"...the improvised paper bag in which Oswald brought the rifle to the Depository was found close by the window from which the shots were fired." - Warren Report, Chapter 1, page 19.

Evidence the paper "gunsack" was made by the Dallas Police

Copyright 2015 © Gilbert Jesus. All rights reserved.

Fibers found in the bag 

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 render an opinion that the fibers which he found in the bag had probably come from the blanket, because other types of fibers present in the blanket were not found in the bag. He concluded:

All I would say here is that it is possible that these fibers could have come from this blanket., because this blanket is composed of brown and green woolen fibers, brown and green delustered viscose fibers, and brown and green cotton fibers. * * * We found no brown cotton fibers, no green viscose fibers, and no woolen fibers. So if I found all of these then I would have been able to say these fibers probably had come from this blanket. But since I found so few, then I would say the possibility exists, these fibers could have come from this blanket.

That's not a positive identification, folks.

Dets. Montgomery and Johnson left the Depository around 2:30 PM, and were photographed in front of the building. Montgomery was carrying the paper "gunsack", while Johnson carried the chicken lunch sack and Dr. Pepper bottle found near the sniper's nest.

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 )


Cadigan's conclusions were simple. There was no evidence that the "gunsack" ever contained the depository rifle or any other rifle.

The FBI examined the Jaggers paper to determine if it was identical to the paper in the TSBD.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any other information you would like to give us or any other testimony you would like to give us on the subject of the origin of the paper in the 142 bag?

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, possibly the comparisons made of paper samples from Jaggars Chiles-Stovall and from the William B. Riley Co.

Mr. EISENBERG. These are, you have mentioned two companies at which Oswald was employed at one time? 

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. You obtained paper from these companies, did you? 

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you matched them to see if they matched--you tested them to see if they matched the paper in the bag 142, is that correct? 

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And your conclusion was what?

Mr. CADIGAN. That they were different.

( 4 H 98 )

This examination confirmed that there was a difference in paper from roll to roll even though the manufacturer was the same.

More importantly, the test PROVED that the ONLY paper that MATCHED the paper used to construct the paper "gunsack" was the paper that was available in the shipping room of the TSBD on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.

The Commission never mentioned the FBI's testing of the wrapping paper from Jaggers-Childs-Stovall or the William B. Riley Co. or the results from those tests in their Report.

If the paper evidence indicated that the "gunsack" was constructed sometime on November 22nd, the tape evidence narrowed down the timeframe of the construction of the "gunsack" even further, to within a 3 hour period and point us finally in the direction of who REALLY constructed it.

The Replica Bag

So page 129 was re-written:

This corresponds to the testimony of the first law enforcement officers on the scene. Sheriff Luke Mooney, who discovered the sniper's nest, testified that he saw the 8-12 inch high brown paper "lunchsack" that had been left behind by Bonnie Ray Williams. Mooney was asked 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 before 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 )

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)

The Discovery

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.

Studebaker's claim is found in Commission Document 5, pg 128:

THE BAG JOB

The Witnesses

On the morning of November 22, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald left the Paine house in Irving at approximately 7:15 a.m., while Marina Oswald was still in bed. Neither she nor Mrs. Paine saw him leave the house. About half-a- block away from the Paine house was the residence of Mrs. Linnie Mac Randle, the sister of the man with whom Oswald drove to work--Buell Wesley Frazier. Mrs. Randle stated that on the morning of November 22, while her brother was eating breakfast, she looked out the breakfast-room window and saw Oswald cross the street and walk toward the driveway where her brother parked his car near the carport. He carried a "heavy brown bag." Oswald gripped the bag in his right hand near the top. "It tapered like this as he hugged it. in his hand. It was * * * more bulky toward the bottom" than toward the top. She then opened the kitchen door and saw Oswald open the right rear door of her brother's car and place the package in the back of the car. Mrs. Randle estimated that the package was approximately 28 inches long and about 8 inches wide. She thought that its color was similar to that of the bag found on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository after the assassination.
Frazier met Oswald at the kitchen door and together they walked to the car. After entering the car, Frazier glanced over his shoulder and noticed a brown paper package on the back seat. He asked, "What's the package, Lee?" Oswald replied, "curtain rods." Frazier told the Commission "* * * the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that." Frazier estimated that the bag was 2 feet long "give and take a few inches," and about 5 or 6 inches wide. As they sat in the car, Frazier asked Oswald where his lunch was, and Oswald replied that he was going to buy his lunch that day. Frazier testified that Oswald carried no lunch bag that day. "When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day." 

( Report, pg. 131-132 )

 

The FBI was unable to find one single witness who saw Oswald with a 38 inch bag on the morning of the assassination. Only two people saw Oswald carry the paper sack that morning: Buell Wesley Frazier (who drove Oswald to work) and his sister Linnie Mae Randle. Both describe the bag as being much shorter than the 38 inch bag found in the Depository, far too short to fit the rifle even in it's disassembled state.

The largest component of the disassembled rifle is the stock, which measures approximately 34.5 inches. There is no way that it could fit in the package that either witness described. Warren Commission lawyer Joseph Ball asked Randle about the length of the package:

Mr. BALL. What about length?

Mrs. RANDLE. You mean the entire bag?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mrs. RANDLE. There again you have the problem of all this down here. It was folded down, of course, if you would take it from the bottom--

Mr. BALL. Fold it to about the size that you think it might be.

Mrs. RANDLE. This is the bottom here, right. This is the bottom, this part down here.

Mr. BALL. I believe so, but I am not sure. But let's say it is.

Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mrs. RANDLE. About this.

Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.

Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.

Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

( 2 H 250 )

She placed the size of the bag well short of the 36 inches necessary to hold the rifle. 

In addition, Randle claimed that she saw Oswald cross the street, go over to her brother's car and put the package in the back. ( 2 H 248- 249 ) 

Mr. BALL. Did you see him go to the car?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.

Mr. BALL. What did he do?

Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down so I closed the door. I didn't recognize him as he walked across my carport and I at that moment I wondered who was fixing to come to my back door so I opened the door slightly and saw that it--I assumed he was getting in the car but he didn't, so he come back and stood on the driveway.

Mr. BALL. He put the package in the car.

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I don't know if he put it on the seat or on the floor but I just know he put it in the back.

Commission Exhibits 446 and 447 show that Randle could not have possibly seen Oswald put anything in her brother's car from her kitchen door. The top photo shows her viewpoint when looking out her kitchen door toward her brother's car, which was parked on the other side of the carport's outer wall. The bottom photo shows exactly where Wesley Frazier's car was parked ( black arrow ) and her viewpoint from the doorway ( yellow arrow ).

My first observation is how Montgomery is carrying the bag WITH THE OPEN END ON THE BOTTOM. How do the blanket fibers remain in the bag when the bag is being carried with the open end on the bottom ?

The fibers weren't exactly lodged in there. In fact, all it took for the fibers to fall out of the bag when the FBI examined it was for the examiner to tap the bag. 

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I removed the debris from the inside of the bag by opening the bag as best I could, and tapping it and knocking the debris on to a small piece of white paper, and I found a very small number of fibers. Upon examining these fibers, I found a single brown, delustered, viscose fiber and several light-green cotton fibers from the inside of the bag. 

( 4 H 77 )

The Commission said that the blanket fibers found in the bag were picked up by the rifle and transferred from the rifle to the bag.

But when the FBI examined the rifle, they found fibers on it that did not match the blanket:

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Mr. Stombaugh, did you attempt to determine the origin of the fibers which were caught in the butt plate of the rifle?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I did. I tried to match these fibers with the fibers in the blanket, and found that they had not originated from the blanket, because the cotton fibers were of entirely different colors.

( 4 H 84 )

The next exchange is comical:

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh,.......Now, is it inconsistent with that answer that no fibers were found on the gun which matched the fibers in the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; because the gun was dusted for fingerprints and any fibers that were loosely adhering to it could have been dusted off......

( 4 H 87-88 )

In other words, if loose fibers had been brushed off and not examined, then no fibers were FOUND on the rifle which matched the blanket.

So could the fibers have gotten into the bag AFTER it was removed from the TSBD ?

This photo from the Dallas Police Archives showcasing the evidence shows the opened end of the bag touching the blanket-- a perfect way for microscopic fibers to find their way into the bag.

Was the depository rifle ever in the "gunsack" ?

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.

For the FBI to have concluded that the sample tape 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 that included the taking of 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". There was no need to test the paper and tape used for the replica bag for comparison, if the purpose was only to replace the original bag which was damaged by chemicals. I believe that the FBI was trying to determine if the paper bag was a stage prop.

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"..

 
Markings on the tape

In addition, Cadigan testified that both the tape on the "gunsack" and the tape sample taken on 11/22 there were a series of markings that ran the whole length of the tape. He explained that these markings were caused by the wheel of the tape dispenser and testified that the markings on the "gunsack" tape and the markings on the 11/22 sample tape were the same. 

( 4 H 92 )

Meaning that the gunsack tape was dispensed by the same dispenser as the 11/22 sample tape. And that wasn't the only tape dispenser in the room. ( 4 H 268 )

Cadigan told the Commission,
"As you pull the operating handle that pulls the paper tape from the roll through the machine and over the wetting brush, the wheel, in the process leaves these markings on the tape." ( 4 H 91 )

This the way both the "gunsack" tape or the sample tape was dispensed, because each had the markings of the wheel of the dispenser on it, which it would not have had if the roll had been removed and the "gunsack" been constructed elsewhere.

In addition, the two officers, Lt. Day and Det. Studebaker, each of whom claimed to have found the "gunsack" on the sixth floor near the "sniper's nest", were the same two officers present in the taking of the sample paper and tape from the shipping dept. of the TSBD on November 22nd.

( 4 H 268 )

In his testimony, Troy West, the TSBD shipper, told the Commission that the only way to remove tape from the dispenser without wetting the gummed glue was to remove the roll from it. ( 6 H 361 )

With the markings of the same dispenser wheel on both the "gunsack" tape and the "sample" tape, both had been dispensed using the lever and thus both had been through its wetting brush and proving that the "gunsack" was constructed at the wrapping table IN THE SHIPPING ROOM OF THE TSBD. 

The FBI HAD to have known that the preponderance of the evidence indicated that the "gunsack" had been constructed from the SAME paper and SAME tape that was in the TSBD shipping room on November 22, 1963, using the SAME tape dispenser, the sample was taken by the same officers who claimed to have found the "gunsack" on the sixth floor and 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.

In other words,
the Dallas Police made the "gunsack" from rolls of paper and tape that was in the TSBD shipping room on 11/22, then took "samples" of paper and tape from the same rolls they used to construct it. And used the same tape dispenser to do it.

In their haste to produce a way for the rifle to get into the building undetected, the Dallas Police tried to establish a connection between the TSBD to the rifle by unwittingly using identical paper and tape for both the "gunsack" and the samples. 

But the identical paper and tape didn't connect the "gunsack" with being constructed in the TSBD shipping room as much as 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 doubts that the "gunsack" ever contained a rifle, its examination for the evidence of it would answer the next question.

The Tape

The Texas Paper Company got the rolls from the Jacksonville, Florida mill of the St. Regis Paper Company. ( CD 897, pg. 162 )

The rolls from that shipment were used from March 1963 thru January, 1964.

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 )

I know there are researchers out there who believe that the FBI originally found the papers and tapes to be NOT IDENTICAL and then changed the record to indicate that they were.

I do not. I believe that the evidence shows just the opposite: that the original report indicated that the papers and tapes WERE identical and the FBI did everything it could do to downplay that fact. 

Apparently, there were contradictions in the Gemberling Report of 11/30/63 when it was originally submitted to FBIHQ. As a result of those contradictions, 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. 

 FBIHQ then ordered the Dallas FBI office to "handle corrections":

There is another way that Oswald could have left those prints on the bag.

It's difficult to believe that the evidence against Oswald was not presented to him during his interrogation. Could items like the rifle and the bag have been shown to him for his examination and touched by him at that time ?

We'll never know for sure because Oswald's interrogation sessions were neither taped nor transcribed.

Whether this is how these odd partial prints got on the bag or not, there's no evidence to support the conclusion that the palmprint and fingerprint were put there by Oswald while carrying the bag.

Day adds in his claim that Roy Truly was a witness to his finding it and "no one else viewed it". 

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.

So we really don't know who found it and thus no chain of custody of this evidence can be established.

Not only can we NOT establish the chain of custody, there is no photographic evidence that the "gunsack" was where the police said it was.

Equally remarkable is that 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 beneath the window. 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.

Day's claim is the very next page, page 129:

Both Frazier and Randle described Oswald carrying a bag that could not have contained the rifle, even disassembled. Randle's description of how Oswald carried it is not supported by the physical evidence. The evidence shows that Randle could not have seen Oswald place the long package in the backseat of her brother's car. And both witnesses' description of the clothes Oswald wore that day are not only in conflict with each other, but with the evidence as we know it.

And yet, their consistent descriptions of the length of the paper bag at 24-28 inches is compelling. It seems obvious to me that the witnesses have confused two different dates: November 22nd, when Oswald brought that 2 foot lunch bag to work, and a previous time when Oswald showed up with curtain rods for his apartment. 

Both Frazier and Randle, the only two people to see Oswald with the paper bag, indicated to the FBI that the bag was about 24-27 inches. Keep in mind that these estimates were not rough guesses, but actual measurements based on the way Oswald held the bag, and how much of the back seat the package occupied. And there is no possible way that Oswald could have fit a 34.8-inch package between his armpit and the palm of his hand. Frazier told the Warren Commission:

Mr. BALL. The dark bag is Commission Exhibit No. 142. When you were shown this bag, do you recall whether or not you told the officers who showed you the bag--did you tell them whether you thought it was or was not about the same length as the bag you saw on the back seat?

Mr. FRAZIER. I told them that as far as the length there, I told them that was entirely too long.


( 2 H 240 )

So how did Frazier describe the bag he saw Oswald with that morning ?

Mr. BALL. What did the package look like?

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long.

( 2 H 226 )

So you have two witnesses who claimed to have seen a bag whose length made it IMPOSSIBLE for it to have contained the rifle. The bag would have had to have been AT LEAST 34.8 inches long. 
( 3 H 395 )

I believe that Oswald brought a bag to work that morning, I believe that the witnesses saw it, I believe that the witnesses are correct in their description of the length and I believe that the bag contained his lunch. Frazier claimed that Oswald DIDN'T bring a lunch that one day, November 22nd. But every other day, when Oswald rode back to Dallas with him, Frazier said Oswald brought a lunch.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember whether or not when Oswald came back with you on any Monday morning or any weekend did he pack his lunch?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; he did.

Mr. BALL. He did?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.

Mr. BALL. But every other day he brought a lunch?

Mr. FRAZIER. Right, when he rode with me.

( 2 H 220 )

I don't believe that. Marina Oswald's testimony says otherwise.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether your husband carried any package with him when he left the house on November 22nd?

Mrs. OSWALD. I think that he had a package with his lunch. But a small package.

( 1 H 73 )

Now look at Frazier's description of the bag Oswald brought his lunch in:

Mr. BALL. Would he bring it in a paper sack or what kind of a container?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; like a little paper sack you get out of a grocery store, you have seen these little old sacks that you could buy, sandwich bag, sack.

(ibid.)

....and compare it to his description of the bag he saw that morning:

"....it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long."

( 2 H 226 )

In both cases, Frazier is describing a brown paper bag like the ones grocery and variety stores used to package groceries. No grocery store I've ever heard of packaged groceries in a 38 x 8 inch "bag".

Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package. I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?" He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."

( 4 H 218-219 )

Mr. BALL. He had told Frazier that he had curtain rods in the package?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he denied having curtain rods or any package other than his lunch.

( 4 H 223 )

Postal Inspector Harry Holmes described Fritz' line of questioning Oswald on the morning of the 24th:

Mr. HOLMES. Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, "Yes."
"What was in the sack?"
"Well, my lunch."
"What size sack did you have?"
He said, "Oh, I don't know what size sack. You don't always get a sack that fits your sandwiches. It might be a big sack."
"Was it a long sack?''
"Well, it could have been"
"What did you do with it?"
"Carried it in my lap."
"You didn't put it over in the back seat?"
"No." He said he wouldn't have done that.
"Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat."
He said, "Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up."
That is all he said about it.

( 7 H 305 )


Oswald may be have been correct in that assessment. In fact, when the witnesses were asked to identify the clothes he wore that day, they could not.

Mr. BALL. How was Lee dressed that morning?

Mrs. RANDLE. He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up, I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything, when he was going with the package. I was more interested in that. But he had on a white T-shirt and I remember some sort of brown or tan shirt and he had a gray jacket, I believe.

Mr. BALL. A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here. First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the jacket he had on?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. That morning?

Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it.

Mr. BALL. Was it similar in color?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves.

Mr. BALL. Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color?

Mrs. RANDLE. I believe so.

Mr. BALL. What is the Commission Exhibit on this jacket?

Mrs. RANDLE. It was gray, I am not sure of the shade.

Mr. BALL. 163. I will show you another shirt which is Commission No. 150. Does this look anything like the shirt he had on?

Mrs. RANDLE. Well now, I don't remember it being that shade of brown. It could have been but I was looking through the screen and out the window but I don't remember it being exactly that. I thought it was a solid color.

Mr. BALL. Here is another jacket which is a gray jacket, does this look anything like the jacket he had on?

Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; I remember its being gray.

Mr. BALL. Well, this one is gray but of these two the jacket I last showed you is Commission Exhibit No. 162, and this blue gray is 163, now if you had to choose between these two?

Mrs. RANDLE. I would choose the dark one.

Mr. BALL. You would choose the dark one?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.


Mr. BALL. Which is 163, as being more similar to the jacket he had?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; that I remember. But I, you know, didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket.

Mr. BALL. The witness just stated that 163 which is the gray-blue is similar to the jacket he had on. 162, the light gray jacket was not.

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.

( 2 H 250 )

Oswald didn't wear a blue jacket that morning, nor did he wear a solid color shirt. She claimed to "remember" the shirt more than the jacket then she got both the shirt and jacket wrong. I'm also interested in how the witness could tell the color of Oswald's shirt if he had a jacket on over it. 

Her brother fared no better:

Mr. BALL. I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I don't.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I don't believe I have.

Mr. BALL. Commission Exhibit No. 162, which can be described for the record as a gray jacket with zipper, have you seen Lee Oswald wear this jacket?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I haven't.

( 2 H 238 )

So, according to Frazier, Oswald wore neither his blue jacket nor his gray jacket that morning. In fact, Frazier said that Oswald wore a gray WOOLEN jacket that morning:

Mr. BALL. On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What color was the jacket?

Mr. FRAZIER. It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.

Mr. BALL. Did it have a zipper on it?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.

Mr. BALL. It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.                                                                                                         


Mr. BALL. You mentioned it was woolen.                                                                                                          


Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Long sleeves?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Buttoned sleeves at the wrist, or do you remember?

Mr. FRAZIER. To be frank with you, I didn't notice that much about the jacket, but I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before.

Mr. BALL. You say it had a zipper on it?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

( 2 H 238-239 )

When it came to the shirt Oswald allegedly wore on November 22nd, Frazier claimed he never saw it:

Mr. BALL. I have here Commission 150, which is described as sort of a rust brown shirt. Have you ever seen Lee Oswald wear this shirt? It has a hole in the sleeve near the elbow.

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I don't believe I have because most time I noticed when Lee had it, I say he put off his shirt and just wear a T-shirt the biggest part of the time so really what shirt he wore that day I really didn't see it or didn't pay enough attention to it whether he did have a shirt on.

( ibid. )

Two rolls from the same batch of paper ?

" The questioned and known items were examined visually by normal, incidental, and transmitted natural and electric light, and under ultraviolet light; examined microscopically for surface, paper structure, color, and imperfections; examined for their felting pattern, which is the pattern of light and dark areas caused by the manner in which the fibers become felted at the beginning stages of paper manufacture; measured for thickness with a micrometer sensitive to one one-thousandth of an inch, subjected to a fiber analysis to determine the type of fibers of which they were composed, and whether the fibers were bleached or unbleached; and examined spectrographically to determine what metallic ions were present. The questioned and known items were identical in all the properties measured by these tests. (The width of the tape on the paper sack was 3 inches, while the width of the sample tape was 2.975, or twenty-five thousandths of an inch smaller; however, this was not a significant difference)".

( WC Report, Appendix X, pg. 579 )

 

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 11/22 sample and the "gunsack" were made from identical paper and tape, then the gunsack was made on 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 )

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. If the 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 had been part of the same shipment, what would the odds be that the matched roll to a roll of paper used by Oswald to previously make the gunsack would be in the shipping room paper dispenser on November 22, 1963 ? And what are the odds, that out of the four rolls on the wrapping table, it would be the one arbitrarily selected by police for the sample ?

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. )

First of all, the Commission never PROVED that two rolls of paper could be 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. Because the Commission failed to prove that there was an 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 identical roll of paper 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 at any other time. 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 )

Thus the word "identical" was replaced by the phrase "same observable characteristics".

The Commission, on the other hand was not so enlightened and had no problem using the word "identical" both during the testimony and in its Report.

The fact is that the rolls and tape were identical and subject 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. )

And this is why I believe that the original report supported the original findings of the FBI expert--that the papers were identical as were the tapes.

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.  

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.

Identical Paper & Tape

"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." 

( Report, pg. 136 )

 

On March 29, 1963, the Texas School Book Depository received a shipment of 58 rolls of 24" 60-lb. Kraft Wrapping Paper from the Texas Paper Company of Dallas.

Of course, imagining that Oswald would have carried the bag with the bottom resting on the heel of his right hand with his fingers spread apart ( he left no other fingerprints on it ) and a single left index finger holding the opposite end is ridiculous. 

But that's not the end of it.

Latona's description of what part of the left index finger left the print is equally silly. He testified that the part of the finger that left the print was on the LEFT SIDE ( thumb side ) of the left index finger at the first joint ( distal phalanx ). ( 4 H 8 ) ( CE 634 )

Try carrying an 8 lb, 40" rifle with half of the tip of your left index finger at the top and balanced on the left end of your right palm at the bottom.

And carry it in such a fashion that no one will see it.

Neither of the two witnesses who claimed to have seen him carrying a package that day, ever testified that he carried it in any fashion that would allow the prints to be left as they were. 

In addition, since there were no other identifiable prints on the bag, are we to believe that Oswald or anyone else could have constructed this bag WITHOUT LEAVING A SINGLE ADDITIONAL IDENTIFIABLE FINGERPRINT ON IT ?

And why would Oswald construct a bag to carry his rifle DISASSEMBLED, when he could have just as easily made one up for the rifle ASSEMBLED and saved himself a lot of time reassembling the rifle on the day of the assassination ?

I'm not going to challenge that the prints were Oswald's, but the lack of evidence to support the bizarre way in which Oswald would have had to carry the bag in order to leave those prints, the fact that no other prints were found on the bag, and a witness who said that Oswald carried the bag FROM THE TOP all are evidence that the finger and palm prints were NOT left on it by carrying it.

I've already shown in this youtube video that Oswald could not have carried the disassembled rifle cupped in one hand and with the other end tucked into his armpit.

Oswald's fingerprint and palmprint

The interesting thing about the discovery of the fingerprint and palmprint isn't that the fingerprint was of the left index finger and the palmprint was of the right hand, but what part of the finger and hand those prints were.

In testimony before the Commission, the FBI's fingerprint expert, Sebastian Latona, testified that the part of the palm that left the print was the "heel" or "ulnar" side, the same side as the little finger. ( 4 H 7 ) He drew a circle around the part of the palm and it was entered into evidence as Commission Exhibit 631:

As the reader can clearly see, the outer wall of the carport prevented Randle or anyone else looking out the door from seeing what was going on on the other side.  

Another problem I have with Randle's testimony is her description of how Oswald carried the bag. On pg. 248 of Volume 2, she claims that the package almost touched the ground:

Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.

Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?

Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.

Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?

Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.

Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

But on the next page she slips when asked to describe how Oswald was dressed, admitting that she only saw him from the waist up:

Mr. BALL. How was Lee dressed that morning?

Mrs. RANDLE. He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up, I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything, when he was going with the package. I was more interested in that. But he had on a white T-shirt and I remember some sort of brown or tan shirt and he had a gray jacket, I believe.

I suggest that it would not have been possible for her to see the relationship between the bottom of the package to the ground if she had only seen him from the waist up.

And there are more problems with her testimony. She testified that she had seen Oswald get out of her brother's car on the evening before the assassination ( 2 H 247 ) and saw him on the morning of the assassination cross the street and put something into the back of her brother's car ( pg. 248 ) but then didn't recognize him as he walked up her driveway ?

Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down so I closed the door. I didn't recognize him as he walked across my carport and I at that moment I wondered who was fixing to come to my back door so I opened the door slightly and saw that it--I assumed he was getting in the car but he didn't, so he come back and stood on the driveway.

( 2 H 248 )

But Frazier in his testimony makes no mention of his sister opening the door and instead says that when Oswald was in the driveway she was 

"... fixing my lunch so she was somewhere around there over on the cabinets fixing the cabinets..." .

I find it odd that Randle never told Frazier that Oswald was there. If she had seen Oswald ride home with him on the evening of the 21st, she knew who he was, she knew he had to ride to work with him that morning and yet never told her brother that Oswald had arrived.

Mr. BALL. Now, did your sister say anything as you were having breakfast?

Mr. FRAZIER. No; she didn't say anything to me at all.

Mr. BALL. She didn't say anything to you either about Oswald or did she?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; say, she didn't say, you know, when I looked up and saw him I knew who it was.

( 2 H 225 )


Whether she recognized Oswald or not, isn't it reasonable to assume that if you saw someone walk up your driveway and put something in the back of your brother's car, you would at least mention it to him ?

All of this brings to mind the question of exactly how much of Randle's testimony was first-hand knowledge, how much she gained from other sources and how much was completely fabricated. Her description of how Oswald carried the bag is not supported by the fingerprint / palmprint evidence.

How does Randle's description of the sack compare with her brother's??? Frazier noticed the package twice -- once when he looked at the back seat, and then when he and Oswald were walking from the parking lot to the Depository. Like his sister, Frazier described the package to the FBI on December 1, 1963:

This 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 )

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 )

But Montgomery's partner told a different story to the Warren Commission:

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 )

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 ?

Even though Montgomery claimed to have seen the "gunsack" in position and carried it out of the TSBD, Montgomery didn't recognize it when he saw it, remembered it being "somewhere" and sounded like a man who was covering for his fellow officers:

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Is this the sack right here, now?

Mr. BALL. That's right--do you remember that?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I don't remember the sack being right there--I remember it was there somewhere, but exactly--I don't.

Mr. BALL. Evidently you don't know?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. No, sir.

( 7 H 98 )

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 and failed to name the person who found it, thus preventing the establishment of a chain of custody.

In their effort to find latent fingerprints on the "bag", the FBI used a chemical agent that discolored it. ( CE 142 ). Not wanting to show the discolored bag to the witnesses, the Bureau obtained paper from the Texas School Book Depository shipping department and fashioned a replica bag ( CE 364 ) on December 1, 1963. In order to determine if the bags were made with identical tape and paper, the FBI compared the paper in the replica sack with the original.

Mr. CADIGAN. Do you want me to discuss this replica sack yet?

Mr. EISENBERG. You mentioned a replica bag?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain what that is?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this is Commission Exhibit 364. It is a paper sack similar to Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School Book Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in Dallas to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit 142 was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and they thought that this would--it wouldn't be fair to the witness to ask "Did you see a bag like that?" So they went to the Texas School Book Depository and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag.

Mr. EISENBERG. This was made December 1?

Mr. CADIGAN. December 1, of 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. Or some 9 or 10 days after the assassination?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was the paper obtained from the same source?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; from the same room.

Mr. EISENBERG. The same room.
Did you examine this paper to see how it compared---that is, the paper in the replica bag, which has already been admitted as Commission Exhibit 364---to see how it compared with the paper in the bag found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, which is Commission's Exhibit 142?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?

Mr. CADIGAN. That they were different in color, visual color, felting--that is, the pattern that you see through transmitted light, and they were different under ultraviolet light.

Mr. EISENBERG So that these two papers, which were obtained within 9 or 10 days from the same source, could be distinguished by you?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

( 4 H 93-94 )

In other words. the paper comprising the "gunsack" allegedly found on the sixth floor didn't match the paper in the replica bag taken from the TSBD 10 days later.

Cadigan then set up a UV machine in order to demonstrate the differences to Allen Dulles.

Looking under the UV light at the sample of tape and paper obtained on November 22 and comparing it to the tape and paper of the "gunsack", Dulles notes that:

Mr. CADIGAN. The observation I would make there is that the color of the tape on Exhibit 142, the sack, and the color of the paper of the sack 142, under UV, is the same as the color of the tape on 677 and the color of the paper. 
Mr. DULLES. I agree on that.

Next they compare the ""gunsack" and the replica bag obtained 10 days after the assassination. Dulles comments:

Mr. DULLES. Yes. I find there that the sample obtained 10 days later, and the sack which is on the left, that the sample obtained 10 days later shows a lighter shade of purple than the sack, and that the tape shows a darker shade of, I would call it, almost gray as against almost white for the tape which is on the sack.

( 4 H 99-100 )


So not only was the paper different, but the tape was likewise different. The FBI now had evidence that both the rolls of paper and the rolls of tape differed from roll to roll.

Could the paper have been changed ?

Cadigan was asked if he knew if the rolls had been changed between November 22 and December 1, 1963. A fairly simple question, but look how Cadigan responds:

Mr. DULLES. Do you happen to know whether another roll was put in the machine between the 22d and the 1st of December?
Mr. CADIGAN. May we go off the record?
(Discussion off the record.) 

( 4 H 95 )

Now let's see what happens when they go back on the record:

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; they were unable to determine whether the paper from the replica sack, Exhibit 364, came from the same roll or a different roll as the known sample obtained November 22, Commission Exhibit 677. I understand that in the fall, the Depository is busy, and could very well have changed rolls, but no records are kept along that line. 

( 4 H 96 )

When they were at the TSBD to make the replica bag on December 1, why didn't they ask someone if the roll had been changed that week ? Only four working days had passed and surely someone would have remembered.

Mr. DULLES. Changed rolls in that time, 10-day period?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir. Actually there were 4 working days in that period.

( ibid. )


They didn't ask because they KNEW the roll had been changed.

"...the Depository normally used approximately one roll of paper every 3 working days."

( Report, Chapter 4, pg. 136 )

So if 4 working days had passed, the roll HAD to have been changed.

 

Testing the paper used by Oswald's former employers

As the evidence was mounting that the paper was different from roll to roll and the tape was likewise different from roll to roll, the FBI examined wrapping paper from Oswald's previous employers and compared them to the "gunsack" and "11/22 sample".

Jaggers-Childs-Stovall, a previous employer of Oswald, used the EXACT SAME wrapping paper as the TSBD, 24" 60# Kraft Wrapping Paper manufactured by the St. Regis Paper Company of Jacksonville, Florida.

Commission Document 897, pg. 160 shows this to be true.