Post by Rob Caprio on Aug 1, 2021 12:57:05 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
4.bp.blogspot.com/-6Uj9yD0bmp0/T35KWzAD4OI/AAAAAAAAHQ0/tdmr0qe5Rgg/s1600/CE142.jpg
2.bp.blogspot.com/-xQmg5GCRI3Q/UFyxIxL-C5I/AAAAAAAAAGc/5tIdsn8vlu4/s1600/JFK+-+Montgomery+paper+bag.jpg
I have received suggestions from the Warren Commission (WC) defenders before in this series, and now it is time for another one. This comes from Mike Williams as he is claiming there is testimony from officers on the scene that supports the finding of the alleged paper bag in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) allegedly used to bring his alleged rifle to work in on the morning of November 22, 1963.
Let’s examine this testimony further to see if what Mike is claiming is accurate. This one is for you Mike!
*******************************************
We will start with the man responsible for the crime scene — Lt. J.C. Day of the Crime Scene Search Section.
Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked 728, would you state if you know what this is?
Photo: jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce728.jpg
Mr. DAY. This is the third aisle from the east side of the building, sixth floor, Texas School Book Depository.
Mr. BELIN. Was that taken on November 22 or November 25?
Mr. DAY. It was taken on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else with the pop bottle when you were in that area?
Mr. DAY. There was a brown-paper sack, like a lunch sack.
Mr. BELIN. About how large?
Mr. DAY. It does not show in the picture.
Mr. BELIN. Where would the sack have been located?
Mr. DAY. Sir?
Mr. BELIN. Where would that sack have been located, if you know?
Mr. DAY. I don't remember.
This is NOT a promising start for the WC or Mike. I mean, first of all he said he saw a “lunch sack” with the pop bottle, and, secondly, he CAN’T even remember where it was as he is looking for the photograph to show him! It was presumably taken by HIM too!
Mr. BELIN. You mentioned a sack that would have been at that third aisle. Was any kind of a sack found on the sixth floor, if you know?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What other kind of a sack was found?
Mr. DAY. 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.
Mr. McCLOY. Near where the hulls were found?
Mr. DAY. Near where the hulls. What did I say?
Mr. McCLOY. Slugs.
Mr. DAY. Hulls.
Mr. BELIN. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 729 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Photo: historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0267a.jpg
Mr. DAY. 729 is a photograph of the inside wall, south and east walls, right at the corner of the building at the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository.
Mr. BELIN. I notice some pipes on the right portion of this picture as you face it, and I also notice a box. I will first ask you to state if this picture was taken before or after anything was removed from the area.
Mr. DAY. *****The sack had been removed.*****
Why was the bag REMOVED BEFORE the picture was taken? This is NOT normal crime scene procedure in the least, so all we have is his word for it now. We are supposed to take his WORD for it on the following too I guess.
Mr. BELIN. Where was the sack found with relation to the pipes and that box?
Mr. DAY. Between the sack and the south wall, which would be the wall at the top of the picture as shown here.
Mr. BELIN. You mean between--you said the sack.
Mr. DAY. I mean the pipe. The sack was between the pipe and the wall at the top of the picture.
Mr. BELIN. That wall at the top of the picture would be the east wall, would it not?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; laying parallel to the south wall.
Mr. BELIN. Did the sack--was it folded over in any way or just lying flat, if you remember?
Mr. DAY. It was folded over with the fold next to the pipe, to the best of my knowledge.
We are left with Lt. Day’s word for all of this all because he did NOT snap a photograph of it supposedly. Could it be that there was NO sack/bag to photograph? Isn't that more likely to you? Why else would HE NOT photograph the bag before it was removed as he is stating? He had FULL control of the crime scene so NO one should have touched anything without his permission and before he was finished.
We should NOT be left with the "best of knowledge" but should have photographs showing the bag in situ.
About those fingerprints many WC defenders like to mention about this bag, let's look at what Lt. Day said, okay?
Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142.
Photo:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0154a.jpg
Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any identification on that to so indicate?
Mr. DAY. It has my name on it, and it also has other writing that I put on there for the information of the FBI.
Mr. BELIN. Could you read what you wrote on there?
Mr. DAY. "Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day."
Mr. BELIN. When did you write that?
Mr. DAY. I wrote that at the time the sack was found before it left our possession.
Mr. BELIN. All right, anything else that you wrote on there?
Mr. DAY. When the sack was released on November 22 to the FBI about 11:45 p.m., I put further information to the FBI reading as follows:
"FBI: Has been dusted with metallic magnetic powder on outside only. Inside has not been processed. Lieut J. C. Day."
Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything, any print of any kind, in connection with the processing of this?
Mr. DAY. ****No legible prints were found with the powder, no.****
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether any legible prints were found by any other means or any other place?
Mr. DAY. *****There is a legible print on it now.***** They were on there when it was returned to me from the FBI on November 24.
How convenient for them that they find NO prints when they allegedly dusted it BEFORE it went to the FBI and then -- Presto -- they have a print. Supposedly “silver nitrate” was the reason for the magic.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know by what means they found these?
Mr. DAY. It is apparently silver nitrate. It could be another compound they have used. The sack had an orange color indicating it was silver nitrate.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the sack when it came back from the FBI had a----
Mr. DAY. Orange color. It is another method of processing paper for fingerprints.
This is still highly questionable as we see this process over and over again. Remember, the killing of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) was a LOCAL crime, so what would the Dallas Police Department (DPD) have done if the FBI did NOT push their way into the case with NO jurisdiction? Are we supposed to believe Day would NOT have found this print without “silver nitrate?”
This next comment sure doesn’t inspire confidence.
Mr. BELIN. Was there anything inside the bag, if you know, when you found it?
Mr. DAY. I did not open the bag. I did not look inside of the bag at all.
What? How in the world can you be sure a rifle had been in it IF YOU DID NOT OPEN IT AND LOOK? See how much value he put in this sack/bag with this comment!
Mr. BELIN. What did you do with the bag after you found it and you put this writing on after you dusted it?
Mr. DAY. I released it to the FBI agent.
Mr. BELIN. Did you take it down to the station with you?
Mr. DAY. I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left. I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in.
Mr. BELIN. By this you are referring to the bag itself?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
He released it to the FBI agent with NO JURISDICTION! Talk about ruining the evidence, huh? If there was really anything to ruin.
Another person mentioned by the WC defenders is Detective Robert Studebaker who was Day’s assistant. Let’s look at what he had to say about the sack/bag. We’ll begin with his estimate regarding the size of the bag.
Mr. BALL. Now, how big was this paper.that you saw - you saw the wrapper - tell me about how big that paper bag was - how long was it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was about, I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long.
Mr. BALL. The paper bag?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
This was totally at odds with the TWO WITNESSES the Warren Commission (WC) had for the bag! They said it was between 24” and 27”. He would also say the bag was found in a storage room!
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.
Storage room? See the confusion you get all because Day did NOT photograph the alleged bag in situ?
Studebaker was so observant he did NOT even know who took the pictures that did NOT show the bag!
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0336a.jpg
How about those diagrams he mentioned in his testimony?
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - ***I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.***
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Why can't anyone remember anyone's name in this case? I mean someone from the FBI calls him down and says "draw a diagram" and he doesn't even bother to get his name for his report? Come on. Why did Ball NOT pursue this and ask if he could recognize him at least? This is all vague and would have been destroyed on cross-examination.
Why do we get "dotted lines" INSTEAD OF THE BAG IN THE PICTURE?
Back to "Crime Scene Procedures 101"!
Mr. BALL. Did you take a picture of it before you picked it up?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Wrong answer, this means there is NO chain of custody for this "evidence", thus, it would have been barred from court. Well that and the FACT Day gave it to a FBI agent with NO JURISDICTION too.
Another person mentioned by the WC defenders is Officer Marvin Johnson. Johnson told the WC this:
Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything else up in the southeast corner of the sixth floor? We have talked about the rifle, we have talked about the shells, we have talked about the chicken bones and the lunch sack and the pop bottle by that second pair of windows. Anything else?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. **Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag.**
Houston, we have a problem. See a bag that looked like many other bags is NOT what we were told by the WC as being the type LHO allegedly used. NO, that was a “homemade bag”. NOW, they couldn't prove he made this one bag, but IF you want us to believe Johnson is referring to the bag the WC alleged was used, then you would have to show us that LHO made ALL the bags that were used for books since they all looked the same. I doubt this could be done since the WC couldn’t show LHO made ONE bag, let alone all the bags in the TSBD!
Next comes Detective L. D. Montgomery. According to some WC defenders he found the bag. I don't think Montgomery is any help to their cause, but let's look at his testimony.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anything else over in the southeast corner of that sixth floor?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, sir, as I say, there was a lot of boxes and there was a sack and there was this pieces of chicken.
Mr. BALL. Where was the paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was.
Mr. BALL. *****I don't have a picture of the paper sack.*****
Mr. MONTGOMERY. You don't? Well, it was there--I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there.
Mr. BALL. It was over in what corner?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. BALL. Did you turn the sack over to anybody or did you pick it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes---let's see Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker came up and took pictures and everything, and then we took a Dr. Pepper bottle and that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in.
First of all, he couldn't remember where it was for sure, and then he said I think the picture will show you and Ball has to tell him "We have NO picture!" Look at his shock that this simple crime scene procedure was NOT done! Secondly, this couldn’t be THE sack for several reasons. One, it was near chicken bones and a “Dr. Pepper” so this had to be a lunch sack. Two, he said they took PICTURES of it and as we can see from Studebaker and Day they did NOT photograph the alleged sack used to bring the alleged murder weapon into the TSBD! All we got for that is a DOTTED LINE!
Let’s finish with this confidence inspiring recollection.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I don't remember the sack being right there--I remember it was there somewhere, but exactly--I don't.
Mr. BALL. Evidently you don't know?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No, sir.
Next we come to Detective Richard Sims who the WC defenders claim was there when the bag was discovered.
Let's watch Ball play "leading the witness", okay?
Mr. SIMS. Then we finished there and went--started to go to the city hall.
Mr. BALL. You said you finished there, did you see anything of significance there besides these hulls and the rifle?
Mr. SIMS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. ****Did you ever see a paper bag?****
Mr. SIMS. Well, we saw some wrappings--a brown wrapping there.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see it?
Mr. SIMS. It was there by the hulls.
In a real court of law an objection would have been levied as the witness answered the question asked. Also, he is being LED by the WC counsel as he gave his testimony and NEVER mentioned seeing a sack/bag.
Mr. BALL. You said you finished there, did you see anything of significance there besides these hulls and the rifle?
Mr. SIMS. No, sir.
He saw NOTHING of significance. Period. That means NO bag as claimed could have been there. The next question is a BLATANT leading question to get the witness to remember he is supposed to say something about the bag.
He then gives a less than stellar confirmation.
Mr. BALL. Was it right there near the hulls?
Mr. SIMS. As well as I remember--of course, I didn't pay too much attention at that time, but it was, I believe, by the east side of where the boxes were piled up---that would be a guess--I believe that's where it was.
Wow, that is really compelling testimony, huh? He obviously saw nothing and had to be led by the WC’s counsel to even make this vague statement.
We come to Officer E. D. Brewer. He too was there for the discovery of the alleged bag per the WC defenders. Here is what Brewer said about the bag. First he will corroborate Montgomery’s statement.
Mr. BELIN. See anything else there at the time by the window?
Mr. BREWER. Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece at chicken.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else?
Mr. BREWER. A drink bottle.
Mr. BELIN. What bottle?
Mr. BREWER. A cold drink bottle, soda pop bottle.
Clearly, they saw a lunch sack, not a long homemade bag to carry a rifle in. Belin would keep LEADING THE WITNESS though.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else?
Mr. BREWER. In relation to what?
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else in the southeast corner?
Mr. BREWER. There was a paper, relatively long paper sack there.
Mr. BELIN. Where was that?
Mr. BREWER. It was there in the southeast corner.
Finally, after all the leading they got to where they wanted.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember anything about what the sack looked like?
Mr. BREWER. *****Well, it was assumed at the time that it was the sack that the rifle was wrapped up in when it was brought into the building, and it appeared that it could have been used for that.*****
Mr. BELIN. Well, you mean you assumed that before you found the rifle?
Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir; I suppose. That was discussed.
Who did the assuming? Why did he say it was assumed BEFORE the rifle was found? This is a strong indication to the fact the bag was NOT big enough to carry the rifle as he makes it seem they gave up on this idea once they found the rifle. Obviously those who committed the crime and orchestrated the cover-up did NOT let small details like this get in the way of their accusations though.
Here are some comments from another WC defender from years ago—Steve—and you will see they are the same arguments the WC defenders on this board will make.
“While Montgomery and Johnson were leaving the depository with the bag, they were photographed by Jack Beers of the Dallas Morning News, but I'm sure you already know this Robert.”
This does NOT show that the bag was where they claimed they found it, and the pure illogic (and case ruining lack of photographs of the crime scene with the bag in situ) proves NOTHING.
“Was there a conspiracy between all of these officers to fabricate a story and a bag as Robert weakly claims?”
Who said there was? Simply read what they actually said and you have ALL THE REASONABLE DOUBT you could want, and probably more. Putting words into other peoples’ mouths is not going to help your case.
“If so, then the officers were mighty fast to organize their alleged plot weren't they Robert, since the bag was photographed being brought out the front of the Depository at 2:19 p.m. (Trask, Pictures of the Pain, p. 338).”
Too bad photographing the bag LEAVING the building is NOT good enough for chain of custody as we have NO proof it was the THE bag discovered where the WC claimed. In fact, the testimony above leads us to a LUNCH SACK and NOT the bag they claimed LHO used.
“If the bag was forged, the officers forged it in about an hour, all the while not having yet questioned Wes Frazier and Lennie (sic) Mae Randle, and not knowing that they would so conveniently tell about the paper bag that Lee Oswald brought to the Depository that morning.”
I am NOT blaming the DPD officers here, YOU are! MY personal opinion is they either found a lunch bag or a bag that was used to put books in and was NEVER touched by LHO in his work duties as it had NO legible prints according to Day.
The FBI CREATED a bag in D.C. and claimed they found prints on it matching (allegedly) LHO.
That is what the testimony shows. The total lack of basic protocol in photographing the bag is confirmation to me there was NO bag where they would later claim it was. We have to leave the DPD personnel and go to the FBI’s James Cadigan to see that the bag was ruined and a new one made.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0269a.jpg
Alleged bag found at the TSBD — CE 142.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0492b.jpg
Replica bag made by the FBI — CE 364.
Mr. CADIGAN. Do you want me to discuss this replica sack yet?
Mr. EISENBERG. You mentioned a replica bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain what that is?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this is Commission Exhibit 364. It is a paper sack similar to Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School Book Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in Dallas to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit 142 was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and they thought that this would--it wouldn't be fair to the witness to ask "Did you see a bag like that?" So they went to the Texas School Book Depository and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was made December 1?
Mr. CADIGAN. December 1, of 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. Or some 9 or 10 days after the assassination?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was the paper obtained from the same source?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; from the same room.
Same room? When did they determine LHO made the bag from TSBD materials again? Can any WC defender cite this evidence for me?
Mr. EISENBERG. The same room. Did you examine this paper to see how it compared---that is, the paper in the replica bag, which has already been admitted as Commission Exhibit 364---to see how it compared with the paper in the bag found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, which is Commission's Exhibit 142?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
When was it shown by evidence that CE 142 was actually found on the sixth floor of the TSBD as claimed? It NEVER was, so why is the WC acting like all of this has been supported and is true then? This is even more SCARY.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That they were different in color, visual color, felting--that is, the pattern that you see through transmitted light, and they were different under ultraviolet light.
Mr. EISENBERG So that these two papers, which were obtained within 9 or 10 days from the same source, could be distinguished by you?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Yet, they kept showing CE 364 to witnesses to have them ID the bag as being the same as CE 142! It seems they would have been better off showing the witnesses a SAMPLE of the paper they took from the TSBD (CE 677) as that looked just like CE 142 supposedly!
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0180b.jpg
Mr. EISENBERG. Which two were the identical and which was the different one?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well---Commission Exhibit 142 and Commission Exhibit 677--I observed them to have the same appearance under ultraviolet light, and that appearance was different from Commission Exhibit 364.
All this shows is CE 142 was made out of paper found in the TSBD, but it does NOT show us that LHO made this bag and used it on November 22, 1963. So, this means nothing!
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you tell us what the results were of your examination under the microscope?
Mr. CADIGAN. Again, I found that the paper sack found on the sixth floor, Commission Exhibit 142, and the sample secured 11-22, Commission Exhibit 677, had the same observable characteristics both under the microscope and all the visual tests that I could conduct.
Big deal. Now show us how LHO made this bag as claimed, took it to the Paine’s (without putting a crease into it and NOT having Frazier see it on the way TO the Paine’s), and got it into the TSBD with NO one besides Fraizer (who was FIFTY FEET BEHIND him and NOT paying attention according to his own testimony) seeing it. I can’t wait to hear that one.
Let’s go to the man who supposedly saw the bag up close to see what he thinks.
Mr. BALL - We are talking about the colored bag (CE 142), the one that has changed its color. There is a part of the colored bag that hasn't changed color, isn't it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - That is the part I want to call your attention to.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - The color of this bag, the colored bag, has not been treated. Take a look at it. Is that similar to the color of the bag you saw in the back seat of your car that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - It would be, surely it could have been, and it couldn't have been. Like I say, see, you know this color, either one of these colors, is very similar to the type of paper that you can get out of a store or anything like that, and so I say it could have been and then it couldn't have been.
WOW! So, the man who saw the bag up close and personal supposedly said the UNCOLORED PORTION of CE 142 “could be or could NOT be” the same color he saw. YOU would think the WC would love a WAFFLER like this, huh?
But wait, it gets worse for the WC!
Mr. BALL - Do you mean by that that it is similar to the color?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And do you have a definite memory of the color of the bag you saw on the back seat of your car so that you can distinguish between one color and another?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe it would be more on this basis here.
Mr. BALL - You say it would be more on the color of bag No. 364, is that right?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
So the color that MATCHED for him was the color of CE 364! But wait, WASN’T CE 364 THE BAG THE FBI MADE ON DECEMBER 1, 1963, AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING? (NOT that different from CE 142 actually) How can he identify a bag that did NOT exist on November 22, 1963? Why are they even showing him a bag that did NOT exist on November 22, 1963?
Mr. BALL - This is Commission Exhibit No. 142.
The CHAIRMAN - That is the dark bag?
Mr. BALL - The dark bag is Commission Exhibit No. 142. When you were shown this bag, do you recall whether or not you told the officers who showed you the bag--did you tell them whether you thought it was or was not about the same length as the bag you saw on the back seat?
Mr. FRAZIER - I told them that as far as the length there, I told them that was entirely too long.
It would seem the WC is SUNK again in its wild and inaccurate claims! Their claims don’t even get support from their OWN evidence in the twenty-six volumes!
4.bp.blogspot.com/-6Uj9yD0bmp0/T35KWzAD4OI/AAAAAAAAHQ0/tdmr0qe5Rgg/s1600/CE142.jpg
2.bp.blogspot.com/-xQmg5GCRI3Q/UFyxIxL-C5I/AAAAAAAAAGc/5tIdsn8vlu4/s1600/JFK+-+Montgomery+paper+bag.jpg
I have received suggestions from the Warren Commission (WC) defenders before in this series, and now it is time for another one. This comes from Mike Williams as he is claiming there is testimony from officers on the scene that supports the finding of the alleged paper bag in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) allegedly used to bring his alleged rifle to work in on the morning of November 22, 1963.
Let’s examine this testimony further to see if what Mike is claiming is accurate. This one is for you Mike!
*******************************************
We will start with the man responsible for the crime scene — Lt. J.C. Day of the Crime Scene Search Section.
Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked 728, would you state if you know what this is?
Photo: jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce728.jpg
Mr. DAY. This is the third aisle from the east side of the building, sixth floor, Texas School Book Depository.
Mr. BELIN. Was that taken on November 22 or November 25?
Mr. DAY. It was taken on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else with the pop bottle when you were in that area?
Mr. DAY. There was a brown-paper sack, like a lunch sack.
Mr. BELIN. About how large?
Mr. DAY. It does not show in the picture.
Mr. BELIN. Where would the sack have been located?
Mr. DAY. Sir?
Mr. BELIN. Where would that sack have been located, if you know?
Mr. DAY. I don't remember.
This is NOT a promising start for the WC or Mike. I mean, first of all he said he saw a “lunch sack” with the pop bottle, and, secondly, he CAN’T even remember where it was as he is looking for the photograph to show him! It was presumably taken by HIM too!
Mr. BELIN. You mentioned a sack that would have been at that third aisle. Was any kind of a sack found on the sixth floor, if you know?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What other kind of a sack was found?
Mr. DAY. 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.
Mr. McCLOY. Near where the hulls were found?
Mr. DAY. Near where the hulls. What did I say?
Mr. McCLOY. Slugs.
Mr. DAY. Hulls.
Mr. BELIN. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 729 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Photo: historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0267a.jpg
Mr. DAY. 729 is a photograph of the inside wall, south and east walls, right at the corner of the building at the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository.
Mr. BELIN. I notice some pipes on the right portion of this picture as you face it, and I also notice a box. I will first ask you to state if this picture was taken before or after anything was removed from the area.
Mr. DAY. *****The sack had been removed.*****
Why was the bag REMOVED BEFORE the picture was taken? This is NOT normal crime scene procedure in the least, so all we have is his word for it now. We are supposed to take his WORD for it on the following too I guess.
Mr. BELIN. Where was the sack found with relation to the pipes and that box?
Mr. DAY. Between the sack and the south wall, which would be the wall at the top of the picture as shown here.
Mr. BELIN. You mean between--you said the sack.
Mr. DAY. I mean the pipe. The sack was between the pipe and the wall at the top of the picture.
Mr. BELIN. That wall at the top of the picture would be the east wall, would it not?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; laying parallel to the south wall.
Mr. BELIN. Did the sack--was it folded over in any way or just lying flat, if you remember?
Mr. DAY. It was folded over with the fold next to the pipe, to the best of my knowledge.
We are left with Lt. Day’s word for all of this all because he did NOT snap a photograph of it supposedly. Could it be that there was NO sack/bag to photograph? Isn't that more likely to you? Why else would HE NOT photograph the bag before it was removed as he is stating? He had FULL control of the crime scene so NO one should have touched anything without his permission and before he was finished.
We should NOT be left with the "best of knowledge" but should have photographs showing the bag in situ.
About those fingerprints many WC defenders like to mention about this bag, let's look at what Lt. Day said, okay?
Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142.
Photo:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0154a.jpg
Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any identification on that to so indicate?
Mr. DAY. It has my name on it, and it also has other writing that I put on there for the information of the FBI.
Mr. BELIN. Could you read what you wrote on there?
Mr. DAY. "Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day."
Mr. BELIN. When did you write that?
Mr. DAY. I wrote that at the time the sack was found before it left our possession.
Mr. BELIN. All right, anything else that you wrote on there?
Mr. DAY. When the sack was released on November 22 to the FBI about 11:45 p.m., I put further information to the FBI reading as follows:
"FBI: Has been dusted with metallic magnetic powder on outside only. Inside has not been processed. Lieut J. C. Day."
Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything, any print of any kind, in connection with the processing of this?
Mr. DAY. ****No legible prints were found with the powder, no.****
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether any legible prints were found by any other means or any other place?
Mr. DAY. *****There is a legible print on it now.***** They were on there when it was returned to me from the FBI on November 24.
How convenient for them that they find NO prints when they allegedly dusted it BEFORE it went to the FBI and then -- Presto -- they have a print. Supposedly “silver nitrate” was the reason for the magic.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know by what means they found these?
Mr. DAY. It is apparently silver nitrate. It could be another compound they have used. The sack had an orange color indicating it was silver nitrate.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the sack when it came back from the FBI had a----
Mr. DAY. Orange color. It is another method of processing paper for fingerprints.
This is still highly questionable as we see this process over and over again. Remember, the killing of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) was a LOCAL crime, so what would the Dallas Police Department (DPD) have done if the FBI did NOT push their way into the case with NO jurisdiction? Are we supposed to believe Day would NOT have found this print without “silver nitrate?”
This next comment sure doesn’t inspire confidence.
Mr. BELIN. Was there anything inside the bag, if you know, when you found it?
Mr. DAY. I did not open the bag. I did not look inside of the bag at all.
What? How in the world can you be sure a rifle had been in it IF YOU DID NOT OPEN IT AND LOOK? See how much value he put in this sack/bag with this comment!
Mr. BELIN. What did you do with the bag after you found it and you put this writing on after you dusted it?
Mr. DAY. I released it to the FBI agent.
Mr. BELIN. Did you take it down to the station with you?
Mr. DAY. I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left. I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in.
Mr. BELIN. By this you are referring to the bag itself?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
He released it to the FBI agent with NO JURISDICTION! Talk about ruining the evidence, huh? If there was really anything to ruin.
Another person mentioned by the WC defenders is Detective Robert Studebaker who was Day’s assistant. Let’s look at what he had to say about the sack/bag. We’ll begin with his estimate regarding the size of the bag.
Mr. BALL. Now, how big was this paper.that you saw - you saw the wrapper - tell me about how big that paper bag was - how long was it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was about, I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long.
Mr. BALL. The paper bag?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
This was totally at odds with the TWO WITNESSES the Warren Commission (WC) had for the bag! They said it was between 24” and 27”. He would also say the bag was found in a storage room!
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.
Storage room? See the confusion you get all because Day did NOT photograph the alleged bag in situ?
Studebaker was so observant he did NOT even know who took the pictures that did NOT show the bag!
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0336a.jpg
How about those diagrams he mentioned in his testimony?
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - ***I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.***
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Why can't anyone remember anyone's name in this case? I mean someone from the FBI calls him down and says "draw a diagram" and he doesn't even bother to get his name for his report? Come on. Why did Ball NOT pursue this and ask if he could recognize him at least? This is all vague and would have been destroyed on cross-examination.
Why do we get "dotted lines" INSTEAD OF THE BAG IN THE PICTURE?
Back to "Crime Scene Procedures 101"!
Mr. BALL. Did you take a picture of it before you picked it up?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Wrong answer, this means there is NO chain of custody for this "evidence", thus, it would have been barred from court. Well that and the FACT Day gave it to a FBI agent with NO JURISDICTION too.
Another person mentioned by the WC defenders is Officer Marvin Johnson. Johnson told the WC this:
Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything else up in the southeast corner of the sixth floor? We have talked about the rifle, we have talked about the shells, we have talked about the chicken bones and the lunch sack and the pop bottle by that second pair of windows. Anything else?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. **Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag.**
Houston, we have a problem. See a bag that looked like many other bags is NOT what we were told by the WC as being the type LHO allegedly used. NO, that was a “homemade bag”. NOW, they couldn't prove he made this one bag, but IF you want us to believe Johnson is referring to the bag the WC alleged was used, then you would have to show us that LHO made ALL the bags that were used for books since they all looked the same. I doubt this could be done since the WC couldn’t show LHO made ONE bag, let alone all the bags in the TSBD!
Next comes Detective L. D. Montgomery. According to some WC defenders he found the bag. I don't think Montgomery is any help to their cause, but let's look at his testimony.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anything else over in the southeast corner of that sixth floor?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, sir, as I say, there was a lot of boxes and there was a sack and there was this pieces of chicken.
Mr. BALL. Where was the paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was.
Mr. BALL. *****I don't have a picture of the paper sack.*****
Mr. MONTGOMERY. You don't? Well, it was there--I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there.
Mr. BALL. It was over in what corner?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. BALL. Did you turn the sack over to anybody or did you pick it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes---let's see Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker came up and took pictures and everything, and then we took a Dr. Pepper bottle and that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in.
First of all, he couldn't remember where it was for sure, and then he said I think the picture will show you and Ball has to tell him "We have NO picture!" Look at his shock that this simple crime scene procedure was NOT done! Secondly, this couldn’t be THE sack for several reasons. One, it was near chicken bones and a “Dr. Pepper” so this had to be a lunch sack. Two, he said they took PICTURES of it and as we can see from Studebaker and Day they did NOT photograph the alleged sack used to bring the alleged murder weapon into the TSBD! All we got for that is a DOTTED LINE!
Let’s finish with this confidence inspiring recollection.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I don't remember the sack being right there--I remember it was there somewhere, but exactly--I don't.
Mr. BALL. Evidently you don't know?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No, sir.
Next we come to Detective Richard Sims who the WC defenders claim was there when the bag was discovered.
Let's watch Ball play "leading the witness", okay?
Mr. SIMS. Then we finished there and went--started to go to the city hall.
Mr. BALL. You said you finished there, did you see anything of significance there besides these hulls and the rifle?
Mr. SIMS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. ****Did you ever see a paper bag?****
Mr. SIMS. Well, we saw some wrappings--a brown wrapping there.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see it?
Mr. SIMS. It was there by the hulls.
In a real court of law an objection would have been levied as the witness answered the question asked. Also, he is being LED by the WC counsel as he gave his testimony and NEVER mentioned seeing a sack/bag.
Mr. BALL. You said you finished there, did you see anything of significance there besides these hulls and the rifle?
Mr. SIMS. No, sir.
He saw NOTHING of significance. Period. That means NO bag as claimed could have been there. The next question is a BLATANT leading question to get the witness to remember he is supposed to say something about the bag.
He then gives a less than stellar confirmation.
Mr. BALL. Was it right there near the hulls?
Mr. SIMS. As well as I remember--of course, I didn't pay too much attention at that time, but it was, I believe, by the east side of where the boxes were piled up---that would be a guess--I believe that's where it was.
Wow, that is really compelling testimony, huh? He obviously saw nothing and had to be led by the WC’s counsel to even make this vague statement.
We come to Officer E. D. Brewer. He too was there for the discovery of the alleged bag per the WC defenders. Here is what Brewer said about the bag. First he will corroborate Montgomery’s statement.
Mr. BELIN. See anything else there at the time by the window?
Mr. BREWER. Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece at chicken.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else?
Mr. BREWER. A drink bottle.
Mr. BELIN. What bottle?
Mr. BREWER. A cold drink bottle, soda pop bottle.
Clearly, they saw a lunch sack, not a long homemade bag to carry a rifle in. Belin would keep LEADING THE WITNESS though.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else?
Mr. BREWER. In relation to what?
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else in the southeast corner?
Mr. BREWER. There was a paper, relatively long paper sack there.
Mr. BELIN. Where was that?
Mr. BREWER. It was there in the southeast corner.
Finally, after all the leading they got to where they wanted.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember anything about what the sack looked like?
Mr. BREWER. *****Well, it was assumed at the time that it was the sack that the rifle was wrapped up in when it was brought into the building, and it appeared that it could have been used for that.*****
Mr. BELIN. Well, you mean you assumed that before you found the rifle?
Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir; I suppose. That was discussed.
Who did the assuming? Why did he say it was assumed BEFORE the rifle was found? This is a strong indication to the fact the bag was NOT big enough to carry the rifle as he makes it seem they gave up on this idea once they found the rifle. Obviously those who committed the crime and orchestrated the cover-up did NOT let small details like this get in the way of their accusations though.
Here are some comments from another WC defender from years ago—Steve—and you will see they are the same arguments the WC defenders on this board will make.
“While Montgomery and Johnson were leaving the depository with the bag, they were photographed by Jack Beers of the Dallas Morning News, but I'm sure you already know this Robert.”
This does NOT show that the bag was where they claimed they found it, and the pure illogic (and case ruining lack of photographs of the crime scene with the bag in situ) proves NOTHING.
“Was there a conspiracy between all of these officers to fabricate a story and a bag as Robert weakly claims?”
Who said there was? Simply read what they actually said and you have ALL THE REASONABLE DOUBT you could want, and probably more. Putting words into other peoples’ mouths is not going to help your case.
“If so, then the officers were mighty fast to organize their alleged plot weren't they Robert, since the bag was photographed being brought out the front of the Depository at 2:19 p.m. (Trask, Pictures of the Pain, p. 338).”
Too bad photographing the bag LEAVING the building is NOT good enough for chain of custody as we have NO proof it was the THE bag discovered where the WC claimed. In fact, the testimony above leads us to a LUNCH SACK and NOT the bag they claimed LHO used.
“If the bag was forged, the officers forged it in about an hour, all the while not having yet questioned Wes Frazier and Lennie (sic) Mae Randle, and not knowing that they would so conveniently tell about the paper bag that Lee Oswald brought to the Depository that morning.”
I am NOT blaming the DPD officers here, YOU are! MY personal opinion is they either found a lunch bag or a bag that was used to put books in and was NEVER touched by LHO in his work duties as it had NO legible prints according to Day.
The FBI CREATED a bag in D.C. and claimed they found prints on it matching (allegedly) LHO.
That is what the testimony shows. The total lack of basic protocol in photographing the bag is confirmation to me there was NO bag where they would later claim it was. We have to leave the DPD personnel and go to the FBI’s James Cadigan to see that the bag was ruined and a new one made.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0269a.jpg
Alleged bag found at the TSBD — CE 142.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0492b.jpg
Replica bag made by the FBI — CE 364.
Mr. CADIGAN. Do you want me to discuss this replica sack yet?
Mr. EISENBERG. You mentioned a replica bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain what that is?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this is Commission Exhibit 364. It is a paper sack similar to Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School Book Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in Dallas to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit 142 was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and they thought that this would--it wouldn't be fair to the witness to ask "Did you see a bag like that?" So they went to the Texas School Book Depository and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was made December 1?
Mr. CADIGAN. December 1, of 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. Or some 9 or 10 days after the assassination?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was the paper obtained from the same source?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; from the same room.
Same room? When did they determine LHO made the bag from TSBD materials again? Can any WC defender cite this evidence for me?
Mr. EISENBERG. The same room. Did you examine this paper to see how it compared---that is, the paper in the replica bag, which has already been admitted as Commission Exhibit 364---to see how it compared with the paper in the bag found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, which is Commission's Exhibit 142?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
When was it shown by evidence that CE 142 was actually found on the sixth floor of the TSBD as claimed? It NEVER was, so why is the WC acting like all of this has been supported and is true then? This is even more SCARY.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That they were different in color, visual color, felting--that is, the pattern that you see through transmitted light, and they were different under ultraviolet light.
Mr. EISENBERG So that these two papers, which were obtained within 9 or 10 days from the same source, could be distinguished by you?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Yet, they kept showing CE 364 to witnesses to have them ID the bag as being the same as CE 142! It seems they would have been better off showing the witnesses a SAMPLE of the paper they took from the TSBD (CE 677) as that looked just like CE 142 supposedly!
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0180b.jpg
Mr. EISENBERG. Which two were the identical and which was the different one?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well---Commission Exhibit 142 and Commission Exhibit 677--I observed them to have the same appearance under ultraviolet light, and that appearance was different from Commission Exhibit 364.
All this shows is CE 142 was made out of paper found in the TSBD, but it does NOT show us that LHO made this bag and used it on November 22, 1963. So, this means nothing!
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you tell us what the results were of your examination under the microscope?
Mr. CADIGAN. Again, I found that the paper sack found on the sixth floor, Commission Exhibit 142, and the sample secured 11-22, Commission Exhibit 677, had the same observable characteristics both under the microscope and all the visual tests that I could conduct.
Big deal. Now show us how LHO made this bag as claimed, took it to the Paine’s (without putting a crease into it and NOT having Frazier see it on the way TO the Paine’s), and got it into the TSBD with NO one besides Fraizer (who was FIFTY FEET BEHIND him and NOT paying attention according to his own testimony) seeing it. I can’t wait to hear that one.
Let’s go to the man who supposedly saw the bag up close to see what he thinks.
Mr. BALL - We are talking about the colored bag (CE 142), the one that has changed its color. There is a part of the colored bag that hasn't changed color, isn't it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - That is the part I want to call your attention to.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - The color of this bag, the colored bag, has not been treated. Take a look at it. Is that similar to the color of the bag you saw in the back seat of your car that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - It would be, surely it could have been, and it couldn't have been. Like I say, see, you know this color, either one of these colors, is very similar to the type of paper that you can get out of a store or anything like that, and so I say it could have been and then it couldn't have been.
WOW! So, the man who saw the bag up close and personal supposedly said the UNCOLORED PORTION of CE 142 “could be or could NOT be” the same color he saw. YOU would think the WC would love a WAFFLER like this, huh?
But wait, it gets worse for the WC!
Mr. BALL - Do you mean by that that it is similar to the color?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And do you have a definite memory of the color of the bag you saw on the back seat of your car so that you can distinguish between one color and another?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe it would be more on this basis here.
Mr. BALL - You say it would be more on the color of bag No. 364, is that right?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
So the color that MATCHED for him was the color of CE 364! But wait, WASN’T CE 364 THE BAG THE FBI MADE ON DECEMBER 1, 1963, AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING? (NOT that different from CE 142 actually) How can he identify a bag that did NOT exist on November 22, 1963? Why are they even showing him a bag that did NOT exist on November 22, 1963?
Mr. BALL - This is Commission Exhibit No. 142.
The CHAIRMAN - That is the dark bag?
Mr. BALL - The dark bag is Commission Exhibit No. 142. When you were shown this bag, do you recall whether or not you told the officers who showed you the bag--did you tell them whether you thought it was or was not about the same length as the bag you saw on the back seat?
Mr. FRAZIER - I told them that as far as the length there, I told them that was entirely too long.
It would seem the WC is SUNK again in its wild and inaccurate claims! Their claims don’t even get support from their OWN evidence in the twenty-six volumes!