Next to Oswald's Rifle

[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.

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.

I believe the DPD had the carcano on 11-11-63 and they had found it at a scene where someone was supposed to be shot at ( Adlai Stevenson, perhaps  ??) And the sketch is the suspect who would have been sought for questioning? 

Doyle Williams didn't know so he simply altered the numeral "11" to make it look like "22"...   I only propose this theory as a possibility ..... But whether the proposed theory is valid ...I definitely DO believe that the key conspirator at the DPD did in fact have the carcano PRIOR to 11/22/63.

[Zeon Mason]

If there was an MC rifle with a rusty barrel and a dysfunctional scope in the possession of FBI,DPD, or CIA, prior to 11/22/63, then why didn’t they at least shoot  a few rounds to clean out  the rust  and fix or replace the scope before this rifle was pre planted?

Its almost like the conspirator shooter had some kind of respect for the patsy he was setting up, thus chose to give the patsy a chance Of acquittal by a jury due to reasonable doubt.

Thus the reason for a rusty barrel, bad scope rifle to be placed inside the 4” space of a pallet stacked full with boxes, which is absurd enough to virtually guarantee doubt that MC rifle was fired by the assassin.

If this speculation is correct, then the conspirator shooter may be a CIA operative who had once been a friend of Oswald’s especially if Oswald was also a CIA operative whom had worked with the shooter on previous missions.

[Richard Smith]

If there was an MC rifle with a rusty barrel and a dysfunctional scope in the possession of FBI,DPD, or CIA, prior to 11/22/63, then why didn’t they at least shoot  a few rounds to clean out  the rust  and fix or replace the scope before this rifle was pre planted?

Its almost like the conspirator shooter had some kind of respect for the patsy he was setting up, thus chose to give the patsy a chance Of acquittal by a jury due to reasonable doubt.

Thus the reason for a rusty barrel, bad scope rifle to be placed inside the 4” space of a pallet stacked full with boxes, which is absurd enough to virtually guarantee doubt that MC rifle was fired by the assassin.

If this speculation is correct, then the conspirator shooter may be a CIA operative who had once been a friend of Oswald’s especially if Oswald was also a CIA operative whom had worked with the shooter on previous missions.

There is no evidence that there was a "bad scope" at the time of the assassination.  We only know the condition of the scope after it was hastily hidden (perhaps dropped) behind some boxes and removed to check for prints.  And even if it were misaligned, any shooter trained in the USMC who practiced with that rifle could easily make an adjustment to account for any misalignment.

[John Iacoletti]

It’s possible the scope was aligned, and it’s possible that he could make the shot anyway, and it’s possible he practiced, therefore it happened. 

[Bill Brown]

If there was an MC rifle with a rusty barrel and a dysfunctional scope in the possession of FBI,DPD, or CIA, prior to 11/22/63, then why didn’t they at least shoot  a few rounds to clean out  the rust  and fix or replace the scope before this rifle was pre planted?

Its almost like the conspirator shooter had some kind of respect for the patsy he was setting up, thus chose to give the patsy a chance Of acquittal by a jury due to reasonable doubt.

Thus the reason for a rusty barrel, bad scope rifle to be placed inside the 4” space of a pallet stacked full with boxes, which is absurd enough to virtually guarantee doubt that MC rifle was fired by the assassin.

If this speculation is correct, then the conspirator shooter may be a CIA operative who had once been a friend of Oswald’s especially if Oswald was also a CIA operative whom had worked with the shooter on previous missions.

There is no evidence that there was a "bad scope" at the time of the assassination.  We only know the condition of the scope after it was hastily hidden (perhaps dropped) behind some boxes and removed to check for prints.  And even if it were misaligned, any shooter trained in the USMC who practiced with that rifle could easily make an adjustment to account for any misalignment.

There is also no evidence of rust on the rifle.

Robert Frazier examined the rifle and said it showed the effects of wear and corrosion; nothing about rust.

[Walt Cakebread]

There is also no evidence of rust on the rifle.

Robert Frazier examined the rifle and said it showed the effects of wear and corrosion; nothing about rust.

Describe "corrosion" on steel.....

[Bill Brown]

Describe "corrosion" on steel.....

All rust on steel is corrosion but not all corrosion on steel is rust.

Robert Frazier said the barrel showed the effects of wear and corrosion.  Frazier did NOT say the barrel was rusty.

You can decide for yourself if you want to understand this very simple concept or not.