Was the rifle fired that day?

[Antti Hynonen]

Hi,

Just to clarify:

J. Raymond Carroll Posted Yesterday, 06:12 PM

QUOTE(Duke Lane @ Sep 25 2008, 08:15 AM)

Anyway, no matter: these guys arguing the point on McAdams' site forgot about Jack being in Oswald's way entirely.

I will post your comments on the McAdams forum when I get a spare moment.

QUOTE

And what makes anyone think Jack was an "honest witness" anyway?

Indeed.

QUOTE

Howard Brennan was looking in the wrong direction to have ever seen anything in the TSBD being fired anyway, which explains why he didn't "actually" see anything.

Racking my memory for DIRECT EVIDENCE of a shot or shots from the SN, all I can think of are some earwitnesses, and Richard Randolph Carr, the high school kid who claimed to have seen the rifle fire. It seems that hardly anyone, including even the warren Commission, considered him reliable.

QUOTE

If the Z-film is "altered," why didn't the all-knowing reconstructionist at least turn him around so he wasn't looking to the east?

Let's not go there, or we will have David Healey stomping all over us.

QUOTE

On the other hand, I can think of absolutely no other reason to put a gun on the sixth floor and hang it out a window without firing it unless you were betting on pure, dumb luck and knew the house was gonna fold.

I think the stakes were too high for such a bet.

The impression I have is that JFK's killers took chances that boggle the minds of most ordinary decent people, regardless of race creed or educational status.

Richard R. Carr was a construction worker who observed from some distance a man in the TSBD window. He later got a closer look at the man, as quite apparently this same man ran out of the TSBD and towards Carr and then got into a Rambler sw.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcarrR.htm

A high school kid who witnessed two people together at the TSBD, and one of them holding a rifle (Arnold Rowland):

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKrowland.htm

Just to throw in my 2 cents, I do believe that both the Rowland and Carr testimonies are in all likelyhood honest testimonies and I do find them useful.

Another high school kid, who was an (important) witness is Amos Euins:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/euins.htm

From the above:

Mr. EUINS. I was standing here on the comer. And then the President come around the corner right here. And I was standing here. And I was waving, because there wasn't hardly no one on the corner right there but me. I was waving. He looked that way and he waved back at me. And then I had seen a pipe, you know, up there in the window, I thought it was a pipe, some kind of pipe.

Mr. SPECTER. When had you first seen that thing you just described as a pipe?

Mr. EUINS. Right as he turned the corner here.

203

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SPECTER. Now, exactly where did you see that thing you have described as a pipe come from. And take a good look now before you tell us where it was.

Mr. EUINS. Right here.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, will you mark an "X" on Exhibit No. 366 where you saw the pipe? Mark the exact window, if you can, Amos.

(Witness marking.)

Mr. SPECTER. All right.

Proceed to tell us what happened, Amos.

Mr. EUINS. Then I was standing here, and as the motorcade turned the corner, I was facing, looking dead at the building. And so I seen this pipe thing sticking out the window. I wasn't paying too much attention to it. Then when the first shot was fired, I started looking around, thinking it was a backfire. Everybody else started looking around. Then I looked up at the window, and he shot again. So--you know this fountain bench here, right around here. Well, anyway, there is a little fountain right here. I got behind this little fountain, and then he shot again.

So after he shot again, he just started looking down this, you know.

Mr. SPECTER. Who started looking down that way?

Mr. EUINS. The man in the window. I could see his hand, and I could see his other hand on the trigger, and one hand was on the barrel thing.

Mr. SPECTER. All right.

Now, at the time the second shot was fired, where were you looking then?

Mr. EUINS. I was still looking at the building, you know, behind this--I was looking at the building.

Mr. SPECTER. Looking at anything special in the building?

Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. I was looking where the barrel was sticking out.

Mr. SPECTER. How many shots did you hear altogether?

Mr. EUINS. I believe there was four, to be exact.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, where were you looking at the time of the third shot, if you remember?

Mr. EUINS. After he shot the first two times, I was just standing back here. And then after he shot again, he pulled the gun back in the window. And then all the police ran back over here in the track vicinity.

[Mark Knight]

... As far as GSR inside the barrel of the rifle...well...the DPD didn't want to prove that the rifle HADN'T been fired; and the only thing provable by GSR in the barrel would be that the absence of GSR would show the gun hadn't been fired since its last cleaning. That's evidence the DPD certainly didn't want to find, so they purposely didn't look for it...IMHO.

Ah, so! This removes us immediately from mere incompetence at the outset and lands us smack-dab in the middle of a well-hatched plot involving the very souls who were looking for one! Weren't they saying within hours that it was a Communist plot? Didn't they spend the next several weeks searching for those nefarious scoundrels, albeit to no avail? Why waste so much time and manpower in such an intensive investigation if they knew all along that Oswald didn't do it? It simply makes no sense whatsoever. Sorry, ain't buyin' into that one, no sir.

Duke, the main thing the DPD wanted to do on the afternoon of November 22, 1963 was to wrap up the case. They had their alleged sniper's nest, they had their shell casings, and they had their rifle. I still believe the LAST thing they wanted was any shred of evidence that the Carcano WASN'T their murder weapon...so they had EVERY incentive to NOT prove that the rifle hadn't been fired. The rifle, in combination with the shell casings, was powerful circumstantial evidence that the rifle HAD been fired; why would they want to look for evidence thet MIGHT prove that it HADN'T been fired?

Flip side of that coin is, because they HADN'T checked the rifle for GSR, they picked up Frazier's .303 enfield and took it into custody as part of their investigation. Had they checked the barrel of the Carcano for GSR, their circumstantial case would have been complete, and the temporary confiscation of Frazier's Enfield wouldn't have been necessary. What I'm NOT saying is that the DPD knew Oswald was innocent; What I'm saying is, IF Oswald was innocent, and IF the Carcano hadn't been fired, the DPD didn't want to know that, nor did they want anyone else to know. They had their Commie, they had their rifle, they had spent shell casings for that rifle, and they had their sniper's nest...open-and-shut case, and of the type that Henry Wade was known for getting a conviction. They didn't WANT exculpatory evidence, so they didn't SEEK exculpatory evidence. AND prosecutors could then TRUTHFULLY say that there was "no evidence" that the Carcano police found wasn't used in the crime, because DPD investigators simply didn't want to run the risk of finding that evidence, and blowing a big hole in their circumstantial case.

IOW, the DPD wasn't necessarily seeking the truth; they were seeking to hand Wade a pre-packaged murder conviction. Truth was secondary to wrapping up the case. [Ask the man wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympic bombing if that sort of police work doesn't continue to occur in America. Or the Duke University lacrosse team. Coincidentally, as with Oswald, these defendants never went to trial, either...but innocently or not, their characters had been smeared.]

Edited September 26, 2008 by Mark Knight

[Duke Lane]

Mark, while I won't dispute what you've said, the element that's missing in that scenario is a defense attorney. While it's all well and good that they could hand Wade an open-and-shut circumstantial case, it would have undoubtedly been challenged by any trial lawyer worth even half his salt, so while the case might've been "opened" on the basis of what DPD was willing to compile, it wouldn't have been "shut" until the jury came back in. Whether Wade would've prevailed in such a case is anybody's good guess; maybe, maybe not. And then there would've been the appeals if so.

While I agree that cops may not necessarily want to discover exculpatory evidence, they typically do want their case to hold together in court and therefore try to be certain that what evidence they present will hold up. In this particular case, although it may not have been enough to swing jury to the defense's favor, they would not have wanted to have the crime lab chief be confronted with the challenge that he could not, in actual fact, actually say that the rifle had been fired at all when all it would take was a simple look down the barrel for GSR to solidify that aspect of their case.

Doubt plus doubt plus doubt plus doubt plus doubt generally equals "reasonable" doubt. To hinge their case on Wade's jury-persuading abilities is to gamble on such an important case: how would DPD have looked if its one and only suspect, upon whom it had settled within three hours, was acquitted?

It is also noteworthy that, at least in American jurisprudence, it is not enough to simply state that "there is no evidence that he didn't do it" to gain a conviction. I don't know if Henry Wade was quite that good!!

To reason further along this line - of course absent the supposition that they could depend upon Wade's powers of persuasion, a heady proposition in such an important case that would undoubtedly have gained worldwide attention (and for which, therefore, Wade would have wanted a rock-solid case) - would require that DPD knew in advance that the only "court" it would need apply to and win over was that of public opinion, i.e., that their only suspect would never make it into a courtroom

That, in effect, is to argue that there were no good cops in the Dallas police department - which is a completely different argument than that there were some bad cops on the force - because virtually everyone would have had to been "in on the plot." Some I can believe, but not all, and not even all in responsible positions.

We - all of us - have a different perspective, perhaps, simply because the sole suspect didn't live to see the inside of a courtroom. In truth, it wasn't absolutely necessary on that Friday afternoon to examine the barrel (and as we've already agreed, I think, that even finding GSR wouldn't have been able to prove when the gun was fired, only that it was) as long as it was examined before it might've been test-fired at some later point. That could as easily have been done the following Friday - or the following month - as long as the integrity of the evidence was maintained.

As it turned out, however, the suspect was killed and would not be tried: his conviction was already made in the press, and the circumstantial evidence was therefore enough since it would remain unchallenged by any defense attorney. Still, it's surprising that such an inspection was not made, if only because it would have taken virtually no time at all and required no particular expertise ... and wouldn't the cops have wanted to be able to say "nope, this ain't the gun, keep looking?"

Too, I might add, just because to Fritz's knowledge no such examination had been made, doesn't actually mean that it wasn't. If, on the other hand, Carl Day said that it wasn't done, then that's pretty solid evidence that it was not in fact done.

(It is interesting to note, speaking of advance knowledge of at least the subject of the manhunt being Oswald, that none of the three transcripts provided to the WC by DPD and FBI - Sawyer Exhibits "A" and "B" and CE705 by DPD, and CE1974 by FBI - none of them have any transmissions that were related to "the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of Officer Tippit [and] the investigations into said assassination and murder" after 2:48. Does that mean that all further search was called off once Oswald had been captured, since there were no more "related" transmissions?)

... Flip side of that coin is, because they HADN'T checked the rifle for GSR, they picked up Frazier's .303 enfield and took it into custody as part of their investigation. Had they checked the barrel of the Carcano for GSR, their circumstantial case would have been complete, and the temporary confiscation of Frazier's Enfield wouldn't have been necessary. What I'm NOT saying is that the DPD knew Oswald was innocent; What I'm saying is, IF Oswald was innocent, and IF the Carcano hadn't been fired, the DPD didn't want to know that, nor did they want anyone else to know. They had their Commie, they had their rifle, they had spent shell casings for that rifle, and they had their sniper's nest...

IOW, the DPD wasn't necessarily seeking the truth; they were seeking to hand Wade a pre-packaged murder conviction. Truth was secondary to wrapping up the case. ...

Actually, there's a wee tad of intrigue for ya: if they had their Commie and had their rifle, why did they confiscate Frazier's gun (but not Warren Caster's) and keep Joe Molina up to all hours of the night? Just a case of harrassment for harrassment's sake - because they had a good excuse - or something that actually made sense?

It's interesting that any "investigation" for "additional suspects" focused entirely on TSBD employees, and only those of a perhaps "liberal" persuasion....

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I neglected my email over the weekend, and this morning I found two from Gary Mack relating to this thread

You are assuming no one sniffed the gun. Why would you assume that? Because that action did not appear in a report? Since the sniff test doesn't tell or prove anything with certainty, your argument is specious at best.

There is testimony from both Fritz and Day that they did not smell the rifle barrel, so surely that is not an ASSUMPTION, but a FACT established by DIRECT evidence.

Fritz asserted that the smell test doesn't prove anything, but as can be seen on this thread, persons familiar with firearms dispute Fritz's claim. As far as I recall, neither the Warren Commission nor the HSCA sought expert opinions on whether Fritz was right.

Gary also writes:

Brennan only claimed to have seen the gunman fire the last shot, and the Z film doesn't show him at that point in time. The frames that do show Brennan show that he was doing exactly what he testified to.

[Duke Lane]

... Fritz asserted that the smell test doesn't prove anything, but as can be seen on this thread, persons familiar with firearms dispute Fritz's claim. As far as I recall, neither the Warren Commission nor the HSCA sought expert opinions on whether Fritz was right. ...

Actually, it was Day (I'm not sure how we segued him into Fritz), and I believe the original quote was:

DAY: The only examination of the rifle by the Dallas Police Department was the checking for prints that I did and this wasn't completed before the gun was released to the FBI. ... I am not sure what you mean by 'tested'. I am guessing that you are wondering if the gun was fired on November 22, 1963. Contrary to the movies, where they smell a gun to see if it has been fired, I know of no reliable test to accurately determine if a gun was fired today, yesterday or last month.

The "smell test" can only (maybe) prove that a gun was fired, but - perfectly in keeping with Day's statement - it cannot tell you when it was fired. It may be able to tell you that a gun has been fired recently, but what constitutes "recent" is anybody's good guess.

Actually, I'm having trouble finding any such statement attributable to either Day OR Fritz in the Volumes. Got a cite on this?

[Edit] Nevermind ... I found it. It is on Denis Morrisette's website (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5439/). The question put to him by Denis by letter on March 29, 1994, was: "Was Oswald's rifle tested as to whether or not it was fired on November 22, 1963?"

Edited September 29, 2008 by Duke Lane

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Actually, I'm having trouble finding any such statement attributable to either Day OR Fritz in the Volumes. Got a cite on this?

Sorry, I do not have a cite and that may be because there isn't one, but I will check at some point.

Gary Mack writes:

I see you’re still having trouble with sniffing. I wrote, “You are assuming no one sniffed the gun” and that is what I meant.

Fritz and Day were not the only investigators up there. Did Day’s assistant sniff the gun? Did any of the other investigators note the smell of gunpowder in the room? Or did any of the two or more reporters who were there? Or the TSBD employees who joined in the search? The real answer might be that perhaps no one needed to sniff the barrel because the gunpowder odor was obvious, so obvious that no one included it in a report.

The smell of gunpowder behind the fence was obvious to Joe Marshall Smith, but he still reported it. Maybe Smith was just more professional than Fritz or Day?

If gunpowder odor was obvious on the sixth floor, we would certainly expect SOMEONE who was there to have commented on it. Yet no one did, as far as I recall. In fact we would expect EVERYONE who was there to have mentioned the smell of gunsmoke, if any lingered there.

It would be interesting to do a test firing a rifle in a room like the 6th floor, to see how long the smell of gunpowder would linger in the air.

[Duke Lane]

I see you're still having trouble with sniffing. I wrote, "You are assuming no one sniffed the gun" and that is what I meant.

Fritz and Day were not the only investigators up there. Did Day's assistant sniff the gun? Did any of the other investigators note the smell of gunpowder in the room? Or did any of the two or more reporters who were there? Or the TSBD employees who joined in the search? The real answer might be that perhaps no one needed to sniff the barrel because the gunpowder odor was obvious, so obvious that no one included it in a report.

It's always been my impression that Day maintained possession of the rifle and was the only one to handle it from the time it was found until it was brought to City Hall. Is that not so? Is it a fact that someone else handled it - and therefore may have sniffed it - or are we merely assuming that as well?

As to not reporting a strong, lingering smell of gunpowder because it was "obvious" is an obvious non sequitur. Does it follow that because I can smell it here, you'll be able to smell it there when I (don't) tell you about it? "It was so obvious that the victim was dead that I didn't think there was a need to tell you about finding a body."

The real answer is that nobody with responsibility or who gave evidence sniffed the barrel, and that's all there is to that.