The JFK Assassination

An Easy Shot ?

Evidence the Limo Fragments did NOT come from the head shot

Evidence the Rifle in the Window was NOT a Carcano

See No Evil

Hear No Evil

Evidence Oswald did not know the motorcade route

Evidence Oswald was "a rather poor shot"

Evidence Oswald was on the 1st floor during the shooting

FBI threatening of witnesses

W.W. Litchfield

Marina Oswald

Marina's Credibility

Marina & "Hidell"

Problems with Marina's testimony against her husband

Proof the Dallas Police falsified evidence against Oswald

The "Misfired" Round

Bullets in the Pocket

Proof the FBI lied in their Reports

Proof the Warren Commission predetermined Oswald's guilt

The Cab Ride

The Lunchroom Encounter

The WC alters timing

More evidence that Oswald was on the first floor

The Paper Gunsack

Evidence the "Gunsack was never on the 6th floor

Evidence the "Gunsack" was made on the afternoon of 11/22/63

Evidence the rifle was never in the "Gunsack"

Evidence the bag Oswald brought to work contained his lunch

The Paraffin Tests

Evidence Oswald had not fired a rifle

Evidence Oswald had not fired a handgun

The Rifle

Evidence the Depository rifle was not part of the February shipment to Klein's

Evidence that Oswald was at work when the money order for the rifle was purchased and the envelope mailed

Evidence that the "$ 21.45" entry on Klein's bank account statement was not the "Hidell" money order

Evidence that Oswald's handwriting was easily forgeable

Evidence the rifle in the "Backyard Photos" is not the Depository Rifle

Evidence that the Depository Rifle had not been fired on 11/22/63

Evidence that Klein's Sporting Goods did not mount the scope on the Depository Rifle

Evidence that Oswald could not afford to order the weapons

The Rifle Ammo

The Searches

The Spent Shells

The Witness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Tippit Murder

Evidence that affidavits were falsified

Ted Callaway

Sam Guinyard

William Whalley

Proof the bullets recovered from Tippit's body did not match the bullets in evidence

Evidence that the police lineups were unfair

Evidence that the Tippit killer's jacket was white

News video shows the jacket was white

Problems with the gray jacket's chain of custody

Evidence that the witnesses described the jacket of the Tippit murderer as white

Evidence that the police radio description of the jacket found was white

Evidence that the witnesses refused to identify the gray jacket as the jacket the killer wore

Skeptical witness identification of the gray jacket as the jacket the killer wore

More problems with the evidence

Evidence the unfired .38 rounds came from police

The Handgun

 

The Witnesses

William A. Smith & Jimmy Burt

B.M. "Pat" Patterson

W.W.Scoggins

 

 

 

 

The Walker Shooting

The "Walker" bullet

Problems with the Chain of Custody of CE 573

Spectrographic evidence that CE 573 was not the same ammunition fired at JFK

Gen. Walker to HSCA: "Walker bullet" not Walker bullet

 The "Walker Note"

  The Witness

 

 

 

 

THE RIFLE

 

".....if Oswald did it with this weapon.....it was an absolute miracle, because no one who knew anything about rifles would have chosen such a decrepit, worthless rifle, as this Italian carbine, manufactured in 1938, for which there is such pure ( poor ) ammunition."

( Testimony of Mark Lane in 2 H 51 )

The Warren Commission concluded that in March of 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald, using the alias, "A.Hidell" ordered a Model 91/38 Italian Mannlicher Carcano bolt-action rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago to be delivered to his post office box 2915 in Dallas, Texas. The Commission provided evidence to support its conclusion, including copies of the order blank, money order and envelope filled out by "Hidell". It concluded that Oswald had ordered the weapon from an advertisement in the February 1963 edition of American Rifleman magazine. It was this rifle, the Commission said, a 40.2" weapon bearing serial number C2766, that was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository by Dallas Police 45 minutes after the shooting of President Kennedy and Governor Connally.

 

EVIDENCE THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE WAS NOT PART OF THE FEBRUARY SHIPMENT TO KLEIN'S

 

 

TRACKING THE RIFLE

 

In 1958, Crescent Firearms ( under the name Adam Consolidated Industries ) purchased 500,000 rifles from the Italian Government. The final shipment of those rifles ( 520 cartons ) left Italy's port of Genoa after being identified as lot number 91594 and arrived in the New York via the steamer Elettra Fassio on October 25, 1960. The 520 cartons were removed and trucked by the Waterfront Transfer Company to the Harborside Terminal, a bonded warehouse in New Jersey.



As one can see, the CARTON NUMBERS are listed on the manifest. For example, "3086/3094" means that all cartons numbered from 3086 thru 3094 inclusive were on this shipment. The third entry down, 3305/3436, means that all cartons bearing numbers in that range were part of this shipment, including the carton 3376, which allegedly contained a rifle with serial number C2766, the same serial number as the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

The shipment was placed in storage and remained there for the next two years.

This is where the paper trail for carton 3376 ends.

Fred Rupp was a federally-licensed gun dealer who had a contract with Crescent Firearms to pick up rifles at the Harborside Warehouse and inspect, clean, test-fire, repack and ship them to Crescent's retail customers. Klein's purchase order of 1/15/62 requested that 400 model 91TS rifles ( 36" troop specials ) be delivered.

 




 

  According to Harborside delivery order # 89138, Rupp removed the first 170 cartons on August 29, 1962.
A list of the numbers of the cartons removed was on the manifest. CARTON 3376 WAS NOT AMONG THEM.

 




Importers of rifles and gun dealers were required BY LAW to maintain a list of SERIAL NUMBERS of the rifles they imported. Rupp was required by law to keep a list of the serial numbers he removed from the warehouse ( which he did on the 8/29/62 manifest ) and the name of the retail customer he shipped them to. And Klein's was required to keep the serial numbers of rifle they sold to retail customers. ( 7 H 371 )

During the month of October, 1962, Rupp removed 264 more rifles from lot 91594.

90 on October 4th



70 on October 16



64 on October 24


and the last 40 on October 31




On all of the subsequent shipping manifests of the rifles removed from Harborside Warehouse by Fred Rupp, THE LIST OF CARTON NUMBERS IS ABSENT, even though on the 10/24 manifest, it is clearly marked "list numbers of cases shipped".

Rupp removed a total of 434 Mannlicher Carcano 91/38 rifles in the month of October 1962 from the lot of 520 rifles ( 91594 ) belonging to Crescent Firearms. He told the FBI that he kept no record of the carton numbers or serial numbers of the rifles he removed from Harborside. ( CD 7, pg. 180 ) In other words, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CARTON 3376 WAS AMONG the 434 rifles removed by Rupp, even though the FBI said it was.

The Warren Commission used two documents to "prove" that carton 3376 was shipped to Klein's Sporting Goods. 

The first one is Crescent Firearms invoice # 3178.

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, referring to Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3, which are the serial numbers of the 100 rifles which were made in this shipment from Crescent Firearms to you.......is there any way to verify that this payment pertained to rifles which are shown on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3?

Mr. WALDMAN. The forms submitted by Crescent Firearms showing serial numbers of rifles included in the shipment covered by their invoice No. 3178 indicate that the rifle carrying serial No. C-2766 was included in that shipment.
( 7 H 368 )

Of course, it shows no such thing.

Because if you look closely at invoice # 3178, you'll see that
ALL OF THE CARTON NUMBERS HAVE LITTLE CHECKS ABOVE THEM EXCEPT CARTON NUMBER 3376.




Which means that in verifying the carton numbers in that shipment, 3376 was never verified as being a part of that shipment.

The FBI's " tracking of the rifle " included unsigned and undated documents and manifests.

One such undated and unsigned example of document was Waldman Exhibit 3,  the second document the Warren Commission used to "prove" that carton 3376 was shipped to Klein's.

Waldman Exhibit 3 is an undated and unsigned list of ten carton slips which allegedly made up the February shipment from Crescent to Klein's. Listed on each of the ten carton slips are the serial numbers of the 10 rifles in each carton, including carton 3376. Since there are no dates on any of the slips in Waldman Exhibit 3, it serves no purpose in proving that carton 3376 and thus the C2766 rifle was part of the February shipment.

In fact, the ten carton slips, including slip 3620 which contained the list of rifles in carton 3376, could have been filled out at any time. If one looks at the slip numbers, which are pre-printed at the bottom of each slip, one will see that the numbers are not in sequence, which one would expect them to be if they were created at the same time by the same person and for the same shipment.

The slip numbers are 3672, 3504, 4376, 3813, 3789, 3661, 3762, 3544, 3620 and 3770.

The Klein's Witness

William Waldman was anything but an expert. He knew so little about the M-C rifle, that when he was shown the order form from his company to Crescent Firearms, ( Waldman Exhibit 1 ) he testified that the order had been changed from a 91TS to a 91/38EFF:

Mr. BELIN. Now, I notice on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. I a date well, I might read everything under the column of description; it says Italian Mannlicher-Carcano, Model 91TS, bolt action 6-shot rifle; and then cal.--that's for caliber--6.5, and then there is an "X" and 52 mm Italian-select, clean, and test-fired, changed to Beretta Terni M19, then a slash line 38 EFF, and then the date of 4/16/62. Explain that date and that description.

Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; this general style of rifle was made by a number of different manufacturers over a period of time and there were minor modifications made by---developed by each of the manufacturers.

Mr. BELIN. Would this be similar to a number of manufacturers making the Springfield rifle in this country?

Mr. WALDMAN. As for example, the different manufacturers making the Springfield rifle. Basically, the weapons were of the same general design, but as I say, there were details that were different. We originally had ordered one style of Carcano rifle, one that was known as the Model 91TS. As time went on, we changed to another model known as the Model 91/38EFF, this on April 13, 1962.
( 7 H 362 )

The problem is, that there is no such thing as a 91/38EFF. The "EFF" on the form was short for the word "effective" followed by the date 4/13/62.

Waldman not only had no knowledge of the model of rifle his company handled, he had no knowledge of the language used on shipping forms. Waldman didn't fill out those slips. He didn't fill out the order for the rifles. He didn't accept the shipment of the rifles, yet he was the one who gave testimony. The people at Klein's whose responsibility it was to handle such measures were never called to testify to the origin of the documents.

He never should have been called as a witness in regard to the processing of the rifle sale.

In fact, the Commission even had him giving testimony about documents that were clearly from Crescent Firearms.

Why would they do that ?

Because at Crescent Firearms there WAS someone familiar with rifle sales. But Louis Feldsott was never called to give live testimony before the Commission and only gave a sworn affidavit. In that affidavit, however, Feldsott swore that Crescent's records showed that rifle C2766 was sold to Klein's on June 18, 1962, not in February 1963.

Why would that have been a problem ?

BECAUSE PRIOR TO 4/13/62, KLEIN'S RIFLE ORDER WAS FOR THE 91/38 TS, WHICH ONLY CAME IN 36" LENGTHS. There's no way that Fred Rupp could have prepared a shipment between 4/13 and 6/18. That's only two months. The February 1963 shipment took him five months to prepare.

 

That means that if rifle C2766 was sold to Klein's as part of a shipment on 6/18/62 in response to their 1/15/62 order, Rupp would have had to have started preparing the shipment right after the order, and that means that the rifles in that order would have been 36" rifles. Because the order change didn't go into effect until 4/13/62, it would have been much too late to have altered a shipment that had already been started and would be delivered on 6/18.

In addition, Rupp told the FBI that the rifle bearing serial number C2766 which he serviced was a 36" rifle. ( Armstrong, Harvey & Lee, pg. 446 )

This information is significant, I believe, because it proves that there was more than one rifle, in this case a 36" rifle and a 40.2" rifle, bearing the serial number C2766.

 

The rifle serial number 

It was imperative for the Commission to show that the Depository rifle was the only one with the serial number C2766 in order to establish that that was the rifle shipped to "A. Hidell" at Box 2915 in Dallas.

In its report, the Commission said that, "Information received from the Italian Armed Forces Intelligence Service has established that this particular rifle was the only rifle of its type bearing serial number C2766." ( Chap.4 , pg. 119 ) The Commission went on to say that, "the number "C2766" is the serial number of the rifle, and the rifle in question is the only one of its type bearing that serial number" ( Appendix X, pg. 554 ). The FBI also told the Commission that although rifles might have the same serial number sequence, some were preceded by a letter and some were not ( i.e. 2766 vs. C2766 ). ( 3 H 393 )

 

The problem I have is that in 1940, there were three different types of 91/38 rifles in 6.5mm. The Fucile Corto ( short rifle), the Cavalry rifle and the Troop Special ( TS ) .

The 40.2" Fucile Corto ( short rifle ) was produced at the Beretta, Brescia, Gardone VT and Terni plants. The 36" Cavalry rifle was produced at the Beretta, Brescia and Gardone VT plants. The 36" Troop Special was produced at the Beretta and Brescia plants only.

Which means that in 1940, four different plants produced a total of 9 versions of the three different types of 91/38 rifle. Four produced the short rifle, three produced the Cavalry rifle and two produced the Troop Special.

Perhaps the 40.2" rifle removed from the TSBD was the only short rifle with the serial number C2766. But the evidence indicates that more than one type of 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano bore serial number C2766.

Such evidence comes from the most unlikeliest of sources, Warren Commission supporter the late John K. Lattimer. In his book Kennedy & Lincoln ( 1980 ) , on page 250 he alludes to an experiment he did with his sons back in the 70's using a Mannlicher Carcano 91/38 rifle with a serial number of C2766.

In March of 1964, the FBI interviewed William Sucher, the owner of International Firearms Limited in Montreal, Canada. Sucher was interviewed because of his vast dealings with overseas purchases of weapons. The FBI reported that Sucher purchased "hundreds of thousands" of rifles from the Italian government as surplus, usually in "very poor" condition. Sucher told the FBI that in the 1930's, Mussolini had ordered all of the arms factories to manufacture the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. He further stated that "since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, the same serial number appears on weapons manufactured by more than one concern."

In other words, since many ( four that I've named ) of the factories were manufacturing the 91/38 rifle, the same serial number appears on weapons manufactured by more than one factory. That means that the C2766 serial number could appear on anywhere from 3 to 9 weapons. Some Warren Commission apologists will argue that the next sentence in this report "some bear a letter prefix and some do not" is relative to the serial number being the same. I do not believe that. I believe that the FBI is making a matter-of-fact statement. For if a serial number does not bear the letter prefix, it's not the same serial number as the one that does. The serial number 2766, for example, is not the same serial number as C2766. Sucher stated that the rifles had the SAME serial number, meaning that the serial numbers were exactly the same.

In fact, when the FBI stated that "some have a letter prefix and some do not", they were downplaying the diversity in the numbers. Some rifles had TWO letter prefixes, some had a single letter, others had a number and a letter. Some serial numbers were only four digits long, others were six. A look at Waldman Exhibit 3 shows a list of the serial numbers of the rifles received by Klein's Sporting Goods in February, 1963.

The red arrow points out one rifle serial number whose prefix was a number then a letter. Many of the rifles in this list had TWO letter prefixes.

Additional evidence indicating that there may have been one or more 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano rifles with the serial number C 2766 comes from the very documents the government used to try to prove that Oswald ordered the rifle. The order blank and the order form both contained catalog numbers that indicated that a 36" rifle was ordered by an "A.Hidell" and a 36" rifle with serial number C 2766 was shipped.

 

PURCHASING THE RIFLE

 

The Order Blank and the Order Form

The Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, using the alias "A. Hidell", ordered the 40.2" Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository by Dallas Sheriff's Deputies shortly after the shooting in Dealey Plaza. He did this, it said, using an order blank from the February 1963 edition of American Rifleman magazine. The FBI traced the dept. number on the order blank, 358, to that particular magazine.

The problem with the examination of the handwriting on the order blank will be discussed later on this page.

Below is Cadigan Exhibit 3-A, a copy of the envelope and order blank that Oswald allegedly used to order the rifle. It is a copy of a copy, in essence, a copy allegedly made from Klein's microfilm copy.

 

The issue I have with the order form and the order blank below has to do with the catalog number. The catalog number for the rifle in the Klein's ad was C20-T750. It described a 36" rifle ( B, below ), while the catalog number for the 40" rifle, like the one found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was slightly different, C20-750 ( C, below ). The catalog number for the 36" rifle was on the order blank ( above, Cadigan 3-A ) and the order form ( A, below ). The order form appears to be a document that was generated by the office of Klein's which typed in certain information and then passed it on to the warehouse to fill the order. Klein's control number and the rifle's serial number were then apparently handwritten by warehouse employees whose job it was to fill the orders.

So one would have to wonder why the documentation indicates that the order was for a 36" rifle and the order was processed for a 36" rifle but the serial number was of a 40" rifle ?

In light of the fact that NONE of the Klein's employees who were responsible for filling the orders or shipping and receiving the weapons were ever called to give testimony to the Commission, how is it possible that a 36" rifle was allegedly ordered, shipped and turned into a 40.2" rifle ?

The Commission never asked.

And when you ask the Warren Commission apologists for evidence a 40.2" rifle was shipped, they call you a kook.

The Commission also never thoroughly looked into the destruction of the third part of Oswald's application for a post office box, the same post office box the rifle was allegedly shipped to.

 

Post Office Box 2915 and the Application

The application consisted of three parts. The first part included postal rules and instructions for working combination locked boxes. The applicant could throw it away or keep it in his wallet. It included the combination for combination boxes. Parts 2 & 3 comprised the actual application. Part 2 included information on the applicant and his type of business ( if applicable ). Part 3 included special instructions on delivering mail, how to handle special deliveries and listed the names of other people beside the applicant who were entitled to receive mail through the box.

So the question is whether or not "A.Hidell" was authorized to receive mail at Oswald's box 2915 in Dallas. In order for "Hidell" to receive mail there, the evidence shows that his name would have had to have been on the box application.

When Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified before the Warren Commission, he provided only a copy of part 2 of Oswald's post office box application ( Holmes Exhibit 3 ). He told the Commission that part 3 had been discarded when the box had been closed, in May 1963, in accordance with postal regulations. Holmes further went on to say that the New Orleans Post Office hadn't complied to the regulation by keeping part 3 of Oswald's box application in that city. ( 7 H 527 )

In it's Report, the Commission repeated Holmes' testimony that the destruction of Part 3 of the PO Box application was in accordance with postal regulations.

"In accordance with postal regulations, the portion of the application which lists names of persons, other than the applicant, entitled to receive mail was thrown away after the box was closed on May 1963."  ( Report, Ch. 4, pg. 121 )

That was a lie. The postal regulation required that the box application ( parts 2 & 3 ) be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed.

In 1966, author Stewart Galanor decided to write to the US Post Office and ask two questions. The first was  regarding the post office box application and how long the record was to be kept. The second question regarded what happened to mail that was addressed to someone NOT on the box application part 3. In response to the first question, the post office replied that in March of 1963, postal regulation 846.53h required that all box applications, including part 3, be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed. 

 

 

Of course, this revelation alone makes a liar out of Harry Holmes. It shows that the New Orleans PO was in compliance with the postal regulation and the Dallas PO was NOT. 

As if that wasn't bad enough, Holmes also lied about how mail addressed to persons whose names were NOT on the post office box application was handled. He told the Commission that when the post office received mail or a package addressed to someone NOT on the application, a notice would be put in the box REGARDLESS OF WHOSE NAME WAS ON THE MAIL and when someone came to the desk with the notice, they got the mail/package, REGARDLESS OF WHO THEY WERE.

( 7 H 527-528 )

In order to show how ridiculously absurd such a procedure is, the Post Office regulation is clear. 

In response to Mr. Galanor's second question, regarding mail addressed to someone NOT on the box application part 3, the post office replied that regulation 355.111b(4) required that the item would have marked "addressee unknown" and returned to sender.

 

In other words, if "Hidell's" name is not on the box application part 3, he CANNOT receive mail in a box assigned to Oswald.

As if questions about the rifle's serial number and the suspicious destruction of part 3 of Oswald's Post Office box application weren't enough, the Commission completely ignored evidence that proved that Oswald was at work when the money order for the rifle was purchased and mailed.

 

EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD WAS AT WORK WHEN THE MONEY ORDER FOR THE RIFLE WAS PURCHASED AND THE ENVELOPE MAILED

 

Buying and Mailing the Money Order

The next problem with the purchasing of the rifle is that at the date & time Oswald was alleged to have purchased the money order he allegedly used to pay for it and mailed the envelope containing it, he was at work at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. The money order was stamped that it had been purchased on March 12, 1963 and the envelope it was allegedly mailed in had a postmarked time of 10:30 am, meaning that IF Oswald bought he money order, filled it out and mailed it, he had to have accomplished it between the time the Post Office opened and the postmarked time.

The problem comes in when we examine Oswald's work timesheet from Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall for March 12, 1963, the date the money order was allegedly purchased. Below is Commission Exhibit 1855 and it shows that DURING THE TIME OSWALD SHOULD HAVE BEEN PURCHASING, FILLING OUT AND MAILING THE MONEY ORDER FOR THE RIFLE, HE WAS AT WORK. ( red box )

 

In fact, the document shows that excluding Oswald's lunch break from 12:15-12:45pm, EVERY SINGLE MINUTE OF OSWALD'S DAY IS ACCOUNTED FOR FROM 8:00am THROUGH 5:15pm. And there is NO EVIDENCE that Oswald was late for work that day. In fact, according to his boss at JCS, he was "very punctual".

Mr. JENNER. Was he regular in his arrival at work?

Mr. GRAEF. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Were his work habits in that connection satisfactory?

Mr. GRAEF. Yes. I would say he was very punctual in his arrival to work.


( 10 H 184 )

There is also NO EVIDENCE that Oswald received a ride to work that day from a co-worker. There IS EVIDENCE from testimony, however, that when co-workers offered rides to Oswald, he declined.

Mr. OFSTEIN. ..............he was also offered rides by Mr. Graef, and I offered him a ride a couple of times either to his home or wherever he wanted to catch a bus, and I know that he always declined my offer of a ride.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say?

Mr. OFSTEIN. He said; no, he would go ahead and walk, and usually in the evening when he would leave he would say, "I am going up to the post office to pick up my mail, and a couple of times I would offer to give him a ride up this way, as it wasn't much out of my way and I have to come in this direction anyway to Live Oak before I turn, which is only about a block difference, and he always declined to ride and would walk.

( 10 H 205 )

Amazingly, not one single witness was ever called to testify about Commission Exhibit 1855  and there is NO MENTION of this document in ANY of the 15 volumes of testimony. In addition, there is NO EVIDENCE that the Main Post Office opened before 8am, allowing Oswald to make his purchase prior to going to work.

In fact, this document found in Box 50 of the HSCA Segregated CIA files shows that the post office window opened at 8:00 am:

The document states that Oswald "probably lied" when he signed in on his timesheet and cautions that the "time sheets should be used with caution".

PROBABLY lied ? 

"Probably" is one of those "buzz words" people use when they don't have any evidence. Like "could be", "maybe" and "possibly".

The fact is there's no evidence that Oswald lied on his timesheet.

There's no evidence that Oswald was late for work on March 12th.

And there's no evidence that Oswald was at the post office at 8:00 am.

We know the post office window opened at 8:00 am and the record shows that Oswald was at work at 8:00 am. The burden of proof is on Oswald's accusers: if they can prove that Oswald was not at work and at the post office at 8 am on March 12, 1963. 

Let's see their evidence.

Then there's the problem of the absence of postal form 6001, the applications for money orders that would have had to have been filled out by "A. Hidell" for each of the weapons he allegedly ordered. Where are they ?

The Commission never asked. 

Another problem the Commission failed to address is that the money order was not mailed at the post office from where it was purchased, but it was mailed instead THREE POSTAL ZONES AWAY. An examination of the postmark on the envelope indicates that it was mailed in postal zone 12 ( yellow arrow ) , when Oswald worked and allegedly purchased the money order in postal zone 1. And there is NO EVIDENCE that Oswald gave the envelope to someone else to mail.

 

And if there was no evidence that Oswald purchased or mailed the money order for the rifle, the money order itself made a strange and abnormal journey through the processing system.

Another question the Commission should have asked was who in the Dallas Post Office issued the money order.

On the front of the money order, there is clearly a line marked "initial of issuing authority". And it's clearly initialed. Why didn't the Commission determine whose initials these were and why wasn't that person called to give testimony ?

 

Processing the Money Order

Another problem, this one of the money order itself ( CE 788, below ) is that it contained no stamp from any financial institution. The only stamp on it was a stamp on the back from Klein's Sporting Goods for deposit into its account ( number 50-91144 ) in the First National Bank of Chicago. ( red arrows below )

Bank stamps were used on postal money orders in those days as is evidenced by the referral to same ( "bank stamps are not regarded as endorsements" ) on the back of the money order.

The single stamp on the back was identified in testimony as the stamp of Klein's.


Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order of Klein's Sporting Goods.....And on the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank. I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please.

Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50 space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc."

Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement on that money order?

Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement.


( 7 H 367 )

The stamp wasn't an endorsement from a bank. It was the endorsement stamp of Klein's Sporting Goods transferring the funds into its bank account. The money order was never paid by any financial institution. Had the money order been processed by the First National Bank of Chicago, the bank would have put its DATED stamp on it.

Financial institutions stamp checks and money orders in order to ensure that each institution pays only once on each item. Without the stamp, there's no proof that the money was actually paid by the bank and credited to the customer's account. The stamps also assist law enforcement in tracking finances in criminal cases. This money order should have had on it the DATED stamps of all financial institutions that handled the document.

The fact that it doesn't is proof that it never passed through the Federal Reserve System. 

Postal Money Orders received by the First National Bank of Chicago, were then sent to the Federal Reserve Bank, also in Chicago. The First National Bank did NOT microfilm money orders. To confound the tracking of the money order, the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago kept records of money orders for only six months, which means that it too had no record of this particular money order. At the time the money order would have been processed, 75% of money orders were being sent to Washington, D.C. and the other 25 % were being sent to Kansas City, Missouri. Lester Gohr of the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago provided the FBI with the addresses of both locations. ( CD 7, pg. 193 )

So far, in tracking the money order, this is what we have:

The money order with a stamp for Klein's Sporting Goods for deposit into its account into the First National Bank of Chicago.

No evidence that it was received by the bank.

No evidence that it was received by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

No evidence that it was received by any financial institution in either Kansas City or Washington, D.C.

And yet, this "magic money order" is able to find its way through the Federal Reserve System WITHOUT ANY ENDORSEMENTS from the financial institutions which handled it.

Not surprisingly, this money order without bank stamps becomes part of a deposit which never included it.

 

EVIDENCE THAT THE "$ 21.45" ENTRY ON KLEIN'S BANK STATEMENT WAS NOT THE "HIDELL" MONEY ORDER 

 

The Klein's deposit  & its deposit slip 

Still another problem with the purchasing of the rifle involves the alleged deposit of the "Hidell" money order by Klein's Sporting Goods. Waldman 10 shows that the $13,000 deposit had a deposit slip of 2/15/63. If you look at that exhibit, you'll see that the date at the bottom of the bulk statement is the date "3-13"63". I believe that these two documents represent a deposit which was made on 2/15/63, the bulk list being a bank statement of account action for the period ending 3/13/63.

 

Before the naysayers respond that the deposit slip could have been in an honest mistake, I would like to point out that BOTH the month AND the day are wrong ( if you buy the deposit being made on 3/13/63 ). I could see an error on the month at the beginning of the month, but an error on the MONTH AND DAY in the MIDDLE of a month ?

IMO, it's pretty hard to believe it's an honest mistake.

From the evidence I've seen, the FBI apparently used a 2/15/63 deposit of an American Express Money Order and tried to pass it off as a 3/13/63 deposit of a postal money order.

Let me explain why I believe that.

I believe that we're looking at TWO documents, dated a month apart, for the SAME deposit. the first is the February 15, 1963 deposit slip with a total of $ 13,827.98 in deposits from Klein's sporting goods to be deposited into their account in the First National Bank of Chicago. ( 21 H 706 )

The second ( the bulk statement ) appears to me to be a bank statement, mailed to Klein's ONE MONTH LATER, dated March 13, 1963 and listing all of the checks and money orders deposited on 2/15 and part of that exhibit ( Waldman 10 ) includes one other separate deposit of $ 2,116.91 , date unknown ( below ). If Klein's bank statements were tallied as of the 13th of the month, then a deposit on the 15th of February would not show up until March 13th's statement.

Unfortunately, the date for this second "deposit" is cut off, making it impossible to determine  its exact date.

That is, I believe, why the "deposit" has two different dates. One is for the actual deposit and the other is for the bank statement received by Klein's the following month. If true, then the FBI took a bank deposit for February 15th, 1963 that included TWO items for $ 21.45 and tried to pass one of them off as a deposit of the "Hidell" money order, using the date of the statement as a date of deposit.

Again, my opinion is that they couldn't have used an actual March deposit slip because that one would have included a bank statement dated the middle of April.

It seems to me, looking at the evidence, that Klein's never had a deposit of $ 21.45 in March of 1963 but had 2 in February.

The problem with a February deposit, obviously, was that neither of the deposits could have been a "Hidell" postal money order with a postal stamp of 3/12. So the FBI took the bank statement dated 3/13/63, which was actually for the 2/15 deposit, and claimed that it was all part of a 3/13 deposit.

Again, that's my opinion, based on what I've seen.

Absent the dated stamp of the bank, it was IMPOSSIBLE to say when and IF the money order had been deposited.  It was particularly difficult for Waldman in his testimony to nail down the WHEN.

Mr. WALDMAN. ..... Now, we cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited, but on our deposit of March 13, 1963, we show an item of $21.45, as indicated on the XEROX COPY OF OUR DEPOSIT SLIP marked, or IDENTIFIED by--AS WALDMAN DEPOSITION EXHIBIT No. 10.

Mr. BELIN. And I have just marked as a document what you are reading from, which appears to be a deposit with the First National Bank of Chicago by your company; is that correct?

Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.

Mr. BELIN. And on that deposit, one of the items is $21.45, out of a total deposit that day of $13,827.98; is that correct ?

Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.


( 7 H 367-368 )

We know that the $ 21.45 deposit they are referring to is an American Express Money Order and NOT the "Hidell" postal order because it is described IN DETAIL by Robert Wilmouth, Vice President of the First National Bank of Chicago, Klein's bank. His description is so precise that he described the entries listed before and after the "$ 21.45" in Waldman 10 to their exact penny.

That's pretty credible to me.

Needless to say, Robert Wilmouth never appeared on the FBI's witness list to testify before the Commission and identify the "Hidell" money order as having passed through his bank, either in live testimony or by deposition.

If the deposit was made in February, as I suggest, then the $ 21.45 in Waldman 10's deposit of $ 13.827.98 couldn't possibly be the "Hidell" money order . And there's evidence showing that it wasn't.

In Commission Document 7, pg. 192 ( below ) , Wilmouth told the FBI that there were TWO deposits of $ 21.45 and the one in the $ 13,827.98 deposit ( Waldman 10 ) was an American Express money order, NOT the postal money order sent by "A.Hidell". He said that "the item appeared on a tape between an item of $ 15.08 and an item of $ 14.36, precisely where David Belin put a mark on Waldman 10. 

Wilmouth was specific in his identification of the AmEx money order. He said that it was on a tape between deposits of $ 15.03 and $ 14.36, precisely the deposit that the WC said was the postal money order sent by "A.Hidell".

 

Finding the money order 

HARRY HOLMES TESTIFIED THAT THE MONEY ORDER STUB WAS FOUND AT 12:10 PM ON 11/23/63:

Mr. HOLMES. I didn't have any luck, so along about 11 o'clock in the morning, Saturday, I had my boys call the postal inspector. ( 11 AM )

Mr. HOLMES. ....So I had my postal inspector in charge call our Chicago office and suggested that he get an inspector out to Klein's Sporting Goods and recheck it for accuracy, that if our looking at the right gun in the magazine, they were looking for the wrong money order.

Mr. BELIN. So what happened?

Mr. HOLMES. So in about an hour Postal Inspector McGee of Chicago called back then and said that the correct amount was $21.95---$21.45 excuse me, and that the shipping---they had received this money order on March the 13th, whereas I had been looking for March 20.
( 12 NOON )

So then I passed the information to the men who were looking for this money order stub.... I relayed this information to them and ....within 10 minutes they called back and said they had a money order in that amount.....( 12:10 PM )


( 7 H 294-295 )


BUT ALTHOUGH THEY HAD THE MONEY ORDER NUMBER, THE DATE, & KNEW THE AMOUNT AND RELAYED THAT INFO TO WASHINGTON "IMMEDIATELY" after 12:10pm, IT TOOK AN IBM COMPUTER ANOTHER SEVEN HOURS TO FIND IT


Mr. BELIN. .....Then what did you do?

Mr. HOLMES. I gave that information to my boss by telephone. He called Washington immediately. Of course this information included the money order number. This number was transmitted by phone to the chief inspector in Washington, who immediately got the money order center at Washington to begin a search, which they use IBM equipment to kick out this money order, and about 7 o'clock Saturday night they did kick out the original money order....and it turned out....to be the correct money order.


( 7 H 295-296 )

Using only manual labor and the money order amount as a guide, they found the stub in ten minutes, but it took a computer 7 hours with the number, amount and date info to find the money order ?

There's no way they could have done a computer search for that money order because the money order was never processed.

 

RECEIVING THE RIFLE

 

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 said that "Nobody is permitted to ship, transport, or cause to be shipped or transported, in interstate or foreign commerce, any firearm or ammunition to any person, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is a fugitive or is under indictment for, or was convicted of a crime of violence."

In order to prove that a weapons customer wasn't a fugitive or violent criminal, Texas law REQUIRED that a "certificate of character" be issued by a judge in the county of residence of the purchaser of a firearm. ( University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1950 )

No "certificate of character" exists for the sale of the rifle.

In addition, no clerk in the Dallas Post Office has ever come forward admitting that they handed a long package to Oswald in March of 1963.

In other words, there's no documented evidence or eyewitness account proving that anyone ever took possession in March of 1963 of a rifle that had been received at Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas.

 

OSWALD'S HANDWRITING

 

Two experts gave testimony to the WC concerning questioned documents: Alwyn Cole and James C. Cadigan. Cole apprenticed as a questioned document examiner for 6 years, from 1929 to 1935, and had been an examiner of questioned documents for the U.S. Treasury Department since then. Cadigan had been a questioned document examiner with the FBI for 23.5 years, following a specialized course of training and instruction. Both had testified many times in Federal and States courts. ( WCR, App. X, pg. 566 ) Their conclusions were identical. The mail order and envelope for the C2766 rifle were photographed by Klein's on microfilm, and then destroyed. ( ibid., pg. 569 )

The money order was never microfilmed.

In his testimony, Cadigan was careful to say that CADIGAN 11 had been prepared by LHO and NOT CE 788. The reason he said it that way is because Cadigan never compared the ORIGINAL, CE 788, to Oswald's handwriting. He compared a PHOTOGRAPH of CE 788, which was Cadigan 11. ( 7 H 423 )

Likewise, Cole examined a COPY of the original, which is CE 789, and not the origin, CE 788. ( 4 H 374 )

In fact, ALL of the Commission's handwriting examinations, with regard to the ordering and purchase of the rifle by BOTH Cadigan and Cole, were made of PHOTOGRAPHS of the original exhibits, not the exhibits themselves. In addition, since each handwriting expert was not trained in photographic processing, the photographs they examined were not made by the examiners themselves, but rather "under their supervision".

Meaning someone else.

And because someone else was involved in the "creation" of this evidence, the person or persons responsible for that creation also created a chain of custody of the evidence.

Unfortunately, the chain of custody of those photos was never ESTABLISHED because those "under their supervision" remained unnamed, never marked the photos after they processed them and were never called to testify and identify the photos as the ones they took or to describe the technical processes they used in creating them.

And for that matter, neither Cole nor Cadigan was asked any technical questions about the photos even though they admitted supervising their creation. Instead of photographic technicians, the legitimacy of the photographs were confirmed VISUALLY by the examiners, Cadigan and Cole.

In spite of the lack of a chain of custody, the Commission did what it usually did numerous times in its hearings and accepted ALL of the photographs as evidence and designated them as exhibits.

Both Cole and Cadigan testified that the photographs they examined were clear enough to permit an identification through examination. Their opinions covered both the copies of the standards ( the known handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald ) and the copies of the questioned documents, like the money order.

"Standards" are the known, verifiable handwriting samples that are compared to the disputed handwriting. It is important to remember that, in an examination involving disputed handwriting, the standards will make or break your case. If the examiner has poor standards, this will impact the strength of the opinion.

The standards should be relevant, contemporaneous, in sufficient numbers and, as always, ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.

http://www.forgeryfinder.com/Standr.htm

Many of the standards in the examination of Oswald's handwriting were COPIES.

Signature and other handwriting identification problems examined from photocopies limit the ability of the forensic document examiner to observe evidence such as speed of execution, lifts of the writing instrument, pauses of the writing instrument and other important evidence.

Reproductions from microfilm or microfiche tend to be of LESSER quality than standard photocopies.

http://www.osbornandson.com/examphoto.html

The "Oswald" documents were copies made from microfilm.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations examined the Oswald handwriting using a three member panel consisting of Joseph P. McNally, David J. Purtell, and Charles C. Scott.

The conclusions of the HSCA panel confirm that there are problems with comparing copies with originals.

Scott concluded that while all of the original handwriting purported to be Oswald's was made by the same person, only a "tentative opinion" could be reached as to the reproductions. 

( 8 HSCA 247 )

McNally agreed, saying that while the writing on the envelope and the money order matched, there was a caveat ( condition ) that the writing on the envelope was a photo reproduction from microfilm. ( 4 HSCA 355 )

Earlier he explained why the "qualifying" identification when discussing the panel's examination of Oswald's Cuban visa application. He said that because it was not an original document, it "could not be examined microscopically". ( ibid. )

During his testimony, McNally was forced to admit that copies were never as good as originals for handwriting comparison:

Mr. FAUNTROY. Are photocopies as good as original handwriting for analysis purposes?

Mr. McNALLY. No, never.


( 2 HSCA 393 )

David Purtell said,

"Photocopies have several limitations. They do not reproduce all the fine details in handwriting needed in making an examination and comparison.....Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made."

( 8 HSCA 239 )


BTW, the money order ( Item 29 in 8 HSCA 230 ) which was examined by both McNally and Purtell was described as a XEROX COPY. ( 8 HSCA 234, 239 )

How could an Oswald signature be faked ?

In his examination of the "Dear Mr. Hunt " letter for the HSCA, McNally explained it:

Mr. MCNALLY. ....Oswald's general writing pattern is simple and tends to be rather legible, and to turn out something like that would be not particularly difficult.

( 4 H 360 )

On the next page, he described HOW it could be done.

Mr. McNALLY. ......It could very well be a situation where this thing has been patched together from original writing of Oswald. It can be done using a photo reproduction process.

( 4 HSCA 361 )

Purtell explained further:

"....it is possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies. A method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make one fradulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can pass inspection, it will be used; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate all signs of alteration. This amended copy is then recopied for the finished product. This is usually referred to as the "cut and paste" method."

( 8 HSCA 239 )

In addition, the ease with which an individual can reproduce an original genuine writing from one document onto another document using the photocopier is always a consideration. It is possible to make such a transfer with little or no evidence which would reveal such a fraudulent preparation.

http://www.osbornandson.com/examphoto.html

Finally, we should always keep in mind that a document examiner's conclusion is correctly considered a professional opinion, not evidence.

http://www.forgeryfinder.com/Hand.htm

 

 

EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE IS NOT THE RIFLE IN THE FAMOUS "BACKYARD" PHOTOGRAPHS

 

The Sling Mount

One of the inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the rifle is the obvious difference in the sling mounts between the rifle found one the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and the rifle depicted in the famous "backyard photographs", CE 133-A thru C. As the reader can see, the Depository rifle, CE 139, had side mounts for the sling both front and rear:

 

While the rifle in the backyard photos obviously has a bottom mount for the sling in front.

It appears that the rifle in the BY photos has a front sling mount similar to the one depicted below, but with a "D" ring added.:

 

CE 133-B  also shows the "rope sling" apparently tied to the bottom of the front of the rifle. Had it been tied to a front side sling mount, the knots ( yellow arrows, below ) especially the rear knot, would have been on the "Oswald side" of the rifle and out of the camera's view:

Likewise, CE 133-C also shows the rope tied to the bottom of the rifle at the front ( yellow arrow, below ) and not the side.

Although some may argue that the rear sling mount was attached to the side, whether or not it was is irrelevant because the Depository rifle did not have two different types of sling mounts. What IS relevant is the difference between the front sling mount which is on the bottom in the backyard photos and the front sling mount on the Depository rifle which is on the side.

Lyndal Shaneyfelt, the FBI photography expert testified that he had taken photographs of CE 139 ( the depository rifle ) and compared them to the rifle in CE 133-A ( the "backyard photo" ). He told the Commission:

"...I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration." ( 4 H 281 )

In other words, he couldn't positively identify the Depository rifle as the one in the "backyard photograph".

Big surprise, huh ?

But wait, we're not done yet.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations Photographic experts found that in examining the photos, there were distinctive marks on the rifle in the DeMohrenschildt and CE 134 ( large photo, above ) BY photos that matched the Depository rifle. ( 2 HSCA 428 )

What about the difference in the sling mounts ? 

It was never addressed.

It would seem that IF Oswald ordered a 36" rifle and received a 36" rifle, then the 40" Depository rifle was not his.

You can see more info on the difference in the sling mounts on this video from my youtube channel.

 

EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE WAS NOT FIRED ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963 

 

Normally, an investigator examining a weapon to determine if it has been fired, will look first at the outside of the weapon. A visual examination of the condition of the weapon, including an examination of the condition of the firing pin. Next, he examines the inside of the weapon, checking the inside of the barrel and examining the inside of the operating mechanism, the bolt and its parts.

In his testimony, FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier testified that he observed that the inside of the barrel of the Depository rifle was "roughened from corrosion", then connected the "corrosion" to rust with his comment that "if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust."

So how could the barrel have surface rust after THREE rounds had been fired through it ?

 

The Rusted Barrel

Mr. FRAZIER. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much use the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we first got it, in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion.

( 3 H 394 )

Frazier was then asked to be more specific on the condition of the rifle barrel when he first got it for inspection.

Mr. McCLOY. When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.

Mr. McCLOY. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since IF A BARREL IS ALLOWED TO RUST, ONE ROUND WILL REMOVE THAT RUST and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.

( 3 H 395 )

Frazier KNEW when he visually inspected the rifle that rust in the barrel meant that the rifle had not been fired, because just one round fired through it would have removed all rust.  The fact that he visually saw rust in the barrel made it clear to him that there was no need to conduct a "swab test" to test for metal shavings and fouling in the barrel.

Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?

Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.

( ibid. )

Had Frazier visually examined the barrel and found no rust, it would have been standard procedure to next do the "swab test" to determine if there was no rust because the barrel was clean or because a bullet had passed through it. The "swab test" would have detected any metal shavings from the bullet's jacket and gunpowder residue ( fouling ). A clean swab from a barrel with no rust would have proven the rifle had not been fired, while a swab with residue would have proven that it had.

The ONLY thing that would have prevented Frazier from doing the swab test would have been if his visual inspection had revealed that the inside of the barrel was rusted and thus that no bullet had passed through the barrel in the last 24 hours.

If there is any question as to whether or not the inside of the barrel was susceptible to rust, that question was answered by the Firearms Panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the 1970's. The Panel examined the C2766 rifle before it did any test firing and reported the rifle's condition:

"A visual examination of the rifle revealed pitting, rust and copper oxidation to test-firing, which the panel believed should be removed prior to test-firing. Accordingly, a dry cloth patch was pushed through the bore.

( 7 HSCA 365 )

So the inside of the barrel ( "the bore" ) showed "pitting, rust and copper oxidation" as a result of the rifle having not been fired since the last "test-firing", some 13 years previously. This is what happened to this barrel from non-use --- it rusted. But it wasn't the only part of the rifle which contained rust.

 

The Rusted Bolt

Not only was there rust on the inside of the barrel, rust that should not have been there if the rifle had been fired ONCE ( never mind THREE times ), Ronald Simmons' testimony indicates that the bolt was also rusted:

Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the first round.

( 3 H 447 )

The obvious way of "getting the rust out", is by operating the bolt in a "dry run ". They unloaded the weapon and each shooter "worked" the bolt back and forth in a "practice exercise" for 2-3 minutes BEFORE he began firing. The firing pin was rusted so badly, that they were afraid it might break.

Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing?

Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each?

Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.

(ibid.)

They worked the bolt for a total of 6-9 minutes to free it from its rust. The bolt was so rusted that operating it tended to move the rifle off target. Of course, the more you use the bolt, the freer from it becomes and the faster the elapsed times are for the shooters.

Mr. SIMMONS. .....the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could this experience in operating the bolt be achieved in dry practice, Mr. Simmons?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it could be, if sufficient practice were used. There is some indication of the magnitude of change with one of our shooters who in his second attempt fired three-tenths of a second less time than he did in the first.

( 3 H 449 )

 

The rusted firing pin, & spring

 

Then there was enough rust on the firing pin and its spring for someone to have oiled it:

".....the firing pin of this rifle has been used extensively as shown by wear on the nose or striking portion of the firing pin and, further, THE PRESENCE OF RUST ON THE FIRING PIN AND ITS SPRING....." ( CE 2974 )

CE 2974 states that there was rust on the firing pin of the rifle and "This rust would have been disturbed had the firing pin been changed...". What the FBI was saying is that there was "undisturbed rust" on the firing pin. That rust would have been disturbed if the firing pin had moved in the previous 24 hours. 

So how is there "undisturbed" rust on a firing pin that has been used three times in the last 24 hours ?

This document also states that not only was "the firing pin and spring of this weapon well oiled", the rust "must have formed prior to the oiling of these parts."

Rust could not have formed on the rifle AFTER the assassination. Frazier testified that he examined it on the day after Kennedy was murdered, not enough time for rust to have settled in:

Mr. McCLOY. How soon after the assassination did you examine this rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. We received the rifle the following morning.

Mr. McCLOY. Received it in Washington?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And you immediately made your examination of it then?

Mr. FRAZIER. We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it temporarily in the laboratory.

( 3 H 395 )

 

Frazier testified that when he examined the rifle the FIRST TIME, on the day after the assassination, he found that the inside of the barrel had been "roughened" by corrosion and wear. Then he referenced the effect of what ONE SHOT would have on a rusted barrel. Why would he do this if the "roughened surface" he saw on the inside of the barrel wasn't rust ? What connection could there be between a rusted barrel and the "roughened" barrel of Oswald's rifle other than that the two were both rusted ?

If the inside of the barrel of the Depository rifle was rusted or had rust in it, then NOT A SINGLE ROUND HAD BEEN FIRED FROM IT IN THE PREVIOUS 24 HOURS.

Meaning that it had not been fired. Meaning that it wasn't the murder weapon.

Now you know why the FBI never did a "swab test" of the inside of the barrel to determine if the rifle had been fired. A swab test would have detected copper fouling in the barrel. With a rusted barrel and undisturbed rust on the firing pin, there was no need to check to see if the rifle had been fired recently.

Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.

( ibid. )

Robert Frazier's testimony suggests that the rifle he saw on November 23rd had rust in the barrel. When he saw that there was rust in the barrel and rust on the firing pin and spring, he knew that the rifle had not been fired. So he had no reason to check the barrel for metal fouling.

They knew that this weapon had not been fired, so they sent it back to the Dallas Police.

Ronald Simmons' testimony is even more compelling regarding the issue of rust, this time, with the bolt. Simmons testified that the bolt was so difficult to operate that the shooters had to take 2 or 3 minutes before shooting to work the bolt back and forth in a "dry-run exercise", exactly like one would use to loosen a rusted part.

The ease of operation of the bolt was essential in their attempts to obtain the elapsed time required for one gunman to have performed the killing. There is no way that one gunman, whether it was Oswald or one of the rifle "experts" else, could have fired three shots from that rifle in the required time with the bolt in the condition as Simmons described it.

Oil evaporates. It goes from a thick liquid when first applied, to a thin film. The fact that the pin and spring were "well" oiled indicates that evaporation was not complete, i.e., that the oil had been applied rather recently. The point is, that if oil was added to the rifle AFTER it was rusted, it must have been rusted pretty badly.

It all adds up to this: The condition of the rifle that the Dallas Police sent to the FBI on the night of the assassination was such that it was not capable of performing the assassination of President Kennedy and the wounding of Governor Connally. The FBI knew this and sent it back to the Dallas Police.

 

EVIDENCE THAT THE SCOPE ON THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE WAS NOT MOUNTED BY KLEIN'S

 

As I've already shown above, the ad that the Commission says Hidell/Oswald ordered his rifle from was for the 36 inch length MC that was offered with the scope. The Klein's employee who originated the idea of mounting a scope on the rifle was Mitchell Westra. He told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) that during March 1963, Klein's only mounted the scope on the 36 inch MC.

The man who actually mounted the scopes for Klein's was Bill Sharp, their in-house gunsmith.  He confirmed to the HSCA what Westra told them: the March 1963 package deal with the scope was for the 36 inch MC ONLY.

Confirmation that Klein's did not mount scopes on the 40" rifle came in the testimony of FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier, who told the Warren Commission that when the FBI ordered a duplicate rifle to the Depository rifle from Klein's, they had to tell them where to put the mount for the scope:

Mr. FRAZIER. We contacted the firm, Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and asked them concerning this matter to provide us with a similar rifle mounted in the way in which they normally mount scopes of this type on these rifles, and forward the rifle to us for examination.
In this connection, we did inform them that the scope should be in approximately this position on the frame of the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. When you say "this position," so that the record is clear could you--
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; in the position in which it now is, approximately three-eighths of an inch to the rear of the receiver ring.

( 3 H 396 )

Why would the FBI have to tell Klein's where to mount the scope if Klein's normally mounted scopes on these rifles ?

 

MORE TO COME

 

 


Back