Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Prayer Man Vs Sasquatch
Today at 11:55 am by Jake Sykes

» Shirley Temple is Prayer Man According to Duncan McRae
Today at 6:48 am by Sharon Horizons

» ROKC Lampoon
Yesterday at 9:08 am by greg parker

» The Bold and the Italics
Yesterday at 9:06 am by greg parker

» The Eighth Naval District
Thu 08 Dec 2016, 11:33 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» Send Lawyers Guns & Money Pt2
Thu 08 Dec 2016, 8:08 pm by barto

» Send Lawyers Guns & Money Pt1
Thu 08 Dec 2016, 11:58 am by barto

» JFK Assassination
Thu 08 Dec 2016, 7:15 am by jack ferguson

» Lifton on his "new evidence"
Thu 08 Dec 2016, 4:47 am by steely dan

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Furl  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Affiliates
free forum
 



physical evidence: the chicken bones

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Guest on Tue 04 Mar 2014, 7:45 am

Tom Alyea says there were no chicken bones on the 6th floor.

Anywhere.

He says:

There were no chicken bones found on the 6th floor. We covered every inch of it and I filmed everything that could possibly be suspected as evidence. There definitely were no chicken bones were no chicken bones on or near the barricade or boxes at the window. I shot close-up shots of the entire area.

jfk-online dot com / alyea.html

Jarman and them claimed they ate their lunches on the 5th floor, yes? So why would there be chicken bones on the 6th floor, unless they were Oswald's lunch?

Roger Craig says there was a "small paper bag" containing chicken bones, on one of the boxes. However my best read of the timeline says he got there after Alyea.

Craig also claims the rifle that was found had the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel.

What kind of credibility level do we assign to Roger Craig's testimony? Was there a bag of chicken bones on the box in the sniper's nest? And if so, who put it there, or how did it get there?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Stan Dane on Tue 04 Mar 2014, 9:41 am

nonsqtr wrote:What kind of credibility level do we assign to Roger Craig's testimony? Was there a bag of chicken bones on the box in the sniper's nest? And if so, who put it there, or how did it get there?
To Greg:
 
I'd be interested in how you would rate the credibility of all of key witnesses and other providers-of-testimony relative to the JFK assassination. This could be kind of like an Amazon rating: 5 stars - excellent, 1 star - liar/wacko. You could explain why. It would help non-researcher types like me take full advantage of your experience by focusing on the more important people. It might be interesting to see what all of the 4 & 5 star witnesses had to say.
 
Just a thought.

Stan Dane

Posts : 2331
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Robert Charles-Dunne on Tue 04 Mar 2014, 11:23 am

nonsqtr wrote:Tom Alyea says there were no chicken bones on the 6th floor.

Anywhere.

He says:

There were no chicken bones found on the 6th floor. We covered every inch of it and I filmed everything that could possibly be suspected as evidence. There definitely were no chicken bones were no chicken bones on or near the barricade or boxes at the window. I shot close-up shots of the entire area.

jfk-online dot com / alyea.html

Jarman and them claimed they ate their lunches on the 5th floor, yes? So why would there be chicken bones on the 6th floor, unless they were Oswald's lunch?

Since Oswald didn’t eat lunch on the 6th floor, that day or any other, it is unlikely to have been his.

Moreover, the Dr. Pepper bottle purportedly found in situ nearby the half-eaten chicken bone(s) likely bore fingerprints.  Had they been Oswald’s prints, would that fact not have been introduced as damning evidence against Oswald by DPD or the DA?  Since no such statements were made, it is realistic to assume the prints were not Oswald’s.  (And the Dr. Pepper bottle may have been unrelated to the lunch, as it was found nearby but not close to the chicken bone(s).)


Roger Craig says there was a "small paper bag" containing chicken bones, on one of the boxes. However my best read of the timeline says he got there after Alyea.

Craig was not alone in this.  Similar observations were made by Messrs. Mooney, Brewer, Hill, Haygood, Montgomery, and perhaps others.  Craig's not the outlier here; Alyea is.

I think it safe to say there was something there, whether or not Alyea filmed it or remembered correctly.  It included a small paper sack, which might also have revealed fingerprints.  What is the likelihood that DPD didn’t dust either the bottle or the paper bag for prints?


Craig also claims the rifle that was found had the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel.

Seymour Weitzman, who found the rifle and whose background made him particularly knowledgeable about firearms, also referred to it as a Mauser.  As did Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone.  It was also handled personally by Fritz and Day, neither of whom corrected supposedly erroneous reports of a Mauser that were continually fed by Dallas authorities to the media.  The Mauser did not morph into a Mannlicher-Carcano in Dallas press briefings until the following day.  Irrespective of what was stamped on the weapon, it was uniformly identified as a German Mauser by all who were on the scene when it was discovered.

What kind of credibility level do we assign to Roger Craig's testimony? Was there a bag of chicken bones on the box in the sniper's nest? And if so, who put it there, or how did it get there?

Chicken bones are not the measure of Craig’s credibility.  When Jesse Curry told reporters that Oswald had fled the scene in a car driven by a “Negro,” it was based upon Craig’s recitation of events.  If Fritz, who later disowned Craig when it suited him, hadn’t thought Craig’s veracity was reliable, why did this information make its way to the Chief, and why did he think it was genuine enough to relay to the media? 

And why should Craig’s word have been open to doubt among his peers and superiors?  Deputy Sheriff Of The Year?  Speaks for itself.

That Craig became problematic is undeniable.  The fleeing man in the station wagon driven by a “Negro” or darkly complected man is of interest, even if it wasn’t Oswald.  Perhaps even more so, if it wasn’t Oswald.  But it apparently did look like Oswald, as witness Mrs. James Forrest insisted: “If it wasn’t Oswald, it was his identical twin.” 

Similarly, there can be little doubt that the Nash Rambler station wagon was present where and when Craig said it had been.  Witnesses Walther, Worrell, Carr, Robinson, and Forrest gave statements that dovetail sufficiently to validate Craig’s observations.

Craig stated he’d initially given his story in Dealey Plaza to a man claiming to be Secret Service.  Other witnesses, including DPD personnel, reported likewise.

Based on looking at his watch when the news hit about Tippit’s shooting, Craig swore the murder occurred before 1:06.  This timing was congruent with actual witnesses, all of whom placed the time well before the 1:15-plus conjured by the Commission despite the witness evidence, rather than because of it.  Craig would have had no way of knowing this fact had his story been false.

Despite all the heretical things Craig said, confirmation and corroboration was offered by multiple witnesses in almost every instance. 

But once conspiracy had been definitively ruled out of the equation by executive fiat, within a day or less, Craig’s insistence on having seen things - inimical to a lone gunman scenario - required that he be shunned. 

Feel free to judge Craig’s credibility in whatever way you wish.

Robert Charles-Dunne

Posts : 107
Join date : 2011-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Goban Saor on Tue 04 Mar 2014, 12:01 pm

Great post, RCD.

As for Roger Craig's credibility, the word 'martyr' comes from the Greek word for witness. Roger Craig was a brave and true martyr in my view.

Goban Saor

Posts : 170
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by greg parker on Tue 04 Mar 2014, 2:31 pm

Stan Dane wrote:
nonsqtr wrote:What kind of credibility level do we assign to Roger Craig's testimony? Was there a bag of chicken bones on the box in the sniper's nest? And if so, who put it there, or how did it get there?
To Greg:
 
I'd be interested in how you would rate the credibility of all of key witnesses and other providers-of-testimony relative to the JFK assassination. This could be kind of like an Amazon rating: 5 stars - excellent, 1 star - liar/wacko. You could explain why. It would help non-researcher types like me take full advantage of your experience by focusing on the more important people. It might be interesting to see what all of the 4 & 5 star witnesses had to say.
 
Just a thought.
Stan, thanks. I'll put it on the "to-do" list. If nothing else, it should get some debate going about the real value of various witnesses. I haven't forgotten either, about formulating some sort of statement on what the forum stands for and the areas of consensus. And of course, there's the latest batch of "Stan Dane Page fodder" to get to Exclamation

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3451
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Guest on Wed 05 Mar 2014, 9:55 am

nonsqtr,

If you use the search engine in the top right-hand portion of the web page, and type in "williams", you'll arrive at "Norman's HSCA interview: Williams did not go to the 6th floor", which thoroughly explores the chicken-bones question. 

The impression I have of Craig saying he saw, stamped right on the barrel, "7.65 Mauser" is that he was lying on purpose, sending a message to researchers who might someday watch his video. Several researchers have scoured the Mauser manufacturers and their numerous models for a telltale stamp and come up empty-handed- Mauser, except for one or two obscure rifle models, didn't stamp their rifles. 

So apparently since Craig was under a threat his pursuers would back off if he told something outrageous. I garnered this impression from reading "The Gun That Didn't Smoke", a long on-line essay. This piece of writing takes several days to wade through and absorb, but is time well spent. Because the reader comes to understand that the reason the DPD stuck with a Mauser story for the first day was they were unfamiliar with the M-C they had found- whether or not it ejected its ammunition clip when the last round was chambered. They didn't know at the time that the M-C ejects its ammo clip once the last round is chambered.

No clip was seen in the film of the rifle discovery on the 6th floor, but a clip suddenly appeared prominently when Lt. Carl Day, head of the Crime Lab, walked out with the M-C down the front steps. The clip  is the "smoking gun" to the rifle-evidence fraud. Where did it come from? There was no clip ever acknowledged as found during the 6th-floor search. The likelihood is that Lt. Day arrived at the 6th floor with a spare clip in his suitcoat (which he took off after disembarking from the elevator).

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by AllenLowe on Wed 05 Mar 2014, 11:38 pm

to me Craig's credibility is enhanced by the experience of the gentleman who wrote the book about the women on the stairs (can't get to the title right now, you know which one I mean); he was with Craig when they were stopped and clearly harrassed by the local cops, which is not something that would have happened if Craig was merely paranoid and deluded, and which was part of his post-testmonial experience of being followed and threatened.

AllenLowe

Posts : 67
Join date : 2011-12-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by ianlloyd on Thu 06 Mar 2014, 2:59 am

Barry Ernest - "The Girl On The Stairs" (or something like that)?

ianlloyd

Posts : 151
Join date : 2010-03-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by AllenLowe on Thu 06 Mar 2014, 3:07 am

yes, I think so; he tells of being with Craig and of being stopped by the cops in a threatening manner.

AllenLowe

Posts : 67
Join date : 2011-12-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Guest on Thu 06 Mar 2014, 1:13 pm

Richard Gilbride wrote:nonsqtr,

If you use the search engine in the top right-hand portion of the web page, and type in "williams", you'll arrive at "Norman's HSCA interview: Williams did not go to the 6th floor", which thoroughly explores the chicken-bones question. 

The impression I have of Craig saying he saw, stamped right on the barrel, "7.65 Mauser" is that he was lying on purpose, sending a message to researchers who might someday watch his video. Several researchers have scoured the Mauser manufacturers and their numerous models for a telltale stamp and come up empty-handed- Mauser, except for one or two obscure rifle models, didn't stamp their rifles. 

So apparently since Craig was under a threat his pursuers would back off if he told something outrageous. I garnered this impression from reading "The Gun That Didn't Smoke", a long on-line essay. This piece of writing takes several days to wade through and absorb, but is time well spent. Because the reader comes to understand that the reason the DPD stuck with a Mauser story for the first day was they were unfamiliar with the M-C they had found- whether or not it ejected its ammunition clip when the last round was chambered. They didn't know at the time that the M-C ejects its ammo clip once the last round is chambered.

No clip was seen in the film of the rifle discovery on the 6th floor, but a clip suddenly appeared prominently when Lt. Carl Day, head of the Crime Lab, walked out with the M-C down the front steps. The clip  is the "smoking gun" to the rifle-evidence fraud. Where did it come from? There was no clip ever acknowledged as found during the 6th-floor search. The likelihood is that Lt. Day arrived at the 6th floor with a spare clip in his suitcoat (which he took off after disembarking from the elevator).

Thank you Richard! As a noob I appreciate your patience. Smile The search box is a great tool, I'm going to learn to use it.

Alyea's account differs from others in several ways. In some ways I have to assign him credibility simply because he was the first (only) non-aligned cameraman on the scene.

According to Alyea, JC Day as he began dusting the weapon for prints said "it's Made in Italy" and pointed to the stamp on the barrel.

This couldn't have been more than few seconds after JC Day lifted the weapon, could it? In the Alyea film it clearly shows the sequence of events.

Now, if Day was corrupt as you're suggesting, that's a whole different story. I tend to favor peoples' "early" testimony as much as possible (before they were bought off or told to back off). Do we have any reason to disbelieve Alyea's story? I see some... um... "embellishments" (I think that's the right word) as time goes on, but overall the story's been pretty consistent, it hasn't changed much. What do you think?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Guest on Thu 06 Mar 2014, 1:27 pm

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:
nonsqtr wrote:
Craig also claims the rifle that was found had the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel.

Seymour Weitzman, who found the rifle and whose background made him particularly knowledgeable about firearms, also referred to it as a Mauser.  As did Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone.  It was also handled personally by Fritz and Day, neither of whom corrected supposedly erroneous reports of a Mauser that were continually fed by Dallas authorities to the media.  The Mauser did not morph into a Mannlicher-Carcano in Dallas press briefings until the following day.  Irrespective of what was stamped on the weapon, it was uniformly identified as a German Mauser by all who were on the scene when it was discovered.


Hi Robert - Weitzman discovered the rifle? As a noob, forgive me if I ask a really dumb question: who came up with that story? Can we prove that, or is it just hearsay? Isn't it alleged that Deputy Sheriff Boone found the rifle? Alyea talks about that in his interview for Connie Kritzberg's book:

Nothing in the way of evidence was found so we retraced our search back down, floor by floor. Shortly after we arrived back on the 6th floor, Deputy Eugene Boone located the assassin's rifle almost completely hidden by some overhanging boxes near the stairwell. I filmed it as it was found. In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing within the enclosure next to the rifle.

http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by ianlloyd on Thu 06 Mar 2014, 7:27 pm

It's a funny old story about finding the rifle, some say Weitzman, some say Boone, then there's a document in the records that IDs a Paul Wilson, IIRC, as finding it. I spoke with Ian Griggs some years ago when I first came across this and he told me that he has spoken to Wilson and has got to be quite friendly with him, and Wilson has confirmed as such to Griggs. I asked Ian to ask Wilson a few more questions on my behalf, which he did.

ianlloyd

Posts : 151
Join date : 2010-03-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Albert Rossi on Fri 07 Mar 2014, 12:40 am

The question of who found "the" rifle assumes, of course, that only one rifle was "found."

Albert Rossi

Posts : 417
Join date : 2013-08-29
Age : 61
Location : Naperville, IL USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by ianlloyd on Fri 07 Mar 2014, 2:32 am

True...

What was the first rifle description put out - 0.303 Enfield, Mauser, etc.?

ianlloyd

Posts : 151
Join date : 2010-03-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Robert Charles-Dunne on Fri 07 Mar 2014, 3:31 am

nonsqtr wrote:Hi Robert - Weitzman discovered the rifle? As a noob, forgive me if I ask a really dumb question: who came up with that story? Can we prove that, or is it just hearsay? Isn't it alleged that Deputy Sheriff Boone found the rifle? Alyea talks about that in his interview for Connie Kritzberg's book:

Nothing in the way of evidence was found so we retraced our search back down, floor by floor. Shortly after we arrived back on the 6th floor, Deputy Eugene Boone located the assassin's rifle almost completely hidden by some overhanging boxes near the stairwell. I filmed it as it was found. In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing within the enclosure next to the rifle.

http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html

Weitzman and Boone were together when they found the rifle.  This clip includes Weitzman’s recitation of events, as well as his apology for having misidentified the weapon in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4l9Sczs9aI

This is also reflected in their respective affidavits of 11/23/63:

Weitzman:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=144427

Boone:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=141275

When it became apparent that the rifle had been (mis-?)identified, someone had to take the fall for the error, and Weitzman became that fall guy.

However, it seems that Weitzman may not have been the one.

Eugene Boone’s testimony:

Mr. Ball.
    There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?
Mr. Boone.
    Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was 7.65 Mauser.
Mr. Ball.
    Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?
Mr. Boone.
    I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it.
    We were just discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php

When he was on the Commission hot seat, Fritz was not about to let that honour fall to him:

Mr. Fritz.
    I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or not.
Mr. Ball.
    Did you think it was a Mauser?
Mr. Fritz.
    No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was.
Mr. Ball.
    Well, did you ever make any---did you ever say that it was a 7.65 Mauser?
Mr. Fritz.
    No, sir; I am sure I did not.
Mr. Ball.
    Or did you think it was such a thing?
Mr. Fritz.
    No, sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges.
Mr. Ball.
    Did you initial the rifle?
Mr. Fritz.
    The rifle; no, sir

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php

If Fritz’s certainty about the caliber is correct, then the rifle found was a 7.65 bore, for that is the caliber reflected in all the pertinent affidavits.

But then again, Fritz testimony zigzagged all over the map.  Did he ever say it was a Mauser?  “I am sure I did not.”  Did he ever think such a thing?  “No, sir; I did not.  (But) If I did....” 

It is unfortunate that Fritz did not initial the rifle.  Because the discrepancies between the rifle purportedly held by Oswald in the backyard photos and the rifle he purportedly owned indicate two different weapons.


Robert Charles-Dunne

Posts : 107
Join date : 2011-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Guest on Fri 07 Mar 2014, 3:39 am

The first description of the rifle was broadcast by Fort Worth's WBAP at 1:37 PM: "Crime Lieutenant J.C. Day just came out of that building. Reported British .303 rifle with telescopic lens."

I would assume that the WBAP reporter, who didn't know an Enfield from a Mauser from a Mannlicher-Carcano from an M-1 Garand, when he saw Lt. Day walking out of the building holding the rifle asked him something along the lines of "What make of rifle was used in the assassination?"

And Lt. Day, who had just been up on the 6th floor inspecting the tool-stamp with a magnifying glass, the tool-stamp which read "Made in Italy", answered "A British 30-odd-3."

Day may well have been answering truthfully. He wasn't about to explain to the reporter that the rifle he was carrying wasn't the one used in the assassination. 

Besides, I think he had a hard time cramming the ammunition clip into the Carcano in from the bottom. It's designed to feed in from the top. The clip sticks out quite a bit on the street, as much as two inches. But when Day was filmed back at DPD HQ, the clip fit in snugly, barely sticking out a quarter-inch.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Stan Dane on Fri 07 Mar 2014, 6:01 am

Richard Gilbride wrote:The first description of the rifle was broadcast by Fort Worth's WBAP at 1:37 PM: "Crime Lieutenant J.C. Day just came out of that building. Reported British .303 rifle with telescopic lens."

I would assume that the WBAP reporter, who didn't know an Enfield from a Mauser from a Mannlicher-Carcano from an M-1 Garand, when he saw Lt. Day walking out of the building holding the rifle asked him something along the lines of "What make of rifle was used in the assassination?"

And Lt. Day, who had just been up on the 6th floor inspecting the tool-stamp with a magnifying glass, the tool-stamp which read "Made in Italy", answered "A British 30-odd-3."

Day may well have been answering truthfully. He wasn't about to explain to the reporter that the rifle he was carrying wasn't the one used in the assassination. 

Besides, I think he had a hard time cramming the ammunition clip into the Carcano in from the bottom. It's designed to feed in from the top. The clip sticks out quite a bit on the street, as much as two inches. But when Day was filmed back at DPD HQ, the clip fit in snugly, barely sticking out a quarter-inch.
So let me get this straight.
 
The Carcano was discovered without a clip as the Alyea footage suggests, correct? So if the Carcano was discovered without a clip, where was the clip discovered? (Help me Obi Wan Kanobi.) Assuming the clip was discovered somewhere on the Sixth Floor (which includes Lt. Day's pocket) but no fine, upstanding public servant remembered to mention it, then why stick the empty clip back in the carbine? Why not just put it in a bag (or back in Lt. Day's pocket) with all the other evidence? Putting an empty clip back in the Carcano would be like chambering a spent cartridge. You could do it, but why?
 
Perhaps several rifles (e.g., M-1, British .303) were fired from the TSBD that day, then left behind and discovered. When the Carcano was selected as the "right one" (maybe even the "right" Carcano), all evidence related to the others vanished.
 
Piss poor police work really leads to much speculation doesn't it?

Stan Dane

Posts : 2331
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Guest on Fri 07 Mar 2014, 8:56 am

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:
nonsqtr wrote:Hi Robert - Weitzman discovered the rifle? As a noob, forgive me if I ask a really dumb question: who came up with that story? Can we prove that, or is it just hearsay? Isn't it alleged that Deputy Sheriff Boone found the rifle? Alyea talks about that in his interview for Connie Kritzberg's book:

Nothing in the way of evidence was found so we retraced our search back down, floor by floor. Shortly after we arrived back on the 6th floor, Deputy Eugene Boone located the assassin's rifle almost completely hidden by some overhanging boxes near the stairwell. I filmed it as it was found. In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing within the enclosure next to the rifle.

http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html

Weitzman and Boone were together when they found the rifle.  This clip includes Weitzman’s recitation of events, as well as his apology for having misidentified the weapon in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4l9Sczs9aI

This is also reflected in their respective affidavits of 11/23/63:

Weitzman:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=144427

Boone:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=141275

When it became apparent that the rifle had been (mis-?)identified, someone had to take the fall for the error, and Weitzman became that fall guy.

However, it seems that Weitzman may not have been the one.

Eugene Boone’s testimony:

Mr. Ball.
    There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?
Mr. Boone.
    Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was 7.65 Mauser.
Mr. Ball.
    Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?
Mr. Boone.
    I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it.
    We were just discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php

When he was on the Commission hot seat, Fritz was not about to let that honour fall to him:

Mr. Fritz.
    I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or not.
Mr. Ball.
    Did you think it was a Mauser?
Mr. Fritz.
    No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was.
Mr. Ball.
    Well, did you ever make any---did you ever say that it was a 7.65 Mauser?
Mr. Fritz.
    No, sir; I am sure I did not.
Mr. Ball.
    Or did you think it was such a thing?
Mr. Fritz.
    No, sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges.
Mr. Ball.
    Did you initial the rifle?
Mr. Fritz.
    The rifle; no, sir

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php

If Fritz’s certainty about the caliber is correct, then the rifle found was a 7.65 bore, for that is the caliber reflected in all the pertinent affidavits.

But then again, Fritz testimony zigzagged all over the map.  Did he ever say it was a Mauser?  “I am sure I did not.”  Did he ever think such a thing?  “No, sir; I did not.  (But) If I did....” 

It is unfortunate that Fritz did not initial the rifle.  Because the discrepancies between the rifle purportedly held by Oswald in the backyard photos and the rifle he purportedly owned indicate two different weapons.


Thanks Robert!

In my view, Captain Fritz is somehow corrupt or compromised. There are several reasons I say that, not the least of which is that wallet, which apparently sat in his desk till the 27th. He's either corrupt or compromised, or he's horribly incompetent, or both. I'm not sure which yet, but it would seem to be one or the other or both, based on what I've read so far. Fritz's treatment of the physical evidence was absolutely atrocious, it's almost as if he destroyed it deliberately.

That being said, I'm inclined to believe this is what happened - someone looked at it while it was still between the boxes, and said "hey, that looks like a Mauser", and then others jumped from there to "it is a Mauser". I can understand that leap of logic at a crime scene, things get busy and fast-paced and if the Captain says it's a Mauser then it's a Mauser, and the crime lab will figure out the rest. Fritz probably just "forgot" he said anything, that's most likely IMO. That's where "Mauser" came from.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Guest on Fri 07 Mar 2014, 9:01 am

Stan Dane wrote:
Richard Gilbride wrote:The first description of the rifle was broadcast by Fort Worth's WBAP at 1:37 PM: "Crime Lieutenant J.C. Day just came out of that building. Reported British .303 rifle with telescopic lens."

I would assume that the WBAP reporter, who didn't know an Enfield from a Mauser from a Mannlicher-Carcano from an M-1 Garand, when he saw Lt. Day walking out of the building holding the rifle asked him something along the lines of "What make of rifle was used in the assassination?"

And Lt. Day, who had just been up on the 6th floor inspecting the tool-stamp with a magnifying glass, the tool-stamp which read "Made in Italy", answered "A British 30-odd-3."

Day may well have been answering truthfully. He wasn't about to explain to the reporter that the rifle he was carrying wasn't the one used in the assassination. 

Besides, I think he had a hard time cramming the ammunition clip into the Carcano in from the bottom. It's designed to feed in from the top. The clip sticks out quite a bit on the street, as much as two inches. But when Day was filmed back at DPD HQ, the clip fit in snugly, barely sticking out a quarter-inch.
So let me get this straight.
 
The Carcano was discovered without a clip as the Alyea footage suggests, correct? So if the Carcano was discovered without a clip, where was the clip discovered? (Help me Obi Wan Kanobi.) Assuming the clip was discovered somewhere on the Sixth Floor (which includes Lt. Day's pocket) but no fine, upstanding public servant remembered to mention it, then why stick the empty clip back in the carbine? Why not just put it in a bag (or back in Lt. Day's pocket) with all the other evidence? Putting an empty clip back in the Carcano would be like chambering a spent cartridge. You could do it, but why?
 
Perhaps several rifles (e.g., M-1, British .303) were fired from the TSBD that day, then left behind and discovered. When the Carcano was selected as the "right one" (maybe even the "right" Carcano), all evidence related to the others vanished.
 
Piss poor police work really leads to much speculation doesn't it?


Hi Stan, the part about the 30-gauge, it seems, came from the police bulletin at 12:45, whereupon it was claimed that the subject was believed to be armed with a 30-gauge rifle.

I'm not sure where the "Argentine" thing came from, but I remember reading about that too, for a while there was news floating around about an "Argentine rifle".

Yeah, the mind-bogglingly shoddy police work, combined with the whole idea that on top of that whole mess, there's the news media.  Shocked 

Kinda like a game of "telephone" we used to play when we were kids, the words "I love you" go into the first kid's ear, and he whispers it to the next in line, and so on, and by the time it gets to the end of the line it comes out as "I'm going to kill all of you".  Embarassed

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Guest on Fri 07 Mar 2014, 9:35 am

It's anybody's guess where the clip was discovered. Since Lt. Day was handling the rifle without clip when it was discovered, and handling the rifle with clip when he carried it down the front steps, it stands to reason that he was involved with inserting the clip into the rifle. Which stuck out prominently, about 2 inches, on the front steps, yet had been invisible on the 6th floor.

The alternative is that some fellow dishonest cop secretively handed him the clip. That cop would have been rather adroit at cool-handed maneuvers. Nobody else saw him do it. And there were a lot of honest cops up on the 6th floor. 

Day took the elevator down alone when he was done. I put this squarely on his shoulders.

It's within the realm of possibility that someone met him on the 1st floor with a clip.

But what a dumb move Day made, putting a clip into the Carcano (I think during the elevator descent). This unfamiliar rifle had a peculiarity about its ammo feeding system. As opposed to the common WWII-era M-1 Garand, which ejected its clip after the last round had been fired, the Carcano ejected its clip when the last round was chambered

The Carcano planters had set their booty up to look as though it had recently been fired (last round chambered, no clip). But the Carcano discoverers Fritz and Day, were unfamiliar with its peculiar feeding system. They thought the clip- which was missing- only ejected when the last round was fired

Had they been innocent discoverers, they would have been curious as to why the Carcano was in an impossible post-firing condition. They would have tested it for recent firing , suspecting it was a plant.

But they didn't test it for recent firing. They knew all along it had never been fired, that it was a plant. There was no "sniff test" for gunpowder odor. Since the last round was found by Fritz in the chamber, he and Day concluded that the planters had made a mistake by not including the clip with the gun. So they set about correcting that perceived error. And kept mum on the rifle's true make, to keep the press hounds at bay.

Day was the fellow who lifted Oswald's palmprint from the rifle so cleanly that an FBI expert stated that he had never before in 10,000 cases encountered an object that did not contain traces of a print's having been lifted from it.

Day was the fellow who wrote on the alleged paper sack used to carry in the rifle "Found next to 6th floor window. May have been used to carry weapon." Yet he failed to get a photograph of the bag up on the 6th floor.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Goban Saor on Mon 10 Mar 2014, 2:47 am

Richard Gilbride wrote:nonsqtr,

The impression I have of Craig saying he saw, stamped right on the barrel, "7.65 Mauser" is that he was lying on purpose, sending a message to researchers who might someday watch his video. Several researchers have scoured the Mauser manufacturers and their numerous models for a telltale stamp and come up empty-handed- Mauser, except for one or two obscure rifle models, didn't stamp their rifles. 
I came across something recently that suggests another possible explanation for Roger Craig’s apparent belated misremembering the ‘7.65 Mauser’ stamp on the rifle.
 
Memory impairment is a common symptom of post traumatic stress disorder. Given that Roger Craig was seriously and repeatedly persecuted for sticking to his ‘heretical’ account of what he witnessed in relation to the assassination, it is possible that he developed PTSD and that it may have played a part in his apparently flawed recollection and indeed in his apparent suicide in 1975.

Goban Saor

Posts : 170
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Guest on Mon 10 Mar 2014, 5:48 pm

Richard Gilbride wrote:It's anybody's guess where the clip was discovered. Since Lt. Day was handling the rifle without clip when it was discovered, and handling the rifle with clip when he carried it down the front steps, it stands to reason that he was involved with inserting the clip into the rifle. Which stuck out prominently, about 2 inches, on the front steps, yet had been invisible on the 6th floor.

The alternative is that some fellow dishonest cop secretively handed him the clip. That cop would have been rather adroit at cool-handed maneuvers. Nobody else saw him do it. And there were a lot of honest cops up on the 6th floor. 

Day took the elevator down alone when he was done. I put this squarely on his shoulders.

It's within the realm of possibility that someone met him on the 1st floor with a clip.

But what a dumb move Day made, putting a clip into the Carcano (I think during the elevator descent). This unfamiliar rifle had a peculiarity about its ammo feeding system. As opposed to the common WWII-era M-1 Garand, which ejected its clip after the last round had been fired, the Carcano ejected its clip when the last round was chambered

The Carcano planters had set their booty up to look as though it had recently been fired (last round chambered, no clip). But the Carcano discoverers Fritz and Day, were unfamiliar with its peculiar feeding system. They thought the clip- which was missing- only ejected when the last round was fired

Had they been innocent discoverers, they would have been curious as to why the Carcano was in an impossible post-firing condition. They would have tested it for recent firing , suspecting it was a plant.

But they didn't test it for recent firing. They knew all along it had never been fired, that it was a plant. There was no "sniff test" for gunpowder odor. Since the last round was found by Fritz in the chamber, he and Day concluded that the planters had made a mistake by not including the clip with the gun. So they set about correcting that perceived error. And kept mum on the rifle's true make, to keep the press hounds at bay.

Day was the fellow who lifted Oswald's palmprint from the rifle so cleanly that an FBI expert stated that he had never before in 10,000 cases encountered an object that did not contain traces of a print's having been lifted from it.

Day was the fellow who wrote on the alleged paper sack used to carry in the rifle "Found next to 6th floor window. May have been used to carry weapon." Yet he failed to get a photograph of the bag up on the 6th floor.

Well, I'm sure this is a very dumb noob question, but, didn't anyone ask JC Day where he got the clip?

He was alive at least till '64, wasn't he?  Rolling Eyes

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Guest on Mon 10 Mar 2014, 6:11 pm

This character JC day is quite a character - listen to this little snippet from his affidavit to the Dallas PD:

The following affidavit is made to clear up confusion regarding the three spent 6.5 hulls, commission numbers 543, 544, and 545, found by the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963. The hulls were picked up by Detective R. M. Sims and Lieutenant J. C. Day and placed in an envelope. Detective R. L. Studebaker was also present. The envelope was marked and dated by Sims and Day. Detective Sims took the hulls after they were checked for fingerprints by Day. The third hull, commission number 545, was later released directly to the FBI by the Dallas Police Department Homicide Division. At 10:00 P.M. November 22, 1963, Detective C. N. Dhority brought the three hulls in the marked envelope back to Lieutenant Day in the Identification Bureau office to recheck for prints. Dhority retained one hull, commission number 545 and left the other two, commission numbers 543, 544 along with the envelope with me to be sent to the FBI.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/day2.htm

Huh?  pirat 

Lemme see... they found 'em at 1 o'clock, all three hulls were put in an envelope and they ended up with Sims. And, sometime that afternoon, someone released the third hull directly to the FBI. But at 10pm, Dhority brought all three hulls back. (So, the FBI must have given back the third hull, right? And, somehow Dhority got at least the other two from Sims?) Then Dhority kept one of the hulls (the same one that was previously sent to the FBI), and left the other two with Day to send to the FBI.

I have an idea: Dallas PD doesn't just "release" stuff to the FBI without being asked. The FBI must have had some special interest in that third hull. Why would that be?

Here's Day's WC testimony: [url=http://whokilledjfk.net/LT J. C. DAY.htm]http://whokilledjfk.net/LT%20J.%20C.%20DAY.htm[/url]

Mr. BELIN. In other words, you didn't put the writing in that says, "Two of the three spent hulls."
Mr. DAY. Not then. About 10 o'clock in the evening this envelope came back to me with two hulls in it. I say it came to me, it was in a group of stuff, a group of evidence, we were getting ready to release to the FBI. I don't know who brought them back. Vince Drain, FBI, was present with the stuff, the first I noticed it. At that time there were two hulls inside.
I was advised the homicide division was retaining the third for their use. At that time I marked the two hulls inside of this, still inside this envelope.
Mr. BELIN. That envelope, which is a part of Commission Exhibits 543 and 544?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I put the additional marking on at that time.
Mr. BELIN. I see.
Mr. DAY. You will notice there is a little difference in the ink writing.
Mr. BELIN. But all of the writing there is yours?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Now, at what time did you put any initials, if you did put any such initials, on the hull itself?
Mr. DAY. At about 10 o'clock when I noticed it back in the identification bureau in this envelope.
Mr. BELIN. Had the envelope been opened yet or not?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; it had been opened.
Mr. BELIN. Had the shells been out of your possession then?
Mr. DAY. Mr. Sims had the shells from the time they were moved from the building or he took them from me at that time, and the shells I did not see again until around 10 o'clock.
Mr. BELIN. Who gave them to you at 10 o'clock?
Mr. DAY. They were in this group of evidence being collected to turn over to the FBI. I don't know who brought them back.
Mr. BELIN. Was the envelope sealed?
Mr. DAY. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Had it been sealed when you gave it to Mr. Sims?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; no.

But wait! Here's the important part:

Mr. BELIN. Now, I am going to ask you to state if you know what Commission Exhibit 543 is?
Mr. DAY. That is a hull that does not have my marking on it.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not this was one of the hulls that was found at the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. DAY. I think it is.
Mr. BELIN. What makes you think it is?
Mr. DAY. It has the initials "G. D." on it, which is George Doughty, the captain that I worked under.
Mr. BELIN. Was he there at the scene?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; this hull came up, this hull that is not marked came up, later. I didn't send that.
Mr. BELIN. This was----
Mr. DAY. That was retained. That is the hull that was retained by homicide division when the other two were originally sent in with the gun.
Mr. BELIN. You are referring now to Commission Exhibit 543 as being the one that was retained in your possession for a while?
Mr. DAY. It is the one that I did not see again.

543?

Wait a minute.

543 does not equal 545.

Does it?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Guest on Mon 10 Mar 2014, 6:34 pm

Heh heh - more humor from JC Day!

Mr. BELIN. What is this, what is Exhibit 141?
Mr. DAY. That is the live round that fell from the rifle when Captain Fritz opened the bolt.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do with this after you put your name on it?
Mr. DAY. Captain Fritz took possession of it. I retained possession of the rifle.

 Mr. BELIN. Did you process this live round at all for prints?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I did. I did not find any prints.
Mr. McCLOY. Before Captain Fritz ejected the live cartridge, did you dust the rifle for fingerprints?
Mr. DAY. Not before.
Mr. BELIN. Did you dust the bolt for fingerprints?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Before the live round was ejected?
Mr. DAY. No, no; the only part that Captain Fritz touched was the round nob. I looked at it through a glass and decided there was not a print there, and it would be safe for him to open the bolt.
Mr. BELIN. You did this before it was ejected, before the live round was ejected?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Who held the rifle while you looked at it with the glass?
Mr. DAY. I held it.
Mr. BELIN. In one hand?
Mr. DAY. One hand, using the glass with the other.

Mr. BELIN. How did you try to process the live round for prints?
Mr. DAY. With black fingerprint powder.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this in an effort, perhaps, to save time. In all of your processing of prints did you use anything other than this black powder at the scene that day?
Mr. DAY. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. So whenever you say you processed for prints you used black powder, is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. When was the rifle as such dusted with fingerprint powder?
Mr. DAY. After ejecting the live round, then I gave my attention to the rifle. I put fingerprint powder on the side of the rifle over the magazine housing. I noticed it was rather rough.
I also noticed there were traces of two prints visible. I told Captain Fritz it was too rough to do there, it should go to the office where I would have better facilities for trying to work with the fingerprints.
Mr. McCLOY. But you could note with your naked eye or with a magnifying glass the remnants of fingerprints on the stock?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I could see traces of ridges, fingerprint ridges, on the side of the housing.
Mr. BELIN. Lieutenant Day, as I understand it, you held the stock of the rifle when Captain Fritz operated the bolt?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

... and ...

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; this is the record I made of the gun when I took it back office. Now, the gun did not leave my possession.
Mr. BELIN. From the time it was found at the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I took the gun myself and retained possession, took it to the office where I dictated----
Mr. BELIN. Could you just read into the record what you dictated.
Mr. DAY. To my secretary. She wrote on the typewriter: "4 x 18, coated, Ordinance Optics, Inc., Hollywood, California, 010 Japan. OSC inside a cloverleaf design."
Mr. BELIN. What did that have reference to?
Mr. DAY. That was stamped on the scopic sight on top of the gun. On the gun itself, "6.5 caliber C-2766, 1940 made in Italy." That was what was on the gun.
I dictated certain other stuff, other information, for her to type for me.
Mr. BELIN. Well, you might just as well dictate the rest there.
Mr. DAY. "When bolt opened one live round was in the barrel. No prints are on the live round. Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Day opened the barrel. Captain Fritz has the live round. Three spent hulls were found under the window. They were picked up by Detective Sims and witnessed by Lieutenant Day and Studebaker. The clip is stamped 'SMI, 9 x 2.'"

Bingo!

And the very next question from Mr. Belin should have been: "Where did you find the clip?"

But instead we get:

Mr. BELIN. Could you tell us what other processing you did with this particular rifle?
Mr. DAY. Beg pardon?
Mr. BELIN. What other processing did you do with this particular rifle?
Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them.
I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.

And etc.

Anyway... focus on the printing of the live round, which JC Day claims he did. Where did this take place? He claims he gave the live round to Captain Fritz, and Fritz still had it in his possession when the rifle was disassembled. So, when did the printing occur?

Hm. Not only shoddy police work, shoddy investigative work too.

Our tax dollars at work. Smile

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Guest on Mon 10 Mar 2014, 6:44 pm

Heh heh - so, here's the reason why I say all this is humorous.

At exactly 3:00 in this video, you'll see exactly what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsnIeaAWFfo

You can see JC Day picking up the rifle, and immediately handing it to Fritz, who immediately touches it - on what looks like the trigger guard.

Day is not "holding" the rifle steady, in such a way that Fritz could pop the bolt. In fact it look like Frit'z grip on whatever part of the rifle he's holding, is rather tenuous.

What do you think?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: physical evidence: the chicken bones

Post by Sponsored content Today at 12:05 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum