Post by Rob Caprio on Dec 30, 2021 13:42:11 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*4nLUCKsA8kPMcN7Ww8BtCA.png
Eugene Boone:
jfkassassinationweb.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/eugene-boone.jpg
How can a rifle with “CAL. 6.5” stamped on it be of an “unusual undetermined caliber” to anyone who looked at it?
The alleged murder weapon, CE 139, was stamped with “MADE ITALY” and “CAL. 6.5”, but this did NOT prevent others from calling it a 7.65 Mauser or from Captain Frtiz saying it was of an “unusual undetermined caliber”. How is that possible?
Captain Will Fritz said this before the WC in response to a question about calling it a 7.65 Mauser as Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone had testified to.
Mr. BALL. Did you think it was a Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was.
Mr. BALL. Well, did you ever make any---did you ever say that it was a 7.65 Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure I did not.
Mr. BALL. Or did you think it was such a thing?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges.
So he said he would never call it a 7.65 Mauser because the cartridge had the caliber on it and supposedly it did NOT say 7.65, but why did he say something else on November 23, 1963, that was reported in the The New York Times? Reporter Gladwin Hill reported that, “…police ballistic experts were still studying the rifle, apparently with no conclusive findings”, and that "Captain Fritz said it was of obscure foreign origin, possibly Italian, of about 1940 vintage, and of an unusual, undetermined caliber." (Gladwin Hill, The New York Times, 11/23/63 edition, p. 4, col. 2)
How could it be of a UNKNOWN caliber if it was CE 139 when that rifle had “CAL. 6.5” stamped on it? Why did the WC not know of this article and Captain Fritz’s comment? Or if they did, why did they not mention it during his testimony when he made the above comment?
cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*4nLUCKsA8kPMcN7Ww8BtCA.png
Eugene Boone:
jfkassassinationweb.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/eugene-boone.jpg
How can a rifle with “CAL. 6.5” stamped on it be of an “unusual undetermined caliber” to anyone who looked at it?
The alleged murder weapon, CE 139, was stamped with “MADE ITALY” and “CAL. 6.5”, but this did NOT prevent others from calling it a 7.65 Mauser or from Captain Frtiz saying it was of an “unusual undetermined caliber”. How is that possible?
Captain Will Fritz said this before the WC in response to a question about calling it a 7.65 Mauser as Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone had testified to.
Mr. BALL. Did you think it was a Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was.
Mr. BALL. Well, did you ever make any---did you ever say that it was a 7.65 Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure I did not.
Mr. BALL. Or did you think it was such a thing?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges.
So he said he would never call it a 7.65 Mauser because the cartridge had the caliber on it and supposedly it did NOT say 7.65, but why did he say something else on November 23, 1963, that was reported in the The New York Times? Reporter Gladwin Hill reported that, “…police ballistic experts were still studying the rifle, apparently with no conclusive findings”, and that "Captain Fritz said it was of obscure foreign origin, possibly Italian, of about 1940 vintage, and of an unusual, undetermined caliber." (Gladwin Hill, The New York Times, 11/23/63 edition, p. 4, col. 2)
How could it be of a UNKNOWN caliber if it was CE 139 when that rifle had “CAL. 6.5” stamped on it? Why did the WC not know of this article and Captain Fritz’s comment? Or if they did, why did they not mention it during his testimony when he made the above comment?