How exactly did the shooter get down from the sixth floor?

[Martin Weidmann]

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#expert

 
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#ownership

EXPERT EXAMINATION OF RIFLE, CARTRIDGE CASES, AND BULLET FRAGMENTS

On the sixth floor of the Depository Building, the Dallas police found three spent cartridges and a rifle. A nearly whole bullet was discovered on the stretcher used to carry Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital. As described in the preceding section, five bullet fragments were found in the President's limousine. The cartridge cases, the nearly whole bullet and the bullet fragments were all subjected to firearms identification analysis by qualified experts. It was the unanimous opinion of the experts that the nearly whole bullet, the two largest. bullet fragments. and the three cartridge cases were definitely fired in the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building to the exclusion of all other weapons.

Nobody disputes that the bullet and fragments were fired by the MC rifle. There are, however, multiple problems with the story above.

First of all, it's an assumption that "a nearly whole bullet" (CE 399) was indeed found on Connally's stretcher. Arlon Specter introduced CE 399 into evidence during the testimony of Dr. Humes and he did so subject to later proof that this bullet was indeed found on Connally's stretcher. That "later proof" was never presented.

There is also no evidence that the bullet fragments allegedly found in the limousine were in fact recovered from the car. Before Frazier could get to the Secret Service garage to examine the limo, the crime scene (which is what it was) was disturbed and contaminated by two men who had no business to "examine" the car. No photos of the items in situ were made and Frazier was given the fragments and told they came from the limo.

And as far as the cartridge cases go, which ones are they talking about exactly. The ones Fritz picked up or the ones he threw down in the sniper's nest.

But be all that what its is, where is the proof that the rifle found at the TSBD was actually fired on 11/22/63 at 12:30?

OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF ASSASSINATION WEAPON

Purchase of Rifle by Oswald

Shortly after the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building,1 agents of the FBI learned from retail outlets in Dallas that Crescent Firearms, Inc., of New York City, was a distributor of surplus Italian 6.5-millimeter military rifles.2 During the evening of November 22, 1963, a review of the records of Crescent Firearms revealed that the firm had shipped an Italian carbine, serial number C2766, to Klein's Sporting Goods Co., of Chicago, Ill.3 After searching their records from 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. the officers of Klein's discovered that a rifle bearing serial number C2766 had been shipped to one A. Hidell,

I'm not going to respond to this, because it basically comes down to one thing; an FBI expert testified with certainty (which experts normally never do *) that Oswald wrote the order form which is really the only potential direct link to Oswald. An internal document of Klein's with a handwritten number on it linked the MC rifle found at the TSBD to the Hidell order. But even if Oswald wrote the order form and it caused the internal document to be generated, there is no evidence whatsoever that proves that Oswald was the owner of the TSBD rifle and had still possession of it on 11/21/63. In fact, even if you consider the BY photo to be legit and the rifle Oswald is holding is actually the same one that was found at the TSBD, that still does not provide any evidence of ownership or the rifle being in Oswald's possession 8 months later. It's all assumption.

* Handwriting experts need originals of the questioned documents in order to, for example, determine the pressure applied when writing and to examine the flow of the ink. They also need certified original documents to compare the questioned handwriting with.

From the WC report;

Document examiners for the Treasury Department and the FBI testified unequivocally that the bold printing on the face of the mail-order coupon was in the handprinting of Lee Harvey Oswald and that the writing on the envelope was also his. 5 Oswald's writing on these and other documents was identified by comparing the writing and printing on the documents in question with that appearing on documents known to have been written by Oswald, such as his letters, passport application, and endorsements of checks

What in the world does "documents known to have been written by Oswald" mean?

In a civil dispute many years ago, a signature on a contract and a cheque were denied by the other party. The judge ordered the opposite party to provide 10 specimen signatures to be written in front of the court so that there could be no question of the authenticity of the samples. In the JFK case the FBI expert was given documents that allegedly were written and signed by Oswald, but he had no way of telling if that was true or not. He could only assume they were "documents known to have been written by Oswald".

Are assumptions evidence, Tim?

Let's, for argument's sake, say that, with Oswald already dead, the need to wrap the case around him (possibly for fear of the consequences of a possible conspiracy) caused the comparison documents to be manipulated as well. Katzenbach's memo spelled it out clearly; "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."   The memo is clearly advocating a political course irrespective of the truth of the assassination. Add to this that all the evidence was to be buried at the National Archives for 75 years, so, what would be the risk if they (as in: the people who covered it up) used manipulated documents, who would be the wiser?

Try for once to go beyond the superficial, Tim!

[John Iacoletti]

LN nuts quote the WCR like religious nuts quote the bible.

[Royell Storing]

  What about that 8"-10" Blood Pool that Mal Couch gave WC Testimony about? If Couch could be relied on to testify about seeing a pipe in the 6th Floor sniper's window, his testimony regarding this Blood Pool should also be respected. And that Blood Pool is close enough to the TSBD to throw a rock from it and hit the building. There was definitely More than 1 person involved in the shooting of JFK. Oswald was never supposed to make it out of that 2nd Floor Lunchroom.

[Tom Graves]

LN nuts quote the WCR like religious nuts quote the bible.

Whereas you prefer the apocrypha.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

For the conspiracists it's always "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission." For them it's always 1964, there's been nothing else. When we cite the HSCA or the Rockefeller Commission or the Church Committee or the news media investigations we get the same hand waving and excuses. Coverups and coverups and coverups.

Okay, so we'll just cite the HSCA. Will that be acceptable? Of course not.

Over these six plus decades we've had multiple generations of Americans in the government and out investigate this event. Directly and indirectly. Now all of the documents have been released. Everything is out there. And the Oswald cult like defenders respond with their faith based rejection of everything. Logic, facts, reason are all dismissed as speculation and conjecture.

[Royell Storing]

  Do you know that the HSCA found, "...probable conspiracy" and 4 SHOTS being fired? Do you really wanna, ".... just cite the HSCA"? Are you now a Conspiracy convert?

[Lance Payette]

  Do you know that the HSCA found, "...probable conspiracy" and 4 SHOTS being fired? Do you really wanna, ".... just cite the HSCA"? Are you now a Conspiracy convert?

Oh, thank you. That was sooooo predictable I was going to post it myself in reply to Steve, perhaps in a more ironic vein than you intended.

Remove the last-minute Dictabelt "evidence" from the equation, and the HSCA was pretty much the Warren Commission II with the exception of dubiously moving the head wound entry. You know that, so why do CTers keep repeating this canard as though it were significant?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Do conspiracy believers really want to endorse the findings of the HSCA? Lone assassin believers largely will because the acoustic evidence they used for the "probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy" was wrong. Otherwise, it was pretty good; not perfect but good.

If we add this investigation to the Warren Commission Report, the Rockefeller Commission, the Church Committee, the news media investigations, the investigations by reporters like Hersh and Weiner, and the research by historians the only sensible conclusion supports the theory that it was one man - Oswald - with a rifle. The other claims are simply people using the assassination to express their grievances with the CIA or "deep state" or whatever monsters they have swirling in their heads.