An examination of the evidence which suggests
that the paper bag in which Lee Harvey Oswald
is alleged to have brought a rifle into the
Texas School Book Depository never existed
Mr Ball: "Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas School Book Depository building?"
Detective John Hicks (DPD Crime Lab): "No, sir; I did not." (7H 289)Mr Belin: "Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing or not?"
Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig: "No; I don't remember seeing any." (6H 268)Mr Ball: "Does the sack show in any of the pictures you took?"
Detective Robert Studebaker: "No; it doesn't show in any of the pictures." (7H 144)"The Dallas police did an extremely capable job of documenting with photographs the crime scene that had just been discovered." (Extract from First Day Evidence by Gary Savage: The Shoppe Press, Monroe, Louisiana; 1993 - pages 145/146)
Mr Ball: "Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?"
Mr Jack Dougherty (TSBD employee): "Yes - when he first come into the door."
Mr Ball: "Did he have anything in his hands or arms?"
Mr Dougherty: "Well, not that I could see of."
Mr Ball: "In other words, you would say positively that he had nothing in his hands?"
Mr Dougherty: "I would say that - yes, sir." (6H 376/377)"Lt Day recalls that on evening of 11/22/63, about 11.30p.m. one of Captain FRITZ' officers requested that he show this thick brown sack to a man named FRAZIER. Lt. DAY said that FRAZIER was unable to identify this sack and told him that a sack he observed in the possession of OSWALD early that morning was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like one purchased in a dime store." (FBI memo, 29 November 1963)
One of the most questionable of all Warren Commission exhibits has to be CE 1302. This is the photograph which purports to show "Approximate location of wrapping-paper bag ... near window in southeast corner." The index to Volume 22 of the Warren Commission's 26 Volumes of Hearings and Exhibits, in which this appears on page 479, describes this exhibit as "Photograph of southeast corner of sixth floor of Texas School Book Depository Building, showing approximate location of wrapping-paper bag and location of palmprint on carton."
From those positive and uncomplicated descriptions, we would expect to see a photograph showing a bag made out of wrapping-paper. In reality, the photograph shows no paper bag - just a dotted-line rectangle which has been printed on the photograph and which bears the legend: "Approximate location of wrapping-paper bag."
In accordance with normal police practice, other items of potential evidential value were photographed where they lay - for example the rifle, the spent cartridges and the book carton with the palm print on it. Why, then, was the paper bag not afforded this attention? May I be as bold as to suggest that this most vital piece of 'evidence' did not actually exist at the time? It is my earnest belief that it was made up (in both senses) some time later.
In this paper I will examine the reasons for the bag becoming such a vital piece of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald, the circumstances under which it was allegedly found, my unsuccessful attempts to establish who found it and the method by which Oswald is alleged to have used it to bring a rifle into the building. I will also address the infamous 'curtain rods' story, discuss where the bag is claimed to have been made and question why those investigating the case felt it necessary for a 'replica' bag to be constructed.
The sworn testimony of two people, Buell Wesley Frazier (2) and Mrs Linnie Mae Randle (3), was enough to satisfy the Commission that Oswald had concealed the rifle in a long paper bag (or sack) which he had carried to work that morning when he was a passenger in Frazier's car. No other means of bringing the rifle to the book depository was ever suggested or explored, either by the Warren Commission or by anybody else in the official investigative field. Had the matter ever come to court, that paper bag would have been as essential an item of real evidence as anything else in the entire case.
Without the paper bag as a means of transportation and, as importantly, of concealment, the prosecution would have been hard-pressed to suggest how Oswald could have brought the rifle from its alleged hiding place in the Paine garage at Irving to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. The evidential value of the paper bag was equal to that of the rifle itself. Perhaps it was of even greater value. I feel that we can confidentially go as far as to say that without the paper bag, there would be no rifle - certainly no rifle in the possession of Lee Harvey Oswald. Where would that have left the prosecution case against him?
There is nothing in that brief statement to indicate either when the bag was found or, more importantly, by whom. As is so often the case, however, there is far more information to be gained from a study of the 26 Volumes of Hearings and Exhibits than from the incomplete and often ambiguous conclusions of the final Warren Report.
Lieutenant John Carl Day, head of the Dallas Police Department Crime Scene Search Section, testified before the Warren Commission at the offices of the Commission at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Building, 200 Maryland Avenue NE, Washington, DC on 22nd April 1964. The vast majority of his examination was conducted by Assistant Counsel David W Belin but there were also occasional questions from Commissioner John J McCloy (5).
When Mr Belin began to question Lieutenant Day about the paper bag, there was considerable confusion as to which paper bag was being discussed. At first, Lieutenant Day appeared to be referring to a lunch bag - presumably the one which had been found to contain fried chicken. Mr Belin then asked him: "What other kind of sack was found?" Lieutenant Day's reply was a strange one: "A homemade sack, brown paper with 3-inch tape found right in the corner, the southeast corner of the building near where the slugs were found." (6). To me, as a former operational detective with formal training and experience in investigative techniques, this seems very much like a 'prepared' response which gives far more information than the question asks. The word 'slugs' is an obvious error and was quickly corrected by Mr McCloy who intervened to seek confirmation that Lieutenant Day meant 'hulls' (empty or spent cartridge cases).
Mr Belin next showed Lieutenant Day a photograph of the interior of the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository - that area which later became known as the 'sniper's nest' (7). Mr Belin said: "I will first ask you to state if this picture was taken before or after anything was removed from the area." Lieutenant Day dutifully replied: "The sack had been removed." No explanation was offered - and none was sought.
Let us examine the testimony of some of the other law enforcement officers (Dallas Police Department and Dallas County Sheriff's Department) who would have been in a position to have seen the bag.
Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney
The Warren Report describes a very important find as follows:
"Around 1 p.m Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney noticed a pile of cartons in front of the window in the southeast corner of the sixth floor . Searching that area he found at approximately 1:12 p.m. three empty cartridge cases on the floor near the window. When he was notified of Mooney's discovery, Capt. J.W. Fritz, chief of the homicide bureau of the Dallas Police Department, issued instructions that nothing be moved or touched until technicians from the police crime laboratory could take photographs and check for fingerprints. Mooney stood guard to see that nothing was disturbed. A few minutes later, Lt. J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Department arrived and took photographs of the cartridge cases before anything had been moved." (10).
Those few sentences inevitably raise a series of relevant questions, each of which seems to have two possible answers:
When Deputy Sheriff Craig gave his testimony to Assistant Counsel David W Belin in Dallas in the early afternoon of 1st April 1964, there was some initial confusion as to which bag (or sack) was being discussed. This was not a unique situation. We have already seen it in the case of Lieutenant Day's testimony. The testimony of several witnesses was subject to similar problems. Remember, there was supposed to be a large paper bag (said to have contained a deadly rifle) and a small paper bag (said to contain the remains of a dead chicken).
Mr Belin established that Craig had gone to the southeast corner of the sixth floor immediately after the finding of the spent cartridges. Craig confirmed that he had noticed: "the kind of paper bag that you carry your lunch in" laying on top of a box. Mr Belin then asked: "Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing, or not?" Craig's reply was both instant and uncompromising: "No; I don't remember seeing any." (11).
Perhaps because Craig's answer to that had been so positive, Mr Belin did not press the point and he never returned to the question of the longer bag during the remainder of Craig's questioning.
Dallas Police Sergeant Gerald Lynn Hill
Sergeant Hill testified before Mr Belin in Dallas on the afternoon of 8th April 1964. Like Deputy Sheriff Craig, he described seeing a "paper sack which appeared to have been about the size normally used for a lunch sack" on top of a stack of boxes in the southeast corner of the sixth floor (12). He did not mention any other paper sack or bag in the area and the subject was not reintroduced until much later in his testimony when Sergeant Hill came out with the following in reference to a previous conversation with Mr Belin:
"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. Or the section, if it was found up there on the sixth floor, if it was there, I didn't see it." (13)
Dallas Police Detective John B Hicks
Since he had been mentioned by Sergeant Hill, it is logical to examine what Detective Hicks, a member of Lieutenant Day's Crime Scene Search Section, had to say about the finding and existence of the long paper bag. Detective Hicks worked in the Crime Laboratory and he testified before Assistant Counsel Joseph A Ball in Dallas on 7th April 1964.
Toward the end of his testimony, during an examination of his actions and functions within the Crime Lab, the following exchange took place:
MR BALL: "Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas
School Book Depository building?"
DET HICKS: "Paper bag?"
MR BALL: "Paper bag."
DET HICKS: "No, sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken bones or maybe a
lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up."
MR BALL: "Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper; did you ever
see it?"
DET HICKS: "No, sir; I don't believe I did. I don't recall it."
MR BALL: "I believe that's all, Mr Hicks." (14)
Dallas Police Detective Richard M Sims
Detective Sims was a member of the Homicide & Robbery Bureau. His Warren Commission testimony, taken by Assistant Counsel Joseph A Ball, in Dallas on 6th April 1964, contains much valuable peripheral information concerning the search of the sixth floor of the book depository.
In my introduction to this paper, I stressed the significance of the fact that no photograph exists to show exactly where (or whether!) the large paper bag was found. Whilst discussing Deputy Sheriff Mooney's part in the finding of various items of evidence, I quoted the Warren Report as saying that Lieutenant Day had photographed the scene. Detective Sims' answers to Mr Ball's questions, however, offered some very revealing information regarding who actually took the crime scene photographs in the area of the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the building.
The exchange was as follows:
MR BALL: "Did you see the picture taken of the hulls?"
DET SIMS: "Yes, sir."
MR BALL: "You saw Day take the pictures, did you?"
DET SIMS: "Yes, sir."
MR BALL: "He was the cameraman, was he?"
DET SIMS: "Well, there was another one there too. Actually, it was Detective Studebaker
that works for him."
MR BALL: "Studebaker and Day?"
DET SIMS: "I believe it was Studebaker." (15)
A minute or so later, the following exchange of questions and answers took place:
MR BALL: "Did you ever see a paper bag?"
DET SIMS: "Well, we saw some wrappings - a brown wrapping there."
MR BALL: "Where did you see it?"
DET SIMS: "It was there by the hulls."
MR BALL: "Was it right there near the hulls?"
DET SIMS: "As well as I remember - of course, I didn't pay much attention at that time,
but it was, I believe, by the east side of where the boxes were piled up -
that would be a guess - I believe that's where it was."
MR BALL: "On the east side of where the boxes were - would that be the east?"
DET SIMS: "Yes, sir; it was right near the stack of boxes there. I know there was some
loose paper there."
MR BALL: "Was Johnson there?"
DET SIMS: "Yes, sir; when the wrapper was found Captain Fritz stationed Johnson and
Montgomery to observe the scene there where the hulls were found."
MR BALL: "To stay there?"
DET SIMS: "Yes, sir."
MR BALL: "That was Marvin Johnson and L.D. Montgomery who stayed by the hulls?"
DET SIMS: "Yes, sir; they did. And I was going back and forth, from the wrapper to the
hulls." (16)
Detective Sims then went on to describe how the three hulls (empty cartridge cases) and the rifle had been photographed, preserved and taken into police possesion. However there was no further mention of what he had called a 'wrapper' - indeed it was never mentioned again in the rest of his testimony, which was not completed until the following day.
The late Sylvia Meagher, that most-respected of researchers, commented that Detective Sims' action in "going back and forth, from the wrapper to the hulls" was a clever trick on his part as they were separated by a distance of perhaps two feet (17).
Detective Sims' testimony has, however, provided the names of two further police officers who may be able to help us - Marvin Johnson and L.D. Montgomery.
Dallas Police Detective Marvin Johnson
A fellow officer of Detective Sims in the Homicide & Robbery Bureau, Detective Johnson gave testimony before Assistant Counsel David W Belin in Dallas on the afternoon of 6th April 1964. On the surface, his testimony appeared to go a long way to confirming the existence of a long paper bag. As we shall see, however, it was greatly at variance with that of Detective Montgomery, his partner, who was with him at the time. In fact, very little of Detective Johnson's evidence is supported by any corroboration.
After being questioned at length about the small paper bag, the remnants of fried chicken and a pop bottle, Detective Johnson stated: "We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag." He added that his partner (Detective Montgomery) picked it up from the floor and unfolded it. He stated that it was right in the corner of the building and had been left in a double-folded condition (18).
Mr Belin showed him a photograph on which Detective Studebaker had drawn an outline of where he claimed the bag had been located (19). Detective Johnson responded: "It looks like somebody penned that in to show the sack was laying there. That would show it unfolded."
Detective Johnson was never asked his opinion of the dimensions of the paper bag. When asked by Mr Belin if there was anything else he could remember about the bag, he volunteered a very intriguing remark: "No; other than like I said, my partner picked it up and we unfolded it and it appeared to be about the same shape as a rifle case would be. In other words, we made the remark that that is what he probably brought it in. That is why, the reason we saved it." (20).
Considering the near-clairvoyant gifts he demonstrated with those remarks, it is difficult to imagine why Marvin Johnson, in his ten years police service in Dallas, had risen no further up the promotion ladder than mere Detective!
Dallas Police Detective L.D. Montgomery
Detective Montgomery testified twice before the Warren Commission but it is only his second appearance which concerns us here. On this occasion, his testimony was taken by Assistant Counsel Joseph A Ball in Dallas on 6th April 1964, immediately after Detective Johnson. His testimony represents one of the best examples of confusion between the two paper bags. At one stage, as Detective Montgomery studied a photograph of the southeast corner of the sixth floor, the dialogue went like this:
DET MONTGOMERY: "Right over here is where we found that long piece of paper that
looked like a sack, that the rifle had been in."
MR BALL: "You found the sack in the area marked 2 in Exhibit J to the
Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?"
DET MONTGOMERY: "Which sack are we talking about now?"
MR BALL: "The paper sack?"
DET MONTGOMERY: "The small one or the larger one?"
MR BALL: "The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2."
DET MONTGOMERY: "Yes."
MR BALL: "You picked it up?"
DET 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." (21)
There the exchange ended. It does, however, tell us much. Detective Montgomery, as an operational homicide detective, should have been accustomed to cross-examination in court and would have undergone training in that area. Here, however, he appeared to become totally confused. It has to be said that there are distinct indications that he had been coached as to what he was expected to say. Having said that, however, I also recognise what appear to be signs of stress and uncertainty under some less than vigorous questioning.
Detective Montgomery totally failed to corroborate Detective Johnson's claim that he (Montgomery) had picked up the large paper bag and unfolded it. He stated that they did not touch it but that perhaps Detective Studebaker did. The mention of fingerprints is interesting. It was later claimed that Oswald's fingerprints had been found on the bag - but there was no mention of any others.
A very interesting photograph showing Detectives Johnson and Montgomery removing the paper bag and a Dr Pepper pop bottle from the book depository has been published (22). Detective Johnson does not appear to be exercising much care as regards the safeguarding of any evidential value the bottle may have. In the case of Detective Montgomery, one has to say that two things are blatantly obvious about the bag he is carrying. Firstly, it appears to be over four feet in length and secondly, it is being held in a vertical position by means of something rigid inside it. A Mauser rifle, perhaps?
Continuing to follow the trail from one named officer to another, we must now return to Detective Studebaker, the man whom Detective Montgomery claimed had picked up the paper bag.
Dallas Police Detective Robert Lee Studebaker
As already mentioned, Detective Studebaker was a man with a vital role in the matter under discussion here. He may or may not have been the person who first came across the paper bag and he may or may not have picked it up. What is indisputable, however, is the fact that he did not photograph it.
According to Dallas Police Department records for November 1963, Detective Studebaker was a member of the Auto Theft Bureau, part of the Criminal Investigation Division (23). From his Warren Commission testimony before Assistant Counsel Joseph A Ball in Dallas on 6th April 1964, it becomes evident that on the day of the assassination he was attached to the Crime Scene Search Section of the Identification Bureau. In view of some amazing testimony on his part, it appears that he was not only a newcomer to that Section - but also a virtual trainee!
That being the case, it is almost inconceivable that the responsibility for photographing the so-called 'sniper's nest' should become his. Unfortunately, however, that is exactly what happened. As is shown in the following exchange, Detective Studebaker's photographic qualifications were sadly lacking.
MR BALL: "But you have had photography in your crime lab work?"
DET STUDEBAKER: "Yes."
MR BALL: "For how long?"
DET STUDEBAKER: "Was about two months."
MR BALL: "How long have you done photography altogether?"
DET STUDEBAKER: "Two months. I went to the crime lab in October, the 1st of
October."
MR BALL: "You did - have you done any photography before that?"
DET STUDEBAKER: "Just home photography." (24)
Together with Lieutenant Day, Detective Studebaker photographed the three hulls and he then took photographs of the rifle in situ before it was moved. One of these is the infamous picture in which Detective Studebaker demonstrated his photographic skills by getting his own knees into the photograph (25). In his own words, when asked who took that photograph: "I know it's mine because my knees are in the picture." (26)
Detective Studbaker failed to photograph any large paper bag despite the fact that it cannot have been more than a few feet away from the hulls - or perhaps it was not there. The bag became the subject of the following exchange:
MR BALL: "Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?"
DET STUDEBAKER: "Yes, sir."
MR BALL: "Where?"
DET STUDEBAKER: "Storage room there - in the southeast corner of the building -
folded."
MR BALL: "In the southeast corner of the building?"
DET STUDEBAKER: "It was a paper - I don't know what it was."
MR BALL: "And it was folded, you say."
DET STUDEBAKER: "Yes."
Mr Ball showed Detective Studebaker a photograph of the so-called 'sniper's nest' area in the southeast corner of the sixth floor. No paper bag could be seen on the photograph but a dotted-line rectangle had been added to the photograph (27). When asked by Mr Ball if he had drawn that diagram, Detective Studebaker replied: "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." (28).
Detective Studebaker confirmed that the dotted line indicated the approximate position of the 'paper wrapping' and when asked how long it was, the following exchange ensued:
MR BALL: "How long was it, approximately?"
DET 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?"
DET STUDEBAKER: "No."
MR BALL: "Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took?"
DET STUDEBAKER: "No; it doesn't show in any of the pictures." (29)
A short while later, Mr Ball returned to the question of the unphotographed paper bag and offered Detective Studebaker a photograph identical to the first one but without the added dotted-line rectangle. He then asked: "Can you draw in there showing us where the paper sack was found?" and Detective Studebaker complied (30).
The last minute or so of Detective Studebaker's testimony was again concerned with the size of the paper bag and the exchange was as follows:
MR BALL: "Now, how big was this paper that you saw - you saw the wrapper
- tell me about how big that paper bag was - how long was it?"
DET STUDEBAKER: "It was about, I would say, 3 and a half to 4 feet long."
MR BALL: "The paper bag?"
DET STUDEBAKER: "Yes."
MR BALL: "And how wide was it?"
DET STUDEBAKER: "Approximately 8 inches." (31).
At that point, probably to the relief of both men, Detective Studebaker's testimony ended.
Despite considering the position in the most favourable manner possible, the testimony quoted above gives me no confidence in the claim that such a bag was found at the crime scene. As I have repeated several times in the foregoing paragraphs, it is my earnest belief that the paper bag never existed - certainly not until later, when it became apparent that some means of conveying a concealed rifle into the building had to be established.
We must now consider another important aspect of the affair and study the testimony of the only two people who claimed to have seen Lee Harvey Oswald with the paper bag in his possession - Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Mrs Linnie Mae Randle.
Return to Main Page
* * *