Next to Oswald's Rifle

[Walt Cakebread]

I don't think there's too much to it. SA Williams wasn't the greatest when it came to writing big numerals, although he does do a far better job of it in the picture with the shells.

Question:.....   Could the authorities have had the rifle on 11-11-63 and took the photo at that time?    That might explain the altering of the numeral "1'" and it could explain the sketch of the "suspect"..... 

[Dan O'meara]

Question:.....   Could the authorities have had the rifle on 11-11-63 and took the photo at that time?    That might explain the altering of the numeral "1'" and it could explain the sketch of the "suspect".....

To be honest Walt, I really can't see the conspirators dating a picture of the rifle 11 days before the assassination.
It's just a poorly made sign. If they needed to change the numerals they would've just changed the sign.

[Walt Cakebread]

To be honest Walt, I really can't see the conspirators dating a picture of the rifle 11 days before the assassination.
It's just a poorly made sign. If they needed to change the numerals they would've just changed the sign.

Ok, Dan, thanks for your input.....   But I continue to suspect that there's something not right about that photo.

And now let's shift gears.....   You posted the FBI photos of TWO tarnished rifle shells and a live round.....  I'd bet that they only had TWO spent shells on the evening of 11/22/63.....    Because the plot called for just two shots to be accounted for, but when the majority of witnesses swore that there were ay least THREE shots fired the conspirators were compelled to produce a third spent shell..... And I'm sure you know that one of the spent shells was scratched by the rifle's elevator ( that would mean that it was the last cartridge in the clip and the live round was NOT served into the bolt and breech by the rifle's elevator. 

[Walt Cakebread]

upload img

I believe these pics were taken late on the 22nd, just before Drain took the items off to Washington. They were taken by SA John Doyle Williams. They were released with the cover sheet description below but I can't find a reference to the hand drawn picture next to the rifle:

FBI agent Doyle Williams said that he received TWO spent rifle shells and a live cartridge from the DPD on the evening of 11/22/63.   This is the evidence that was being sent to the FBI lab in Washington DC .....  They had only TWO spent shells at that time.

Also notice that in Williams description of the rifle he does NOT identify it as a Mannlicher Carcano.  The reason that he didn't identify it as a carcano is because it was such an unusual rifle that very few knew anything about the rifle.   They learned the name of the rifle Saturday morning, and therefore in reports written after 11/22/63 the rifle is referred to as a "Carcano".    This seemingly insignificant fact is a very important indicator as to the date the report was written.    As you've said, Dan, .... The evidence list that was prepared on 11/22/63 lists only TWO spent shells and the rifle is NOT referred to as a "carcano".  THIS IS IMPORTANT!   

[Dan O'meara]

Ok, Dan, thanks for your input.....   But I continue to suspect that there's something not right about that photo.

If the "sketch" is part of the haul of evidence to be taken by the FBI then something is very wrong with the picture, as it is not mentioned in the list of evidence taken on the night of the 22nd and is never seen again.
SA Williams is focused solely on taking pictures of the evidence being transferred to the FBI and I find it hard to imagine that he is accidently including a sketch that just happens to be there.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the sketch is something that is accidentally included but, to me at least, it seems unlikely.

And now let's shift gears.....   You posted the FBI photos of TWO tarnished rifle shells and a live round.....  I'd bet that they only had TWO spent shells on the evening of 11/22/63.....    Because the plot called for just two shots to be accounted for, but when the majority of witnesses swore that there were ay least THREE shots fired the conspirators were compelled to produce a third spent shell

The saga of the shells and their journey from the TSBD to the possession of the FBI is an unbelievable farce. It really is incredible and highlights something that is beyond incompetence.
Carl Day testifies as follows:
In his "pre-hearing interview" he states he marked the shells at the scene, where they were found.
On the day of his WC hearing he examines the shells again and decides that the shells were not marked at the scene.
He describes two shells being brought to him with the rest of the evidence being transferred to the FBI, that Fritz has kept one shell and that he never sees this shell again.
He then changes this story to all three shells being brought to him, that he dusts the shells again (even though he's already done it) and that he releases one of the shells back to Fritz. He then marks the two shells he has but not the one released back to Fritz.
He then changes this story to one where he marks all three shells at the same time but cannot remember if he marked them all at the scene or in his office.
He also testifies that he gives possession of the shells to Det. Sims at the scene but Sims testifies that he did not take possession of the shells. Sims has to go back in front of the WC a couple of days later where he reveals Fritz has told him to remember that he, Sims, took possession of the shells at the scene. This is not a joke. Sims is told by Fritz to remember he took possession of the shells.

There's more to it but the whole thing is like a sick joke. There is something being covered up regarding the shells and it takes the participants a few goes to get their stories straight. Even a detail like the live round being dusted at the scene but then showing up in the photo clean, shows something isn't right. Fritz pocketing the live round at the scene and deciding to keep one of the empty shells for himself is incredible. What is he thinking in terms of "chain of custody"? Why does he need both a live round and an empty shell?

..... And I'm sure you know that one of the spent shells was scratched by the rifle's elevator ( that would mean that it was the last cartridge in the clip and the live round was NOT served into the bolt and breech by the rifle's elevator.

I'm vaguely aware of this Walt but would like to hear your opinion about it in more detail.

[Walt Cakebread]

If the "sketch" is part of the haul of evidence to be taken by the FBI then something is very wrong with the picture, as it is not mentioned in the list of evidence taken on the night of the 22nd and is never seen again.
SA Williams is focused solely on taking pictures of the evidence being transferred to the FBI and I find it hard to imagine that he is accidently including a sketch that just happens to be there.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the sketch is something that is accidentally included but, to me at least, it seems unlikely.

The saga of the shells and their journey from the TSBD to the possession of the FBI is an unbelievable farce. It really is incredible and highlights something that is beyond incompetence.
Carl Day testifies as follows:
In his "pre-hearing interview" he states he marked the shells at the scene, where they were found.
On the day of his WC hearing he examines the shells again and decides that the shells were not marked at the scene.
He describes two shells being brought to him with the rest of the evidence being transferred to the FBI, that Fritz has kept one shell and that he never sees this shell again.
He then changes this story to all three shells being brought to him, that he dusts the shells again (even though he's already done it) and that he releases one of the shells back to Fritz. He then marks the two shells he has but not the one released back to Fritz.
He then changes this story to one where he marks all three shells at the same time but cannot remember if he marked them all at the scene or in his office.
He also testifies that he gives possession of the shells to Det. Sims at the scene but Sims testifies that he did not take possession of the shells. Sims has to go back in front of the WC a couple of days later where he reveals Fritz has told him to remember that he, Sims, took possession of the shells at the scene. This is not a joke. Sims is told by Fritz to remember he took possession of the shells.

There's more to it but the whole thing is like a sick joke. There is something being covered up regarding the shells and it takes the participants a few goes to get their stories straight. Even a detail like the live round being dusted at the scene but then showing up in the photo clean, shows something isn't right. Fritz pocketing the live round at the scene and deciding to keep one of the empty shells for himself is incredible. What is he thinking in terms of "chain of custody"? Why does he need both a live round and an empty shell?

I'm vaguely aware of this Walt but would like to hear your opinion about it in more detail.

Hi Dan, I think you've summed it up very nicely in your statement... T "The saga of the shells and their journey from the TSBD to the possession of the FBI is an unbelievable farce."  I can't improve on that!

The DPD and the FBI were a pack of God damned LIARS, ( and I mean that literally )  I can only hope and pray that Saint Peter turned them away.....

[Zeon Mason]

Besides Walt Cakebreads theory , what other alternatives to explain why an MC rifle with rusty barrel and dysfunctional scope was pre planted?l

Let’s consider that Malcom Wallace was the hit man. What reason Wallace did not at least fire a couple rounds thru the MC rifle and fix or remove the faulty scope? Did Wallace not have enough time because he waited until 3am Nov 22/63 to steal the MC rifle from Oswald’s boarding room? Would this explain Oswald’s hurried return to his boarding room , suspecting his rifle stolen, and upon finding it gone, Oswald panicked, taking his revolver and heading towards hiding out in the Marsales Zoo, only to run into Tippet while heading that way?