Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

John McAdams

8:57 PM (54 minutes ago)

On 6 May 2016 21:56:34 -0400, Ralph Cinque <buda...@gmail.com> wrote:

>75 people worked for the TSBD, and quite a few more worked for other
>companies. Yet, only one claimed to see Oswald with a large package. Why
>should that one person be believed over Oswald, Dougherty, and all the
>others?
>

How about:  because a long bag was found that had Oswald's prints on
it?

.John 

Ralph Cinque:

OH. Do you mean this bag?

Because the story behind that bag isn't even credible. Supposedly, Oswald made that bag out paper and tape, but, it obviously looks much more sturdy and much more manufactured than what Oswald could have done with paper and tape. Then, there is the problem of neither Frazier, Ruth Paine, nor Marina ever seeing the bag. And it's especially troubling about Frazier because supposedly, Oswald told him he would be transporting curtain rods the next morning. So, why would Oswald have stuffed that bag in his pants or inside his jacket on the drive to Irving when there was no need? 

Now, you claim that Oswald's prints were found on the bag, but that is not confirmable. It's possible that the claim is outright false. 

Lt. J.C. Day of the Dallas PD tested the bag for prints and didn't find any. Detective Robert Studebaker also tested it and found none:  

Mr Ball :

Did you lift any prints?

Mr Studebaker :

There wasn’t but just smudges on it — is all it was. There was one little ole piece of a print and I’m sure I put a piece of tape on it to preserve it … just a partial print.

Mr Ball :

The print of a finger or palm or what?

Mr Studebaker :

You couldn’t tell, it was so small.

Studebaker found no usable prints. 

Finally, when the bag was given to the FBI, they found two partial prints that they claimed matched records of Oswald's prints. 

Now, let's be crystal about something: There are many people who hold grave suspicions about the FBI and the part they played in framing Oswald. And those who support the official story have no right to assume that those who challenge the official story are obliged to accept the claims of the FBI, especially when it comes to a thing like this. 

So, John McAdams has no right to play that card, as if he's holding it. All of the "print" evidence against Oswald is highly suspect, highly irregular, and this is no exception. There is no objective and independent way to evaluate the accuracy of the claim of finding Oswald's prints on the bag, and therefore it does not constitute a piece of uncontested evidence. It cannot be considered conclusive. And therefore, it really doesn't count at all.

Now notice that I elaborated about this; John McAdams did not. He just played it like a card; the prints card. 

But, he's not holding it. What he has does NOT reach the threshold of certainty, and it doesn't get anywhere close to it. It's just Stalinist show trial stuff- that's all. 

In no way has this bag been conclusively linked to Oswald.

 And the idea that Oswald made it out of paper and tape is downright preposterous.