Post by Rob Caprio on Nov 5, 2018 22:49:32 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.awesomestories.com/images/user/6cd32b3c3a.gif
The Warren Commission (WC) said the alleged murder weapon had a telescopic scope on it on November 22, 1963. There was NO doubt about that. Was there?
************************************
Here is Commission Exhibit (CE) 139.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0268b.htm
This is how the rifle was allegedly found. We know from testimony that the rifle was found with a scope on it.
Mr. BALL - This shows the rifle as you saw it, does it?
Mr. BOONE - That is right. Then you could kneel down over here and see that it had a scope, a telescopic sight on it, by looking down underneath the boxes.
-------------
Mr. BALL - What did you see?
Mr. MOONEY - I had to look twice before I actually saw the gun laying in there. I had to get around to the right angle before I could see it. And there the gun lay, stuck between these cartons in an upright position. The scope was up.
------------
Mr. BALL - I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.
Mr. WEITZMAN - I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?
Mr. BALL - Mauser bolt action.
Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance.
Mr. BALL - And it was equipped with a scope?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Was it of Japanese manufacture?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I believe it was a 2.5 Weaver at the time I looked at it. I didn't look that close at it; it just looked like a 2.5 but it turned out to be a Japanese scope, I believe.
We see from the primary people who allegedly found the Mannlicher-Carcano (I say allegedly because the initial comments by them was that it was a Mauser they found) show that it had a scope on it when it was first seen. So how do we balance what I just quoted with these comments by other witnesses? First up is Carolyn Walther. She was NOT called by the WC, but did give an interview to the FBI and this is found among CE-2086. I will only quote the relevant parts and put a link to the document if you want to read it all.
Quote on
She noticed a man wearing a brown suit and a very dark shirt leaning out a window of the third floor, somewhere about the middle window of the third floor…This man had the window open and was standing up leaning out the window with both his hands extended outside the window ledge. In his hands, this man was holding a rifle with the barrel pointed downward, and the man was looking south on Houston Street. The man was wearing a white shirt and had hand blond or light brown hair….The rifle had a short barrel and seemed large around the stock or end of the rifle. Her impression was that the gun was a machine gun. She noticed nothing like a telescope sight on the rifle or a leather strap or sling on the rifle…She is positive this window was not as high as the sixth floor.
jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce2086.htm
Quote off
We see she thought the man was on the THIRD FLOOR, NOT the sixth floor as claimed. We can deal with that at another time as the focus of this post is the scope issue. Notice how she saw NO scope or leather strap and the WC claimed the alleged murder weapon, CE-139, had BOTH on it on 11/22/63.
She was NOT alone in this statement though as Robert Hill Jackson would say the same thing. He was a news photographer so one would expect him to be observant. Here is part of his WC testimony.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see those two men before or after you observed the rifle?
Mr. JACKSON - Before.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your estimate of how many inches of the rifle that you observed?
Mr. JACKSON - I saw the barrel and about half - well, I did not see a telescopic sight, but I did see part of the stock, so I guess maybe 8 or 10 inches of the stock maybe. I did see part of the stock, I did not see the sight.
So we see he too did NOT see the scope on the rifle. Next we go to Amos Lee Euins. This is from his WC testimony.
Mr. EUINS. It was enough to get the stock and receiving house and the trigger housing to stick out the window.
Mr. SPECTER. The stock and receiving house?
Mr. EUINS. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, could you see anything else on the gun?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I could not.
Mr. SPECTER. For example, could you see whether or not there was a telescopic lens on the gun?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, is there anything else about the gun that you can describe to us that you have not already told us about?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Despite Specter’s best efforts at LEADING THE WITNESS Euins too said that he saw NO scope on the rifle he had observed. Finally, we come to the WC’s own star witness—Howard Brennan. Here is what he said before the WC.
Mr. BELIN. Well, let me ask you. What kind of a gun did you see in that window?
Mr. BRENNAN. I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some type of a high-powered rifle.
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had one? Do you know whether it did or not, or could you observe that it definitely did or definitely did not, or don't you know?
Mr. BRENNAN. I do not know if it had a scope or not.
Mr. BELIN. How much of the gun do you believe that you saw?
Mr. BRENNAN. I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.
To me this says it all. Their OWN star witness did NOT see a scope. He said he saw “70-85%” of the gun and did NOT see a scope. Believe me, if one was on the rifle he saw then he would have noticed it. The irony here is the witness the WC wanted NOTHING to do with—Arnold Rowland—said he saw a scope on the rifle he saw.
Mr. ROWLAND - …He was standing and holding a rifle, this appeared to me to be a fairly high-powered rifle because of the scope and the relative proportion of the scope to the rifle, you can tell about what type of rifle it is. You can tell it isn't a .22, you know, and we thought momentarily that maybe we should tell someone but then the thought came to us that it is a security agent.
And:
Mr. BELIN - Did anyone say they had seen anything--such as a rifle?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; later on. A few minutes after that--I had taken this girl to one of our criminal investigators---and was talking to some other people. I talked to a young couple and the boy said he saw two men on the uh--sixth floor of the Book Depository Building over there; one of them had a rifle with the telescopic sight on it--but he thought they were Secret Service agents on guard and didn't report it. This was about--uh---oh, he said, 15 minutes before the motorcade ever arrived.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember if that boy's name would have been Arnold Rowland---(spelling) R-o-w-l-a-n-d?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes.
The reason the WC did NOT want to listen to Rowland was because of this.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, by referring to the photograph on this Commission Exhibit No. 356, will you point to the window where you observed this man?
Mr. ROWLAND - This was very odd. There were this picture was not taken immediately after that, I don't think, because there were several windows, there are pairs of windows, and there were several pairs where both windows were open fully and in each pair there was one or more persons hanging out the window.
Yet this was on the west corner of the building, the sixth floor, the first floor--second floor down from the top, the first was the arched, the larger windows, not the arch, but the larger windows, and this was the only pair of windows where both windows were completely open and no one was hanging out the windows, or next to the window.
It was this pair of windows here at that time.
He saw the man with the rifle that had a scope on the OPPOSITE side of the building from where the WC claimed Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was! Thus, in typical irony, they discredited him when he saw a scope and many others, including their OWN star witness, did NOT!
We see yet again the WC made a claim, and reached a conclusion, based NOT on their own evidence, but rather what they had preconceived to be the solution. They are once again sunk!
www.awesomestories.com/images/user/6cd32b3c3a.gif
The Warren Commission (WC) said the alleged murder weapon had a telescopic scope on it on November 22, 1963. There was NO doubt about that. Was there?
************************************
Here is Commission Exhibit (CE) 139.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0268b.htm
This is how the rifle was allegedly found. We know from testimony that the rifle was found with a scope on it.
Mr. BALL - This shows the rifle as you saw it, does it?
Mr. BOONE - That is right. Then you could kneel down over here and see that it had a scope, a telescopic sight on it, by looking down underneath the boxes.
-------------
Mr. BALL - What did you see?
Mr. MOONEY - I had to look twice before I actually saw the gun laying in there. I had to get around to the right angle before I could see it. And there the gun lay, stuck between these cartons in an upright position. The scope was up.
------------
Mr. BALL - I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.
Mr. WEITZMAN - I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?
Mr. BALL - Mauser bolt action.
Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance.
Mr. BALL - And it was equipped with a scope?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Was it of Japanese manufacture?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I believe it was a 2.5 Weaver at the time I looked at it. I didn't look that close at it; it just looked like a 2.5 but it turned out to be a Japanese scope, I believe.
We see from the primary people who allegedly found the Mannlicher-Carcano (I say allegedly because the initial comments by them was that it was a Mauser they found) show that it had a scope on it when it was first seen. So how do we balance what I just quoted with these comments by other witnesses? First up is Carolyn Walther. She was NOT called by the WC, but did give an interview to the FBI and this is found among CE-2086. I will only quote the relevant parts and put a link to the document if you want to read it all.
Quote on
She noticed a man wearing a brown suit and a very dark shirt leaning out a window of the third floor, somewhere about the middle window of the third floor…This man had the window open and was standing up leaning out the window with both his hands extended outside the window ledge. In his hands, this man was holding a rifle with the barrel pointed downward, and the man was looking south on Houston Street. The man was wearing a white shirt and had hand blond or light brown hair….The rifle had a short barrel and seemed large around the stock or end of the rifle. Her impression was that the gun was a machine gun. She noticed nothing like a telescope sight on the rifle or a leather strap or sling on the rifle…She is positive this window was not as high as the sixth floor.
jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce2086.htm
Quote off
We see she thought the man was on the THIRD FLOOR, NOT the sixth floor as claimed. We can deal with that at another time as the focus of this post is the scope issue. Notice how she saw NO scope or leather strap and the WC claimed the alleged murder weapon, CE-139, had BOTH on it on 11/22/63.
She was NOT alone in this statement though as Robert Hill Jackson would say the same thing. He was a news photographer so one would expect him to be observant. Here is part of his WC testimony.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see those two men before or after you observed the rifle?
Mr. JACKSON - Before.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your estimate of how many inches of the rifle that you observed?
Mr. JACKSON - I saw the barrel and about half - well, I did not see a telescopic sight, but I did see part of the stock, so I guess maybe 8 or 10 inches of the stock maybe. I did see part of the stock, I did not see the sight.
So we see he too did NOT see the scope on the rifle. Next we go to Amos Lee Euins. This is from his WC testimony.
Mr. EUINS. It was enough to get the stock and receiving house and the trigger housing to stick out the window.
Mr. SPECTER. The stock and receiving house?
Mr. EUINS. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, could you see anything else on the gun?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I could not.
Mr. SPECTER. For example, could you see whether or not there was a telescopic lens on the gun?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, is there anything else about the gun that you can describe to us that you have not already told us about?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Despite Specter’s best efforts at LEADING THE WITNESS Euins too said that he saw NO scope on the rifle he had observed. Finally, we come to the WC’s own star witness—Howard Brennan. Here is what he said before the WC.
Mr. BELIN. Well, let me ask you. What kind of a gun did you see in that window?
Mr. BRENNAN. I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some type of a high-powered rifle.
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had one? Do you know whether it did or not, or could you observe that it definitely did or definitely did not, or don't you know?
Mr. BRENNAN. I do not know if it had a scope or not.
Mr. BELIN. How much of the gun do you believe that you saw?
Mr. BRENNAN. I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.
To me this says it all. Their OWN star witness did NOT see a scope. He said he saw “70-85%” of the gun and did NOT see a scope. Believe me, if one was on the rifle he saw then he would have noticed it. The irony here is the witness the WC wanted NOTHING to do with—Arnold Rowland—said he saw a scope on the rifle he saw.
Mr. ROWLAND - …He was standing and holding a rifle, this appeared to me to be a fairly high-powered rifle because of the scope and the relative proportion of the scope to the rifle, you can tell about what type of rifle it is. You can tell it isn't a .22, you know, and we thought momentarily that maybe we should tell someone but then the thought came to us that it is a security agent.
And:
Mr. BELIN - Did anyone say they had seen anything--such as a rifle?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; later on. A few minutes after that--I had taken this girl to one of our criminal investigators---and was talking to some other people. I talked to a young couple and the boy said he saw two men on the uh--sixth floor of the Book Depository Building over there; one of them had a rifle with the telescopic sight on it--but he thought they were Secret Service agents on guard and didn't report it. This was about--uh---oh, he said, 15 minutes before the motorcade ever arrived.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember if that boy's name would have been Arnold Rowland---(spelling) R-o-w-l-a-n-d?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes.
The reason the WC did NOT want to listen to Rowland was because of this.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, by referring to the photograph on this Commission Exhibit No. 356, will you point to the window where you observed this man?
Mr. ROWLAND - This was very odd. There were this picture was not taken immediately after that, I don't think, because there were several windows, there are pairs of windows, and there were several pairs where both windows were open fully and in each pair there was one or more persons hanging out the window.
Yet this was on the west corner of the building, the sixth floor, the first floor--second floor down from the top, the first was the arched, the larger windows, not the arch, but the larger windows, and this was the only pair of windows where both windows were completely open and no one was hanging out the windows, or next to the window.
It was this pair of windows here at that time.
He saw the man with the rifle that had a scope on the OPPOSITE side of the building from where the WC claimed Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was! Thus, in typical irony, they discredited him when he saw a scope and many others, including their OWN star witness, did NOT!
We see yet again the WC made a claim, and reached a conclusion, based NOT on their own evidence, but rather what they had preconceived to be the solution. They are once again sunk!