Shells, rifle, SN... Who?

[John Iacoletti]

I didn't say that "they" didn't know what the rifles looked like beforehand. Weitzman had to have known something about a 7.65. Mauser, since he was the source of the ID. As for why he was so specific, I've covered this before, but I guess everyone forgot, or just didn't pay attention.

You "covered" it before with an invented "here's what could have happened" scenario.  Here's what also could have happened:  Boone Weitzman, and Craig described a 7.65 Mauser in detail because what they saw was a 7.65 Mauser.

[John Iacoletti]

At any rate .... Boone based his statement ( affidavit) on Weitzman's pronouncement and NOT an actual visual observation.

Boone's affidavit says nothing about "Weitzman said 7.65 Mauser and I took his word for it".

[Walt Cakebread]

Boone's affidavit says nothing about "Weitzman said 7.65 Mauser and I took his word for it".

Ok , Johnny (and any other numbskull that believes that  the rifle Weitzman and Boone discovered was a Mauser, ) You can continue along in your ignorance while ignoring the blatantly obvious photographic evidence, that the rifle was a Model 91 / 38 Mannlicher Carcano .... Far be it from me, to continue to try to help you extract your head.   

[John Iacoletti]

Go figure that "Walt made up a story" isn't considered sufficient evidence.

[Joffrey van de Wiel]

You mean the two fragments that were allegedly found and removed by a secret service deputy and a navy corpsman before the FBI arrived to process the limo, and for which there is no documented chain of custody? The fragments that were so mutilated that Robert Frazier matched then up by lining up marks “in his mind” because they didn’t line up under the microscope? Those fragments? Is there any evidence that those fragments ever went through Kennedy or Connally?

I am referring to the pieces of evidence labeled Q1 (the stretcher bullet), Q2 and Q3 (the nose and tail of another bullet) by Special Agent Robert A. Frazier of the FBI/BuLAb. According to him, the chain of custody for these items was intact, as he told Counsel Specter during his examination.

One must be careful not to revert to the old "there's-no-proper-chain-of-custody" ploy too often. Q2 and Q3 were recovered by Federal Agents. Q1 was discovered on a stretcher by a civilian, who handed it over to another civilian. After that, the "pristine bullet" was in the possession of Federal Agents and transferred to BuLab. The two civilians are known by name. So the chain if custody is intact, as far as I can tell.

The only odd thing is that the two civilians did not recognize Q1/CE399 when it was shown to them in a later stage. I am sure there is a logical explanation, but haven't been able to find one yet. 

Supposedly the ARRB found an empty evidence envelope that was dated 2 December 1963 and indicating that it was a 7.65 mm shell found in Dealey Plaza.

Yes. A FBI envelope (FBI Field Office Dallas 89-43-1A-122) dated 12/2/1963 was released in 1995 by the Assassinations Record Review Board. It had the following label: "7.65 shell found in Dealey Plaza on 12/02/1963. Determined of no value and destroyed."

This is intriuging as the Mauser supposedly found in the TSBD was of the same caliber. But the Bureau determined that the shell had "no value" and destroyed it. Why? Could it be that it had no relation to the assassination?

That is way overstated.  All NAA tells you is what concentrations of antimony were in the various fragments.

Please look at this video. In it, professor Ken Rahn, University of Rhode Island, Department of Atmospheric Chemistry explains why NAA is valuable in determining the origin of the lead fragments.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?183565-5/warren-report-lone-assassin-theory-part-2

[Jack Trojan]

Ok , Johnny (and any other numbskull that believes the rifle Weitzman and Boone discovered was a Mauser, ) You can continue along in your ignorance while ignoring the blatantly obvious photographic evidence, that the rifle was a Model 91 / 38 Mannlicher Carcano .... Far be it from me, to continue to try to help you extract your head.   

Still an idiot I see. Who is denying that the Alyea film doesn't show a Mauser dumbass? Where is the footage of Fritz handing the rifle to Weitzman, him examining it and declaring it a Mauser, then Fritz taking it from him and asking him to go home?

After submitting his sworn affidavit, Weitzman realized that the Mauser was not the same rifle captured on film and that the 6.5mm hulls did not match the rifle. Ding ding ding! That's the sound inside your head after you extract it from your dumbass. That was the moment that Weitzman KNEW he was dealing with a conspiracy and he had to do some serious backtracking. So it all became a misunderstanding. He must have been thinking about a Mauser that he was holding at some other time, some other day. So of course his story changed as did Craig's story. However, Craig took way more risk as a whistle blower than Weitzman did.

All you seem to know is that you are a self appointed expert who thinks he has positively identified that a Carcano was portrayed on the Alyea film. Even if you are right, you know jack spombleprofglidnoctobuns re the sequence of the filming and whether Alyea was directed to film whatever Fritz allowed him to film or whether Fritz pulled a rifle switcheroo before Alyea filmed anything. Why did Fritz ask Craig and Weitzman to leave before the rifle "discovery" was filmed? You have no fricken idea how it all went down. So stop pretending like you do. No one is 100% certain about anything, especially YOU.

There might not have been a Mauser found on the 6th floor and Weitzman and Craig might have lied and/or been mistaken. But YOU sure as hell don't know that just because you think you can ID the Carcano on the Alyea film. You're worse than the WC defenders. At least they aren't quite as arrogant and insulting when they are FOS. Extract your head, sucker.

[Walt Cakebread]

Still an idiot I see. Who is denying that the Alyea film doesn't show a Mauser dumbass? Where is the footage of Fritz handing the rifle to Weitzman, him examining it and declaring it a Mauser, then Fritz taking it from him and asking him to go home?

After submitting his sworn affidavit, Weitzman realized that the Mauser was not the same rifle captured on film and that the 6.5mm hulls did not match the rifle. Ding ding ding! That's the sound inside your head after you extract it from your dumbass. That was the moment that Weitzman KNEW he was dealing with a conspiracy and he had to do some serious backtracking. So it all became a misunderstanding. He must have been thinking about a Mauser that he was holding at some other time, some other day. So of course his story changed as did Craig's story. However, Craig took way more risk as a whistle blower than Weitzman did.

All you seem to know is that you are a self appointed expert who thinks he has positively identified that a Carcano was portrayed on the Alyea film. Even if you are right, you know jack spombleprofglidnoctobuns re the sequence of the filming and whether Alyea was directed to film whatever Fritz allowed him to film or whether Fritz pulled a rifle switcheroo before Alyea filmed anything. Why did Fritz ask Craig and Weitzman to leave before the rifle "discovery" was filmed? You have no fricken idea how it all went down. So stop pretending like you do. No one is 100% certain about anything, especially YOU.

There might not have been a Mauser found on the 6th floor and Weitzman and Craig might have lied and/or been mistaken. But YOU sure as hell don't know that just because you think you can ID the Carcano on the Alyea film. You're worse than the WC defenders. At least they aren't quite as arrogant and insulting when they are FOS. Extract your head, sucker.

Where is the footage of Fritz handing the rifle to Weitzman, him examining it and declaring it a Mauser, then Fritz taking it from him and asking him to go home?

It exists only in your imagination .....

What bunch of imbeciles!!..... None is so blind as he who will not see......

Are you literate  enough to understand the testimony below?
Mr. WEITZMAN - That is correct, Boone and I, and as he was looking over the rear section of the building, I would say the northwest corner, I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time he was looking on the top side and we saw the gun, I would say, simultaneously and I said, "There it is" and he started hollering, "We got it." It was covered with boxes. It was well protected as far as the naked eye because I would venture to say eight or nine of us stumbled over that gun a couple times before we thoroughly searched the building.
Mr. BALL - Did you touch it?
Mr. WEITZMAN - No, sir; we made a man-tight barricade until the crime lab came up and removed the gun itself.
Mr. BALL - The crime lab from the Dallas Police Department?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Lieutenant Day and Captain Fritz?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I'm not sure what the lieutenant's name was, but I remember Captain Fritz.
Mr. BALL - Did you see Captain Fritz remove anything from the gun?
Mr. WEITZMAN - No, sir; I did not.
Mr. BALL - What did you do after that?
Mr. WEITZMAN - After that, I returned to my office and I was called down to the city that afternoon later to make a statement on what I had seen.

[John Iacoletti]

I am referring to the pieces of evidence labeled Q1 (the stretcher bullet), Q2 and Q3 (the nose and tail of another bullet) by Special Agent Robert A. Frazier of the FBI/BuLAb. According to him, the chain of custody for these items was intact, as he told Counsel Specter during his examination.

Frazier got them from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett.  How they got to Bartlett is not documented in any way by the people who allegedly found them, or Bartlett.

One must be careful not to revert to the old "there's-no-proper-chain-of-custody" ploy too often. Q2 and Q3 were recovered by Federal Agents.

Not true.  One of them was allegedly recovered by a Navy corpsman. What was he doing messing with a crime scene before the FBI arrived?

Q1 was discovered on a stretcher by a civilian, who handed it over to another civilian. After that, the "pristine bullet" was in the possession of Federal Agents and transferred to BuLab. The two civilians are known by name. So the chain if custody is intact, as far as I can tell.

The "another civilian" said that the bullet he handled was pointed.  But I'm not sure what difference it makes whether CE399 was really the bullet that Tomlinson found, since it doesn't in fact prove anything about the assassination.

Yes. A FBI envelope (FBI Field Office Dallas 89-43-1A-122) dated 12/2/1963 was released in 1995 by the Assassinations Record Review Board. It had the following label: "7.65 shell found in Dealey Plaza on 12/02/1963. Determined of no value and destroyed."

This is intriuging as the Mauser supposedly found in the TSBD was of the same caliber. But the Bureau determined that the shell had "no value" and destroyed it. Why? Could it be that it had no relation to the assassination?

Why would the FBI ever destroy evidence found in Dealey Plaza only 10 days after the assassination.  Could it be because it didn't fit with the predetermined narrative?