Commission’s conclusion revolves around Oswald bringing his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle into the Texas School Book Depository unnoticed on the morning of the assassination.
The sworn testimony of two people, Buell Wesley Frazier (2) and Mrs Linnie Mae Randle (3), was enough to satisfy the Commission that Oswald had concealed the rifle in a long paper bag (or sack) which he had carried to work that morning when he was a passenger in Frazier’s car. No other means of bringing the rifle to the book depository was ever suggested or explored, either by the Warren Commission or by anybody else in the official investigative field. Had the matter ever come to court, that paper bag would have been as essential an item of real evidence as anything else in the entire case.

Without the paper bag as a means of transportation and, as importantly, of concealment, the prosecution would have been hard-pressed to suggest how Oswald could have brought the rifle from its alleged hiding place in the Paine garage at Irving to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. The evidential value of the paper bag was equal to that of the rifle itself. Perhaps it was of even greater value. I feel that we can confidentially go as far as to say that without the paper bag, there would be no rifle – certainly no rifle in the possession of Lee Harvey Oswald. Where would that have left the prosecution case against him?

Dallas Police Lieutenant J C Day and the Finding of the Bag on the Sixth Floor
The fact that there is no photograph of the paper bag in situ immediately raises suspicion as to whether or not it was found where the Warren Commission said it was found. On the face of it, this should not prove an insurmountable problem. It is surely a simple task to refer to the testimony of the police officer who first saw it. Here, however, we encounter another problem. There is no way of establishing exactly who that may have been. According to the Warren Commission Report: “At the time the bag was found, Lieutenant Day of the Dallas police wrote on it, “Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lt. J.C.Day”” (4).
There is nothing in that brief statement to indicate either when the bag was found or, more importantly, by whom. As is so often the case, however, there is far more information to be gained from a study of the 26 Volumes of Hearings and Exhibits than from the incomplete and often ambiguous conclusions of the final Warren Report.

Lieutenant John Carl Day, head of the Dallas Police Department Crime Scene Search Section, testified before the Warren Commission at the offices of the Commission at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Building, 200 Maryland Avenue NE, Washington, DC on 22nd April 1964. The vast majority of his examination was conducted by Assistant Counsel David W Belin but there were also occasional questions from Commissioner John J McCloy (5).

When Mr Belin began to question Lieutenant Day about the paper bag, there was considerable confusion as to which paper bag was being discussed. At first, Lieutenant Day appeared to be referring to a lunch bag – presumably the one which had been found to contain fried chicken. Mr Belin then asked him: “What other kind of sack was found?” Lieutenant Day’s reply was a strange one: “A homemade sack, brown paper with 3-inch tape found right in the corner, the southeast corner of the building near where the slugs were found.” (6). To me, as a former operational detective with formal training and experience in investigative techniques, this seems very much like a ‘prepared’ response which gives far more information than the question asks. The word ‘slugs’ is an obvious error and was quickly corrected by Mr McCloy who intervened to seek confirmation that Lieutenant Day meant ‘hulls’ (empty or spent cartridge cases).

Mr Belin next showed Lieutenant Day a photograph of the interior of the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository – that area which later became known as the ‘sniper’s nest’ (7). Mr Belin said: “I will first ask you to state if this picture was taken before or after anything was removed from the area.” Lieutenant Day dutifully replied: “The sack had been removed.” No explanation was offered – and none was sought.

Who Actually Found the Paper Bag?The simple truth is that we do not know who found the paper bag. Furthermore, there was only one person who has said that he saw the bag where the dotted outline on CE 1302 says it was. That person was Detective Robert Lee Studebaker – the man who, at the request of firstly an unidentified FBI Agent (8) and then of Warren Commission Assistant Counsel Joseph A Ball, actually drew that dotted outline (9). More of Detective Studebaker later.
Let us examine the testimony of some of the other law enforcement officers (Dallas Police Department and Dallas County Sheriff’s Department) who would have been in a position to have seen the bag.

Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney
The Warren Report describes a very important find as follows:

“Around 1 p.m Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney noticed a pile of cartons in front of the window in the southeast corner of the sixth floor . Searching that area he found at approximately 1:12 p.m. three empty cartridge cases on the floor near the window. When he was notified of Mooney’s discovery, Capt. J.W. Fritz, chief of the homicide bureau of the Dallas Police Department, issued instructions that nothing be moved or touched until technicians from the police crime laboratory could take photographs and check for fingerprints. Mooney stood guard to see that nothing was disturbed. A few minutes later, Lt. J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Department arrived and took photographs of the cartridge cases before anything had been moved.” (10).

Those few sentences inevitably raise a series of relevant questions, each of which seems to have two possible answers:

Why is there no mention of Mooney finding or seeing the paper bag during his search of that area? Two immediate possibilities spring to mind: either Mooney failed to notice it because he was standing on it – or perhaps it was not there.
Captain Fritz ordered that nothing be disturbed but when that scene was photographed, why does the bag not appear in any photograph? Again there are two possibilities: either the photographer (who may or may not have been Lieutenant Day himself) failed to realise its relevance and moved it himself (an unlikely possibility) – or perhaps it was not there.
Is it possible that one of the police officers present either ignored or misunderstood Captain Fritz’ orders and did remove the bag? The two possibilities are that either someone committed one of the most serious errors ever in the history of crime scene preservation – or perhaps it was not there.

Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Roger Dean CraigWhen Deputy Sheriff Craig gave his testimony to Assistant Counsel David W Belin in Dallas in the early afternoon of 1st April 1964, there was some initial confusion as to which bag (or sack) was being discussed. This was not a unique situation. We have already seen it in the case of Lieutenant Day’s testimony. The testimony of several witnesses was subject to similar problems. Remember, there was supposed to be a large paper bag (said to have contained a deadly rifle) and a small paper bag (said to contain the remains of a dead chicken).

Mr Belin established that Craig had gone to the southeast corner of the sixth floor immediately after the finding of the spent cartridges. Craig confirmed that he had noticed: “the kind of paper bag that you carry your lunch in” laying on top of a box. Mr Belin then asked: “Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing, or not?” Craig’s reply was both instant and uncompromising: “No; I don’t remember seeing any.” (11).

Perhaps because Craig’s answer to that had been so positive, Mr Belin did not press the point and he never returned to the question of the longer bag during the remainder of Craig’s questioning.

Dallas Police Sergeant Gerald Lynn Hill
Sergeant Hill testified before Mr Belin in Dallas on the afternoon of 8th April 1964. Like Deputy Sheriff Craig, he described seeing a “paper sack which appeared to have been about the size normally used for a lunch sack” on top of a stack of boxes in the southeast corner of the sixth floor (12). He did not mention any other paper sack or bag in the area and the subject was not reintroduced until much later in his testimony when Sergeant Hill came out with the following in reference to a previous conversation with Mr Belin:

“You were asking Officer Hicks if either one recalled seeing a sack, supposedly one that had been made by the suspect, in which he could have possibly carried the weapon into the Depository, and I at that time told you about the small sack that appeared to be a lunchsack, and that that was the only sack that I saw, and that I left the Book Depository prior to the finding of the gun. Or the section, if it was found up there on the sixth floor, if it was there, I didn’t see it.” (13)

Dallas Police Detective John B Hicks
Since he had been mentioned by Sergeant Hill, it is logical to examine what Detective Hicks, a member of Lieutenant Day’s Crime Scene Search Section, had to say about the finding and existence of the long paper bag. Detective Hicks worked in the Crime Laboratory and he testified before Assistant Counsel Joseph A Ball in Dallas on 7th April 1964.

Toward the end of his testimony, during an examination of his actions and functions within the Crime Lab, the following exchange took place:

MR BALL: “Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas School Book Depository building?”
DET HICKS: “Paper bag?”
MR BALL: “Paper bag.”
DET HICKS: “No, sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken bones or maybe a lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up.”
MR BALL: “Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper; did you ever see it?”
DET HICKS: “No, sir; I don’t believe I did. I don’t recall it.”
MR BALL: “I believe that’s all, Mr Hicks.” (14)

TO SEE THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, VISIT http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/15th_Issue/pbag1.html

COMMENTS WORTH NOTING FROM RESEARCHERS:
Walt View profile
More options Aug 28, 4:58 am

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: Walt
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Aug 28 2009 4:58 am
Subject: Re: The Paper Bag Oswald Used on 11/22/63
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On Aug 27, 2009, 12:16 pm, daytonac…@webtv.net (Neil Coburn) wrote:

> There was no saw-dust on the rifle or the paper bag or the blanket found
> on the floor of PAINES GARAGE. Yet everything else on the floor was
> covered with saw-dust. Strange place that garage.
> Neil

Yes indeed, Neil….. What’s really strange is the LNer’s believe
that the rough finshed rifle picked up a few fibers from that blanket
and then shed ALL of those fibers in that paper bag.
—————
How utterly absurd!!….. If the rifle had been wrapped in that
blanket and transported from New Orleans to Irving Texas and handled
many times in the move it would have been literally covered with
blanket fibers. But the FBI did not find a SINGLE blanket fiber on
that rifle!!

Advertisements

Leave a Comment