Gil Jesus

Deputy Buddy Walthers' report of what they found at the Paine residence during the search on Friday afternoon: If the authorities found files indicating that someone associated with the residence was keep track of Cuban sympathizers, did the FBI follow this up ? Where are the files ? Why wasn't this published in the Commission's Report ? Was Oswald responsible for these files ? Was this what Oswald meant when he allegedly commented to police that "everybody will know who I am now " ? https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/craig-blown-cover.mp4

Yeah that was my thought too. If you put the two forms side-by-side, it looks like they're indentical up to the signature of Lt. Day. Then everything changes with the release, with the 3/24 release signed by J. Howlett and the 3/26 release without a signature. Sure looks like somebody's hiding something. Looks like they copied the form before they released the first set of rods and used the same form for the release of the second of rods. It becomes more evident when your compare the release sections side by side. It's obvious that they have been signed at different times. One has a signature of Howlett, one doesn't. They have different dates. The "750" isn't the same and the "a" touches the line on one but not the other. And the "C" on J.C. is closed on one and has a loop at the top of the other. It's obvious that this is the same form signed at two different times, possibly by two different people.

Call me stupid but I still don't get it. How can the curtain rods be in the Paine garage on 3/23 ( documented in 9 H 424 ) when the CSS form has them in the possession of the Dallas Police from 3/15 to 3/26 ?

Pat I have a problem wit the chain of possession of those rods. First and formost is the conflict with the dates they were released as you said. Then there's the 3/15 date they were allegedly submitted with the note that they were "marked 275 and 276". The problem is that they weren't marked 275 and 276 until 3/21/64, when Ruth Paine testified before the Commission. How did they know on 3/15 what the rods' commission numbers would be ? How did the rods get to Washington with SS Howlett if the above CSS report has them with the Dallas Police between 3/15 and 3/24 or 26 ? What's going on here ?

Keep in mind Oswald's denial of bringing curtain rods and telling Frazier about the rods is hearsay coming from the Dallas Police. But even if he did tell them that, it may have been to hide the fact that he had a fight with his wife and didn't want to tell them about it or the reason for it.

And here's another little juicy tidbit on the curtain rods that allegedly sat in the Paine garage until March 23, 1964: The testimony that Michael Paine gave on the rods he gave on 3/17/64, six days BEFORE those rods were examined. Ruth Paine's testimony on the rods was given on 3/19, 3/20 and 3/21/64, again, before the rods were dusted for fingerprints. Apparently, the authorities didn't know that the Paines had curtain rods wrapped in paper in their garage and when they found out, they did everything they could to disconnect that evidence with the TSBD. ( see WC memo to FBI above )

Dallas FBI sends teletype to Hoover saying that in order to establish that ( not inquire if any ) no curtain rods were found in the TSBD, they interviewed Roy Truly, the guy who hired Oswald and vouched for people police encountered in the building and that the "contents" of that interview " will not be incorporated in any report submitted by Dallas in accordance with instructions in referenced teletype." They were instructed not to incorporate the Truly interview in any reports they made. Can you say suppression of evidence ? inco This was in response to the Commission's need to "establish that no curtain rods were found in the Texas School Book Depository". Why would they need to prove no curtain rods were found in the building if they had the "proof" that the package Oswald brought to work that day contained the rifle ? In other words, if the package contained the rifle, then there was no need to "prove" the curtain rods were not found in the building. Unless they were and this was an attempt to suppress that.

It is not I who is confused, it is you. And I'm not going to let you confuse others by doing what you usually do, not telling the whole story. Mrs. Paine testified that she had removed two venetian blinds from the windows in her bedroom and replaced them with pull down blinds. She then wrapped the venetian blinds she had removed and stored them in the garage. The two wrapped packages in the garage were venetian blinds and curtain rods. There were no other wrapped blinds in the garage. The pull blinds ( or pull down shades as you call them ) were on the windows.

Well, Let's see if Ruth Paine said the wrapped items were blinds and shades, or curtain rods.

There's another reason why Oswald may have told Frazier that he was going to Irving for curtain rods on Thursday: because he didn't want to tell him that he had had a fight with his wife over his using an alias to rent a room. It was none of Frazier's business and if Frazier had asked him why he was going to Irving on a Thursday, he may have told him a tale to shut him up. To give that tale a semblance of truth, he took a package of curtain rods out of Mrs. Paine's garage and brought it to work that morning. He could have very well left that package outside on the dock before he went into the building. Strangely, they found a package of curtain rods the same type and size of package as described by Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle in ( they claim ) the Paine garage. Even more odd is that they dusted the package for Oswald's prints (?) claiming that they were not on the package. But then they did something even more bizarre: they dusted the rods that were INSIDE the package for Oswald's prints. Again, they reported that Oswald's prints were not on the rods. Why would they dust a package that Oswald never touched and having established that he didn't, why dust the rods inside ? What evidential value would there be in dusting the rods if the paper they were wrapped in was lacking Oswald's prints ? It doesn't make sense. Unless, of course, the paper wrapping DID have Oswald's prints on them and they went to the next step to find out if his prints were on the rods as well.

One more tidbit I'd like to add: Elizabeth Cole's report of overhearing two Cuban students discussing a plot to kill Kennedy in Dallas involving a book publishing company. Was this company Warren Caster's Southwest Publishing ?

From the AARC: "Document # 180-10077-10208 Is the 25 page statement of Dr. Charles Laburda. Dr. Laburda told Mr. Matthews that Mr. Weitzman was a chronic schizophrenic. He was constantly in fear of his life. Also, he would tell people some things to make them happy and get them to go away. This was the case with Mr. Weitzman’s identification of Watergate figures being in Dealey Plaza. Dr. Laburda stated that Mr. Weitzman was on 800 mg. of Mellaril, which was increased to 1,000 mg. a day. Dr. Laburda stated that that is 200mg. above maximum which is generally used but Mr. Weitzman tolerates it well. Mr. Weitzman was also on 300 mg. of Elavil, an anti-depressant medication, which contributes also to regulating his sleep pattern. Mr. Weitzman told Dr. Laburda that he believes positively there were two people shooting. That he saw some men crouching behind some bushes. Now he does not know who it was, but after the shooting the man was not there. I asked him at the time that it could have been somebody from the police and he said it could have been but then he said he found a spent cartridge at that time, and it was from a Mauser rifle 7.65 in that area. I suspect that these things are partly elaboration of somewhat what he had heard, what other people said, and speculation that had been advanced in the last ten years, so I could not say that this was the idea that he had at that time, but he told me that he believed from the beginning that there was more than one person shooting." Almost 1/2 way down the page: https://aarclibrary.org/blog/page/17/

A Question of Credibility For many years now, Warren Commission apologists and many researchers alike have questioned the credibility of the officers who found the rifle on the sixth floor.Their solution to the credibility issue is simple: in anything Boone and Weitzman saw or heard, they were mistaken. Craig was a xxxx.But the real credibility problem may lie with the man who brought the two rifles into the building two days before the motorcade.The conflicting accounts of Warren Caster On December 5, 1963, Warren Caster was interviewed by the FBI. He told them that the rifle he purchased was an American-made 30.06, that he showed it to Mr. Truly in Truly's office on the second floor and that he did not show the two rifles to anyone else. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/CD-206-pg.-102-caster-lies.png But Truly's office was on the first floor and Truly testified that they examined the rifle on the counter near the front door on the first floor. ( 7 H 382 ) William Shelley also testified that he picked up and handled the .22 rifle. ( 7 H 390 )In his short deposition, Caster completely reversed what he told the FBI on December 5th and admitted that Shelley was present when he showed the rifle to Truly and that "there were workers there at the time." ( 7 H 388 )He also gave conflicting accounts of when exactly the rifles left the building. He told the FBI that he took the rifles and put them in the trunk of his car at "approximately 4:30 pm" on the 20th.He told the Warren Commission he left for the day "around 4 o'clock". ( ibid. )In addition, there's no witness to support his claim that he removed the rifles from the building when he left for the day.He told the FBI that his rifle was an American-made rifle manufactured by Kodiak Arms of North Haven Connecticut.But William Shelley examined the rifle and said it was a "foreign make" converted to a 30.06. ( 7 H 390 )On March 19, 1964, Caster provided the FBI with an alibi for the first time, which it never looked into, that he was having lunch with Professor Vernon V. Payne at North Texas State University in Denton when the President was assassinated. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/22-H-641-Caster.png Professor Payne was head of the Business School at NTSU and one wonders if his wife happened to be another "Mrs. Payne" who owned a station wagon.North Texas State University was a hotbed of right-wing extremism and its political groups were aligned with General Walker and his anti-Kennedy stand.A hot potato The Warren Commission did everything it could to avoid the issue of rifles in the building until May 14, 1964, when it deposed Warren Caster.And when they finally deposed him, they did so with the utmost dispatch. His testimony covered a whole two pages. Just two pages for a man who brought two rifles into the Texas School Book Depository two days before the assassination.In comparison, they published over 18 pages of testimony from William Crowe, the emcee of Jack Ruby's club.An upper floor encounter In his original affidavit, Dallas Officer Marrion Baker said that in their climb up rear stairwell, he and Roy Truly encountered a man on "the third or fourth floor" who was "walking away from the stairway" and who Truly vouched for. This man, Baker said was wearing "a light brown jacket". https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Marrion-Baker-Affidavit.gif I suggest that this was NOT the second floor Oswald-in-the-lunchroom-vestibule encounter. He didn't even match Oswald's description. This was a second, separate encounter with a man who was coming down the rear stairwell, heard the commotion on the second floor and tried to duck out on the floor he was on.That's why Baker saw him walking away from the stairway.Who was this man ? Was it Truly's pal Warren Caster ? Is that who Truly vouched for ?Only Truly would know and he was never asked.The FBI fails ---- again Caster's conflicting accounts should have been a red flag for the FBI to look further into him.They should have examined his rifle to see if it had a scope and the sales records of its purchase.They should have checked his alibi.They should have looked at the cars Professor Payne owned.They should have included his picture in a picture lineup and shown that lineup to witnesses who claimed to have seen the man with the rifle on the sixth floor, if for no other reason, than to eliminate him as a suspect.The FBI's interviews of 72 witnesses who worked in the building centered on their having seen a stranger in the building on the day of the assassination. But not one was asked if they had seen Warren Caster in the building on that day.They should have looked into both Caster and Prof. Payne to ascertain if they had any connection to the anti-Castro Cubans or the Young Republican Club at NTSU that was planning to "rub Kennedy's dick in the ground" when he came to Dallas. ( 17 H 539 )A man who brings two rifles into the building two days before the motorcade is to pass by, warrants IMO, a longer deposition than two pages. This guy should have been pressured to prove everything he said. Everything.That's what they should have and would have done in a normal criminal investigation.Instead they just took his word and let it die.That was because this was not a normal investigation.This was an investigation to gather evidence against Oswald and Oswald alone.The Katzenbach Memo laid out the foundation for the coverup: "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the sole assassin, that he did not have confederates who are still at large, and the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial". https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/katzenbach-memo-full.png And with that goal in mind, evidence to the contrary was ignored, suppressed or simply vanished into thin air.Just like the Mauser did.

Mike, these officers' credibility should never have been called into question. The credibility gap lies with the guy who brought the rifles into the building, as I will show in part II.

By Gil Jesus ( 2022 ) https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/model-91-7.65-sporterized.jpg Mr. BALL. Didn't he ( Oswald ) say that he had seen a rifle at the building ? Mr. FRITZ. Yes sir; he told me that he had seen a rifle at the building 2 or 3 days before that Mr. Truly and some men were looking at. ( 4 H 214 ) The Warren Commission concluded that two Dallas Sheriff's Deputies and a Deputy Constable who identified the rifle found on the sixth floor were mistaken in their identification of it as a 7.65 Mauser. The "misidentifcation" was blamed on Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman who was first to identify it. The Commission said: "Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it at close range... thought it was a Mauser ... [and eventually] police laboratory technicians subsequently arrived and correctly identified the weapon as a 6.5 Italian rifle." ( Report 645-646 ) The Commission never considered that more than one rifle had been found in the building. They, as well as researchers over the decades, have considered the identification of the rifle found on the sixth floor as a Mauser just a simple error. But other evidence indicates that might not be the case. Wednesday, November 20, 1963 : a Mauser in the building But the evidence may say otherwise because two days before the assassination an employee in the building, Warren Caster, brought two rifles into the building, one a single shot .22 ( a Christmas gift for his son ) and the other, a 30.06 Mauser that had been sporterized. Mr. BALL. Did you ever bring any guns into the School Book Depository Building? Mr. CASTER. Yes; I did. Mr. BALL. When? Mr. CASTER. I believe it was on Wednesday, November 20, during the noon hour. Mr. BALL. Whose guns were they? Mr. CASTER. They were my guns. Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they? Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser. ( 7 H 387 ) William Shelley handled the .22 rifle Caster brought into the building that Wednesday and described the 30.06 in testimony: Mr. BALL. And was there another make of gun too---there was, wasn't there? Mr. SHELLEY. Yes; I believe there was a .30-06 Mauser that had been converted. It was a foreign make converted to a .30-06. ( 7 H 390 ) November 22, 1963: An imported 30.06 in the window Assassination witness Arnold Rowland was standing across the street from the TSBD and saw a man in the sixth floor window. He described the rifle he saw in the hands of the man: Mr. SPECTER - Can you describe the rifle with any more particularity than you already have? Mr. ROWLAND - No. In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope. Mr. SPECTER - When you say, .30-odd-6, exactly what did you mean by that? Mr. ROWLAND - That is a rifle that is used quite frequently for deer hunting. It is an import. ( 2 H 170 ) An Argentine rifle In a June 1964 interview with KSFO in San Francisco, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that he was told by another officer that the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD "was made in Argentina". https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/argentine_rifle.jpg So this evidence indicates that Caster's deer rifle was a sporterized version of an foreign-made rifle converted to a 30.06 and the rifle found on the sixth floor was made in Argentina. A witness who saw the rifle in the hands of the man in the window described it as an imported 30.06 deer rifle. The Argentine 7.65 Mauser In those days, one of the most sought after rifles to convert to a 30.06 was the model 91 7.65 Argentine Mauser. The Model 91 was an exceptionally accurate weapon and in its sporterized version, it left 10 or 12 inches of barrel beyond the end of the wooden stock. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/sporterized-comparison.jpg A sporterized rifle firing at the President is what witness James Worrell described. He was standing in front of the TSBD when the shooting started and at the sound of the first shot he said he looked up and saw "12 inches of a gun barrel sticking out of a window of the building". https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/105-82555-Sec-21-pg-28-worrell.png The 12" barrel he described could not have been belonged to the Mannlicher-Carcano ( CE 139 ), whose barrel only extended a few inches beyond the stock. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CE_139.jpg Of course, this account of Worrell's never made it to the 26 volumes. By his March, 1964 testimony, the 12 inches of barrel had changed to 4 inches of barrel and 2 inches of wooden stock for a total of only 6 inches. ( 2 H 193 ) In light of all this evidence, we must reconsider the descriptions given by the Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman and Sheriff's Deputies Eugene Boone and Roger Craig of the rifle found on the sixth floor. Warren Commission supporters have always relied on two things: 1.) that Seymour Weitzman was mistaken and 2.) that Roger Craig was a xxxx. But there is no documentation by any of the deputies who were present when the rifle on the sixth floor was discovered that listed it as a Mannlicher-Carcano or being "6.5 cal." or "Made in Italy". Deputy Boone is credited with finding the rifle, but his report submitted to the sheriff's department indicates that he found the rifle at 1:22 pm and it "appeared to be a 7.65 Mauser with a telescopic sight". https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/boone_mauser.jpg Police officers are trained to be precise when describing evidence in their reports. How Boone could be so precise with the time he found the rifle and be so wrong as to the type of rifle is puzzling. Boone also testified that Capt. Will Fritz identified the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser, a fact that Fritz, in his testimony denied. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/WC_Vol3_295-boone.gif Then there is the question if the deputies didn't inspect the rifle, why did they choose the caliber of 7.65 ? Did they pick it out of thin air and if so, why ? Why not 7.63 ? Or 7.92 ? Or even the 6.5 that was supposedly on the rifle ? If they were describing the rifle by its action only, why didn't they just describe it as a Mauser ? Where did the 7.65 come from ? Did Fritz lie about calling it a Mauser ? Was Boone just repeating what he heard Fritz say ? The Commission never asked. They accepted Fritz's denial and concluded the deputies were mistaken. Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman arrived at the time Fritz was examining the rifle. In his sworn affidavit, Weitzman described the rifle found on the sixth floor as a "7.65 Mauser bolt action." https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/weitzman_affidavit.jpg But this is not a case of mistaken indentity. Deputy Roger Craig told Lincoln Carle in 1976 that not only did Weitzman identify the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser, he walked over to it and POINTED to the Mauser label on the rifle. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/765_mauser.jpg Weitzman suffered over the years for his honesty. He was hounded by the press and even researchers about his "mistake" until he finally gave in and "admitted" he was wrong about the rifle. But one Deputy did not waver and maintained to his dying day that the rifle found on the sixth floor was a 7.65 Mauser. That Deputy was Roger Craig. In this 1976 documentary, Two Men in Dallas, Craig describes to Lincoln Carle the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the rifle. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/craig-mauser.mp4 The news outlets took the deputies' description of the rifle as being a Mauser and ran with it. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/media-mauser.mp4 In fact, the "corrected" identifcation of the murder weapon as being a Mannlicher-Carcano didn't hit the airwaves until Saturday afternoon, after documents had been "found" connecting the Depository rifle to "A.Hidell." Coming in Part II: The Conflicting accounts of Warren Caster

I agree, they may not be as large in number as they seem. The internet allows them to be one "person" one day and another the next. I'm watching one in this group who I suspect has changed his name. Another reason why I was pushing for a subscription to post and why the LNers were against it. They wouldn't be able to hide behind fake screennames, fake pictures and multiple accounts.

The MSM never gave a thought to the inconsistencies in the WR. I'll let Harold Weisberg give my two cents with his explanation of how the MSM handled critics of the WC early on. It seems to be the same way they handle us critics even today: https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/weisberg-media.mp4

Great point and if I could add some logisitics to what made up a successful Presidential assassination at that time : The first logistic is that in the previous three successful Presidential assassinations, the choice of weapon by all three assailants was a handgun. This is because the handgun is concealable and allows the killer to get within point blank range of his victim. The second logistic is the distance from the victim that concealment of the weapon allowed: all three victims were killed from a distance of three feet or less. The third logistic is when the assailant struck: all three victims were either stationary or walking at a normal pace of 2 1/2 miles per hour. Lincoln was seated, McKinley was in a receiving line and Garfield was walking in a train station. All three assassins had a motive for killing the President, something Oswald did not have. All of the Commission's nonsense about shooting at a moving target with a bolt action rifle at 85 yards being "an easy shot", is just that, nonsense. It took a skill so special, that even it's own rifle "masters" could not duplicate Oswald's performance in speed and accuracy in spite of their having every advantage that Oswald did not have.

Thanks Ron. I think that's the reason why the police conspired with Ruby to kill Oswald. They couldn't let this case go to trial. They had to nip it in the bud before they lost custody of Oswald to the Sheriff's Department. Ruby wanted to talk, he had something he wanted to say but he couldn't say it in Dallas. It's too bad we'll never know what that was.

What a lot of people don't realize is how important clothing is to the "positive identification" of a suspect. Unless you can prove that the suspect changed clothes AFTER committing the crime, the identification of a suspect's clothes is secondary only to facial recognition in a witness' identification of a suspect. So how did the Tippit witnesses fare in identifying Oswald's clothing as those worn by the killer ( A note for the newbies: Keep in mind that Oswald's tan jacket is Commission Exhibit 162, his blue jacket is Commission Exhibit 163 and the shirt he was arrested in is Commission Exhibit 150. )The JacketHelen Louise Markham Mr. BALL. I have here an exhibit, Commission Exhibit 162, a jacket. Did you ever see this before ? Mrs. MARKHAM. No I did not. ( 3 H 312 ) Barbara Jeanette Davis Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn ? Mrs. DAVIS. No sir. ( 3 H 347 ) Virginia Davis testified that the killer wore a "light brown tan jacket" ( 6 H 457 ) but she was never shown CE 162 and asked to identify it.Domingo Benavides identified Oswald's BLUE jacket ( CE 163 ) as the one the killer wore. ( 6 H 453 )William Scoggins testified that CE 162 was too light and the killer's jacket was darker. ( 3 H 328 )When shown the CE 162 jacket, Ted Callaway testified that he thought the killer's jacket "had a little more tan to it". ( 3 H 356 )William Arthur Smith remembered that the killer wore "..a sport coat of some kind...." ( 7 H 85 ) The Commission failed to mention in its Report that witnesses had described the Tippit killer's jacket as a sport jacket, dark in color and of a rough fabric, all descriptions that did not match the jacket in evidence. The Commission also failed to report that this same group of witnesses failed to identify Oswald's shirt ( CE 150 ) as the one the killer wore. The Shirt Mr. BALL. I show a shirt here, which is Exhibit 150. Did you ever see a shirt the color of this ? Mrs. MARKHAM. The shirt that this man had, it was a lighter looking shirt than that. ( 3 H 312 ) Mr. BALL. I show you a shirt, which is Commission Exhibit 150. Was that---does that shirt look like something he had on, that the man had on who went across your lawn ? Mrs. DAVIS. I thought that the shirt he had on was lighter than that. ( 3 H 347 ) Benavides testified that Tippit's killer wore a dark shirt but he didn't know what color. He was never asked to identify CE 150 as the shirt he saw. Callaway, Virginia Davis and Scoggins could not identify the CE 150 shirt as the shirt Tippit's killer was wearing because they all claimed to have not been able to see the shirt. So these seven witnesses ( including William Smith ), who the Commission counted among those who made a "positive identification" of Oswald as the killer of Officer J.D. Tippit, never made a positive identifcation of his clothing. In addition, three Jefferson Ave. witnesses who saw the gunman as he fled the Tippit murder, L.J. Lewis, B.M. Patterson and Harold Russell, were never called to testify. A fourth Jefferson Ave. witness, Warren Reynolds did testify and in spite of his alleged observance and following of the man with the gun, he was never shown the shirt and jacket and asked to identify them. That's eleven witnesses who saw the man who executed Tippit and did not identify Oswald's jacket and shirt as those worn by the killer. And as I said before, if you can't positively identify the suspect's clothing, you can't positively identify the suspect. Unless you can prove that he changed his clothes after the murder, which he didn't. The FBI was careful which witnesses it selected to appear before the Commission and Commission Counsel was careful not to ask certain questions of witnesses. And under those circumstances, the evidence indicates that Tippit's killer was not Oswald.

Oswald, the ex-Marine who defected to the Soviet Union in 1959, was hired by Jaggers-Childs-Stovall on October 12, 1962, just days before a U-2 flight over Cuba took photos of a Soviet missile build-up on the island. The company President, Robert Stovall, testified to the Warren Commission that his company did do secret work for the US Government, but only those employees who were cleared by the DOD had access to the work. Oswald, he testified, was not among them. But that's not what Jack L. Bowen, a former assistant art director at Jaggers told the FBI. Bowen was interviewed on December 7, 1963 and told the FBI that he was in the office of Ray Hawkins, foreman of the photo department when Oswald was explaining Russian symbols on maps the firm was preparing for the United States Army. Keep in mind that Oswald was employed at Jaggers during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Army would have been very interested in having Russian maps translated into English. Any military contractor doing this type of work would have considered someone with Oswald's skill to read and interpret Russian as a excellent hire and it raises the question as to whether Stovall lied to the Commission or had Oswald been cleared by the DoD. As a sidebar, Jaggers' photo department foreman Ray Hawkins had the same name as the Dallas Police officer Ray Hawkins who was present during the Oswald arrest in the Texas Theater. They don't seem to be the same person, the Officer Hawkins in 1963 had been with the police department for 11 years. But it doesn't discount the possibility that they are related. Or maybe its just another one of those curious coincidences.

Or maybe he just glanced at it. But I'm not talking about what he perceived, I'm talking about what he knew. If the photos were real and he recognized the photo he was shown and he knew he was wearing a holster when it was taken, why didn't he say that they superimposed a rifle and a gun-in-a-holster instead of a gun in his pocket ? This to me is a strange utterance that implies that he had no knowledge of the gun in the holster.

Tom, one of the things I find interesting about the revolver in the theater is that McDonald didn't use normal procedure to search Oswald. The normal procedure is to have the person being searched spread out their arms. You search them beginning at the top with the shoulders, out to the arms, down the torso, around the waist and then down each leg to the ankles, one leg at a time. Oswald was standing with his arms out, expecting to be searched in a normal fashion. But McDonald didn't do that, he went right for Oswald's waist, just like one would do if he were planting a weapon on someone. George Applin told Earl Golz that he thought the revolver "came out of the officer's holster". A planting of the weapon by police would explain why the interviews of theater patrons who witnessed the arrest disappeared, never to be seen again.

And while we're at it, let's throw one more report in there for good measure. This one comes from the papers of Capt. Will Fritz and is a report by SS agent Thomas Kelley who was present during Fritz's interrogation of Oswald on November 23rd ( Saturday ). Kelley reports that at the 6pm interrogation, Fritz showed Oswald "blowups" of the photographs showing him holding a rifle and a pistol. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29106 The fact that the Dallas Police had the ability to blow up the pictures indicates the department had the capability to alter photographs. Oswald responds that he was photographed a number of times on Friday by police who superimposed on the photographs a rifle and "PUT A GUN IN HIS POCKET". This is a curious statement. If Oswald had the gun in a holster when the pictures were taken, why would he think the gun in the picture was in his pocket ?