Gary Murr

Robert:

I am afraid you have misinterpreted my meaning when you indicate that a SS agent made an "honest mistake" - drawing "the oval in the wrong direction." Because you have indicated that you have been studying, of late, the wounding of John Connally I am assuming that this same study has involved a reading [or re-reading?] of the deposition and testimony sessions of the Parkland Memorial doctors who treated the Governor's various wound sites. If so then you know that Dr. Shaw and Dr. Gregory had to correct more than one "mistake" of transposition with these multiple drawings utilized and introduced as evidence by Arlen Specter. I find it interesting that Specter presents these same drawings as official representations constructed and, in your words, "approved" by among others, Dr. Shaw. However, this simply is not true and at no time does Specter inform members of the Commission that these same exhibits had been put together by SS Roger C. Warner. And though Dr. Shaw had to correct the size of the wound of entry, the positioning of the right nipple and wound of exit, and the angle of inclination of the theoretical pathway through the Governor - again something constructed by SS Roger C. Warner - on various versions of these drawings, there was one other transposition error of potentially even greater importance. On his original marking of the anatomical face sheet for Warner and the SS, Dr. Shaw had also placed the point of entry of the "back" wound when he placed and drew the exit wound on the anterior/facing image. This mark by Dr. Shaw was not traced onto the "new" versions created by the SS but indeed was excised from this same drawing in all versions. It is a valuable point of reference when one is attempting to study the degree of "right to left" pathway the wounding bullet created. There is a reason why Dr. Shaw drew the elliptical wound of entry oriented as he did - but it has nothing to do with any mistake, honest or otherwise, on the part of the SS, in this instance specifically SS SA Roger C. Warner.

Gentlemen et al:

Since the discussion has continued regarding the thoracic wound site/5th rib issue, I will use this opportunity and spot on the forum to continue my narrative on this same subject matter, but in particular the dichotomy between the physical appearance of the roughly elliptical shaped entrance aperture on the back of John Connally's suit jacket [horizontal orientation] and that as represented diagrammatically by Dr. Robert Shaw on the anatomical face sheet, posterior view [an elliptical wound incorporating a vertical orientation]. I will preface this the second part of my narrative of explanation with a few remarks germane to the issue at hand. In my unpublished trilogy on the Connally wounding I have argued that one of the most important witnesses to the events of Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, indeed potentially the most important witness, was an individual who was not even in the plaza at the time of the event - Dr. Robert Shaw. And I make so bold a statement because in my opinion the work of Dr. Shaw and his colleagues, in particular Dr. Charles Gregory, left us with a detailed medical record that when examined closely does little to support the central thesis of the work of the Warren Commission, the single bullet theory [sBT]. Of equal importance are the rough notes that these physicians left behind and their sessions of deposition and testimony before and with the theoretical "father" of the SBT, Arlen Specter, an individual who did not invent the SBT, though along with a cadre of fellow commissioners defended this same theory to the end. And I use the word "invent" intentionally because that in truth is what it was and is - an invention of necessity based initially upon a combination of the use of the film of Abraham Zapruder as an accurate time clock of the assassination event and the discovery of the physical restraints of mechanical operation placed upon the/any assassin with the alleged weapon of the crimes, a Mannlicher Carcano weapon constructed in 1941. [NOTE: In the narrative that follows, unless indicated otherwise all of the bracketed citations utilized refer to the Hearings and Exhibits of the Warren Commission]

Dr. Robert Shaw was a consummate medical practitioner and a highly skilled surgeon. As he indicated to Arlen Specter, by the time of the killing of John Kennedy and the wounding of John Connally, he, Shaw, had been involved in approximately 1,000 medical procedures that involved bullet wounds and thoracic injuries.[6H85; 4H102] If you carefully dissect and follow Dr. Shaw's dictated account of his repairs to the Governor's thoracic wound site, and compare the procedures he followed with those found in medical texts and the voluminous papers on this subject matter, you will find that Shaw followed procedure to the letter and indeed as the driving force behind the repair of this specific wound site was unquestionable responsible for extending the Governor's life. If, therefore, researchers such as myself [and others] contend that the missile/bullet responsible for this specific wound was not tumbling upon entry into the Governor's "back," how do we reconcile the appearance of the wound as drawn by Dr. Shaw? The answer to this question is to be found within the Governor's surviving medical record, specifically what transpired in OR # 5 beginning just after 1:30 p.m. CST, November 22, 1963.

Dr. Shaw was initially confronted with the first of two sets of anatomical drawings on which all of the wound sites of John Connally were indicated during his late afternoon deposition session [6 p.m. CST] with Arlen Specter, held at Parkland Memorial Hospital, March 23, 1963. Early into this deposition session Shaw was presented with a drawing - an anatomical "face" sheet - that had been previously designated as Gregory Exhibit Number 1/Diagram Number 1. This designation had been affixed to this diagram and others as a result of their introduction to Dr. Shaw's colleague, Dr. Charles Gregory, during the Gregory deposition session with Specter that had taken place earlier in the afternoon on the same date, March 23, 1964, prior to the Specter - Shaw session. And though Shaw was thereafter asked a number of questions concerning all of the markings on this same diagram, we will concern ourselves only with the mark of interest being outlined in this thread - the entrance wound on the posterior/back view diagrammatically representative of John Connally as viewed from behind. Upon introduction of this diagram to Dr. Shaw he was asked two and only two questions concerning the "mark" on the diagram that was said to represent the point of entry of the bullet responsible for the thoracic wound: [1] Was the position ["point"] of entry as marked on the diagram "on the right shoulder of Governor Connally" rendered on this diagram accurately, a question that elicited a positive response of "yes" from Dr. Shaw, in his opinion, "quite accurate",and: [2] Was "the size and dimension of the hole accurate on scale..." or would the doctor care to adjust/modify the "characterization" of this hole, a question the construct of which alone leaves the reader with the distinct impression that Dr. Shaw and Specter have discussed this same diagram prior to going on the record with the deposition session. This question produced a negative answer from Dr. Shaw with the doctor informing Specter that the wound as drawn to "scale" was "larger than the actual wound or the depicting of the wound should be." As a result of this answer Specter asked Shaw to draw to the best he could "recollect what the wound of entry..." looked like ["appeared" when the doctor "first observed it". Shaw obliged Specter's instructions, re-drew the wound on the face sheet "above the shoulder" and initialed this same correction beside his, Shaw's, drawing. [6H86] Approximately one month later, on April 21, 1964, in his testimony session conducted again by Arlen Specter and before members of the Warren Commission, Dr. Shaw was forced to make corrections to a theoretical "new" set of diagrams but in truth they were duplications of the diagrams shown to Shaw and his colleagues a month earlier in Dallas at Parkland Hospital during their deposition sessions. In Washington and before the Commission the diagrams were re-labelled with the body diagram representative of John Connally now carrying a designation of Commission Exhibit 679. What is not known by most is that these diagrams, though theoretically representative of markings placed on them originally in January, 1964 by these same medical personnel, were not actually the ones presented to Shaw, Gregory and Shires in March and April of 1964. Rather they were re-drawn/traced by a member of the Secret Service after he and others visited Parkland Hospital medical personnel in early January. Upon leaving Parkland in January this same SS agent took blank anatomical face sheets with him and re-traced the Shaw, Gregory and Shires January markings onto them, obviously not very accurately as it turns out.

I will close out this part of the narrative with an important point. Of all the questions asked of Dr. Shaw on the part of Arlen Specter, particularly as they related to the diagrammatic representation of the wound of entry on the Governor's back, there was one question that Specter never asked: Had Dr. Shaw accurately depicted the orientation of this elliptical wound of entry? To this most crucial omission we shall return.

Robert,

It is not my view that Connally was wounded post 313, I was repeating one of the views of Gary. Gary also contends that Connally could be turning to his left. It is my view Connally sustained his wound around 230.

Gary commented that the bullet could have been tumbling on exiting Connally's body. The twin hole exit through Connally's shirt does not support that. The twin holes because the shirt was most likely folded slightly. The shape and size of these holes argue against tumbling. Gary is right the damage to the inside of the jacket could support tumbling, however it would also support the bullet entering the inside jacket pocket at an acute angle. The exit through the front of the jacket does not suggest tumbling. That said, Gary's work on the ammunition of the time gives his thinking an authority way beyond yours and my understanding of the case. However I am suggesting there is ambiguity as to whether the bullet was tumbling.

You question whether I now accept that the bullet exited left of the right nipple. No I do not. The damage to the shirt makes clear the bullet exited right of the right nipple. The right nipple is to the left of the holes on the shirt.

Hello James:

If I gave the impression in my original answer "that the bullet could have been tumbling on exiting Connally's body..." it was not intentional. However, having stated that I will indicate that I do believe that the bullet responsible for the thoracic wound most likely was tumbling, or in the process of tumbling upon exit, notwithstanding the appearance of the aperture of exit on the front of the Governor's shirt. It is my opinion that the majority of the aperture found on the front of the Governor's Arrow dress shirt was; [a] the result of the material being folded, a statement you have made and one I agree with; potentially rib fragments that were ejected through the hole in the front of the Governor's chest, though just what the quantity of these fragments were remains unknown; and, [c] the weak nature of the fabric of the cloth itself in relation to the missiles that did exit the front of the Governor's thorax. Again we have a dichotomy herein, for the damage sustained and visibly seen on the front of the shirt is far in excess of the aperture on the interior lining of the Governor's suit jacket, an aperture in turn that basically mirrors the hole of exit on the front of the suit jacket - approximately circular in shape and 3/8" in diameter, described, by Robert Frazier, I believe, as through-and-through.

Interesting, so far.

Only two things I would take issue with, and I may be misinterpreting what you are trying to say.

First, bullets begin tumbling while they are in a wound, if they are going to tumble at all. If the bullet did pass through JFK's neck, which I believe is utter nonsense, it was not tumbling or even beginning to yaw when it exited JFK's throat. The proof of this is the neat exit hole in the throat; so neat, in fact, we are still arguing over whether it was an exit or entrance wound. If this bullet exited JFK without tumbling, what made it tumble on its way to Connally?

Second, PBS Nova? Give me a break. They proved nothing. Here is a question for you. What year were the PBS tests conducted, and what did they use for ammunition?

Robert:

I will answer the questions you have posed herein now; I have just returned home from work so I will keep my answers brief as I would like to get back to my synopsis/examination of the back wound if I can this evening. I am not sure if you have misinterpreted what I have said or not. However, I am aware that bullets will begin to tumble while "they are in a wound." I also do agree with the concept that a bullet did not pass through JFK's neck, back to front. And further agree with you that this same theoretical bullet that struck Governor Connally in the back was not tumbling upon impact. The point I was trying to make is that it is those in officialdom, and defenders of the SBT, that need the bullet that impacted Connally's back to be tumbling; if not how do they explain the appearance of the Governor's wound as depicted by Dr. Robert Shaw?

As far as the PBS documentary is concerned, I would not be so hasty as to conclude that it/they "proved nothing." If nothing else it proved that "the" bullet could not have been responsible for Connally's thoracic wound and in turn could not have been responsible for the wound to his right radius. And yes, I am very aware as to when the Haag's conducted their tests, as well as just what types of ammunition they used. I have been exchanging correspondence with Michael Haag since the late spring of this year.

Robert and James et al:

Though I am extremely busy at the moment with work and other projects unrelated to this specific subject matter, I will take the time to respond to Robert's query of "proof." I will break my reply into more than one posting and if possible will attempt at some point to aid the reader with illustrations. Below then is the beginning, Part One, if you will.

There is no question that one of the true anomalies in the wounding of John Connally was the contradiction presented by the shape/appearance of the holes/openings presumed to be, and in my opinion beyond argument, those of apertures of entrance. The aperture present on the "back" of the Governor's suit jacket was and remains something that is physically tangible, visible in photographs taken within months of the wounding, and an opening that exists to this day on this same suit jacket. I have personally handled this jacket and photographed and measured all of the openings present on the jacket and while the passage of decades has occurred since the wounding event took place, and the suit jacket has undergone various cleanings, the potential alterations that have resulted to these same "holes" is miniscule to the point where there virtually is no difference in the "size" of these same holes. In a perfect world these same pieces of physical evidence, and by this I speak to all of the Governor's clothing, should have been acquired and examined as soon as was physically possible, an examination that would have undoubtedly included the taking of photographs, but as anyone who has studied this subject matter can attest, this unfortunately did not happen. That does not alter the fact that this opening of entrance on the suit jacket is oriented horizontally and possesses physical attributes of measurement that were accurately and succinctly calculated by Robert Frazier and members of the FBI Lab in April of 1964. The wound of entrance on John Connally's "back" is a different matter altogether.

Unlike the opening on the back of the suit jacket, the wound of entrance - opening - on John Connally's right posterior surface, virtually adjacent to his right scapula, was physically tangible initially and importantly only to those who worked to repair this same entrance wound. It was never photographed, which should come as no surprise. That being fact we are left with the visual observations and written work of those responsible for the repair to this site, that team of physicians led by Dr. Robert Shaw. And it was Dr. Shaw's "drawing" rendition of the shape and most importantly the orientation of this wound of entrance that has for over 50 years presented anyone interested in this wound site with the contradiction of opposites - horizontal orientation [suit jacket] vs vertical orientation [Governor Connally's "back"] generated by the wounding missile. All "official" investigations into this event, such as the Warren Commission and the HSCA, as well as those who would defend the concept of the single bullet theory, [sBT] have explained/justified the contradiction of appearances of the two entrances with an argument that posits as its foundation the concepts of yaw and/or tumbling by the entering missile. These same attributes possessed by the wounding missile were generated and amplified beyond the norm as a result of this same bullet having struck an intervening object, John Kennedy, prior to its impact with the Governor's back and then passage "through" his right thoracic area. Only a fool void of any concepts of ballistics would argue that a stable bullet - and the alleged ammunition of this wounding, 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company is a bullet that is extremely stable in flight - would not begin to tumble upon emergence from an object such as a human body. And again, anyone who has studied this subject matter, in particular as it relates to the validity of the SBT, is well aware that in the passage of time since the Governor's wounding attempted "duplication" of the theory of singularity, though something that in truth is physically impossible, seemed to at least repeatedly confirm the concept of tumbling by this same ammunition [the most recent such venture being that aired on the PBS network last November as the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination event occurred]. Therefore the solution to the contradiction of the openings of entrance is "scientifically" and ballistic[ly] proven to be true and this aspect of the SBT is confirmed. However, I do not believe this to be the real truth of this particular wound site and I will begin my explanation in the next posting.

Hello Robert:

Of course the simplest and correct answer is that the "vertical elliptical wound" in John Connally's back was never oriented vertically in the first place. Rather it was a horizontal wound matching that, in appearance, of the aperture found on the back/side of the Governor's suit jacket.

"How do we reconcile these two pieces of information with each other?"

A good and logical question and one that I am sure has gone through the minds of countless researchers who have tread this pathway you currently follow. Don't get me wrong - you are on the right trail. As far as the question goes, it only took me over 15 years to figure it out, and once I had done so I quickly realized that both Robert Shaw and Robert Frazier were correct with their descriptions of the "holes" they saw, be they in cloth or in skin. In truth, it was to a certain extent the old "can't see the forest for the trees syndrome"... it was right in front of me all along.

I am curious as to the "whoppers" you attribute to Robert Frazier regarding CE 399. Can you enlighten me?

Hello Robert:

Obviously I cannot speak for James in this regard, and you are correct when indicating that "slightly medial to the right nipple" would infer a "wound"/exit point toward the central line of the body. However, in following the entirety of this thread perhaps the only way one could interpret this same wound/exit point as "right' of the right nipple is if one were looking at both the standard anatomical drawing sheets utilized by the WC in this regard, and for that matter the FBI photographs of the Governor's clothing, "face on." If so, as you view the points of exit on the drawings and the photographs these same points of exit are to your viewing right. But again, any wound, entrance or exit, that carries the nomenclature of "medial" definitely represents one situated "toward" the midline of the body. I did have occasion to speak with Robert Shaw twice before his death and in discussing this particular point of exit he did reinforce that it was ever so slightly medial, beneath and away from the Governor's right nipple, toward the centre of the body.

I have been following, with some interest and as my time allows, your thread over on the Deep Politics Forum, that deals with the "inexplicable wounds made by special bullets." I am intrigued by your comment that in attempting to rationalize the congruity between the orientation of the elliptical wound of entrance on the Governor's back - laterally according to Dr. Shaw and vertically according to SA Robert Frazier as a result of his examination of the Governor's clothing - that you feel one or the other of them is potentially lying regarding this matter. You may be interested to know that they are both actually telling the truth. And I do not believe that the impacting missile that caused this wound of entry was tumbling or for that matter terribly yawed.

Gary Murr

Robert:

My responses to your feedback in blue

Gary

"To my way of thinking, the appearance and positioning of the clothing holes were dictated by the position of the governor himself at his moment of wounding impact."

This makes no sense.

It makes absolutely perfect sense. Think about it for a moment. If you were sitting perfectly erect and were impacted from behind by a bullet, wearing an appropriately tailored suit jacket that was buttoned up with a dress shirt underneath and the distance between the two pieces of clothing thus instantaneously struck were [hypothetically] less than 0.5" - 1.0" apart from one another would the "holes" in the clothing not basically match in position and appearance, irrespective of the orientation of the bullet at impact? However, if your torso were rotated at impact, left or right or whatever, and while both of these garments would also "rotate' with the movement of your thorax, would they still "line up" or would one garment not move quantitatively more than the other and potentially in more than one direction? [And by that I mean either horizontally or vertically or both]

The governor's suit jacket was an appropriately custom tailored garment, and the shirt was an Arrow dress shirt again fitted to the governor's physique.

Immaterial. Wrong - as outlined in my previous response above.

I also do not feel that the FBI photographed the garments in the manner that they did in an effort to alter the "positioning" of the holes in either the shirt, suit jacket, or trousers.

Then there is no rational explanation why the FBI documented important evidence in this haphazard manner other than gross incompetence.

Whether a rational explanation is warranted or a factor of "gross incompetence" is a justifiable accusation is arguable. What is unfortunate is that those members of the Bureau responsible for the photographs did not take close-ups of these same clothing apertures when they had the chance to do so. However, Robert Frazier's lab notes on his examination of the Governor's clothing are extremely detailed and when examined properly are invaluable in determining a great deal about the orientation of the missile that struck the Governor, the makeup of these same missile and the potential pathway of same. And obviously one must always remember that by the time the FBI lab acquired these articles of the Governor's clothing the suit components had been professionally dry-cleaned and the shirt had been, at the very least, rinsed in water.

Did you take additional photographs of CONNALLYS shirt and back of his suit that you may share?

Yes, I had detailed color photographs taken of the Governor's clothing, including pictures of both interior surfaces of the suit jacket, front and back, where the bullet entered/exited, something that no one had done before. I also took detailed measurements of all apertures on the clothing for comparison with the existing record up to that point in time [1999]. I, of course, examined this clothing some 35 years removed from when Robert Frazier did and can only confirm that his measurements were accurate. Obviously there was more fraying along some of the edges of the "holes' at the time I handled the clothing, in particular on the "H" shaped aperture of exit found on the front of the Governor's shirt as well as the edges of the hole on the exterior surface of the right shirt cuff, but again this was to be expected. I also was able to examine those areas from which small control samples had been taken by members of the FBI lab. The photographs are included in my unpublished work; as for sharing them, that is something that I will ponder.

I did not say the holes were moved, I said the appearance of the location of the hole had been intentionally adjusted to better conform to the WC/R fiction.

I did not say that you said the holes as such had been moved. You have proposed that the FBI photographed the shirt in the manner/orientation that they did in an effort to "intentionally...conform to the WCR fiction." And while I will agree with you that the Commission Report is replete with numerous "fictions," I do not feel that the images of the Governor's clothing as photographed by the FBI were posed to promote the fiction of the SBT. Indeed, if you read Robert Frazier's testimony carefully he does not commit to verifying the truth of the hypothetical nuances of the SBT. This is even more obvious when you read and examine Frazier's rough lab notes.

Robert:

The holes in the clothing are the "holes" in the clothing, and by that I mean I do not feel that they have been "moved' or tampered with, though as you may or may not be aware, Dr. Pierre Finck expressed the opinion that some of the governor's clothing apertures had been potentially tampered with or enlarged through the use of "scissors." As an aside, I was allowed access to and handled all of the governor's clothes during a visit to NARA II in the spring of 1999. To my way of thinking, the appearance and positioning of the clothing holes were dictated by the position of the governor himself at his moment of wounding impact. The governor's suit jacket was an appropriately custom tailored garment, and the shirt was an Arrow dress shirt again fitted to the governor's physique. I also do not feel that the FBI photographed the garments in the manner that they did in an effort to alter the "positioning" of the holes in either the shirt, suit jacket, or trousers.

Robert:

In answer to the questions you posed in your post # 35; the photograph of the shirt was taken by members of the FBI Lab upon receiving the clothing from the Governor's office on April 9th, 1964 [? - sorry, I do not have my notes in front of me at the moment and am going from memory here]. When you view the originals of this photograph, which were taken in colour, the shirt is actually pinned to a cork bulletin board giving it the "rolled"/raised appearance you have commented on. And the photograph is taken roughly "straight on", though it appears that the board was not quite perpendicular to the camera/film plane, or vice versa.

Gary

Robert:

Unfortunately my plans to publish all of my work fell through just over a year ago. That coupled with the fact that I have been working on a parallel assassination related subject matter in my spare time over the past 8 years has served, to a certain extent, in "derailing" my interest in the Connally wounding. However, having spent better than two decades traversing this particular quagmire has resulted in a three part trilogy that I can transmit portions of "electronically" to you. Perhaps you could send me a private e-mail?

Gary

Hello Robert:

"Pundit" Gary Murr here - just kidding. Though I did take it upon myself to share my 20+ years of research on the Connally wounding with James Gordon [and indeed others over these same intervening years] - we do agree to disagree on a number of issues in this matter. It may be of interest to you to know that one of these major differences that I hold with James and other researchers is that I remain convinced, based upon all that I have been able to study and acquire, that John Connally's thoracic wounding did occur after the fatal head shot and only after this point in time [Z313].

FWIW

Gary Murr

James:

Hey old friend, congratulations to you and your colleagues for keeping alive this most valuable of assassination research sites; much appreciated!!

I have been away [long weekend holiday here in Canada] and just saw this news. Very sad, indeed. I had corresponded with Tom for many years, going back to the initial construct of his manuscript in 1991, and considered him a very good friend. His last letter of a few weeks ago was, as always, informative. I, for one, will miss this true researcher, someone who never refused to share any information with me and an individual whose expertise helped me along the road to the true history of the 6.5mm ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company. My heartfelt condolences to his many friends and family.

RIP, my friend.

Gary Murr

Hello Mark:

Tom has supplied you with the proper document link via the Mary Ferrell website. However, I would like to pass along a couple of points of clarification for you concerning this same document. While it is true that the document is "From" Jevons "To" FBI Lab head Ivan Conrad, Jevons did not construct the memorandum. Actually the memo was dictated by FBI Lab employee and night shift supervisor on the day of the Kennedy assassination, Jay Cochran. You will find his initials in the lower left hand corner of the document - "JC", as well as the stenographer to whom the information was relayed, "bsm", in lower case letters. And I can assure you that the "obvious speculation" that this order for ammunition was placed by the Marine Corps with the Western Cartridge Company for some unidentified yet hidden "purpose" was just that - speculation and nothing more. As for this same speculation being "obvious", that is another matter entirely. It took me almost 10 years of research to discover the true history of this ammunition and I can tell you that this order has absolutely nothing to do with the USMC and an as yet unrevealed secret operation.

Gary Murr

I think Ernie has been quite knowledgeable and is a very valuable source on FBI procedures, practices and protocols. I thought I was reasonably well informed in many areas of their documentation and process but he is far more so - given that I always value his comments and analysis.

-- Larry

I echo the comments of my colleague, Larry, in answering the question posed by Harry. As someone who has spent 40+ years in the acquisition and analysis of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents generated by numerous agencies and archival institutions, I felt reasonably comfortable with my expertise in dealing with this subject matter, and in particular documents generated by the FBI. I have been very impressed with Ernie's understanding of the house of mirrors that was and is the FBI's construct of documentation. I dare say that Ernie's ability to maneuver his way through the paper maze that is the FBI's manner of doing business far exceeds anything that I have been able to accomplish. And if that were not enough, his use of precise references in his numerous responses throughout this particular thread is indeed refreshing.

Gary

Hi Vince:

If anyone wants to pursue this subject matter further they can check out the following FBI references which deal with the Hidell Hardware store matter. As one will see when you read these documents, it eventually becomes a he-said, she-said back and forth with the various FBI field offices considering the matter a dead issue, leaving it as one of those we will pursue no further issues, "UACB" - unless advised to the contrary be the Buearu HQ - which never happened.

105-82555-1478

105-82555-1713

105-82555-1423, which is actually a report generated out of the San Antonio FO, bearing the number SA-105-2906; the references to the Hidell Hardware store matter can be found in the "Miscellaneous II" section, beginning at page 12.

FWIW

Gary Murr

Hi Gary

Good point you make there. It does say, later in the article, that Sharp was the only gunsmith employed at the time at Klein's, but makes no mention of Sharp having assistants.

The article mentions, at the end of the article, the ammo Klein's also sold for the Carcano. Do you know if this was Italian issue or Western Cartridge Co. ammunition?

P.S. I just read the article again. I missed the part where it said he was the only gunsmith at Klein's "at the time of the assassination". My apologies.

Hi Robert:

In answer to your question, the only Carcano ammunition that Klein's had was of Italian make; they did not have any 6.5mm WCC. Also, though Sharp may claim to have been the only gunsmith at Klein's "at the time of the assassination," that is perhaps not totally true. Waldman, like Sharp, was also interviewed on March 11, 1964, by members of the Chicago FBI FO, in fact Waldman was the first interview on that date. At that time he gave the FBI the names of five Klein employees whom he, Waldman, stated were normally involved in "the processing of orders for firearms, which process also includes the mounting of rifles copes where necessary..." Sharps name was naturally one of the five ; of the remaining four only one was potentially a gunsmith, an individual named Witold Ratynski, someone described by Waldman as Sharp's "assistant." Of the remaining three from Waldman's list, two were warehouse men and order clerks, Edward Stanislowski and Anthon Schmidt, while the last member of this list was a packer from the shipping department, Ray Lee Coleman. None of this group of five, including Sharp, could specifically identify the "assassin's" weapon or the scope, nor remember specifically handling this same weapon when shown photographs of it by the Chicago FO SA's. Coleman did identify his initials on the order as that employee who packed the order but again stated that "he could not recall the order or rifle specifically," perhaps not surprising given the quantity of order handled by Klein's.

As far as William Sharp is concerned, I have, as of this moment in time, been unable to find any documentation in support of his claim that FBI agents asked him, on November 23, 1963, for a demonstration of how a Mannlicher Carcano weapon worked; I am not saying it didn't happen - I am just saying I can't confirm that it actually did.

Maybe David Josephs should take a pill before reading this Nov. 2013 interview

with gunsmith William Sharp....

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=226036

“It’s my rifle, I put the scope on it.” -- William H. Sharp

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html

So David, just curious, after reading the link to the November 26, 2013, Medill Report that you provided covering an interview with the 82 year old Sharp, does this mean that he lied to the FBI on March 11, 1964, when in his only interview at the hands of the Bureau, with Chicago FO agents Robert J. Dolan And Clay M. Brady, he indicated the following, from: FBI: 105-82555-2619, p. 5.

Mr. Sharp stated that one of his responsibilities as a gunsmith is the

mounting of rifles with riflescopes. He explained that in this connection

he drills, taps, and mounts the scope without knowledge of the order

itself or of the identity of the customer ordering the weapon. He

continued that he performs this service normally on a group of rifles

at one time, upon being advised that an order for a specific number of

rifles mounted with scopes has been received. He then turns the rifles

over to the shipping room for matching with orders and for packing

and shipping.

Mr. Sharp stated that no notations are made indicating he or an assistant

had fitted or mounted a specific rifle with a riflescope, nor are records

maintained showing a specific rifle had been so fitted or mounted.

Mr. Sharp stated that because of the number of rifles mounted by him he

would be unable to recall a specific rifle and he had no knowledge of the

order for the rifle in question.

Nine days after this Sharp interview with members of the Chicago FO, David Belin was in Chicago and at Kleins; why did he not depose/interview Mr. Sharp at that time?

As I said, just curious.

Sorry - here is the memorandum stated previously.

Thanks Richard; regarding the "lost" Moorman photograph, I believe we are talking about this same image. The attached report from the Dallas FO, constructed by SA Curtis L. Perryman and dated November 23, 1963, indicates that they were shown the photograph in question by SS SA Bill Patterson and were actually given the photograph by the SS. The handwritten note affixed in the bottom right hand corner of this memo is hard to decipher but in part it states that the photograph "was extremely poor in quality" and was rejected as important by both the SS and the FBI because it did not show the 7th floor [?] or the pertinent "6th floor window from which shots fired." Rush to judgement by eyes so blind? FWIW.

Couple of things Richard...

The image is very hard to tell about the 4th floor windows... but it is possible and would indeed be a GREAT place to shoot from and stay hidden and ADD to the echoes...

Supressed weapons of the day were not silenced by any means... yet that could account for the way in which the shots are described as sounding so different.

I only recently learned about the Mooney quote... and yes, it is VERY strange.. Add to this the "MAN" Sawyer runs into getting off the elevator at about 12:34... and the planting of evidence is about the easiest thing in the world to accomplish.

Do you give much credibility to the Alyea story of the original shell positions, and the crimescene dolt Fritz picking them up, only to be throw/placed down later for photos?

That statement is very damaging to any Oswald did it theory, if true.

DJ

David,

Missing photo and film provide additional food for thought regarding the West facing windows of the TSBD.

Mary Ann Moorman took a Polaroid photo showing the TSBD in the background.

That photowas confiscated and never returned.

From her position, the West side of the building was visible.

The Babushka Lady was shooting film not far from Moorman and would also have an unobstructed view of the West side of the TSBD. This film has never surfaced.

So two pieces of photo evidence that share a similar view of the West side are both missing.

In the case of Moorman's photo, the known chain of custody starts with Deputy Sheriff John Wiseman, goes to Chief Deputy Sheriff Allan Sweat, and terminates with SSA William Patterson.

The evidence relating to the Sniper's Lair is a mess. Fritz, Hill, Johnson, Montgomery, Mooney, Studebaker, and Weatherford provide a jumble of testimony of cloudy observations and contradictions concerning the shells, the chicken bones, the boxes, and a large brown paper bag.

I place more stock in Alyea's observations than any of the above. It is likely that most, if not all of the photographic evidence of the Sniper's Lair was taken after various items had been moved or repositioned.

Richard et al:

And as Mary Moorman's first Polaroid taken in Dealey Plaza clearly shows, the 5th floor, SW corner window was open before the motorcade even arrived on Elm Street - long before Williams, Jarman and Norman had occasion to run to that area and "open" this same window.

Let me add my "congratulations" to this long-overdue article, Vince. All the best in the upcoming Holiday Season - and continue the fight.

He beat me to it LOL ) I have a few more if needed

Hi Vince: I for one would like to see some more images of Sorrels; if you would care to post them that would be great.

Gary