Post by Rob Caprio on Aug 24, 2021 13:59:21 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
4.bp.blogspot.com/-6Uj9yD0bmp0/T35KWzAD4OI/AAAAAAAAHQ0/tdmr0qe5Rgg/s1600/CE142.jpg
Alleged Bag Leaving The Texas School Book Depository:
2.bp.blogspot.com/-xQmg5GCRI3Q/UFyxIxL-C5I/AAAAAAAAAGc/5tIdsn8vlu4/s1600/JFK+-+Montgomery+paper+bag.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) brought his alleged Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) rifle into the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) inside a paper bag he allegedly made at the TSBD. There was NO doubt in their minds or their current day defenders about this. IT is a given and a FACT to them.
Perhaps they should read the evidence in the twenty-six volumes then.
***************************************
FBI expert Paul Stombaugh was asked about the package and what he saw inside it to indicate if it was carrying a rifle or not. Here is the exchange before the WC regarding this issue.
[Note: Don’t look on John McAdams’ website of WC testimony for this testimony as that site ends Stombaugh’s testimony at page 87 and this is on page 97.]
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.
Notice how Mr. Eisenberg just states the package/bag was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD when there is NO evidence showing this is accurate. Also, how could the alleged murder weapon, Commission Exhibit (CE) 139, have been in this bag and NOT left any markings at all? The excuses begin with the next exchange.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I don't see actually, I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag, it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun. The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument.
It could have been wrapped in cloth he says, but we have NO evidence to support this (of course we have no evidence it was ever in the bag or that there was a bag either). He then says “perhaps it wasn’t moved too much” as a reason for why it might NOT have left ANY abrasions or markings on the paper that could be tied to CE 139. Really? Let’s recap what the WC claimed LHO did with this bag.
1—LHO supposedly put his rifle into it on the night of November 21, 1963, or the early morning of November 22, 1963.
2—LHO then supposedly carried it from the Paine’s house to the Randle’s house on the morning of November 22, 1963.
3—LHO then supposedly put the package/bag onto the back seat of Wesley Frazier’s automobile.
4—Wesley Frazier then drove LHO and the package/bag to the TSBD in Dallas from the Randle house in Irving. Surely, they made some turns and the package would have been jostled somewhat.
5—LHO then supposedly picked up the package/bag and put it under his armpit and walked 2-3 blocks to the TSBD from the parking lot.
6—LHO then entered the TSBD and supposedly hid the package/bag somewhere in the building until he needed it later that day.
7—LHO then supposedly recovered the package/bag and removed the rifle to use it.
Does this sound like it was NOT moved much to you? Since he did find abrasions and markings that did NOT tie to CE 139, what did they tie to? What else could have been in that bag? He said they could have come from “many places”, but again, what places? And from what objects?
Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any absence of markings or absence of bulges or absence of creases which would cause you to say that the rifle was not carried in the paper bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
This is very misleading as he just said he COULD NOT show CE 139 was carried in this package/bag due to NO abrasions or markings that could be tied to that rifle. Mr. Eisenberg’s question is very misleading and ignores Stombaugh’s previous answer. In a real court of law this would have been noted and NOT allowed.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is whether it had been wrapped or not wrapped?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is something I can't say.
Mr. DULLES. Would the scratches indicate there was a hard object inside the bag, as distinct from a soft object that would make no abrasions or scratches?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, if you were to characterize it that way, yes. I mean there were a few scratches here. What caused them, I can't say. A hard object; yes. Whether that hard object was part of a gun----
Mr. DULLES. I understand.
Mr. CADIGAN. And so forth----
He again says he can’t show it was a gun that caused the abrasions and markings he saw on the package/bag, thus, it could have been CURTAIN RODS that caused these marks for all we know. So the WC did what it always did when the profession of science did NOT agree with their claims—they ignored it by making it seem unimportant anyway!
Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure you understood a question I asked one or two questions ago. I just want to make clear here if the gun was not wrapped in a cloth--let's assume hypothetically that the gun was not wrapped in a cloth and was, also hypothetically, inserted into this is paper bag. Is there any absence of marks which would lead you to believe that this hypothesis I just made couldn't be--that is, that it couldn't be inserted, without a covering, into the paper bag without leaving more markings than were present?
Mr. CADIGAN. No. The absence of markings to me wouldn't mean much. I was looking for markings I could associate. The absence of marks, the significance of them, I don't know.
First of all, it is refreshing for the WC's lawyer to admit that they lived in a world of hypothetical, isn't it? IF the absence of marks didn’t mean much, why was he looking for them and testing them to SEE IF THEY MATCHED TO CE 139 then? Also, if they didn't mean much why was he asked to find them as he said in the beginning of this post? Why would they waste their time on meaningless things? Who reading this thinks you could put a rifle into a package/bag and NOT have it leave any marks or abrasions? This isn't possible.
4.bp.blogspot.com/-6Uj9yD0bmp0/T35KWzAD4OI/AAAAAAAAHQ0/tdmr0qe5Rgg/s1600/CE142.jpg
Alleged Bag Leaving The Texas School Book Depository:
2.bp.blogspot.com/-xQmg5GCRI3Q/UFyxIxL-C5I/AAAAAAAAAGc/5tIdsn8vlu4/s1600/JFK+-+Montgomery+paper+bag.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) brought his alleged Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) rifle into the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) inside a paper bag he allegedly made at the TSBD. There was NO doubt in their minds or their current day defenders about this. IT is a given and a FACT to them.
Perhaps they should read the evidence in the twenty-six volumes then.
***************************************
FBI expert Paul Stombaugh was asked about the package and what he saw inside it to indicate if it was carrying a rifle or not. Here is the exchange before the WC regarding this issue.
[Note: Don’t look on John McAdams’ website of WC testimony for this testimony as that site ends Stombaugh’s testimony at page 87 and this is on page 97.]
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.
Notice how Mr. Eisenberg just states the package/bag was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD when there is NO evidence showing this is accurate. Also, how could the alleged murder weapon, Commission Exhibit (CE) 139, have been in this bag and NOT left any markings at all? The excuses begin with the next exchange.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I don't see actually, I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag, it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun. The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument.
It could have been wrapped in cloth he says, but we have NO evidence to support this (of course we have no evidence it was ever in the bag or that there was a bag either). He then says “perhaps it wasn’t moved too much” as a reason for why it might NOT have left ANY abrasions or markings on the paper that could be tied to CE 139. Really? Let’s recap what the WC claimed LHO did with this bag.
1—LHO supposedly put his rifle into it on the night of November 21, 1963, or the early morning of November 22, 1963.
2—LHO then supposedly carried it from the Paine’s house to the Randle’s house on the morning of November 22, 1963.
3—LHO then supposedly put the package/bag onto the back seat of Wesley Frazier’s automobile.
4—Wesley Frazier then drove LHO and the package/bag to the TSBD in Dallas from the Randle house in Irving. Surely, they made some turns and the package would have been jostled somewhat.
5—LHO then supposedly picked up the package/bag and put it under his armpit and walked 2-3 blocks to the TSBD from the parking lot.
6—LHO then entered the TSBD and supposedly hid the package/bag somewhere in the building until he needed it later that day.
7—LHO then supposedly recovered the package/bag and removed the rifle to use it.
Does this sound like it was NOT moved much to you? Since he did find abrasions and markings that did NOT tie to CE 139, what did they tie to? What else could have been in that bag? He said they could have come from “many places”, but again, what places? And from what objects?
Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any absence of markings or absence of bulges or absence of creases which would cause you to say that the rifle was not carried in the paper bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
This is very misleading as he just said he COULD NOT show CE 139 was carried in this package/bag due to NO abrasions or markings that could be tied to that rifle. Mr. Eisenberg’s question is very misleading and ignores Stombaugh’s previous answer. In a real court of law this would have been noted and NOT allowed.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is whether it had been wrapped or not wrapped?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is something I can't say.
Mr. DULLES. Would the scratches indicate there was a hard object inside the bag, as distinct from a soft object that would make no abrasions or scratches?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, if you were to characterize it that way, yes. I mean there were a few scratches here. What caused them, I can't say. A hard object; yes. Whether that hard object was part of a gun----
Mr. DULLES. I understand.
Mr. CADIGAN. And so forth----
He again says he can’t show it was a gun that caused the abrasions and markings he saw on the package/bag, thus, it could have been CURTAIN RODS that caused these marks for all we know. So the WC did what it always did when the profession of science did NOT agree with their claims—they ignored it by making it seem unimportant anyway!
Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure you understood a question I asked one or two questions ago. I just want to make clear here if the gun was not wrapped in a cloth--let's assume hypothetically that the gun was not wrapped in a cloth and was, also hypothetically, inserted into this is paper bag. Is there any absence of marks which would lead you to believe that this hypothesis I just made couldn't be--that is, that it couldn't be inserted, without a covering, into the paper bag without leaving more markings than were present?
Mr. CADIGAN. No. The absence of markings to me wouldn't mean much. I was looking for markings I could associate. The absence of marks, the significance of them, I don't know.
First of all, it is refreshing for the WC's lawyer to admit that they lived in a world of hypothetical, isn't it? IF the absence of marks didn’t mean much, why was he looking for them and testing them to SEE IF THEY MATCHED TO CE 139 then? Also, if they didn't mean much why was he asked to find them as he said in the beginning of this post? Why would they waste their time on meaningless things? Who reading this thinks you could put a rifle into a package/bag and NOT have it leave any marks or abrasions? This isn't possible.