Was the Rifle that Lt. Day carried out of the TSBD the same as in evidence?

[Benjamin Cole]

LP--

You are correct, that a defense counsel has one job, and that is to get his/her client off.

Unfortunately, some elements of the CT community have adopted the same standard. This has some benefits; some of the WC evidence was shaky, and witness statements are all over the board.

This "defend LHO at all costs" attitude has also led to a lot of false premises, such as the M-C was a worthless rifle (carbine) and LHO was a bad shot.

At 70 yards, the M-C was a good enough rifle, and LHO was an excellent shot (by civilian standards) in 1956, and still pretty good in 1961. Whether he practiced in 1963, no one seems to know.

Add on: The horrible Kirk assassination, and the whisker-close miss on Trump (Butler) show even an unpracticed amateur with a rifle can be lethal, and at way more than 70 yards.

Who knows if LHO was the TSBD6 sniper, or if a confederate was, and LHO was only a lookout.

I suspect a second gunsel, possibly in the Dal-Tex building or TSBD6.

With the latest JFK document releases underway...it still looks like the JFKA mystery won't get solved. Harvey had an FAA credential? What does that mean? That means Angleton had JFK waxed?

[Royell Storing]

But a defense counsel doesn't have to prove anything. He doesn't have to have a coherent theory as to what occurred. He just has to sling the sh*t, wacky and inconsistent as it may be, and hope some tiny piece resonates with at least one juror.

I'm still trying to get my mind around what sort of conspiracy would have left a Mauser on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

    Not sure if the above is in reference to the JFK Assassination or an episode of "Matlock" (1986-1992)

[Michael T. Griffith]

Griffith over the years has proven one thing: he’s the new Jim Fetzer.  These raging debates with Griffith will get you no place. “Six shots” Joseph is no different.

In other words, you can't deal with the visible, self-evident fact that the markings on CE 139 are not on the rifle that Lt. Day carried out of the building, so you resort to ad hominem attacks.

I agree that debates in this forum usually "get you no place"--because you guys are 10-20 years behind the information curve and refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence and disclosures that destroyed your version of the shooting decades ago. You guys act like we're still in the 1970s and 1980s.

There has been some absolutely absurd nonsensical conspiracy theories but this has gotta be in the top ten!

Uh-huh. Have you figured out that 2.11 mm minus 1.96 mm is not "far in excess of 1 mm" yet? I refer to your stunning blunder about the gate-bolt-to-screen parallax measurements for backyard rifle photos 133-A and 133-B. (And I see in your last reply in that thread that you still refuse to admit that the HSCA photographic experts acknowledged that the distances between background objects in the photos is "very small.")

Swapping out the rifle from the time it was found till it was taken from the building then swapped back when it was shown to the Press later that day goes nowhere and makes zero sense.

It makes perfect sense if you unchain your mind from the lone-gunman myth. They simply needed to swap the rifle brought out of the building with the rifle that was allegedly ordered from Klein's and seen in the backyard rifle photos. They would have had to do that in order to make the alleged mail-order rifle the alleged murder weapon.

I notice you still can't come up with a rational explanation for why the markings on CE 139 (which you keep calling C2766) are clearly not on the rifle that Lt. Day carried out of the building. They're just not there. The picture of Lt. Day carrying the rifle is a high-resolution photo, so we can zoom in and see those parts of the rifle where the markings should be if the rifle is CE 139, and we can see that the markings are not there. Sorry, they're just not there.

Anyway let's summarize.

Lt. Day confirms that he retained possession of Oswald's rifle from the moment it was found till he got back to Police headquarters.

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

Oh, well! That settles it then! Lt. Day said so, so it must be so! Never mind the mountain of problems with Lt. Day's credibility. Lt. Day claimed he lifted a palmprint from CE 139's barrel but incredibly failed to take a single photo of the print, in violation of standard procedure, and then refused to sign a sworn affidavit attesting that he lifted the print when the WC asked him to do so.

Was Oswald's Palmprint Planted on the Alleged Murder Weapon?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NzWhdO-Ak3nbuxl8vsy62-fpLTBMBvPx/view

The rifle being carried from the building is definitely the same make and model as Oswald's Carcano(C2766).

No, it is not, and it is not the rifle that was ordered from Klein's. Anyone with two eyes can look at the Klein's catalog and see that the rifle that "Hidell" ordered had the strap hooks on the bottom, but CE 139 has no hooks on the bottom but has them embedded in the side.

The evidence in the OP showing the many similarities in random scratches, scrapes and gouges on the rifle Lt. Day takes from the Depository and the rifle in evidence.

Those ambiguous "similarities" do not explain the absence of the "CAL" and "Made Italy" markings on the Day rifle.

Josephs extremely dishonest graphical enhancement of the "CAL 6.5" decal on the rifle to enhance a barely legible "CAL 6.5" on the rifle in evidence.

There is nothing the least bit dishonest about David Josephs' enlargements of the high-quality photo of Lt. Day carrying a rifle and of CE 139. You just don't like them because you can't explain why the "CAL" and "Made Italy" stamps are not on Lt. Day's rifle.

BTW notice that Griffith keeps running from my question of WHY?, why on Earth would Day or anyone else for that matter feel the need to substitute a rifle that was photographed and filmed in situ on the 6th floor, with another rifle of the exact same make and model and then resubstitute it for the same rifle originally found on the 6th floor? Where does this go? How does this "deception" tie into the conspiracy? Well Griffith, waiting......??  JohnM

Just curious: Who is "Well Griffith"? You see, people with adequate education know that you need to put a comma after an interjection that precedes someone's name. If I were to say the same thing to you, I would say, "Well, Mytton."

I usually would never nit-pick someone's writing errors, but since you guys posture as though anyone who rejects your minority viewpoint is uneducated and fringe, I decided to make an exception. You guys keep forgetting that you are the ones who are in the decided minority on the JFK case, and that polls have consistently found that 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world rejects your version of the shooting.

I've already explained why they would have replaced the TSBD rifle with CE 139. They were confident they could get away with it, and they did for decades. There were no clear close-up photos taken of the rifle in the building, and the Alyea footage is grainy and was taken in poor lighting.

BTW, there are two other differences between the Day rifle and CE 139 (the alleged murder weapon):

One, the scope looks different. This is obvious at first glance and become more obvious when you look more carefully.

Two, the flange behind the "Made Italy" stamp under the scope is not the same as the one on CE139. CE 139's flange has a noticeable ridge, unlike the flange on Day's rifle, and the distance from the flange to the sight is different on the rifles.

Rather than hide behind theoretical objections because you summarily reject the possibility of evidence tampering, you need to address the visible fact that the two rifles are clearly not the same weapon.

[Mark Ulrik]

A lot of detail in the DP images is washed out by sunlight, but this mark (near the edge of a less exposed area) seems a fairy good match to the NARA images.

[Benjamin Cole]

MU-

In the excellent images you have provided...it appears the slots in the two screws are not aligned in the same way. Especially the bottom screw. Not sure what this means, if anything.

[Charles Collins]

Robert Frazier testified about finding a significant scrape on the rear of the scope:

Mr. FRAZIER - No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged.

Has anyone found that scrape in any photos of the rifle? If so, is there a photo that was taken earlier than that photo that indicates that the scrape wasn’t there at that point in time? I am trying find any evidence that might indicate when that scrape on the scope happened. Can it be determined from any of the photos if the scrape was it there (or not there) when the rifle was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD?

I think that a definitive answer to this question might help with the question asked in the title of this thread. And also help with answering the question of what condition the scope might have been on 11/22/63.

Thanks!

[Mark Ulrik]

Robert Frazier testified about finding a significant scrape on the rear of the scope:

Mr. FRAZIER - No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged.

Has anyone found that scrape in any photos of the rifle? If so, is there a photo that was taken earlier than that photo that indicates that the scrape wasn’t there at that point in time? I am trying find any evidence that might indicate when that scrape on the scope happened. Can it be determined from any of the photos if the scrape was it there (or not there) when the rifle was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD?

I think that a definitive answer to this question might help with the question asked in the title of this thread. And also help with answering the question of what condition the scope might have been on 11/22/63.

Thanks!

Has to be this one.



It's easy enough to see in the photos of Day holding the rifle up for the press.



The question is whether the light spot in the same place in Alyea is the scrape or just a random reflection.