CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?

[Bill Chapman]

If there were any smeared prints, especially on the trigger, then Oswald did not wear gloves.

Are those the same 'others' that Drumpf 'hears' things from?

How many smeared 'unusable' prints were found on the rifle and how could they tell them apart from the many bumbling Keystone Kops that manhandled ALL the evidence with their bare hands? Fritz actually saw the 3 hulls in a tight group near the window in the sniper's nest and picked them up with his bare hands, placed them in his pocket then later tossed them back onto the floor for a staged in situ photo of the crime scene in a more believable ejection pattern.

The DPD handled all the evidence this way for the Crime of the Century, no less. Do you think they were ever this incompetent even for a common burglary? Were they nervous because this was the most important case of their lives? Or was it because they were worried about screwing up their roles in the Big Event, like finding the Mauser or mishandling the evidence or a rush to judgement or with inexplicable backyard photo re-enactments or letting Ruby gut shoot Oswald, etc.?

By 'others' I mean the investigators

[Walt Cakebread]

The wooden stock was absorbent. Prints on the metal trigger-guard housing were noticed and professionally photographed by Day.

Is that a term for when he claims something he wasn't told and didn't read on the rifle?

   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.


CE 399c?

The wooden stock was absorbent.

This simply isn't true....The wooden stocks of the carcanos were oil finished ( so they wouldn't absorb moisture) 

Prints on the metal trigger-guard housing were noticed and professionally photographed by Day.

 PARTIAL  Prints on the metal trigger-guard housing were noticed and professionally photographed by Day.

The fact that the unidentifiable partial prints were found up near the stock  attests to the fact that the rifle was hastily wiped to destroy any finger prints on the rifle.
( the area is a recess and somewhat protected by the nearby stock)

And this hasty wiping indicates that it was NOT Lee Oswald who wiped the rifle.....  Only an idiot would argue that Lee Oswald would have wiped down the unusual and easily traceable rifle that was owned by Lee Oswald.    It wouldn't make any sense ..... finger prints or no fingerprints the rifle could easily be traced to Lee.

However...The person who had stolen the rifle and planted it, to incriminate Lee Oswald most certainly would have wanted to be sure that they had not left their prints on the rifle.

[Walt Cakebread]

The so-called crack is certainly south of the center of the brick column, which is centered on 13'.

Do you seriously believe that you can measure distances on a photograph?

You have shown that the rifle was 2' 4" south of the row of boxes that formed the south wall of the aisle at the top of the stairs.   However this does not take into account that there were boxes stacked up about three or four feet high......( Boone had to squeeze between the west wall and the stacked up boxes ) So anybody who would attempt to place a rifle on the floor at 15' 4" would not only have had to reach across a 28 inch span, he would have had to have lowered the rifle about three feet down to the floor.  ...and slide it beneath the wooden pallet.    ( This would have been a feat for Plasticman)    No human could have placed that rifle beneath the pallet while standing in the aisle at the top of the stairs.... THIS IS A FACT!   

The fact that the rifle had been carefully hidden beneath that pallet is proof that the rifle was placed the BEFORE the shooting.....

[Walt Cakebread]

    "Not every contact of a. finger or palm leaves a latent print. For example,
     if the surface is not susceptible to a latent print, if the finger or palm had
     no perspiration, or if the perspiration was mostly water and had evaporated,
     no print will be found.
        ...
     The wood and metal of the rifle was absorbent, and not conducive to
     recording a good print. However, the Dallas police developed by powder
     some faint ridge formations on the metal magazine housing in front of
     the trigger ..."
        -- Warren Report, p565

I think metal is generally less absorbent that wood; why prints were found on the trigger-guard housing.


What evidence is there that the Carcano's wood stock was "oil finished"?

See: "Firearm Factoids: Does a Lack of Fingerprints Exonerate Oswald?" ( Link )

The trigger-guard housing is not recessed. So by your reasoning, that means the rifle wasn't wiped down.

You would think someone planting evidence like that would be wearing gloves in the first place.

Riiiiight!....  You've got excellent 20 / 20 hindsight.   

[Tim Nickerson]

Do you seriously believe that you can measure distances on a photograph?

You have shown that the rifle was 2' 4" south of the row of boxes that formed the south wall of the aisle at the top of the stairs.   However this does not take into account that there were boxes stacked up about three or four feet high......( Boone had to squeeze between the west wall and the stacked up boxes ) So anybody who would attempt to place a rifle on the floor at 15' 4" would not only have had to reach across a 28 inch span, he would have had to have lowered the rifle about three feet down to the floor.  ...and slide it beneath the wooden pallet.    ( This would have been a feat for Plasticman)    No human could have placed that rifle beneath the pallet while standing in the aisle at the top of the stairs.... THIS IS A FACT!   

The fact that the rifle had been carefully hidden beneath that pallet is proof that the rifle was placed the BEFORE the shooting.....

I'm not much good at  measuring distances on photographs but one doesn't need to be in order to know that my placement of the rifle is right. Just compare the two photos that I previously linked to. Zoom in on each of them and look closely at the boxes and the printing and stamps on them. The rifle was not placed beneath a pallet.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49607/m1/1/

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338775/m1/1/

[Walt Cakebread]

The wooden pallet at lower-right seems to have its closed-in side running West-East. Would make it difficult for Weitzman to see a rifle underneath it.


The other two pallets with the projections are "wing-type" pallets.



I'm wondering if Weitzman saw the rifle while looking between the large gap of the stacked cartons on the pallets (upper-center of background).

I'm wondering if Weitzman saw the rifle while looking between the large gap of the stacked cartons on the pallets

Why wonder?.....Just read what Weitzman testified....

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; this is taken the opposite side the flat I was looking under.
Mr. BALL - Looking from the top side of this picture?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Well, I would be looking over--Boone was looking the top side; I was looking under the flat.

[Tim Nickerson]

   
Interesting. If the rifle is beneath the pallet, how can Boone (on top of the pallet) see through the stacked books to the floor?

Boom!!