CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?

[Walt Cakebread]

Pictures not showing the rifle were taken much later, and the position of the box on the floor may have changed, though I agree with Tim that there is enough gap there. The rifle as it rested in the original gap was captured in two in-situ photographs taken just after the rifle's discovery.

Geeze. Weitzman saw the rifle (I don't think he could see the middle position from his angle) looking through the pallet platform openings and beyond. You're misconstrued this to mean the rifle was underneath the pallet.

Mr. BALL - I have three pictures here which I have marked, respectively, D, E, F. I show you D first. Does that look anything like the location where you found the gun?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; this is taken the opposite side the flat I was looking under.
Mr. BALL - Looking from the top side of this picture?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Well, I would be looking over--Boone was looking the top side; I was looking under the flat.

[Walt Cakebread]

Pictures not showing the rifle were taken much later, and the position of the box on the floor may have changed, though I agree with Tim that there is enough gap there. The rifle as it rested in the original gap was captured in two in-situ photographs taken just after the rifle's discovery.

Geeze. Weitzman saw the rifle (I don't think he could see the middle position from his angle) looking through the pallet platform openings and beyond. You're misconstrued this to mean the rifle was underneath the pallet.

You've completely ignored the fact that Studebaker measured the distance from the north wall to the rifle at 15' 4".....The narrow crack is only 13 feet from the north wall.

[Jack Trojan]

Is there a single case where an identifiable print was lifted off a trigger and used in court to convict?

Probably not, but the fact that there was a smeared print on the trigger meant that Oswald did not wear gloves. In which case, where are all the other prints?

He didn't count them but Day saw several unusable prints on the rifle. The wooden stock itself was absorbent and not good at retaining prints.

Sure he did. Where's the report? And I don't mean a transcript of his bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns.

I doubt the validity of Tom Alyea's Fritz story.

Of course you do.

"More believable ejection pattern"? Did Fritz have a book with him on "Hull Ejection Patterns"?

It doesn't take a genius to look at 3 hulls within a 1 foot radius and realize there is a problem with that.

There was no Mauser.

Sure there wasn't. Where did Craig get the 7.65 number from? His ass?

The BY photos have been authenticated. You're gullible.

LOL. Authenticated by whom, you? Besides, I was talking about the inexplicable backyard photo re-enactments by the DPD and the cutout superimposition of CE 399c. WTF was that for? (rhetorical) And how many photos did Marina take anyway? And what was Roscoe White doing with undocumented CE 399c? And I'm gullible? 

[Jerry Freeman]

Maybe that's your problem. You're blind.

You apparently have more than one. 

[Mitch Todd]

Sure there wasn't. Where did Craig get the 7.65 number from? His ass?

Probably Weitzman. But Craig's testimony on the matter doesn't inspire confidence.

On 11/22/63, he swore out an affidavit and was interviewed by the FBI. Didn't mention the rifle.

In 1968, he and Penn Jones were interviewed by the LA Free Press. He told the LAFP that he saw the rifle when it was discovered, but "couldn't give its name because I don't know
foreign rifles." He did claim that a Mauser was found, but said it was a second rifle that was found on the roof. He attributed this knowledge not to his own firsthand experience, but to a reporter who was supposedly told by someone within the DPD.

One year later in his Shaw trial testimony, he said nothing about seeing "7.65 Mauser" or "Mauser 7.65" on the rifle.

In his 1971 screed "When They Kill a President," Craig says that Weitzman identified the rifle, but nothing about seeing "Mauser 7.65" on it.

It's not until 1973 that be begins to claim that he saw "Mauser 7.65" on the weapon, but that story is hard to believe given his previous years of silence on the matter. It's even harder to believe it when you realize that the '73 version of the story is directly contradicted by what he told the LA Free Press in '68.

[John Iacoletti]

Six minutes on his first try using a dime. You call that difficult?

Wouldn’t you say that something that takes 6 minutes is more difficult than something that takes 2 minutes?

[Bill Chapman]

If there were any smeared prints, especially on the trigger, then Oswald did not wear gloves.

Are those the same 'others' that Drumpf 'hears' things from?

How many smeared 'unusable' prints were found on the rifle and how could they tell them apart from the many bumbling Keystone Kops that manhandled ALL the evidence with their bare hands? Fritz actually saw the 3 hulls in a tight group near the window in the sniper's nest and picked them up with his bare hands, placed them in his pocket then later tossed them back onto the floor for a staged in situ photo of the crime scene in a more believable ejection pattern.

The DPD handled all the evidence this way for the Crime of the Century, no less. Do you think they were ever this incompetent even for a common burglary? Were they nervous because this was the most important case of their lives? Or was it because they were worried about screwing up their roles in the Big Event, like finding the Mauser or mishandling the evidence or a rush to judgement or with inexplicable backyard photo re-enactments or letting Ruby gut shoot Oswald, etc.?

By 'others' I mean the investigators

[Walt Cakebread]

The wooden stock was absorbent. Prints on the metal trigger-guard housing were noticed and professionally photographed by Day.

Is that a term for when he claims something he wasn't told and didn't read on the rifle?

   Mr. BALL - In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon,
                     you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?
   Mr. WEITZMAN - In a glance, that's what it looked like.
   Mr. BALL - That's what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that?
   Mr. WEITZMAN - No; I said that. I thought it was one.


CE 399c?

The wooden stock was absorbent.

This simply isn't true....The wooden stocks of the carcanos were oil finished ( so they wouldn't absorb moisture) 

Prints on the metal trigger-guard housing were noticed and professionally photographed by Day.

 PARTIAL  Prints on the metal trigger-guard housing were noticed and professionally photographed by Day.

The fact that the unidentifiable partial prints were found up near the stock  attests to the fact that the rifle was hastily wiped to destroy any finger prints on the rifle.
( the area is a recess and somewhat protected by the nearby stock)

And this hasty wiping indicates that it was NOT Lee Oswald who wiped the rifle.....  Only an idiot would argue that Lee Oswald would have wiped down the unusual and easily traceable rifle that was owned by Lee Oswald.    It wouldn't make any sense ..... finger prints or no fingerprints the rifle could easily be traced to Lee.

However...The person who had stolen the rifle and planted it, to incriminate Lee Oswald most certainly would have wanted to be sure that they had not left their prints on the rifle.