A Tale of Too Many Rifles

A Tale of Too Many Rifles                   

(A review of the various weapons claimed to be present in the Texas Schoolbook Depository during the Assassination of President Kennedy)

            A Carcano 6.65, Mauser 7.65, Enfield 303, and Japanese rifle are asserted to be present or near the Texas Schoolbook Depository by various sources on November 22, 1963. However, what does most verifiable evidence corroborate? Would a feasible conspiracy utilize so many unimportant officials subject to repeated incompetence to switch weapons? Other weapons are possible but are they probable?

Following the shots from the Sniper's Nest and feasibly the Grassy Knoll, the sniper who they presumed was Lee Harvey Oswald deposits the weapon amid some boxes according to officials. Dallas Police arrive shortly after the event. Dallas Police fail to seal off the floor before other witnesses are present. In the confusion, facts could be misstated and quick judgments are perhaps not reliable.

On the Depository Sixth floor, a group of Dallas officials discovers the weapon, some state it is an Italian Carcano and some state it was a German Mauser. Notably the Carcano was a modified design of the Mauser, some referred to the Carcano as the "Mauser Paravicino". i Thus, the two types of rifle were strikingly similar by design. Without extended inspection by experts in a scientific environment, conclusive inspection would be difficult in my view.

Is it more likely that confusion was responsible for unreliable identification, or that most officials present switched weapons acting for a larger plot? Where is substantial proof? Indeed the Dallas officials were breathtakingly incompetent, and did seek to suppress their many errors. Yet low ranking officials are in my view not required for a successful conspiracy. The lack of ballistics evidence supporting a Mauser is noteworthy.

A Dallas Police evidentiary inventory stated the weapon is a Carcano. ii A contending report offered by Deputy Sheriff Seymour Weitzman stated the weapon is a Mauser.iii However, Weitzman never handled the rifle. iv Mistaken identification is reasonable, many official mistakes occurred and each does not indicate nefarious action. If one regards every mistake as nefarious, truly illegal actions lay buried among the shadows of the infinitely possible.

Weitzman subsequently amends his statement in the press and during legal proceedings which supports he was in error. v Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone initially stated the weapon is a Mauser. Yet Boone like Weitzman never handled the weapon, thus Boone's identification is not compelling. vi Without thorough inspection of the weapon, Boone did not have time for a reliable identification. Boone also amends his prior statement that included shots fired at 1pm, a half hour after shots were fired. vii.

After officials discover the weapon, it was guarded until they can transport it. Captain Fritz states to Chief Curry in an evidence report the weapon is a Carcano. viii. Lieutenant J.C. Day stated in testimony he dictated a note to his secretary describing the rifle as "6.5 caliber C-2766, 1940 made in Italy." He does not expressly state Carcano, but all the information he offered infers one.  

Tom Alyea was present in the Depository and able to record the activities occurring. The weapon Alyea films is feasibly a Carcano based upon subsequent full inspection. ix Additional verification by independent footage beyond official control is notable. This does not mean all official statements are consistent, yet in this specific instance, they support the Carcano in my view.

Indeed many official statements were not consistent; Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade feasibly misidentified the weapon initially as a Mauser. x Wade later amended his statements. However, other discussions including Wade are more notable. Wade privately discussed with the Commission the possibility Oswald was a Federal Bureau of Investigation or Central Intelligence Agency informant. He denied any knowledge of possible affiliations. xi Often forgotten is Wade's former employer J. Edgar Hoover, Wade is just one of many with consequential loyalties. Questions regarding Wade's connection to a possible Mauser have overshadowed inquiry that is more feasible.

Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig maintained the weapon was a Mauser despite the majority of evidence. Most others present support feasible error had occurred. Craig did not. Reporter and conspiracy advocate Mark Lane agreed with Craig.

Lane produced a film entitled "Rush to Judgment" in 1966 featuring some witnesses not called by the President's (Warren) Commission. Some of these witness interviews provide valuable information that was neglected by officials. However, Lane's subsequent allegations with Craig's support do not enjoy such corroboration in my view. "Two Men in Dallas" features Roger Craig's evolved statements.

Lane has alleged the existence of an Agency document stating a Mauser killed President Kennedy. However, this document is not often cited fully, nor does this claim relate its entire context. Those who claim a document exists are seemingly unwilling or unable to offer it. I decided to seek this elusive document.

Indeed such a document exists. However, if one considers the entire document in my view it does not support a Mauser, but another speculative mistake. The Agency timeline document states, "On 22 November 1963 Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy while the President was riding in an open automobile on a Dallas, Texas, street. The rifle he used was a Mauser which Oswald had ordered (this is now known by handwriting examination) from Klein's Mail Order House, Chicago Illinois. He had the rifle sent to a Post Office Box which Lee Oswald had rented. In the order for the rifle, Oswald used the name Alex Hiddell." 

This document is created on November 25, 1963 as Lane prior claimed. Yet it reflects the speculative nature of the official timeline. Officials are seemingly assigning Oswald guilt before any investigation, the Commission did not yet exist.  The Agency states Mauser, but it also attributes all the evidence of the Carcano to it. The Agency cannot even state the street the President was killed on, yet without the substantial evidence it believes it can determined guilt and weapon type.

Some conspiracy advocates believe the Agency could know the specific details of the weapon having never inspected it. Yet the same people contend most other official speculations regarding the weapon and Oswald in the same document. This is not consistent inquiry in my view; we cannot select just the agreeable portions of evidence. It must be regarded in its entirety and relation to corroborating evidence. All these errors and problems render this mention feasibly incorrect.

Striking is the document's immediate association between Oswald and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, despite that Oswald was never a member. The Agency also proposes the possibility that Castro was involved. Many ideas regarding the Soviet Union the Commission later dispelled are in this "credible" document. xii Some regard the single feasibly erroneous mention of a Mauser bearing the identifiers of the Carcano vitally important. Similar to prior claims of Commission exhibit 237 being Oswald, just because the Agency claimed something does not render it conclusive. Additional speculations of a Mauser's use possibly emerged from the presence of a Mauser in the Depository on November 20, 1963.xiii

Feasibly the same Mauser 303 brought to the Depository by Warren Caster days before influenced similar Enfield 303 rifle accounts. xiv xv Perhaps the Enfield idea emerged from the confiscation of that rifle type from Buell Frazier. xvi Frazier's reported associations with Oswald possibly were merged; this confusion might have sparked further speculation. Yet substantial evidence does not support the claims of an Enfield 303 being present.

The mention of a Japanese rifle also has multiple possible origins. Consider Oswald's reported former Marine assignment in Japan could have influenced statements. The Japanese rifle is perhaps a disjointed embellishment upon the Japanese scope the Carcano had mounted to it. Speculation could explain what claims of devious conduct do not.

Multiple types of rifles were asserted present in the Texas School Book Depository, yet the ballistics evidence did not offer multiple types of shells from varied calibers. If the possible Conspirators had planned a reasonably effective plot these issues would be problematic. Why use differing weapons and create later problems?

The substantial contending evidence does not support a Mauser in my view, yet it does support a very similar weapon. A weapon designed from the Mauser itself, a Carcano. Are not two Carcano's at two separate firing locations possible? Indeed the gun was not a prime firearm but neither was it wholly deficient. A practiced sniper feasibly may compensate for such difficulties to keep the physical evidence agreeable. Unfortunately, for the Commission, Oswald was feasibly unpracticed.  

Sincerely,

C. A. A. Savastano

Tpaak Blog

References:


i. HSCA Administration folders, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Admin Folder Q-6: HSCA Administrative folder Assassination ticklers, Volume II, p.239  


ii. Dallas Police evidence inventory, (n.d.), Dallas Police Municipal Archives, p. 130


iii. Dallas Police Municipal Collection, John F. Kennedy Archive, Box 2, Folder 1, Affidavit of Seymour Weitzman, November 23, 1963


iv. Report of the President's Commission, Chapter 3, The Shots from the Texas School Book Depository, p. 79


v. Hearings of the President's Commission, Volume VII, Testimony of Seymour Weitzman, pp. 107,108


vi. Report of the Pres. Com., Chap. 3, p. 79


vii. Hearings of the Pres. Com, Volume III, Testimony of Eugene Boone, p. 291


viii. DPD Evidence Report, J.W. Fritz to Chief Curry, December 23, 1963, Item 1, DPD Municipal Archives


ix. Jay Watson, Burt Schipp, Tom Alyea, Texas Schoolbook Depository internal footage and interview transcripts, WFAA, November 22, 1963


x. Hearings of the Pres. Comm., Vol. XXIV, Ex. 2169, Press Conference of District Attorney Wade in Assembly Room, pp. 829-31


xi. Central Intelligence Agency files, Oswald's 201 file (201-289248), Volume 56 B, Information furnished to the Commission by Henry M. Wade, February 10, 1964, p. 1-3


xii Ibid


xiii. Hearings of the Pres. Com., Testimony of Warren Caster, Volume VII, p. 387


xiv. Ibid


xv. President's Commission Document 206, FBI Gemberling Report 07 Jan 1964,p. 387


xvi. Dallas Police Department files, Property Clerk Invoice of Receipt of Evidence, British 303 Enfield received by R.S. Stovall and G.R. Rose, November 23, 1963

Carmine Savastano wrote:Following the shots from the Sniper's Nest and feasibly the Grassy Knoll,...

Hey Carmine:

I don't meant to quibble here, but is it a fact that shots came from the Sniper's Nest defined as the SE window of the Sixth Floor of the TSBD Building? Or is this merely an assumption based upon the official, approved account?
 
Your statement implies it's a given that the Sniper's Nest (Sixth Floor, SE window) was indeed the source of at least some of the shots. Do we know this for sure? If we say that, feasibly, shots originated from the Grassy Knoll, then should we not also say that the shots feasibly could have come from other windows in the TSBD building as well? Or other locations (e.g., Dal-Tex Building) too?
 
Do we have any hard evidence to rule any of these out? Because if we can't rule any of these out, does it really matter—absent reliable ballistics/chains of custody records—what rifles were found in the TSBD? Whatever kinds they were, perhaps they were just carefully placed "stage props?"

Just asking.

Stan,
           I agree with your view, indeed precision is necessary. I did state the shots emerged from the Snipers Nest based upon official evidence. Yet I also included the Grassy Knoll as well, both in my view are feasible firing locations, however as you stated not conclusive. 

Other locations are possible, and I am always willing to refine my view if we can locate verified evidence to illustrate this.

Indeed the rifles may have planted, however in my view the substantial evidence would not infer this, of course I could be wrong. Unlike the Commission I have no such illusions that I shall always be correct. I am not stating these two locations are the only places possible, they are the only places based on the evidence I have reviewed that are most probable in my view. 

Constructive criticism is always welcome. Thanks for reading.

On further consideration perhaps we could state "Shots from near a sixth floor window of the Depository"? The law is a mixture of precision and vagary when suitable I have found. Remember every man on the Commission had a law degree.

‘Remember every man on the Commission had a law degree.’

Indeed. And of the fifteen participants at the infamous Wannsee Conference in January 1942 that decided to mass murder every European Jewish man, woman and child, eight of them had doctorates.

Goban Saor wrote:‘Remember every man on the Commission had a law degree.’

Indeed. And of the fifteen participants at the infamous Wannsee Conference in January 1942 that decided to mass murder every European Jewish man, woman and child, eight of them had doctorates.

Yes, and I think a former member here used to make a big deal about having several degrees.

Rather than commenting on their legal degrees, I should say "Remember every man on the Commission had a need to lie his fucking ass off". I think that makes a bit more sense.

Goban Saor wrote:‘Remember every man on the Commission had a law degree.’

Indeed. And of the fifteen participants at the infamous Wannsee Conference in January 1942 that decided to mass murder every European Jewish man, woman and child, eight of them had doctorates.

Goban,
             You seem to read subtext where there is none. I am not stating they were lawyers being a beneficial thing in many cases. Lawyers can usually term things with the necessary vagary to see it admitted legally, some do so with a predisposed agenda as many in the Commission investigation had. I would not presume to know your agenda, perhaps you might offer the same courtesy.


Terry,
             I agree. I did not suggest degrees to mean anything more than people who can do busy work in some cases. However, that each was trained in law is in my view relevant to their motivations and abilities to frame the narrative as they wished. I have found deficient claims offered by many with degrees (John McAdams, Mark Lane) that have no substantial proof of their ideas.

Goban,
           I have no issue with you, but I do disagree with some of your claims. In the last post I wished to explain that my ideas were not in the context I viewed you as seeing them. Despite our disagreements I harbor no ill will. 

I merely wish for us to be able to consider all possibilities until conclusive evidence of any matter is obtained. There is only one correct answer and endless wrong ones.
          

ARTICLE UPDATE: I have observed and been informed another rifle type claimed was an Enfield 301 as well. Please regard all mentions of a 303 as a possible 301 as well.

Walter Graf and Richard Bartholomew have suggested that the initial misidentification of the rifle was a deliberate ploy owing to concerns about the clip:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds.html

I know next to nothing about rifles but there was also an early report by Walter Cronkite that the weapon was a 30-30 rifle. Not sure if a 303 or a 301 are of the same type or even the Mauser or Carcano.

Police description broadcast "an unknown white male approximately 30, 165 pounds, slender build, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle."

There is also the rifle described by Arnold Rowland as a "high-powered rifle with scope" in his affidavit and as a "30 odd size 6" in his testimony. '

I don't know anything about rifles, so don't know if Rowland has described the same weapon 2 different ways, or 2 different weapons - likewise I have no idea if his "30 odd size 6" is the same as a 30-30 and/or if it matches any of the brand names mentioned.

I'm not from Bumfuck, but a 30-30 rifle is different from a 30-06 (pronounced "thirty-aught-six"). My first rifle was a 30-30 just like the one pictured below. It's medium powered and not a long range weapon. A 30-06 (7.62×63mm) is high-powered. I pieced a comparison chart to get a feel for the different sizes of rifle and pistol ammo. The Carcano ammo in the left picture has a more modern hunting bullet than the WC exhibit version next to it.

Thanks, Stan.

That helps. Rowland could not have been a source for the police broadcast.

Feasibly the same Mauser 303 brought to the Depository by Warren Caster days before influenced similar Enfield 303 rifle accounts. xiv xv Perhaps the Enfield idea emerged from the confiscation of that rifle type from Buell Frazier. xvi Frazier's reported associations with Oswald possibly were merged; this confusion might have sparked further speculation. Yet substantial evidence does not support the claims of an Enfield 303 being present.





Reporter Tom Whalen said, at 2:13pm CST, "The weapon which was used to kill the president, and which wounded Gov. Connally, has been found in the Texas School Book Depository on the sixth floor - a British 303 rifle with a telescopic
sight. Three empty cartridge cases were found beside the weapon. It
appeared that whoever had occupied this sniper's nest had been here for
some time."

I might be wrong here but wasn't Frazier arrested at around 6.45pm that evening and the Enfield confiscated later that night at his sisters home?

So we have a Carcano, Mauser, Enfield 301,303, a 30-30 from the CBS report, a Japanese rifle, and a partridge in a a pear tree. We also have the Mauser and Winchester that Caster brought. 

As most know my view, what does everyone else think regarding the various weapons?

Carmine Savastano wrote:So we have a Carcano, Mauser, Enfield 301,303, a 30-30 from the CBS report, a Japanese rifle, and a partridge in a a pear tree. We also have the Mauser and Winchester that Caster brought. 

As most know my view, what does everyone else think regarding the various weapons?

I am thinking how many patsies did they have in mind.

Paul,

           We agree on at least one, others are possible. It definitely spurred confusion regarding the weapon and created multiple divergent timelines.

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,

           We agree on at least one, others are possible. It definitely spurred confusion regarding the weapon and created multiple divergent timelines.

Carmine, in light of my Enfield/Buell Frazier post, do you have anything further to add to the timeline I noted regarding the point  you make about the confusion of the Enfield possibly being initially associated with Frazier?

Paul,
        
Indeed Frazier was arrested and the weapon was later confiscated. It seems perhaps at least some in the DPD did initially did not think Oswald was a lone gunman. Here is a report of the timeline Frazier states occurred. Fritz seeking Frazier's confession...questions abound.

      http://www.timesdispatch.com/jfk/people/buell-wesley-frazier-a-commute-with-oswald-then-a-harsh/article_a9be7f2e-fb7f-5357-91c9-605df00641f7.html

Here is the police document regarding the confiscated weapon. 

[url=http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338108/?q=Wesley Frazier]http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338108/?q=Wesley%20Frazier%20[/url]

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,
        
Indeed Frazier was arrested and the weapon was later confiscated. It seems perhaps at least some in the DPD did initially did not think Oswald was a lone gunman. Here is a report of the timeline Frazier states occurred. Fritz seeking Frazier's confession...questions abound.

      http://www.timesdispatch.com/jfk/people/buell-wesley-frazier-a-commute-with-oswald-then-a-harsh/article_a9be7f2e-fb7f-5357-91c9-605df00641f7.html

Here is the police document regarding the confiscated weapon. 

[url=http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338108/?q=Wesley Frazier]http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338108/?q=Wesley%20Frazier%20[/url]

Thanks, Carmine. I've read that article before and had seen the police document. To be fair, Frazier doesn't state the timeline of his arrest in the article. It is the reporter who claims:That afternoon, about two hours after the assassination, police arrested Frazier as a suspected accomplice of Oswald’s.
Do you (or anyone else) know what the actual official time of Fraziers' arrest? I have long been under the impression that he was arrested much later than that. After 6pm and they confiscated his Enfield even later than that.

Paul,
        Your are correct it is not Frazier's words explicitly, a general statement at best. I was referring to the a general timeline of related events, not the arrest. I will have to look into him more and see what I can find about his arrest.

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,
        Your are correct it is not Frazier's words explicitly, a general statement at best. I was referring to the a general timeline of related events, not the arrest. I will have to look into him more and see what I can find about his arrest.

Thanks Carmine. I think you'll find that the reporter is mistaken with the timeline of his arrest. The media report of the Enfield rifle as the murder weapon somewhat precedes Frazier's arrest on suspicion by about 4 hours.


That is I wanted to point out to you regarding Perhaps the Enfield idea emerged from the confiscation of that rifle type from Buell Frazier. xvi Frazier's reported associations with Oswald possibly were merged; this confusion might have sparked further speculation.

Paul,

              This document is what I have so far. It describes the arrest and confiscation but of course no time is attached to most. When they started looking for Frazier Irving PD already had him.

[url=http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340108/m1/1/?q=Wesley Frazier]http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340108/m1/1/?q=Wesley%20Frazier[/url]

According to another report Stovall and Rose  were dispatched at 2:30 pm to get Frazier. However, they are at the Paine's at 3:30.

[url=http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth190146/m1/1/?q=Wesley Frazier]http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth190146/m1/1/?q=Wesley%20Frazier[/url]

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,

              This document is what I have so far. It describes the arrest and confiscation but of course no time is attached to most. When they started looking for Frazier Irving PD already had him.

[url=http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340108/m1/1/?q=Wesley Frazier]http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340108/m1/1/?q=Wesley%20Frazier[/url]

According to another report Stovall and Rose  were dispatched at 2:30 pm to get Frazier. However, they are at the Paine's at 3:30.

[url=http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth190146/m1/1/?q=Wesley Frazier]http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth190146/m1/1/?q=Wesley%20Frazier[/url]

Thanks Carmine. One of the first media reports of the Enfield as the murder weapon is at 2.13pm.

Out of all the rifles in Dallas, in all of Texas, they report Fraziers Enfield 303 as the murder weapon. Not his, per se, but you get the drift.
Coincidence? I think....

Paul,
            I have heard of the idea prior, it could be feasible. Let me know if you come across any further information. I shall do likewise.