“A handmade bag of wrapping paper and tape was found in the southeast corner of the sixth floor alongside the window from which the shots were fired.”
( Warren Report, pg. 134 )
The Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald had constructed a paper gunsack from materials he obtained from the Texas School Book Depository and used that gunsack to bring his rifle into the building on the morning of November 22nd, 1963 with the intent of assassinating President John F. Kennedy.
They came to that conclusion in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
The Visual
The thing that strikes you right off the bat about this piece of evidence is the color. Most of it has been stained with a chemical using silver nitrate, but a small portion of it at the end is not. I would like to focus on this unstained part because the FBI claimed that they developed a left index finger print from one end of the bag and the right palm print at the other end of the bag using this chemical treatment.
So how did they develop the print at the untreated end ?
Detective Studebaker finds the “gunsack”
Let me start this fairy tale in the traditional sense, “Once Upon a Time there was a gunsack nobody saw in a place where it wasn’t but was found by two different people.”
Vital to the prosecution’s case against Oswald was the establishment of a “chain of custody” of the evidence, in the case of the paper “gunsack”, beginning with who it was who found it on the 6th floor near the sniper’s nest.
The Commission was unable to do that, because two different detectives, Robert L. Studebaker and Lt. J.C. Day each claimed in FBI reports to be the one who found it. Commission Document 5, pg 128 indicates that the “gunsack” was found by Detective R.L. Studebaker in the southwest corner of the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository while dusting for fingerprints.
Lt. Day finds the same “gunsack”
But on the next page, the same document credits the discovery to Lt. J.C. Day, with TSBD Supervisor Roy Truly as a witness and states that “no one else viewed it.”
Day adds in his claim that Roy Truly was a witness to his finding it and “no one else viewed it”.
Truly denies being present
But Truly testified that he didn’t know “things” were found in the southeast corner and WASN’T present when they were found.
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can’t answer. I don’t remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases. It could have been at the time I went up and told them about Lee Harvey Oswald being missing. I cannot remember. But I didn’t know it. I didn’t see them find them, and I didn’t know at the time I don’t know how long they had the things. ( 3 H 231 )
Why would Truly be in the southeast corner BEFORE the spent shells were found ?
Remarkably, with this conflict in the evidence, Truly was never asked one single question about the discovery of the “gunsack”, the wrapping paper and tape allegedly used to construct it, the sample of the paper and tape the Dallas Police took from the TSBD on November 22, 1963, or the construction of the replica bag by the FBI on December 1st .
Here we have a witness who may or may not have been present at the discovery of the paper “gunsack”, was present at the taking of the sample tape and paper, and present at the construction of a replica bag 10 days later, and he was never asked one single question about any of it !!!
That is bizarre to me.
Neither Lt. Day nor Detective Studebaker were the first ones to come upon the “sniper’s nest”.
No other detective sees it
The first law enforcement officers on the scene were Dallas County Deputy Sheriffs. Sheriff Deputy Luke Mooney, who discovered the sniper’s nest ( 3 H 284 ), testified that he saw the 8-12 inch high brown paper “lunchsack” that had been left behind by Bonnie Ray Williams. Mooney was asked by Commission Counsel if he saw a paper bag at any other window:
Mr. BALL. Did you see a paper bag at any other window?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn’t. ( 3 H 288 )
He was also asked if he saw anything in the corner.
Mr. BALL. …..Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn’t see anything over in the corner. ( 3 H 286 )
Sgt. Gerald Hill, the first DPD officer to arrive, also only saw the lunchsack:
Mr. HILL. The only specifics we discussed were this. 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. ( 7 H 65 )
Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig:
Mr. BELIN. Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing, or not?
Mr. CRAIG. No; I don’t remember seeing any. ( 6 H 268 )
Detective Boyd, who arrived with Captain Fritz and before Lt. Day and Studebaker:
Mr. BALL. Did you see any brown wrapping paper near the window where the hulls were found, near the windows alongside which the hulls were found?
Mr. BOYD. I don’t believe I did. ( 7 H 122 )
Securing the crime scene
At 1pm, detectives L.D. Montgomery and Marvin Johnson arrived at the TSBD and reported to Capt. Fritz for assignment. He told them to “stay there and preserve the scene” until the arrival of Lt. Day and Detective Studebaker. ( 7 H 101 )
Both of these detectives testified that the saw the “gunsack” in the southeast corner and apparently, they didn’t follow orders because Johnson testified that Montgomery picked it up and unfolded it.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know who found it?
Mr. JOHNSON. I know that the first I saw of it, L. D. Montgomery, my partner, picked it up off the floor, and it was folded up, and he unfolded it.
Mr. BELIN. When it was folded up, was it folded once or refolded?
Mr. JOHNSON. It was folded and then refolded. It was a fairly small package.
( 7 H 103 )
Montgomery denied picking it up:
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn’t pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints.
( 7 H 98 )
One might ask how Johnson could mistake Studebaker for his own partner ?
Montgomery’s handling of the “gunsack” after he had been ordered to secure the scene, if Johnson is telling the truth, was an act of insubordination and would have resulted in the crime scene being contaminated.
Not only do these tidbits of testimony cast doubt on whether or not the “gunsack” was ever on the sixth floor, there is no photographic evidence to corroborate that the “gunsack” was where the police said it was.
Further evidence the “gunsack” was NOT on the sixth floor: the crime scene photographs
Although both men who claimed to find the bag were police photographers, none of the sniper’s nest photos taken by Lt. Day or Detective Studebaker show the “gunsack” allegedly found in the corner. You would think that such an important piece of evidence would have been photographed in situ.
The area where it was allegedly discovered was photographed by DPD, but there is no “gunsack” in the photo.
Incredibly, lacking an actual photograph of the “gunsack” in the sniper’s nest, and with numerous officers who saw the ‘sniper’s nest” testifying that they never saw the “gunsack”, the Warren Commission placed in evidence a photo of the sniper’s nest with the outline of the “gunsack” drawn in!!! ( Studebaker Exhibit F )
Solely on the word of Det. Studebaker
This location was based on the observation of Det. Studebaker, who told the Commission that he was asked by the FBI to mark where the “gunsack” was located :
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures—one of the shots after the duplicate shot.
Mr. BALL. Let’s mark this picture “Exhibit F.”
(Instrument marked by the reporter as “Studebaker Exhibit F,” for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don’t.
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.
Mr. BALL. Now, there is something that looks like steam pipes or water pipes in the corner there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was that with reference to those pipes–the paper wrapping?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Laying right beside it–right here.
Mr. BALL. Was it folded over?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was doubled–it was a piece of paper about this long and it was doubled over. ( 7 H 144 )
Not important enough
The first thing Studebaker did was take photographs of the crime scene before anything was disturbed. Leaving nothing to chance, Lt. Day duplicated Studebaker’s photos. Neither man felt that this important evidence warranted a photograph showing it in place??? But it was important enough to dust for prints???
Mr. BALL. How long was it, approximately?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don’t know-–I picked it up and dusted it and they took it down there and sent it to Washington and that’s the last I have seen of it, and I don’t know.
Mr. BALL. Did you take a picture of it before you picked it up?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; it doesn’t show in any of the pictures. ( ibid. )
Shouldn’t the “gunsack” still be in the photos, even if police initially didn’t recognize its importance ?
One of the first things police officers are taught about crime scenes is the preservation of the scene itself, that is, to prevent anything from being disturbed. But apparently, this “gunsack” was touched by detectives at the scene.
Studebaker admitted picking it up in order to dust it for prints. Detective L.D. Montgomery confirmed that in his testimony:
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn’t pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints.
( 7 H 98 )
Even if it had been inadvertently picked up, shouldn’t it have been returned to the area where it was found, if for no other reason, than to photograph it in place and to present the scene in its original condition ?
No physical proof the paper “gunsack” was on the sixth floor
Although the Commission stated that the “gunsack” had been found on the sixth floor near the sniper’s nest, it provided no physical proof that it had .
When police officers tell the truth, their stories match.
So if the Dallas Police had the prescence of mind to photograph the shells under the window in position as found ( in situ ), why didn’t they photograph the bag the same way ? In position as found ?
Because it was never never found on the sixth floor.
And the FBI knew that when they examined the paper and tape on the “gunsack” with the paper and tape the Dallas Police took from the shipping room of the TSBD on the afternoon of the 22nd. They found that the paper and tape were identical and knew what that meant: that the “gunsack” had been constructed on the afternoon of the 22nd, AFTER the assassination.
They then proceeded to try to hide that fact.
The FBI tries to cover up “identical” paper and tape
On the day of the assassination, the Dallas Police obtained a sample of wrapping paper and tape from the shipping room of the Depository and forwarded it to the FBI Laboratory in Washington. James C. Cadigan, a questioned-documents expert with the Bureau, compared the samples with the paper and tape in the actual “gunsack”.
He testified, “In all of the observations and physical tests that I made I found * * the bag * and the paper sample * * were the same.” ( Report, Chap 4, pg 135 )
Mr. Cadigan concluded that the paper and tape from the bag were identical in all respects to the sample paper and tape taken from the Texas School Book Depository shipping room on November 22, 1963. ( ibid., pg. 136 )
The evidence shows that while the original report indicated that the paper and tape on the gunsack WERE identical to the samples taken on 11/22 and the FBI did everything it could do to downplay that fact.
Reporting the results
That conclusion was included in the Gemberling Report of 11/30/63 when it was originally submitted to FBIHQ. In that report, there were a number of contradictions the Bureau wanted “corrected”.
A list of corrections was compiled by FBIHQ and returned to Dallas as part of a 12/6/63 AIRTEL from Hoover’s office to the SAC ( Special Agent in Charge ) of the Dallas FBI office.
In other words, the report was “bounced back” as we used to call it.
One of those contradictions, ( item # 11 ) indicated that on line 10 of page 129, the paper and tape on the paper “gunsack” and the paper and tape sample retrieved from the shipping room of the TSBD on the afternoon of the 22nd were said to be identical. FBIHQ wanted to replace the word “identical” with the phraseology it used on the report’s page 165, that the paper and tape from the “gunsack” had the “same observable characteristics” as the sample taken on 11/22.
Hoover steps in
Hoover knew that if the paper and tape samples taken on 11/22 were “identical” to the paper and tape used to make the “gunsack”, that meant the Dallas Police had constructed the bag on the afternoon of November 22nd. So he tried to suppress that.
When the conflict between the two conclusions was brought to his attention, he wriggled his way out of it by explaining that while the paper and tape on the gunsack and the samples taken on 11/22 were identical, the paper and tape on the replica bag and the samples they took on December 1st were different than the gunsack or the 11/22 sample.
Of course, this satisfied the Commission, but Hoover was never asked how a sample that was not taken by the FBI until December 1st could have been misrepresented in a report dated November 30th.
Comparing the “gunsack” to the 11/22 samples
The fact is that the rolls and tape were identical and subjected to several tests, according to James Cadigan.
Cadigan testified that he examined both the paper “gunsack” and the sample paper and tape on November 23rd, the day after the assassination. He examined the papers through natural light, incident light and transmitted light. He then looked at their surfaces through a microscope for paper structure, color and imperfections. ( 4 H 90 )
Then he examined the papers under ultraviolet light. ( 4 H 92 )
He measured both with a micrometer at .0057″. ( 4 H 93 )
Cadigan testified that, “In all of the observations and physical tests, that I made, I found that for Exhibit 142, the bag, and the paper sample, Commission Exhibit 677, the results were the same.”
Mr. EISENBERG. In all these cases, did you make the examination both of the tape and the paper in each of the bag and the sample?
Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And they were all identical?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. ( ibid. )
Why did they change the wording ?
FBIHQ had a reason why it had to downplay the “identical” angle. In fact, the FBI went out of its way to NOT use the word “identical” in its reports when describing the comparison of the paper and tape on the “gunsack” with the paper and tape taken on the afternoon of the 22nd.
If you look at page 129 ( above ) you’ll see that the report by Agent Drain was made on 11/29/63, a full TWO DAYS BEFORE the FBI took a second sample from the TSBD and made a replica bag.
Which means that report had NOTHING to do with the replica and sample taken on December 1st.
So why did Hoover have them change the wording ?
In their zeal to “prove” Oswald guilty by connecting the “gunsack” to the wrapping paper in the shipping room of the Texas School Book Depository, the Dallas Police unwittingly provided proof that they had manufactured the evidence on the afternoon of the assassination.
And the FBI did what they could to suppress that.
And the proof centers around something they could not have known about—how long a roll of paper and tape lasted.
The Commission continues the coverup
So if the 11/22 sample was identical to the “gunsack” found on the sixth floor, why did the FBI attempt in their reports to downplay the match, electing instead to present the test results as having concluded that the papers had “the same observable characteristics” and thus only similar ?
Because if the only paper and tape that was identical to the paper and tape used to make the bag, was the paper and tape on the shipping table on the afternoon of 11/2263, then the bag was made by police on the afternoon of 11/22/63.
The paper one could argue, because the rolls of paper were changed every three days or so. Chances are that the paper would NOT have matched. The Commission found that two identical rolls could be made from a single batch of paper. ( Report, Chap. 4 pg. 136 )
Speculation without proof
But the FBI never determined if an identical roll to the November 22 sample roll had been part of the shipment to the TSBD. Likewise, the FBI never tested the unused rolls of paper in the TSBD to determine if the matched roll to the 11/22 sample roll had been used or was still there.
There may have been a reason for that : if a matched roll had NOT been part of the shipment, or had been part of the shipment and not yet used, then it was certain that the “gunsack” had been made on November 22nd.
But even if two identical rolls of paper and two idenitcal rolls of tape had been part of the same shipment, what would the odds be that the a matching roll of paper AND a matching roll of tape used to previously make the gunsack would be in the shipping room dispensers on November 22, 1963 ?
I’d say that’s a long shot.
But it was a long shot that the Commission implied, concluding that the “gunsack” could have been made from the matched roll used at an unknown earlier date by Oswald:
“….since two rolls could be made from the same batch of paper, one cannot estimate when, prior to November 22, Oswald made the paper bag.” ( ibid. )
A faulty footnote provides no evidence
But the Commission never PROVED that two rolls of paper were made from the same batch. The footnote for this statement found on page 136 of the Report ( ibid.) is footnote # 196. On page 824 of the Report, that footnote is a reference to the testimony of James Cadigan in 4 H 96 and Commission Exhibit 1965, neither of which contains any mention of two identical rolls coming from the same batch of paper.
More speculation without proof
Because the Commission failed to prove that there was a second identical roll of paper to the roll on the TSBD paper dispenser on 11/22 and failed to prove that this identical roll had been used prior to the day of the assassination, this damages the Commission’s contention that the “gunsack” was made from a roll other than the one that was on the paper dispenser in the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963.
From that, I believe that we CAN estimate WHEN the “gunsack” was made.
Because the motorcade route WITH the turn onto Elm St. was not announced until Monday, November 18th, and because Oswald was known to have read the newspaper a day LATE ( 6 H 352 ) and a roll of paper lasted only 3 days, for Oswald to have constructed the “gunsack” from the same roll of paper that was in the shipping room on 11/22, he would have had to have done it between the afternoon of Tuesday, November 19th and the end of the workday on Thursday, the 21st.
There’s no evidence that Oswald used wrapping paper or tape from the shipping room during this period or any other period. In fact, TSBD shipping clerk Troy Eugene West told the Commission that Oswald was never around the shipping department:
Mr. BELIN. Did Lee Harvey Oswald ever help you wrap mail?
Mr. WEST. No, sir; he never did.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not he ever borrowed or used any wrapping paper for himself?
Mr. WEST. No, sir; I don’t.
Mr. BELIN. You don’t know?
Mr. WEST. No; I don’t.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ever see him around these wrapper rolls or wrapper roll machines, or not?
Mr. WEST. No, sir; I never noticed him being around. ( 6 H 360 )
Examining the tape
“On March 29, 1963, the TSBD received a shipment of 50 cartons of 3″ 60 lb. rolls of safety-sealed gummed paper tape from the Weaver Tape & Specialties Co. in Dallas. The tape was originally manufactured by Rexford Paper Co. of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Weaver Tape was a supplier, not a manufacturer. ( CD 897, pg. 163 )
Typically, cartons of 3″ 60 lb. tape come in lengths of 600 ft. and ten rolls to a carton.
That’s 500 rolls of tape for 58 rolls of paper. The FBI found that a roll of wrapping paper lasted only 3 days in the TSBD shipping room. And yet, if one uses simple math to determine how much tape they used per roll, we find that they used 8.6 rolls of tape per roll of paper. ( Dividing 500 by 58 )
That’s 8.6 rolls of tape every three days, or 2.87 rolls per day.
On an 8-hour workday, that averages out to one roll of tape used in just under 3 hours.
Since the TSBD had only one tape dispenser, they could only use one roll of tape at a time.
Narrowing the construction of the “gunsack” down to a 3-hour window
For the FBI to have concluded that the sample tape taken on 11/22 and the “gunsack” tape were IDENTICAL would have been tantamount to their saying that the paper “gunsack” had been constructed in a 3 hour period prior to and including the time it took to take the sample.
And this would have been proof that the Dallas Police had been behind the construction of the bag.
Now you know why the FBI tried to downplay the identical match between the “gunsack” paper and tape and the samples taken on 11/22/63.
And it certainly had to be the reason why the FBI tested the paper and the tape it got from the TSBD 10 days after the assassination when it constructed a “replica bag” and compared it to the paper and tape samples of 11/22 and those of the “gunsack”.
In addition to comparing the paper and tape from the “replica bag” to the “gunsack” & sample of 11/22, the FBI also compared samples of paper and tape from Jaggers-Childs-Stovall to the 11/22 sample and the “gunsack”.
Evidence the “bag” was made by police
The FBI HAD to have known that the preponderance of the evidence indicated that the “gunsack” had been constructed from the SAME paper that was in the TSBD shipping room on November 22, 1963, using the same dispenser and the same tape and the sample was taken by the same officers who claimed to have found the “gunsack” on the sixth floor..
They had to know that the identical paper and tape TOGETHER was only available for less than a 3 hour period that included the period when the sample was taken.
The Dallas police made the gunsack from rolls of paper and tape that was in the shipping room of the TSBD on 11/22, then took samples from the same paper and tape they used to make the bag.
But the police erred in their construction of the bag. They knew that they had ordered a 36″ Mannlicher-Carcano from Klein’s and thought that was the rifle they received. So they made the bag 38 inches, long enough for the 36″ rifle to fit into.
What they didn’t know was that Klein’s had sent them a 40.2″ rifle. They never measured the rifle when they received it, so they thought the rifle they had was 36″ and made the bag accordingly.
Chief Curry’s faux pas
The fact that they thought the rifle was less than 38 inches was revealed when Chief Curry slipped during one of his hallway interviews and told reporters that, “the package was large enough for the rifle to be intact”.
That would have been true if the rifle was 36″. The Chief stated this not as an opinion, but as a matter of fact. So why would the Chief think that the rifle was smaller than the 38″ gunsack ? Because even before any records of the rifle were found, he knew that a 36″ rifle had been ordered.
Not only did police screw up the length of the “bag”, in their haste to produce a connection between the TSBD and the rifle, they used identical paper and tape for both the “gunsack” and the samples.
But the identical paper and tape didn’t just connect the “gunsack” with the TSBD, they connected the “gunsack” with being constructed in the TSBD shipping room on 11/22.
This evidence could not have been lost on Hoover or the FBI.
If the FBI had any questions whether or not the Dallas Police constructed the “gunsack”, its examination of the “gunsack” for markings from the rifle would give them the answer.
Evidence the rifle was never in the gunsack
Having sufficient evidence that the “gunsack” was constructed in the TSBD shipping room on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, the FBI took the next step in examining the “gunsack” by trying to determine if there was evidence that it ever contained the depository rifle.
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.
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. ( 4 H 97 )
No markings means no evidence
Cadigan’s conclusions were simple.
There was no evidence that the “gunsack” ever contained the depository rifle or any other rifle.
The Dallas Police made this bag to connect the rifle to the building and thus Oswald. But they thought all the paper and tape was the same. What they didn’t know was that all paper and tape was NOT the same and they were using paper and tape that would connect it to the building on the afternoon of November 22nd.
The Tape Dispenser
The TSBD had only one tape dispenser. FBI examined it and the tape. They found that the dispenser left unique marks on the tape as it went through. Because of this, they were able to identify the dispenser from the shipping room of the TSBD as the unit that dispensed the tape. There’s no evidence that Oswald was ever working in the shipping room and there’s no evidence that he took the dispenser home with him to construct the gunsack. The evidence indicated that this tape dispenser dispensed the tape used on the making of the “gunsack”.
The fact that the tape dispenser from the TSBD shipping room dispensed the tape used to make the “gunsack” is evidence that the “gunsack” was made in the TSBD shipping room.
Blanket fibers in the “gunsack”
When Paul M. Stombaugh of the FBI Laboratory examined the paper bag, he found, on the inside, a single brown delustered viscose fiber and several light green cotton fibers. ‘The blanket in which the rifle was stored was composed of brown and green cotton, viscose and woolen fibers’
The single brown viscose fiber found in the bag matched some of the brown viscose fibers from the blanket in all observable characteristics. The green cotton fibers found in the paper bag matched ‘some of the green cotton fibers in the blanket “in all observable microscopic characteristics.” Despite these matches, however, Stombaugh was unable to determine that the fibers which he found in the bag had come from the blanket, because other types of fibers present in the blanket were not found in the bag
The best he could come up with, because there were so few fibers in the bag, was that they could have come from the blanket.
Or they could have been placed there.
Oswald’s fingerprint and palmprint found on the gunsack
Using a standard chemical method involving silver nitrates the FBI Laboratory developed a latent palmprint and latent fingerprint on the bag. ( See app. X, p. 565 ) .
Sebastian F. Latona, supervisor of the FBI’s Latent Fingerprint Section, identified these prints as the left index fingerprint and right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald. The portion of the palm which was identified was the heel of the right palm, i.e., the area near the wrist, on the little finger side. These prints were examined independently by Ronald G. Wittmus of the FBI and by Arthur Mandella, a fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department. Both concluded that the prints were the right palm and left index finger of Lee Oswald.
Of course, to think anyone would carry a broken down rifle ( or ANY rifle, for that matter ) in this fashion is utter nonsense. Here is how he would have had to carry the gunsack if the prints on it are legit:
So how did Oswald’s prints get on the bag ? Well, either the story of his prints on the bag is a lie or they were forced on the bag by the Dallas Police during Oswald’s “interrogation”.
An opinion
I suggest that there were struggles in that interrogation room and they could have forced his hands on the bag. Before you start laughing at this theory, let me remind you that the police opted to NOT have a stenographer present nor to tape the interrogation.
There was to be no evidence of what was going on in that room.
And for anyone to think that any police department who had captured a suspect who they suspected of killing one of their own, would simply sit him down and ask questions is naive at best.
Especially in the South in the 1960s.
This guy was going to get an ass kicking, especially after the struggle in the Texas Theater. Make no mistake about it.
As a footnote, it’s been noted that the shirt he was wearing when he was arrested had no hole in the elbow. I believe that happened when they roughed him up during his interrogation.
As if Oswald’s shooting skills being better than the world’s master riflemen wasn’t enough, Oswald was able to fashion this homemade gunsack without leaving more than 1 fingerprint and a print of the heel of his right hand. This is another in a long list of Oswald’s lifelong achievements and I’m surprised he isn’t in the Guinness Book of World Records for all he accomplished.
This is another of the Commission’s lies and we know that because it is impossible to have constructed this piece of evidence with one’s bare hands without leaving countless fingerprints. Not Oswald and not anyone else. Impossible.
More evidence the “paper bag” was made on the afternoon of the assassination: it never contained a rifle.
The witness
Wesley Frazier gave Oswald a ride to work that morning. Frazier’s description of the “package” he saw as 24-27 inches could not have been the 38 inch “gunsack” in evidence. Frazier described the package as a “large department store sack”.
That’s not to say that it was a large sack ( which the Commission tried to push ) , but rather it was a sack that was commonly used in a large department store.
The thing about department store brown bags is that they don’t have any tape on the outside of them holding pieces of them together.
The FBI reported that, “he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack.”
They reported that he couldn’t make up his mind, but that was a lie.
Frazier testified that when he was shown the CE 142 bag by the FBI, he told them that the length was “entirely too long.”
Once again, we have proof that the FBI lied about what the witnesses said.
If Oswald was carrying a department store brown bag ( like you get at Walmart ) , there’s no way this Frankenstein-looking “gunsack” with all the tape on the outside holding it together was the same sack he saw.
In this video, Frazier describes his experience with the Warren Commission and says that “there was no gun” in his car on the morning of the assassination.
Conclusion
I believe there’s a lot of evidence here that points to this “gunsack” as having been constructed on the afternoon of the assassination.
First, crime scene photographs prove that it wasn’t where they said they found it.
Second, police gave conflicting accounts of who found it and who picked it up.
Third, the locations of the prints taken from it are proof that Oswald never carried it.
Fourth, there were not enough fibers to say they came from the blanket in the Paine garage.
Fifth, there was no evidence that the rifle was ever inside it.
Sixth, it was IMPOSSIBLE for anyone, Oswald or anyone else, to have constructed this bag without leaving fingerprints. There were prints on that bag, the FBI destroyed them with a chemical.
Seventh, the paper and tape used to construct the bag matched the paper and tape that was on the shipping room table on the afternoon of November 22nd to the exclusion of all others.
A final word
The Paper “Gunsack” was made by the Dallas Police in the shipping room of the TSBD on the afternoon of November 22, 1963 after Oswald was in custody.
The markings on the tape were the same as the markings from the tape dispenser in the shipping room. If Oswald took the paper to Irving with him on Thursday night, did he take the tape and dispenser as well ? How could he have done that without anyone knowing ?
The paper on the “gunsack” matched the paper that was on the shipping table on the afternoon of the 22nd.
The tape on the “gunsack” matched the tape that was in the tape dispenser in the shipping room on the afternoon of the 22nd.
This tells me that the paper “gunsack” was made by the Dallas Police in the shipping room of the TSBD on the afternoon of November 22, 1963 after Oswald was in custody. They made the “gunsack” with the paper and tape that was available, then took samples from the same roll and tape.
By doing that they were trying to match the paper and tape from the “gunsack” to the paper and tape from the TSBD ( so they thought ). What they didn’t know was that the rolls of paper were different from roll to roll and the rolls of tape were different from roll to roll so what they were actually doing was matching the paper and tape on the “gunsack” to the TSBD ON THE AFTERNOON OF THE ASSASSINATION.