David Von Pein

Either way, Dr. Peters is still wrong, because there was no humongous hole in President Kennedy's head in either one of those "BOH" locations, as these photos clearly prove for all time: For a more accurate "hand on the head" demonstration of where the large wound in JFK's head was really located, we need to go to the witnesses who saw the assassination as it was occurring in Dealey Plaza. And the best possible witnesses among that group are Abraham Zapruder and William Newman: And there's also Gayle Newman too, who provided a hands-on account of the location on JFK's head where she saw "blood gushing out". And it sure isn't in the occipital (or rear) portion of the head:

Thank you, Pat, for your last reply. But this comment you made still makes no sense to me: Well, Pat, since we all know the autopsy started at about 8:00 PM, it's fairly obvious that David Lifton DOES indeed believe the wounds were altered BEFORE 8:00. Right? So how is Lifton's previous remark out of sync with his theory that the body was altered by somebody at Walter Reed (or wherever) prior to the time Dr. Humes started the autopsy? What am I missing here? You surely don't think Lifton is of the opinion the alleged alterations to the President's body were performed AFTER the Bethesda autopsy commenced at 8 PM. Right? Re: Groden.... I don't know if Robert Groden was being deliberately deceptive in his 1993 book or not, but this picture which I captured of Dr. Paul Peters (taken from the 1988 NOVA/PBS program) comes pretty close to matching Groden's photo of Peters, although it appears as if Peters' hand is a little lower on the back of his head in the montage posted earlier than it is in this 1988 hands-on demonstration:

I think Pat Speer's last post makes a lot of sense -- except for two things.... Huh? Pat, the remarks made by David Lifton [repeated below] that you are replying to in the above quote are not inconsistent in the slightest way with Mr. Lifton's longstanding beliefs put forth in his book. Lifton is saying here what he's always said (and it's still as far-fetched and unrealistic here in 2014 as it was back in 1966 when DSL's strange odyssey first began). He's saying the body of JFK was altered between Parkland and Bethesda. But the statement below does not imply that Lifton has embraced the additional Humes Altered The Wounds nonsense put forth by Doug Horne. Emphasis added by DVP here: Number two -- I agree with Pat Speer up to a point about some of the "BOH" witnesses. But this composite chart made by Mr. Speer is probably a tad bit misleading (IMO), because the three witnesses pictured here ARE still indicating that there was SOME kind of wound or defect extending all the way into the VERY BACK part of JFK's head. Right, Pat? Otherwise, what do you think Peters and Custer and O'Connor are doing when they have their own hands placed over the REAR portions of their heads in the photos on the right side of your montage below? Are they just scratching their heads here, and a picture was taken to mislead people? Or what?.... JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / President Kennedy's Head Wounds JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / Index -- BOH Articles An excerpt from the above links: "Of course, the CTers [Conspiracy Theorists] who think that Kennedy was shot in the head from the front can always go down "THE PHOTOS ARE ALL FAKES" path...even though the HSCA said that ALL of the autopsy pictures are "unaltered" in any way whatsoever. .... To stress my main point again (via the opinion that the [autopsy] pictures are GENUINE and are NOT FAKES, which, of course, IS the truth of the matter): How would it be even remotely possible for a bullet to leave a huge hole in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of President Kennedy's head and yet have the REAR SCALP of that same President Kennedy look like this (in the autopsy picture below) after such a shooting event? Was Kennedy's scalp made of bullet-proof cast iron or some other impossible-to-penetrate material? Lacking that type of crazy explanation, I cannot see how it would be possible for a bullet that caused the amount of damage to the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's skull that most CTers think it DID cause, to NOT have penetrated the RIGHT-REAR scalp of Kennedy's head and caused at least SOME visible damage to the outer scalp of the President. In a word -- impossible." -- DVP; April 2008

Related video (re: Klein's and Oswald's rifle purchase):

We don't know that Hidell's name wasn't on the application for Box 2915. That portion of the application was discarded. And for CTers who bring up the FBI report found in CE2585, I offered up this retort in 2010.... " "Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A. Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963." -- Via FBI Report of 6/3/64 [CE2585] But we know from all the available (and unavailable) evidence associated with the topic of Lee Harvey Oswald's P.O. Box applications that the FBI did not actually see and examine Part 3 of the application Oswald filled out for Box #2915 in Dallas, because that portion of the application simply does not exist. So, how could the FBI, in November 1963 or June 1964, have seen something that was thrown away in May 1963? Therefore, when the FBI came to the conclusion cited above on Page 4 of its report dated June 3, 1964, the FBI was relying on information OTHER than Part 3 of Oswald's application for P.O. Box 2915. And I'm wondering if possibly the FBI made the same mistake that Gary Craig and other people have made [see the link below to see Craig's gaffe]: they mixed up the two P.O. Box applications for boxes 2915 and 6225. The 6225 box application still had Part 3 attached to it, but Box 2915 did not. Maybe the FBI made the same error conspiracy theorists make when those CTers try and prop up Cadigan Exhibit No. 13 as proof that Oswald didn't list A. Hidell as a person entitled to receive mail at Box 2915. In any event, even if it was an error on the part of the FBI, the error most certainly cannot be considered to be a sinister lie. Not even conspiracy theorists could consider such an error to be conspiratorial or sinister. Why? Because J. Edgar Hoover's FBI is almost always thought to be one of the major forces behind a "cover-up" in the JFK assassination investigation by conspiracy promoters. And this possible mistake about the P.O. Box application of Oswald's is a mistake that makes it appear LESS likely that Oswald could have received the assassination weapon through the mail. So, if Hoover's boys were making up stories, then they would have lied in the OTHER direction and would have claimed that Oswald definitely HAD listed A. Hidell as a person who could receive mail at P.O. Box 2915. Instead, the FBI concluded that he definitely had NOT listed Hidell on the application. [...] BTW, it also makes no sense for Oswald to purchase guns under the name HIDELL and have them shipped to a P.O. Box where he DID NOT have the name HIDELL listed as a person authorized to receive mail. But, on the other hand, since the post office delivers to ADDRESSES and not specific PEOPLE, it's very likely that Oswald would not have had any problem getting a package addressed to HIDELL even if that name was not on any kind of official authorization form." -- DVP; July 2010 JFK Archives / Oswald's Post Office Applications

As Bob said above, Bill Sharp was evidently the ONLY gunsmith in the Klein's warehouse. Therefore, who ELSE could have mounted Oswald's scope? Furthermore, Sharp said in his 2013 interview that he said this to his boss on 11/23/63 (he must have worked on Saturdays), “It’s my rifle, I put the scope on it.” Grain of salt disclaimer -- Yes, Sharp was an 82-year-old man when he said the above quote. And nobody's memory is perfect after 82 years. But the whole "Klein's never mounted Oswald's scope" argument made by CTers is just ludicrous on its face, IMO. Here's why.... "To say that Klein's never mounted scopes on its 40-inch rifles is practically the same as totally ignoring all of the many ads that Klein's Sporting Goods was placing in magazines in mid to late 1963. Was Klein's lying to its mail-order customers when it said that a customer could purchase a 40-inch carbine with scope ("as illustrated") -- i.e., the scope is attached to the gun itself?" -- DVP; Aug. 2012

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

..........

Robert thinks a bullet hitting water is the same as hitting a human skull. Brilliant, Bob. And Bob will also totally ignore the various tests done with 6.5mm WCC/MC bullets fired into human skulls, with the result always being a mangled and fragmented bullet: Well, you just blew your own theory. Unless you think CE567 and 569 "disintegrated into miniscule pieces". Try again.

You'd better go inform your other CT buddies about the "water tank" thing, Bob. Because we've heard that argument for decades -- i.e., CE399 never touched any victim on 11/22/63; it was probably fired into a water tank or cotton wadding by the evil FBI. Looks like there are a lot of CTers who don't have Robert's water tank expertise either, huh? Because CTers have been using that argument for years.

Robert Prudhomme doesn't like the evidence in the case, so he's decided to do just what Jim DiEugenio (et al) has done -- he's decided it's all fake. Of course, he hasn't come close to proving that ANY of it is fake, but he's decided that ALL of it is fake anyway. (Lovely tactic.) Such a blanket theory about all of the evidence against Oswald being faked, forged, or planted is patently absurd, and it's just the kind of argument a defense attorney who wants to get a "Not Guilty" verdict from a jury would have no choice BUT to argue. Because without the bullet shells being planted and without CE399 being planted and without the front-seat fragments being added to the evidence pile---then Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon. And who else is MORE likely to have used Oswald's rifle on November 22nd--or any other day--especially since we know that the rifle's owner worked in the building and was present in that building at the time of the assassination? (Not a difficult question, is it?) And I love the statement above by Robert P. about the front-seat bullet fragments possibly being produced by the evil authorities after the assassination by firing a bullet from Oswald's rifle into "a tank of water". The "water" supposedly resulted in these banged-up pieces of bullet: The "water tank" argument is usually reserved for the CTers' lame and wholly-unprovable argument regarding CE399, not CE567 & 569. But maybe Robert's water is rock hard with a lot of resistance to it. And because some CTer named Robert P. says so, I'm supposed to believe the bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest "mean nothing". And even though the LNers have ALL of the evidence to convict Oswald ten times over, Robert Prudhomme, without displaying a hint of embarrassment while saying it, claims that I've "got nothing". The hilarity exhibited day after day by certain conspiracy seekers is still strong....even after 50 years of the evidence staring them in the face. Go figure. Addendum re: CE399...... "If a person digs into the records deep enough, that person can and will find documentation to support the idea, which is totally foreign to most conspiracy theorists, that Bullet CE399 was the bullet that made its way from Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas to the FBI laboratory in Washington on November 22, 1963." -- DVP; 9/28/2012 [more below] The Secret Service And Bullet CE399

Huh? What the heck are you babbling about here? Who cares about YOUR rifles? We're talking about the three bullet shells found below the SNIPER'S WINDOW in the Depository and the bullet fragments FOUND IN THE LIMO being conclusively linked to OSWALD'S rifle. And somehow you just dismiss all that ballistics verification with a wave of your hand and something about a box of shells being matched to YOUR rifles. (As if that means anything important at all when discussing the JFK case.) To clarify your oddball remark above, are you saying that you think the three spent rifle shells found in the TSBD (CE510) could somehow be matched to YOUR rifles (plural even!) too? You must be dreaming. Time for a second one of these --- Huh????!!! (And a "WTF?" wouldn't hurt here either.) Looks like it's WTF? time again. Does anyone have the slightest idea what Robert P. is talking about here? Oh sure, Bob. We've only got shells from OSWALD'S gun in the Sniper's Perch....and CE399 from OSWALD'S gun in the hospital where the victims were taken....and two large pieces of a bullet from OSWALD'S gun right there in the same car where the victims were shot. Why should I even BEGIN to believe that OSWALD'S rifle was being fired at President Kennedy with flimsy, half-baked evidence like all that stuff, right? But, like all CTers who pretend that Oswald's gun wasn't fired at JFK, you have no choice but to try and explain away all the evidence that proves you're dead wrong. And based on your last post, you're doing a miserable and pathetic job of doing that. Since you're obviously in a full-fledged "Dream" mode, I think I'll join you now, because your last ridiculous comment makes me want to .... ~yawn~.

The 3 shells from that gun and the 2 bullet fragments in the limo provide the proof that C2766 was fired from the TSBD on Nov. 22nd. How can it get any easier than that combination of things to prove that C2766 was being used on 11/22? To repeat this critical point that is often totally ignored by conspiracy theorists: Bullet fragments linked conclusively to Oswald's Carcano were found in the very same car where JFK was shot with rifle bullets. But I've provided you with two much bigger clues that prove it was fired from the TSBD (the two I just mentioned above). And I didn't even mention CE399. But 399 isn't even needed to win this argument. And you think that a sticky clip somehow trumps the three bullet shells and CE567/569, eh? That's very bad thinking, Bob. If you can't figure out the easy ones like Was Oswald's rifle fired at all on November 22nd, 1963?, you probably shouldn't even be looking into this murder case at all. Because that one was solved on Day 1.

I haven't the slightest idea. But am I really supposed to believe there's something "phony" about the Carcano rifle being found in the TSBD because of the conspiracy theorists' continual complaints about the clip? That's silly. Does everything have to lead down Conspiracy Blvd.? It's an especially silly idea to think that the "clip" controversy brought up quite often by CTers has any bearing on what rifle was found on the sixth floor, because the Alyea Film is showing us the proof that it was a Mannlicher-Carcano being lifted off of the floor by Carl Day. What more proof do you need? You'd think that having a FILM of the Carcano rifle being found in the Depository would be enough to put this stale matter to rest. But, as with all discredited conspiracy theories surrounding this case, it is not. Also -- Was the FBI's Robert Frazier lying when he confirmed that the clip seen in CE574 and CE575 was the clip from Oswald's rifle (when answering "Yes" to this question by Melvin Eisenberg)?.... Mr. EISENBERG - You have shown us photographs of a clip--the clip from the Exhibit 139 rifle? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - One photograph loaded, and one unloaded? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. In one instance I put six cartridges in the clip and photographed it. Mr. EISENBERG - Did you take those photographs? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

I know of no LNer in the world who has ever stated that "Oswald, in a fit of madness, smashed the rifle against a post on the 6th floor just before he hid it". Where on Earth are you getting that notion, Robert P.? Furthermore, why would anybody think that Oswald would have needed to "smash" the rifle against anything in order to knock the scope out of alignment? For Pete's sake, I've been told by some conspiracists that a scope on a rifle like Oswald's (or on any rifle) would need to be "sighted in" before using it to ensure the proper scope alignment. With those same CTers informing me of their opinion that Oswald, after assembling the pieces of his rifle there on the sixth floor of the Book Depository, would have required at least 3 or 4 practice shots (maybe even more, I can't recall the exact number cited by CTers as being the minimum) in order to make sure the scope was aligned properly--and he'd need to make any adjustments that were needed to the crosshairs on the scope if his practice shots were not hitting his target properly. Of course, no one can know for sure whether Oswald used the 4x telescope or the iron sights when he was shooting at President Kennedy in Dallas. Since Oswald didn't tell anybody this information before Jack Ruby bumped him off two days later, it's a guessing game as to which sighting method LHO employed on November 22nd. But as far as I am aware, the common "LN" theory regarding the defective telescope on Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is, I believe, that Oswald might very well have knocked the scope out of alignment as he hurriedly dropped the rifle between the book cartons near the stairs on the sixth floor just after shooting the President with that gun. And, IMO, that is a perfectly reasonable scenario regarding the possible way in which the scope became defective. There is no proof that the scope was misaligned prior to the assassination. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. One of my theories has been (and yes, this is a guessing game too--it can't be anything else when this subject comes up) that one of the reasons Oswald's first shot missed the whole limousine is because the scope was out of alignment (without Oswald knowing it), and hence his first shot (possibly taken through that scope) struck a portion of the oak tree, which was a tree that would have, indeed, been located to the RIGHT of Oswald's rifle muzzle if he had fired his first shot at approximately Zapruder Frame 160 (as I believe he did). And according to the FBI experts, the rifle was firing shots high and to the right of the target when it was test-fired after the assassination: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/missed-shot-controversy.html

David Josephs' nice little rant above doesn't change the basic "rifle" facts concerning Lee Oswald's purchase of Carcano #C2766. In order for Oswald to NOT be the purchaser of Carcano Rifle #C2766, it would mean that ALL of the paperwork associated with Oswald's/"Hidell's" rifle purchase was faked and manipulated (right down to Oswald's "fake" handwriting on ALL of the various documents pertaining to said purchase). And no conspiracy theorist (not even David Josephs of northern California) has ever come within six miles of being about to prove that ANY of the Klein's paperwork was forged or planted or tainted to frame LHO. And believing that all of that CORROBORATIVE paperwork (including the U.S. Postal Money Order made out in the exact amount needed to purchase the rifle [with scope] from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago) has somehow been falsely manufactured in order to frame an innocent man for the President's murder is--quite frankly--a very very silly idea. And I always get a kick out of the conspiracy mongers who like to prop up Mitchell Westra's statement about Klein's never putting scopes on the 40-inch rifles. The CTers will always, invariably, leave out the part of Westra's statement where he says this: "Undoubtably Klein's mounted some..." But it's probably best if conspiracy theorists like David Josephs totally ignore that part of Westra's remarks in this 1978 report below: So the very person (Mitch Westra) that the CTers love to prop up in their never-ending efforts to try and exonerate a double murderer is actually providing information that indicates that Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago DID "undoubtably" (usually spelled "undoubtedly") mount "some" scopes on the forty-inch rifles they shipped to customers in 1963. The irony there seems to be quite thick....isn't it David J.? For more "Rifle" common sense, go here: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6780.msg177233.html#msg177233 "To say that Klein's never mounted scopes on its 40-inch rifles is practically the same as totally ignoring all of the many ads that Klein's Sporting Goods was placing in magazines in mid to late 1963. Was Klein's lying to its mail-order customers when it said that a customer could purchase a 40-inch carbine with scope ("as illustrated") -- i.e., the scope is attached to the gun itself?" -- DVP; August 2, 2012

Interestingly and ironically, I have previously used that exact same type of argument to EXONERATE the police of any wrong-doing or evidence-planting, etc. Because if the cops were up on that 6th floor planting evidence and switching rifles around (and God knows what else), as many conspiracists seem to believe WAS happening shortly after 12:30 on November 22nd, then the LAST thing they'd want is a TV news cameraman FILMING all of this type of sinister activity. Does anyone think they'd WANT it on film?? That's kinda crazy. I do, however, think it was a bit crazy to allow Alyea to stay on the sixth floor--smack in the middle of the crime scene. He was allowed access to everything on the sixth floor, it would appear. And the excuse used by reporter Kent Biffle (who was also allowed to roam freely in the building, along with Alyea) that the police "were stuck with us; what were they going to do, throw us out a window?" is totally ridiculous [see "JFK: Breaking The News"; PBS-TV; 2003]. All the police needed to do, even after the building was officially "sealed off", would be to escort those two gentlemen (Alyea and Biffle) to the front door, then open the door to let the men exit the building, and then lock the door again after the men had left. Why on Earth was that impossible to do? And yet they didn't perform that simple door-opening task. Or at the very least, the police should have kept Alyea off of the "crime scene" floor. But they didn't perform that easy task either. ~big shrug~ In summary, I do not believe for even a second that the Dallas police and Sheriff's officers were on the sixth floor monkeying around with the evidence connected to the President's murder. And therefore, I certainly don't subscribe to the unsubstantiated theory that Tom Alyea filmed merely a "re-creation" of the rifle being discovered. It's particularly far-fetched to believe in such sinister and underhanded actions on the part of Dallas law enforcement officers when factoring in the SPEED in which such sinister actions would have been taking place. Do conspiracists actually believe that the Dallas cops were so swift and effective (and downright evil) that they wanted to frame Lee Harvey Oswald within literally minutes of the assassination taking place? Again, that's fairy tale time. Plus, do CTers think that the DPD just happened to have at their disposal Oswald's own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to plant in the building very shortly after the shooting, so that Tom Alyea could film its discovery and then throw the film out a TSBD window so that the world would quickly be able to see that it was a Carcano being dusted by Lt. Day instead of the Mauser that many conspiracy theorists believe was first found on the sixth floor? How far down "This Is Insane!" Avenue is a person supposed to travel before slamming on the brakes and restoring their common sense?

For the record, I'll add this WC testimony from J.C. Day of the DPD, with Day stating that he thought that at least one "trigger housing" print was Oswald's, but he couldn't say definitely whether it was or not.... Mr. McCLOY. Can you restate again for the record what you can positively identify in terms of fingerprints or palmprints and Oswald's---- Mr. DAY. The palmprint on the box he apparently sat on I can definitely say it is his without being in fear of any error. The other, I think it is his, but I couldn't say definitely on a witness stand. Mr. McCLOY. By the other, you mean the other palmprint? Mr. DAY. The palmprint and that tracer print aside the trigger housing or the magazine housing. --------------- Earlier in his testimony, Lt. Day also said: "Your No. 637 is the right palm of Oswald." I have no idea why Day didn't include the CE637 LHO rifle palmprint when answering John McCloy's question above.

I think your expectations are too high regarding "chain of custody" and the general gathering of evidence in a criminal case. You expect perfection with respect to such evidence-gathering activities (and it would, indeed, be nice if perfection could be accomplished in every criminal case), but perfection is rarely achieved (particularly if the evidence is being micro-analyzed by a JFK conspiracy theorist). There were several civilian witnesses who first found (and handled) several pieces of evidence associated with the JFK and Tippit murder cases -- Domingo Benavides (2 bullet shells); Barbara Davis (1 bullet shell); Virginia Davis (1 bullet shell); Darrell Tomlinson (1 bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland); and O.P. Wright (the same bullet first touched by Tomlinson). Does the fact that those five civilian witnesses first handled some of the evidence (and never scratched their initials into any of those items of evidence) mean that the chain of custody is worthless for those items? I mean, for all we know, Barbara Davis and her sister-in-law could have gotten together and switched the bullet shells before they handed them over to Dhority and Doughty of the DPD, right? Anything is possible in this case, isn't it? Why not that scenario too? Vincent Bugliosi, who knows a little bit about the way evidence is presented in a court of law, had this to say in his 2007 book: "An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. .... The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality. Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle [DVP's emphasis] and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine. Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

He was the first person to touch it.

The chain of possession for Oswald's Carcano on 11/22 after it was found in the TSBD is as strong (and short) as it can get. The chain consists of ONE person -- Lt. J.C. Day. Day lifted it off the floor. Day took it out of the TSBD and to City Hall. Day locked it up at City Hall. Day then returned to City Hall and examined the rifle and lifted Oswald's palmprint off of the barrel. (Verified by this FBI report.) Day then gave the rifle to Vince Drain of the FBI at about 11:45 on Nov. 22. Are you saying, Don, that the "chain" was broken AFTER the FBI got ahold of it? Is that what you mean? But even if that's what you meant, it still does not invalidate the palmprint of Oswald's that Lt. Day lifted off the gun BEFORE it ever got into the FBI's hands. (Yes, I know. You think that the palmprint evidence is suspicious too. Right?) And how anyone can argue that Oswald/"Hidell" didn't order and take possession of Carcano Rifle C2766 (and the revolver too) is beyond my way of thinking. (Of course, since I don't think like a conspiracist, I guess I have a built-in disadvantage right off the bat, eh?) But the paper trail for BOTH Oswald's rifle and revolver mail-order purchases couldn't be more concrete and definitive. Do you think all of that paperwork for the rifle is phony, Don? And what about the Seaport/REA documents for the revolver? Are those to be distrusted as well? And the backyard photos which show Oswald holding the JFK murder weapon? I just wonder (in general) how much alleged "phony" stuff in this case is TOO MUCH? Is there any limit? It seems that there's not, per many conspiracy believers.

How do you know Weitzman and Boone were aware that the rifle was an Italian 6.5mm on 11/22 or 11/23? Neither man worked at the DPD/City Hall (which is where Lt. Day had the rifle in his possession). Boone and Weitzman were county officers, not DPD personnel. That's not to say, however, that Weitzman and/or Boone COULDN'T have been present at DPD/City Hall at some point in time on both Nov. 22 and/or Nov. 23 (after all, it's probably true that Roger Craig, another of Sheriff Decker's deputies, was indeed present at City Hall on one or both of those days). But give me some documentation that shows either Boone or Weitzman positively knew that the rifle was an Italian gun when they filled out their statements/affidavits. Is there such documentation to prove such a thing? And how can you possibly believe a MAUSER was found on the sixth floor when we've got Tom Alyea's film staring us in the face every day which positively shows an ITALIAN CARCANO being lifted off of the floor and then examined by Lt. Day? Do you think that the Alyea film represents a staged or phony scene on the sixth floor? Bottom Line --- The totality of evidence coupled with the testimony of all of the police officers who were present when the rifle was found* indicates one thing for sure: ONE rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on 11/22/63....and that rifle (as we can see in the Alyea footage) was a Mannlicher-Carcano. * Excluding the later lies told by Deputy Sheriff Roger D. Craig. His post-1964 observations must be dismissed, because we know he was a xxxx when it comes to the identification of the rifle.

You're not aware of Vincent Scalice's 1993 conclusions about the trigger guard prints positively being Oswald's? (More below, plus a video clip.) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/mannlicher-carcano.html#Vincent-Scalice-And-The-Trigger-Guard-Prints

Thanks, Pat. I just did a little digging into my video archives and verified for myself that at least one TV network (CBS) was most definitely identifying the assassination weapon as a 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle as of approximately 7:00 PM (Dallas time) on Friday, November 22nd. In the video clip below, which was aired live on CBS-TV on the evening of 11/22/63, Dan Rather of CBS News clearly calls the rifle being held up by Lt. J.C. Day an "Italian 6.5-millimeter" gun. We can't hear Lt. Day say anything; we only hear Rather's narration in this clip, but it is clear from the video that Lt. Day definitely is speaking to the members of the press at the crowded City Hall. He's probably identifying the rifle in just the manner confirmed by Michael Giampaolo and Pat Speer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC6xhg_nTvw So the conspiracy theorists who continue to say that everybody on radio or television was labelling the murder weapon as a Mauser all the way through Day 1 (November 22nd) are proven wrong (just as I was proven wrong on this issue too) by the above video alone. And if CBS was reporting that the assassination weapon was a 6.5mm. Italian rifle during the evening of November 22nd, you can bet that most of the other TV and radio networks were reporting the very same thing at that same time as well. Thanks again to Michael and Pat. Your confirmation of Lt. Day's statements in the 2013 CNN program prompted me to dig further myself. And the digging paid off. Much obliged.