David Josephs

at 24 seconds into this interview Altgens says "struck in the neck... the first shot" and later determined by WC the photo (#6) was 2 seconds after the shot was fired... hmmmm 255 - 36.6 = 218/219 So does Altgens actually see JFK hit in the neck as he prepares to take this photo? His comment suggests so given how he backtracks about the GK shot later in the interview. DJ

and even more importantly... if the blood splatter she was studying was somehow "altered" as z313-z315 may suggest, it becomes even more inexact. Yet to be fair, I understand there are some basic physical elements to the analysis that do provide reasonable scientific results. I'd rather have Sherry or Mike W address this... as Yoda might say... "an expert, I am not."

Hi John Nor am I an expert and I'm sure there are people old enough to know what USPO deliveries were like in 1963 who may be able to tell us whether a non-air mail letter would arrive in 24 hours. The surprise for me is not the time it took to get there but for it to be also opened and cashed seeing as how Klein's don't ship the rifle until the 20th March. It takes them a day to receive and cash his money and a week to mail his goods. Great service from USPO and poor service from Klein's? For what it's worth..... From Bill MacDowall's, "The Great Carcano Swindle" also linked from the same past as Moyer's. On March 20th 1963, Klein's dispatched a Mannlicher Carcano, apparently bearing the serial no. C2766, to the order of Mr Hidell. whose postal address was P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas. The case against Lee Harvey Oswald depends entirely upon establishing a solid chain of evidence that links him to the Mannlicher Carcano dispatched by Klein's to the order of A. Hidell and places him (Oswald) on the 6th floor of the TSBD with that weapon at 12.30 PM on November 22nd 1963. It will become clear that no such chain of evidence exists. Lee Harvey Oswald rented Dallas Post Box 2915 on October 9th 1962 using his own name. Effectively the address A. Hidell, PO Box 2915 never existed. In order to rent a post box, Oswald was required to fill out Form 1093 (Application for Post Office Box). This was a multi-part form. Part 3 of the application form included a section where the applicant could nominate other persons authorized to collect mail from that particular box. Harry D. Holmes, Dallas Postal Inspector, told the WC that: "Form 1093 includes a place for name of person entitled to receive mail through the box other than the applicant himself." The ability of Lee Harvey Oswald to collect a package addressed to A. Hidell at Post Box 2915 depends entirely upon A. Hidell being listed as an authorized person in Part 3 of Oswald's application. It should have been an easy matter to verify this by reference to Part 3 of Oswald's application but, as Postal Inspector Harry Holmes told the WC, Part 3 had been destroyed: "...when the box has been closed, Postal Regulations require that they tear off Part 3 and throw it away." Box 2915 had been closed by Oswald on May 14th 1963. Fortunately, Postal Inspector Holmes is not the final authority on Postal Regulations. The Postal Manual, Section 846.53b, states quite unequivocally that "Part 3 of the box rental application, identifying persons other than the applicant authorized to receive mail must be retained for 2 years after the box is closed." Harry D. Holmes lied about postal procedures and the WC accepted that lie as fact. A week after the assassination Harry D. Holmes was quoted in a New York Times article where he stated: "No one other than Oswald was authorized to receive mail at that box". Holmes could not have made this statement unless he had seen Part 3 of Oswald's application form after the assassination. Further confirmation that Part 3 of Oswald's application form existed after the assassination and that A. Hidell was not an authorized nominee can be found in the Warren Report (WR). To refute claims made by writer Thomas G. Buchanan in his book "Who Killed Kennedy?", the FBI produced a document that specifically addressed 32 different allegations made by Buchanan. Published in the WR, this document CE 2585, contained the following: 12. CLAIM: The Post Office in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle mailed was kept both under his name and that of A. Hidell. INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an A. Hidell, would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas.

http://1078567.sites.myregisteredsite.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=88324&mesg_id=88324&page=&topic_page=1 Over at Lancer there has been discussion about Moorman being altered to hide the BOH exiting of a shot while some have even tried to show what may be 2 different versions of the photo, pre and post alteration.... The only thing I've found so far is this piece of Moorman's Clay Shaw testimony Q: Now, Mrs. Moorman, I show you what for purposes of identification I have marked State 52, however prior to showing you this exhibit I would ask you what happened if anything to your photograph after you took it. A: Immediately after taking this photograph there was a matter of confusion and I did cross the street and a man came up to me and asked me if I -- MR. DYMOND: Object to anything a man may have said. THE COURT: Don't tell us what anyone told you but you may tell us what you did. THE WITNESS: I was asked to remove -- MR. DYMOND: I object to what was asked, Your Honor. THE COURT: It is a good objection. Someone said something to you and what did you do as a result of what the person said to you? THE WITNESS: I removed the picture out of the camera. BY MR. ALFORD: Q: What did you do then with the picture? MOORMAN A: I looked at it. Q: Did this photograph remain in your possession from the time you took it until today? A: No, it did not. Q: Whose possession other than yourself has this photograph been? A: A reporter and the Secret Service and the FBI that I know of. and they wouldn't let her answer who came up to her or what they said, only what she did. Has a COE been established for Moorman? Could it have been altered... Does it look altered to anyone? imo - the photo was taken just BEFORE the shot(s) and could not show damage to JFK... based on what Mary says... She stated in the interview "I took the picture, heard the shots and then it was time to fall on the ground." and from her affidavit As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out.

Review of Vol II starts off mentioning head reconstruction versus alteration to show the back of the head intact... Horne/Lifton support reconstruction yet I have to agree with James as that does not seem likely. I post this since this is the first time I am combining these 2 images. IF a frontal shot lacerated the scalp as Boswell described and IF the underlying skull is gone and extends back into the occipital, it is possible that the scalp was intact enough yet completely flapped over to expose the large hole many saw. and the other F photos showing the top of JFK's head supports his drawing. why is it not possible that they are simply pulling this flap back over the hole... not the best autopsy photo ever, for sure... but it seems possible and could be without alteration or reconstruction. all it is, is misleading DJ David, Boswell's ARRB testimony is simply unreliable. One of Horne's great errors, IMO, is to take snippets of Boswell's testimony and twist them to support his theory, when he knew full well that Boswell, if asked point blank "Was there a large defect missing scalp and bone on the back of Kennedy's head at the beginning of the autopsy?" would have told him to get stuffed. I discuss this in chapter 18c at patspeer.com: "Now the use of Dr. Boswell as a "back of the head" witness is a bit bizarre on its face, seeing as he signed off on the autopsy report in which no scalp lacerations on the back of the head were noted, and seeing as he never ever said anything indicating he'd seen an entrance wound on the front of the head. But when one looks at his statements to the ARRB it becomes even more bizarre. Here is one of the key statements used by back-of-the-head wound theorists to sell Boswell as a "back of the head" witness: A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect that. And here is Boswell's response to a follow-up question by Jeremy Gunn: Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean? A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area. And what I meant was that the wound in the scalp could be closed from side to side so that it didn't appear that there was any scalp actually--scalp missing. Yep. That's right. Those pushing Boswell as a witness for the wound described by the Parkland witnesses--a gaping EXIT wound of both scalp and skull on the RIGHT back of the head--are using Boswell's recollection of a scalp LACERATION on the LEFT side of the head, (a scalp laceration that could be closed from side to side so that one could not tell any scalp was missing, mind you), as evidence. Now, even if one were to accept the ridiculous notion that his statements support there was a gaping wound missing both scalp and skull on the right back side of the head, how reliable are Boswell's recollections? Not remotely, as it turns out. Hi Pat... Thanks for the reply. I will try to address what I understand as best I can with what knowledge I have and know that your area is the medical evidence so please bear with me. IMO you are being overly critical of the exact words used in Boswell’s reply above... I am NOT using Boswell as a BOH wound theorist, just going from what I see and what I’ve done. If we use this image with Boswell’s earliest drawing as an overlay it is not so hard to see that the laceration he describes does indeed extend into the left side of the head. When he refers to “lay in back posterior-ally" I believe he means from about the middle top of the head back and to the right – over the hole that extends from the occipital to the parietal. I think the recollection is not all that far off based on this image. More from his ARRB deposition with Gunn: Q. Do you recall whether there were tears or lacerations in the scalp? A. Right across here and-- Q. Approximately across the midline? A. What I previously described, post-occipital, and on the left, across the top, and then down to the right frontal area, and then the laceration extended into the right eye. Q. Okay. Could you make another drawing--and we'll put Line No. 2 on this--to show the approximate direction of the large laceration that you just referred to? A. Well, it's not a--I can't say what direction, but--and then this came on down like so, and--actually, I think it came right into here. Q. Okay. I'm going to put a 2 in a circle right next to that line, and the 2 will signify the approximate direction and shape of the large laceration. Would that be fair? A. Mm-hmm. Q. Just so I'm clear--and we'll be looking at the photographs in a few minutes, and you can maybe clarify it there. But at least with some of the photographs, is it your testimony that the scalp was pulled in a way different from how it was when you first saw it in order to better illustrate either wound of entry or exit? A. Yes. The scalp was essentially loose. In the usual autopsy, you have to cut underneath the scalp in order to reflect it. In this case, the scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to obscure the wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid. Q. Okay. Was the hair cleaned in any way for purposes of the photographs? A. No, I don't think so. There was not a lot of blood, as I remember, and I think he had been pretty well cleaned up in the operating--in the emergency room. And I don't think we had to do much in the way of cleansing before we took photographs. Well, wait right there. Boswell spoke to the ARRB in 1996. When asked the preceding questions by Jeremy Gunn he had not been shown the autopsy photos since 1977, and had not been shown the establishing shots taken at the autopsy--the photos showing Kennedy lying on the table before an inspection of his wounds had begun--since 1967. Clearly, he had forgotten that these first shots show the President's hair to be matted with blood and brain. His response then shows that he lacked a clear recollection of Kennedy's original appearance when interviewed by the ARRB. He was in his seventies, after all, discussing something he'd seen more than 30 years before. So why should we believe his latter-day recollections are accurate? We shouldn't. The scalp laceration stretching to the left occipital region suddenly recalled by Boswell 33 years after performing the autopsy was not only not mentioned in the autopsy protocol, it was specifically ruled out by Boswell in his 9-16-77 interview with the HSCA pathology panel. Are we to start believing the autopsy protocol now? I thought that was close to a pure fabrication compared to what was actually found... maybe the FIRST set of notes and the FIRST autopsy protocol... but those were burned, right? Looking at the Fox photos, he looks pretty clean to me... especially this left side view... hair is pretty clean and even where the scalp is being pulled back into place, it is not overly caked to obscure the hair... but then again I don’t know when/if they cleaned him again after Parkland and what, if anything, happened at Bethesda in the autopsy room between 6:45 and the official start of the autopsy at 8pm. Furthermore, the way the BOH dents in seems to indicate to me that there was some left rear damage. When asked about the red spot the HSCA panel presumed to be the bullet entrance, and which Dr. Humes presumed was dried blood, Boswell replied: "It's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp." When one of the HSCA panel, Dr. Petty, expressed doubt about this, Boswell then repeated: "It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that back and this back and an anterior flap forward and this exposed almost the entire--I guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to." If, in Boswell's mind, the scalp laceration ended at the red spot, high on the back of the head on the parietal bone, in 1977, there was no way it could possibly have stretched all the way to the occipital bone 19 years later. It seems clear, then, that Dr. Boswell was seriously confused. But those pushing Boswell as a back of the head witness will never admit this. I think the F7 with the overlay above shows it could be stretched to cover the wound... whether he is wrong about where the laceration ends is another issue entirely and once again I think you are not dismissing this piece of his testimony as readily as you’ve dismissed other areas when it does not conform to you conclusions. He can’t be somewhat forgetful in other areas and be held to being “exact” in this one. Let's take, for example, Doug Horne. Horne had fed Gunn questions during the ARRB's questioning of Boswell. On page 111 of his opus, Inside the ARRB, Horne, who by his own admission had pursued a job with the ARRB in hopes of proving fraud in the medical evidence, quotes Boswell's response after being asked if his 17 by 10 measurement for the large skull defect reflected missing bone or fractured skull. Boswell responded: "Most of that space, the bone was missing. There were a lot of small skull fragments attached to the scalp as it was reflected, but most of that space, the bone was missing, some of which--I think two of which we subsequently retrieved." Now look what Horne says but four pages later, when discussing Dr. Boswell's approximation of the borders of this defect on a skull model: "The 3-D skull drawing by Boswell was critical, because his autopsy sketch of the top of the skull had by its very nature not shown the condition of the rear of the head. Boswell's 3-D skull diagram completed the rest of the picture. And he wasn't depicting fragmentation or areas of broken bone, he was depicting areas of the skull denuded of bone. It was electrifying." What? Where does Horne get that Boswell wasn't depicting fragmentation? Boswell had just told him that part of the area depicted was where small fragments attached to the scalp. Why does he ignore this? Here's why: Q: Just one last point that I would like to just clarify in my one mind is: On the piece for the markings for the 10 by 17 centimeters that were missing, would it be fair to say that when you first examined the body prior to any arrival of fragments from Dallas, the skull was missing from approximately those dimensions of 10 by 17? A. Yes. Problem: the word "approximately" is, in this instance, unduly vague. NONE of the other back of the head witnesses described so much skull missing. Clearly Boswell had no idea how big the hole on the skull was before the scalp was peeled back. Clearly he measured the skull defect after the scalp had been pulled back and skull had fallen to the table. Clearly, the best indicator of the size of the hole on the back of the head, then, would be the x-rays, which depict no large hole on the back of the head where Horne and others presume there was a hole...where the Parkland witnesses told them there was a hole... I agree that his measurement of the hole in the skull was AFTER the scalp was peeled back – what do you supposed the measurement of the hole was BEFORE the scalp of moved out of the way? Could that not have been what so many saw at Parkland? Some saw a gaping hole, some saw a smaller 2” hole – wouldn’t it depend on how much of the avulsed scalp was moved out of the way or covering the wound? Personally, I do not see anything so nefarious about the differences in sizes of the hole – and if one looks at all the different hand placements regarding the location of the hole, there are as many top-right as there are back-right. But, wait, Horne's found a way to undermine the credibility of the x-rays...provided, not surprisingly, by Gunn's questioning of Boswell: Q. Were any skull fragments put back into place before photographs or before X-rays? A. I think before we took the--the ones that came from Dallas were never put back in except to try and approximate them to the ones that were present. But I think all the others were left intact. Q. So, for example, was there a fragment that had fallen out at any point that you then put back into its place before a photograph or X-ray was taken? A. Yes. Q. What size fragments and where did you place them at the-- A. Well, the one that's in the diagram on Exhibit 1, that 10-centimeter piece I'm sure was out at one time or another. And I think maybe some of these smaller fragments down at the base of that diagram also were out at one time or another. But those were all put back. So, from leading the clearly elderly and confused Boswell through a series of strange questions designed to support or refute the body alteration theory of David Lifton, Gunn got Horne the answer he was looking for...that bone was put back in the skull BEFORE x-rays were taken. Never mind that Boswell at first specified that the large pieces of missing bone were not put back in the skull, and only relented after being asked the same question a second time. Never mind that the bone Boswell thinks they are talking about did not arrive until the end of the autopsy, and that NOT ONE witness recalled a skull x-ray being taken after the beginning of the autopsy. Which autopsy are your referring to here Pat? Wasn’t it Reed who testified to seeing the ambulance pull up and Jackie enter the hospital while he was carrying x-ray film of JFK up for development? There may have not been any xrays AFTER 8pm yet Finck was shown x-rays at 8:30 when he arrived. According to Finck’s Blumberg report Humes calls him around 8pm (although someplace the call time at 7:30) and tells him that x-rays have already been taken. When then does all this moving around of the scalp, relaying of bones and x-rays happen if not in some pre-autopsy process ? I mean, let's get serious. One can not honestly propose, a la Horne, that Boswell's confused testimony suggests that the 10cm fragment recovered from the floor of the limo was placed back in Kennedy's skull to hide a hole on the back of his head, unless one is willing to propose this bone was occipital bone. And no one of whom I'm aware, even Horne's colleague Dr. Mantik, believes such a thing. So why play with Boswell's words to suggest such a thing?" I do not believe I ever made that assertion. It is not so hard to assert, though, that bones were placed back in place to make some of the x-rays we see today and that these x-rays were taken well before 8pm. I am also a bit confused as to what you have an issue over with my post... maybe just having a slow morning start here and will take more time to reread – but in no way do I see my post conclude what you say I am concluding... then again – as my ex always said – I could be wrong... Respectfully DJ

Greetings Jim... and thanks... Your reviews and articles, essays and analysis has helped me to understand "context" in so many areas. I've read your Vol 1 & 2 reviews and will read them again... probably today.. What I'd like to better understand in Horne thru your review is the differnce between conclusion coloration caused by Horne's support of Lifton and what you feel consititutes factual evidence presented without that bias... I try in most every case to go back to the source documents (Reed's and Robinson's AARB testimony for example) and ascertain what is evidence and what is conjecture. As you do with Mantik's work, which is overly factual from direct observation and measurement, I wonder if you could or will review Horne from the standpoint of what he is truly establishing as factual evidence.... and let us come to our own conclusions Then again, I could go the the source and read it myself... just haven't the time at this point. btw - your review of JFK and the Unspeakable was wonderful... Respectfully DJ

One more image, now that I've gotten to thinking and combining images... The image of JFK on the table was reversed to represent the right side of his head... The blow-out seen in Zapruder at 337 seems very much in line with the xray we see that leaves a trail of particles and a sizeable crack where the area would have been avulsed. {edit: as I look again I believe I am too high up for those cracks to represent the avused area... probably somewhat lower} Obviously there is the problem of the lack of matter and skull at the front of the xray yet I'd think this image supports Mantik that this was once an xray of JFK as he was, and then altered. thoughts?

Review of Vol II starts off mentioning head reconstruction versus alteration to show the back of the head intact... Horne/Lifton support reconstruction yet I have to agree with James as that does not seem likely. I post this since this is the first time I am combining these 2 images. IF a frontal shot lacerated the scalp as Boswell described and IF the underlying skull is gone and extends back into the occipital, it is possible that the scalp was intact enough yet completely flapped over to expose the large hole many saw. and the other F photos showing the top of JFK's head supports his drawing. why is it not possible that they are simply pulling this flap back over the hole... not the best autopsy photo ever, for sure... but it seems possible and could be without alteration or reconstruction. all it is, is misleading DJ

Quote That makes a lot of sense Mike... Alot. My stumbling block is that Oswald was not a "day to day" sniper who worked his craft, oiled his rifle, etc... and if he was... how/why in the world would he use a 20 year old rifle with 20 year old ammunition? If the rifle is "enough to get it done" I'd have to take your word yet so many have made so much about the rifle - not to even begin mentioning how it got ther, whenit was assembled, how Oswald did not get any fingerprints on it, how a brass clip would not have his fingerprints on them, why it's not the same rifle as was ordered or even delivered... see my point? If you could get me to the point where that rifle is in his hands at that moment in time, then maybe. my reply in bold David, I sure understand where you are coming from. I really think in many instances the old "perception becomes reality" phrase has its place. There has been so much written, incorrectly, about the rifle that eventually it does tend to take on a "fact" based tone. I can address some of your concerns above, but will be the first to admit, I have never run down the money orders etc, so please understand, if I do not address something, it is simply because I don't have enough information on it, not because I wish to hedge any issue. ”Ordering the Rifle”, by Martha Moyer and The Great Carcano Swindle by Bill MacDowall are excellent places to start. I really do not think that Oswald would have to be a day to day sniper to make these shots, they simply were not that difficult, interesting though is the fact that the closer shots would have been more difficult. I will be posting an article today called "the easiest shot" By Joe Elliot. Its a very good look at the alleged 3 shots and rates their difficulty. Look forward to reading it... there is also that little matter of MOST witnesses saying the last 2 shots were virtually on top of one another... not possible with the old bolt action MC In asking about the 20 year old rifle and ammo. I really do not think that Oswald purchased that rifle to kill JFK. there is also quite a bit on the subject of Oswald being involved in an FBI operation to begin curtailing the sale of weapons via mail order. The fact Klein’s would send a rifle to a PO Box was part of the investigation... I do not have the proof in front of m yet that is the gist of the story as I remember it I think he simply bought what he could afford, and he was a bit of a thrift with money. I also think we have indications that this was a spontaneous decision by him. I mean how many people would go into something like this with only 4 rounds of ammo? Could this be an indication that he did not have time to acquire more ammo before the event, indicating a rash decision to do the deed? I do not think we can rule out these thoughts. I really see no reason for the rifle to be considered inadequate. It is still a popular hunting round in Europe and is quite well known for deep penetration and its light recoil. Almost the best of both worlds. I am willing to concede that someone firing that rifle at someone would indeed hurt them very badly... As for finger prints. Have you ever, in researching something, come across something that just made your jaw drop? I have such an experience when researching the "Rifle Condition" article on my site about the scope. Frazier tells us that the scope was removed for fingerprinting, or at least he thought it was. This seems logical to me, as the scope is mounted on the receiver, and this area is a natural "balance" point of the rifle. What that means to us is that this place on the rifle is an obviously good carry location. If you grab the rifle here, it balances well and can be easily carried. SO to me this was a logical place to disassemble and look for prints. I looked all over for procedures police use for printing rifles, and had little success, what I did find was an article that, as I said, made my jaw drop. Ill include some here for you. "Latent fingerprint examiners generally know that even when cutting edge technology such as cyanoacrylate fuming and laser/forensic light source examination are utilized, successful development of latent prints on firearms is difficult to achieve. In reality, very few identifiable latent prints are found on firearms, a fact that has been discussed in both the literature [1,2,3] and the judicial system [4]. Fingerprint Specialists at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms San Francisco Laboratory Center have had, however, some success in this endeavor1. In the examination of 1,000 firearms from February, 1992, through August, 1995, 114 identifiable latent prints were developed on 93 firearms. Although successful recovery occurred in approximately one of ten firearms, it should be understood that not all identifiable latent prints may have been left by an offender. Some developed latent prints, for example, are subsequently identified as belonging to a person involved in the collection of the evidence2. " So out of 1000 firearms they only found 114 prints, in 93 weapons, and that was with modern technology! All of a sudden the issue that they did not find many prints becomes a bit less significant in the face of this. Here is the link to the original source: again, that makes sense to me, yet NOT finding his fingerprints on the rifle, clip, hulls supports him not holding the rifle (in a court of law) – and not the other way around... yes? Here Quote My even bigger concern was that Oswald, if not connected some how, would have to be in position much earlier than to just stroll to the window between 12:20 and 12:30 and do what he was supposed to do.... would a decent sniper leave so much to chance... and that is just the tip of the iceberg. You know I have given this issue some thought. What seems to strike me is that in the LN scenario, Oswald acted alone. The thing that most do not consider is that he did not have to do this. He could at any time have changed his mind and simply packed up the rifle and moved on. Now I consider that Williams was likely up there eating lunch, and have to consider that if Williams would have stayed up there Oswald may not have acted at all. Possibly the reason Oswald moved into position so late, is that he was waiting for Williams to leave. I do not think we can rule this out. I note that Rowland sees the gunman for less than 30 seconds, in the west windows, and he sees the colored man in the snipers nest or near it, but he never sees them at the same time. It has to be considered that Oswald was up there and was simply hiding until Williams left. I need to look into this a bit more, admittedly. Someone had to have rebuilt the rifle is we are to believe he brought it with him, broken down in the Frazier bag – which was too short to hold the rifle, according to those who testified they saw the bag on the back seat and as he walked with it towards the TSBD. Men, and men with rifles were seen at 12:15 ( Ruby Henderson, Arnold Rowland, John Powell, Carolyn Walther... while Carolyn Arnold sees Oswald eating lunch on the 2nd floor at the same time.) I believe I posted my essay on the subject on a different thread... and yes, agreed, a last minute decision would be a Loner decision... yet how did he know the limo hadn’t already passed? Williams hadn’t already left, etc... he needs to know these things for him to plan for and avoid them Quote Now add this to the overwhelming evidence that shots were "also" fired from the front and there has to be more than 1 shooter and 3 shots, just has to. This may be the greatest area of debate in the history of the JFK assassination. In my opinion, for what ever that's worth, I see no evidence of a front shot. I am going to be very frank with you about this, the medical evidence is something I struggle to understand. I'm not inclined towards it. However the blood spatter is something I understand very well. Trajectory is also something I understand very well, and these two fundamental physics based concepts are all one needs to rule out a frontal shot, in my opinion. I believe Sherry Gutierrez’s blood splatter analysis is posted on the JFKLancer website/forum... I am also a bit unsure of the interpretation due to my lack of knowledge of the subject – your presentation would be interesting to see what I really need to do is write an article for my website about this. The forum here limits the number of photos you can put in a post, and this is something that is difficult to express in just text without the aid of graphics. The basis for my opinion revolves around two things. The first is location. We know that JFK had no left side head damage. Sorry Mike but that is not a done deal either... there are numerous citations for damage to the left of JFK’s head... but you got to dig a little yourself for that... This is critical in examining a frontal head shot. Agree, have you seen the drawing Boswell did regarding the defect in the Skull? Or the photos of the AARB skull exhibit? Darn near his entire head came off, according the one of the main autopsy doctors! I have not at any time been able to locate a position, in the front of the limo, that would not have caused left head damage. Perhaps one photo that may get at least the very basic idea of this is from the laser tests. I will include it here. or a South Knoll shot, or a shot from the overpass to the South. And Finally, nothing is to say there was not more than one headshot Other positions along this line offer similar results, but again, it would take more graphics to show each of them and prove the point. The other basis for my opinion is the blood spatter. Pat Speer and I have been talking about this lately. Some things we do know abut spatter, is that there are two types with gunshot wounds. Forward spatter, in the direction of the bullet, and Back spatter, which flows back towards the shooter, or the opposite direction of the bullets travel. Pat found a citation that said: " Tom Bevel and Ross M. Gardner, Bloodstain Pattern Analysis with an Introduction to Crime Scene Reconstruction, 2008. "Forward spatter patterns when present tend to be more symmetrical than back spatter patterns. This is probably due to the primary force of the impact being transmitted in the direction of the projectile. Back spatter patterns tend to be less defined..." Pat's contention is that in saying that forward spatter "when present" is an indication that forward spatter is less dense and less obvious, however this is incorrect. The reason Mr Gardner said "when present" is simply because not all gunshot wounds have forward spatter, because not all gunshot wounds exit the target. The "when present" comment has nothing to do with its physical characteristics, and in fact Mr Gardner clears this up for us in Pats quote when he tells us "Back spatter patterns tend to be less defined..." Forward spatter is a very dense cloud of fine, high velocity, blood mist drops. Back spatter is far less defined and more of a spurt than a spray. Please forgive the terms, I simply know no other way to describe it. Back spatter is far less defined, because it is far less dense. In the Zapruder film we see only one dense cloud of fine blood mist, coming out the front of the head, indicating a rear hit. However we also have the statements of Robert Frazier in his Shaw trial testimony. Frazier tells us that the blood and matter was as far forward as the hood ornament and on the outside of the front windshield! Mind you that this was traveling against an 8mph limo speed AND a 13 mph head wind. This is significant. This would be an impossibility for back spatter. I’d need to see the sources for Frazier’s comment about blood on the outside of the windshield and on the hood... Hargis and Hill were left rear and described blood and bone hitting is face while Hill talks of blood all over the rear and Jackie scrambling to grab a piece of skull... not definitive yet also somewhat in support of 2 shots, very close together at the final headshot like many witnesses state. I really need to do an article on this as well. Same graphics issues. Quote I started a pet project in an excel spreadsheet that is trying to ID all the players on the vertical axis and the time on the horizontal - and thereby trace what the evidence says for eachof these "players" at each of teh crucial moments starting that morning when a second Oswald is seen at the Jiffy Mart while we all know Lee was at work. Armstrong makes an interesting argument - yet talk about your way out scenarios... nothing is too strange for the forces that opposed each other in this world it seems. LOL I agree with you there. I would love to see this work when you are done, and if I can offer any help with a rifle timeline let me know, Id be glad to give you what I have so far. Also found a timeline project on the Ed site that Mr. Kelly began a while back.. I posted there to say I would see what I could do to incorporate the data into my spreadsheet. Thanks for the offer and would love to see the rifle timeline you have Quote One more more question for you as sniper... how does one of the shots travel so far left and so far high - enough to hit a curb and nick Tague at the overpass... If the shots are not that difficult, a miss of that magnitude seems bizarre, no? and the mark by the manhole cover where the unidentified "agent" picks up a bullet, pockets it and walks off, and finally the witnesses that saw sparks and were told a chot hit the street... I really can dig and get the testimony but I'll hope you can trust me on that one. Hey I know this testimony as well, so no worries on the citations. The issues I have are varied on this stuff. First the manhole cover has never been tested to prove a gunshot. This makes it almost impossible to comment on without speculation. As for the man pocketing the bullet. Again this is pretty speculative as we really have no evidence of it. I understand there is a video out there where someone claims the man pocketed it then gave it to his son to take to school. Now come on, that's really kind of crazy if you ask me. I mean it's only the most epic murder of the century after all. {I have the images of him bending over, picking something up and pocketing it - Search for Murray #3} I agree with you 100% on the oddity of a miss as epic as one would have to be in order to hit the Main St curb. I myself have considered many different things in this regard, and none seem to explain to any satisfaction this issue. Frankly here I have to say at this point, I do not know. I can only speculate. just for kicks, trace back that main street miss to the 2nd floor Dal-Tex building window seen in Altgens... that much of a miss may be more realistic yet I’d like your opinion Quote Finally, given what you've seen of Dealey Plaza... and I was there as well, wouldn't the WEST window make infinitely more sense than the East? If my two options were only East or West, I would pick East. Let me explain. In the East window, I can take a shot coming up Houston, I can take a shot right after the tree and have the SS car under the tree and not be in their line of sight, and I have the entire rest of Elm with very little left to right angle. In the West window I have far less time with the target in the straight away position, and almost any other shot is passing left to right, which is far more difficult. I would have undoubtedly picked the East window, if those were my only two options. Fair enough, as a professional sniper I can see you using that logic... But if Oswald was the crazed, lone nutter deciding at the last second to go shoot the president... why NOT shoot as he is growing larger in your scope and approaching on Houston, or avoid the tree entirely and go to the West end where you do not have any obstructions at all... and your closer to the target? Finally – if he could make that shot... how in the world would he miss Gen Walker, stationary only yards away? I really need to do some more work for the website, that may more clearly define my position on some of this stuff, but at least I have offered some kind of explanation for my thinking. I certainly need to do more on the money order and rifle acquisition by Oswald. I need to look into those items more. I concentrate mostly on the physics and ballistics of the shooting, and that takes time to really analyze. I pretty well have that work done, and need to look further, admittedly. Best, Mike P.S. I sure apologize for that David, sincerely. I tried to change it, but do not see that option. Perhaps a Mod can do this for me? How about "Mike Williams jumps the gun?" LOL No more worries about that... it’s just that some of the forum readers may miss out on this info wanting to stay away from our banter... Maybe a copy paste of these posts to a new thread with a title like... Oswald, the Rifle, and the 6th floor window – For and Against... Btw – I too have a wealth of links, articles, images, etc... from which to pull... if you want me to send some files and/or links just email me dhjosephs@comcast.net. Peace DJ

Nothing new on this idea for quite some time. I'd like to throw my hat into this mix... While a database does have it's advantages I am most comfortable with Excel Spreadsheets... they are sortable, filterable, searchable, and so much more. Cells can be interlinked, macros written, etc... I will take some time and download these timelines and see what I can start to do. I have started my own but got side tracked... It's a monster of a project but one I've wanted to sink my teeth into for some time... Would really like to leave something of value in the JFK area, so while all timelines are welcome, I will start with everything JFK Assassination first... and go from there. Thanks for the inspiration.. DJ

Here is the thing that gets me about Roberts alleged citation of Hathcock. I have been to the plaza and looked at the shots. I can not in any stretch of the imagination consider them difficult. I can not by any means even conceive of how Carlos would have considered them difficult, and I certainly cant imagine him saying he "couldn't do" anything involving a rifle. I know one thing for sure, I would have never told him I "could not do" something. He would not tolerate that. That makes a lot of sense Mike... Alot. My stumbling block is that Oswald was not a "day to day" sniper who worked his craft, oiled his rifle, etc... and if he was... how/why in the world would he use a 20 year old rifle with 20 year old ammunition? If the rifle is "enough to get it done" I'd have to take your word yet so many have made so much about the rifle - not to even begin mentioning how it got ther, whenit was assembled, how Oswald did not get any fingerprints on it, how a brass clip would not have his fingerprints on them, why it's not the same rifle as was ordered or even delivered... see my point? If you could get me to the point where that rifle is in his hands at that moment in time, then maybe. My even bigger concern was that Oswald, if not connected some how, would have to be in position much earlier than to just stroll to the window between 12:20 and 12:30 and do what he was supposed to do.... would a decent sniper leave so much to chance... and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Now add this to the overwhelming evidence that shots were "also" fired from the front and there has to be more than 1 shooter and 3 shots, just has to. I started a pet project in an excel spreadsheet that is trying to ID all the players on the vertical axis and the time on the horizontal - and thereby trace what the evidence says for eachof these "players" at each of teh crucial moments starting that morning when a second Oswald is seen at the Jiffy Mart while we all know Lee was at work. Armstrong makes an interesting argument - yet talk about your way out scenarios... nothing is too strange for the forces that opposed each other in this world it seems. One more more question for you as sniper... how does one of the shots travel so far left and so far high - enough to hit a curb and nick Tague at the overpass... If the shots are not that difficult, a miss of that magnitude seems bizarre, no? and the mark by the manhole cover where the unidentified "agent" picks up a bullet, pockets it and walks off, and finally the witnesses that saw sparks and were told a chot hit the street... I really can dig and get the testimony but I'll hope you can trust me on that one. Finally, given what you've seen of Dealey Plaza... and I was there as well, wouldn't the WEST window make infinitely more sense than the East? Thanks DJ {edit}and PS - sure be nice if you could change the title of the thread...

A question for you then Mike... Wouldn't they have had to train Carlos in all the other aspects of being a sniper, beyond shooting... or was that basic training for all? DJ

Thamks for that post Mike... I really have quite a respect for you and your sniper's background as well your ballistic knowledge... and I really never minded being dis-agreed with or having a heated exchange... We started out with you asking me to substantiate a number of conclusions I had made, I tried to and then it got ugly. I also acknowledge that you were not discrediting him at all and in fact saw you were praising him... after all that had gone on abck and forth with us I simply used you and Purvis as "examples" on the other Lancer forum of arguing for what seemed like arguing sake. It seems everyday I read yet another review or article that challenges everything I think I know and leads me in another direction... A fine example being DiEugenio's review of Horne and critique of Lifton. I need to refrain from comclusions is the thing - I guess... as nothing ever seems completely true one way or the other... The Quantico thing would have to be shared, imo, from someone who was there - I doubt they would have kept record of it or if they did.. how hard would THAT be to unearth! I wonder if Hathcock was ever asked about it - and replied. Now I may be wrong about the MC yet I think there is more proof that the rifle in evidence is very questionable then about it's level of reliability. Add to this all the interwoven story line LHO was involved within and almost anything is possible EXCEPT him be a LONE anything. In any case.. I look forward to a more peaceful co-existance on this Forum as I enjoy reading the offerings of what I see as the best and brightest in this field of research... If we all could leave the door slightly ajar for the possibilities we simply do not have the information to defend or refute properly, I think we all can conitnue to learn a thing or two with each visit here. Thanks for extending the olive branch.. Sincerely, DJ

Nothing to fix Mikey... you posted it and than say you didn't... Go find something else to do already, nobody seems to be listening to you. bu bye now

The document discussion the punishment dealt to Marvin Gheesling http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=300123 And a bit of narrative as to who he was and when it happened for context... http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman/newman_3.html Halloween, 1959, he, you know, threatened to give up military secrets to the Soviet Union, they issued a flash on him in the FBI, put a watch on him, so that anything that came into the FBI, any information or even an inquiry had to be send to Espionage Section, Division 5, and that had been in place since 1959, November 1959. "Now, the day before the Mexico City story hits the FBI they cancel the flash on Oswald. This is an example of what I'm talking about, dimming the switches. "And the person who did that we [now] know. Just a few months ago we had some more documents released. "This is from a large memo where Hoover punished everybody who touched the Mexico City story. It's a wonderful; I don't mean, it's not wonderful to relish in the punishment of other human beings, but Hoover you know, with that big thick pen of his writes in such earthy language, it's just great, 'YES,' that's Hoover, 'YES, SEND THIS GUY TO SIBERIA!' (LAUGHTER) "Anyway, this particular one here it happens to be Marvin Gheesling. And I was able to connect this with the one I just showed you, see, I found this. I had it in my files for years and never knew what to do with it. I just knew it was kind of significant, and I always wondered who canceled the flash on Oswald in the FBI? "Well, guess what? He did! "There it is. He removed it. On 9/10/63. It's all in here. Here's his demotion, censures and everything, what Hoover did to him when Hoover found out that he did it. From the audience, "Who?" and "What was the name?" "Gheesling. And Hoover punished him for having canceled the flash. [Author's note- I want to insert in here a passage from James Hosty's book Assignment Oswald" from page 166: "Marvin Gheesling, an FBI supervisor in the Soviet Espionage section at headquarters in Washington was transferred to Detroit, but because he was a war veteran he could not be penalized with a pay reduction without a Civil Service hearing and an appeal. Instead, Hoover busted him to field agent and allowed him to keep his supervisor's rate of pay. Gheesling's crime? He had the unfortunate luck of authorizing the closing of the Oswald case in October 1962." Someone's got the date wrong. Or perhaps I'm confusing closing the case with canceling the flash. I wish I had the document John describes to compare with Hosty's account, but I don't ] "Now, the next day the story hits. And this is it. This is the CIA headquarters,... there are two parts to it, this happens to be the response to Mexico City. And within two hours they are going to respond to Mexico City And then they are going to notify all of Washington, and I am going to take you through all of that. "Here's the response to Mexico City, 'Yeah, Oswald. Okay, well, we know about him. We got some stuff on him up here. Our latest information is May '62.'

Now that we're acting all civil and such... Mike, have you ever been involved in a recreation of the Dealey Plaza scene whether it be with a superior weapon or with a similiar one? Do you think YOU could accomplish what so many professionals couldn't... it would go a long way in proving your point about it being possible in the face of so many who say it isn't. and please let's not talk about the recreations the "government" did with stationary targets and different distances and timings on the shots... although the ones they did showed how often the gun jammed... but we're not going there, here... Since this is your area of expertise.. I look forward to hearing about the work you've done personally. Thanks DJ

Once one looks at and comprehends the ballistic evidence, one will stop wasting time with such foolishness as a knoll shooter. Of course it does keep the goldfish, who gobble up any flake thrown to them, occupied and out of the way of real research. Some people are so easily fooled. Mikey, Enlighten us... what credible, supportable ballistic evidence do you refer to here that refutes those closest to him saying they saw his brains blow out the back of his skull...? Start with Hargis and then address Clint Hill... where you go from there should be interesting. I know I'd sleep better at night knowing it was only crazy, loner Oswald who did it... fortuitously for the new regime - all by his lonesome.

To post it yet again... directly from the Lone Nutter's Bible http://www.history-m...eport_0085a.htm Page 145/146 of the WCR – “Although the record indicates that Brennan was an accurate observer, he declined to make a positive ID of Oswald when he first saw him in the police line-up. The Commission, therefore, does NOT base its conclusion concerning the identity of the assassin on Brennan’s subsequent identification of LHO as the man he saw fire a rifle.” So what does the WC base it's conclusion upon? 1 - Fischer and Edwards – who also used the term “could” have been LHO, never positively identified Oswald. 2 - Or Euins who actually saw a black man at the window and was scared into changing his story – kind of like Dr. Perry, someone considerably less shaken than a 15 year old kid, who was hounded into changing what he KNEW to be a frontal entrance into a maybe. 3 - The Baker/Truly encounter! is actually used to place Oswald in the window... the fact that he was on the 2nd floor at 12:31 and could have made the trip down is what the WC provides as proof that he was in the window shooting 1 minute before. 4 - Vitoria Adams ran down the back stairs supposed ahead of Oswald and before Baker/Truly came up and yet saw neither 5 - Mrs. Reid sees Oswald AFTER Baker/Truly so surely her testimony places him in the SE 6th floor window 2-3 minutes before ?!?! http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0090b.htm The conclusion is classic WCR mumbo jumbo Conclusion Fingerprint and palmprint evidence establishes that Oswald handled two of the four cartons next to the window and also handled a paper bag which was found near the cartons. Oswald was seen in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the sixth floor approximately 35 minutes before the assassination and no one could be found who saw Oswald anywhere else in the building until after the shooting. {we know this to be false... a number of people see Oswald between 11:55 and 12:25} An eyewitness to the shooting immediately provided a description of the man in the window which was similar to Oswald’s actual appearance. This witness identified Oswald in a lineup as the man most nearly resembling the man he saw and later identified Oswald as the man he observed.{really?} Oswald’s known actions in the building immediately after the assassination are consistent with his having been at the southeast corner window of the sixth floor at 12:30 p.m. On the basis of these findings the Commission has concluded that Oswald, at the time of the assassination, was present at the window from which the shots were fired. {emphasis added} Sum it up.... no one saw him in the window shooting but he must have been there... He must have. Duncan... you could see the person who identified you??? Thought they were supposed to protect the identity of the witness at a line up so they wouldn't be afraid to ID the right person... the guy she did ID saw her as well??

Perfect - don't bother reading it - but disagree anyway. Please enlighten us to the original research you performed on Mr. Brennan other than googling his book and then copy/pasting a direct quote. Please tell us who you've contacted in your endless search for the evidence linking Oswald with the rifle you claim is so wonderful and then you can address each of the points made in the post and attachment. It's called research you simple minded yokel... You read what others have done, you check their information for accuracy and you formulate a hypothesis then go test it. I've had very productive discussions with a variety of authors and researchers... personally I prefer to work with photographs and video since so many others have taken the time to do the work to create valuable SOURCE material. Do you even bother to read Horne, Mantik, Hancock, Lane, Lifton, Kelly the original interviews and statements etc, etc, etc... If you have and still can argue points without a speck of supporting evidence you're a bigger fool thatn I thought If you haven't - then you're just another wannabe important xxxxx with nothing better to do with your time. That's why all your left with is me and Lee, for now. But that ends now too... You're like a bad accident - horrible to look at yet annoyingly compelling never the less. except you follow others around! I've just got to learn to drive by without noticing like the rest of the forum members... I'll learn Bu Bye now.

Tell you what xxxxx... you provide proof that Oswald was at the window doing the shooting and prove that the rifle that now sits at the Archives is the one he used and I'll agree that the $19.95 weapon of death was as reliable as your posting insults at every opportunity and there are no political assassinations in the history of the US - nay, not here. If you are going to avoid providing anything in the way of established legal evidence with a proper chain, as I and most forum members expect, then you can get back to sitting alone polishing your gun. You're nauseating and drastically take from what would normally be an enjoyable exchange of ideas... But you already know that, why else would you get up out of bed each morning... why ask me to prove ANYTHING to you - I gather you've never changed your mind about anything regarding the assassination since you are obviously still living in 1964 where the government is always right and LBJ is your role model. The Great Carcano Swindle By Bill MacDowall © 2000 This article reproduced here with the permission of the author MURDER WEAPON FOUND! Within an hour of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy Dallas Police Department (DPD) announced the discovery of a rifle on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) in Dealey Plaza. Two DPD officers, Eugene Boone and Seymour Weitzman, were present when the weapon was found and both were credited with finding it by the Warren Commission (WC). Both officers subsequently described the rifle they found as a 7.65MM Mauser bolt-action rifle. On November 22nd 1963, the day of the assassination, Eugene Boone prepared a written report for his superior Sheriff Decker in which he confirmed the rifle he had found was a Mauser. On November 23rd, a full day later, Seymour Weitzman signed a detailed sworn affidavit confirming his original identification of a Mauser. Also on November 23rd Dallas District Attorney Henry M. Wade gave a televised press conference at which he advised the media that the weapon found in the TSBD was a Mauser 7.65MM bolt action rifle. More than 24 hours would elapse before anyone would publicly announce that the rifle found was anything other than a Mauser. Indeed a CIA report dated November 25th was still describing the rifle as a Mauser. Subsequent claims would indicate that the true identity of the rifle found was known to Dallas Police within a very short time of its discovery but there is absolutely no documentary evidence to support this assertion. All that does exist is a record of conflicting stories, missing documents and evasive testimony. Eventually the DPD revealed that the TSBD rifle was in fact an Italian made Mannlicher Carcano 6.5MM carbine, serial no. C2766, manufactured in 1940. Based on an original Mauser design the Carcano superficially resembles the Mauser genre from which it was derived but is betrayed by its inferior build-quality. Mannlicher Carcano C2766 was allegedly purchased from a Chicago mail order house by an A. Hidell, an alias apparently used by Lee Harvey Oswald. Almost immediately suspicions began to emerge in some quarters that the rifle originally found had been switched for the Mannlicher Carcano linked to Oswald. Oswald had been arrested shortly after the assassination in connection with the killing of DPD officer J.D. Tippit. Controversy over the true identity of the rifle originally found in the TSBD has continued to rage ever since. In seeking to unravel this mystery it quickly becomes clear that a dark shadow hangs over the testimony of many of the individuals involved in the finding of the TSBD rifle. More than that, it seems highly probable that the chain of evidence linking Lee Harvey Oswald to the ownership and use of Mannlicher Carcano C2766 was fabricated by those charged with responsibility for investigating the assassination of John. F. Kennedy. A RIFLE IS BORN Our story begins not in Dallas but in the Italian town of Terni in 1940. Italian involvement in world war two created an urgent demand for rifles to equip the armed forces. At the Royal Arms Works in Terni (Regio Esercito Terni-RE Terni) north of Rome workers were turning out 2,500 rifles a day. It was here that Mannlicher Carcano C2766 was made. On pages 21-22 of his 1975 book "The Gun: A Biography of the Gun that Killed John F. Kennedy", Henry S. Bloomgarden described the means by which C2766 acquired its allegedly unique identity: "Each weapon was stamped with its own numbers and marking; together these would brand each gun as a unique entity." He went on to describe one such gun thus: CAL 6.5 (the calibre of the weapon) RE TERNI (place of manufacture) TNI (with a proof mark in the form of a crown) PG (initials of the bolt handle designer) SD (initials of the inspector of the rifle) ROCCA (after Giuseppe Rocca manufacturer of the bolt cocking piece) C2766 (the serial number) 1940 (the year of manufacture) According to Bloomgarden: A serial number and letter in combination were stamped into the metal giving a particular unit identity; no other gun would be so marked. One was branded, forever, C2766. As with much of the lore surrounding C2766, this assertion was only partly accurate. In fact Mannlicher Carcano rifles were being made at several plants throughout Italy. The Model 91/38 Carcano, of which C2766 is an example, was also manufactured by Beretta, FNA and Gardone VT as well as the Terni plant. The Royal Arms Works at Terni was, however, the largest producer accounting for around 800,000 units out of a total of 948,000 Model 91/38's made. The nomenclature, markings and identification of Carcanos varies widely. Specific models are not always marked in like fashion and this often causes confusion, which is reflected in the available Carcano literature. Regardless of Bloomgarden's conviction that each Carcano made bore a unique serial number, the fact is that several Carcanos may have carried the serial number 2766 with or without the "C" prefix. After the war Carcano rifles and carbines found their way back to the RE Terni plant by the thousand. Most of these weapons had seen service on the battlefields of Europe and Africa and were in poor condition. The Terni plant, which had once manufactured Carcanos now, turned its attention to repairing and restoring the detritus of war. In 1958, the Italian Ministry of Defence (Ministero della Difesa), offered for sale a consignment of more than 500,000 rifles. Sicilian Attorney Alberto Bagnasco got wind of the Ministry of Defence plans and contacted Philadelphia attorney Andrew Farnese, a business contact, with a view to finding a buyer for the surplus Carcanos. Farnese contacted Louis and Irving Feldsott, owners of the Folsom Arms Company of New York, who expressed an interest in acquiring the surplus Carcanos but lacked the financial resources necessary to make a bid for the inventory. An approach was then made to Adam Consolidated, who agreed to fund the venture. The Adams Consolidated/Folsom Arms alliance bid of $1,776,000 was accepted by the Italian Ministry of Defence. In Italy, Irving Feldsott and Alberto Bagnasco agreed the terms of a contract with the Ministry of Defence on behalf of the Adam Consolidated consortium. Adam Consolidated were to act as financiers and importers. A new company called Crescent Firearms was incorporated, with Louis Feldsott as President, to distribute the rifles. The contract provided for the supply of approximately 570,000 Carcano Model 91/38 6.5MM rifles and 5300 kilos of assorted spare parts. Some 300,000 of the Carcanos to be supplied were known to be defective to a greater or lesser degree. Prior to shipping the Carcanos to the United States, Bagnasco was retained by Adam Consolidated to arrange for the renovation and repair of the defective units to make them ready for the US market. Bagnasco contacted the Brecia-based arms company Breda in the hope that they might be interested in contracting for the renovation and repair of the Carcanos but they declined. Breda did, however, suggest that company executive Luciano Riva, a 5th generation gunsmith of some repute, might be interested. Riva was later provided with various sample weapons to work on in order that Adam Consolidated might assess the quality of his workmanship. Riva evidently impressed Adam Consolidated because Bagnasco was soon instructed to offer him the contract. Riva was initially reluctant to enter into a contract with Adam Consolidated on his own account. His stated preference was to carry out the work as a sub-contractor to Breda but eventually he was persuaded to sign the contract. Under the terms of the contract, Riva was required to renovate and repair damaged or defective weapons and, where appropriate, to shorten or lengthen the barrels of weapons to meet the needs of the US sporting and target shooting fraternities. Additionally, and most importantly, all identifying markings on the weapons were to be removed and the words "Made in Italy" stamped on each barrel. As Bloomgarden wrote in his book: "A very simple operation, Riva said: To shorten the 91's with long barrels, to lengthen those with short barrels...and to remove the markings and inscribe "Made in Italy" on each weapon - these were easy tasks. Shortening was a matter of sawing; lengthening was a matter of inserting a sleeve; the various digits and letters could be removed by grinding." So it was that Luciano Riva accepted the contract from Adam Consolidated, repaired, renovated and restored the Carcano rifles entrusted to him and removed all the unique identifying marks, including serial numbers, replacing these with the simple legend "Made in Italy". By reputation, Luciano Riva was a proud and dedicated craftsman who would produce workmanship of the very highest standard for his new benefactors. On May 24th 1960, Riva signed the contract that charged him with the obligation to renovate and repair 150,000 rifles to be shipped to the United States in four lots as follows: 50,000 by end of July 1960 15,000 in August 1960 45,000 in September 1960 40,000 in October 1960 All told, Riva made a total of 12 shipments of Carcanos to Adam Consolidated. The last of these left Riva's Brescia workshop in September 1960. Shipments ceased abruptly when Adam Consolidated and Riva became caught up in a dispute. Riva was angered by Adam Consolidated's failure to pay for the rifles already shipped to the United States whilst Adam Consolidated claimed that large numbers of rifles leaving the Brescia workshop were defective. Henry Bloomgarden defended Riva against this attack on his competence: "Riva knew guns. His family had been gunmakers for 5 generations. He knew his work had not been defective. His only failure, towards the end, had been in not removing the identification marks on the last of the guns, as with 2766." The claim that Riva failed to remove the identifying marks on rifles shipped towards the end is a vital element in the chain of evidence relating to Mannlicher Carcano C2766. Everything I have learned about Riva points to a man who was exploited by Adam Consolidated but was possessed of great professional integrity. On balance, I am inclined to think that Luciano Riva would have honoured his contract and would have removed the markings on all Carcanos shipped from his workshop. It would seem extremely odd if he had renovated and repaired these rifles as required by his contract and then failed to erase the markings...why would he? Whilst Henry Bloomgarden's book is a helpful resource it falls down in many important respects. He provides no sources for any of the claims he makes and his reliability on the matter of serial numbers is undermined by contradictions in his own reporting. Referring to documentation raised to support shipments he says: "Riva made 12 shipments, all handled identically...packed ten to a carton, the serial number of each gun was checked and recorded on a slip headed "Crescent Firearms Inc." WHAT SERIAL NUMBER? Bloomgarden makes a further reference to serial numbers on pages 114-115: "Periodically, Fred Rupp, RFD 2, Mink Road, Perkasie, Pennsylvania, picked up loads of 91's from Harborside Terminal. He brought them to his shop where, under a subcontract with Crescent Firearms, he would clean and test fire each weapon, then ship it from his place to various customers designated to him by Crescent. If a carton was mutilated, he would repack the weapons in a new carton after cleaning and test firing them. The new carton would be numbered by him with the same number as appeared on the original carton picked up from Harborside. If a particular gun did not function properly, he would replace it with another, and he would indicate on the slip the serial number of the weapon removed and the weapon substituted." Note again the reference to serial numbers when Bloomgarden himself agrees that the serial numbers were to be removed, and in all but a few alleged examples were removed, in accordance with the terms of Riva's contract. Bloomgarden is completely unreliable on the matter of serial numbers and apart from one Carcano allegedly bearing the serial no. C2766 there is no evidence to suggest that Riva did not remove all serial numbers from the rifles he shipped. It also appears that Fred Rupp had a stockpile of Carcanos, which he could use as replacements if "a particular gun did not function properly.." Since there is no known record of where these "spare" Carcanos came from, it is possible that Rupp, acting for Crescent Firearms had sources other than Riva. Further checks reveal that alternative stocks of Carcanos were being drawn upon by Adam Consolidated/Crescent Firearms. Adam Consolidated was struggling to meet the terms of the agreement they had signed with the Italian Ministry of Defence. As indicated earlier Adam Consolidated had contracted to buy 570,000 rifles but the hiatus in dealings with Riva meant that only 150,000 had been processed. Under the threat of breech of contract litigation by the Defence Ministry, Adam Consolidated asked Alberto Bagnasco to find an "alternative renovator". This "alternative renovator" was duly found and shipped a further 80,000 rifles to Adam Consolidated. Mannlicher Carcano C2766 has not yet reached Klein's Mail Order house in Chicago yet its provenance is already looking a little shaky. C2766 WHERE ARE YOU? Mannlicher Carcano serial no. C2766 was apparently dispatched from Riva's Storo workshops in carton no. 3376 on Crescent Firearms shipping slip no. 3620. Carton no. 3376 was one of 520 such cartons making up a consignment of 5,200 rifles loaded aboard the cargo ship Elettra Fassio at the port of Genoa on September 29th 1960 bound for New York. The ship docked in the USA on October 17th 1960. It would be another 28 months before the carton said to contain C2766 would find its way from the Harborside Terminal to Fred Rupp's workshop. The reason for this delay was apparently due to the fact that the shipment had been impounded by US Customs on the grounds that Adam Consolidated had undervalued the cargo in an attempt to reduce the amount of duty payable. I have been unable to discover why this one consignment out of the 12 identical consignments shipped from Riva should have been singled out in this way. It may be that Adam Consolidated was simply the victims of a random swoop. The record shows that between October 1960 and October 1962 , Fred Rupp continued to take delivery of consignments of Carcanos from Harborside without let or hindrance from US Customs. These included rifles shipped from Riva and the 80,000 rifles renovated elsewhere. On February 12th 1963, Fred Rupp dispatched carton no. 3376, said to contain C2766, via North Penn Transfer Company against Crescent Firearms order no. 3178 to Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago. If the record thus far is to be believed then Klein's took delivery of Mannlicher Carcano serial no. C2766, allegedly one of a very very few rifles out of a total of 150,000 repaired and renovated by Luciano Riva that did not have its identifying marks removed. Luciano Riva allegedly failed to ensure that all identifying marks were removed from a small number of Carcano rifles. The seemingly arbitrary decision of US Customs to impound that particular consignment of 5,200 rifles out of 150,000 shipped to Adam Consolidated, resulted in the contents of carton no. 3376 being sold to Klein's Sporting Goods. How lucky could the FBI get? KLEIN'S LOSS IS YOUR GAIN There is nothing like a little white lie to oil the wheels of commerce and the people at Klein's were not above spicing up their marketing copy with a few harmless untruths. The banner on their full page spread in the February 1963 issue of the American Rifleman magazine proclaimed: RECEIVED TOO LATE FOR THE HUNTING SEASON....Klein's loss is your gain! The fact that Klein's had not screwed up on an order or been let down by a supplier resulting in an accumulation of bad stock was by the by. There has to be an excuse for every bargain offer lest the buying public think there may be something wrong with the goods being offered. What better reason than an unspecified faux pas that had left Klein's up to their eyes in guns at a time of the year when the customer's buying inclinations were directed elsewhere? KLEIN'S RECEIVE AN ORDER FROM DALLAS On 13th March 1963, Klein's received an envelope containing a small order slip clipped from their full-page advert in the February issue of American Rifleman. Mr A. Hidell of Dallas, Texas, had enclosed a US Postal Money Order no. 2,202,130,462 to the value of $21.45 in payment for one Mannlicher Carcano 6.5MM Carbine with scope as advertised with reference no. C20-T750 priced at $19.95 with an additional $1.50 postage and handling. Though the advert offered ammunition and a clip as added extras Mr Hidell did not order either. On March 20th 1963, Klein's dispatched a Mannlicher Carcano, apparently bearing the serial no. C2766, to the order of Mr Hidell. whose postal address was P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas. The case against Lee Harvey Oswald depends entirely upon establishing a solid chain of evidence that links him to the Mannlicher Carcano dispatched by Klein's to the order of A. Hidell and places him (Oswald) on the 6th floor of the TSBD with that weapon at 12.30 PM on November 22nd 1963. It will become clear that no such chain of evidence exists. Lee Harvey Oswald rented Dallas Post Box 2915 on October 9th 1962 using his own name. Effectively the address A. Hidell, PO Box 2915 never existed. In order to rent a post box, Oswald was required to fill out Form 1093 (Application for Post Office Box). This was a multi-part form. Part 3 of the application form included a section where the applicant could nominate other persons authorized to collect mail from that particular box. Harry D. Holmes, Dallas Postal Inspector, told the WC that: "Form 1093 includes a place for name of person entitled to receive mail through the box other than the applicant himself." The ability of Lee Harvey Oswald to collect a package addressed to A. Hidell at Post Box 2915 depends entirely upon A. Hidell being listed as an authorized person in Part 3 of Oswald's application. It should have been an easy matter to verify this by reference to Part 3 of Oswald's application but, as Postal Inspector Harry Holmes told the WC, Part 3 had been destroyed: "...when the box has been closed, Postal Regulations require that they tear off Part 3 and throw it away." Box 2915 had been closed by Oswald on May 14th 1963. Fortunately, Postal Inspector Holmes is not the final authority on Postal Regulations. The Postal Manual, Section 846.53b, states quite unequivocally that "Part 3 of the box rental application, identifying persons other than the applicant authorized to receive mail must be retained for 2 years after the box is closed." Harry D. Holmes lied about postal procedures and the WC accepted that lie as fact. A week after the assassination Harry D. Holmes was quoted in a New York Times article where he stated: "No one other than Oswald was authorized to receive mail at that box". Holmes could not have made this statement unless he had seen Part 3 of Oswald's application form after the assassination. Further confirmation that Part 3 of Oswald's application form existed after the assassination and that A. Hidell was not an authorized nominee can be found in the Warren Report (WR). To refute claims made by writer Thomas G. Buchanan in his book "Who Killed Kennedy?", the FBI produced a document that specifically addressed 32 different allegations made by Buchanan. Published in the WR, this document CE 2585, contained the following: 12. CLAIM: The Post Office in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle mailed was kept both under his name and that of A. Hidell. INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an A. Hidell, would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. As with Harry D. Holmes revelations to the New York Times, the FBI could not have made this determination unless they had seen Part 3 of Oswald's application form. The only conclusion it is possible to draw from this information is that Part 3 of Oswald's application still existed after John F. Kennedy was assassinated and that Harry D. Holmes and the FBI knew as much. Harry Holmes' story that Postal Regulations required Part 3 of the form to be destroyed when the box is closed was an act of perjury that attempted to hide the fact that an important piece of evidence had been destroyed sometime after the assassination. It cannot be stated strongly enough that Part 3 of Oswald's application form is the one document that underpins the entire chain of evidence linking Oswald to the Carcano and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. If A. Hidell was authorized to collect mail at Post Box 2915, then Oswald could have taken delivery of the Carcano by masquerading as Hidell. If A. Hidell was not authorized to collect mail at that box then Oswald would not have been able to take delivery of the Carcano package. In practice, when the Carcano package addressed to A. Hidell at Box 2915, was received Post Office staff would have checked the appropriate documentation. They would have noted that Box 2915 was rented in the name of Oswald and that A. Hidell was not authorized to collect mail. An additional check may have been made to establish if A. Hidell was a previous renter of Box 2915 who had left a forwarding address. In the event that these checks proved negative the Carcano package would have been returned to sender. Even exercising great generosity of spirit it is difficult to see any explanation for the destruction of Part 3 of the Oswald application form other than to sustain a false chain of evidence. The WC accepted as fact the sworn testimony of Harry D. Holmes that Part 3 of the form had been destroyed legitimately in line with Postal Regulations. In addition, they allowed Holmes to create a false mechanism by which Oswald could still have collected the Carcano package. This was typical of the "belts and braces" approach the WC used to cover all angles. Holmes claimed that when a package was received, a notice would be placed in the relevant box to advise the holder that a package was waiting to be collected. This would be done, Holmes claimed, regardless of who the package was addressed to, authorized or not. Thereafter, the holder of the box would only have to produce the notice at the collection window to take delivery of the package. Possession of the notice was deemed to be proof of entitlement. This is how the WC created the foundations of the chain of evidence linking Oswald to the Carcano. It is ironic that the WR could publish the testimony of Holmes claiming that Part 3 of Oswald's application form had been destroyed and the FBI document, CE 2585, proving it had not. All evidence is not equal and in seeking to take a view it is necessary to decide what weight can be placed on any particular piece of evidence. The evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have taken delivery of the Carcano package by any known official means is very strong indeed. It is strengthened even more by the knowledge that Harry D. Holmes offered perjured testimony and that a crucial piece of evidence, Part 3 of the Oswald's application form, was destroyed during the post-assassination period. I think the only plausible interpretation of the facts is that Oswald could not, and did not, take possession of the Carcano package. To sustain the illusion that Oswald did collect the Carcano package, vital evidence was destroyed and additional evidence was fabricated. The Post Box evidence is not the only evidence the WR offers to link Oswald to the Carcano. Other evidence includes the infamous "backyard photographs", the testimony of the DeMohrenschildts and Marina Oswald, the mysterious contents of the brown paper bag Oswald is alleged to have carried into the TSBD on the day of the assassination, the analysis of the handwriting on the Klein's order slip and the apparent linkage between Oswald and the A. Hidell alias. THE BACKYARD PHOTOGRAPHS An in depth analysis and appraisal of the backyard photographs is beyond the scope of this article and is probably a pointless exercise anyway. For decades the arguments for and against fakery have raged back and forth without any kind of consensus being reached. Far from clarifying matters, experts brought in to appraise the evidence have succeeded only in creating more confusion. On paper the idea of seeking the opinion of an expert witnesses seems a valid one. Sadly, for every expert witness who expresses an opinion it is usually possible to find another equally qualified witness who will express the opposite opinion. The best available evidence on the authenticity of the backyard photographs is to be found in the conclusions of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) photographic panel. After extensive tests on the photographs and negatives the panel concluded that the photographs were probably genuine and that the rifle being held by Oswald appeared to be Mannlicher Carcano C2766. A photographic panel spokesman did later concede that "it is possible to make a false photograph that we would not be able to detect." In seeking to take a view on the matter of the backyard photographs context is everything. The totality of the evidence surrounding the assassination strongly suggests that Oswald was offered up as a scapegoat by the investigative and intelligence community. There is no doubt that important evidence was tampered with or even destroyed. Witnesses were ignored or "persuaded" to modify their evidence. Oswald was characterized as a disaffected and feckless loner when the know facts point more to a young man who was intelligent, thoughtful and probably an intelligence operative. The HSCA photographic panel concede that the backyard photographs could be fake. If they are then it is likely that the faking was done by experts in the employ of one or other government agency. This is the context in which these photographs must be viewed. Taken in isolation I would have to concede that the photographs probably are genuine but the behaviour and activities of the FBI, CIA and ONI in this case cast grave doubts on the authenticity of any the evidence. I am certainly not confident enough in the backyard photographs to include them in this charted history of C2766. THE TESTIMONY Marina Oswald testified that she had taken the backyard photographs at Lee's request. Whilst she was able to state that Lee did have a rifle her various descriptions of that weapon could in no way be regarded as a positive identification of C2766 to the exclusion of any other rifle. The best guide to the weapon Marina claims to have seen are the backyard photographs. George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt testified to knowledge of Oswald's rifle but were unable to confirm that the rifle in question was C2766. It is interesting to note that one of the backyard photographs did not turn up until April 1967. George DeMohrenschildt announced that during a search of luggage held in storage he had uncovered a photograph of Oswald. The photograph was another copy of the backyard image showing Oswald holding the rifle and leftist literature. Oddly, there was an inscription on the back of this photograph written in Russian Cryllic Script. The inscription translated to: "Hunter of Fascists ha-ha-ha!!!". The photograph was endorsed with the words "To my friend George from Lee Oswald 5/IV/63" written in Oswald's hand. The DeMohrenschildts were unable to throw any light on how the photograph came to be in their luggage. An analysis of the Cryllic inscription revealed that it had originally been written, then rewritten in pencil by someone unfamiliar with the Cryllic alphabet. The Cryllic inscription could not be matched to the handwriting of Lee or Marina Oswald. George DeMohrenschildt's son-in-law Gary Taylor also testifying to seeing a rifle in the Oswald household but was unable to confirm that it was C2766. ATTEMPTED MURDER OF GENERAL WALKER The WC tried to link Oswald and Mannlicher Carcano C2766 to the attempted murder of General Edwin Walker on April 10th 1963. In 1978 the HSCA commissioned Neutron activation tests on the remnants of the bullet CE 573 fired at Walker. The tests were conducted by Dr Vincent P. Guinn who testified that CE573 was "rather characteristic of WCC Mannlicher-Carcano bullet ." This language was typical of that used throughout the WC and HSCA investigations and tends to mislead rather than inform. There was no such thing as a "Mannlicher Carcano bullet". What Dr Guinn should have said was "a 6.5MM WCC bullet that was suitable for a range of weapons including a Mannlicher Carcano 6.5MM." I dealt with the Guinn Neutron activation tests at some length in my article "On the Trail of a Magic Bullet". At that time I concluded that "Dr Guinn's work is interesting as far as it goes but in reality that is not very far". I don't think that Dr Quinn succeeded in demonstrating that the bullet fragments recovered after the Walker shooting and the JFK assassination were fired from C2766. In the case of CE573, the bullet was so badly damaged that no Ballistics evidence linking it to C2766 could be gleaned. The FBI tried to overcome this by stating that CE573 "showed the characteristics of a round that had been fired by a Mannlicher-Carcano". The following exchange demonstrates the way in which the FBI in the person of Special Agent Andrew M. Newquist tried to create evidence that didn't exist: Mr. McDonald: Did you find similar class characteristics, between the Walker bullet, CE-573, and the panel test bullets that you have before you? Mr. Newquist: Yes, class characteristics of CE-573 and the class characteristics of the bullets, CE-572, the Federal test from the Oswald firearm and also the panel test fired from the Oswald firearm were consistent in number, width, and direction of twist. Mr. McDonald: Could your panel reach a conclusion as to the rifle of origin for CE-573 using the evidence available to you? Mr. Newquist: Would you repeat the question? Mr. McDonald: Were you able to reach a conclusion as to what rifle fired CE-573, the Walker bullet? Mr. Newquist: No, we were not, due to the distortion of CE-573, and lacking a significant correspondence of individual characteristics with the test, no conclusion could be reached. However, no significant difference was observed from CE-573 to CE-572, no gross difference was noted to indicate that it had not been fired from it. Mr. McDonald: But what you are saying is, through distortion, because of impact, the peculiar identifying marks were not able to be found by your panel on CE-573? Mr. Newquist: That is correct. Mr. McDonald: And was this the conclusion that the FBI reached in 1963? Mr. Newquist: That is correct. Neither Mr Newquist nor Dr Guinn offer anything persuasive to suggest that Mannlicher Carcano paused briefly in the backyard of the Walker household en route from Terni to the TSBD. ASSASSINATION DAY Did Lee Harvey Oswald take a brown paper bag containing a Mannlicher Carcano rifle into the TSBD on the morning of November 22, 1963? Neighbour and co-worker Buell Wesley Frazier drove Oswald to work on the morning of the assassination. The WC called Frazier to testify at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Building, Washington DC. on Wednesday 11th March 1964. Frazier told the commission that he remembered Oswald had a package with him on that morning. WC counsel Joseph A. Ball was keen to establish that this package contained C2766. When disassembled Mannlicher Carcano C2766 measured approximately 34.8 inches. Frazier offered the following testimony: Mr. Ball: You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him? Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir. Mr. Ball: You mean one end of it under the armpit? Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that. Mr. Ball: And he had the lower part.... Mr. Frazier: The other part with his right hand. Mr. Ball: Right hand? Mr. Frazier: Right. Mr. Ball: He carried it then parallel to his body? Mr. Frazier: Right, straight up and down. This was not the kind of testimony Joseph Ball wanted to elicit. It was just not physically possible that Oswald could carry a package on that length in the manner described...his arms would not have been long enough. Ball repeatedly tried to shake Frazier's testimony on this point: Mr. Ball: When you saw him get out of the car, when you first saw him when he was out of the car before he started to walk, you noticed he had the package under the arm? Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir. Mr. Ball: One end of it was under the armpit and the other he had to hold it in his right hand. Did the package extend beyond the right hand? Mr. Frazier: No, sir. Like I say if you put it under your armpits and put it down normal to the side. Mr. Ball: But the right hand on, was it on the end or the side of the package? Mr. Frazier: No; he had it cupped in his hand. Mr. Ball: Cupped in his hand? Mr. Frazier: Right. Frazier remained adamant throughout the cross-examination. Yes Oswald had taken a package into work that day but the package he saw could not have contained the Mannlicher Carcano. The testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier was not uncorroborated. Linnie Mae Randle, Frazier's sister, also testified before the commission that day: Mrs Randle: I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport. Mr Ball: Was he carrying any package? Mrs Randle: Yes; he was. Mr Ball: What was he carrying? Mrs Randle: He was carrying a package in a sort of heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it. Mr Ball: And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package? Mrs Randle: No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know, just like you grab something like that. Mr Ball: And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground? Mrs Randle: Yes, sir . At this point Counsel Ball showed the witness a mock-up of the bag allegedly found in the TSBD. Mr Ball: Now, was the length of it any similar, anywhere near similar? Mrs Randle: Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long. Mr Ball: I see. You figure about two feet long, is that right? Mrs Randle: A little bit more. Mr Ball: Is that about right? That is 28 and a half inches. Mrs Randle: I measured 27 last time. Mr Ball: You measured 27 once before? Mrs Randle: Yes, sir . Jack Dougherty, an Oswald co-worker was the only person to see Oswald arrive at work on the morning of the assassination. Dougherty testified that he didn't see Oswald carry any package into the TSBD on that day. I find the testimonies of Frazier and Randle very credible...infinitely more credible than many of the witnesses the WC relied upon to "convict" Oswald. In the face of a prolonged and determined effort by Ball to get them to modify their opinions neither would be deflected. I do not believe that Oswald carried the Mannlicher Carcano into the TSBD that morning in the way the WC claimed. I also have grave doubts over the origins of the paper bag allegedly used. Crime scene photographs taken at the time do not show the paper bag in position as good evidence handling practice requires. There is also considerable doubt that Oswald could have had access to the materials required to construct the bag. I would direct the reader to the testimony of TSBD employee Troy Eugene West for further information on this matter. A GUN IS FOUND At approximately 1.22pm on November 22nd 1963 Dallas Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone discovered a rifle concealed behind boxes on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Detective Seymour Weitzman was nearby and noticed the weapon almost simultaneously. Seymour Weitzman identified the rifle as a Mauser 7.65MM Bolt-action rifle. Boone concurred with this identification. Later in the day Eugene Boone prepared a written report in which he confirmed the rifle found to be a Mauser. The next day, Seymour Weitzman swore an "Affidavit in Any Fact" in which he again described the rifle as a Mauser. This description of the rifle as a Mauser persisted for some considerable time after it was found as noted earlier in this article before finally being confirmed as a Mannlicher Carcano 6.5MM Carbine serial number C2766 (CE 139) Establishing whether the rifle found by Boone was the same weapon we have followed since the time of its manufacture in Italy has not proved easy. An attempt was made by the WC to show that the original description of the rifle as a Mauser was nothing more than a simple, honest mistake. If this was the case then the record should have been capable of dispelling any lingering doubts that anyone might have had. Regardless of any misidentification of the rifle by Weitzman and others there should exist a detailed and verifiable chain of evidence that shows how the rifle was finally identified, when and by whom. That chain should detail the means by which the rifle was traced to its supplier and satisfy us that C2766 was genuinely all that it was later purported to be. I now propose to look in detail at the handling and processing of the rifle eventually entered into evidence as C2766 from the time it was allegedly found through to the conclusions contained in the WR. THE CHAIN OF EVIDENCE Weitzman and Boone are agreed that immediately after the rifle was found DPD Captain W.J. Fritz, a 42 year veteran in the Dallas Police, took charge of the weapon and ejected one live round from the chamber. A short time later they were joined by Lt. J.C. Day in his capacity as a crime scene investigator. Boone testified: Mr Ball: There is one question. Did you hear anyone refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day? Mr Boone: Yes I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was a 7.65 Mauser. Mr Ball: Who referred to it as a Mauser that day? Mr Boone: I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what is was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it. We were discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser. There were several police officers present, some of senior rank and vast experience. There were 2 officers from the identification section, Day and Studebaker, present also. They discussed this weapon back and forth and said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser. The Mannlicher Carcano this rifle was later claimed to be had the words "Made in Italy" and "Cal 6.5" stamped on its barrel...what was there to discuss and speculate about? WC Counsel Joseph Ball would later question Captain Fritz about the identification of the rifle: Mr Ball: Was there any conversation you heard that this rifle was a Mauser? Mr. Fritz: I heard all kinds of reports about that rifle. They called it most everything. Mr. Ball: Did you hear any conversation right there that day? Mr. Fritz: Right at that time? Mr. Ball: Yes Mr. Fritz: I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or not. Mr. Ball: Did you think it was a Mauser? Mr. Fritz: No, sir; I knew...you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was. Mr. Ball: Well, did you ever make any...did you ever say that it was a 7.65 Mauser? Mr. Fritz: No, sir; I am sure I did not. Mr. Ball: Or did you think it was such a thing? Mr. Fritz: No, sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges. Mr. Ball: Did you initial the rifle? Mr. Fritz: The rifle; no, sir. Fritz never did answer Joseph Ball's question about a Mauser being discussed...he just ignored it. Two things I find odd here. Texas was the gun capital of the USA, practically everybody had one. Fritz was a 42-year police veteran, 31 of those in homicide and he says he wasn't "too sure about Mauser rifles?" Also, Fritz mentioned that he hadn't initialed the rifle...no officer did. This is a standard evidence handling procedure to assist in the positive identification of exhibits at a later stage. Seymour Weitzman testified before the WC on April 1, 1964. Far from clearing up doubts over the true identity of the rifle he found his testimony served only to raise suspicions: Mr. Ball: In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action? Mr. Weitzman: In a glance, that's what it looked like. Mr. Ball: That's what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that? Mr. Weitzman: No; I said that. I thought it was one. Mr. Ball: Are you fairly familiar with rifles? Mr. Weitzman: Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile. On the surface Weitzman's claim that he had only glanced at the rifle seems a fair enough explanation of how the misidentification occurred but later in his testimony he was able to describe that rifle in far greater detail than he could possibly have done if he had only seen it "at a glance". Mr. Ball: I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked. Mr. Weitzman: I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I? Mr. Ball: Mauser bolt action. Mr. Weitzman: And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance. Mr. Ball: You also said it was a gunmetal color? Mr. Weitzman: Yes. Mr. Ball: Gray or blue? Mr. Weitzman: Blue metal. Mr. Ball: And the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn, is that worn? Mr. Weitzman: That's right. Mr. Ball: And the wooden portion of the rifle was what color? Mr. Weitzman: It was a brown, or I would say not a mahogany brown but dark oak brown. Mr. Ball: Rough wood, was it? Mr. Weitzman: Yes, sir; rough wood. Mr. Ball: And it was equipped with a scope? Mr. Weitzman: Yes, sir. Mr. Ball: Was it of Japanese manufacture? Mr. Weitzman: I believe it was a 2.5 Weaver at the time I looked at it. I didn't look that close at it; it just looked like a 2.5 but it turned out to be a Japanese scope, I believe. This segment of testimony seriously compromises Seymour Weitzman. I have had the benefit of inspecting a Mannlicher Carcano M91/38 carbine fitted with the same model of Ordinance Optics scope as C2766. This scope bears the following information in highly readable white print against the black cylinder of the scope: 4 x 18 coated Ordinance Optics Inc Hollywood, California 010 Japan. OSC I do not believe for one minute that Seymour Weitzman could have gleaned the information he did about the colour, texture and degree of wear and tear on specific components of C2766 "at a glance" or that he could remember these in such detail 5 months later. Nor do I believe that having been able to glean so much detail about the appearance and condition of C2766 he could have failed to read the information on the scope and confuse this Japanese instrument with a Weaver. Some people have tried to suggest that Seymour Weitzman was a firearms expert who could reasonably be expected to know his Mausers from his Mannlichers. I do not believe that there is any evidence to support this assertion. Weitzman does, however, admit to having worked in a sports shop and to being "fairly familiar" with guns. I find it hard to accept that a man with this background, with a working knowledge of guns would not have taken an immediate interest in matters such as the markings and other identifying features of the rifle found. There is ample evidence that the identity of the gun was discussed among the officers present and it is more than likely that Seymour Weitzman contributed more to that discussion and the eventual identification than he has ever been prepared to admit. A "DAY" TO REMEMBER Lieutenant John Carl Day played a pivotal role in the handling and processing of the rifle found in the TSBD. Day had 23 years police experience including, most recently, 7 years as a supervisor within the Identification Bureau responsible for crime scene analysis. Of all those present when the rifle was found Lt. Day should have known how to handle and record the evidence in order to preserve the chain of possession. Like many others involved in the investigation of the assassination, Lt. Day fell well short of the acceptable standard. In his capacity as an officer of the Identification Bureau, Lt. Day had certain priorities with regard to the handling of the rifle and these were outlined by Richard Bartholomew in his thought-provoking article "The Gun that Didn't Smoke": Fingerprints take priority during collection because they are the most fragile. But prior to submitting a gun to the crime laboratory, it should be unloaded and all parts that are removable without the aid of tools, and which may leave an imprint on the bullet or cartridge case, should be removed from the gun and properly marked or labeled for identification as they are being collected or as soon as possible thereafter. All of that information, plus any unique characteristics, such as caliber or gauge, make, lot number, and serial number, should be recorded in the investigator's notebook during or immediately after the search. Perusal of the record of evidence seen and collected on November 22nd 1963 fails to reveal any mention of an ammunition clip. There is no clip mentioned in the Property Clerk's receipt dated November 26th which otherwise lists everything else about the rifle allegedly found. There is no record in either the reports made by the many officers present, or the reports of the conversations between these officers, of anyone having seen a ammunition clip. I have viewed photographs and television footage of the rifle being handled by Lt. Day soon after it was found and there is no sign of any clip. The significance of this clip to the events of that day are many. It is a peculiarity of Mannlicher Carcano rifles that the ammunition clip falls out once the last round in the clip is chambered. When the rifle was found it had a live round in the chamber, which Captain Fritz admitted to ejecting. Other officers present when Fritz ejected the round confirm his admission. As found, either the clip had fallen out of the rifle when the last round was chambered or due to some malfunction had remained in place. As noted earlier, there is no sign of a clip in the magazine. The television footage mentioned shows Lt. Day rotating the rifle in such a way that had there been a clip in the magazine it would have been visible. This only leaves a scenario where the clip fell out, as designed to, when the last round was chambered. So where was the clip? Without this clip the Mannlicher Carcano would only have been capable of firing a single shot at a time making a mockery of the brief time window available for that rifle to have fired all the known shots at the Presidential Motorcade. As one of the more likely sources of fingerprints the clip would have been of immediate interest to Lt. Day but there is no mention of him finding this clip or checking it for fingerprints. What is odd, however, is that photographs taken of Lt. Day leaving the TSBD show a clip projecting from the magazine, a clip that was certainly not there earlier. Something else to consider with regard to the Mannlicher Carcano clip is the fact that it is designed to hold 6 bullets. Since only 3 spent shells and 1 live round were apparently found at the scene it is logical to assume that if there was a clip it only contained 4 bullets at the time the shooting occurred. This is problematic because when a Carcano clip is underloaded the bullets have a strong tendency to fall over making it impossible to load and shoot them properly. After leaving the TSBD Lt. Day said that he took the rifle to the Identification Bureau where it was locked in an evidence box until further checking could be done. This was around 2pm on the afternoon of the assassination. At approximately 2.45pm Lt. Day returned to the TSBD to continue the investigation with other crime scene officers. It was not until about 7pm that evening that Lt. Day returned to the Identification Bureau to begin checking the rifle for fingerprints. It seems a little strange to me that the single most important piece of evidence should be locked away untouched for 5 hours but Lt. Day claims that is what he did. The time factor involved in investigating the rifle are quite important because, by any standard, the FBI were able to trace it to A. Hidell a.k.a. Lee Harvey Oswald extremely quickly. Quicker than they were able to settle on the type of rifle it was apparently. If Lt. Day is to be believed, the FBI trace on the rifle could have begun as early as 2pm because he claims that he was driven back to the Identification Bureau by FBI Special Agent Odum and that Odum called in the description of the rifle. There should be a record of this action on the part of SA Odum to which we can refer but it doesn't exist. This is not the only Carcano-related evidence that is missing. Lt. Day claimed that upon his return to the Identification Bureau he dictated a report to his secretary that included an accurate description of the Carcano, not a Mauser. This report is missing. Also missing are FBI documents in which Seymour Weitzman and DPD detective C. Dhority provided descriptions of the rifle. TRACING THE CARCANO Despite the denials of Lt. Day, Captain Fritz and others one thing emerges from the testimony and contemporaneous documentation of the events if November 22nd 1963, no one, but no-one, ever identified the rifle as a Mannlicher Carcano. Fritz said: " No, sir; I knew...you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was". Lt. Day said: "On the gun itself, "6.5 caliber C2766, 1940 made in Italy." That was what was on the gun." In the face of the reported facts it is strange that the FBI were able to trace this "unidentified" rifle to Klein's and thence to Oswald by the early hours of Saturday morning. Personally I do not see any reliable evidence to suggest that the FBI began tracing this rifle before late Saturday night when Lt. Day was ordered to hand the weapon over to FBI Special Agent Vincent Drain. If this is the case then the ability of the FBI to trace the rifle to Klein's almost instantaneously is highly suspicious. People will argue that Lt. Day provided Special Agent Odum with sufficient information to start a trace on the weapon during the drive back to the Identification Bureau around 2pm on the day of the assassination but where is the evidence? As mentioned earlier there is no record of Special Agent Odum calling in a description of the weapon, there is no written report by Odum detailing his actions that afternoon. All we have is the word of Lt. Day, an experienced officer who did not exactly cover himself in glory by his actions, who proved evasive to the point of deception in important areas of his testimony before the WC and who, in common with many others, had a propensity for failing to follow procedure and lost documentation. There should be no room for speculation about how the rifle was traced. There should exist a detailed public record of how the rifle was identified and how it was traced. All that does exist is an account, in the most general of terms, with no detail of how the trail led to Klein's. Jim Bishop. in his book "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" provides the following narrative: The New York office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had traced a big shipment of cheap Italian military rifles to Crescent Firearms, which sold in lots to mail order distributors. Early in the evening, the Dallas office had notified Washington that the rifle found on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository building was a 6.5-caliber Mannlicher-Carcano with the serial number C2766 stamped on it. Alan Belmont had passed this information on to all field offices. The New York group, contacting one gun house after another, found that Crescent had them. Unfortunately Jim Bishop's book is another of those apparently scholarly works on the assassination that has no sources. That aside, if his account is right then the FBI did not get a description of this rifle until early evening. What Bishop's account does not say is whether this description was passed on in the early evening Dallas Time or Washington time. Either way, it does appear that if Special Agent Odum was the source of the description and did indeed "Call it in" then it took at least 2 hours, and perhaps as long as 4 hours, for that information to be sent to Washington. That degree of time lag seems unreasonable and for that reason I have doubts that Special Agent Odum was the source of the description the FBI used to trace the rifle. I also have doubts that anyone had identified the rifle as a Mannlicher Carcano by early evening. At best the FBI had a description of a 6.5 mm rifle "Made in Italy" to go on. Supposing that Odum was not the source of the description that started the trace on the rifle then we know that the rifle remained locked in an evidence box until around 7pm when Lt. Day returned to the Identification Bureau to begin checking for fingerprints. It seems more reasonable to conclude that Jim Bishop's reference to "early evening" referred to around 7pm Dallas time when Lt. Day returned to the Identification Bureau. Jim Bishop continues: The company had cooperated in keeping the office open as the FBI agents watched employees run through the files. The records were not overly precise, but they indicated that C2766 had been sent to Klein's Sporting Goods, Incorporated, at 4540 West Madison Street, Chicago. The Chicago office of the FBI was alerted and, late at night, found William J. Waldeman, Vice-President of Klein's, at his home, 335, Central Avenue, in Wilmette, Illinois. Jim Bishop goes on to explain how Mr Waldeman agreed to accompany the FBI to his office, how he needed to call in staff to help search the records, how they ransacked the file cabinets. This, it seems, was no quick rummage through the filing cabinet. Klein's, as their turnover indicates, was a company involved in selling a large and diverse range of goods in considerable numbers. It was already after midnight when an invoice from Crescent Firearms was found detailing a shipment of Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 mm Carbines. These were packed 100 to a box and shipped by the North Penn company. This prompted a search through the microfilm records at Klein's. Jim Bishop's footnotes reveal: At 4am. Dallas time, the order for C2766 was located. It was a coupon clipped from the "American Rifleman" of February 1963. It was ordered by A. Hidell, PO Box 2915, Dallas Texas. This is largely the way in which C2766 was allegedly traced to Klein's and thence to Oswald a.k.a. Hidell. There are variations to be found in the WR and in the assassination literature but all saying essentially the same thing. What they all have in common is an absence of the definitive time when the rifle was identified as a Mannlicher Carcano and a meaningful timeline showing the sequence of events from the time the rifle was allegedly identified until it was traced to Oswald. I have strong reservations about how the rifle was supposedly traced in such a short time but cannot prove anything untoward. All I can observe is that, if the FBI did indeed trace this rifle in the time available and in the manner suggested, it was perhaps the only decent, solid example of police work of the entire investigation. We have traced the life of C2766 from the time it was manufactured through to the WC investigation and a sometimes tortuous journey it has been. During the 2 years I have been researching this article one question keeps cropping up in my mind, is the Mannlicher-Carcano serial number C2766 manufactured at Terni in 1940 the same rifle that was found in the TSBD and is now in the National Archives? At times I have even wondered if C2766 was manufactured in 1940 at all. MAUSER OR CARCANO? I am as certain as it is possible to be that Boone and Weitzman did not find a Mauser rifle in the TSBD. Apart from the admission of Weitzman and statements attributed to others present at the time, there is no evidence to support the Mauser story. Film and photographic records clearly shows a Carcano, not a Mauser. Some people have claimed that a uniformed police officer was seen bringing a rifle down from the roof of the TSBD. The weapon in question was clearly a police-issue shotgun not a rifle. Ruling out a Mauser does not automatically mean that the rifle actually found was Mannlicher Carcano C2766. Too many question marks hang over the conduct of many of the officers involved in searching the TSBD in the aftermath of the assassination. Evidence handling procedure was at best poor and at worst corrupt. There is no doubt in my mind that certain parties were guilty of evasion, equivocation and downright dishonesty in their testimony before the WC. Crucial documentary evidence simply vanished presumably because it was thought to contain inconvenient information. Although the Mauser identification may have been made in genuine error, it is difficult to avoid speculating that it persisted much longer than it had to and became a convenient means to confuse the issue of identification for a period of time after the rifle was found. Describing the rifle as a Mauser bolt-action would have had the effect of precluding Carcano specific questions but allow later deniability on the grounds that a Carcano bears a superficial resemblance to a Mauser. In reaching this conclusion I am mindful of the fact that, at no time during the day of the assassination, despite the incessant media clamour for information, did one single piece of information about the Carcano emerge. There was no mention anywhere that the rifle was 6.5 mm, no mention that it bore the legend "Made in Italy". Nothing emerged from the DPD that could later be uniquely associated with C2766. The action of Lt. Day in taking the Carcano back to the Identification Bureau and locking it up for 5 hours strikes me as suspicious too. No other item of evidence was more important than the suspected murder weapon. This weapon would hold out the expectation of fingerprints, Ballistics evidence and perhaps be traceable to its owner. It beggars belief that the investigation of the evidence the weapon potentially had to offer was ignored for 5 hours. In the circumstances, it seems much more likely that the weapon was locked away for the same reason it was misidentified as a Mauser...to preclude Carcano-specific questions in the hours immediately after it was found. Reading the testimonies provided by Fritz, Boone, Day and Weitzman there are obvious signs of prevarication. Ludicrous though it may now seem, Weitzman was never shown the Carcano during his appearance before the WC and asked to confirm this was the rifle he had found and misidentified. The Carcano was there, it would have been a simple matter to hand the weapon to him and ask "Is this the rifle you found that day in the TSBD?". Easy to ask but no-one did. Co-finder Eugene Boone was shown the rifle but he could not confirm it was the same rifle. Even lawyer-cum-assassination writer Mark Lane got to handle the rifle at the WC hearings but not Seymour Weitzman. Proponents of the lone assassin theory dismiss speculation over the rifle as groundless but there is much that needs explaining. The facts as we know them are that the true identity of the rifle did not emerge for some time after it was found. The officers who found the rifle and those, like Fritz, who joined them soon after left a lot to be desired in their professional conduct that day. SO IT WAS A CARCANO? There is little doubt in my mind that a Carcano was found by Boone and Weitzman but I am not convinced it was same Carcano later introduced into evidence. A closer look at the post-assassination affidavit and WC testimony of Seymour Weitzman provide valuable clues. Weitzman's affidavit is not that detailed with regard to the rifle found. He simply describes it as: "a 7.65 mm Mauser bolt action with 4/18 scope with a thick brownish-black sling on it." It seems clear that the rifle was discussed by Weitzman, Boone, Day and Fritz although the latter two deny it. I do not subscribe to the popular view that Weitzman was a firearms expert but it is likely that he knew more than most. A Mannlicher Carcano is sufficiently similar to a Mauser in appearance to be mistaken for one without a really close examination. It has to be understood that there was no such thing as a unique Mauser. Mauser rifles were made under license by a number of countries. These included Belgium, Argentina, Turkey and Sweden. It would be unreasonable to suppose that Wietzman would be familiar with the many incarnations of this popular rifle. It would, however, be perfectly reasonable to suppose that Weitzman would recognize a Mauser-type bolt-action rifle, which is precisely what a Carcano is. I think that Weiztman genuinely thought the rifle he had found was a Mauser. I think he looked at the rifle and reported what he saw. He saw a bolt-action rifle with a brownish-black sling, 4/18 scope and apparently marked 7.65mm. By the time Weitzman came to testify before the WC his identification of the rifle was already an issue. It became important to dismiss any lingering doubt that Mannlicher Carcano C2766 was the weapon he found. Seymour Weitzman did what most people would do when faced with the situation he found himself in...he embellished. First he sought to minimize any responsibility for his "mistaken" identification by claiming he only saw the rifle at a glance. He could hardly go on to tell the WC that he knew all along that the rifle was a Carcano so he did the next best thing, he provided a highly detailed physical description of the rifle. The description he provided was sufficiently applicable to C2766 that it served to offset his earlier "mistaken" identification. Three things stand out in Weitzman's testimony: 1) he gave a much more detailed description of the rifle than he could have gleaned "at a glance", 2) he provided largely new descriptive information that did not appear in his affidavit and 3) he was never shown the rifle he was apparently identifying for the purpose of confirmation. I believe that the detailed description Weitzman provided for the WC was "given" to him sometime after the affidavit and that the report he provided for the FBI was deliberately destroyed because it was incompatible with C2766. The rifle forever associated with the assassination is a 6.5mm Carcano serial number C2766. I suspect, the rifle Seymour Weitzman and Eugene Boone found was actually a 7.35mm Carcano. It is a fact that 7.65mm Mausers were not exactly common in the USA in 1963. Unless Seymour Weitzman had seen something on the rifle that led him to designate it 7.65mm, it is much more likely he would have called it a 7.62mm. The confusion that surrounds the rifle is virtually impenetrable. If we take Eugene Boone's testimony at face value then it was Fritz who identified the rifle as a Mauser. Fritz would later protest that he had no knowledge of Mausers but coming from a 40-year veteran with 31 years experience as a homicide officer I cannot believe he had never come across Mauser rifles before. Even the time the rifle was found is open to interpretation. It has always been thought that Boone and Weitzman found the Carcano at approximately 1.22pm on the day of the assassination. This is the time Boone claimed to have noted from his watch. In 1971, former Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig produced a manuscript entitled "When They Kill A President"which was never formally published. Craig's manuscript contained an account of the discovery of C2766: Lt. Day inspected the rifle briefly then handed it to Capt. Fritz, who had a puzzled look on his face. Seymour Weitzman a deputy constable was standing beside me at the time. Weitzman was an expert on weapons, being in the sporting goods business for many years he was familiar with all domestic and foreign weapons. Capt. Fritz asked if anyone knew what kind of rifle it was. Weitzman asked to see it. After a close examination (much longer than Fritz or Day's examination) Weitzman declared that it was a 7.65 German Mauser, Fritz agreed with him....At that exact moment an unknown Dallas police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I instinctively looked at my watch and the time was 1:06 P.M. If Roger Craig's account is true then it suggests a rifle was found as much 16 minutes earlier than the official record claims. It is known that the first media account that a rifle had been found was broadcast by WBAP-TV at 1.23 PM, one minute after the time the rifle was officially discovered. This report seems to have been broadcast far too early to be consistent with the official time the rifle was allegedly found. Similar question marks exist over the exact time Luke Mooney found the empty shells by the 6th floor window of the TSBD. The Warren Report states that Mooney found the shells at 1.12 PM and claims this timing is supported by Mooney's testimony. Mooney actually testified that he found the shells no later than 1pm. Captain Fritz said he arrived at the TSBD around 12.58 PM and that it wasn't long before the shells were found. Discussion of the shells is beyond the scope of this work but the same confusion that surrounds the rifle is apparent in the story of the shells. There is evidence that Captain Fritz was responsible for moving the shells prior to them being photographed. It is a fact that he put the unused bullet ejected from the rifle into his pocket and retained it for several days such that it only found its way onto the Property Clerk's receipt as an afterthought. As mentioned earlier, the clip essential to firing a Carcano in the manner proscribed and from which these shells would have been fed never did appear on the property sheet. PROBLEMS WITH THE SERIAL NUMBER It is impossible to state with any certainty that C2766 is a serial number uniquely associated with the Carcano alleged to have belonged to Oswald. Unlike a new rifle, the true history of C2766 is not necessarily known. It is entirely possible that C2766 is a hybrid rifle repaired and renovated using parts cannibalized from other Carcanos. Some Carcanos were remodeled and carry 2 serial numbers, the original serial number and a new number added after remodeling. It is also the case that Carcanos were made in a number of factories where the prefix "C" was used for serial numbers. (44) There is some evidence, though it may be moot, that Klein's sold Carcano rifles and carbines with a C2766 serial number and that Dr Lattimer bought one. (45) In 1964, J. Edgar Hoover wrote a memo in which he conceded that the serial number C2766 was not necessarily unique. It is known that the FBI did trace a Carcano rifle serial number 2766(prefix unknown) to an unidentified Canadian firearms supplier. The WR Chapter IV quotes the rifle serial number as CS-2766. This might be a typographical error but the prefix "CS" is a valid Carcano serial number. Serial number duplication is not sufficient by itself to render the WR claims and conclusions unsafe but there are other matters already hinted at that do seriously undermine the official story. If C2766 is the same rifle the FBI claim they traced to Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago the fact that it bears any serial number at all is strange. Henry S. Bloomgarden faced this dilemma when he tried to document the history of C2766. Bloomgarden's book purports to be a history of C2766 but it is much more a political statement in support of the anti-gun lobby. In order to make his political statement he had to show C2766 was the same rifle imported by Crescent Firearms, sold on to Klein's and used to assassinate JFK. The fact that Riva was required to remove serial numbers from the rifles he renovated became a problem. To overcome this problem Bloomgarden simply claimed that of all the shipments Riva made, only those in the shipment containing C2766 had their serial numbers intact. (46) It should not escape attention either that there were literally thousands of Carcanos circulating in the USA with no serial number. A simple enough matter to convert a Carcano without a number to any serial number desired. PROBLEMS WITH THE CARCANO The Carcano Oswald allegedly ordered from Klein's is not the same as the one entered into evidence by the WC. A coupon clipped from the February 1, 1963 issue, supposedly used by Oswald to order the rifle, shows a Carcano, order number, C20-T750, measuring 36 inches. The rifle entered into evidence, as CE 139 is 39 inches long. Interestingly, the Klein's advert entered into evidence by the WC is for a Carcano of the right length but comes from the November 1963 issue of Field and Stream. This advert was offered to the WC by the ubiquitous Postal Inspector Harry Holmes! (47) This might be as good a time as any to mention that Harry D. Holmes was more than just a Postal Inspector. In addition to his postal duties, Holmes was an FBI informant. He appeared to have an uncanny knack of being in crucial places at crucial times during the day of the assassination and on subsequent days. Odd though it may seem, he also took part in the interrogation of Oswald at the DPD. (48) There is a lesser-known problem relating to the Carcano that I believe to be significant. At the time it was recovered C2766 was said to be in generally poor condition with the firing pin in particularly precarious condition due to rusting. It was fitted with a scope that had to be fitted with shims to be used accurately. The problem here is that, according to the evidence, C2766 had only been in Oswald's possession for 8 months. It is claimed that during most of this 8 months the rifle was wrapped in an old rug. How exactly does a reconditioned rifle with a new, professionally fitted scope, get into such a poor condition in just 8 months? (49) In contrast to all this evidence suggesting that Oswald had purchased C2766 there was a total absence of any evidence that he ever bought the Western Cartridge Company ammunition that was allegedly used in the assassination. Only 4 bullets were apparently found at the scene, 3 in the form of spent shells and 1 live round in the rifle. Despite thorough searches of property and premises associated with Oswald no ammunition was ever found. This particular ammunition was part of a consignment of 4 million rounds made by the Western Cartridge Company of Alton, Illinois and shipped it 4 lots numbered 6000 - 6003. The ammunition was apparently purchased by the US Army to supply allies but in reality it was purchased by the CIA for use in the weapon provided to the Cuban rebels being trained for the abortive Bay of Pigs invasion. Part of the consignment found its way on to the surplus market and was available in Dallas. The owners of gun shops stocking this ammunition were questioned but did not recall selling any to Oswald or anyone resembling Oswald. In fact, investigators were unable to find any of the normal paraphernalia one might expect to find in the possession of a gun owner such as lubricating oil and cleaning kit. This raises another dilemma. The ammunition allegedly found at the TSBD had marks consistent with it having been chambered more than once. The implication of these marks is that the shells may well have been fired previously, the empty shells collected and then reloaded. Another possibility is that the shells were fired in another rifle and then loaded into C2766 to produce forensic evidence. (50) Needless to say, Oswald did not appear to own any of the equipment necessary to reload ammunition. In Dallas 2 gun shops stocked Western Cartridge Company 6.5mm ammunition but only one of these reloaded bullets with the same type of hunting load used in the suspect bullets. He was John Masen, a right-wing extremist and member of the notorious Minutemen organization and a man with a history of illegal arms dealing. Perhaps the most significant thing about Masen is that he bore an uncanny physical resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald. (51) PROBLEMS WITH THE PAPER TRAIL The speed with which the FBI were able to trace C2766 to Klein's of Chicago was breathtaking. There were many places that particular type of rifle could have been sourced. The WR contains a version of how the rifle was traced to Hidell a.k.a. Oswald but it lacks the ring of truth: Shortly after the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, agents of the FBI learned from retail outlets in Dallas that Crescent Firearms, Inc., of New York City, was a distributor of surplus Italian 6.5-millimeter military rifles. During the evening of November 22, 1963, a review of the records of Crescent Firearms revealed that the firm had shipped an Italian carbine, serial number C2766, to Klein's Sporting Goods Co., of Chicago, Ill. After searching their records from 10 PM. to 4 am. the officers of Klein's discovered that a rifle bearing serial number C2766 had been shipped to one A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex., on March 20, 1963. (52) Although the record of how the rifle was traced leaves much to be desired it is clear that the FBI did not learn "shortly after" the assassination that Crescent Firearms Inc of New York was a distributor. Contact was not made direct with the FBI in New York as would be expected if this were true and the call that did alert the FBI Washington Office did not come until early evening. The FBI Washington office circulated details of the rifle to all FBI offices and apparently it was old-fashioned legwork by the FBI in New York that produced the link to Crescent. (53) Although the official version of events states that Fred Rupp dispatched the Carcano to Klein's in response to their order number 1243 on January 24th 1963, Louis Feldsott of Crescent told the FBI that the rifle was sold to Klein's on June 8th 1962. (54) In June 1962, C2766 was supposedly still impounded by New Jersey customs. Klein's Vice-President William Waldman claimed that Oswald's money order for $21.45, dated March 12th, was received on March 13, 1963 and was banked that day as part of a deposit amounting to $13,827.98 and this was supported by a deposit slip entered into evidence. The date on the bank slip showing a deposit of $13,827.98 is 15th February 1963. (55) One of the things that stood out in the paperwork from Klein's was that it was comprehensive to the point of overkill. Strange then that these anomalies should arise. (56) The order coupon produced by Klein's purports to written in Oswald's hand. Below I indicate why I feel the backyard photographs are fakes and the same general comments apply to the handwriting evidence, which can easily be faked. PROBLEMS WITH THE DALLAS POST BOX Without question the problem of Oswald's Dallas post box deals a fatal blow to the Carcano chain of evidence. At the same time, the destruction of the crucial Part 3 of Oswald's application form points to criminal evidence tampering. The destruction of this key piece of evidence points to a deliberate attempt to sustain a false chain of evidence but this may not be the only interpretation. If, as Postal Inspector Harry Holmes and the FBI report claim, A. Hidell was not authorized to collect mail at Oswald's box the implication is that only Oswald could collect mail. If Part 3 of Oswald's form did not contain the names of anyone authorized to collect mail then why destroy it? The existence of a blank Part 3 is in no way injurious to the case made against Oswald by the WC. I strongly believe that there was another person(s) authorized to collect mail at Oswald's box and the document was destroyed to conceal this information. There was at least one Dallas FBI agent whose relationship with Oswald was never fully explained and who had a propensity for destroying evidence. He is only one of a number of individuals whose name might conceivably have appeared on Part 3 of Oswald's application for a post box. The FBI were responsible for destroying the note left by Oswald at Dallas FBI headquarters for Special Agent Hosty and were at least party to the knowledge that Part 3 of Oswald's application form had been deliberately destroyed in the post assassination period. Military intelligence operatives are also known to have destroyed their Hidell file...routinely so they claimed. (57) Agencies that are capable of destroying evidence that does not suit its purpose are equally capable of creating false evidence that does. The conveniently incriminating backyard photographs of Oswald posing with a rifle he could not have collected from the Dallas Post Office are a case in point. In the absence of any reliable evidence that Oswald could have taken delivery of the Carcano package the backyard photographs cannot be genuine. It is a fact that agencies known to have destroyed vital evidence had the technical expertise to produce impeccable fake photographs. It is known that DPD had a ghost mask image of Oswald posing in the backyard. Such a mask represents a stage in the production of a fake photograph. No satisfactory explanation of when, why and who created this image has ever been forthcoming. (58) DRAWING CONCLUSIONS Much of the evidence relating to C2766 is less clear-cut than the WR tried to claim. There are many problem areas that should have been investigated in greater detail to resolve issues raised. For the most part these issues were simply ignored. The chain of evidence that places C2766 in the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12.30PM on November 22nd 1963 is fatally flawed and evidently contrived. There is no reliable evidence to show that C-2766 is the same rifle Luciano Riva restored, no reliable evidence that C2766 was ordered and sold to Klein's in the manner and on the dates claimed. There is no reliable evidence that the money order Oswald was alleged to have used to purchase the rifle arrived at Klein's on the date and in the manner claimed. It cannot be satisfactorily established that Oswald could have taken delivery of the Carcano in the way Harry Holmes alleged. On the day of the assassination no one saw Oswald take any package into the TSBD that could reasonably have contained C2766. Vigorous attempts were made to induce Buell Wesley Frazier, Linne May Randle and Jack Dougherty to say otherwise but these attempts failed. There is strong evidence that Oswald could not have fabricated the bag alleged to have been used to carry C2766 into the TSBD and a complete absence of photographic evidence that the bag ever existed. The testimonial evidence raises more questions than it ever answers. The conduct and professionalism of the DPD officers involved in the finding and handling of C2766 was dire. The testimonies of Fritz, Day and Weitzman in particular are replete with prevarication and equivocation. In taking the testimony of these officers the WC counsel had ample opportunity to fully air all the issues raised and to clarify the ambiguities. In failing to do so, the WC counsel were culpable. Perhaps most damning of all is the destruction/loss of evidence and the fabrication of new evidence. It must have been apparent to the WC that something was wrong. Why, for example, rely upon Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes to explain the procedure for handling post box application forms when it would have been a simple matter to obtain the official procedure manual? Why accept the evidence provided by Holmes and the FBI that Hidell was not authorized to collect mail from P.O. Box 2915 when they could not have known this unless they had seen Part 3 of the form supposedly destroyed? So many years after the assassination it has still been possible to trace the history of C2766 and the evidence tendered in support of it being the assassination weapon. It is not possible to state that Lee Harvey Oswald was not involved in some way with the assassination but I am satisfied that the evidence linking him to C2766 is not legitimate. and if that is not enough... read the attached... take your time....

Doesn't seem completely out of the realm of possibility.... Size is close whether he is standing on the ground or up on the bumper... Arnold's story has always been so compelling and I have not studied enough of his being interviewed or his story as to whether he could be the type to place himself into the situation after the fact. The reveal of his possibly being in Moorman during TMWKK was amazing... I'd like to believe him and in reality I believe he says he hit the dirt after the first shot so his being in Moorman may be a moot point. DJ

QUOTE (David Josephs @ Jun 7 2010, 02:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1. No one saw him do it Even Fritz is obviously disappointed when he says that they cannot place him (Oswald) in the window with a rifle at the time of the shots while the one witness, Brennan, in his book "Eyewitness to History" says: I said brusquely, “He looks like the man, but I can’t say for sure!” I needed some time to think. I turned to Mr. Lish, who had detected my resentment and said, “Let’s go back to the office. We have some talking to do.” As we went, I commented that the man in the lineup wasn’t dressed the same way the man in the window had been. Brennan was the one and only witness putting Oswald in that window and he refused to ID him... for a variety of reasons... but this left the DPD with no one to ID Oswald. As I wrote... "No one saw him (LHO) do it" Unless you have something to add to the thread other that insulting attacks Interesting how you put that "for a variety of reasons" I wonder if his reasons included the fact he felt betrayed by the DPD, or possibly was in fear? How about this from Brennan's own book: "The officer walked over to me sticking out his hand to shake. He greeted me by name and I knew if he knew who I was and what my connection with the case was, then others must know. He asked me, “Does the second man from the left look most like the man you saw?” He was talking about Oswald and I knew what he wanted me to say. I felt even more angry and betrayed. I hadn’t agreed to make an identification to the local authorities. I knew that there were ways my identity could become known though the leaks in the police department and I didn’t want any part of it. I knew that they had Oswald on enough charges that he wasn’t going anyplace. He had been charged with resisting arrest and carrying a firearm without a permit. There was overwhelming evidence that he had killed Officer Tippit and so my identification in that moment wasn’t absolutely necessary. If they needed me later, I knew I could identify him." I knew I could identify him, if they needed me later! Sounds like Brennan saw Oswald in that window. Now I wonder why you did not elaborate on "for a variety of reasons" http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0085a.htm Page 145/146 of the WCR – “Although the record indicates that Brennan was an accurate observer, he declined to make a positive ID of Oswald when he first saw him in the police line-up. The Commission, therefore, does NOT base its conclusion concerning the identity of the assassin on Brennan’s subsequent identification of LHO as the man he saw fire a rifle.” While the Report admits that Brennan believes he saw someone who looked like Oswald, according to him, the only thing that can be taken as evidence is a witnesses’ positive or negative identification. Well what do you know... the DPD records HAS such a document!! {image already provided} And instead of firing back with Fischer and Edwards – who also used the term “could” have been LHO, never positively identified Oswald. Or Euins who actually saw a black man at the window and was scared into changing his story – kind of like Dr. Perry, someone considerably less shaken than a 15 year old kid, who was hounded into changing what he KNEW to be a frontal entrance into a maybe.... Proof Mikey... Evidence.... Brennan’s words are all hearsay. He didn’t ID Oswald as the shooter #1 proven – No one saw him (LHO) do it QUOTE 2. He was seen elsewhere just before and just after.. with a woman who told a researcher she was giving him change when the shots were fired. Do we really need to do the Oswald timeline again? He's seen as late as 12:15-12:20 on the first floor - and please try to remember if he was the lone assassin he has no way of knowing EXACTLY when the limo is passing... based on what the public knew JFK would pass by anytime between 11:55 and 12:25 (luncheon had public start times of both 12 and 12:30). Add to this that Williams is eating his lunch, at a 6th floor window until 12:15 or so. And then again LHO is seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:31 - maybe... the Baker/Truly/Oswald rememberance of this event is still very much at odds with each other. I wish I could find the person who posted the comment about a woman coming forward claiming to have been giving Oswald change for the Coke machine on his trip from the 1st floor to the 2nd, before he buys the coke. Maybe someone can come to my aid while I continue to look for it.... Bottom line? Oswald was not on the 6th floor when witnesses saw numerous men with rifles moving about on that floor. Mrs Reid definitely places a coke in his hand as he walks thru her office out towards the front, after the "Baker" encounter. So where was he DURING the assassination. You readily admit you have him located just before, and just after. Rowland does in fact see a dark complected man in the window at about 12:15, as I recall. He also sees a gunman, which rather fits Oswald's description, but he never sees the both at the same time. So you have Oswald accounted for till say 12:20, and then again at 12:31. This does not rule him out at all. As far as someone telling a researcher something, come on, you don’t really believe hearsay like that is going to fly do you? I am not a CT. I don’t bite that easily. Yes Mikey... If someone is seen on the 1st/2nd floor at 12:15-12:20 and possibly even 12:25 and then again at 12:31 in the exact same area... it is reasonable to conclude he never went anywhere, NOT that he ran up 5 flights of steps, assembled a rifle, built a boxed-in sniper’s lair, fired and hit 2 of three shots while MANY witnesses: civilian, DPD, SS testify to a shot coming from the right front of the limo; lay the rifle down, make a clip and paper bag disappear until needed, run down 5 flights of steps, get change for a coke, buy the coke and casually walk into a gun pointed at his stomach. All in 6-12 minutes. I can see where you’d think this scenario does not rule him out... http://karws.gso.uri.edu/PSC482g/Spring1999/ExternalComm.html Then, there is the mishandling of the Carolyn Arnold statements. Taken together, the two support her later claims that she saw LHO on the first floor at 12:25; making it unlikely that he went up five flights of stairs and ran over to the window to shoot JFK. In her hand written statement she told the FBI she saw LHO "at about 12:25 PM" (Weisberg Post Mortem, p. 333 citing Commission Document 706(d)). The FBI retyped her statement to read that she LHO "a few minutes before 12:15 PM" (Roffman, p. 185, citing CD 5:4l). On page 276 Roffman notes the dishonestly of the Warren Report which claimed "that it knew of no Book Depository employee who claimed to have seen Oswald between 11:55 and 12:30 on the day of the assassination." British journalist and author Anthony Summers provides the following summary of his 1978 interview with Mrs. Arnold: When I found Mrs. Arnold in 1978 to get a firsthand account, she was surprised to hear how she had been reported by the FBI. Her spontaneous reaction, that she had been misquoted, came before I explained to her the importance of Oswald's whereabouts at given moments. Mrs. Arnold's recollection of what she really observed was clear--spotting Oswald was after all her one personal contribution to the record of that memorable day. As secretary to the company vice- president she knew Oswald; he had been in the habit of coming to her for change. What Mrs. Arnold says she actually told the FBI is very different from the report of her comments and not vague at all. She said: "About a quarter of an hour before the assassination [12:15], I went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment. . . . Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right-hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly." Mrs. Arnold has reason to remember going into the lunchroom. She was pregnant at the time and had a craving for a glass of water. Carolyn Arnold sees Oswald eating lunch on the second floor lunchroom. ”Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly.” ref. Crossfire, p 49; Conspiracy - Who Killed Kennedy?, p 108 http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/hasty.htm A few minutes later, Bill Shelley and Charles Givens saw Oswald on the first floor, at around 11:50. Then, ten minutes later, Eddie Piper also saw Oswald on the first floor. Moreover, as mentioned, Williams began eating his lunch on the sixth floor at right around noon and didn't leave the floor until around 12:15 or 12:20. Since Oswald was seen by Piper on the first floor at noon, and since Williams was on the sixth floor at noon to eat his lunch, the only time Oswald could have gone up to the sniper's nest was after Williams came back downstairs at 12:15 or 12:20. The motorcade was scheduled to pass in front of the TSBD at 12:25. As it turned out, the motorcade was running five minutes late, but Oswald could not have known that. Arriving at the sniper's window at 12:16 at the earliest, Oswald would have been hard-pressed to build (or finish building) the sniper's nest, arrange the boxes next to the window as a gun rest, and then reassemble the rifle. One witness, Arnold Rowland, insisted he saw a man with a rifle--an assembled rifle--on the sixth floor at 12:15 or 12:16, and Rowland said nothing about seeing any boxes being moved in the sniper's nest. Mr. BALL. Was that the last time you saw him? Mr. PIPER. Just at 12 o’clock. Mr. BALL. Where were you at 12 o’clock? Mr. PIPER. Down on the first floor. Mr. BALL. What was he doing? Mr. PIPER. Well, I said to him-“It’s about http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp7.html Jarman and Norman appeared together on the first floor again, about ten minutes after stepping outside. Because the crowds in front of the Depository were so large, the two men went up to the fifth floor at 12:20 or 12:25. To do this, they walked around to the back of the building, entering on the first floor through the rear door and taking the elevator up five stories (3H202). Obviously, Oswald could not have told the police that "Junior" and a short Negro employee were together on the first floor unless he had seen this himself.[3] For Oswald to have witnessed Jarman and Norman in this manner, he had to have been on the first floor between either 12:10 and 12:15 or 12:20 and 12:25. The fact that Oswald was able to relate this incident is cogent evidence that he was in fact on the first floor at one or both of these times. If he was on the sixth floor, as the Commission believes, then it was indeed a remarkable coincidence that out of all the employees, Oswald picked the two who were on the first floor at the time he said, and together as he described. Since this is a remote possibility that warrants little serious consideration, I am persuaded to conclude that Oswald was on the first floor at some time between 12:10 and 12:25, which is consistent with the previously cited testimony of Eddie Piper.[4] Now, let us revisit the statements made by Bonnie Ray Williams. First of all, when the WC asked Williams about his FBI statement, he denied telling the FBI that he left the sixth floor at 12:05 (4:103). And, when the Commission asked Williams to give an approximate time for his departure from the sixth floor, he said he left at around 12:20 (4:103). Former WC member Gerald Ford said Williams left the sixth floor "just minutes before the Presidential motorcade reached the corner of Houston and Elm" Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12. I could say approximately what time it was. Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it? Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe. Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there? Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes. Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there? Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes. And the testimony of Mrs. Reid Mr. BELIN. Now, Mrs. Reid, you left lunch about what time? Mrs. REID. Well, I left, I ate my lunch hurriedly, I wasn't watching the time but I wanted to be sure of getting out on the streets in time for the parade before he got there, and I called my husband, who works at the records building, and they had a radio in their office and they were listening as the parade progressed and he told me they were running about 10 minutes late. But I went down rather soon and stood on the steps. Mr. DULLES. Where was your husband working? Mrs. REID. He works for the records building. Mr. BELIN. Where is that located? Mrs. REID. Well, it is off the left-hand side, kind of cater-cornered across from our building. Mr. BELIN. The records building has one side of it on Elm Street running from Houston to Record Street? Mrs. REID. Yes. Mr. BELIN. And I believe it is on, it would run on, the south side of Elm? Mrs. REID. Yes. Mr. BELIN. Is that correct? Mrs. REID. Yes. Mr. BELIN. All right. Do you know about what time it was that you left the lunchroom, was it 12, 12:15? Mrs. REID. I think around 12:30 somewhere along in there. Mr. BELIN. All right. When you left the lunchroom, did you leave with the other girls? Mrs. REID. No; I didn't. The younger girls had gone and I left alone. Mr. BELIN. Were you the last person in the lunchroom? Mrs. REID. No; I could not say that because I don't remember that part of it because I was going out of the building by myself, I wasn't even, you know, connected with anyone at all. Mr. BELIN. Were there any men in the lunchroom when you left there? Mrs. REID. I can't, I don't, remember that. Mr. BELIN. All right. You went up through the stairs and then what did you do? Mrs. REID. I went into the office. Mr. BELIN. You went into your office? Mrs. REID. Yes. Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do? Mrs. REID. Well, I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming in the back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk several feet and I told him, I said, "Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe they didn't hit him." He mumbled something to me, I kept walking, he did, too. I didn't pay any attention to what he said because I had no thoughts of anything of him having any connection with it at all because he was very calm. He had gotten a coke and was holding it in his hands and I guess the reason it impressed me seeing him in there I thought it was a little strange that one of -the warehouse boys would be up in the office at the time, not that he had done anything wrong. The only time I had seen him in the office was to come and get change and he already had his coke in his hand so he didn't come for change and I dismissed him. I didn't think anything else. How does Oswald know that Williams is eating his lunch not 15 feet from the corner from 12- 12:15 so he cannot go up... and finally have you read Jack Dougherty’s testimony? http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/doughert.htm you might find it interesting. #2 Proven – he was elsewhere immediately before and after the shots were fired, no one saw him go up to the floors that were occupied until 12:20 by Williams or even later by Dougherty... and no on e saw him come down. If you can prove, with evidence, that Fritz was wrong when he said they could not put that man in the window at the time of the shots... please do. Please don’t just argue and offer nothing in support. QUOTE 3. He didn't fire a rifle that day Google the parafin tests please... 2 positives on his hands and a negative on his cheek... the hands can lead to many different interpretations, the most damaging that he fired a pistol yet the results should have been positive on the shooting hand and negative on the other unless he was incontact with substances that could cause both positives - which he was during his normal day at work. Nothing on his cheek is the most telling as to why he didn't fire a rifle that day... the fact that nobody fired THAT rifle THAT day is a whole other story... Paraffin eh? Your kidding me right? You do of course know of the unreliability of this test. Let me refresh for you by asking you to read what Cunningham had to say in WCH3p487. "And 17 men were involved in this test. Each man fired five shots from a .38 caliber revolver. Both the firing hand and the hand that was not involved in the firing were treated with paraffin casts, and then those casts treated with diphenylamine. A total of eight men showed negative or essentially negative results on both hands. A total of three men showed positive results on the idle hand, but negative on the firing hand. Two men showed positive results on their firing hand and negative results on their idle hands. And four men showed positive on both hands, after having fired only with their right hands." And then Further: CUNNINGHAM: Yes. We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts. EISENBERG: So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek? CUNNINGHAM: That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber—in other words, so he wouldn’t pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions. Cunningham had explained earlier why a false negative could arise with the rifle (3H492): EISENBERG: A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result. CUNNINGHAM: Yes. EISENBERG: Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek? CUNNINGHAM: No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter. I find it interesting that you would try to use something that is inconclusive, as an indication of exoneration. Note I said interesting, not surprising. And Mikey... It’s interesting you simply stop with the above and not look into the more complete examination of the paraffin casts which show higher levels on the palms of his hands as opposed to the back of his hands where the residue would be left if he ONLY fired a gun or rifle as opposed to interacting with all the elements found in the TSBD... same story with the cheeks. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gallagher.htm Mr. REDLICH. Getting back to the hand casts, did you use the outside surface of the hand casts as a control surface? Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes; I did, sir. Mr. REDLICH. Could you tell us how the inside or the outside surface of the hand cast compared with regard to the elements barium and antimony? Mr. GALLAGHER. Much more barium and antimony were found on the inside of the hand casts than were found on the control specimens taken from the outside of the hand casts of the subject. Mr. REDLICH. All right. Now let us turn to the cheek casts, Mr. Gallagher. Could you tell us the results of your examination of the cheek casts with reference to the presence of the elements barium and antimony? Mr. GALLAGHER. Barium and antimony were found on the cheek casts. However, when the cheek cast was analyzed, both surfaces of the cheek cast were studied. That is, the surface adjacent to the skin of the subject and the surface away from the skin of the subject, or the outside surface of the cast. Mr. REDLICH. For our record, let us call the surface adjacent to the skin the inside surface, and the other surface the outside surface. Mr. GALLAGHER. The outside surface of this cast was found to contain--barium and antimony--actually more barium was found on the outside surface of the cast than on the inside surface. Mr. REDLICH. And as far as antimony is concerned, was there more on the outside than on the inside ? Mr. GALLAGHER. There was slightly less antimony on the outside of the cast than on the inside of the cast. Mr. REDLICH. Do you have any explanation for the presence of barium and antimony on the outside of the cast, and as part of the same question, do you have any explanation for their being more barium on the outside than the inside ? Mr. GALLAGHER. I have no explanation for this difference. And please try to remember that there was not a single fingerprint found on the rifle, nor were there the multiple fingerprints one would expect to find on all the boxes around the SL. Either he was practicing with the rifle and left prints or he never touched the rifle to begin with... there was nothing done to determine whether the rifle was fired that day... And if he did indeed clean and oil the rifle – you of all people should know that looking down the barrel or smelling the barrel would indicate whether it was fired recently. QUOTE 4. The rifle was the worst POS imaginable for a number of reasons Really Mike? If I remember correctly you are knowledgeable about weapons yes? You think a 20+ year old rifle, with 20+ year old ammo, a rickety scope, a badly damaged firing pin and a partially filled "non existent" clip shooting a round with a bent hull was a RELIABLE weapon, was not a POS that repeatedly jammed, was hard to shoot by experts and appeared as if it hadn't been fired or oiled in who knows how long? Really? Yes I have read these claims before. Pure rubbish, and spewed by people who have no idea what they are talking about in regard to firearms. To answer your question, yes, I do think a 20 year old firearm with a partially loaded clip (which is irrelevant) could have done the deed. Now I don’t know exactly what you mean by "non-existent" clip. There is documented proof the clip was in the TSBD. so why not photograph it with ALL the other stuff found up there... like the paper bag in the location it was found – NOT. There were no photos of the clip because there was no clip to photograph. I also assume in talking about the firing pin, you are referring to it showing signs of much use? Imagine that a war rifle showing signs of use. I also suppose you are going to quote that they were afraid to dry fire it because they feared breaking the firing pin. I hear this often, and it is comical. You are aware of the fact that you never dry fire a weapon with this type of pin design aren't you? The reason is, that even if the pin is BRAND NEW, you run the risk of breaking it. They were not afraid to dry fire it because it was defective, they were afraid to because that is standard firearms knowledge. Its also the reason these were made to allow gunsmiths, like myself, to test fire weapons and have a striking surface for the pin: Now a word about the scope. You do realize that it was in very good firing order on 11/27/63 when the FBI tested it? In fact they fired six rounds that made a keyhole in the target!: Of course these rounds were fired at 15 yards. Someone with no knowledge would jump all over that, but what they fail to realize is this is a strong indication that the scope was in fact zeroed in at 400 yards. More about this to come. Yet another completely useless comment by you Mikey... The FBI tests of the Carcano's accuracy showed: 1) FBI firearms expert Robert A. Frazier testified that "It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that."[59] From 15 yards (14 m), all three bullets in a test firing landed approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1-inch (25 mm) to the right, in the area about the size of a dime.[60] At 100 yards (91 m), the test shots landed 2 1/2 to 5 inches (130 mm) high, within a 3 to 5-inch (130 mm) circle. Frazier testified that the scope's high variation would actually work in the shooter's favor: with a target moving away from the shooter, no "lead" correction would have been necessary to follow the target. "At that range, at that distance, 175 feet (53 m) to 265 feet (81 m),[61] with this rifle and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any lead — I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a target of that size." {so either LHO knows the scope is off - there is no evidence for this at all - and proceeds not to correct it for his killing of the president, OR he does not know its off and would us a lead. If you fired a rifle that was off 2.5-5” would you leave it that way? If you didn’t know it was off would you fire it as if it was... Mr. gunsmith??} 2) The rifle was unable to be "sighted-in", using the scope, without the installation of 2 metal shims (small metal plates) which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing, and were never found.[62] {what do you have for this Mikey?} Frazier testified that there was "a rather severe scrape" on the scope tube, and that the sight could have been bent or damaged. He was unable to determine when the defect occurred before the FBI received the rifle and scope on November 27, 1963. 59. ^ Warren Commission Hearings, Testimony of Robert A. Frazier. 60. ^ Warren Commission Exhibit CE-549. 61. ^ The Warren Commission estimated that President Kennedy was 176.9 feet (53.9 m) to 190.8 feet (58.2 m) from the sixth floor corner window of the Depository when he was shot in the neck, and 265.3 feet (80.9 m) when he was shot in the head. 62. ^ Warren Commission Hearings: 3 WCH 440-5. As for the ridiculousness of the dented shell. Of course it could not have been fired dented, but it sure could have been dented after. Its called a short cycle. I have done it many times, and have seen it done by others. It is simply, not pulling the bolt far enough back to eject the shell, then when you run the bolt forward it hits the chamber lip. So this would have to have been the LAST shot fired since what you describe would not have ejected the shell the first time – the shooter double works the bolt AFTER he sees JFK’s head blow up, and then leaves a live round in the rifle. If the Clip was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD why wasn’t it by the window and other shells since chambering the last round ejects the clip? Why wasn’t it photographed? Who shoved it back into the weapon and why would anyone do that? Try answering a few questions instead of asking for once... QUOTE 4. His .38 did not fire automatic rounds - he did not kill Tippit either 1:34 221 (Ptm. H.W. Summers) *Channel 1 Message* Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). Last seen running on the north side of the street from Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark-finish automatic pistol which he had in his right hand. 1:34pm 550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill) *Channel 1 Message* The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol. What you would fail to realize is that in the day pistols were automatics, and revolvers were well revolvers. Another epic case of someone not knowing what they are talking about. People who murder with revolvers generally don’t hang around long enough to eject the shells. It is perfectly logical for the officer to assume they were autos, just because they were laying around on the ground. There is no indication that he picked them up and examined them before making the statement. I dare say, can you find the auto and the special in this illustration? I’m not as ballistics expert Mikey... but I’d venture to say an 8 year veteran, now a sergeant of the DPD is better qualified than I am... Mr. HILL. Right. And Poe showed me a Winston cigarette package that contained three spent jackets from shells that he said a citizen had pointed out to him where the suspect had reloaded his gun and dropped these in the grass, and that the citizen had picked them up and put them in the Winston package. Once again – there is nothing that states he simply assumed anything as you try to point out without an ounce of proof – whereas we now have Hill stating specifically he was shown the shells... 1:34pm 550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill) *Channel 1 Message* The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol. And what a surprise HW Summers was never called to testify Mr. POE. There were two in an empty Winston cigarette package. Mr. BALL. Did you save the Winston cigarette package? Mr. POE. I turned it in with the two cartridges. Mr. BALL. To the crime lab? Mr. POE. Yes, sir. Wonder where that third shell went..... So you see David, once you apply a little common sense, and actually know what you are talking about things become far more clear. So I would have to give you some advice, based on the advise you gave me. I do my research, thats why is it so easy to debunk foolish theories like to ones you propose. Stop parroting someone elses work, your obviously not an idiot, stop being lazy, and do your own work. Things will become clear for you as well. and you know better than what you post or at least you should. You haven’t “debunked” anything other than the fact you’re to be taken seriously. You know full well the problems with the bullets “that were entered into evidence” don’t even match the ones pulled from Tippit’s body... http://scribblguy.50megs.com/tippit.htm On the very day of Officer Tippit's murder, Dallas homicide had made a summary of all the evidence it had in the case, a most important standard police procedure. Although a number of witnesses mentioned that they had seen cartridges strewn around after the shooting and the early recorded radio messages had described the murder weapon as an automatic because of the ejector marks on cartridges found at the scene, this summary did not include cartridges of any kind. It was not until six days after it had sent the single bullet to the F.B.I. Iab in Washington that the Dallas homicide division finally added four cartridges allegedly found at the scene to the Tippit evidence summary. The cartridges were then sent off to Washington, and the Bureau lab promptly reported back that they indeed had been fired by the same revolver that Oswald allegedly purchased through the mail under the alias of A. Hidell. The Dallas police force may have been relieved to hear this result, but to me the late appearance of the cartridges only focused more attention on the Dallas homicide unit's unconscionable manipulation of evidence. I knew that if the cartridges had actually been fired by Oswald before his arrest, they routinely would have been included in the summary of evidence and sent off to the F.B.I. Lab on the evening of the murder. But these cartridges were not sent until well *after* Dallas homicide had learned that the lab could not find positive markings from Oswald's gun on the single bullet. (This evaluation would have come from the Washington lab to the Dallas Bureau office by telex within 24 hours.) It seemed clear to me what had happened. Having failed to get a positive identification with Oswald's revolver from the bullet, Dallas homicide was not about to send off cartridges with an automatic hand gun's ejector marks on them, even if these were the actual cartridges found at the scene. Instead, someone in the homicide division or cooperating with it had fired the confiscated revolver *after* Oswald's arrest, thereby obtaining the needed cartridges bearing its imprint. Then those cartridges were sent to Washington. However, competence was not the Dallas homicide unit's strong suit, even in fabricating evidence. The F.B.I. Lab found that *two* of the cartridge cases had been manufactured by Western and *two* by Remington. Since the lab had already concluded that *three* of the bullets found in Tippit's body were copper-coated Westerns and *one* was a lead Remington, these numbers simply did not add up. Worse yet, at the Warren Commission hearings it became embarrassingly apparent that the used cartridges that the Dallas homicide team had sent to the F.B.I. Lab were not the cartridges actually found at the scene of Tippit's murder. One witness, Domingo Benavides, found two used cartridge shells not far from the shooting and handed them to Officer J.M. Poe. Dallas Police Sergeant Gerald Hill instructed Poe to mark them i.e., to scratch his initials on them in order to maintain the chain of evidence. This is standard operating procedure for all homicide officers everywhere. Poe informed the Warren Commission that he believed he had marked them, but he could not swear to it. At the Commission hearing Poe examined four cartridges that were shown to him but was unable to identify his marks on them. Sergeant W.E. Barnes informed the Commission that he had received two cartridges from Officer Poe back at police headquarters and had added his own initials to them. However, he too was unable to positively identify the two shells. I can go thru the exercise of providing proof for all these statements but you’re simply not worth the time. And from what I’ve read on so many other threads on this site... I am not alone in these feelings... Good bye and good luck Mikey....

So that's it? You have nothing that places Oswald in the window with that rifle? And you have the gaul to copy and paste an entire post from DVP as your basis for yet another TROLLING ARGUMENT yet you've only known of him for less than a month...? You trust his analysis that much you are willing to associate yourself with him... good or bad... and discount the continuing work of all those who are posting here... Your real profile is coming more and more into focus. One final note before I go back to the reply I've been working on Even your Mr Brennan describes what he hears as a firecraker or backfire AT STREET LEVEL. Yet thinks that it must have been someone 6 stories up throwing something out the window. Sure. MANY other witnesses describe the gunshot sounds as a backfire or firecracker - these are STREET LEVEL sounds since... wait for it... some shots were taken from street level - the GK, Dal-Tex, just not 65 feet up in the air and 120 feet behind the limo.

You're a real curiousity of nature as well Mikey... the fact that you can't see your hand in front of your own face proves how seriously blind you are to reality. 3 whole years of research... and all on your own, well alittle DVP hand holding, you've figured out how to xxxxx, Insult, Bait, Switch, and stay as far away from anything of substance in your posts... Way to go.... DVP and your family must be proud I'll ask one last time but know you have nothing... Please post ANYTHING, in ANY VOLUME of EVIDENCE that someone in a court of law can use to place Lee Harvey Oswald in that window firing that rifle. The piece of real evidence that I posted proves he did not make an identification... Brennan can claim he was the easter bunny and will "prove it later" - no one cares I am still working on the first reply... takes a little time when you have to track down sources and evidence but I haven't forgotten about you buddy.... and btw - the first words out of Chief of Police Curry and Sheriff Decker 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by. 12:30 Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) I am sure it's going to take some time to get your man in there. Pull every one of my men in there. 12:30 Dispatcher Dallas 1, repeat, I didn't get all of it. I didn't quite understand all of it. 12:30 Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there. Believe whatever you want Mikey - the Church of Lone Nutters is always open for business

Thanks Duncan... Please tell me that the same type of analysis was done on the image to the left, behind the tree, along the southern face of the fence. Never have seen size analysis done on that area... you?