Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Vincent Drain And The TSBD Paper Samples

44 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 2, 2009, 10:53:22 PM9/2/09
to

www.MaryFerrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents,_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong


PAT SPEER SAID (IN THE ABOVE ARTICLE THAT APPEARS AT MARY FERRELL'S
WEBSITE):


>>> "Historians, of all stripes and shapes, operate under the assumption the documents they are studying are written on the day they are dated, and are written by those signing the document. If Vincent Drain, when given the chance, had simply admitted he'd screwed up, and that his superiors had forced him to rewrite an inaccurate report, and that this was the only time this happened, perhaps we might still feel confident this holds true of FBI documents. Drain's initials, after all, appear on the revised document. But he did not. He either lied or forgot entirely about what would have to be considered a major mistake on his part. As a consequence, we are left to wonder...did the paper sample have the "same observable characteristics" as the bag, or were the paper sample and bag "found not to be identical"?" <<<


As is always the case when JFK conspiracy theorists get ahold of
something they deem to be "suspicious" or "misleading" or
"conspiratorial", this whole issue about the two different FBI reports
(concerning the paper sample that was taken from the Texas School Book
Depository shortly after the assassination) is another tiny anthill
that conspiracists like Patrick Speer have decided to turn into Mount
Everest.

The two documents, which conspiracy theorists believe are totally
contradictory documents regarding the sample of paper that the FBI
obtained from the Depository on November 22 (not to be confused with
the December 1st paper sample, which was used to construct the replica
"bag"), are not really "contradictory" at all, in my view.

One of the documents (almost certainly the original report filed by
Vincent Drain in late November 1963) states that the sample paper was
"found not to be identical" with the paper bag found in the
Depository's Sniper's Nest (CE142), while the "corrected" document
states that the sample paper exhibits the "same observable
characteristics" as CE142.

But those two statements are not really contradictory at all, IMO. The
sample paper could very well have had the "same observable
characteristics" and yet not be "identical" to the paper in CE142.

To offer up a parallel circumstance -- It's very similar to the
situation that occurred with the bullets that were removed from
Officer J.D. Tippit's body. The FBI's firearms experts couldn't say
that those four bullets had positively been fired from Lee Oswald's
revolver, but the FBI's Cortlandt Cunningham did say that "the rifling
characteristics of Commission Exhibit 143 [Oswald's revolver] are the
same as those present on the four bullets".

So, the "characteristics" are the same, but the word "identical"
cannot be used. And I think the same thing applies to the paper
sample. There were "characteristics" that were the same in both the
sample paper and CE142, but the FBI might have also been correct in
stating that the two paper items were not "identical" to one another.*

* = Although the FBI's James Cadigan DID refer to the 11/22/63 paper
sample as being identical to that of CE142 (the Sniper's-Nest paper
bag) when Cadigan said "Yes" when answering the following two
questions asked by Melvin Eisenberg of the Warren Commission:

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
[referring here to CE677, not CE364]?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Oh, yes."

MR. EISENBERG -- "And they were all identical?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Yes."


But in the final analysis, the second version of Vincent Drain's
report (Commission Document #5, below) is probably the most accurate
of the two reports, because the specific words that appear in Drain's
initial version of the report -- "found not to be identical" -- are
too restrictive and a little misleading. And those words are also
totally at odds with James Cadigan's testimony that I provided above,
as well.

Whereas, the following verbiage that is found in CD5 is probably more
accurate verbiage and is not as misleading (which is undoubtedly why
the change was made in the first place; but a conspiracy theorist's
mileage will, of course, vary on that particular point):

"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 on the sixth
floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building." -- Via Commission
Document #5

www.MaryFerrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=328890


WAS BUGLIOSI WRONG CONCERNING THE DATES? NOT AT ALL:

As for Pat Speer's complaint about Vincent Bugliosi not recognizing
something shady or suspicious with respect to the DATE on the November
29, 1963, FBI report submitted by Vincent Drain (with Mr. Speer
hinting that the FBI was up to no good because the 11/29/63 Drain
document was dated BEFORE the "replica paper bag" was created by the
FBI on December 1, 1963) --- apparently Mr. Speer is unaware that the
11/29/63 Drain document is NOT referring to the replica paper bag that
was made by the FBI on 12/1/63.

As I alluded to earlier in this post, there were TWO different samples
of paper taken from the Book Depository--on two separate dates--after
the assassination, with the first of these samples being taken on the
day of the assassination itself (11/22/63). And Vince Bugliosi
discusses both of these paper samples in his book "Reclaiming
History".

In fact, the "RH" book excerpts cited by Speer in his article linked
at the top of this post verify that Mr. Bugliosi was aware of (and
discusses in his book) the TWO different samples of paper that were
obtained by the FBI.

The November 29th FBI/Drain document is referring to the sample of
paper (not a "replica bag") that was obtained by the FBI from the
Texas School Book Depository on November 22nd (which is viewable in
CE677).

James Cadigan of the FBI testified about the two different paper
samples in his Warren Commission testimony. Here are some excerpts
from that testimony:

JAMES C. CADIGAN -- "I first saw this paper bag [CE142] on November
23, 1963, in the FBI laboratory, along with the sample of paper and
tape from the Texas School Book Depository obtained November 22, 1963,
which is FBI Exhibit D-1 [aka CE677, linked below]."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0180b.htm

[Later...]

MR. CADIGAN -- "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...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."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0492b.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan1.htm


As we can easily determine from the above testimony of James Cadigan,
the paper sample that Vincent Drain refers to in his 11/29/63 FBI
report is obviously NOT the "replica paper BAG" that was fashioned by
the FBI two days AFTER Drain's report was written.

Therefore, Drain's November 29th report MUST be referring to the
sample of paper that was obtained on November 22nd, one week prior to
Drain's report being completed.


FOOTNOTE:

I do want to give Patrick Speer ample credit for one thing in his
above-linked article -- Pat does a fantastic job at providing the
proper citations and links to all of the pertinent documents
concerning this topic. Excellent job on that, Pat.

It's just a shame that all of that research and source citing has been
wasted on something that is so totally unimportant and insignificant
as the two statements repeated below....which are statements that are,
in my opinion, not necessarily contradictory at all:

"SAME OBSERVABLE CHARACTERISTICS" and "FOUND NOT TO BE
IDENTICAL".

David Von Pein
September 2, 2009

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com


pjspeare

unread,
Sep 3, 2009, 6:41:54 PM9/3/09
to
Evidently, my earlier more elaborate response got eaten on the way to
school...SO

David, you're 100% wrong on two key points.

1. It is not I who holds that the two conflicting but identical reports on
the paper bag are for two different bags, one being for the original bag
and one for the bag created 12-1, it is your hero Bugliosi. This is
absolutely clear from reading my article, where I include his thoroughly
inaccurate statements regarding this conflict, whereby he tries to pass
off the two conflicting documents found by Shaw as references to two
different bags. Take off your Bugliosi- colored glasses for a second, will
ya? Your hero screwed up big time, and totally embarrassed himself. (Feel
free to add this to your list of his mistakes.)

2. Your suggestion that the two conflicting reports are really not in
conflict is ludicrous. While you and I might say that something is not
identical, but shared the same observable characteristics, and not be
contradicting ourselves, the FBI uses precise wording. "Found not to be
identical" indicates that the two bags did not match. "Has the same
observable characteristics" is FBI-speak for saying that their tests are
not specific like fingerprints or DNA, but that from what they can
determine the paper could be from the same source. They draw no
conclusions that it is from the same source, because paper-testing is just
not that precise, but from everything they know, it could be... And, BTW,
it is not MY subjective impression that the reports are in conflict, and
that the first one was officially "inaccurate", it is the determination of
the FBI. Did you even read the article before starting this thread? READ
the 12-6 Airtel telling the Dallas SAC, Shanklin, to correct the
"inaccurate" report. It is written by...J. Edgar Hoover. If "not
identical" and "same observable characteristics" were just two ways of
saying the same thing, don't you think Hoover would know this? Wouldn't
Shanklin have known this? Wouldn't Drain, who initialed the changed
report, know this, and have explained this to researchers when they later
asked him about it? And, lastly, wouldn't Assistant Director Baker have
explained this when confirming to Tatro that yes, indeed, the first report
was "inaccurate" and had been "corrected"?

The FBI changed documents...after the fact...and kept no record of the
changes, and made no notations on the documents indicating they'd been
changed. Deal with it.

On Sep 2, 7:53 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.MaryFerrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Docu...

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...


>
> [Later...]
>
> MR. CADIGAN -- "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...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."
>

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0...

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

ShutterBun

unread,
Sep 4, 2009, 1:59:21 AM9/4/09
to
On Sep 3, 3:41 pm, pjspeare <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> Evidently, my earlier more elaborate response got eaten on the way to
> school...SO
>
> David, you're 100% wrong on two key points.
>
> 1. It is not I who holds that the two conflicting but identical reports on
> the paper bag are for two different bags, one being for the original bag
> and one for the bag created 12-1, it is your hero Bugliosi. This is
> absolutely clear from reading my article, where I include his thoroughly
> inaccurate statements regarding this conflict, whereby he tries to pass
> off the two conflicting documents found by Shaw as references to two
> different bags. Take off your Bugliosi- colored glasses for a second, will
> ya? Your hero screwed up big time, and totally embarrassed himself. (Feel
> free to add this to your list of his mistakes.)

OK, I can barely follow your narrative here, but it seems that you're
saying Bugliosi was wrong, because he was describing situation that arose
from the conflict between the December and January paper test reports, and
NOT the Nov. 30th paper test report(s). Would that be correct?

If that's the case, then the worst thing Bugliosi could be accused of is
"answering the wrong question, and possibly being evasive while doing so."
It's an historical fact that there WAS a well-founded conflict (in the
minds of the Commission) between the two later paper test results, which,
as Hoover described, arose from using paper from two different time
periods.

Now, it just so happens, that an earlier report (and its subsequent
correction) encountered a nearly identical "conflict." Namely, the
language difference between "found not to be identical" and "found to have
the same observable characteristics." This immediately jumps out and
suggests there is a conflict, certainly. But it's all about language.
We hear this all the time, with regard to questioned documents,
fingerprints, eyewitnesses. It's a phenomenon which might be best
described as "not positively identified, but consistent with." For some
reason, CT'ers consider the two mutually exclusive, and can't allow both
conditions to coexist.

Further, there is the problematic term "found not to be" versus "not found
to be." Obviously, there is indeed a difference there. Is it unreasonable
that the FBI should want to re-write that section for clarity?

And, lest we forget, that was not the only change they made. The
"original" version described the paper sack as a "paper gun case" while
the updated version described it as a "brown paper bag SHAPED LIKE a gun
case." Certainly this distinction is equally important, no?

Reasonable conclusion: the FBI report was found to be possibly misleading
due to the language used, and failed to indicate that the material used in
the test was indeed "consistent with" the paper bag found. Nothing
sinister there, really. (and sheesh, even Hoover acknowledged that the
tape used to make the bag couldn't be traced, and even that the paper
itself was so common it could have been purchased just about anywhere.)
It's clear that the FBI didn't consider the source of the bag to be the
Rosetta Stone of the whole case, they merely felt that if they could
positively tie it to the paper at the TSBD, it would fit the pieces of the
puzzle nicely. I doubt they would go so far as to fraudulently
misrepresent one particular aspect of one piece of evidence that they
considered to be relatively unimportant.


> 2. Your suggestion that the two conflicting reports are really not in
> conflict is ludicrous. While you and I might say that something is not
> identical, but shared the same observable characteristics, and not be
> contradicting ourselves, the FBI uses precise wording. "Found not to be
> identical" indicates that the two bags did not match.  "Has the same
> observable characteristics" is FBI-speak for saying that their tests are
> not specific like fingerprints or DNA, but that from what they can
> determine the paper could be from the same source.

Fingerprints are NOT like DNA. DNA isn't even really like DNA (at least
as far as the public is concerned). Fingerprints rely on expert
interpretation, just as paper fibers do. It's not uncommon (in fact, it's
probably MORE common) for a fingerprint analyst to describe a print as
"consistent with the suspect, but cannot be declared identical."

And consider a roll of paper. How much variation might be possible in a
roll of paper hundreds of feet long? I daresay there's probably not a
fiber analyst around who'd be willing to go on record and say that two
pieces from the same roll are "identical." The fiber experts were equally
cautious with the blanket fibers, saying they were "consistent" with the
blanket in Mrs. Paine's garage, but couldn't state they were definitely
from the same blanket. Let's face it, "consistent with" seems to be the
phrase that pays when it comes to fiber analysis. Notice that they never
said the paper was "inconsistent with" Oswald's paper. And really, even if
they HAD said it was identical, and stuck to their guns, you'd still say
"well, Hoover said that paper was common, so it doesn't prove anything!"

If anything, the conflict which Bugliosi outlines is MUCH more
significant, in that it described paper samples that were described as
being noticably different from the Oswald...ahem...sack.


> They draw no
> conclusions that it is from the same source, because paper-testing is just
> not that precise, but from everything they know, it could be... And, BTW,
> it is not MY subjective impression that the reports are in conflict, and
> that the first one was officially "inaccurate", it is the determination of
> the FBI. Did you even read the article before starting this thread? READ
> the 12-6 Airtel telling the Dallas SAC, Shanklin, to correct the
> "inaccurate" report. It is written by...J. Edgar Hoover. If "not
> identical" and "same observable characteristics" were just two ways of
> saying the same thing, don't you think Hoover would know this?

Hoover might know it, but the Commission might not, and certainly John Q.
Public wouldn't. And Hoover had to know that these memos would see the
light of day at some point. It's pretty clear Hoover was meticulous about
proofreading reports, correcting vague statements that might be
misleading. This is only one more example.

For proof about how such statements might be misinterpretted, look no
further than the hardcore CT'ers, who use phrases like "refused to
positively identify" in the most damaging sense. How many times have we
seen "inconclusive tests" represented in ways to suggest whatever an
author wants?

What begins as cautious word choice: "found no evidence", "could not rule
out", "could not state with absolute certainty" quickly gets twisted by
the CT'ers to mean something wholely other, because they so often leave
out the surrounding data.

"Found no evidence" becomes "there's evidence out there, but we didn't
find it." "Could not rule out" becomes "it's not only possibly, but
PROBABLE!" "Could not state with absolute certainty" becomes "could not
state with ANY certainty!"

Etc.

> Wouldn't
> Shanklin have known this? Wouldn't Drain, who initialed the changed
> report, know this, and have explained this to researchers when they later
> asked him about it?

If you assume he had total recall, perhaps.

> And, lastly, wouldn't Assistant Director Baker have
> explained this when confirming to Tatro that yes, indeed, the first report
> was "inaccurate" and had been "corrected"?

Um, he DID.

> The FBI changed documents...after the fact...and kept no record of the
> changes, and made no notations on the documents indicating they'd been
> changed. Deal with it.

No record of the change? Did you even read your own article?

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=696337

Granted, they didn't come out and put a notation on the page "this page
replaces previous page dated same date, etc." but I don't think the FBI
was ISO-9000 certified back then.

So was Bugliosi wrong? Well, he was ACCURATE, he was simply mistaken
about *which* conflict over the paper analysis was being discussed. As
Dean Andrews might say, "He's got the right 'ha-ha' but the wrong
'ho-ho.'"


David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 4, 2009, 2:05:53 AM9/4/09
to

>>> "It is not I who holds that the two conflicting but identical reports on the paper bag are for two different bags, one being for the original bag and one for the bag created 12-1, it is your hero Bugliosi. This is absolutely clear from reading my article, where I include his thoroughly inaccurate statements regarding this conflict, whereby he tries to pass off the two conflicting documents found by Shaw as references to two different bags. Take off your Bugliosi-colored glasses for a second, will ya? Your hero screwed up big time, and totally embarrassed himself. (Feel free to add this to your list of his mistakes.)" <<<

You're wrong, Pat. You'd better re-read "Reclaiming History" endnote
pages 405 and 406 again, because you couldn't be more wrong on this
point.

Bugliosi made no mistake on this issue at all. And the quoted passages
that YOU, Pat Speer, included in your 4/13/09 article at Mary
Ferrell's website confirm this:

www.MaryFerrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents,_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong

Bugliosi fully acknowledges that the FBI obtained paper samples from
the Book Depository on TWO separate days (11/22/63 and 12/1/63), and
Vince is most certainly NOT contending (in the book excerpts reprinted
below) that the November 22 paper sample was utilized by the FBI to
create the replica bag. In fact, Vince never mentions the replica BAG
at all in these "RH" book excerpts:


"One version [of Vincent Drain's 11/29/63 FBI report] stated
that paper samples obtained from the Depository shipping area on
November 22 were found to have the same observable characteristics as
the brown paper bag recovered from the sixth-floor sniper’s nest. A
second version said that the paper samples were found “not to be
identical” with the paper gun sack discovered at the scene of the
shooting. ....

"The two documents are no doubt examples of a misunderstanding
that was cleared up by the Warren Commission in early 1964. In a March
12, 1964, letter [linked below], Warren Commission general counsel J.
Lee Rankin asked FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to settle the two
ostensibly contradictory FBI reports. Rankin wrote, “We are in doubt.
Please submit a report...as to the tests made and the conclusions
drawn.” ....


www.MaryFerrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=745104

"A week later, on March 19 [in a letter to Rankin which can be
seen in CE2723, linked below], Hoover responded that BOTH reports were
correct. The first report, dated January 7, 1964, referred to samples
obtained from the Depository on December 1, 1963 (nine days after the
assassination). By then, the shipping department had replaced its roll
of wrapping paper with a fresh roll, since the fall period was its
“heavy shipping season.” Consequently, the samples obtained by the FBI
in December did not match the characteristics of the paper bag found
on the day of the shooting.

"The second report, dated January 13, 1964, related to samples
taken from the Depository on November 22, the day of the
assassination. These samples were found to be “similar in color to
[the bag recovered from the sixth floor]” and were “similar in
appearance under ultraviolet fluorescence, as well as in microscopic
and all other observable physical characteristics.”" -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Pages 405-406 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(©2007)


CE2723 (Page 1):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0069b.htm


CE2723 (Page 2):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0070a.htm

>>> "Your suggestion that the two conflicting reports are really not in conflict is ludicrous. While you and I might say that something is not identical, but shared the same observable characteristics, and not be contradicting ourselves..." <<<

Yes, exactly. So what's your problem now, Pat? (Let's see...)

>>> "...the FBI uses precise wording. "Found not to be identical" indicates that the two bags did not match. "Has the same observable characteristics" is FBI-speak for saying that their tests are not specific like fingerprints or DNA, but that from what they can determine the paper could be from the same source." <<<

LOL.

OIC! If it's you and I talking about the VERY SAME matter, we would
"not be contradicting ourselves", but if it's the "FBI" doing the
talking, it becomes "FBI-speak" and suddenly the exact same words mean
something that IS contradictory in nature.

Brilliant, Pat!

You're REALLY digging deep to try and save yourself from embarrassment
now, I see. Maybe you should stop right now, while we can still see
the top of your head.

BTW, you're wrong (again) when you keep trying to assert that the
"revised" language in the 11/29/63 Vincent Drain report is referring
to "the two bags". The November 29th report (BOTH versions) is
referring to a small piece of sample paper (which can be seen in
CE677) that was taken from the Depository on November 22 (not December
1).

The 11/29/63 document is most certainly NOT referring to the paper
sample that was used by the FBI to create the replica "bag", with the
replica bag being viewable in CE364.


CE677:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0180b.htm


CE364:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0492b.htm

Pat Speer still seems to think that CE677 and CE364 are the same
thing. And Pat evidently also wants to believe that CE677 and CE364
were obtained on the very same DAY too. But they weren't. So Pat is
wrong.

>>> "BTW, it is not MY subjective impression that the reports are in conflict, and that the first one was officially "inaccurate", it is the determination of the FBI. .... If "not identical" and "same observable characteristics" were just two ways of saying the same thing, don't you think Hoover would know this? Wouldn't Shanklin have known this? .... The FBI changed documents...after the fact...and kept no record of the changes, and made no notations on the documents indicating they'd been changed. Deal with it." <<<

Then how did we ever find out about the change, if no records were
kept of the change? Somebody kept the initial Drain document,
otherwise we wouldn't even know of its existence.

Which brings up another point -- If the FBI was so determined to HIDE
the initial "not identical" version of Vincent Drain's report, then
why in the world didn't they see to it that the original document with
the words "found not to be identical" on it was destroyed? Were they
too lazy to rip up a piece of paper?


In the final analysis, it's quite obvious (to everybody except rabid
conspiracy theorists who want the FBI to be involved in a "cover-up"
of some kind) that the FBI replaced a poorly-worded page of one report
with a more-accurately-worded page of that same report. And James
Cadigan's Warren Commission testimony confirms this as well.

In fact, Cadigan even went a step further than the "corrected" FBI/
Drain document, because Cadigan said that the 11/22/63 paper sample
(not the 12/1/63 sample, keep in mind) was, indeed, "identical" in
appearance to CE142 (the paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest):


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
[referring here to CE677, not CE364]?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Oh, yes."

MR. EISENBERG -- "And they were all identical?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Yes."

-----------------

RE: VINCENT DRAIN'S MEMORY CONCERNING THE TWO "CD5; PG. 129"
DOCUMENTS:

If FBI agent Vincent Drain was correct about what he said to Earl Golz
in 1980 (with Drain apparently telling Golz that the ORIGINAL document
was the version with the words "same observable characteristics" in
it, and that the version of his report which said "found not to be
identical" was a "fake"), then we are left to believe something that
is completely ridiculous on its face -- i.e., we're left to believe
that the FBI decided to create a fake version of the document, but
they then decided NOT TO USE that "fake" document in their final
report.

Via such a ludicrous scenario concerning the musical FBI reports, the
FBI decided that Drain's ORIGINAL version of the document (which
included the words "same observable characteristics") would then be
the FINAL and "official" version of that document after all.

So, if the commonly-held belief of many conspiracy theorists is
correct about how the FBI was attempting to paint Lee Harvey Oswald as
the sole assassin of President Kennedy, then why in the world would
the FBI have wanted to create a FAKE DOCUMENT which said that the
sample paper taken from the TSBD was "not identical" to that of the
paper bag that the same FBI has linked to Oswald? That makes
absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Vincent Drain's remarks to Earl Golz in 1980 only serve to demonstrate
that Mr. Drain's memory was almost certainly a bit fuzzy and faulty
when trying to recall the events from 17 years earlier.

I have no idea why Drain wrote "found not to be identical" in what was
quite obviously the "original" version of his 11/29/63 FBI report (and
is a conclusion that is completely the opposite of what the FBI's
James Cadigan told the Warren Commission about the 11/22/63 paper
sample).

I guess that's a mystery that will likely never be solved.


CLOSING NOTE FOR PAT SPEER:

You, Mr. Speer, are doing what all desperate conspiracy theorists do
every day of their lives -- you're reaching deep into the Chaff Pool
for ANY sign of "conspiracy" and/or "cover-up" that you can latch
onto. And, as usual, you end up looking silly when some common sense
is applied to your "findings" (just as Vincent Bugliosi makes you look
silly via the book excerpts I cited above).

You, of course, will pretend to not realize you're wrong regarding
this matter (probably because you spent a lot of time researching this
Jack White/Gary Shaw hunk of nonsense concerning the two different FBI
reports for your Mary Ferrell article).

And you, Pat, will also pretend to not realize that I'm right when I
corrected you about Vincent Bugliosi's comments on this topic -- i.e.,
you'll probably still say that Bugliosi was talking about the replica
BAG on pages 405 and 406 of "RH" endnotes, even though Vince doesn't
say the words "REPLICA BAG" or "RE-CREATED BAG" (or something similar)
one single time on those pages at all.

But regardless of your protestations, you will continue to be
incorrect on this matter, Pat.

Deal with it.

David Von Pein
September 3, 2009

www.Google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/topics?tsc=1

pjspeare

unread,
Sep 4, 2009, 3:01:37 PM9/4/09
to
David, I'm worried about your reading comprehension. Read the Bugliosi
quote again:

"One version [of Vincent Drain's 11/29/63 FBI report] stated
that paper samples obtained from the Depository shipping area on
November 22 were found to have the same observable characteristics as
the brown paper bag recovered from the sixth-floor sniper’s nest. A
second version said that the paper samples were found “not to be
identical” with the paper gun sack discovered at the scene of the
shooting. ....

OK So far so good. You acknowledge that there are two versions of a
report dated 11-29. The problem is Bugliosi doesn't tell his readers
the report in question is from 11-29. You've added it in. Now, he's
either hiding this from them or he never even bothered to look.

"The two documents are no doubt examples of a misunderstanding
that was cleared up by the Warren Commission in early 1964."

This is not true. The original version of the 11-29 document was not
discovered until 1977.

"In a March 12, 1964, letter [linked below], Warren Commission general
counsel J.
Lee Rankin asked FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to settle the two
ostensibly contradictory FBI reports. Rankin wrote, “We are in doubt.
Please submit a report...as to the tests made and the conclusions
drawn.” ....

Rankin is talking about two seemingly contradictory FBI crime lab
reports, not Drain's report from 11-29, the subject of the article
Bugliosi is supposedly refuting.

www.MaryFerrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=745104

"A week later, on March 19 [in a letter to Rankin which can be
seen in CE2723, linked below], Hoover responded that BOTH reports were
correct. The first report, dated January 7, 1964, referred to samples
obtained from the Depository on December 1, 1963 (nine days after the
assassination). By then, the shipping department had replaced its roll
of wrapping paper with a fresh roll, since the fall period was its
“heavy shipping season.” Consequently, the samples obtained by the FBI
in December did not match the characteristics of the paper bag found
on the day of the shooting."

OK. There it is, David. Bugliosi admits that the January 7 report is
in reference to samples obtained 12-1. THE PROBLEM IS THE TWO
CONFLICTING REPORTS DISCUSSED BY JACK WHITE ARE FROM 11-29. GET IT?
EITHER BUGLIOSI NEVER ACTUALLY READ JACK WHITE'S ARTICLE AND HE"S
WRONG OR HE'S BRINGING UP RANKIN"S LETTER AND HOOVER"S RESPONSE IN
ORDER TO DELIBERATELY CONFUSE HIS READERS. You decide.

"The second report, dated January 13, 1964, related to samples
taken from the Depository on November 22, the day of the
assassination. These samples were found to be “similar in color to
[the bag recovered from the sixth floor]” and were “similar in
appearance under ultraviolet fluorescence, as well as in microscopic
and all other observable physical characteristics.”" -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Pages 405-406 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(©2007)

The two reports cited by Bugliosi do nothing to explain why Drain
wrote two conflicting reports dated 11-29, and your pretending that
they do is really strange, IMO. My article was not a conspiracy
article. The changing of the report could have nothing to do with a
conspiracy to kill Kennedy, or hide evidence. It was written to reveal
there are problems with the paper trail. If you weren't so stuck on
your "all CTs are out to deceive me" trip, you'd thank me for shedding
some light on a confusing issue.

As far as the FBI using precise language in their reports and in their
testimony, this is not some CT myth, this is an absolute fact. If you
don't believe me you need to read more FBI reports. And read more
about crime lab investigations involving paper. Because it is possible
for two random sheets of paper to have the same observable
characteristics, a report claiming two sheets matched will not say
they are identical, but will say they have the same observable
characteristics. A report where two sheets do no have the same
observable characteristics, however, might be more blunt, and say
outright that the two sheets are not identical, i.e. that they were
not a match. Hoover and Shanklin were certainly of the belief the two
reports were in conflict.

Why get so huffy about something that may not have any bearing on the
case?

On Sep 3, 11:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "It is not I who holds that the two conflicting but identical reports on the paper bag are for two different bags, one being for the original bag and one for the bag created 12-1, it is your hero Bugliosi. This is absolutely clear from reading my article, where I include his thoroughly inaccurate statements regarding this conflict, whereby he tries to pass off the two conflicting documents found by Shaw as references to two different bags. Take off your Bugliosi-colored glasses for a second, will ya? Your hero screwed up big time, and totally embarrassed himself. (Feel free to add this to your list of his mistakes.)" <<<
>
> You're wrong, Pat. You'd better re-read "Reclaiming History" endnote
> pages 405 and 406 again, because you couldn't be more wrong on this
> point.
>
> Bugliosi made no mistake on this issue at all. And the quoted passages
> that YOU, Pat Speer, included in your 4/13/09 article at Mary
> Ferrell's website confirm this:
>

> www.MaryFerrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Docu...

> CE2723 (Page 1):http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0...
>
> CE2723 (Page 2):http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0...


>
> >>> "Your suggestion that the two conflicting reports are really not in conflict is ludicrous. While you and I might say that something is not identical, but shared the same observable characteristics, and not be contradicting ourselves..." <<<
>
> Yes, exactly. So what's your problem now, Pat? (Let's see...)
>
> >>> "...the FBI uses precise wording. "Found not to be identical" indicates that the two bags did not match. "Has the same observable characteristics" is FBI-speak for saying that their tests are not specific like fingerprints or DNA, but that from what they can determine the paper could be from the same source." <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> OIC! If it's you and I talking about the VERY SAME matter, we would
> "not be contradicting ourselves", but if it's the "FBI" doing the
> talking, it becomes "FBI-speak" and suddenly the exact same words mean
> something that IS contradictory in nature.
>
> Brilliant, Pat!
>
> You're REALLY digging deep to try and save yourself from embarrassment
> now, I see. Maybe you should stop right now, while we can still see
> the top of your head.
>
> BTW, you're wrong (again) when you keep trying to assert that the
> "revised" language in the 11/29/63 Vincent Drain report is referring
> to "the two bags". The November 29th report (BOTH versions) is
> referring to a small piece of sample paper (which can be seen in
> CE677) that was taken from the Depository on November 22 (not December
> 1).
>
> The 11/29/63 document is most certainly NOT referring to the paper
> sample that was used by the FBI to create the replica "bag", with the
> replica bag being viewable in CE364.
>

> CE677:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> CE364:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0...

> Jack White/Gary Shaw hunk of nonsense concerning the two different FBI...
>
> read more »


pjspeare

unread,
Sep 4, 2009, 3:02:32 PM9/4/09
to
Shutterbun, when I write that the FBI made no record of the change I
mean just that. There is a paper trail, uncovered in stages decades
after the fact, indicating that a statement that was inaccurate had
been changed. But there is nothing on the document itself indicating
that anything had ever been changed. And there is nothing in the
record indicating why such a substantive mistake was made by someone
present at the crime lab when the bag was tested, and responsible for
its collection and transport between Dallas and Washington.

The only document mentioning what was changed, moreover, is the Airtel
from Hoover, which was never turned over to the Warren Commission, and
was only released to the public years after the fact. In 1963,
moreover, Hoover would never have dreamed that his personal messages
to his staff would ever see the light of day. NO copy of the original
statement was retained in the FBI's files. The copy of the original
given the Warren Commission as part of CD 5 was also removed and
destroyed. The only copy known to exist in fact was a copy of that
copy, which someone on the Warren Commission's staff put in a file
they'd created on Lt. Day.

As far as the semantics of the thing..."not to be identical" means not
a match, and therefore most probably from a different source..."same
observable characteristics" means a match as far can be determined.

As far as your comment on fingerprints... You claim "It's not uncommon


(in fact, it's probably MORE common) for a fingerprint analyst to
describe a print as "consistent with the suspect, but cannot be

declared identical." This is absolutely untrue. Fingerprint analysis,
which is increasingly being called into question, relies on the
premise that a fingerprint either is a match or is not a match, and
that there is NO standard number of points in common between a latent
and a known print required before one can say it is a match. In order
to maintain this air of infallibility, fingerprint analysts do not
testify that a print is probably a match or that it may be a match
etc, as that would open the door to another expert saying it's
probably not, etc., and that would undermine the authority of all
fingerprint analysts. If they're not sure a print is a match,
fingerprint analysts are trained to say that the print can not be
identified. (I recently read a book called Forensics on Fire that goes
into the controversies surrounding fingerprint analysis in great
detail.)

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...

Jas

unread,
Sep 4, 2009, 4:47:21 PM9/4/09
to

"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:e3f473c9-3bba-4f37...@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

First of all, stating the FBI uses "precise wording" in its reports is like
stating "the earth is flat." There is no such animal as a precise FBI
report, if not at times *no* reports.

Secondly, you can't possibly second-guess what an FBI report is actually
stating.

And thirdly, messed up/altered FBI reports is not conclusive evidence of a
conspiracy to kill JFK. It is, however, conclusive evidence indicating the
bureaucratic bumblings of a government agency.

And, of coure, the million-dollar question is: How can conspiracists
honestly think government agencies like the FBI and CIA, with all their
mistakes and bungling, could possibly have orchestrated, then covered up,
the assassination without being detected somewhere lo these many decades?

Have you ever dealt with, or worked in, a federal government office? Some
of those people can't find the telephone, let alone shoot the president
and cover it up.

James

tomnln

unread,
Sep 4, 2009, 9:22:35 PM9/4/09
to

"Jas" <lle...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4aa14e92$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...


Destruction of Evidennce ids NOT "Bumbling".

Destruction of evidence is a FELONY !

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm

pjspeare

unread,
Sep 4, 2009, 9:23:01 PM9/4/09
to

Jas, did you even read the article? The article makes no claims the
changing of the report is proof of a conspiracy. So why is everyone
responding on this forum pretending that it does?

As far as your assertion about the bumbling FBI and SS being incapable of
a good cover-up, you're right. That's why the WC was needed. Please read
chapters 2 and 2b at patspeer.com for evidence that the FBI and SS
deliberately misrepresented the location of the head shot in order to
stretch out the shooting scenario and give a single shooter enough time to
fire all the shots. It's plain as day. Or do you honestly believe the FBI,
after WEEKS of study, could innocently claim Connally was shot when the
limo was in the approximate location of the limo at frame 313, and claim
Kennedy was hit when the limo was 42 feet further down the road than the
limo's location at frame 313? My 72 year old mother, using only a few
slides from the Z-film, could figure out the limo's location at frame 313
within a few feet, in a half an hour... So why was the FBI off by 42 feet
after weeks of study of both the Z- film and the Nix film?

Now, does the fact that elements of the investigation were deliberately
bungled or covered-up indicate the FBI and SS were in on the
assassination? Of course not... It does, however, indicate that they were
working for a President who wanted the "fact" of Oswald's sole guilt made
clear to the American public, whether it all added up or not...


On Sep 4, 1:47 pm, "Jas" <lle...@cox.net> wrote:
> "pjspeare" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote in message

> ...
>
> read more »


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 4, 2009, 9:44:43 PM9/4/09
to

It is the very fact that we have detected many flaws in their cover-up
which has led us to suspect that those same agencies had a hand in the
shooting.

> Have you ever dealt with, or worked in, a federal government office?
> Some of those people can't find the telephone, let alone shoot the
> president and cover it up.
>

You need to understand that the shooting is separate from the cover-up.
The cover-up was ordered by LBJ because he knew that Oswald was working
for Castro.

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 4, 2009, 9:46:45 PM9/4/09
to

>>> "The original version of the 11-29 document was not discovered until
1977." <<<

Right. But the SECOND conflict (the one that arose in January 1964), as
another poster ("ShutterBun") has rightly pointed out, goes to the EXACT
SAME CONFLICT as the first conflict (with the first conflict,
chronologically, being the Vincent Drain documents dated 11/29/63).

It's the exact same discrepancy -- i.e., it's a conflict which raises the
question that J. Lee Rankin and the Warren Commission wanted cleared up by
the FBI in March 1964: DID CE142 GENERALLY MATCH OR NOT MATCH THE TWO
SEPARATE PAPER SAMPLES?

And Vincent Bugliosi is obviously talking about the FIRST discrepancy when
he uses the exact verbiage from Drain's original (inaccurate) version --
"not to be identical".

Yes, Mr. Bugliosi then does switch to talking about the January 7 and
January 13 version of the conflict. But it's really ALL THE SAME THING,
which (as VB rightly points out) was cleared up via CE2723 (J. Edgar
Hoover's letter to the WC):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0069b.htm

You, Pat, probably think that Vince Bugliosi was not being totally
above-board and honest because Vince didn't say something like I said in
my last post...right, Pat?

You think Vince should have said something akin to this:


"I have no idea why [Vincent] Drain wrote "found not to be

identical" in what was quite obviously the "original" version of his
11/29/63 FBI report (and is a conclusion that is completely the opposite
of what the FBI's James Cadigan told the Warren Commission about the
11/22/63 paper sample). I guess that's a mystery that will likely never be

solved." -- DVP; 09/03/09

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1114cd384b8d3d72


Well, you're right, Bugliosi didn't say anything like that on endnote
pages 405 and 406 of "Reclaiming History". So, if you want to call Mr.
Bugliosi a liar and a cheat for not having done so--go ahead.

But in the FINAL ANALYSIS when examining this issue concerning the two
conflicting FBI reports relating to the paper samples and CE142 (the
Sniper's-Nest paper bag), Vincent Bugliosi, in my opinion, cleared up the
"mystery" very nicely. YMMV.


And, BTW Pat, you're still wrong because you seem to think that Bugliosi
was talking ONLY about the second FBI paper sample (the 12/1/63 sample)
during VB's entire endnote on pages 405 and 406 of his book. He was most
certainly talking about the TWO different FBI paper samples in that
endnote.

David Von Pein
September 4, 2009

www.Twitter.com/DavidVonPein

Squinty Magoo

unread,
Sep 5, 2009, 11:50:48 AM9/5/09
to
>DVP wrote:
>
> "To offer up a parallel circumstance -- It's very similar to the
> situation that occurred with the bullets that were removed from
> Officer J.D. Tippit's body. The FBI's firearms experts couldn't say
> that those four bullets had positively been fired from Lee Oswald's
> revolver, but the FBI's Cortlandt Cunningham did say that "the rifling
> characteristics of Commission Exhibit 143 [Oswald's revolver] are the
> same as those present on the four bullets".
> David Von Pein
> September 2, 2009
>

Wait a minute. For the circumstance to be parallel, wouldn't the FBI
first have to have written a report saying the bullets had NO similar
characteristics with Oswald's revolver, then changed the report to read
that there WERE similarities? That would be a true parallel to the topic
here. But they never changed their report on the bullets. (At least not
that has been discovered yet.)

And with regard to the paper, how is it that two things can exhibit the
same observable characteristics, yet not be identical? Isn't that the
definition of identical? Were there some "unobservable" traits which made
them different? If so, how did they know these differences existed if
they were not observable?

Squinty Magoo

pjspeare

unread,
Sep 5, 2009, 12:26:49 PM9/5/09
to
David, spin spin spin. You just can't let yourself see the issue. Jack
White wrote about two versions of the SAME document talking about the SAME
test on the SAME bag. Bugliosi responded by claiming this had something to
do with two SEPARATE TESTS performed on two SEPARATE bags. He screwed up,
however. One of the two SEPARATE tests was not performed until AFTER the
document discussed by White had been written. It follows that any
confusion related to the test of the 12-1 paper sample had NOTHING to do
with there being two versions of the SAME 11-29 document.

Now you can either conclude Bugliosi made a really bonehead mistake or
that he deliberately misled his readers. But you can't honestly pretend he
was both accurate and honest on this issue.

On Sep 4, 6:46 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "The original version of the 11-29 document was not discovered until
>
> 1977." <<<
>
> Right. But the SECOND conflict (the one that arose in January 1964), as
> another poster ("ShutterBun") has rightly pointed out, goes to the EXACT
> SAME CONFLICT as the first conflict (with the first conflict,
> chronologically, being the Vincent Drain documents dated 11/29/63).
>
> It's the exact same discrepancy -- i.e., it's a conflict which raises the
> question that J. Lee Rankin and the Warren Commission wanted cleared up by
> the FBI in March 1964: DID CE142 GENERALLY MATCH OR NOT MATCH THE TWO
> SEPARATE PAPER SAMPLES?
>
> And Vincent Bugliosi is obviously talking about the FIRST discrepancy when
> he uses the exact verbiage from Drain's original (inaccurate) version --
> "not to be identical".
>
> Yes, Mr. Bugliosi then does switch to talking about the January 7 and
> January 13 version of the conflict. But it's really ALL THE SAME THING,
> which (as VB rightly points out) was cleared up via CE2723 (J. Edgar
> Hoover's letter to the WC):
>

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0...

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 5, 2009, 10:17:13 PM9/5/09
to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5123f203d3fe4fd0/77775f29b4ed9624?#77775f29b4ed9624


>>> "Bugliosi responded by claiming this had something to do with two SEPARATE TESTS performed on two SEPARATE bags. He screwed up, however. One of the two SEPARATE tests was not performed until AFTER the document discussed by White had been written. It follows that any confusion related to the test of the 12-1 paper sample had NOTHING to do with there being two versions of the SAME 11-29 document." <<<

You just refuse to read Vincent Bugliosi's comments correctly.

Incredibly, Pat Speer still seems to think that Bugliosi is talking ONLY
about the 12/1/63 FBI paper sample. But, of course, he's not talking ONLY
about that sample. He's talking about BOTH the 11/22/63 paper sample and
the 12/1/63 sample, which is really the entire point in the first place --
i.e., there were TWO separate samples of paper obtained from the TSBD by
the FBI which caused confusion, with one of these samples (the one
obtained on 11/22/63) matching Oswald's paper sack, and the other sample
(taken from the Depository later, on 12/1/63, in order to create a replica
bag) not matching Oswald's bag due to the fact the roll of paper in the
TSBD had been changed since the day of the assassination.

And Hoover's letter to the Warren Commission in CE2723 totally clears up
BOTH "versions" of the conflict. CE2723 clears up the 11/29/63 "Drain
document" conflict; and CE2723 also clears up the conflict that was
sparked by the January 7th and January 13th reports.

CE2723:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0069b.htm

MOUNTAINS FROM MOLEHILLS (PARTS 1, 2, AND 3):

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fabc4a8e3183d717

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c481188f151a81f1

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2f7bd35dd260dd82


==============================================


David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 6, 2009, 10:20:07 AM9/6/09
to

ADDENDUM:

It's also worth noting that in a letter (linked below) from J. Edgar
Hoover to Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry (which is a letter dated
NOVEMBER 23, 1963, six days before Vincent Drain filed his report),
Hoover said the following to Chief Curry:

"The paper of the wrapping and the tape, Q10 [the bag found in
the Sniper's Nest], were found to have the same observable physical
characteristics as the known wrapping paper and tape, K2 [the sample
taken from the TSBD on 11/22/63], from the Texas Public School Book
Depository."

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/14/1420-004.gif


So, unless some CTers want to believe that Hoover's 11/23/63 letter to
Curry is a fake, then we have the proof in writing--SIX DAYS PRIOR TO
VINCENT DRAIN'S NOVEMBER 29TH REPORT--that the 11/22/63 paper sample
had the "same observable physical characteristics" as the paper bag
found on the sixth floor (CE142).

Brigette Kohley

unread,
Sep 6, 2009, 10:21:53 AM9/6/09
to
David...what a bunch of nonsense! I honestly believed you were so much
smarter than this. Bugliosi was not sharing with his readers that
"Gee, ain't it interesting that Rankin was confused about TWO SEPARATE
CRIME LAB reports on TWO PAPER BAGS written on TWO DIFFERENT DAYS."
No, he was claiming Rankin's confusion was the SAME confusion Jack
White had in his article about TWO CONFLICTING reports written by
Vincent Drain on the SAME DAY, and that his readers therefore need not
worry about Jack's claim the FBI changed documents. Bugliosi's claim
was, of course, totally untrue. The FBI itself admitted to Tatro it
changed documents and the paper trail presented in my article proves
this to be true. So there's really nothing left to argue about...

Unless you want to argue about whether or not Bugliosi's mistake was a
deliberate obfuscation.. What do you think? Did he merely totally
screw up, or was he trying to mislead his readers? Did he read the
date on the two versions of the same document published by White, and
realize it bore a date before the confusion later explained away by
Hoover even existed, and fail to tell this to his readers, or was he
just too confused to make sense of it all?

As far as my "seeming to think Bugliosi was talking about only one
test," or whatever you're trying to claim, that's even more nonsense.
The tests discussed by Rankin and Hoover have NOTHING to do with
Bugliosi's mistake. The issue here is not whether or not the bag
matched the sample, etc, it's whether the documents discussed by White
were the documents Bugliosi discusses to convince his readers White's
article should be dismissed. AND THEY ARE NOT THE SAME DOCUMENTS. Now,
once again, was this a deliberate obfuscation or a tremendously stupid
mistake?

On Sep 5, 7:17 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5123f...


>
> >>> "Bugliosi responded by claiming this had something to do with two SEPARATE TESTS performed on two SEPARATE bags. He screwed up, however. One of the two SEPARATE tests was not performed until AFTER the document discussed by White had been written. It follows that any confusion related to the test of the 12-1 paper sample had NOTHING to do with there being two versions of the SAME 11-29 document." <<<
>
> You just refuse to read Vincent Bugliosi's comments correctly.
>
> Incredibly, Pat Speer still seems to think that Bugliosi is talking ONLY
> about the 12/1/63 FBI paper sample. But, of course, he's not talking ONLY
> about that sample. He's talking about BOTH the 11/22/63 paper sample and
> the 12/1/63 sample, which is really the entire point in the first place --
> i.e., there were TWO separate samples of paper obtained from the TSBD by
> the FBI which caused confusion, with one of these samples (the one
> obtained on 11/22/63) matching Oswald's paper sack, and the other sample
> (taken from the Depository later, on 12/1/63, in order to create a replica
> bag) not matching Oswald's bag due to the fact the roll of paper in the
> TSBD had been changed since the day of the assassination.
>
> And Hoover's letter to the Warren Commission in CE2723 totally clears up
> BOTH "versions" of the conflict. CE2723 clears up the 11/29/63 "Drain
> document" conflict; and CE2723 also clears up the conflict that was
> sparked by the January 7th and January 13th reports.
>

> CE2723:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0...

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 6, 2009, 4:48:02 PM9/6/09
to

YET ANOTHER ADDENDUM:

FYI---

Here's page 1 of the previously-mentioned letter/lab report from the
FBI to DPD Chief Curry (which shows the date of the correspondence:
"November 23, 1963"):

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/14/1420-001.gif

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 6, 2009, 4:58:08 PM9/6/09
to

See my addendum above, Pat. It drives a stake through the idea that the
"corrected" Drain report was a deliberate intent to deceive. Hoover told
Curry on 11/23/63 that the 11/22 paper sample matched Oswald's rifle sack,
which is exactly what Vince Drain SHOULD have written in his original
11/29 report. Since he didn't write that, a correction was needed.

Do you disagree with my above paragraph, Pat?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 6, 2009, 4:58:49 PM9/6/09
to
On 9/6/2009 10:20 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> ADDENDUM:
>
> It's also worth noting that in a letter (linked below) from J. Edgar
> Hoover to Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry (which is a letter dated
> NOVEMBER 23, 1963, six days before Vincent Drain filed his report),
> Hoover said the following to Chief Curry:
>
> "The paper of the wrapping and the tape, Q10 [the bag found in
> the Sniper's Nest], were found to have the same observable physical
> characteristics as the known wrapping paper and tape, K2 [the sample
> taken from the TSBD on 11/22/63], from the Texas Public School Book
> Depository."
>
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/14/1420-004.gif
>

Yeah, they were both brown wrapping paper. So what?

>
> So, unless some CTers want to believe that Hoover's 11/23/63 letter to
> Curry is a fake, then we have the proof in writing--SIX DAYS PRIOR TO
> VINCENT DRAIN'S NOVEMBER 29TH REPORT--that the 11/22/63 paper sample
> had the "same observable physical characteristics" as the paper bag
> found on the sixth floor (CE142).
>


Fake? How about altered to misrepresent?


pjspeare

unread,
Sep 6, 2009, 8:03:19 PM9/6/09
to
David, you're panicking. In my article I specifically refuse to speculate
as to which one of Drain's reports was correct. ALL the FBI reports and
testimony, save the first version of Drain's report on tests he did not
personally perform, indicate the paper matched.

But if you want to go there, go ahead. Vincent Drain collected the bag in
Dallas late on the night of the assassination, and flew it to Washington.
He then took it to the Washington crime lab so that the chain of evidence
would not be broken. He then stayed in the area of the building when the
tests were conducted, and almost certainly discussed the test results for
the bag and the other evidence he'd transported with the crime lab
scientists. So why did he report the results incorrectly less than a week
later?

Lack of sleep? Maybe. But you can't hide behind the holiness of the FBI.
Not only did Hoover lie to the Warren Commission about whether or not he
felt Oswald should have been on the Security list (He reprimanded 18 FBI
agents for their failure to track Oswald but hid this from the Warren
Commission and told them the FBI had no reason to suspect Oswald was a
danger to anybody), but, as we've seen, he changed documents without
noting what was changed or recording in a central file that anything had
been changed. There is also a problem with the testimony of the agents.
The testimony of FBI agents before the Warren Commission was reviewed and
at times re-written by their superiors. There are many memos in the files
proving this was done. There is also evidence that not all of this was
done in a timely manner in order to catch simple mistakes.

From patspeer.com, chapter 20:

But what about the Warren Commission? Their hearings were not only
conducted in secret, but were not recorded in any way, outside the
transcripts. Could their transcripts have been changed as well?

Unfortunately, yes. We know, beyond any doubt, that at least some of the
transcripts have been doctored. An apparently unedited transcript of
Jacqueline Kennedy's testimony, we should recall, revealed that she
originally reported that Governor Connally screamed "like a stuck pig"
when shot. This reference was deleted from the published transcript. An
8-28-64 memorandum from Commission Counsel Wesley Liebeler, in which he
cites an early version of the commission's report, moreover, quotes the
testimony of the FBI's fiber expert Paul Stombaugh as follows: "In my mind
I feel that these fibers came from this shirt, but I know of no scientific
method to prove this, so therefore I am unable to say this." This differs
greatly from the same paragraph in the final report, where his words were
changed to "There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come
from the shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of
the fibers having come from another identical shirt." As the former line
appears nowhere in the published transcript, and reads much more like
human speech, it seems apparent that this line was re-written and that the
new line was added into both the transcript and the report in the final
days of the Commission's existence, when their sole focus was on the
issuance of the report. This should force us to question what else was
changed, and by whom. It should also make us wonder what guarantees were
used to make sure that changes like this one, presumably undertaken to
remove the implication of Stombaugh's words--that if there was a
scientific method to prove the fibers on the gun came from Oswald's shirt
he would have gladly said it had been proven--were the exception, and not
the rule, and that greater, more substantive changes were not made as
well.

This is a real concern. In 1992, a presumably unaltered transcript of the
4-30-64 testimony of FBI paper expert James Cadigan was released by the
National Archives. As reported by Jim Marrs, this transcript revealed
that, when asked if he knew why an identification card of Oswald's was
damaged by silver nitrate, a chemical used to unveil hidden fingerprints,
Cadigan responded "I could only speculate...It may be that there was a
very large volume of evidence being examined at the time. Time was of the
essence, and this material, I believe, was returned to the Dallas Police
within two or three days, and it was merely in my opinion a question of
time. We have a very large volume of evidence. There was insufficient time
to desilver it. And I think in many instances where latent prints are
developed they do not desilver it." Well, one can see how the FBI might
find this embarrassing. But this was sworn testimony, supposedly taken to
create a permanent record of the murder of a president and its aftermath.
How can changing Cadigan's rambling answer to "No, this is a latent
fingerprint issue", as was done, possibly be justified?

Particularly when, as Marrs reports, the cover sheet to the transcript
reveals "Stenotype Tape, Master Sheets, Carbon and Waste turned over to
Commission for destruction"? I mean, how is this even legal? If anonymous
FBI officials and political appointees have the right to change the words
of people representing the Bureau in sworn testimony, and to destroy the
record of what's been changed, who is responsible if the changes amount to
perjury? Someone in the Bureau who never appeared in court? Or the man
with the lies shoved in his mouth? I mean, don't the accused have the
right to face their accuser, and not have their accuser hide in an office
and sneak words into transcripts? That the cornerstone of the judicial
process--the taking of sworn testimony under penalty of perjury--was
undermined by the very body tasked with protecting the integrity of the
judicial process--the FBI-- and done so as a matter of routine--should not
be readily dismissed.

John McAdams

unread,
Sep 6, 2009, 8:09:25 PM9/6/09
to

But this supposed "changed quote" says substantively the exact same
thing in both versions.

Why change it?

The simple explanation is that Liebeler is quoting from memory, and
got it wrong, or that the early version of the report is in error, and
the error got corrected.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 6, 2009, 9:39:00 PM9/6/09
to

>>> "How about altered to misrepresent?" <<<

Then you have no choice but to think that Hoover's letter to Jesse Curry
on 11/23/63 is a misrepresentation too. Because if Hoover's letter dated
Nov. 23rd is the real McCoy (and unaltered), then Drain's 11/29 report
positively was wrong and required the correction it received in December.

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/14/1420-004.gif

pjspeare

unread,
Sep 7, 2009, 9:36:22 PM9/7/09
to
On Sep 6, 5:09 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

Not at all. The simple explanation is that someone at the FBI had a
problem with Stombaugh's words, and ordered them changed. Liebeler's memo
had the words in quotes. His memos were quite specific, quoting statements
directly from testimony. You are correct, however, that Stombaugh's
statement that "I know of no scientific method to prove this, so therefore
I am unable to say this" could have been innocent, and intended to imply
merely that the tests were not conclusive. But the argument could be made
that he was admitting that he would be willing to say it if there was a
test that could prove it, NO matter what the results indicated.

I don't really have a problem with the change being made. My problem is
that to my mind ALL changes to testimony by the WC and HSCA should have
been noted in a master file, along with an explanation for the change. I
also feel this file should have been published. FWIW, my interest in the
veracity of the published transcripts was piqued a few years ago after
discovering that the published testimony of Larry Sturdivan had different
descriptions for one of his exhibits than his actual testimony. What had
been a shot into gelatin by a subsonic bullet had been changed
mysteriously into a shot into gelatin for a high-speed bullet. This led to
my comparing the published testimony of Dr. Baden to a video I obtained of
his testimony. This in turn led not only to my realization that his words
had largely been re-written, but that he'd testified with the open-cranium
photograph (F8) of Kennedy upside down. And when I say upside down I don't
mean upside down to my interpretation of the photo, but upside down
according to what is supposedly his own interpretation of the photo. He
didn't have a clue.

pjspeare

unread,
Sep 7, 2009, 9:39:43 PM9/7/09
to

Yes, it seems obvious that, IF Drains' first report was correct, and that
the paper bag and sample did not match, then Hoover's letter to Curry was
a misrepresentation. This would suggest as well that the decision to
misrepresent the evidence took place before Hoover's letter was written.

Now, do I believe this misrepresentation occurred? I'm undecided. But
there is undoubtedly something strange about the bag.

From patspeer.com, chapter 4d:

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 deputy
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 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 11-2263,
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?

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, support that he was not
actually present when the bag was "discovered". In an interview with Larry
Sneed, published in 1998, he said "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." Furthermore, 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, and that it was found by...someone.

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 this lie 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 creation of the false story purported by
Drain in his 11-30 report on Day was no accident, and was 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 more obvious "error" (that being that the DPD failed
to show the bag to anyone) was allowed to stand uncorrected?

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 7, 2009, 11:07:10 PM9/7/09
to

>>> "Yes, it seems obvious that, IF Drains' first report was correct, and
that the paper bag and sample did not match, then Hoover's letter to Curry
was a misrepresentation. This would suggest as well that the decision to
misrepresent the evidence took place before Hoover's letter was written."
<<<


Which means the FBI had already decided to "misrepresent the evidence"
within literally hours of the assassination (since the assassination took
place at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22, and Hoover's letter to Curry was sent
sometime on 11/23).

Hoover's boys worked fast, didn't they Pat? And while Oswald was still
among the living too, keep in mind.

0 new messages