The testimony is part of the narrative and Boone and Weitzman both said they made an assumption
Craig didn’t. And why did the word “Carcano” not cross anyone’s lips publicly until after the alleged Klein’s order was found?
and under the circumstances I reckon Fritz wouldn't have allowed everybody there to make a detailed inspection of the rifle.
Boone and Weitzman sure described a lot of details in their Saturday affidavits.
The rifle found and filmed and photographed leaving the depository and on display @ DPHQ was an Italian Carcano.
As usual, all you’re doing is posting a photo and saying “see, I’m right”.
Ok that may be true but the preponderance of the evidence from go to whoa is central to Oswald and this evidence can be equated to a thick rope made up of hundreds of strands of individual pieces evidence and still in 55 years the integrity of the rope is still strong enough to hang Oswald.
Your “rope” is more like a thread pretending to be a rope.
Eyewitnesses saw Oswald empty his revolver and leave shells at the scene,
Correction: they saw somebody and picked Oswald in unfair and biased lineups.
Also only one witness who came forward that day claimed to see anybody shoot anybody.
these shells were an exclusive match to the revolver that Oswald was arrested with,
Correction: shells claimed to have been found at the scene and handed to police by civilians (two with missing initials) were matched to a gun with no documented chain of custody that Gerald Hill whipped out of his pocket two hours later.
which was the same revolver sent to Oswald's address.
There’s no evidence of any such gun being sent to anyone’s address. Nor is there any evidence of a gun being picked up at the Railroad Express office by Oswald or anybody else. Nor is there any financial trail for the COD payment.
Nicol provided photographic proof that a bullet from Tippit was a perfect match for Oswald's revolver
This is just plain false. Nicol didn’t say anything about anything being a “perfect match”. All Nicol did is compare one bullet given to him by the FBI with another bullet given to him by the FBI. And Cunningham said that it was impossible to make such a determination anyway.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets have been fired in this weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
First of all, Commission Exhibit No. 602 was too mutilated. There were not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the surface of this bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been fired from this weapon.
However, Commission Exhibits 603, 604, and 605 do bear microscopic marks for comparison purposes, but it was not possible from an examination and comparison of these bullets to determine whether or not they had been fired--these bullets themselves--had been fired from one weapon, or whether or not they had been fired from Oswald's revolver.
Further, it was not possible, using .38 Special ammunition, to determine whether or not consecutive test bullets obtained from this revolver had been fired in this weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have an opinion as to why it was impossible to make either type of determination?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; this weapon, using .38 Special bullets, was not producing marks consistent with each other. Each time it was fired, the bullet would seem to pass down the barrel in a different way, which could be due to the slightly undersized bullets in the oversized .38 S&W barrel. It would cause an erratic passage down the barrel, and thereby, cause inconsistent individual characteristic marks to be impressed or scratched into the surface of the bullets.
and so far I haven't seen any refutation of his evidence.
Yes you have — you just ignore it.
