??
They were in the room with the rifle.
I am unaware that those who made the initial claim about a Mauser had examined the rifle properly.
whether one asserts the rifle was a carcano or mauser or that both types were found i feel that weitzmans testimony in relation to the rifle is contradictory . and i am not the only one who feels this .he starts by telling that he MERELY GLANCED at the rifle . this is the rifle that that has just killed the president , and he a man familiar with weapons and who i believe ran a sporting goods store has barely a passing interest in the rifle ? barely glancing at it ? . my own opinion for what it may be worth is NO . later in his testimony he described the rifle even down to the texture of the wood in a manner in which i say contradicts his original glance testimony . and we know for several days he maintained that it was a mauser . didnt this guy look at the news , listen to the radio , read a paper that tragic weekend ? .
the following is an excerpt from an online article .
"Seymour Weitzman testified before the WC on April 1, 1964. Far from clearing up doubts over the true identity of the rifle he found his testimony served only to raise suspicions:
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.
Mr. Ball: Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. Weitzman: Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile.
On the surface Weitzman's claim that he had only glanced at the rifle seems a fair enough explanation of how the misidentification occurred but later in his testimony he was able to describe that rifle in far greater detail than he could possibly have done if he had only seen it "at a glance".
Mr. Ball: I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.
Mr. Weitzman: I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?
Mr. Ball: Mauser bolt action.
Mr. Weitzman: And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance.
Mr. Ball: You also said it was a gunmetal color?
Mr. Weitzman: Yes.
Mr. Ball: Gray or blue?
Mr. Weitzman: Blue metal.
Mr. Ball: And the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn, is that worn?
Mr. Weitzman: That's right.
Mr. Ball: And the wooden portion of the rifle was what color?
Mr. Weitzman: It was a brown, or I would say not a mahogany brown but dark oak brown.
Mr. Ball: Rough wood, was it?
Mr. Weitzman: Yes, sir; rough wood.
Mr. Ball: And it was equipped with a scope?
Mr. Weitzman: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: Was it of Japanese manufacture?
Mr. Weitzman: I believe it was a 2.5 Weaver at the time I looked at it. I didn't look that close at it; it just looked like a 2.5 but it turned out to be a Japanese scope, I believe.
This segment of testimony seriously compromises Seymour Weitzman. I have had the benefit of inspecting a Mannlicher Carcano M91/38 carbine fitted with the same model of Ordinance Optics scope as C2766. This scope bears the following information in highly readable white print against the black cylinder of the scope:
4 x 18 coated
Ordinance Optics Inc
Hollywood, California
010 Japan. OSC
I do not believe for one minute that Seymour Weitzman could have gleaned the information he did about the colour, texture and degree of wear and tear on specific components of C2766 "at a glance" or that he could remember these in such detail 5 months later. Nor do I believe that having been able to glean so much detail about the appearance and condition of C2766 he could have failed to read the information on the scope and confuse this Japanese instrument with a Weaver. "
the article has no name for the author that i can see , but according to the site was published online by bill mcdowal with permission of the author .
if he could see the wood was rough , that part of the bolt was worn in my mind he could see MADE IN ITALY stamped right on it quite near the bolt .and even a novice (which weitzman was not ) seeing made in italy stamped on a weapon could never mistake it for a mauser .
all that said as it stands i know of no proof that a mauser was found in the depository . but in this case it is extremely difficult to trust evidence . we have two different times given for a bullet (supposedly ce399) being handed to frazier . we have two witnesses to the bullet found at parkland wright and pool saying the bullet they saw was POINTED TIPPED . ce399 is anything but pointed . wright was ex DPD and both he and pool were familiar with weapons and ammo . how do we explain such things ? . could they both have made a mistake ? the same mistake ? . to be human is to err , humans make mistakes but not all the time . so its not impossible they both made the SAME mistake and thought the bullet was POINTED . but if they made no error then that can only mean the pointed bullet was disappeared and replaced with the bullet in evidence .can i prove that ? no but something smells . if they can make a pointed bullet disappear why not a mauser ? . and we must add in the information for what it may be worth that a 7.65 shell was found in or around dealey . placed in an evidence envelope . later in the archives that envelope was found but empty . it read 7.65 shell found in dealey plaza , destroyed .
