Gil Jesus

I agree. And Truly took a lot of secrets with him to the grave. And another one I don't trust is the Postal Inspector, Harry Holmes. It seems to me that these people had an agenda.

Pat, you hit the nail on the head. Oswald was killed by Ruby to prevent him from going to trial. The whole case was a farce. The evidence couldn't be allowed to be "challenged" in court. He was a patsy. Thank you for your research.

Jim, wasn't there a military intelligence guy, I think his name was James Powell, who was trapped in the building when the Dallas Police sealed it off ? Seems to me he would be a stranger, wouldn't he ?

Mr. McBride, thank you. Notice that Caster says in his testimony that the rifle he bought was a 30.06 sporterized Mauser. I'm willing to bet that that was a sporterized 7.65 Argentine Mauser converted to a 30.06, just like Arnold Rowland described.

You could argue that Weitzman may have jumped the gun so to speak and identified the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser because he found the empty shell outside the building or you could say that he called it right. Either way, he was in no way the only one who identified the rifle as a Mauser. Eugene Boone also signed an affidavit identifying the rifle as a Mauser and Roger Craig was adamant for the rest of his life that the rifle was a Mauser. Too many witnesses for it to be untrue, plus police officers are trained to be SPECIFIC and CORRECT when making judgement calls. Something Arnold Rowland said about the man in the window that struck me: Mr. SPECTER - In what manner was the rifle being held by the man whom you observed?Mr. ROWLAND - The way he was standing it would have been in a position such as port arms in military terms.Mr. SPECTER - When you say port arms you have positioned your left hand with the left elbow of your hand being about level with your shoulder and your right hand.--Mr. ROWLAND - Not quite level with my shoulder, and the right hand being lower on the trigger of the stock.Mr. SPECTER - So the waist of the imaginary rifle you would be holding would cross your body at about a 45-degree angle.Mr. ROWLAND - That is correct.Mr. SPECTER - How long was the rifle held in that position?Mr. ROWLAND - During the entire time that I saw him there.Mr. SPECTER - Did you see him hold it in any other position?Mr. ROWLAND - No, I didn't. Rowland described a position that was military. There WERE military intelligence people in Dealey Plaza and I'm trying to figure out what they were doing there if some unknown authority had ordered their commander to stand down, like he testified.

Consider the Testimony of Arnold Rowland, who claimed to have seen the man in the window with the rifle. Keep in mind that the Argentine 7.65 Mauser was a popular rifle to be converted into a 30.06. 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. Didn't someone bring a deer hunting rifle into the Texas School Book Depository two days before the assassination ?

John, the source was Seymour Weitzman himself. He told his psychiatrist that he found a spent 7.65 shell in the bushes outside the TSBD. I'm not sure if he told him specifically where but that was his story. I'm sure the interview with the psychiatrist is on line. I believe I saw it some years ago on Denis Morrissette's site. There is in evidence a small envelope marked "7.65 shell" but it is empty. I believe the two are connected.

Some time ago, I wrote something on the Mauser called, "In Defense of a Mauser". I went through the whole shabang and it was probably one of my better works, but when I came across where Roger Craig said the Mauser was found, it was exactly where the M-C rifle was found, so I wasn't completely convinced that those deputies were correct in their identification of the weapon. So, I'm sorry to say, I deleted it because I think there's a ton of evidence, including the witnesses' descriptions of the rifle they saw in the window and the discovery by Seymour Weitzman of an empty 7.65 shell in the bushes outside the TSBD, to say that the rifle that fired the shots was NOT the 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano, but rather a sporterized Argentine 7.65 Mauser.

Thank you all. I've had to take a hiatus from this debate because I lost my job in 2007 when Polaroid closed. Fortunately, I had the foresight to see it coming and I went out and got my CDL. So I've been doing trucking for the last 10 or 11 years and its left me with little time for anything else. I had to give up the website due to the cost, but I'm in the process of updating that info and I'll be reposting it here as time goes forward. Last month I retired from trucking and took up a job as a security guard so I'll have some time now to make the trolls blush. LOL Before he passed away, Tom Rossley left me with some words of wisdom that Harold Weisberg gave him, he said, "hit em with the evidence", so that's what I plan to do. Good seeing you all again and good to know you're still fighting the good fight for truth.

The 3 Carcanos by Gil Jesus ( 2021 ) Much has been argued over the years about the rifle found in the Texas School Book Depository having belonged to the accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald. Most of the argument for is founded on the fact that the Depository rifle bore the serial number C2766 and a rifle with that same serial number was shipped to Oswald. It is also founded on the premise that the rifle was the only one produced with that serial number and no other rifle bore that number. That, my friends, is not the case. The government's own evidence proves that that is not the case. The government produced evidence that at least two 6.5 Mannlicher Carcanos, one a 36" Troop Special and the other a 40" Short Rifle had the same number. And a third ironically showed up some years later in a book authored by an author known to have supported the conclusion that Oswald was guilty. Let's take the government's two C2766s first. The first is the Depository rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository immediately after the shooting. It was a 40" Short Rifle bearing the serial number C2766. Everyone can agree on that. Then there's the 36" Troop Special that was allegedly ordered by Oswald from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago and shipped to "A.Hidell" at P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas, Texas. Waldman exhibit 7 is the shipping Bill of Lading that indicates that the rifle shipped was a 36" rifle bearing the serial number C2766.The red circle is the Klein's stock number for the rifle. The C20-T750 is for the 36" rifle with the scope mounted in-house. The 40" rifle had a different stock number and (as the HSCA Hearings showed ) its scope was NOT mounted in house. The "Oswald did it" crowd will argue that Klein's simply ran out of 36" rifles and shipped the 40" rifles in their stead. In addition, they shipped it with a stock number that indicated it was a 36" rifle with a scope mounted in-house. To that I say, show me the evidence to prove that. If someone has evidence to prove that Klein's shipped a 40" rifle, stock number C20-750 and bearing serial number C2766 to Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas on March 20, 1963, please present it and I'll accept it. If anybody has ANY evidence that Klein's shipped a 40" rifle to ANYBODY who ordered a 36" rifle in the spring of 1963, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, the evidence shows there were two 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcanos, one a 36" rifle, the other a 40" rifle with the same serial number, C2766. But that's not all. Warrennati apologist John Lattimer wrote in his book, Kennedy and Lincoln, on page 250, that he did some tests with a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano with the serial number C2766. That's three 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcanos with the serial number C2766. CE 2562 is a January 1964 memo from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. On page 15 he is verifying the exact point I'm making: that there was more than one rifle with the same serial number.

10 Reasons Why I Believe That The Depository Rifle Isn't Oswald'sBy Gil Jesus ( 2010 )Reason #1: MORE THAN ONE MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE EXISTED WITH THE SERIAL NUMBER C2766The 40" rifle currently in evidence is not the only Mannlicher-Carcano with the serial number of C2766. On page 250 of his book, Kennedy and Lincoln, the late Dr. John K. Lattimer said the following:"In 1974 and 1975, my sons and I had conducted a series of experiments using a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine, model 91-38, serial number C2766, equipped with an Ordinance Optics Company four power telescope exactly like Oswald's." But Lattimer's wasn't the only 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano with serial number C2766.Reason #2. KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS BOUGHT MORE THAN ONE MANNLICHER-CARCANO WITH THE SERIAL NUMBER C2766In volume 11, page 205 of the Warren Commission Hearings, Louis Feldsott, president of Crescent Firearms, in a sworn affidavit to the Commission, claimed that he was contacted by the FBI on the evening of November 22, 1963. They requested that he check his files to see if he had any records concerning the sale of an Italian-made 6.5 mm. rifle with the serial number C2766. When he checked, he found that he had records indicating the rifle was sold to Klein's Sporting Goods on June 18, 1962. This information of the 6.5 rifle with the serial number C2766, he said, was conveyed to the FBI on the evening of November 22, 1963 and all records of the purchase, sale and transportation of the weapon were given to the FBI.www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol11_0108a.htmIn their tracing of the shipping records of the C 2766 rifle, however, the FBI makes no mention of the June 1962 sale. They cite, instead, the February, 1963 sale of 100 rifles from the same dealer, Crescent Firearms, to Klein's. In that shipment is a list of the rifles' serial numbers. Included in the list is a 6.5 rifle serial number C2766. www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0361b.htmBut thanks to the affidavit of Louis Feldsott, we have evidence that Klein's bought two C 2766 rifles from Crescent Firearms: one in June 1962 and the other in February 1963.I'll get back to the June 1962 rifle later. Right now I'd like to concentrate on the February, 1963 rifle.Reason #3. THE SHIPPING RECORDS IN EVIDENCE ARE NOT THE SHIPPING RECORDS FOR THE DEPOSITORY RIFLEThe FBI traced the sale of the 40" C2766 rifle found in the TSBD backward and claimed that it was a part of a shipment of 100 rifles weighing 750 lbs. that was sent to Klein's from Crescent Firearms in February, 1963.But that shipment was for 36" rifles.How do we know ? Because Fred Rupp said so.Fred Rupp was a Federally licensed gun dealer who had a contract with Crescent Firearms to pick up guns from the Harborside Terminal and inspect, test-fire, repack and ship them to Crescent's retail customers ( i.e. Klein's).The delivery receipt from Lifschultz Fast Freight listed the freight as 10 crates/cartons of guns/rifles and listed the weight at 750 lbs.www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0359a.htmHad the shipment been of the 40" rifles, at 7 lbs. each, the total weight including 160-200 lbs. for the crates would have been in the 860-900 lb. range.Instead, the 750 lbs. gross weight is entirely consistent of shipment of 10 crates at 20 lbs each ( 200 ) and 100 rifles at 5.5 lbs. each ( 550 )In other words, the shipment received by Klein's in February, 1963 was indeed a shipment of 36-inch weapons.www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdfReason #4. THE RIFLE "HIDELL ORDERED" WAS THE 36" RIFLEWaldman Exhibit 8 is a copy of the order blank used by "A.Hidell " to order the rifle from Klein's. On that order form, taken from the February, 1963 edition of American Rifleman, one can see that Oswald ordered catalog # C20-T750, which is the catalog number in the advertisement of the 36" rifle.www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364b.htmOne can also see from the advertisement of the 40" rifle that that rifle had a different catalog number, C20-750.All models of the Mannlicher-Carcano in Klein's ads with the letter"T" in the catalog number, were 36" rifles.Reason #5. THE SHIPPING MANIFEST INDICATED THAT THE RIFLE THAT WAS SHIPPED TO "HIDELL" WAS THE SAME RIFLE AS THE RIFLE ORDEREDWaldman Exhibit 7 is the copy of the shipping manifest that accompanied the rifle when shipped. It clearly states that the catalog number of the shipped item is C20-T750 and not C20-750.www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htmThe ONLY difference in the catalog numbers is the difference between the 36" rifle and the 40" rifle.How important was the catalog number to the folks doing the shipping ? William Waldman, VP of Klein's Sporting Goods, told the WC that the catalog numbers for rifles ordered with scopes were different than for the same rifle without a scope and that the different number described "the rifle, scope and mount". ( 7 H 362-363 )Reason #6. THE SHIPPING MANIFEST INDICATED THAT THE COST FOR SHIPPING WAS FOR THE 36" RIFLE.The shipping cost is noted in two places, where it says "PP=1.50" for the cost of Parcel Post, and again in the handwritten column where it says 150. This is exactly the amount sent by "Hidell" to ship the 36 " rifle.www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.hTMReason #7. KLEIN'S DIDN'T RUN OUT OF THE 36" RIFLE UNTIL NOVEMBER, 1963Klein's 36-inch Italian "carbine" was advertised in Field and Stream from January, 1962 through November, 1963.www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdfWhich means, folks, that Klein's hadn't run out of them at the time of the "Hidell" order.Reason # 8. No 40" Italian rifle was advertised by Klein's in The American Rifleman magazine from October 1962 through February 1963According to assassination researcher/author and former detective Ian Griggs, the 40" "carbine" began to be advertised in The American Rifleman in April, 1963. Field and Stream did not begin advertising the 40-inch Italian weapon until September, 1963. It was from the November issue that Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes submitted his exhibit # 2 as a "duplicate" to the ad "Hidell" ordered from . ( 20 H 174 )Many of the Warren Commission apologists contend that Klein's shipped a 40" rifle in lieu of the advertised rifle because they had run out of the 36's. But the evidence so far indicates otherwise. In order to believe that the 40" rifle was shipped to "A. Hidell" in place of the 36" rifle, you must believe ALL of the following:a.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle without notifying the customer that the rifle he ordered was out of stock.b.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle than ordered without giving the customer the option of a refund.c.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle than ordered and used the wrong item number on the manifest.d.) That Klein's shipped a rifle that had not been advertised for sale and continued to advertise a rifle that they no longer had.In my opinion, not only is that quite a stretch, but there's no evidence to support it. Reason #9. KLEIN'S NEVER MOUNTED SCOPES ON THE 40 " RIFLEThe Klein's employee who originated the idea of mounting a scope on the rifle was Mitchell Westra. He told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) that Klein's only mounted the scope on the 36 inch MC. (HSCA interview of Westra 2/20/78)The man who actually mounted the scopes for Klein's was William Sharp, their in-house gunsmith. He confirmed what Westra testified to: the package deal with the scope and MC rifle was used by Klein's to market the 36 inch MC. (HSCA interview of Sharp, 2/21/78)In addition, FBI expert Robert Frazier testified to the WC that in order to ascertain whether or not Klein's mounted the scope on the rifle, the FBI asked them to supply a duplicate rifle with a scope and then had to tell Klein's where on the frame to mount the scope.Mr. FRAZIER. We contacted the firm, Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and asked them concerning this matter to provide us with a similar rifle mounted in the way in which they normally mount scopes of this type on these rifles, and forward the rifle to us for examination. In this connection, WE DID INFORM THEM THAT THE SCOPE SHOULD BE IN APPROXIMATELY THIS POSITION ON THE FRAME OF THE WEAPON. Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. When you say "this position," so that the record is clear could you-- Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; in the position in which it now is, approximately three-eighths of an inch to the rear of the receiver ring. ( 3 H 396 ) So the FBI told Klein's what "position on the frame" "the scope should be in". Information that Klein's would not have needed had they normally mounted "scopes of this type on these rifles".It's clear from their ads that Klein's was offering the 40" rifle with a scope. But the evidence indicates that the scopes were not mounted "in-house".Reason # 10: THE SLING MOUNTS ON THE "BACKYARD" RIFLE ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE SLING MOUNTS ON THE DEPOSITORY RIFLEIf the rifle depicted in the famous "backyard photographs" is the rifle that "A.Hidell" ordered, then the rifle removed from the Texas School Book Depository is not. The reason is that the rifle in CE 134 ( an enlargement of CE 133-A ) shows a rifle with a front bottom sling mount, whereas the rifle removed from the Depository is a rifle with side sling mounts.jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/c2766.htmlThe subject is covered on my youtube channel in a video entitled, "One Rifle or Two ?"CONCLUSIONS:There was more than one Mannlicher-Carcano with serial number C2766. Besides John Lattimer's rifle, there's evidence that Klein's bought two C2766's from Crescent Firearms, one in June 1962 and the other in February, 1963.I've discussed fully the February 1963 rifle. It is my conclusion that the February 1963 shipment of rifles to Klein's was of the 36" rifle and that one of those, serial number C2766 was shipped to "A.Hidell". I base this on the evidence of the weight of the rifles and their crates and the list of the serial numbers in the shipment. I also conclude that "A.Hidell" ordered a 36" rifle and that he was shipped a 36" rifle. I base that conclusion on the fact that the catalog number "Hidell" ordered was the same as the catalog number of the 36" rifle with the scope, that the shipping manifest indicated that the catalog number shipped was the same as the 36" rifle with the scope, and that the cost of the shipping was the same as the 36" rifle.I have found no evidence in the shipping documentation or in the testimony that would lead me to conclude that "Hidell" was ever shipped a 40" rifle or a rifle that weighed 7 lbs, 11 1/4 oz. In fact, I have found no evidence that any other rifle was shipped to "Hidell" than the rifle he ordered.And now for the June 1962 C2766. What follows next is my own opinion, it is speculative because the evidence that would prove or disprove what I have to say no longer exists.I believe that the 40" 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano now in evidence is a stage prop. I believe that this is the C2766 rifle that was sold to Klein's in June, 1962, the rifle whose records were turned over to the FBI on November 22, 1963, only to disappear (like much of the evidence that didn't support the official version disappeared ) into thin air.I believe that the records of this weapon would have indicated who purchased it and as such, would have revealed the identity of the person or persons who framed Oswald. And because of this, these records would never see the light of day.In my opinion, the person or persons who were responsible for framing Oswald would have had to know where he was living, his political views, his weapons purchases and other pertinent information.----------------------------------------------------------------Who could have framed Oswald?What happened to the 36" rifle? There is no evidence that "A. Hidell" ever received it. There's no documentation to show that the rifle ever got past the Dallas Post Office.Which brings us to Postal Inspector Harry Holmes.Holmes presented an ad to the WC for the 40" rifle as a "duplicate ad" when in fact it was not.The Dallas Post office destroyed the record of who was authorized to receive mail at Oswald's Post Office Box, in violation of Postal Regulations.Holmes was eager to present the "Hidell" purchase as a purchase for a 40" rifle.Holmes told the WC that when he spoke with the SS on the evening of the 23rd, he was told that the name on the money order was "A.J.Hidell" and he knew that that was the right money order.www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0168b.htmHe gave two reasons why he knew it was the right name.Mr. HOLMES. When the box was opened in the name of Lee H. Oswald......when he rented the post office box in New Orleans, he used the name of A. J. Hidell as one of the persons entitled to receive mail in that box. Mr. BELIN. At that time did you know about that? Mr. HOLMES. Yes. Mr. BELIN. All right, what else? Mr. HOLMES. In his billfold the police had found a draft registration card in the name of A. J. Hidell on his person at the time of his arrest, and I had seen it. (7 H 296)

He was a good friend who had me over for dinner several times in last few years. He was also a close friend of the late Harold Weisberg. He could be crude and abusive to the lone nutters, but his knowledge of the case was unmatched. He gave me a lot of information. He told me to "hit them with the evidence" and that's what I've tried to do. RIP, my friend, I'll see you again on the other side.

You can't have a transiting bullet without a bullet track through the body.

The clown with the cigar was Dallas Detective Paul Bentley. I agree, Mr. Dobson that these 50 years have been nothing but a dog-and-pony show with respect to the media's handling of this case. These "Oswald-did-it" shows fail to address ANY of the evidence that suggests that Oswald was innocent. How did Oswald order a 36" M-C Troop Special rifle and end up with a 40.2" M-C Fucile Corto ? How did Oswald purchase and mail the money order when the EVIDENCE shows that Oswald was at work ? How did Oswald obtain the ammunition for that rifle when the ammunition was not sold commercially ? If the Dallas Police found the "paper gun sack" on the sixth floor, why doesn't it appear in ANY of the crime scene photographs ? I guess it's so much easier to accept that one is guilty then to examine the evidence against him.

I used to belong to that forum but I found that they are intolerant of any opinion other than Oswald was guilty. Posters were allowed to attack me and NOTHING was done about it, so I quit. That forum can go to hell.

I swear....the closer to this anniversary we get....the more wacky things will be and the more colorful the red herrings will be....advance and read with caution folks. It's difficult to believe that this was a result of an accident. Hoover wanted the FBI to take over Presidential protection. If the FBI had found the SS that inept in protecting the President, to the extent that it actually killed him, he would have pulled whatever strings necessary to move that responsibility over to the FBI. I don't recall any of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza saying the SS killed him.

And there's another issue that needs to be addressed in the Tippit case. Many of the witnesses who "identified" Oswald from a photograph were never shown a "photographic lineup". Instead, they were shown photographs only of Oswald and nearly every time that photograph was either the New Orleans mugshot or the DPD mugshot. One time, they even showed a witness the "backyard" photograph. So you have planted in the witness' mind the guy they saw was a criminal and armed. Talk about influencing a witness. There was even one witness, I think it was Patterson, who the FBI said identified Oswald from a photo, but who told the Commission that he had never been shown a photo. The Commission's answer to that was to have the FBI show him two photos of Oswald. One was a mugshot, the other the BY photo. They never questioned why the FBI lied in its report.

Absolutely not. Their power was such that NO defense lawyer in Dallas dared step forward to take Oswald's case. Last I knew, 25 people who had been convicted under the Wade tenure had had their convictions overturned by DNA evidence. The credibility of the Dallas prosecutory system in 1963 was garbage, from the police all the way up to the DA. But you'll never see David Von Pein or the Warren Commission apologists address that. Knowing what I know today, I believe that Ruby killed Oswald in order to prevent him from going to trial. IMO, that's why Ruby couldn't talk in Dallas. He needed to get away from there in order to tell the truth. I think it's absolutely shameful that the Commission declined to take him to Washington, but had no problem paying for plane tickets for right-wing nuts like Revilo Oliver and Edwin Walker, who had NOTHING of evidence in the assassination. When you arrest a suspect, ESPECIALLY WHEN HE'S ARMED, you frisk him before you put him in the cruiser, not two hours later as he's going to a lineup. Anybody who's seen an episode of COPS can tell you that. We always emptied out their pockets and inventoried what we found so they couldn't say we stole something from them. Another thing that shocks me about this case is how poorly informed the Chief of Police was. We always kept our chief informed of all aspects of our investigations. When Curry testified, he didn't know this and didn't know that. He was never at the lineups, he was never at the interrogations and he seems to have been so detached from the whole investigation. It seems that his role was reduced to that of a PR man. When the police got threats against Oswald's life, they couldn't contact the chief for permission to secretly move the prisoner because the chief's home phone was off the hook. I've never heard of anything so ridiculous. The Chiefs I served under were always at the center of things. Everything went through the Chief and he was always available 24 hours a day.

Absolutely not. Their power was such that NO defense lawyer in Dallas dared step forward to take Oswald's case. Last I knew, 25 people who had been convicted under the Wade tenure had had their convictions overturned by DNA evidence. The credibility of the Dallas prosecutory system in 1963 was garbage, from the police all the way up to the DA. But you'll never see David Von Pein or the Warren Commission apologists address that. Knowing what I know today, I believe that Ruby killed Oswald in order to prevent him from going to trial. IMO, that's why Ruby couldn't talk in Dallas. He needed to get away from there in order to tell the truth. I think it's absolutely shameful that the Commission declined to take him to Washington, but had no problem paying for plane tickets for right-wing nuts like Revilo Oliver and Edwin Walker, who had NOTHING of evidence in the assassination. When you arrest a suspect, ESPECIALLY WHEN HE'S ARMED, you frisk him before you put him in the cruiser, not two hours later as he's going to a lineup. Anybody who's seen an episode of COPS can tell you that. We always emptied out their pockets and inventoried what we found so they couldn't say we stole something from them. Another thing that shocks me about this case is how poorly informed the Chief of Police was. We always kept our chief informed of all aspects of our investigations. When Curry testified, he didn't know this and didn't know that. He was never at the lineups, he was never at the interrogations and he seems to have been so detached from the whole investigation. He was more of a PR man.

Thanks, Jim. I've been slacking off due to the holidays and now tax time, but now that I've gotten all of the distractions out of the way, I'm starting to research the issue again. Mr. Von Pein's "fall back " position is that even though the witnesses may be less than perfect, the physical evidence proves Oswald guilty. In this instance, he cites the four spent shells the Commission said were found at the Tippit murder scene. The Commission said that these shells were fired from Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons. My question to Mr. Von Pein requires nothing more than a simple yes or no answer. Four shells were found by three different people. Domingo Benavides found two, Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis each found one. Did any of these three witnesses ever identify any of the four shells currently in evidence as the shell or shells they found ? Yes or no ? Just in case Mr. Von Pein answers "yes", to that question, let me have a follow up: Which witnesses found the Remington-Peters shells and which ones found the Westerns ?

Hang on, they're coming. You mean Barbara Davis who said the shooter was wearing a dark jacket ? You mean Virginia Davis who said the shooter was 18 years old ? You mean Callaway and Guinyard who viewed a police lineup with Oswald and three police employees ? You mean Patterson, who was supposed to have identified Oswald from a photograph, but told the Commission he was never shown a photograph ? You mean Russell who identified Oswald from a mugshot and the "backyard photo" ? You mean Searcy who was never interviewed and Lewis who was never close enough to identify the shooter ? How about Reynolds, who couldn't identify Oswald until after he was shot in the head ? Now THERE'S a witness so credible the Dallas Police didn't believe him. Mr. FRITZ. I didn't talk to him very long because I didn't have to talk to him long or I didn't have to talk to him very long but he told me two or three different stories and I could tell he was a sick man and he had no doubt brain damage from that bullet and he is apt to say anything. Mr. BALL. What did he say? Mr. FRITZ. He told me that--he told me two or three stories, one story he told me when they first brought him into me, for me to talk to him, he told me that he saw this Ruby coming down there and he told him--he said he followed him up and saw which way he went. Mr. BALL. Ruby? Mr. FRITZ. Saw Oswald. Mr. BALL. Oswald? Mr. FRITZ. Yes, Oswald, and I questioned him further and I asked him, how far, how close was the closest you were ever to him, how far were you from him? He said, well, from that car lot across the street there. Well, of course, if he had been at a car lot across the street it would be difficult to follow him on the sidewalk. It would be quite difficult so I talked to him for just a short time and I didn't bother with him any more. I already had some history on him because the other bureau, the forgery bureau had been handling him and they had already told me a lot about him. They discounted anything that he told. ( 4 H 235 ) You got some great witnesses there, Dave. Oh yeah those pages are coming.

Here's some news for ya. The shells didn't kill Tippit. The bullets did. Establish a chain of custody for those shells.

Another piece of evidence that points to two shooters is that two different brands of ammunition was used. That says two different shooters. If Oswald had been "between" boxes of ammunition, the remnant of the second box should have been found in the search of his room. It was not. And don't tell me that they found two different types of bullets in his pocket. I'm not buying that BS story. Maybe David Von Pein believes that they could arrest an armed man and not search his person for almost two hours, but I'm not buying it.

http://www.giljesus.com/Tippit/scoggins.htm