Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Provenance of CE 543 and Gary Murr’s Recent Report


Recommended Posts

I would like to ask for assistance on a piece of research I’ve been working on for some time. It is carried out far from the internet with a scientist who is a friend of mine. He is working on a new book on the case. I don’t want to mention his name because I don’t have his permission to do so. Let me say that he is a true scientist and a very bright historical researcher. The point at issue concerns the provenance of CE 543.

The three cartridge cases found near the 6th floor sniper’s next ended up with the designations CE 543, CE 544, CE 545. CE 543 was unusual because it had indications that it had been cycled through a Carcano (not necessarily Oswald’s) several times. For example, it had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon. Most importantly, it has a dent in the lip that makes it impossible to have contained a projectile in its present form. The dent was studied by experts from the House Select Committee who claimed to have produced a similar dent by working the action on Oswald’s weapon very fast. However, the dent so produced does not replicate in many ways the dent on CE 543. Could the dent have been incurred as the House Committee believes during the ejection process? Maybe. At least one researcher in the United States, says he has produced a similar dent with a Carcano and 6.5 mm ammunition by cycling the weapon very fast. According to this individual, the cartridge case spins back after being ejected and hits the metal top of the Carcano. Another individual in England, has replicated the dent by dry-firing cartridge cases in the Carcano. Other indications supplied by Director Hoover in a letter make me suspect that the true cause of the dent was the dry-firing of the cartridge case in a Carcano prior to November 22nd. If this is the case, then CE 543 was never fired on November 22nd but dropped at the scene. If this could be proved, the importance is obvious.

My friend, the scientist, has opined that the dent may have been caused by the Dallas police while the rifle and CE 543 were in their possession. If some Dallas policeman inserted CE 543 into the Carcano and dry-fired it, this would violate every protocol known to the police about the protection and sanctity of evidence. It would, in fact, be a crime. And why would this be done? The live round in the chamber of the weapon showed conclusively what ammunition the rifle fired. I have argued this with my friend but he is still unconvinced.

What do we know of the provenance of CE 543?

We know that two cartridge cases and the live round were picked up from the Dallas Police on the evening of November 22nd and flown to Washington for examination in the FBI Crime Lab. The third cartridge case was picked up from the Dallas police on November 27th by the FBI. The three cartridge cases were given FBI numbers of C6, C7, C38. CE 543 had the earlier FBI number of C7.

In Six Seconds in Dallas, I argued that CE-543 had been retained by the Dallas police and only turned over to the FBI on November 27th. I argued for this on the basis of some confusing testimony by Lt. Doughty concerning the cartridge cases. It seems to me now that I was wrong... that CE 543 was turned over to the FBI on the evening of November 22nd. First, it only seems natural that the first two cartridge cases to reach the FBI lab would bear the numbers C6 and C7 while the third case (that arrived days later) would bear the FBI number C38. Secondly, someone sent me FBI 302s from the time Six Seconds was published. One contained a long analysis and criticism of Six Seconds that asserted that CE 543 was picked up from the Dallas police on the evening of November 22nd.

So which was it? Did CE 543 leave the custody of the Dallas police on the evening of November 22nd or several days later? The obvious way to find out would be to look at Robert Frazier’s lab notes concerning evidence when it arrived at the FBI Lab. I know John Hunt has done some good work in this area. Just a day or so ago, Gary Murr was able to give a very full answer to a question asked by David Healy. He stated on the thread “Z-frame numbering and Gary Murr” on 3/26/09 at 9:08 PM:

“Unfortunately, this documentation is currently only available if one travels to NARA II in College Park, Maryland, the reason being that it is from one of the massive bulky lab files generated by that division of the FBI in conjunction with their examination of all evidence given to them that related to the assassination event. Shaneyfelt and others in the FBI lab, in particular fellow agent Robert Frazier, constructed numerous files of worknotes when they were examining evidence and this surviving documentation is both historically important, relevant, and useful in trying to ascertain a wide variety of matters pertaining to the issues of evidence and provenance.“

Gary Murr’s report would confirm that the FBI Lab made complete notes on each bit of evidence when it arrived at the lab. Certainly, the arrival date of C7 and its condition (dented lip and all) should appear in these noted. Would Gary Murr or anyone else who has interest or knowledge about this please reply? This seems to me to be a question that can be answered and when answered will gain a place in a wider argument. Thank you.

Josiah Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CE 543 was unusual because it had indications that it had been cycled through a Carcano (not necessarily Oswald’s) several times.

Josiah: Does this mean that CE543 WITH A LEAD BULLET inside was cycled through the Carcano, or does the evidence indicate that it was already a "spent" shell when it was recycled?

it had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon.

Pardon my ignorance of weapons, but could you elaborate on this a little bit?

A live round was found in the chamber, therefore the mark from the magazine follower could not have been incurred on November 22nd? I know I am missing something here. As a layman, I don't see why one follows from the other.

My copy of SIX SECONDS is in temporary storage, and I know this topic is discussed there, but I would really appreciate a refresher.

This seems to me to be a question that can be answered and when answered will gain a place in a wider argument. Thank you.

Josiah Thompson

Yes, this topic might be mighty important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to ask for assistance on a piece of research I’ve been working on for some time. It is carried out far from the internet with a scientist who is a friend of mine. He is working on a new book on the case. I don’t want to mention his name because I don’t have his permission to do so. Let me say that he is a true scientist and a very bright historical researcher. The point at issue concerns the provenance of CE 543.

The three cartridge cases found near the 6th floor sniper’s next ended up with the designations CE 543, CE 544, CE 545. CE 543 was unusual because it had indications that it had been cycled through a Carcano (not necessarily Oswald’s) several times. For example, it had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon. Most importantly, it has a dent in the lip that makes it impossible to have contained a projectile in its present form. The dent was studied by experts from the House Select Committee who claimed to have produced a similar dent by working the action on Oswald’s weapon very fast. However, the dent so produced does not replicate in many ways the dent on CE 543. Could the dent have been incurred as the House Committee believes during the ejection process? Maybe. At least one researcher in the United States, says he has produced a similar dent with a Carcano and 6.5 mm ammunition by cycling the weapon very fast. According to this individual, the cartridge case spins back after being ejected and hits the metal top of the Carcano. Another individual in England, has replicated the dent by dry-firing cartridge cases in the Carcano. Other indications supplied by Director Hoover in a letter make me suspect that the true cause of the dent was the dry-firing of the cartridge case in a Carcano prior to November 22nd. If this is the case, then CE 543 was never fired on November 22nd but dropped at the scene. If this could be proved, the importance is obvious.

My friend, the scientist, has opined that the dent may have been caused by the Dallas police while the rifle and CE 543 were in their possession. If some Dallas policeman inserted CE 543 into the Carcano and dry-fired it, this would violate every protocol known to the police about the protection and sanctity of evidence. It would, in fact, be a crime. And why would this be done? The live round in the chamber of the weapon showed conclusively what ammunition the rifle fired. I have argued this with my friend but he is still unconvinced.

What do we know of the provenance of CE 543?

We know that two cartridge cases and the live round were picked up from the Dallas Police on the evening of November 22nd and flown to Washington for examination in the FBI Crime Lab. The third cartridge case was picked up from the Dallas police on November 27th by the FBI. The three cartridge cases were given FBI numbers of C6, C7, C38. CE 543 had the earlier FBI number of C7.

In Six Seconds in Dallas, I argued that CE-543 had been retained by the Dallas police and only turned over to the FBI on November 27th. I argued for this on the basis of some confusing testimony by Lt. Doughty concerning the cartridge cases. It seems to me now that I was wrong... that CE 543 was turned over to the FBI on the evening of November 22nd. First, it only seems natural that the first two cartridge cases to reach the FBI lab would bear the numbers C6 and C7 while the third case (that arrived days later) would bear the FBI number C38. Secondly, someone sent me FBI 302s from the time Six Seconds was published. One contained a long analysis and criticism of Six Seconds that asserted that CE 543 was picked up from the Dallas police on the evening of November 22nd.

So which was it? Did CE 543 leave the custody of the Dallas police on the evening of November 22nd or several days later? The obvious way to find out would be to look at Robert Frazier’s lab notes concerning evidence when it arrived at the FBI Lab. I know John Hunt has done some good work in this area. Just a day or so ago, Gary Murr was able to give a very full answer to a question asked by David Healy. He stated on the thread “Z-frame numbering and Gary Murr” on 3/26/09 at 9:08 PM:

“Unfortunately, this documentation is currently only available if one travels to NARA II in College Park, Maryland, the reason being that it is from one of the massive bulky lab files generated by that division of the FBI in conjunction with their examination of all evidence given to them that related to the assassination event. Shaneyfelt and others in the FBI lab, in particular fellow agent Robert Frazier, constructed numerous files of worknotes when they were examining evidence and this surviving documentation is both historically important, relevant, and useful in trying to ascertain a wide variety of matters pertaining to the issues of evidence and provenance.“

Gary Murr’s report would confirm that the FBI Lab made complete notes on each bit of evidence when it arrived at the lab. Certainly, the arrival date of C7 and its condition (dented lip and all) should appear in these noted. Would Gary Murr or anyone else who has interest or knowledge about this please reply? This seems to me to be a question that can be answered and when answered will gain a place in a wider argument. Thank you.

Josiah Thompson

Without going into naming names, the one person of whom I am aware that claims to have created a similar dent through the described "ejection process", was long ago informed by myself of the extreme unliklihood that the dent in the cartridge casing lip occurred in this manner.

Even though he claims to have duplicated this, I have yet to see any indication of this actually being feasible and have never managed such an event.

To a relatively high degree of probability, the "dent" as well as the additional scrape marks along the cartridge case which are claimed to have been created by the "follower", are in fact the result of a Short Stroke.

In a Short Stroke, the bolt is not brought back sufficiently for the ejector release to activate, and the empty casing is not ejectecd, and thus when one goes forward with the bolt, they are in fact driving the empty casing forward towards the chamber again.

However, the bullet nose of the next round in the magazine housing has risen, and thus the empty casing is actually driven forward over the casing rim of the next live round below it which has risen at a slight angle. This action can force the empty casing to incur additional scrape marks from the casing rim below it.

This action causes the empty casing to literally "scrape" over the casing of the live round below it, giving it scrape marks somewhat similar to that created by the follower, and when the forward nose of the casing comes to the beginning of the chamber area, it encounters the bullet nose of the live round below it.

Which, in virtually every single instance, will dent the lip of the empty casing, provided that the bolt is actually operated with a rapid as well as sufficient force.

Which, by the way, may have some bearing on exactly why there was some 5.6 to 5.9 seconds delay between the first shot and the second shot.

Had the FBI/aka Robert Frazier given evidence of a "Short Stroke" in the shooting sequence, then most likely there is absolutely no "shooter" who would have considered that three shots were made within the WC's fairy tale less than 6-second shooting scenario.

Hope that helps some.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to ask for assistance on a piece of research I’ve been working on for some time. It is carried out far from the internet with a scientist who is a friend of mine. He is working on a new book on the case. I don’t want to mention his name because I don’t have his permission to do so. Let me say that he is a true scientist and a very bright historical researcher. The point at issue concerns the provenance of CE 543.

The three cartridge cases found near the 6th floor sniper’s next ended up with the designations CE 543, CE 544, CE 545. CE 543 was unusual because it had indications that it had been cycled through a Carcano (not necessarily Oswald’s) several times. For example, it had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon. Most importantly, it has a dent in the lip that makes it impossible to have contained a projectile in its present form. The dent was studied by experts from the House Select Committee who claimed to have produced a similar dent by working the action on Oswald’s weapon very fast. However, the dent so produced does not replicate in many ways the dent on CE 543. Could the dent have been incurred as the House Committee believes during the ejection process? Maybe. At least one researcher in the United States, says he has produced a similar dent with a Carcano and 6.5 mm ammunition by cycling the weapon very fast. According to this individual, the cartridge case spins back after being ejected and hits the metal top of the Carcano. Another individual in England, has replicated the dent by dry-firing cartridge cases in the Carcano. Other indications supplied by Director Hoover in a letter make me suspect that the true cause of the dent was the dry-firing of the cartridge case in a Carcano prior to November 22nd. If this is the case, then CE 543 was never fired on November 22nd but dropped at the scene. If this could be proved, the importance is obvious.

My friend, the scientist, has opined that the dent may have been caused by the Dallas police while the rifle and CE 543 were in their possession. If some Dallas policeman inserted CE 543 into the Carcano and dry-fired it, this would violate every protocol known to the police about the protection and sanctity of evidence. It would, in fact, be a crime. And why would this be done? The live round in the chamber of the weapon showed conclusively what ammunition the rifle fired. I have argued this with my friend but he is still unconvinced.

What do we know of the provenance of CE 543?

We know that two cartridge cases and the live round were picked up from the Dallas Police on the evening of November 22nd and flown to Washington for examination in the FBI Crime Lab. The third cartridge case was picked up from the Dallas police on November 27th by the FBI. The three cartridge cases were given FBI numbers of C6, C7, C38. CE 543 had the earlier FBI number of C7.

In Six Seconds in Dallas, I argued that CE-543 had been retained by the Dallas police and only turned over to the FBI on November 27th. I argued for this on the basis of some confusing testimony by Lt. Doughty concerning the cartridge cases. It seems to me now that I was wrong... that CE 543 was turned over to the FBI on the evening of November 22nd. First, it only seems natural that the first two cartridge cases to reach the FBI lab would bear the numbers C6 and C7 while the third case (that arrived days later) would bear the FBI number C38. Secondly, someone sent me FBI 302s from the time Six Seconds was published. One contained a long analysis and criticism of Six Seconds that asserted that CE 543 was picked up from the Dallas police on the evening of November 22nd.

So which was it? Did CE 543 leave the custody of the Dallas police on the evening of November 22nd or several days later? The obvious way to find out would be to look at Robert Frazier’s lab notes concerning evidence when it arrived at the FBI Lab. I know John Hunt has done some good work in this area. Just a day or so ago, Gary Murr was able to give a very full answer to a question asked by David Healy. He stated on the thread “Z-frame numbering and Gary Murr” on 3/26/09 at 9:08 PM:

“Unfortunately, this documentation is currently only available if one travels to NARA II in College Park, Maryland, the reason being that it is from one of the massive bulky lab files generated by that division of the FBI in conjunction with their examination of all evidence given to them that related to the assassination event. Shaneyfelt and others in the FBI lab, in particular fellow agent Robert Frazier, constructed numerous files of worknotes when they were examining evidence and this surviving documentation is both historically important, relevant, and useful in trying to ascertain a wide variety of matters pertaining to the issues of evidence and provenance.“

Gary Murr’s report would confirm that the FBI Lab made complete notes on each bit of evidence when it arrived at the lab. Certainly, the arrival date of C7 and its condition (dented lip and all) should appear in these noted. Would Gary Murr or anyone else who has interest or knowledge about this please reply? This seems to me to be a question that can be answered and when answered will gain a place in a wider argument. Thank you.

Josiah Thompson

Hi Tink:

I apologize for not responding sooner to this thread; it could not be avoided. I will check my files and see if I can find anything that specifically relates to this issue, particular in the Frazier notes that I do possess. Off the top of my head I do not specifically recall this matter, but that does not mean that Frazier or someone else in the lab did not produce notes on the topic - indeed I strongly suspect that they did. Unfortunately in the two trips to NARA in which I searched these bulky lab file holdings I did so with an eye toward another project I was working on at that time. But again, let me see what I can find. I would appeal to John Hunt, who spent more time in this quagmire than I, to search his scans and see if he has anything that could help us all with this thread.

Regards,

Gary Murr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CE 543 was unusual because it had indications that it had been cycled through a Carcano (not necessarily Oswald’s) several times.

Josiah: Does this mean that CE543 WITH A LEAD BULLET inside was cycled through the Carcano, or does the evidence indicate that it was already a "spent" shell when it was recycled?

The evidence refers to the cartridge case... that it had been cycled through a Carcano, possibly Oswald's, several times.

It had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon.

Pardon my ignorance of weapons, but could you elaborate on this a little bit?

Sure. I'm pleased to do so. A clip holding six bullets (each one made up of a projectile and cartridge case) is inserted in the top of the rifle and pressed down. As the clip moves downward it depressed a spring-loaded lever. This is magazine follower. It presses on the bottom cartridge in the clip, thus forcing the bullets in the clip upward. Since a live round was found in the rifle on November 22nd only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower.

A live round was found in the chamber, therefore the mark from the magazine follower could not have been incurred on November 22nd? I know I am missing something here. As a layman, I don't see why one follows from the other.

See above.

My copy of SIX SECONDS is in temporary storage, and I know this topic is discussed there, but I would really appreciate a refresher.

This seems to me to be a question that can be answered and when answered will gain a place in a wider argument. Thank you.

Josiah Thompson

Yes, this topic might be mighty important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CE 543 was unusual because it had indications that it had been cycled through a Carcano (not necessarily Oswald’s) several times.

Josiah: Does this mean that CE543 WITH A LEAD BULLET inside was cycled through the Carcano, or does the evidence indicate that it was already a "spent" shell when it was recycled?

The evidence refers to the cartridge case... that it had been cycled through a Carcano, possibly Oswald's, several times.

It had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon.

Pardon my ignorance of weapons, but could you elaborate on this a little bit?

Sure. I'm pleased to do so. A clip holding six bullets (each one made up of a projectile and cartridge case) is inserted in the top of the rifle and pressed down. As the clip moves downward it depressed a spring-loaded lever. This is magazine follower. It presses on the bottom cartridge in the clip, thus forcing the bullets in the clip upward. Since a live round was found in the rifle on November 22nd only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower.

A live round was found in the chamber, therefore the mark from the magazine follower could not have been incurred on November 22nd? I know I am missing something here. As a layman, I don't see why one follows from the other.

See above.

My copy of SIX SECONDS is in temporary storage, and I know this topic is discussed there, but I would really appreciate a refresher.

This seems to me to be a question that can be answered and when answered will gain a place in a wider argument. Thank you.

Josiah Thompson

Yes, this topic might be mighty important.

"Since a live round was found in the rifle on November 22nd only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower"

Perhaps one should explain that the Carcano Clip is completely reversible.

Therefore, from the last loading of the clip (with ammo) into the weapon, what, on 11/22/63 was the first round fired aka/top round, could easily have been the bottom round within the clip during any previous time at which the weapon had the clip w/rounds installed within the housing.

Thusly, placing a follower spring "scratch" on it.

Not to mention that the cartridges could easily have been removed from the clip from some previously usage, and what was once a "bottom" round, thereafter end up anywhere within the round sequence as re-installed within the clip.

Someone, who knows little, is certainly grasping for straws as well as gasping about a subject of which they know nothing as well as have not researched even the common sense side of.

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wrote: "Someone, who knows little, is certainly grasping for straws as well as gasping about a subject of which they know nothing as well as have not researched even the common sense side of."

I take that I am the one you think is "grasping for straws." However, I don't grasp what straws you think I am grasping for.

On November 22nd, four bullets were loaded into the Carcano. Since it was found with a live round in the chamber, this means that CE 543, CE 544 or CE 545 would not have been the bottom round in the magazine that day. "Only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower."

Obviously, this applies only to the load order in the magazine as it was found on November 22nd and does not apply to any other load order at some other time. That is precisely my point. The magazine follower mark was not incurred on November 22nd but on some other occasion.

Am I just missing a point here? If so please educate me.

Josiah Thompson

CE 543 was unusual because it had indications that it had been cycled through a Carcano (not necessarily Oswald’s) several times.

Josiah: Does this mean that CE543 WITH A LEAD BULLET inside was cycled through the Carcano, or does the evidence indicate that it was already a "spent" shell when it was recycled?

The evidence refers to the cartridge case... that it had been cycled through a Carcano, possibly Oswald's, several times.

It had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon.

Pardon my ignorance of weapons, but could you elaborate on this a little bit?

Sure. I'm pleased to do so. A clip holding six bullets (each one made up of a projectile and cartridge case) is inserted in the top of the rifle and pressed down. As the clip moves downward it depressed a spring-loaded lever. This is magazine follower. It presses on the bottom cartridge in the clip, thus forcing the bullets in the clip upward. Since a live round was found in the rifle on November 22nd only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower.

A live round was found in the chamber, therefore the mark from the magazine follower could not have been incurred on November 22nd? I know I am missing something here. As a layman, I don't see why one follows from the other.

See above.

My copy of SIX SECONDS is in temporary storage, and I know this topic is discussed there, but I would really appreciate a refresher.

This seems to me to be a question that can be answered and when answered will gain a place in a wider argument. Thank you.

Josiah Thompson

Yes, this topic might be mighty important.

"Since a live round was found in the rifle on November 22nd only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower"

Perhaps one should explain that the Carcano Clip is completely reversible.

Therefore, from the last loading of the clip (with ammo) into the weapon, what, on 11/22/63 was the first round fired aka/top round, could easily have been the bottom round within the clip during any previous time at which the weapon had the clip w/rounds installed within the housing.

Thusly, placing a follower spring "scratch" on it.

Not to mention that the cartridges could easily have been removed from the clip from some previously usage, and what was once a "bottom" round, thereafter end up anywhere within the round sequence as re-installed within the clip.

Someone, who knows little, is certainly grasping for straws as well as gasping about a subject of which they know nothing as well as have not researched even the common sense side of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wrote: "Someone, who knows little, is certainly grasping for straws as well as gasping about a subject of which they know nothing as well as have not researched even the common sense side of."

I take that I am the one you think is "grasping for straws." However, I don't grasp what straws you think I am grasping for.

On November 22nd, four bullets were loaded into the Carcano. Since it was found with a live round in the chamber, this means that CE 543, CE 544 or CE 545 would not have been the bottom round in the magazine that day. "Only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower."

Obviously, this applies only to the load order in the magazine as it was found on November 22nd and does not apply to any other load order at some other time. That is precisely my point. The magazine follower mark was not incurred on November 22nd but on some other occasion.

Am I just missing a point here? If so please educate me.

Josiah Thompson

CE 543 was unusual because it had indications that it had been cycled through a Carcano (not necessarily Oswald’s) several times.

Josiah: Does this mean that CE543 WITH A LEAD BULLET inside was cycled through the Carcano, or does the evidence indicate that it was already a "spent" shell when it was recycled?

The evidence refers to the cartridge case... that it had been cycled through a Carcano, possibly Oswald's, several times.

It had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon.

Pardon my ignorance of weapons, but could you elaborate on this a little bit?

Sure. I'm pleased to do so. A clip holding six bullets (each one made up of a projectile and cartridge case) is inserted in the top of the rifle and pressed down. As the clip moves downward it depressed a spring-loaded lever. This is magazine follower. It presses on the bottom cartridge in the clip, thus forcing the bullets in the clip upward. Since a live round was found in the rifle on November 22nd only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower.

A live round was found in the chamber, therefore the mark from the magazine follower could not have been incurred on November 22nd? I know I am missing something here. As a layman, I don't see why one follows from the other.

See above.

My copy of SIX SECONDS is in temporary storage, and I know this topic is discussed there, but I would really appreciate a refresher.

This seems to me to be a question that can be answered and when answered will gain a place in a wider argument. Thank you.

Josiah Thompson

Yes, this topic might be mighty important.

"Since a live round was found in the rifle on November 22nd only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower"

Perhaps one should explain that the Carcano Clip is completely reversible.

Therefore, from the last loading of the clip (with ammo) into the weapon, what, on 11/22/63 was the first round fired aka/top round, could easily have been the bottom round within the clip during any previous time at which the weapon had the clip w/rounds installed within the housing.

Thusly, placing a follower spring "scratch" on it.

Not to mention that the cartridges could easily have been removed from the clip from some previously usage, and what was once a "bottom" round, thereafter end up anywhere within the round sequence as re-installed within the clip.

Someone, who knows little, is certainly grasping for straws as well as gasping about a subject of which they know nothing as well as have not researched even the common sense side of.

"I take that I am the one you think is "grasping for straws." However, I don't grasp what straws you think I am grasping for. "

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Post #1

For example, it had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Those who are grasping for straws are those who have attempted to present this as some form of evidentiary proof that this particular bullet was not even fired that day, not to mention not having been fired in the recovered Carcano.

1. Notice that Frazier gave no definitive testimony that the "scrach/scrape" marks as created by the magazine follower, could be absolutely matched as can rifling markings and/or bolt face markings. Therefore, to state that "scratch" marks found on CE543 were made by the magazine spring follower, is speculative.

Especially considering:

2. Each round chambered actually "scrapes" over the top of the next succeeding round in the clip. The more the clip is loaded to it's maximum of 6-rounds, the more tension/force the spring follower places against the bottom round and this pressure is thereafter exerted to the friction of the first round as it is chambered and scrapes over the top of the second round.

And so on.

3. The extremely high probability that a "short stroke" occurred with the weapon, which certainly causes the non-ejected empty casing to scrape over the next round which is attempting to be chambered.

4. As stated, the reversibility of the cartridge clip which could easily mean that the first round fired (top round) was in fact the bottom round which would have been in contact with the spring follower during some previous loading.

Lastly, I have never found any indications that Frazier even came close to commission of perjury during any of his testimonies.

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, returning to the cartridge cases which were marked earlier into evidence as Commission Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, and which, as I stated earlier for the record, had been found next to the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, can you tell us when you received those cartridge cases?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I received the first of the exhibits, 543 and 544, on November 23, 1963. They were delivered to me by Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI Office.

And the other one I received on November 27(, 1963, which was delivered by Special Agents Vincent Drain and Warren De Brueys of the Dallas Office.

Certainly, if created by the magazine spring follower, the scratch marks on the found empty casing could not have occurred on 11/22/63.

There are and will continue to be those who promote this as if it were some sort of proof of something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't tell you how grateful I am for the quote from Frazier saying he received CE 543 and 544 from SA Vincent Drain on the morning of November 23rd. That answers my original question without having to go to Fraizier's lab notes. Thanks so very much.

I seem to remember that the Frazier testified (or Hoover said in a letter) that what you call "the scrape/scratch mark" was a mark from the magazine follower. Am I wrong on this?

I certainly enjoy talking about this issue with you, Tom.

Josiah Thompson

You wrote: "Someone, who knows little, is certainly grasping for straws as well as gasping about a subject of which they know nothing as well as have not researched even the common sense side of."

I take that I am the one you think is "grasping for straws." However, I don't grasp what straws you think I am grasping for.

On November 22nd, four bullets were loaded into the Carcano. Since it was found with a live round in the chamber, this means that CE 543, CE 544 or CE 545 would not have been the bottom round in the magazine that day. "Only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower."

Obviously, this applies only to the load order in the magazine as it was found on November 22nd and does not apply to any other load order at some other time. That is precisely my point. The magazine follower mark was not incurred on November 22nd but on some other occasion.

Am I just missing a point here? If so please educate me.

Josiah Thompson

CE 543 was unusual because it had indications that it had been cycled through a Carcano (not necessarily Oswald’s) several times.

Josiah: Does this mean that CE543 WITH A LEAD BULLET inside was cycled through the Carcano, or does the evidence indicate that it was already a "spent" shell when it was recycled?

The evidence refers to the cartridge case... that it had been cycled through a Carcano, possibly Oswald's, several times.

It had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon.

Pardon my ignorance of weapons, but could you elaborate on this a little bit?

Sure. I'm pleased to do so. A clip holding six bullets (each one made up of a projectile and cartridge case) is inserted in the top of the rifle and pressed down. As the clip moves downward it depressed a spring-loaded lever. This is magazine follower. It presses on the bottom cartridge in the clip, thus forcing the bullets in the clip upward. Since a live round was found in the rifle on November 22nd only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower.

A live round was found in the chamber, therefore the mark from the magazine follower could not have been incurred on November 22nd? I know I am missing something here. As a layman, I don't see why one follows from the other.

See above.

My copy of SIX SECONDS is in temporary storage, and I know this topic is discussed there, but I would really appreciate a refresher.

This seems to me to be a question that can be answered and when answered will gain a place in a wider argument. Thank you.

Josiah Thompson

Yes, this topic might be mighty important.

"Since a live round was found in the rifle on November 22nd only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower"

Perhaps one should explain that the Carcano Clip is completely reversible.

Therefore, from the last loading of the clip (with ammo) into the weapon, what, on 11/22/63 was the first round fired aka/top round, could easily have been the bottom round within the clip during any previous time at which the weapon had the clip w/rounds installed within the housing.

Thusly, placing a follower spring "scratch" on it.

Not to mention that the cartridges could easily have been removed from the clip from some previously usage, and what was once a "bottom" round, thereafter end up anywhere within the round sequence as re-installed within the clip.

Someone, who knows little, is certainly grasping for straws as well as gasping about a subject of which they know nothing as well as have not researched even the common sense side of.

"I take that I am the one you think is "grasping for straws." However, I don't grasp what straws you think I am grasping for. "

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Post #1

For example, it had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Those who are grasping for straws are those who have attempted to present this as some form of evidentiary proof that this particular bullet was not even fired that day, not to mention not having been fired in the recovered Carcano.

1. Notice that Frazier gave no definitive testimony that the "scrach/scrape" marks as created by the magazine follower, could be absolutely matched as can rifling markings and/or bolt face markings. Therefore, to state that "scratch" marks found on CE543 were made by the magazine spring follower, is speculative.

Especially considering:

2. Each round chambered actually "scrapes" over the top of the next succeeding round in the clip. The more the clip is loaded to it's maximum of 6-rounds, the more tension/force the spring follower places against the bottom round and this pressure is thereafter exerted to the friction of the first round as it is chambered and scrapes over the top of the second round.

And so on.

3. The extremely high probability that a "short stroke" occurred with the weapon, which certainly causes the non-ejected empty casing to scrape over the next round which is attempting to be chambered.

4. As stated, the reversibility of the cartridge clip which could easily mean that the first round fired (top round) was in fact the bottom round which would have been in contact with the spring follower during some previous loading.

Lastly, I have never found any indications that Frazier even came close to commission of perjury during any of his testimonies.

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, returning to the cartridge cases which were marked earlier into evidence as Commission Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, and which, as I stated earlier for the record, had been found next to the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, can you tell us when you received those cartridge cases?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I received the first of the exhibits, 543 and 544, on November 23, 1963. They were delivered to me by Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI Office.

And the other one I received on November 27(, 1963, which was delivered by Special Agents Vincent Drain and Warren De Brueys of the Dallas Office.

Certainly, if created by the magazine spring follower, the scratch marks on the found empty casing could not have occurred on 11/22/63.

There are and will continue to be those who promote this as if it were some sort of proof of something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't tell you how grateful I am for the quote from Frazier saying he received CE 543 and 544 from SA Vincent Drain on the morning of November 23rd. That answers my original question without having to go to Fraizier's lab notes. Thanks so very much.

I seem to remember that the Frazier testified (or Hoover said in a letter) that what you call "the scrape/scratch mark" was a mark from the magazine follower. Am I wrong on this?

I certainly enjoy talking about this issue with you, Tom.

Josiah Thompson

You wrote: "Someone, who knows little, is certainly grasping for straws as well as gasping about a subject of which they know nothing as well as have not researched even the common sense side of."

I take that I am the one you think is "grasping for straws." However, I don't grasp what straws you think I am grasping for.

On November 22nd, four bullets were loaded into the Carcano. Since it was found with a live round in the chamber, this means that CE 543, CE 544 or CE 545 would not have been the bottom round in the magazine that day. "Only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower."

Obviously, this applies only to the load order in the magazine as it was found on November 22nd and does not apply to any other load order at some other time. That is precisely my point. The magazine follower mark was not incurred on November 22nd but on some other occasion.

Am I just missing a point here? If so please educate me.

Josiah Thompson

CE 543 was unusual because it had indications that it had been cycled through a Carcano (not necessarily Oswald’s) several times.

Josiah: Does this mean that CE543 WITH A LEAD BULLET inside was cycled through the Carcano, or does the evidence indicate that it was already a "spent" shell when it was recycled?

The evidence refers to the cartridge case... that it had been cycled through a Carcano, possibly Oswald's, several times.

It had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon.

Pardon my ignorance of weapons, but could you elaborate on this a little bit?

Sure. I'm pleased to do so. A clip holding six bullets (each one made up of a projectile and cartridge case) is inserted in the top of the rifle and pressed down. As the clip moves downward it depressed a spring-loaded lever. This is magazine follower. It presses on the bottom cartridge in the clip, thus forcing the bullets in the clip upward. Since a live round was found in the rifle on November 22nd only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower.

A live round was found in the chamber, therefore the mark from the magazine follower could not have been incurred on November 22nd? I know I am missing something here. As a layman, I don't see why one follows from the other.

See above.

My copy of SIX SECONDS is in temporary storage, and I know this topic is discussed there, but I would really appreciate a refresher.

This seems to me to be a question that can be answered and when answered will gain a place in a wider argument. Thank you.

Josiah Thompson

Yes, this topic might be mighty important.

"Since a live round was found in the rifle on November 22nd only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower"

Perhaps one should explain that the Carcano Clip is completely reversible.

Therefore, from the last loading of the clip (with ammo) into the weapon, what, on 11/22/63 was the first round fired aka/top round, could easily have been the bottom round within the clip during any previous time at which the weapon had the clip w/rounds installed within the housing.

Thusly, placing a follower spring "scratch" on it.

Not to mention that the cartridges could easily have been removed from the clip from some previously usage, and what was once a "bottom" round, thereafter end up anywhere within the round sequence as re-installed within the clip.

Someone, who knows little, is certainly grasping for straws as well as gasping about a subject of which they know nothing as well as have not researched even the common sense side of.

"I take that I am the one you think is "grasping for straws." However, I don't grasp what straws you think I am grasping for. "

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Post #1

For example, it had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Those who are grasping for straws are those who have attempted to present this as some form of evidentiary proof that this particular bullet was not even fired that day, not to mention not having been fired in the recovered Carcano.

1. Notice that Frazier gave no definitive testimony that the "scrach/scrape" marks as created by the magazine follower, could be absolutely matched as can rifling markings and/or bolt face markings. Therefore, to state that "scratch" marks found on CE543 were made by the magazine spring follower, is speculative.

Especially considering:

2. Each round chambered actually "scrapes" over the top of the next succeeding round in the clip. The more the clip is loaded to it's maximum of 6-rounds, the more tension/force the spring follower places against the bottom round and this pressure is thereafter exerted to the friction of the first round as it is chambered and scrapes over the top of the second round.

And so on.

3. The extremely high probability that a "short stroke" occurred with the weapon, which certainly causes the non-ejected empty casing to scrape over the next round which is attempting to be chambered.

4. As stated, the reversibility of the cartridge clip which could easily mean that the first round fired (top round) was in fact the bottom round which would have been in contact with the spring follower during some previous loading.

Lastly, I have never found any indications that Frazier even came close to commission of perjury during any of his testimonies.

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, returning to the cartridge cases which were marked earlier into evidence as Commission Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, and which, as I stated earlier for the record, had been found next to the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, can you tell us when you received those cartridge cases?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I received the first of the exhibits, 543 and 544, on November 23, 1963. They were delivered to me by Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI Office.

And the other one I received on November 27(, 1963, which was delivered by Special Agents Vincent Drain and Warren De Brueys of the Dallas Office.

Certainly, if created by the magazine spring follower, the scratch marks on the found empty casing could not have occurred on 11/22/63.

There are and will continue to be those who promote this as if it were some sort of proof of something.

"I seem to remember that the Frazier testified (or Hoover said in a letter) that what you call "the scrape/scratch mark" was a mark from the magazine follower. Am I wrong on this?"

If so, then I too am incorrect on it as well.

Who knows, I may have gotten this information from you??? [b]SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS[/b]

However! Frazier is incorrect!

At risk of generation of an entire new series of conspiracy theories, this is well worth consideration when one takes into consideration the discrepancies in the rifle ordered v. the rifle found.

Mr. FRAZIER - It is a caliber 6.5 Italian military rifle, commonly referred to in the United States as a 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano. It is a bolt-action clip-fed military rifle.

Mr. FRAZIER - I found all three of the cartridge cases had been fired in this particular weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the examination which you conducted to reach these conclusions?

Mr. FRAZIER - The first step was to fire test cartridge cases in this rifle to pick up the microscopic marks which are left on all cartridge cases fired in this weapon by the face of the bolt. Then those, test cartridge cases were mounted on a comparison microscope, on the right-hand side, and on the left-hand side of the comparison microscope was mounted one of the three submitted cartridge cases, so that you could magnify the surfaces of the test and the evidence and compare the marks left on the cartridge cases by the belt face and the firing pin of the rifle.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sorry there Robert! All that it means is that the BOLT which was found in the weapon was the same bolt as utilized to fire the three found casings.

It does not prove that the rifle itself was utilized to fire the rounds, as the bolt is quickly and readily removable from the weapon and will fit in virtually any other make and/or model of carcano.

The three casings which were found at the sixth floor window could have been fired in virtually any other make and/or model of Carcano bolt action rifle produced, at virtually any other time well prior to 11/22/63.

As example: LHO could have been at the rifle range firing a piece-of-S**t model 91/24 Carbine which contained this bolt.

Thereafter, by simply removing the bolt of a Model 91/38 Short Rifle and replacement with the Carbine bolt, any fired cartridges casings would indicated that they were fired from the same weapon.

How about that Mark?????

Provided of course that the bolt was then removed from this weapon and thereafter installed within the Model 91/38 Short Rifle which was fired from the sixth floor of the TSDB.

===============================================================================

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry164997

Post #42

Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir; I came out there. I had-been shooting for about 10 or 15 minutes and he came up next to me and started shooting, and he only shot about 8 or 10 times and I noticed every time he got through shooting he would take the breech and open it up and put the shell in his pocket.

Forgive me, but I'm not sure what Sterling Wood's testimony even suggests in this context. Can you elucidate?

================================================================================

About all that one can state in regards to evaluation of the shell casings is that whatever weapon fired them (whenever as well), it contained the bolt which was found on the weapon that was recovered from the sixth floor of the TSDB.

It neither proves that the casings were fired in this specific weapon nor does it prove that they were fired on 11/22/63.

Wonder what a "shell casing" from the assassination of a President of the US would sell for on the collector's market?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

I would like to ask for assistance on a piece of research I’ve been working on for some time. It is carried out far from the internet with a scientist who is a friend of mine. He is working on a new book on the case. I don’t want to mention his name because I don’t have his permission to do so. Let me say that he is a true scientist and a very bright historical researcher. The point at issue concerns the provenance of CE 543.

The three cartridge cases found near the 6th floor sniper’s next ended up with the designations CE 543, CE 544, CE 545. CE 543 was unusual because it had indications that it had been cycled through a Carcano (not necessarily Oswald’s) several times. For example, it had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon. Most importantly, it has a dent in the lip that makes it impossible to have contained a projectile in its present form. The dent was studied by experts from the House Select Committee who claimed to have produced a similar dent by working the action on Oswald’s weapon very fast. However, the dent so produced does not replicate in many ways the dent on CE 543. Could the dent have been incurred as the House Committee believes during the ejection process? Maybe. At least one researcher in the United States, says he has produced a similar dent with a Carcano and 6.5 mm ammunition by cycling the weapon very fast. According to this individual, the cartridge case spins back after being ejected and hits the metal top of the Carcano. Another individual in England, has replicated the dent by dry-firing cartridge cases in the Carcano. Other indications supplied by Director Hoover in a letter make me suspect that the true cause of the dent was the dry-firing of the cartridge case in a Carcano prior to November 22nd. If this is the case, then CE 543 was never fired on November 22nd but dropped at the scene. If this could be proved, the importance is obvious.

My friend, the scientist, has opined that the dent may have been caused by the Dallas police while the rifle and CE 543 were in their possession. If some Dallas policeman inserted CE 543 into the Carcano and dry-fired it, this would violate every protocol known to the police about the protection and sanctity of evidence. It would, in fact, be a crime. And why would this be done? The live round in the chamber of the weapon showed conclusively what ammunition the rifle fired. I have argued this with my friend but he is still unconvinced.

What do we know of the provenance of CE 543?

We know that two cartridge cases and the live round were picked up from the Dallas Police on the evening of November 22nd and flown to Washington for examination in the FBI Crime Lab. The third cartridge case was picked up from the Dallas police on November 27th by the FBI. The three cartridge cases were given FBI numbers of C6, C7, C38. CE 543 had the earlier FBI number of C7.

In Six Seconds in Dallas, I argued that CE-543 had been retained by the Dallas police and only turned over to the FBI on November 27th. I argued for this on the basis of some confusing testimony by Lt. Doughty concerning the cartridge cases. It seems to me now that I was wrong... that CE 543 was turned over to the FBI on the evening of November 22nd. First, it only seems natural that the first two cartridge cases to reach the FBI lab would bear the numbers C6 and C7 while the third case (that arrived days later) would bear the FBI number C38. Secondly, someone sent me FBI 302s from the time Six Seconds was published. One contained a long analysis and criticism of Six Seconds that asserted that CE 543 was picked up from the Dallas police on the evening of November 22nd.

So which was it? Did CE 543 leave the custody of the Dallas police on the evening of November 22nd or several days later? The obvious way to find out would be to look at Robert Frazier’s lab notes concerning evidence when it arrived at the FBI Lab. I know John Hunt has done some good work in this area. Just a day or so ago, Gary Murr was able to give a very full answer to a question asked by David Healy. He stated on the thread “Z-frame numbering and Gary Murr” on 3/26/09 at 9:08 PM:

“Unfortunately, this documentation is currently only available if one travels to NARA II in College Park, Maryland, the reason being that it is from one of the massive bulky lab files generated by that division of the FBI in conjunction with their examination of all evidence given to them that related to the assassination event. Shaneyfelt and others in the FBI lab, in particular fellow agent Robert Frazier, constructed numerous files of worknotes when they were examining evidence and this surviving documentation is both historically important, relevant, and useful in trying to ascertain a wide variety of matters pertaining to the issues of evidence and provenance.“

Gary Murr’s report would confirm that the FBI Lab made complete notes on each bit of evidence when it arrived at the lab. Certainly, the arrival date of C7 and its condition (dented lip and all) should appear in these noted. Would Gary Murr or anyone else who has interest or knowledge about this please reply? This seems to me to be a question that can be answered and when answered will gain a place in a wider argument. Thank you.

Josiah Thompson

Without going into naming names, the one person of whom I am aware that claims to have created a similar dent through the described "ejection process", was long ago informed by myself of the extreme unliklihood that the dent in the cartridge casing lip occurred in this manner.

Even though he claims to have duplicated this, I have yet to see any indication of this actually being feasible and have never managed such an event.

To a relatively high degree of probability, the "dent" as well as the additional scrape marks along the cartridge case which are claimed to have been created by the "follower", are in fact the result of a Short Stroke.

In a Short Stroke, the bolt is not brought back sufficiently for the ejector release to activate, and the empty casing is not ejectecd, and thus when one goes forward with the bolt, they are in fact driving the empty casing forward towards the chamber again.

However, the bullet nose of the next round in the magazine housing has risen, and thus the empty casing is actually driven forward over the casing rim of the next live round below it which has risen at a slight angle. This action can force the empty casing to incur additional scrape marks from the casing rim below it.

This action causes the empty casing to literally "scrape" over the casing of the live round below it, giving it scrape marks somewhat similar to that created by the follower, and when the forward nose of the casing comes to the beginning of the chamber area, it encounters the bullet nose of the live round below it.

Which, in virtually every single instance, will dent the lip of the empty casing, provided that the bolt is actually operated with a rapid as well as sufficient force.

Which, by the way, may have some bearing on exactly why there was some 5.6 to 5.9 seconds delay between the first shot and the second shot.

Had the FBI/aka Robert Frazier given evidence of a "Short Stroke" in the shooting sequence, then most likely there is absolutely no "shooter" who would have considered that three shots were made within the WC's fairy tale less than 6-second shooting scenario.

Hope that helps some.

Tom

Nice try, but, utter nonsense as usual, Tom.

As the bolt is drawn back, holding the rim of the spent shell in the bullet extractor, the face of the bolt is actually riding on the next live cartridge in the magazine below. The face of the bolt is much greater in diameter than the rim of the spent cartridge. The bolt keeps the next live cartridge in place in the magazine and does not allow it to rise up UNTIL the bolt is fully retracted. The spent cartridge will be ejected well before the bolt is fully retracted.

To say that the spent cartridge can come in contact with the next live cartridge in the magazine shows either lack of knowledge of bolt action rifles OR a deliberate intent to mislead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I could remember the source, but there was relatively early book which involved a confession from this fellow out of New Orleans...lots of really strange stuff in it but one of the items of

information in the book was that there was a witness the author interviewed who had lived near the short lived exile camp outside New Orleans in 1963. One of the things that puzzled him was that he observed them firing

a rifle into a barrel of water, apparently to recover the shells as well as the hulls.

Just one of those misc. things out of the last decades that you file away and shake your head whenever you think about it again...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I could remember the source, but there was relatively early book which involved a confession from this fellow out of New Orleans...lots of really strange stuff in it but one of the items of

information in the book was that there was a witness the author interviewed who had lived near the short lived exile camp outside New Orleans in 1963. One of the things that puzzled him was that he observed them firing

a rifle into a barrel of water, apparently to recover the shells as well as the hulls.

Just one of those misc. things out of the last decades that you file away and shake your head whenever you think about it again...

Hi Larry.... Had a definite memory of reading the same My Friend, took on several books-searching, + eventually found + re-read the following with respect to self-claimed accomplice, ROBERT WILFRED EASTERLING....

(from MICHAEL BENSON, "Who's Who in the JFK Assassination: An A to Z Encyclopedia," 1993, pg. 121-122)

<QUOTE>

....
In February 1963, Easterling was working as a diesel engine mechanic near New Orleans and
frequently drank at the Habana Bar at 117 Decatur Street in New Orleans (see PENA, OREST).
It was here that Easterling met a CIA/Castro double agent whom Hurt calls Manuel (not his
real name). Easterling described Manuel as being of medium height, with a stocky build, heavy
body hair, a receding hairline, and a visible birthmark on the side of his neck. Manuel enlisted
Easterling in a scheme to kill JFK. Manuel explained that their group wanted JFK dead because
they were betrayed at the Bay of Pigs invasion. Easterling says that other members of the
conspiratorial group included David Ferrie and Clay Shaw, whom he also saw in the same bar,
and a Cuban named Joe who had a deformed hand and who sometimes tended bar. Orest
Pefia, owner of the bar, admits that Ferrie and Shaw had both been known to drink there, but
denies ever employing a bartender with a deformed hand. Manuel, who drove a gray
Volkswagen, explained that JFK was going to be shot by a 7mm Czech weapon, the design of
which he had supervised personally. This weapon fired bullets that disintegrated on impact and
left no ballistic evidence. The cover story was going to involve a patsy (Oswald) and fake
ballistic evidence. The cover assassination weapon was to be a Mannlicher­ Carcano. To create
the phony ballistic evidence, Manuel went to a field (behind the trailer park where Easterling
lived with his wife) and fired the weapon into a barrel of water. He then collected the shell
casings and the fired bullets - which would be planted at the appropriate time to incrimi­nate
Oswald. Manuel then lined up three coconuts and fired his Czech weapon into each of them, to
show off. This story is partially corroborated by Easterling's wife (now remarried and
requesting anonymity), who remembers that, before the shooting started, Easterling came
into their trailer to borrow dishcloths. When Hurt told Easterling of this, Easterling frowned
and then recalled that he and Manuel had tried for a time to suspend the dishcloths in the
barrel so that the bullets could be retrieved without completely emptying the barrel. Mrs.
Easterling also recalled that, later that day, Easterling had brought her three coconuts with
bullet holes in them. She made coconut pie.
....
<END QUOTE>
Mr. BENSON sourced HENRY HURT's book, "Reasonable Doubt," that details EASTERLING's claims, + I do have memories that Mr. HURT wrote about it, also.
Best Regards in Research

+++Don

Donald Roberdeau

United States Navy

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, plank walker

Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly

For your key considerations + independent determinations....

Homepage: President KENNEDY "Men of Courage" speech, and Assassination Evidence, Witnesses, Photographers, Suspects, + Outstanding Researchers Discoveries + Key Considerations.... http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2009/08/1-men-of-courage-jfk-assassination_09.html

The Dealey Plaza Detailed Map: Detailing 11-22-63 Victims Precise Locations + Reactions, Evidence, Witnesses Locations, Photographers, Suspected Bullet Trajectories, Important Information + Key Considerations, in One Convenient Resource....

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3966/dppluschartsupdated1111.gif

(updated map, + new information)

Visual Report: The First Bullet Impact Into President Kennedy: While JFK was Still Hidden Under the "magic-limbed-ricochet-tree"....

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/2446/206cropjfk1102308ms8.gif

Visual Report: Reality Versus C.A.D. : the Real World, versus, Garbage-in, Garbage-out.... http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/5066/jsf.gif

Discovery: "Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS

Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Headsnap: West, Ultrafast, and

Directly Towards the Grassy Knoll"....

http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2011/01/discovery-close-jfk-assassination.html

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

For the United States:

Edited by Don Roberdeau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good Don, that's exactly it......to make a point, I'm in no way supporting Easterling's overall story which has many problems. There are two or three points in it that are also

strangely consistent with things we do know. Easterling did not seem to be the type who would be all that creative, and as I recall, Hurt found him and dug out the story.

Hurt also has some fascinating stuff in the book about the dented Hull that Bill would enjoy and also demonstrated it would have been easy to stash any real weapon in one of the big

wooden book containers that nobody ever searched.

There are several things in his book that were interesting although Easterling's story itself finally got to the point of nonsense.....ending up exactly counter to his first information and

implicating Castro.

-- just one more exercise in high strangeness...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...