Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #325  (Read 35 times)

Online Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1958
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #325
« on: August 13, 2018, 02:40:18 AM »
📥 "Whether you agree with him or not, researchers such as Rob Caprio for example, took the sensible initiative and saved his own research, and he is now reposting them back on the Forum.
All other members are free to do the same.” –Duncan MacRae

********************************************

Disclaimer: I will no longer respond to any posts that are off topic and/or meant to derail the issue of the opening post. This should not be taken as me running, but instead seen as me keeping the topic on track.

I have no issue with any WC defender, therefore, I am happy to discuss the case in a manner that uses the actual evidence with them. IF the WC was correct in their final conclusion as they claim then this should be no problem for them.

I will not participate in any personal discussions with them as these are meant to distract and discredit instead of focusing on the JFK assassination. I come here to discuss and learn about the JFK assassination and nothing more.

No more games with the LNers. The LNers have to to discuss the WC's, HSCA's and ARRB's evidence or move along.

One would think IF the assassination occurred as the WC said then the LNers would welcome the opportunity to discuss and refute the posts in this series, but they seem more determined to have the posts stopped. I think that this shows that the WC's version of events is not correct.

****************************************

The Warren Commission (WC) claimed Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) and wounded Governor John B. Connally (JBC) in a rapid firing session lasting around 5.6 seconds. The key for all of this to have occurred, and even then it is highly doubtful, is an ammunition clip. Without the clip the shooter had to HAND-LOAD all the rounds and this would have taken much more time.

We have looked at this issue before, but let’s look at it again as it is vital to this case and the conclusion of the WC.


******************************************

The WC wrote this in their Report (WCR) about the clip in regards to its being found on November 22, 1963.

Quote on

When the rifle was found in the Texas School Book Depository Building it contained a clip which bore the letters "SMI" (the manufacturer's markings) and the number "952" (possibly a part number or the manufacturer's code number). (WCR, p. 555)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

The above quote had a citation number of “23” after the word “clip” and if we look that up we will see the following listed as sources for this claim by the WC—4 H 205 (John Will Fritz ); 4 H 258 (J.C. Day). Here is a link for the references I just gave so I can’t be accused of being wrong.

Appendix X References:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Go to these pages listed below and show me where the word CLIP is listed in their testimony.

Captain Will Fritz Testimony Volume IV, p. 205:


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

And: Lieutenant Carl Day Testimony Volume IV, p. 258:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It just does not exist. So how did the WC write this statement supposedly based on their statements that did NOT show a clip was actually found along with the rifle? What we do see in Lieutenant Carl Day’s testimony is this reference to the clip when he did an inventory of the rifle.

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.'"

The WC described it as a “SMI” with a number of “952” on it and not the “9 x 2” that Day noted in his report. Let’s set that aside for now and deal with the bigger issue of when Day supposedly saw the clip first. This is when the report was written by him.

Mr. BELIN. Do you have any record of that with you or not?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; this is the record I made of the gun when I took it back [to the] 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----

This shows us this report was dictated to his secretary WHEN HE RETURNED to his office and NOT what he saw when he first looked at the alleged murder weapon. NOT one person could be found to say they saw a clip on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD). NOT one photograph could be found to show the clip was near the alleged Sniper’s Nest or IN the rifle as the WC would later claim. And finally, NOT one police inventory log could be produced to show the clip listed on it. Thus, we have a serious question that needs answering, where did this clip come from that Day claimed to see when he got back to his office? Notice how he said the rifle was NEVER out of his possession, but that still does NOT make me feel good when Captain Fritz testified to this before the WC.

Mr. FRITZ. After the pictures had been made then I ejected a live shell, a live cartridge from the rifle.

Mr. BALL. And who did you give that to?

Mr. FRITZ. I believe that I kept that at that time myself. Later I gave it to the crime lab who, in turn, turned it over to the FBI.

Mr. BALL. Did you put any marking of yours on the empty cartridge?

Mr. FRITZ. On that loaded cartridge?

Mr. BALL. On that loaded cartridge.

Mr. FRITZ. I don't know, I am not sure, I don't think so.

Captain Fritz admitted to taking EVIDENCE and NOT marking it and then keeping it! What kind of chain of custody could this live round have had with this kind of “handling” going on?

Also, if Day had dictated a description of the rifle and the various things found with it (including the clip supposedly), why did another member of the Dallas Police Department (DPD) find the need to do the same thing in Day’s presence hours later?


Quote on

At 9:00 P.M., Capt. J.W. Fritz gave me three spent 6.5 rifle shells and advised me to take them to the Crime Lab to Lt. Day and return one of them back to him…While I was at the Crime Lab., Lt. Day showed me the 6.5 rifle, and I wrote a DESCRIPTION from the rifle. (Report of Detective C. N. Dhority, Commission Exhibit (CE) 2003, p. 195) (Emphasis added)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

Why would Dhority need to do this when Day supposedly already did this when he got back to his office hours before? Since the metal clip would be ideal for picking up fingerprints we have to ask why LHO’s (or anyone else’s for that matter) were NOT found on it? We have access to two different pieces of evidence to show us that this is true.

First up is FBI Expert Sebastian Latona’s testimony.


Mr. EISENBERG. We will get other evidence in the record at a subsequent time to show those were the prints of Oswald. Mr. Latona, you were saying that you had worked over that rifle by applying a gray powder to it. Did you develop any fingerprints?

Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip?

Mr. LATONA. That included the clip, that included the bolt, it included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock.

And then we have access to this FBI Report that mentions NO prints were found on the clip.

Quote on

NO latent prints of VALUE were developed on Oswald’s revolver, the cartridge cases, the unfired cartridge, the CLIP IN THE RIFLE or the inner parts of the rifle. (CE 2003, p. 135) (Emphasis added)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

First of all, notice how the FBI Report claims the clip was INSIDE the rifle when there is ZERO evidence showing this is where it was found. Secondly, we see despite the metal clip being conducive to attracting fingerprints there were NONE of LHO’s on the clip. Why not?

Again, we see total irony in play here too as the WC shot down what it called SPECULATION by stating that LHO wore NO gloves too!


Quote on

Speculation.—If Oswald had been gloveless, he would have left fingerprints on the rifle because he would not have had time to wipe the prints off the rifle after he had fired it.

Commission finding.—An FBI fingerprint expert testified that the poor quality of the metal and wooden parts would cause them to absorb moisture from the skin, thereby making a clear print unlikely. There is NO evidence that Oswald WORE GLOVES or that he WIPED prints off the rifle. Latent fingerprints were found on the rifle but they were too incomplete to be identified. (WCR, Appendix X, pp. 646-647) (Emphasis added)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

How could a gloveless LHO fail to leave prints in so many places? Also, note the second part of the statement as they said there was NO evidence that showed that “he wiped prints off the rifle” either so the claims of WC defenders for years that LHO “used his shirt to wipe the prints off the rifle” are bogus. People like David Von Pein have used this excuse to kill two birds with one stone if you will for years. They think this explains why no real prints of LHO were on the rifle and why witnesses would see LHO in a “light/white” shirt as he would have been reduced to his T-shirt. We now see their own evidence shows this is bogus.

The WC said due to the “poor quality of the metal and wooden parts” of the rifle they found no prints, but this does NOT apply to the clip since it is not part of the rifle. It was made from separate material so why was NO print found on it when the WC said LHO wore NO gloves?

Another FBI Expert, Robert Frazier, was asked about the clip in his testimony and he said this when asked about significant markings.


Mr. EISENBERG - Could you pull out the clip and explain any markings you find on it?

Mr. FRAZIER - The only markings are the manufacturer's markings, "SMI," on the base of the clip, and a number, 952 The significance of that number I am not aware of. It could be a part number or a manufacturer's cede number.

The WC did not try and find out where LHO would have purchased this clip from or where he could have gotten it if he did not purchase it. All we get from them is this short and simple statement in their Report.

Quote on

The rifle was probably sold without a clip; however, the clip is commonly available. (WCR, p. 555)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

The word “probably” is NOT needed as anyone can look at the alleged order form and see NO clip was selected from Klein’s Sporting Goods (KSG) so what are they talking about? Furthermore, they say the clip was “commonly available”, but as we have seen earlier in this series there were ONLY two stores that sold 6.5 M/M ammunition in the whole Dallas/Irving, Texas, area so why would the clip be “commonly available?” This statement has NO basis in fact either as the WC did NOT even bother to trace the clip to know if it was “commonly available” or not.

In Frazier’s testimony we see another odd and interesting exchange between the WC lawyer, Eisenberg, and Frazier. Think Mauser rifle here.


Mr. EISENBERG - Is there any reason that you can think of why someone might call that a five-shot clip?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir, unless they were unfamiliar with it. There is an area of confusion in that a different type of rifle shooting larger ammunition, such as a .30-06 or a German Mauser rifle, uses five-shot clips, and the five-shot clip is the common style or size of clip, whereas this one actually holds six.

So the clip was called a “five-shot clip” by someone, but by whom? This question is so tantalizing, but as usual we never get an answer to it. Why would someone think the clip was a type the German Mauser may use instead of the alleged murder weapon (Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C))?

The WC failed to link the clip to LHO in anyway (just like the rifle and ammunition), but tells us he had one and that it was found INSIDE the rifle when it was found in the TSBD. To put it simply, the WC was like the parents and the reader was like a small child and when the WC TOLD you something you were/are expected to just believe them with no questions asked.

The bottom line is this—without a clip there is NO way LHO could have fired three shots in 5.6 seconds as claimed. This by itself means there had to be at least another shooter that day. This is why the WC’s failure to show there was a clip in the rifle or near the alleged SN sinks their whole conclusion since LHO, or anyone else, could NOT do what was claimed of them.

Thus, the WC is sunk again.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 03:11:29 AM by Rob Caprio »

JFK Assassination Forum

Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #325
« on: August 13, 2018, 02:40:18 AM »