The Decline in Forum Activity

[Robin Unger]

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49476/m1/1/sizes/l/

click on thumbnail to view full size.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Robin Unger

[Pat Speer]

Thanks, Pat.

I just did a little digging into my video archives and verified for myself that at least one TV network (CBS) was most definitely identifying the assassination weapon as a 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle as of approximately 7:00 PM (Dallas time) on Friday, November 22nd.

In the video clip below, which was aired live on CBS-TV on the evening of 11/22/63, Dan Rather of CBS News clearly calls the rifle being held up by Lt. J.C. Day an "Italian 6.5-millimeter" gun. We can't hear Lt. Day say anything; we only hear Rather's narration in this clip, but it is clear from the video that Lt. Day definitely is speaking to the members of the press at the crowded City Hall. He's probably identifying the rifle in just the manner confirmed by Michael Giampaolo and Pat Speer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC6xhg_nTvw

So the conspiracy theorists who continue to say that everybody on radio or television was labelling the murder weapon as a Mauser all the way through Day 1 (November 22nd) are proven wrong (just as I was proven wrong on this issue too) by the above video alone. And if CBS was reporting that the assassination weapon was a 6.5mm. Italian rifle during the evening of November 22nd, you can bet that most of the other TV and radio networks were reporting the very same thing at that same time as well.

Thanks again to Michael and Pat. Your confirmation of Lt. Day's statements in the 2013 CNN program prompted me to dig further myself. And the digging paid off. Much obliged.

Shortly before they show Day discuss the weapon with it held above his head, the CNN program shows a parade of announcers calling the rifle a "Mauser" an "Enfield" a ".30-.30" etc. So there had never actually been a consensus the rifle had been a Mauser, except perhaps among the small cadre of officers to first see the rifle.

[Pat Speer]

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49476/m1/1/sizes/l/

click on thumbnail to view full size.

Thanks, Robin, That's what I was getting at. The "Day hold" photo posted by David Josephs has a dark smear on the trigger guard that isn't visible in the evidence photos, nor in the film footage of Day walking around with the rifle. So where did that photo come from?

Can you show us the whole photo, Dave? It could be important.

[Vince Palamara]

I know about Rusty Livingston's 1993 book "JFK: First Day Evidence" (I never read it but know OF the allegations re" the trigger guard photo), but HAVE those trigger guard prints been identified conclusively as Oswald's?

If so, DVP, permission to ignore that little item LOL? just kidding.

Seriously- anyone know?

[Robert Prudhomme]

So, it doesn't pique anyone's curiosity that the clip never seemed to have fallen out of the Carcano magazine until, it seems, the rifle was halfway to DPD headquarters, despite all of the handling the rifle received at the TSBD?

[David Josephs]

DVP... why argue to one thing no one is stating here... ??

A Mauser being identified does not change the rifle which was carried out by Day or is now CE139... by your own admission these men KNEW it was a 6.5mm Italian rifle the evening of the 22nd...

Yet Weitzman doesn't sign the typed version of his affidavit until the 23rd... Boone is also aware of the ID... yet both men specify the weapon THEY SAW as something else...

The same holds true of the paper bag in the corner and clip... supposedly.

Items NEVER photographed on the 6th fllor yet claimed to have been there by DPD/Sheriff Affidavit and testimony... THAT evidence is okay to accept though cause it implicates Oswald..

The FACT he couldn't have made it, got it home, got the rifle into it, got it back to the TSBD or any other such things MEANS it was either MADE AT THE SCENE, or MADE AHEAD OF TIME...

Either way direct evidence of conspiracy. The CLIP is only seen protruding from a DIFFERENT RIFLE than the one identified...

So stop making an argument about Alyea (and if we believe him David, we believe Fritz' contamination of the crime scene before any accurate images could be taken.

Glad to see you are finally building a case for the correct reasons.

Setting up your posts against unknown "conspiracy theorists" since you dont like to address us directly is cute and all... but shows the weakness and misdirection of your posts and arguments.

So the conspiracy theorists who continue to say

Who you talking about David? WHO labels a Mauser the murder weapon as opposed to the weapon identified via affidavit by two men and confirmed by two more... as being at the scene of the supposed "crime". While the actual rifle was found and moved to the 6th floor from somewhere else - according to evidence offered.

Doesn't MATTER what was reported in newspapers David... what matters is whether the evidence available was created and/or corroborated... maybe you can explain why/how they specified a specific make and caliber, if they never saw it... AFTER the rifle had already been identified AT THE SCENE with both of these men standing there.

That is called evidence of a 2nd rifle David... unimpeachable evidence that on the 6th floor at that time a 7.65 Mauser was laying there... that it goes no further... that for hours after the fact the DPD CSS unit rearranged and rephotographed the "crime scene" as if it were in its original condition... while the WCR conclusions neglects to make these FACTS known.

So Dave... try to stick to the subject discussed and not your own tautological strawman....

----

Pat - that is a frame grab from the Alyea film.... as he picks up the rifle there are a couple instances which clearly show there is not CLIP protruding from that rifle, nor is there one stuck inside which would move when the last bullet was ejected via the bolt... the clip disengages when the bullet is loaded, not ejected....

The CLIP was a plant. brought to the TSBD by one of the DPD... unless you or DVP here can post evidence of if being seen or found or photographed or spoken of anywhere in the TSBD.

David... you seem like a smart guy... why cling to such easily proven wrong, or poorly supported arguments which you keep offering with anything and everything but the actual FACTS.

Shims and alignments of scopes in DC has something to do with a rifle that was never fired that day? and it is discussed as if it matters.

As if the PLAN was to take an disassembled rifle with a scope already attached to a part... get to the window without knowing when the motorcade will actually pass or at what speed...

assemble the rifle with a dime? (no less) acquire and reacquire the target via a scope... the first shot odds of hitting ANYWHERE but where the scope was zeroed in upon was huge...

And without knowing if the scope was accurate after this shot on a moving target... or how fast the moving target would be going... he reacquires the target IN THE SCOPE..

and fires again... the target moves again... and he would still have no idea of what ZEROED IN means as a shooter...

THIS was the plan of the lone nut marksman you're defending? While the not found in Dallas, the prints found at the FBI labs is from the left hand on the left side of the trigger guard...

...

How many times do you need to read YOUR star witness say this?

Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had one? Do you know whether it did or not, or could you observe that it definitely did or definitely did not, or don't you know?
Mr. BRENNAN. I do not know if it had a scope or not.

Mr. BELIN. How much of the gun do you believe that you saw?

Mr. BRENNAN. I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.

and THEN not only hit two out of three, but two solids hits (maybe shot 1 was aimed at the heart) and one miss by 20 yards.

With this scope and that distance, he missed high and right out of this view... while resting a rifle on a stand of boxes....

or took a shot thru the trees which deflects yet leaves no copper, nicks Tague, who does not have the timing exact... and the shooter STILL has no idea where the shot is going by looking thru the scope for the next shot as the limo emerges from a tree at some unknown speed - assumably, with the SS driving and a shot fired, they would be going like a bat out of hell to clear the scene..

but instead they slow down to a crawl - possibly stop (I was not there, many say it did) and the shooter looks thru the scope again...

the scope that wasn't on the rifle taking the shots according to the man who DEFINITELY can ID LHO as the shooter, but just didn't..

Edited January 25, 2014 by David Josephs

[David Von Pein]

HAVE those trigger guard prints been identified conclusively as Oswald's?

You're not aware of Vincent Scalice's 1993 conclusions about the trigger guard prints positively being Oswald's? (More below, plus a video clip.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/mannlicher-carcano.html#Vincent-Scalice-And-The-Trigger-Guard-Prints

Edited January 25, 2014 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Yet Weitzman doesn't sign the typed version of his affidavit until the 23rd... Boone is also aware of the ID... yet both men specify the weapon THEY SAW as something else...

How do you know Weitzman and Boone were aware that the rifle was an Italian 6.5mm on 11/22 or 11/23? Neither man worked at the DPD/City Hall (which is where Lt. Day had the rifle in his possession). Boone and Weitzman were county officers, not DPD personnel.

That's not to say, however, that Weitzman and/or Boone COULDN'T have been present at DPD/City Hall at some point in time on both Nov. 22 and/or Nov. 23 (after all, it's probably true that Roger Craig, another of Sheriff Decker's deputies, was indeed present at City Hall on one or both of those days).

But give me some documentation that shows either Boone or Weitzman positively knew that the rifle was an Italian gun when they filled out their statements/affidavits. Is there such documentation to prove such a thing?

And how can you possibly believe a MAUSER was found on the sixth floor when we've got Tom Alyea's film staring us in the face every day which positively shows an ITALIAN CARCANO being lifted off of the floor and then examined by Lt. Day?

Do you think that the Alyea film represents a staged or phony scene on the sixth floor?

Bottom Line --- The totality of evidence coupled with the testimony of all of the police officers who were present when the rifle was found* indicates one thing for sure:

ONE rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on 11/22/63....and that rifle (as we can see in the Alyea footage) was a Mannlicher-Carcano.

* Excluding the later lies told by Deputy Sheriff Roger D. Craig. His post-1964 observations must be dismissed, because we know he was a xxxx when it comes to the identification of the rifle.

Edited January 25, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Don Jeffries]

The alleged murder weapon in the assassination exemplifies all the problems in this case. First, it is undeniable that, legally speaking, the rifle found was a Mauser. Both officers Weitzman and Boone swore to this in affidavits. Even if you buy the fact they both were identically mistaken, the Carcano couldn't have been entered into the record of an honest courtroom, because no viable chain of possession for it existed.

Second, everything about the Carcano, and Oswald's possible connection to it, is extremely dubious. Since Oswald is associated with this weapon exclusively by his alleged alias, A.J. Hidell, the alias has to be able to withstand scrutiny. It doesn't. The phony Selective Service Card alone, supposedly found on Oswald, with his photo, but Hidell's name, should arouse anyone's suspicions. Real Selective Service cards never had photographs on them. Thus, anyone attempting to use it as an alias would have been instantly discovered. It was good for incriminating someone, however.

As for the problems with the P.O. Box, the order form in the magazine, size of the Carcano, etc., I suggest anyone who is interested read the conclusive work done on this by Sylvia Meagher, as well as other early critics. Everything about Oswald's ties to this weapon are not only highly questionable, but give new meaning to the term "reasonable doubt."

I will have more to say about this and other related issues in my upcoming book, which is scheduled for a Fall 2014 publication date.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Don Jeffries

[David Von Pein]

The Carcano couldn't have been entered into the record of an honest courtroom, because no viable chain of possession for it existed.

The chain of possession for Oswald's Carcano on 11/22 after it was found in the TSBD is as strong (and short) as it can get.

The chain consists of ONE person -- Lt. J.C. Day.

Day lifted it off the floor.

Day took it out of the TSBD and to City Hall.

Day locked it up at City Hall.

Day then returned to City Hall and examined the rifle and lifted Oswald's palmprint off of the barrel. (Verified by this FBI report.)

Day then gave the rifle to Vince Drain of the FBI at about 11:45 on Nov. 22.

Are you saying, Don, that the "chain" was broken AFTER the FBI got ahold of it? Is that what you mean?

But even if that's what you meant, it still does not invalidate the palmprint of Oswald's that Lt. Day lifted off the gun BEFORE it ever got into the FBI's hands. (Yes, I know. You think that the palmprint evidence is suspicious too. Right?)

And how anyone can argue that Oswald/"Hidell" didn't order and take possession of Carcano Rifle C2766 (and the revolver too) is beyond my way of thinking. (Of course, since I don't think like a conspiracist, I guess I have a built-in disadvantage right off the bat, eh?)

But the paper trail for BOTH Oswald's rifle and revolver mail-order purchases couldn't be more concrete and definitive.

Do you think all of that paperwork for the rifle is phony, Don? And what about the Seaport/REA documents for the revolver? Are those to be distrusted as well? And the backyard photos which show Oswald holding the JFK murder weapon?

I just wonder (in general) how much alleged "phony" stuff in this case is TOO MUCH? Is there any limit? It seems that there's not, per many conspiracy believers.

Edited January 26, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Of course, there is another en bloc clip fed rifle serious researchers should look at. In fact, it is believed the Carcano was closely patterned after this rifle. It is the German "Gewehr 88" or Model 1888 Commission Rifle. I can't post a pic of it but a quick search on Google should turn up some nice photos of it.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[Don Jeffries]

DVP, Day didn't find the rifle. Legally speaking, the rifle found was a Mauser, because that's what the original identifying officers, Boone and Weitzman, swore to in signed affidavits. But then again, the Carcano wasn't the only piece of "evidence" that was without a viable chain of possession. How, for instance, would CE399, the "magic" bullet, have been entered into the record? No one wanted it, and it passed through multiple hands who didn't mark their initials on it, before it traveled back to Washington in Richard Johnsen's pocket.

These are all old arguments. You believe what you believe, for whatever reason. I would hope (and you certainly would), if you ever have to face trial, that the evidence presented against you would be held to a higher standard than the tainted junk we are supposed to accept as "evidence" against Oswald.

[David Von Pein]

DVP, Day didn't find the rifle.

He was the first person to touch it.

Edited January 26, 2014 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

These are all old arguments. You believe what you believe, for whatever reason. I would hope (and you certainly would), if you ever have to face trial, that the evidence presented against you would be held to a higher standard than the tainted junk we are supposed to accept as "evidence" against Oswald.

I think your expectations are too high regarding "chain of custody" and the general gathering of evidence in a criminal case. You expect perfection with respect to such evidence-gathering activities (and it would, indeed, be nice if perfection could be accomplished in every criminal case), but perfection is rarely achieved (particularly if the evidence is being micro-analyzed by a JFK conspiracy theorist).

There were several civilian witnesses who first found (and handled) several pieces of evidence associated with the JFK and Tippit murder cases -- Domingo Benavides (2 bullet shells); Barbara Davis (1 bullet shell); Virginia Davis (1 bullet shell); Darrell Tomlinson (1 bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland); and O.P. Wright (the same bullet first touched by Tomlinson).

Does the fact that those five civilian witnesses first handled some of the evidence (and never scratched their initials into any of those items of evidence) mean that the chain of custody is worthless for those items? I mean, for all we know, Barbara Davis and her sister-in-law could have gotten together and switched the bullet shells before they handed them over to Dhority and Doughty of the DPD, right? Anything is possible in this case, isn't it? Why not that scenario too?

Vincent Bugliosi, who knows a little bit about the way evidence is presented in a court of law, had this to say in his 2007 book:

"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. ....

The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.

Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle [DVP's emphasis] and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.

Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible.

I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule.

The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

Edited January 26, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

Pat - that is a frame grab from the Alyea film.... as he picks up the rifle there are a couple instances which clearly show there is not CLIP protruding from that rifle, nor is there one stuck inside which would move when the last bullet was ejected via the bolt... the clip disengages when the bullet is loaded, not ejected....

I just watched 4 versions of the Alyea film on youtube and saw nothing remotely similar to what is shown in your earlier post. If you could post a link to a version of the Alyea film from which you grabbed that image, or post the full version of the screen grab, it would be most appreciative.

I think it could be important.