Post by Rob Caprio on Jul 17, 2021 9:50:42 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.awesomestories.com/images/user/b81b775ae3.gif
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT) with a .38 Smith & Wesson Special (S&W S) at approximately 1:16 p.m. on November 22, 1963. We have covered the murder of JDT from many angles and have seen that LHO did NOT do it based on the evidence, but we have not looked at the alleged murder weapon (Commission Exhibit (CE) 143) in terms of the order process. It was NOT the murder weapon of JDT, and we have not explored the alleged order as we have for the rifle (CE 139).
This post will do that.
***********************************
Years after the assassination the man who led the “investigation” into the murder of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) was still trying to show that LHO ordered both weapons that were accused of killing JFK and JDT. On page 99 of Jesse Curry’s JFK Assassination File, published in 1969, he included an advertisement from Guns & Ammo for Klein’s Sporting Goods (KSG) that included both of the weapons as if to show LHO used just one advertisement for both weapons. To emphasize that this was the advertisement used it had a circle drawn around both a .38 S&W revolver and a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C). This of course is not the truth.
CE 143 was a “Victory” model as the serial number, V510210, started with a “V”. In CE 593 we see this written in an article by James Triggs.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0146a.jpg
Under pressure or wartime need Smith & Wesson in April 1942 began production of the Victory model M&P with gray sandblast finish. Serial numbers were preceded by the letter “V” and a new numbering was begun.
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0146a.htm
Quote off
Over a 1,000,000 Victory Model .38 revolvers were made for English and Canadian troops and bore “English proof marks” on them, and CE 143 had these proof marks. CE 143 was purchased in a 500 gun order to Empire Wholesale Sporting Goods, Ltd,, Montreal 1, Quebec.
Mr. BALL. And does it refer to this particular purchase of 99 guns?
Mr. MICHAELIS. No. We bought altogether 500 guns.
Mr. BALL. All right. Now, tell me what you found as to the source of this gun; where you bought it and from whom.
Mr. MICHAELIS. We bought it from Empire Wholesale Sporting Goods, Ltd., 360 Craig Street West, Montreal 1, Quebec.
Mr. BALL. And what date did you buy it?
Mr. MICHAELIS. Invoice No. 1181 dated October 13, 1962.
Mr. BALL. And it was shipped to you by the Empire Wholesale Sporting Goods, Ltd., on what date?
Mr. MICHAELIS. It went---it was on 10/19/62, in St. Albans, Vt., and from then on it was directed to our place of business, which was at that time 1225 South Grand Avenue. However, the merchandise in question did not arrive before January 3, 1963.
Mr. BALL. Is that the date it did arrive?
Mr. MICHAELIS. Yes. It was received January 3, 1963.
We see CE 143 was not received until January 3, 1963, and LHO allegedly sent in the order on January 27, 1963.
Mr. BALL. I hand you a document which has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 135. Will you examine that and tell me whether or not you ever saw that before?
Mr. MICHAELIS. I saw it the first time on November the 30th.
Mr. BALL. The first time?
Mr. MICHAELIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And where did you find that? Where was it when you saw it on November 30?
Mr. MICHAELIS. It was attached to our invoice No. 5371, in the records, the red copy.
CE 135: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0268a.jpg
This brings up the obvious question of, why did Seaport Traders NOT fill the order before March 1963? I realize modifications were made to the revolvers (new handgrips, swivel hole in the butt was filled, and the barrel was refitted to a .38 Special), but it should not have taken a month and a half to do this type of work. Why did it take so long to fulfill LHO’s alleged order? We know it was a month and a half as supposedly on March 12, 1963, Seaport traders allegedly received CE 135 (which came from an unknown publication) which was dated January 27, 1963. Of course it shows the same “A.J. Hidell” name on it as the rifle did as well as the same destination of P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas, Texas.
The other thing with the alleged order form is that we see LHO allegedly again received a weapon he did NOT order. If we look at CE 790 (a much better copy of CE 135) we will see that LHO allegedly ordered a .38 St. W. 2” Bbl. for $29.95.
CE 790: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0352b.jpg
The problem with this is that it is NOT a description for a Smith & Wesson .38 Special so why was LHO allegedly sent one of these INSTEAD OF WHAT HE ALLEGEDLY ORDERED? The .38 St. W. 2” Bbl was less money than the Special which sold for $39.95. So, if we believe the official story, we must believe LHO was the luckiest consumer as he constantly got more expensive and better weapons than he allegedly ordered. The WC never explained why he was sent a type of weapon he never allegedly ordered. Also, we were provided only a COPY of the REA receipt by the FBI (D-94/DL-29), so what happened to the original? The REA receipt was signed by a “Paxton” on March 20, 1963, and the amount that appears on the receipt is just $19.95 (the amount due since $10.00 was allegedly sent in already), but it should have reflected the addition $1.27 charge for Cash On Delivery (COD) that was used, thus, it should have been marked $21.22.
In addition to these problems we have more. First of all, if you look at CE 790 you will see clearly on the order form that HALF the amount is due because of using COD, but in this case LHO only allegedly sent in $10.00 for a $39.95 pistol and it was still sent COD allegedly. There was another roadblock never covered by the WC for the alleged order. Researcher John Armstrong covered this in his book Harvey & Lee.
Quote on
Companies involved in the intrastate transportation of firearms, such as REA and Seaport Traders, are charged with the responsibility of conforming to the laws of the various states in which they conduct business. In 1963 Texas state law required that anyone desiring to purchase a pistol or handgun first obtain a “certificate of good character” from a justice of peace, county judge, or district judge of the county of his residence.152
Seaport Traders should never have shipped a pistol to “A.J. Hidell” or anyone in the State of Texas without receiving a “certificate of good character.” REA offices in Texas should have withheld shipments of pistols and handguns to consignee who failed to display a “certificate of good character.” Failing to do so could subject REA to civil and criminal penalties. (John Armstrong, Harvey & Lee, pp. 482-483)
152-Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, S 1448-11-11, op.cit. p. 3461
Quote off
As Mr. Armstrong points out KSG’s advertisements said this at the bottom of the page IF they included handguns: “…send permit if your city or state requires.” Clearly, Texas did require this and it was ignored by both Seaport Traders and REA if you believe the official claim. This means not only did Seaport Traders send a more expensive revolver than was allegedly ordered, but they, and REA, also risked their business in delivering this revolver to LHO’s P.O. Box if you believe the official claim. Mr. Armstrong also showed that REA should have checked the identity of the consignee and his “certificate of good character”, but neither was done in this case. REA also did not do a hand-to-hand check as required nor did they list the receipt on Form 5024. It seems REA did NOT do ANYTHING they normally would do in this case. Doesn’t that sound familiar in this case?
As if this was not enough, since the order was allegedly sent to a P.O. Box the only people who could deliver it to that box was the U.S. Postal Service, but we are told that REA made the delivery despite them not being able to show they mailed a postcard to LHO to tell him he had a package. Again, Mr. Armstrong sums all this up for us in his book.
Quote on
The package containing the pistol was allegedly picked up at the REA Office at 515 South Houston in Dallas. Yet the REA office had no notification card, no receipt for the payment of COD charges, no signed receipt for the package, no form 5024 as required, and no record of identification of the person who picked up the package. REA had nothing that showed either the identity of the individual who picked up the package or the date of pickup.
The FBI failed to obtain proof that payment for either the pistol or COD charges were remitted by anyone to REA or that REA remitted payment to Seaport Traders. If the Warren Commission or the FBI wanted to prove that a package was sent from Seaport Traders to the REA office in Dallas they needed only to obtain REA Express bank records. They could have easily located a deposit which corresponded to payment and COD charges received for the gun by REA in Dallas and REA’s remittance to Seaport. They also could have checked Seaport Traders bank records to confirm receipt of payment from REA.
With a near total lack of documentation, there is no proof that “A. J. Hidell” or Oswald, picked up a package at the REA Express office in Dallas. The overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that Seaport Traders did not send a pistol to “A.J. Hidell”, but if a package were sent it did not contain a firearm. (Ibid., pp. 483-484) (Emphasis in original)
Quote off
In what other circumstances would two companies violate all the rules to deliver one package? There is NO evidence showing LHO received or picked up any package under his own name or the alias “A. Hidell.” As we have seen before LHO did NOT even list anyone else to receive any mail at this P.O. Box and even the FBI said so.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pages/WC_Vol25_0445a.gif
12. CLAIM: The Post Office Box in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle mailed was kept under both his name and “A. Hidell.” Page 111.
INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did NOT indicate on his application that others, INCLUDING “A. HIDELL,” would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963. (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0445a.htm
Quote off
There is no evidence showing LHO ever ordered, received or took ownership of CE 143. The only support the WC could find were the claims of Marina Oswald. As usual, this was full of contradiction. She said this first to the WC.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall when he first had the pistol, that you remember?
Mrs. OSWALD. He had that on Neely Street, but I think that he acquired the rifle before he acquired the pistol. The pistol I saw twice once in his room, and the second time when I took these photographs.
Mr. RANKIN. What period of time was there between when he got the rifle and you learned of it, and the time that you first learned about the pistol?
Mrs. OSWALD. I can't say.
She then thought she saw the rifle and the revolver in late February or early March!
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures…
Obviously, based on the WC’s own claims he would NOT have either weapon to pose with at the end of February or early March. Keep in mind that he had the pistol for the backyard photographs he allegedly posed for on March 31, 1963.
Mr. RANKIN. And he was dressed up with a pistol at the same time, was he?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
So he had the pistol on when he allegedly posed for the backyard photographs according to Marina, but then we see this comment made to Senator Richard Russell when he questioned her.
Sen Russell: Why do you suppose he told you about the fact that he was going to shoot MR. NIXON and had shot at Gen. Walker?
Mrs. Oswald: As regards Gen. Walker, he came home late. He left me a note and so that is the reason why he discussed the Walker affair with me.
Now in regard to Mr. Nixon, he got dressed up in his suit and put a gun in his belt.
Sen Russell: You testified in his belt--I was going to ask about that, because that was a very unusual place to carry a gun. Usually, he would carry it in his coat. Did you EVER SEE HIM have a gun in his belt before?
Mrs. Oswald: NO; I would have NOTICED it if he did.
Sen. Russell: I see--you would have NOTICED it.
Mrs. Oswald: And so--I HAVE NEVER BEFORE SEEN HIM WITH THE PISTOL.
The incident they are discussing supposedly would have happened on April 23, 1963. Remember, the alleged backyard photographs supposedly took place on March 31, 1963, so how could she take them with him wearing a pistol and then say she NEVER saw the pistol before April 23, 1963? In front of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) she was NOT sure when she first saw the pistol.
Mr. PREYER - Shifting to the question of the rifle and the pistol, you have told us that you didn't like rifles and guns. When was the first time you saw the pistol that Lee had?
Mrs. PORTER - I really do not remember what month or the day it was and when I learned about the existence of it.
Mr. PREYER - Was it on the occasion of the photograph or was it on the occasion of the Nixon incident that you mentioned? Which was the first time that you knew he had a pistol?
Mrs. PORTER - Well, I cannot right now compare when it was, when the picture was taken, or when the Nixon incident was, before or after.
It appears she told the Secret Service (SS) the same thing she told Senator Russell.
Mr. PREYER - Well, if you saw that Nixon or if you saw the pistol during the Nixon incident, why did you tell the Secret Service at that time that you had never seen Lee with a pistol?
Mrs. PORTER - Well, maybe at the time they questioned me I did not remember. Maybe I tried to protect myself from something, I do not know.
What was she trying to protect herself from? Deportation? The point is she also said to the SS that as of the Nixon incident she had never seen LHO with a pistol. That would be impossible if she REALLY TOOK THE BACKYARD PHOTOGRAPHS as claimed.
I think again we see the evidence, and the lack of evidence, in the twenty-six volumes shows that the conclusion of the WC is false. LHO could not be shown to own CE 143 as claimed, CE 143 could NOT be shown to be taken from LHO at the Texas Theater and CE 143 could NOT be shown to be the murder weapon of JDT, therefore, the claims of the WC involving CE 143 are false.
www.awesomestories.com/images/user/b81b775ae3.gif
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT) with a .38 Smith & Wesson Special (S&W S) at approximately 1:16 p.m. on November 22, 1963. We have covered the murder of JDT from many angles and have seen that LHO did NOT do it based on the evidence, but we have not looked at the alleged murder weapon (Commission Exhibit (CE) 143) in terms of the order process. It was NOT the murder weapon of JDT, and we have not explored the alleged order as we have for the rifle (CE 139).
This post will do that.
***********************************
Years after the assassination the man who led the “investigation” into the murder of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) was still trying to show that LHO ordered both weapons that were accused of killing JFK and JDT. On page 99 of Jesse Curry’s JFK Assassination File, published in 1969, he included an advertisement from Guns & Ammo for Klein’s Sporting Goods (KSG) that included both of the weapons as if to show LHO used just one advertisement for both weapons. To emphasize that this was the advertisement used it had a circle drawn around both a .38 S&W revolver and a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C). This of course is not the truth.
CE 143 was a “Victory” model as the serial number, V510210, started with a “V”. In CE 593 we see this written in an article by James Triggs.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0146a.jpg
Under pressure or wartime need Smith & Wesson in April 1942 began production of the Victory model M&P with gray sandblast finish. Serial numbers were preceded by the letter “V” and a new numbering was begun.
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0146a.htm
Quote off
Over a 1,000,000 Victory Model .38 revolvers were made for English and Canadian troops and bore “English proof marks” on them, and CE 143 had these proof marks. CE 143 was purchased in a 500 gun order to Empire Wholesale Sporting Goods, Ltd,, Montreal 1, Quebec.
Mr. BALL. And does it refer to this particular purchase of 99 guns?
Mr. MICHAELIS. No. We bought altogether 500 guns.
Mr. BALL. All right. Now, tell me what you found as to the source of this gun; where you bought it and from whom.
Mr. MICHAELIS. We bought it from Empire Wholesale Sporting Goods, Ltd., 360 Craig Street West, Montreal 1, Quebec.
Mr. BALL. And what date did you buy it?
Mr. MICHAELIS. Invoice No. 1181 dated October 13, 1962.
Mr. BALL. And it was shipped to you by the Empire Wholesale Sporting Goods, Ltd., on what date?
Mr. MICHAELIS. It went---it was on 10/19/62, in St. Albans, Vt., and from then on it was directed to our place of business, which was at that time 1225 South Grand Avenue. However, the merchandise in question did not arrive before January 3, 1963.
Mr. BALL. Is that the date it did arrive?
Mr. MICHAELIS. Yes. It was received January 3, 1963.
We see CE 143 was not received until January 3, 1963, and LHO allegedly sent in the order on January 27, 1963.
Mr. BALL. I hand you a document which has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 135. Will you examine that and tell me whether or not you ever saw that before?
Mr. MICHAELIS. I saw it the first time on November the 30th.
Mr. BALL. The first time?
Mr. MICHAELIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And where did you find that? Where was it when you saw it on November 30?
Mr. MICHAELIS. It was attached to our invoice No. 5371, in the records, the red copy.
CE 135: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0268a.jpg
This brings up the obvious question of, why did Seaport Traders NOT fill the order before March 1963? I realize modifications were made to the revolvers (new handgrips, swivel hole in the butt was filled, and the barrel was refitted to a .38 Special), but it should not have taken a month and a half to do this type of work. Why did it take so long to fulfill LHO’s alleged order? We know it was a month and a half as supposedly on March 12, 1963, Seaport traders allegedly received CE 135 (which came from an unknown publication) which was dated January 27, 1963. Of course it shows the same “A.J. Hidell” name on it as the rifle did as well as the same destination of P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas, Texas.
The other thing with the alleged order form is that we see LHO allegedly again received a weapon he did NOT order. If we look at CE 790 (a much better copy of CE 135) we will see that LHO allegedly ordered a .38 St. W. 2” Bbl. for $29.95.
CE 790: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0352b.jpg
The problem with this is that it is NOT a description for a Smith & Wesson .38 Special so why was LHO allegedly sent one of these INSTEAD OF WHAT HE ALLEGEDLY ORDERED? The .38 St. W. 2” Bbl was less money than the Special which sold for $39.95. So, if we believe the official story, we must believe LHO was the luckiest consumer as he constantly got more expensive and better weapons than he allegedly ordered. The WC never explained why he was sent a type of weapon he never allegedly ordered. Also, we were provided only a COPY of the REA receipt by the FBI (D-94/DL-29), so what happened to the original? The REA receipt was signed by a “Paxton” on March 20, 1963, and the amount that appears on the receipt is just $19.95 (the amount due since $10.00 was allegedly sent in already), but it should have reflected the addition $1.27 charge for Cash On Delivery (COD) that was used, thus, it should have been marked $21.22.
In addition to these problems we have more. First of all, if you look at CE 790 you will see clearly on the order form that HALF the amount is due because of using COD, but in this case LHO only allegedly sent in $10.00 for a $39.95 pistol and it was still sent COD allegedly. There was another roadblock never covered by the WC for the alleged order. Researcher John Armstrong covered this in his book Harvey & Lee.
Quote on
Companies involved in the intrastate transportation of firearms, such as REA and Seaport Traders, are charged with the responsibility of conforming to the laws of the various states in which they conduct business. In 1963 Texas state law required that anyone desiring to purchase a pistol or handgun first obtain a “certificate of good character” from a justice of peace, county judge, or district judge of the county of his residence.152
Seaport Traders should never have shipped a pistol to “A.J. Hidell” or anyone in the State of Texas without receiving a “certificate of good character.” REA offices in Texas should have withheld shipments of pistols and handguns to consignee who failed to display a “certificate of good character.” Failing to do so could subject REA to civil and criminal penalties. (John Armstrong, Harvey & Lee, pp. 482-483)
152-Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, S 1448-11-11, op.cit. p. 3461
Quote off
As Mr. Armstrong points out KSG’s advertisements said this at the bottom of the page IF they included handguns: “…send permit if your city or state requires.” Clearly, Texas did require this and it was ignored by both Seaport Traders and REA if you believe the official claim. This means not only did Seaport Traders send a more expensive revolver than was allegedly ordered, but they, and REA, also risked their business in delivering this revolver to LHO’s P.O. Box if you believe the official claim. Mr. Armstrong also showed that REA should have checked the identity of the consignee and his “certificate of good character”, but neither was done in this case. REA also did not do a hand-to-hand check as required nor did they list the receipt on Form 5024. It seems REA did NOT do ANYTHING they normally would do in this case. Doesn’t that sound familiar in this case?
As if this was not enough, since the order was allegedly sent to a P.O. Box the only people who could deliver it to that box was the U.S. Postal Service, but we are told that REA made the delivery despite them not being able to show they mailed a postcard to LHO to tell him he had a package. Again, Mr. Armstrong sums all this up for us in his book.
Quote on
The package containing the pistol was allegedly picked up at the REA Office at 515 South Houston in Dallas. Yet the REA office had no notification card, no receipt for the payment of COD charges, no signed receipt for the package, no form 5024 as required, and no record of identification of the person who picked up the package. REA had nothing that showed either the identity of the individual who picked up the package or the date of pickup.
The FBI failed to obtain proof that payment for either the pistol or COD charges were remitted by anyone to REA or that REA remitted payment to Seaport Traders. If the Warren Commission or the FBI wanted to prove that a package was sent from Seaport Traders to the REA office in Dallas they needed only to obtain REA Express bank records. They could have easily located a deposit which corresponded to payment and COD charges received for the gun by REA in Dallas and REA’s remittance to Seaport. They also could have checked Seaport Traders bank records to confirm receipt of payment from REA.
With a near total lack of documentation, there is no proof that “A. J. Hidell” or Oswald, picked up a package at the REA Express office in Dallas. The overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that Seaport Traders did not send a pistol to “A.J. Hidell”, but if a package were sent it did not contain a firearm. (Ibid., pp. 483-484) (Emphasis in original)
Quote off
In what other circumstances would two companies violate all the rules to deliver one package? There is NO evidence showing LHO received or picked up any package under his own name or the alias “A. Hidell.” As we have seen before LHO did NOT even list anyone else to receive any mail at this P.O. Box and even the FBI said so.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pages/WC_Vol25_0445a.gif
12. CLAIM: The Post Office Box in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle mailed was kept under both his name and “A. Hidell.” Page 111.
INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did NOT indicate on his application that others, INCLUDING “A. HIDELL,” would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963. (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0445a.htm
Quote off
There is no evidence showing LHO ever ordered, received or took ownership of CE 143. The only support the WC could find were the claims of Marina Oswald. As usual, this was full of contradiction. She said this first to the WC.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall when he first had the pistol, that you remember?
Mrs. OSWALD. He had that on Neely Street, but I think that he acquired the rifle before he acquired the pistol. The pistol I saw twice once in his room, and the second time when I took these photographs.
Mr. RANKIN. What period of time was there between when he got the rifle and you learned of it, and the time that you first learned about the pistol?
Mrs. OSWALD. I can't say.
She then thought she saw the rifle and the revolver in late February or early March!
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures…
Obviously, based on the WC’s own claims he would NOT have either weapon to pose with at the end of February or early March. Keep in mind that he had the pistol for the backyard photographs he allegedly posed for on March 31, 1963.
Mr. RANKIN. And he was dressed up with a pistol at the same time, was he?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
So he had the pistol on when he allegedly posed for the backyard photographs according to Marina, but then we see this comment made to Senator Richard Russell when he questioned her.
Sen Russell: Why do you suppose he told you about the fact that he was going to shoot MR. NIXON and had shot at Gen. Walker?
Mrs. Oswald: As regards Gen. Walker, he came home late. He left me a note and so that is the reason why he discussed the Walker affair with me.
Now in regard to Mr. Nixon, he got dressed up in his suit and put a gun in his belt.
Sen Russell: You testified in his belt--I was going to ask about that, because that was a very unusual place to carry a gun. Usually, he would carry it in his coat. Did you EVER SEE HIM have a gun in his belt before?
Mrs. Oswald: NO; I would have NOTICED it if he did.
Sen. Russell: I see--you would have NOTICED it.
Mrs. Oswald: And so--I HAVE NEVER BEFORE SEEN HIM WITH THE PISTOL.
The incident they are discussing supposedly would have happened on April 23, 1963. Remember, the alleged backyard photographs supposedly took place on March 31, 1963, so how could she take them with him wearing a pistol and then say she NEVER saw the pistol before April 23, 1963? In front of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) she was NOT sure when she first saw the pistol.
Mr. PREYER - Shifting to the question of the rifle and the pistol, you have told us that you didn't like rifles and guns. When was the first time you saw the pistol that Lee had?
Mrs. PORTER - I really do not remember what month or the day it was and when I learned about the existence of it.
Mr. PREYER - Was it on the occasion of the photograph or was it on the occasion of the Nixon incident that you mentioned? Which was the first time that you knew he had a pistol?
Mrs. PORTER - Well, I cannot right now compare when it was, when the picture was taken, or when the Nixon incident was, before or after.
It appears she told the Secret Service (SS) the same thing she told Senator Russell.
Mr. PREYER - Well, if you saw that Nixon or if you saw the pistol during the Nixon incident, why did you tell the Secret Service at that time that you had never seen Lee with a pistol?
Mrs. PORTER - Well, maybe at the time they questioned me I did not remember. Maybe I tried to protect myself from something, I do not know.
What was she trying to protect herself from? Deportation? The point is she also said to the SS that as of the Nixon incident she had never seen LHO with a pistol. That would be impossible if she REALLY TOOK THE BACKYARD PHOTOGRAPHS as claimed.
I think again we see the evidence, and the lack of evidence, in the twenty-six volumes shows that the conclusion of the WC is false. LHO could not be shown to own CE 143 as claimed, CE 143 could NOT be shown to be taken from LHO at the Texas Theater and CE 143 could NOT be shown to be the murder weapon of JDT, therefore, the claims of the WC involving CE 143 are false.