Most Definitely Not in the Bag

Should one think the commission's failure to clear up how the shots were fired--and whether or not Oswald was even on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting--was an isolated failure, one should be reminded that, as the Dallas Police, the Secret Service, and the FBI before them, the Warren Commission was unable to figure out how Oswald (or anyone) got the assassination rifle into the building. The only two people to see Oswald with a bag on 11-22, Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle, after all, both testified that the bag they saw in his possession was far smaller than the bag put into evidence. The Warren Commission, not surprisingly, assumed they were mistaken.

But the problem with the bag, when compounded by other factors, elevates the case to what many believe is a reasonable doubt. Consider that Jack Dougherty, the only one to see Oswald come into the building, didn't even recall his carrying a small package, let alone a large package, when he came inside. Consider that no one else saw Oswald with a package in the building. Consider that the paper bag purportedly used by Oswald to transport the rifle to work was made from materials found within the school book depository, and was apparently, due to the nature of the tape's being all torn from one piece and its being automatically moistened as it was pulled from the machine, made on the premises. Consider that, as the paper from which the bag was made was purported to match the paper roll in use in the depository on 11-22, and the paper rolls used lasted but a few days, the bag must have been made within a few days of the assassination. Consider that the only day Oswald went to Irving, where he reportedly picked up his rifle and sealed it in the bag, during the whole time the paper roll was in use, was the day before the assassination, 11-21. Consider that the company' s shipper, Troy West, testified that Oswald had never worked at his shipping table, and that people didn't just come up and use his shipping paper and tape, and that, besides, he was always at his shipping table, even during lunch. Consider that nobody else saw Oswald take paper or tape from the table on 11-21, or at any other time. Consider that Buell Wesley Frazier, who gave Oswald a ride home on 11-21, didn't notice a large paper package in Oswald's possession, or any stiffness in Oswald's movements to suggest he was hiding such a package under his shirt. Consider as well that Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine, two grown women living in a tiny house, failed to notice such a stiffness in Oswald's behavior when he came home from work, and failed to see the bag in the house or in the garage, after he arrived. Consider that there is no photograph of the bag where it was purportedly found near the sniper's nest...

And now consider that the bag removed from the building, and as photographed by the Dallas Morning News, Dallas Times-Herald, and Fort Worth Star-Telegram, appears to be far wider than the bag placed into evidence by the FBI (as shown on the slide above).

We interrupt this discussion to bring you a quick response to some annoying criticism. 

First, yes, of course I know that the comparison above is not 100% precise. But that does not mean it is automatically suspect, or would be prohibited from being introduced into a court of law. Hard Evidence, a book written in 1995 with the cooperation of the FBI Crime Lab, notes that "Sometimes a bank robber's height can be established simply by putting a height marker precisely where he stood then photographing it with the same camera and doing an overlay." This is the methodology attempted in the comparison above, which opens my comparison to four legitimate criticisms: 1) that the photos are improperly sized, with both the "bag" and model in my re-enactment photo undersized in comparison to the press photo; 2) that the photos are properly sized, but that the angle and/or distance of the bag from the model in my re-enactment photo was inaccurately re-created, causing the bag to appear far smaller in my re-enactment; 3) that my choice of camera and camera lens was incorrect, and that this caused the "bag" to appear far smaller in my re-enactment; and 4) that the bag in the press photos was much closer to the camera than the "bag" in the re-enactment photo, to the extent that the apparent relationship between camera-bag-person holding the bag was altered.

Now, initially, no one even attempted a criticism along the last two lines. While Marquette Political Science Professor and avowed single-assassin theorist John McAdams claimed my comparisons were of no value unless I used the exact same camera and lens used to create the press photos, he refused to back this up by explaining why we should believe certain cameras using the same type lens could distort the apparent size of specific sections of an image by 25% or so in comparison to other cameras. No, the dozen or so single-assassin theorists to initially criticize this comparison did so along the first two lines, essentially sharing the same argument. They all claimed the difference in size between the bag in the press photo and the piece of cardboard in my hand on the slide above came either as a result of my improperly sizing the two photos or the bag in the press photo's slightly leaning toward the camera.

Well, this could be tested...by taking the opposite approach and making the bag in the news photo and the piece of cardboard in the re-enactment photo the exact same width...

The Opposite Approach

Well, this looks pretty silly, doesn't it? While I'm 6'4" tall, I'm no giant. And Detective Montgomery was most certainly not a midget. This not only proves that the difference in bag width in my comparison did not come as a result of my simply mis-matching the photos, but suggests that, in order for the piece of cardboard in the re-enactment photo to be the same width as the bag in the news photo, it would have to have been YARDS closer to the camera. This, then, also destroys any argument that the difference in width in my comparison came as a result of the bag's tilting a few inches to the camera in the news photo. 

10 3/4, Not 8 1/2

That the bag's leaning to the camera caused its apparent width to be distorted in the press photo was further undermined, moreover, by my re-enactment of a second photo, in which the apparent lean was more closely replicated. When I approximated the apparent width of the paper bag in this press photo, moreover, it match the apparent width of the bag in the first photo I'd re-enacted. The bag in the press photos was close to 11" wide, while the bag currently in the archives is less than 9.

Still not convinced? Convinced that this re-enactment is improperly sized and/or that the bag in this photo is leaning slightly to the camera, causing a distortion in its appearance?

Okay, you asked for it.

The Opposite Approach 2

When one makes the width of the bag in this second photo match the width of the 8 1/2 inch piece of paper in my re-enactment shot, it becomes startlingly clear this bag was not 8 1/2 inches wide as purported. I am certainly not a giant in comparison to Detective Montgomery, so it follows that the width of the bag in the photo with him was far wider than an 8 1/2 inch wide piece of paper.

Or does it?

Thank You, Craig!

In 2010, photographer Craig Lamson sent me a series of insulting emails, telling me the bag seen in the press photos was clearly the bag now in the archives, and that I couldn't photo-analyze my way out of a paper bag, etc. Not surprisingly, he claimed the different proportions of the bag in the press photos and my simulated bag were readily explained not by my inaccurately sizing the photos, as others had proposed, but by the photos having been taken from vastly different distances. He pointed out--not that it needed pointing--that as a camera gets closer to an object it distorts its appearance, both in relation to itself, with the part closest to the camera getting bigger and the part furthest from the camera smaller in comparison, and to other objects around it. While he refused to actually test the veracity of this explanation by recreating the press photos using an object the purported size of the paper bag in the archives, and a full-sized human being, Lamson did nevertheless send me links to photos he'd created demonstrating this distortion.

Well, this proved most surprising....seeing as the photos Lamson had taken to demonstrate this concept supported my position. The ruler in the photo he'd taken from across the room had nearly uniform proportions; little distortion was visible. As the camera grew closer to the ruler, however, the section closest to the camera grew wider in comparison to the rest of the ruler. 

But not enough... Even with the camera at its closest to the ruler, the closest section of the ruler was nowhere near 25% or so wider than the parts of the ruler furthest from the camera.

This demonstrated beyond any doubt that the bag in the press photo's leaning a bit this way or that would have little effect on its proportions relative to Officer Montgomery, and would not distort the width of the bag to near the amount necessary to explain the overly-wide appearance of the bag...

That is, unless the press photos were taken from much closer to the bag than I've presumed...

But I just can't see how this can be. When re-enacting the first photo, above, the camera was approximately 14 feet away from the simulated bag, and I was at most a half a foot behind that. This means that the bag was about 1 and 1/28 its actual size in comparison to me. In order for the bag in the press photos to appear 25% wider than this bag, then, it means that the bag in the press photos would have to be about 1 and 8/28 its actual size in comparison to Det. Montgomery. (This, of course, assumes both that Montgomery was roughly my size, and that I matched our sizes on my comparison.) Since the bag held by Montgomery was at most 1 foot in front of him, moreover, it suggests (at least to me) that the camera would have to be around 3 and 1/2 feet from the bag before the bag could appear so distorted in comparison to Montgomery.

And this clearly isn't the case...

But that's just a layman's analysis, based in part on my assumption the lens used for the press photos was a standard press lens, and would not distort the size of objects 10 or more feet away... If someone out there believes I'm way off base, and that such a lens was used, then please re-create the photos using such a lens, and prove me wrong. As I'm incredibly tired of people--such as Professor John McAdams--ignoring the bulk of my research and referring to me as merely a "crackpot" photo analyst--I'd be glad to remove these paper bag comparisons from my website.

I mean, really, it's not as if the problem with the width is is the only evidence the bags are not the same...

The Tell-Tale Tape

You see, there's also the FBI photo of the bag before they coated it with silver nitrate (a chemical used to bring out fingerprints, which forever stains paper). This photograph is Exhibit 14 in Warren Commission Document CD 1, the FBI's 12-9-63 Summary Report on the assassination. Although the proportions of the bag in this photograph have been distorted by the photographer's taking this picture while the bag was laying flat on the floor before him, it is still suggestive that the bag in evidence is not the bag pulled from the building. The bag in the photograph has numerous pieces of paper tape along its right side. NO paper tape is visible anywhere on the front side of the bag in the news photos. There is also a piece of tape in the middle of the open end of the bag. No such piece of tape is visible in the news photos. The news photos do, on the other hand, show the paper by the open end of the bag to be badly crinkled. No such crinkling is apparent on the bag in the FBI exhibit. The bags in the photos, in fact, bare little resemblance to one another.

Unless the side of the bag seen in Exhibit 14 is the opposite side of the bag seen in the news photos, then, we have conclusive evidence the bags are not the same.

The Dark Side of The Bag

Well, scratch that. Exhibit 4 in the FBI's report of 12-9-63 is a photo of the bag when split. It shows both sides of the bag. One side which matches the side of the bag shown in Exhibit 14 (which most definitely does not match the side of the bag shown in the press photos) and one side which, although absent tape a la the bag in the press photos, also fails to match this bag. The proportions and characteristics are clearly not the same.

Well, this leaves us with the possible argument that I have pulled some sort of computer trick to make the bag look wider than its actual size in the news photos, or the printer paper narrower than its normal appearance in my re-creations, and have doctored the news photos, three of which are found on the website of single-assassin theorist John McAdams, in order to fool the reader. If the reader believes this to be the case, then please re-create one or more of the photos yourself and DEMONSTRATE that this was done. Before one accuses someone of faking evidence, after all, one should at least do a little homework. 

Which brings us back to our discussion... 

 

Shining a Light on Day

According to the report of the Dallas Detective who found the bag, L.D. Montgomery, the bag was initialed by Detectives Robert Studebaker, Marvin Johnson, and himself upon its discovery in the sniper's nest (24H314). All three of these men testified before the Warren Commission in Dallas on 4-6-64. So why weren't any of them shown the bag, or asked to verify their initials?  Was it simply because the counsel taking their testimony had left the bag behind in Washington?

Perhaps. The bag was indeed shown to the FBI's fingerprint analyst, Sebastian Latona, during his 4-2-64 testimony in Washington. 

And it reappeared on 4-22-64, in Washington, during the testimony of Dallas Crime Lab Chief Lt. J.C. Day.

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. 

(Note: this suggests that Day was not present when the bag or sack was discovered.) 

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.
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. 

(Note: by writing "May have been used to carry gun", Day confirms that he did not write this when the bag was first discovered, as believed by most single-assassin theorists. It would have made no sense for him to write this, after all, unless he had reason to believe the gun was not carried in and out of the building in a gun case. It follows, then, that he wrote this sometime after the discovery of the rifle. This leads to more confusion. Both Day and his assistant Studebaker testified that they photographed the shells in the sniper's nest before photographing the gun. The bag was within a foot or so of Day and/or Studebaker's position when they photographed these shells. So how could they not have noticed the bag? Perhaps, then, Montgomery and Johnson showed Studebaker the bag while Day was photographing the shells from the other side. If so, then perhaps they all signed the bag in the building and Day signed it later. It also seems possible, since the bag was reportedly folded in half, that no one paid it much attention until after Day and Studebaker were pulled away to photograph the rifle. After taking these pictures, Day walked the rifle over to the crime lab. This would leave the inexperienced Studebaker alone to deal with the bag. This might explain why the bag wasn't photographed in place. And this might explain why Day would later claim he signed the bag before it left "our possession" --as opposed to "my possession". In either case, the question remains as to when Day actually signed the bag, and why the Commission never showed the bag to Montgomery, Johnson, or Studebaker.)

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." 

Well, why is there no mention of the other men's initials on this sack?

Now consider the next bit of Day's testimony... 

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.
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.
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.
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. 

Well, hold on there. According to the reports of the Dallas Police (24H260) and the officers involved (24H314, 24H307) the paper bag by the sniper's nest was both discovered and brought in to the Dallas Police Crime Lab by Detectives L.D. Montgomery and Marvin Johnson. So why does Day, who's already IDed his initials on the bag, and failed to mention that they initialed it before him, fail to mention that they brought the bag into the Crime Lab, and instead mention Hicks and Studebaker? Is he really that forgetful? Or is he trying to hide something? In his 3:45 PM April 6 testimony, Detective Studebaker never mentions Detectives Johnson and Montgomery when he discusses picking up and dusting the bag. He also fails to mention Day. He marks some photos to show where he first saw the bag. (7H137-149) In his 4:00 PM April 6 testimony, just after Studebaker, Detective Johnson mentions Montgomery's finding the bag and the bag's being dusted for fingerprints at the scene, but fails to mention who dusted the bag. (7H100-105)  In his 4:50 PM April 6 testimony, Detective Montgomery mentions his finding the bag and the bag's being dusted by Studebaker. Strangely, however, he is less sure than the others that the bag was laying on the floor in the corner. He testifies: "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...I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there." (Even stranger, years later, he told Larry Sneed "I don't remember exactly where I found the brown paper that Oswald had wrapped the rifle in...I recall that it was stuffed between the boxes, not lying out open on the floor as were the shell casings.") Montgomery's testimony is vague on other points as well. When asked if he picked the bag up off the ground upon discovery, as claimed by Johnson, he at first says "Yes" but then changes his answer to "Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did." (7H96-100) For his part, in his April 7 testimony, Detective Hicks not only expressed that he had no recollection of seeing the bag in the building, but seemed to know nothing of it at all, as if its existence had been kept a secret. (7H286-289). So why did Day think he left him holding the bag?

The testimony of another Dallas detective, Richard N. Sims, on the morning of April 6, 1964, only adds to the confusion. When asked if he'd seen the paper bag found in the depository, Sims testified: 

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.
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.
Mr. BALL. On the east side of where the boxes were would that be the east?
Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir; it was right near the stack of boxes there. I know there was some loose paper there.
Mr. BALL. Was Johnson there?
Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir; when the wrapper was found Captain Fritz stationed Montgomery to observe the scene there where the hulls were found.
Mr. BALL. To stay there?
Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That was Marvin Johnson and L. D. Montgomery who stayed by the hulls?
Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir; they did. I was going back and forth, from the wrapper to the hulls. (7H158-186).

My, what a mess! Sims acknowledges that Johnson and Montgomery were stationed by the hulls (which were found by the sniper's nest) and seems to be aware that they "found" the bag, but never mentions witnessing the "discovery" of the bag, nor of Day or Studebaker's dusting the bag upon its discovery. Sims also describes the "bag" as "loose paper," and not as a carefully folded and taped piece of wrapping paper in the shape of a gun case. He also "guesses" the location where the bag was found. Even worse, Captain Will Fritz testified that Sims was with him when he left the depository, and that he (Fritz, who was only in charge of the investigation) had no knowledge of the paper bag before their departure. (4H202-248) Even worse than that, neither Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, who discovered the sniper's nest, nor Sgt. Gerald Hill, who joined him by the window just after, had any recollection of seeing such a bag on the floor.

This suggests that Sims had but a vague recollection that some paper was found, but had no real recollection of its appearance or of its discovery, even though he had stood but a few feet from the bag's purported location when picking up the hulls from the sniper's nest, and had accompanied Lt. Day from this location after the discovery of the rifle on the other side of the building. This, in turn, suggests that either no one placed much importance on the "bag" when it was first found in the depository, and that its possible importance only became apparent later on, or that Sims was trying to support that a bag was found in the sniper's nest without actually having seen it. In support of this second, more disturbing, possibility, Detective Sims' report on his activities on the day of the assassination makes no mention whatsoever of the bag or its discovery. (Sims' report on his activities can be found in Box 3, folder 4 of the Dallas Kennedy Archives.)

Perhaps aware of this problem with the bag and its discovery, on April 9, 1964, Warren Commission counsel David Belin took the testimony of Dallas Motorcycle officers Clyde Haygood and  E.D. Brewer, who claimed to have been on the sixth floor during the search of the depository, and to have seen an "approximately rifle length" and  "relatively long" paper sack, respectively, in the southeast corner of the building. Unfortunately, their stories just further murked the waters...

Mr. BELIN. See any long bags which would be a foot or foot and a half or more long?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes; just a plain brown paper bag with tape in the corner.
Mr. BELIN. What tape?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes; there was just brown paper tape on it. Just a brown paper bag with paper tape. It had been taped up.
Mr. BELIN. How long was that, if you can remember?
Mr. HAYGOOD. The exact length, I couldn't say. It was approximately rifle length. (6H296-302).

Yes, you got it. Haygood not only recalled the bag as a plain brown paper bag with tape on it, as opposed to a taped-together bag made of shipping paper, he claimed the bag was "approximately" rifle length, which is to say it could have been too short to hold a rifle.

Brewer was even less help.

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. (6H302-308).

Brewer also testified he was present when the rifle was found. The problem with his testimony is that, as we've seen, Captain Will Fritz testified that the bag was not "found" or discussed until after the rifle was discovered, and that he was not aware of it at any time before he left the building a short time after the rifle's discovery around 1:25. If the bag had been discovered, dusted, and discussed before the discovery of the rifle, or even before Fritz left the building shortly thereafter, certainly someone more involved in the investigation than common motorcycle officers like Haygood and Brewer would have remembered this fact, and have remembered it long before 4 1/2 months after the assassination.

The sum of all this testimony is that none of these men mention Day's initialing or dusting the bag in the depository, and that Montgomery and Studebaker specifically recall that Studebaker was the one who did the dusting. Studebaker also claimed to have found a "partial print" on the bag, and to have put a piece of 1 inch clear tape over it to "preserve" the print. (7H137-149) The FBI's Sebastian Latona, who examined the bag the next morning, testified that he could tell the bag had been previously examined by the "black fingerprint powder" on its surface, but noted further that "There was nothing visible in the way of any latent prints on there at that particular time". (4H1-48) Well, what happened to the partial print discovered by Studebaker?

Could the bag or sack removed from the sniper's nest have been smudged with someone other than Oswald's fingerprints? The Dallas PD's Case Report claims Day lifted a print from the "paper rifle was wrapped in" (24H249). As we've seen Day testified "no legible print was found". Well, it follows then that an "illegible" print was found. If this is so, then what happened to it? More to the point, could the sack initialed by Day and placed into evidence by the FBI have been a different sack entirely than the one found in the sniper's nest by Montgomery, and dusted by Studebaker? 

Amazingly, yes. Consider the next section of Lt. Day's testimony:

Mr. BELIN. Did you ever get the kind of sample used at the School Book Depository?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, I had the bag listed as----
Mr. BELIN. Commission Exhibit 626 or 142.
Mr. DAY. On the first floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and I noticed from their wrapping bench there was paper and tape of a similar--the tape was of the same width as this. I took the bag over and tried it, and I noticed that the tape was the same width as on the bag.
Mr. BELIN. Did it appear to have the same color?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Then what did you do?
Mr. DAY. Sir?
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. DAY. I directed one of the officers standing by me, I don't know which, to get a piece of the tape and a piece of the paper from the wrapping bench.
Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 677, I will ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is the tape and paper collected from the first floor in the shipping department of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does this have any identification marks on it?
Mr. DAY. It has my name, "J. C. Day, Dallas Police Department," and also in my writing, "Shipping Department."
Mr. BELIN. Any other writing on there that you recognize?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; Detective Studebaker, who was with me, and in his writing it says, "Paper sample from first floor, Texas School Book Depository, Studebaker, 11-22-63." The tape also has Studebaker's writing on it, "Tape sample from first floor." (4H 249-278) 

There is no mention of the size of this sample. As it was not considered evidence, furthermore, it was not even photographed by the Dallas Police in its original state. An 11-26-63 report by the FBI's Vincent Drain on his flights from and to Dallas with the primary evidence, moreover, notes that "sample of brown paper used by Texas School Book Depository and brown tape used by Texas School Book Depository were not returned since Chief Curry stated these were not evidence and had only been sent to the FBI Laboratory for comparison purposes." (CD5 p161). As this decision was made before the FBI gained jurisdiction over the case it suggests that the Dallas Police were not particularly concerned about the samples at this time. Perhaps they'd felt they could have the FBI testify that the sample paper and sample tape matched the bag and tape placed into evidence without having the samples placed into evidence as well. Or perhaps this indicates that the FBI, having helped the Dallas Police with the creation of a new and improved bag complete with Oswald's fingerprints, thought it a waste of time and an unnecessary risk to send back to Dallas a sample far smaller than the sample originally obtained by Day, and as seen by other Dallas detectives not in on their scam.

Adding to this possibility is that, on June 9, 1964, as a response to a May 20th Warren Commission request, the FBI took the paper bag back to Dallas, and inadequately traced back its chain of custody. While the chain of custody on the other items brought back to Dallas--the various bullets, cartridges, and bullet fragments related to the assassination, and even the blanket used by Oswald to store his rifle in the Paine family's garage--were traced back to the first ones to discover them, the brown paper bag was never shown to Montgomery, Johnson, or Studebaker, the three men who first saw the bag in the depository, and who reportedly initialed it on the premises. It was shown to just one man: Lt. J.C. Day. The words to this report are as follows:

"On June 9, 1964, Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Crime Laboratory of the Dallas Police Department, Dallas, Texas, was exhibited the wrapping-paper bag, C10, by Special Agent Vincent E. Drain, Federal Bureau of Investigation. After examining this bag, Lieutenant Day advised he could positively identify this bag as the one he and Detective R.L. Studebaker found on the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Lieutenant Day stated this paper bag was marked on November 22, 1963 by him. This bag was subsequently delivered on November 22, 1963 to Special Agent Vincent E. Drain for transmittal to the Laboratory of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington D.C., for examination." (24H418).

Notice that there's no mention of Montgomery and Johnson, the detectives who, according to the Dallas Police Department's own records, found the bag and took it over to the crime lab. (24H260). Notice also that Day says only that he marked the bag on the 22nd, not that he marked it on the scene. Notice as well that the agent tracing the chain of evidence, Vincent Drain, was the one who first took the bag to Washington, and the one who later claimed returning the paper sample to Dallas was unnecessary. Day's claim that he found the bag, and Drain's failure to track down Montgomery and Johnson, and even Studebaker--who'd previously testified that they'd found the bag--is undoubtedly suspicious to those even slightly prone to suspicion.

But, wait, it gets even more suspicious. Drain had discussed the bag with Day at an earlier time as well. An 11-30-63 report by Drain on an 11-29-63 interview of Day reveals:

"Lt. Carl Day, Dallas Police Department, stated he found the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case near the scene of the shooting on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He stated the manager, Mr. Truly, saw this bag at the time it was taken into possession by Lt. Day. Truly, according to Day, had not seen this bag before. No one else viewed it. Truly furnished similar brown paper from the roll that was used in packing books by the Texas School Book Depository. This paper was examined by the FBI Laboratory and found to have the same observable characteristics as the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case which was found near the scene of the shooting of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The Dallas Police have not exhibited this to anyone else. It was immediately locked up by Day, kept in his possession until it was turned over to FBI agent Drain for transmittal to the Laboratory. It was examined by the Laboratory, returned to the Dallas Police Department November 24, 1963, locked up in the Crime Laboratory. This bag was returned to Agent Drain on November 26, 1963, and taken back to the FBI Laboratory.

Lt. Day stated no one has identified this bag to the Dallas Police Department." (CD5, p129).

Beyond offering us yet another witness purported to have seen the bag in the depository not shown the bag at a later date by either the Warren Commission or FBI (Roy Truly) this report has numerous, undoubtedly suspicious, errors. The report makes out that Day himself found the bag. There's no mention at all of Montgomery, Johnson, and Studebaker, nor of Studebaker's claim in an 11-22 FBI report that he was the one to find the bag. (CD5, p128) The report also errs in that it says the bag was "immediately locked up by Day", and that it was not exhibited to anyone else. This conceals that on this same day, 11-29-63, Drain interviewed Dallas detective R.D. Lewis who acknowledged giving Buell Wesley Frazier a polygraph on 11-22 during which Frazier was shown the bag and refused to identify it as the bag he saw that morning. (CD7, p291). An 11-29 FBI memo never shown the Warren Commission, and found only in the FBI's HQ files, moreover, reinforces this point, and confirms that Alex Rosen, the assistant director tasked with establishing the basic facts of the crime, knew all about Frazier's failure to identify the bag, and that Drain's report was either grossly in error...or a lie. It states: 

"Lieutenant Carl Day, Dallas, Texas, Police Department Crime Laboratory, advised that on November 22, 1963, he recovered a heavy brown sack appearing to be homemade and appearing to have been folded together at one time. This sack when laid out was about four feet long but when doubled was about two feet long. Lt. Day recalls that on the evening of 11-22-63, about 11:30 p.m., one of Capt. Fritz's officers requested that he show this thick, brown sack to a man named Frazier. Lt. Day stated that Frazier was unable to identify this sack and told him that a sack he observed in possession of Oswald early that morning was definitely a thin flimsy sack like one purchased in a dime store." (FBI file 62-109060, sec 14, p123.)

Is it just a coincidence then that Drain's report on Day, containing false information, was written up on 11-30, and included in the FBI report of 11-30, and that Drain's report on Lewis, conducted on the same day, wasn't written up till 12-1 and forwarded to Washington till 12-10, after the completion of the FBI's 12-9 summary report given to the President and Warren Commission, and leaked to the press? Maybe.

But there is also this to consider. In Lieutenant Day's official report on his activities on the day of the assassination, written up on 1-08-64, he completely fails to mention his "discovery" of the bag. Instead, he says he was pulled from the sniper's nest, where he'd been photographing the hulls, at 1:25 PM, to photograph and inspect the rifle found on the other side of the building. He then left the building at 2:00 PM in order to transport the rifle to the crime lab. According to this report he did not return to the building until 2:45 PM. (26H829-831) Big problem.The reports of detectives L.D. Montgomery and Marvin Johnson reflect that they transported the bag over to the crime lab about 2:30.(24H314, 24H307) This suggests that Day never even saw the bag in the depository, or that he saw it only briefly but thought nothing of it while photographing the area. Adding to this probability is that the 4-1-64 FBI report on Roy Truly's recollections of the bag reflects only that Truly remembered giving paper samples to Lt. Day "on the afternoon of November 22, 1963," but makes no mention of his being shown the paper bag found in the sniper's nest, as purported in Drain's 11-29 report. (FBI file 105-82555, sec 142, p15).

Day's post-1964 statements on the bag, in fact, suggest that he was not actually present when the bag was "discovered". In 1992, when asked by researcher Denis Morissette if he knew who found the bag, Day responded: "I don't know. It was on the floor next to and north of the box Oswald was sitting on when I arrived at the 6th floor. My men and I collected the bag at this place. As far as I know it had not been moved by any officers." Tellingly, he never describes his first seeing the bag, only that there was a bag, that it was collected by his men, and that it was found by...someone...north of the sniper's seat. (His testimony had been that it was south of the sniper's seat, directly in the corner.) In 1996, in an oral history recorded for The Sixth Floor Museum, moreover, Day had the chance to finally set the record straight and instead offered smoke. When asked why the bag hadn't been photographed, he responded "There should be a picture of it somewhere." When then asked by interviewer Bob Porter where the bag had been found, he replied "To the best of my knowledge, it was to the right on the floor of where he was sitting, on the box that I showed you a minute ago. It may have been the right, it may have been the left, but there was a bag there." When Porter pointed out that "left" would mean the corner (where Day had testified the bag was discovered), moreover, Day surprised him, and once again asserted that the bag had been found north of the sniper's seat. He responded "Yes, in the corner out back towards the north side of the building, where you headed up to it." He then admitted "I didn’t know anything about a bag at that time. There was a bag laying there...Later examination indicated that it was a bag had been made out of wrapping paper. It appeared to be shipping paper...Of course at that time, we didn’t know anything about Oswald, didn’t know anything about what happened. There was a bag there and it was collected." This, of course, supports that Day saw some paper but thought nothing of it until after the rifle had been discovered, and that others were, in fact, responsible for its collection in the depository. This likelihood is further supported by Day's recollection to Larry Sneed, published in 1998, that "Also found on the sixth floor, as I recall, near the shell area, was a paper bag. It should have been photographed, but for some reason, apparently wasn't."

There are other reasons to doubt the story recounted by Drain. It seems highly unlikely that Day could photograph, dust and study the rifle as purported, return to the sniper's nest, discover the bag, show the bag to Roy Truly, transport the bag downstairs, and get paper and tape samples from the shipping table--all in less than 35 minutes, mind you--and then decide to take the rifle over to the crime lab and leave the bag behind. It seems much more likely that he worked on the rifle exclusively before taking it to the crime lab, and that the story of his finding the bag and comparing the paper of the bag to the paper at the shipping table is an orchestrated lie. Perhaps Drain's story was created to hide that Day took the paper sample later that afternoon, or that evening, after the paper bag found in the school book depository was inspected and found to have no connection to Oswald or the rifle. Perhaps this is paranoid nonsense. We may never know.

But we can feel secure that the propagation of the false story purported by Drain in his 11-30 report on Day was, if not orchestrated, at least endorsed from above. On 12-06, FBI HQ sent an airtel to Drain's direct superior, Gordon Shanklin, asking him to correct an "inaccurate statement" in Drain's report. (FBI file 62-109060, sec 17, p213) On 12-18, Shanklin, in turn, sent a message back to the Bureau's headquarters telling them that, as a response to the Bureau's 12-06 airtel, he was sending headquarters and New Orleans "10 copies and 1 copy respectively of FD-302 reflecting interview by Vincent Drain with Lt. Carl Day, Dallas Police Department, on 11/29.63. It is requested that the Bureau and New Orleans insert the enclosed pages to replace page 129 of reference report. Appropriate changes are being made in the Dallas files." (FBI file 105-82555, sec 39, p7). The reference report is the Gemberling Report of 11/30. Page 129 is Drain's report on Day. Well, what was all this about, you might ask?  Had someone caught the obvious error in Drain's report...that the bag was not shown to anyone?

Nope. An uncorrected version of this report was later discovered in the archives by researcher Gary Shaw. It revealed that the original version of Drain's report said the paper bag found in the depository was "found not to be identical" to the paper sample taken from the depository. Now this is mighty strange. Drain, who escorted the paper bag and sample from Dallas to the FBI's crime lab in Washington on 11-23, and then returned with the bag on 11-24, wrote a report saying the paper bag did not match the sample? And the report was then re-written to hide this fact? While, at the same time, the equally obvious "error" (that being that the DPD failed to show the bag to anyone) was allowed to stand uncorrected? (The changing of this document is discussed in much greater detail, here.)

There is an even stranger circumstance. The only photo of the paper bag in the Dallas Police Archives is a photo in box 12 folder 7 file 1. It is shown below:

The description for this photo in the DPD Archives reads "Photograph of the evidence sent to the FBI. Date unknown." The bag in this photo appears to be about 8 inches wide and could quite possibly be the bag in the FBI and Warren Commission photos. The bag appears to be discolored, however, which suggests that this is a photo of the bag after its return from the FBI Crime Laboratory, where it had been discolored by silver nitrate. Sure enough, this photo can also be found in the FBI files (62-109060 Sec EBF, Serial 1866, p73). Here, however, on the page just before, the back of the photo is presented, and bears the date 11-26-63. 

Should one find that unconvincing, one should know that this photo also makes an appearance in Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry's 1969 book JFK Assassination File. Here it is listed as "Evidence released to the FBI Laboratory for tests." No date is provided. Fortunately, however, Curry lists all the items in the photograph, and this tells us what we need to know. Item #5 is listed as "Textile fibers found on the left side of the butt plate of the recovered rifle." These fibers were officially undetected in Dallas, and only discovered during an examination in the FBI Crime Lab on 11-23. This proves that this photograph was taken after the return of the evidence to Dallas. More telling, Item #2 is "Oswald's right palm print found on a book carton which was part of the sniper's perch in the book depository." This palm print wasn't provided the FBI till the 26th. A close look at the piece of cardboard holding this palm print, moreover, reveals that it has the signature of Lt. J.C. Day along the bottom. Photos taken on the 25th of the sniper's nest, with this piece of cardboard re-attached to its box, reveal that Day had not yet signed the cardboard. This proves it then, several times over--the only photo of the paper bag in the Dallas Archives is a photo of evidence shipped out on the 26th. 

Should one still have doubts, however, one should consider the Warren Commission testimony of Lt. Day. When presenting this photo as exhibit CE 738, Day readily admitted he'd taken the photo on the 26th. The Warren Commission, in turn, entitled this exhibit "Photograph of property released by the Dallas Police Department to the FBI on November 26, 1963."  So why did the Dallas crime scene investigators not only fail to photograph the paper bag when found on the scene in the school book depository, but at any time prior to Oswald's death?

Something's undoubtedly wrong here.

The mind-numbing level of this "wrongness" only gets stronger, however, when one reads the captions to the photos in Curry's book. Here, after confidently presenting evidence such as "the 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, C2766, with a four power scope which was recovered from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository", and captioning the fibers in the evidence photo mentioned above as "Textile fibers found on the left side of the butt plate of the recovered rifle," Curry equivocates on the status of the bag in the photo. He writes "A paper bag probably constructed from wrapping paper and tape at the Texas School Book Depository...This is probably the same bag which was found on the sixth floor by investigators." Yes, you read that right. He says "probably." If Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry doubted that the bag returned from Washington was the bag found in the building, then why the heck shouldn't we?

Sizing Up the Sample

The Warren Commission, perhaps unaware of its significance, published a photo of the tape and paper sample. This photo shows a fairly small piece of paper, not even 11 inches x 22 inches. Since the FBI's earlier reports revealed that the paper rolls at the depository were 24 inches wide, this indicates that someone had done some cutting. Did Lt. Day make the paper bag placed into evidence, which appears to be far too narrow to be the bag removed from the depository, from the paper sample he took on 11-22-63? 

Possibly. But we should recall that the FBI, in December, showed Buell Frazier and his sister a simulation of the paper bag that was, by implication, more than 8 1/2 inches wide. Why would they have done that if CE 142--which appears to be just over 8 inches wide--was created on the day of the assassination between the time Detectives Johnson and Montgomery brought the bag to the crime lab around 2:30 p.m. and the time Lt. Day handed it off to the FBI around 11:45 p.m.? Could they have shown Frazier and his sister a simulation of the original bag? If so, wouldn't all of them know that the bag in evidence, CE 142, was not the bag showed around in December? Could the DPD, FBI, and Warren Commission really have conspired to hide that the bag placed into evidence by the FBI was not the bag originally found in the depository, or shown to Frazier on 11-22? I don't know--that seems like a stretch.

But It simultaneously seems too much a coincidence that a paper bag in the shape of gun case that was not photographed upon discovery, and whose exact measurements were not given in testimony: 1) was never shown to the three detectives who initialed it upon its discovery; 2) was not smeared with the fingerprints of one of these detectives, who'd left 18 finger and palm prints on the four boxes purportedly next to the bag; and 3) appears far different in initial photographs taken by the press than in the subsequent photos taken by the FBI. Something is just funky about Day's brown bag. And I'm not talking 'bout Morris Day or James Brown.

Only adding to the craziness... Lt. Day talked about the paper sample one last time when he was interviewed by Larry Sneed for his 1998 book No More Silence. He said: "In the shipping room on the first floor, there were one or two rolls of that paper. We took the end pieces off those rolls for possible comparison with the bag that was found." He said "rolls"...as in more than one. Even worse, he also told Sneed that, beyond the palm print lift he'd failed to send the FBI on 11-22, "We had a few other items around such as some of his clothes and paper off the roll at the Book Depository that we didn't do anything else with." Well, I'll be. What happened to this "paper off the roll" never submitted to the FBI? And why was Day now admitting they'd taken multiple samples? Was his memory in error?

Or had he simply forgotten the "official story"? The 11-29 FBI report on the paper bag and paper sample declares that Oswald's boss Roy Truly furnished Day "similar brown paper from the roll that was used in packing books by the Texas School Book Depository." (CD5 p129). A 4-1-64 FBI Airtel from Dallas to Washington, however, reveals that Day was interviewed the day before, and claimed that he "obtained samples wrapping paper...from four opened rolls mounted in Shipping Room." (FBI file 102-82555 sec 125 p62). When testifying before the Warren Commission on 4-22-64, moreover, Day was shown Exhibit 730 and asked if the roll of paper in the photo looked like the one from which he removed Exhibit 677. He replied: "Yes, sir. To the best of my knowledge that is the roll we tore the paper off of." The number of samples removed by Day had thus morphed from one on 11-29-63 to four on 3-31-64, back to one on 4-22-64, and then to two in his later years. If the "official" story is confusing and hard to believe it's due in part to men like Day, who just couldn't keep their stories straight.

In an effort to keep our story straight, however, it should be noted that the FBI caught Day's 4-1-64 reference to four samples and sprang into action. The next day, Washington wired Dallas and requested that since the paper sample in their possession was "only one piece of paper and one piece of tape advise if samples actually obtained from all four opened rolls...If additional paper and tape samples secured on November Twenty Two last...are available forward them to Bureau immediately." (FBI file 102-82555 sec 125 p64). This, in turn, led to an interview with Dallas Detective Robert Studebaker, whose statements appeared to answer the FBI's questions. The report in this interview notes that Studebaker "recalls obtaining a paper sample and a gummed tape sample at the instruction of Lt. Day from the wrapping table located on the main floor of the Depository Building... Studebaker noted that he recalled observing four rolls of the paper, one at each corner, and that he obtained the sample from the northeast corner as it was the most convenient. Studebaker advised he turned over these samples to the custody of Lt. Day. Studebaker advised he recalled he obtained only one sample of paper and one sample of tape at this time, and to the best of his recollection, these are the only samples obtained by his Department." (FBI file 102-82555 sec 142 p19). 

Well, what's the matter with this, you might ask? Day has a vague recollection there were four samples, but Studebaker has a stronger recollection there was but one. Case closed, you might say. Well, there is a little problem. On the day Day told the FBI there'd been four samples, the FBI also had a talk with Roy Truly, who'd purportedly provided Day with the samples. The report of this interview reflects that Truly "recalls Day obtained samples of wrapping paper from the rolls of Kraft wrapping paper mounted on racks in the shipping room." (FBI file 105-82555 sec 142 p15) Samples. Rolls. Racks. Plural. It's intriguing that Day and Truly separately recall there being more than one sample, and that the FBI then contacts Studebaker, Day's underling, who tells them there was but one, and that Day then testifies there was but one. It's as if someone was comparing notes.

Which brings us back to the FBI's interview of Studebaker. The report reads: "He advised to the best of his recollection this paper sample was obtained from a roll of Kraft wrapping paper, 24" in width, located at the northeast corner of the wrapping table." So here we have confirmation from a Dallas Detective of the FBI's previous claim that the paper in the depository was 24" wide. The bag placed into evidence, as we've seen, is about 17'' wide when split open. This means that, for the bag to have been made by Oswald from the paper found at the depository, he would have to have cut it along its length. Well, why would he have done this? Why wouldn't he have just folded it in third?  And if he did this in the garage of the home where he'd spent the night before the shooting, as presumed, where oh where were the "scraps"? (Evidently, this same question occurred to Warren Commission counsel Wesley Liebeler, for he asked Michael Paine, in whose garage the rifle had been stored "Did anyone notice any scraps of paper or tape similar to the ones of which these sacks were constructed that we previously identified, particularly Commission 142?"...only to receive the unhelpful response "Not that I remember." This cutting of the bag, for me, suggests that whoever made the bag was concerned about its apparent size. This makes me suspect that whoever made the bag was trying to make it match Frazier's impression of the bag he saw in Oswald's possession.

But even if one should make it through the paper bag minefield and come out convinced that all was on the up and up with the evidence presented to the commission, one should consider that neither the FBI on its own or at the Warren Commission's request inspected the inside of a similar paper bag after it had carried the rifle around, if just, y'know, to see if there should have been marks inside the bag. The suggestion by the FBI's expert Cadigan that the rifle may have been wrapped in cloth inside the bag shouldn't have cut off such an inquiry, seeing as no cloth was found with the bag or in the sniper's nest.

Something happened there and we don't know what it was, now do we?